# Bach vs Händel - I just don't get it



## TresPicos

If I would claim that Handel (Händel) is the greatest composer of all time, the reaction would probably be "Really?". But if I said the same thing about Bach, not even Beethoven fanatics would question my sanity, although they might disagree with my choice. 

To me, Bach and Handel are pretty much equals. They lived at the same time, they both wrote lots of really fine baroque music. Händel wrote the Water Music and Fireworks Music, Bach wrote the Brandenburg concertos etc etc. 

So what is it that I don't get? Why is Bach perhaps the greatest composer that ever lived, but Händel is far from it? Where is the big difference? What makes Bach that great?


----------



## Kuntster

The answer lies in the Fugue. 

Try to find a Fugue from Handel, he was good with Grounds and so was Bach, but that doesn't even compare to a Fugue. 

All in all these two composers are totally different. Yes they were living at the same time, but in different parts of the world (Religion). 
Also Handel did not even finish his scores completely unlike Bach. Many of Handel's scores were later transcribed by other composers, so we don't even know exactly what he wanted. As a composer, the most important aspect is conveying exactly what you want to the performer.


----------



## Tapkaara

Kuntster said:


> The answer lies in the Fugue.


I agree completely.

Counterpoint is one of the most complex aspects of music theory. Bach was (and probably still is) the undisputed master and commander of the "art of the fugue." His ability here seems almost supernatural. Handel's fluency in the fugue seems to be less, I think, but that doesn not mean that Handel is a lesser composer for all intents and purposes. Handel is still one of the all time greats, just a little less so than Bach, maybe.

Both were great composers who wrote glorious music, much of it sometimes sounding very similar perhaps. (Though Handel's style is mostly lighter than Bach's.) Anyway, it is the mastery of one of music's most complex devices that elevates Bach to his supremecy of the Baroque period.


----------



## Bach

Everything about Bach is superior - compare the use of rhythm in these two excerpts from similar pieces:

Bach








Handel









And that's before you even mention the use of harmony and counterpoint.


----------



## Tapkaara

That's a good example, Bach...but only one example. Surely there is something in Handel that shows a little more rhythmic complexity than that...!

But it is still a good example...


----------



## bdelykleon

I also think Bach superior, but Handel is no bad composer, the COnquassabit from the Italian Te Deum is harmonically a unique piece in all baroque. What happens to Handel is that he is known by his less briliant pieces, like the Water music.


----------



## Bach

I play a lot of his oboe music, and like every baroque composer other than Bach, he uses mainly homogeneous rhythms in the crotchet, quaver and semiquaver vein. Bach uses nested triplets, demis, hemi-demis and rhythmic heterogeny all over the place. 

Look at any Scarlatti sonata - wonderful music but it's all in quavers or semiquavers.. the same applies to Handel.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Plus, Bach wore those cool sunglasses...

For me, at least, the appeal of Bach's work is that each instrument is truly individual (this, of course, is closely related to his extensive use of counterpoint). Handel's music (even his fugues) can be more or less divided into "accompaniment" and "lead"', whereas any of the parts in a Bach piece can function as a "lead". This gives Bach's music a richness that I think Handel (who I also enjoy) misses.

Of course, it is difficult to compare because Handel's main genre- opera- is the only genre Bach never wrote in. But you can draw some conclusions from their instrumental works.


----------



## bdelykleon

Bach said:


> I play a lot of his oboe music, and like every baroque composer other than Bach, he uses mainly homogeneous rhythms in the crotchet, quaver and semiquaver vein. Bach uses nested triplets, demis, hemi-demis and rhythmic heterogeny all over the place.
> 
> Look at any Scarlatti sonata - wonderful music but it's all in quavers or semiquavers.. the same applies to Handel.


This is mainly true, with the exception of some vocal parts. But there is a name to this, we call it French music. Take a look at Couperin, rhythmically even more fascinating.


----------



## bdelykleon

BuddhaBandit said:


> Plus, Bach wore those cool sunglasses...
> 
> For me, at least, the appeal of Bach's work is that each instrument is truly individual (this, of course, is closely related to his extensive use of counterpoint). Handel's music (even his fugues) can be more or less divided into "accompaniment" and "lead"', whereas any of the parts in a Bach piece can function as a "lead". This gives Bach's music a richness that I think Handel (who I also enjoy) misses.
> 
> Of course, it is difficult to compare because Handel's main genre- opera- is the only genre Bach never wrote in. But you can draw some conclusions from their instrumental works.


Sure, Bach's part writing is much richer than Handel's, no doubt about that.


----------



## Toccata

Yet another "Bach versus Handel" thread. Maybe it's the first on T-C but they certainly exist in abundance elsewhere. 

I greatly enjoy Baroque music and have tons of it. I used to think that Bach was the "king" of Baroque and still do, but my estimation of him hasn't changed much over the years whereas my opinion of Handel has grown appreciably. 

In favour of Handel, there has definitely been a strong growth of public interest in his music over the past couple of decades, mainly his many theatre works (opera, oratorios etc), which are of high quality and which I am finding much pleasure in listening to. Many new recordings have come out lately, as evidenced by various threads elsewhere on T-C extolling their virtues.

Whilst recognising Bach's superiority in various technical respects I believe there is a lot more to music than counterpoint and harmony. Melody is important too and in this respect I consider that Bach is inferior to Handel. I'm not saying that Bach was inacapable of writing good tunes; he certainly was but the problem was that he often overlaid it with excessive amounts of contrapuntal textures making the result hard to follow.

For me these days I listen to Handel a lot more than I do Bach. In fact I am generally moving in the direction of preferring earlier and simpler Baroque music, a la Monteverdi, Purcell, Vivaldi. 

With regard to the opening post, none of this to suggest that Handel should be "promoted" to the top position among great composers. He deserves a place in the top 10 but much further down than Mozart, Bach, Beethoven. Sandwiched in between there are a few other composers who I believe are generally liked more than Handel.


----------



## jhar26

I pretty much agree with Toccata here. Bach is King but Handel's reputation continues to grow. It's not for nothing either that it's always Handel who is made the challenger of Bach in these threads because nobody would take a, say, Bach vs Vivaldi or Telemann thread seriously. Both Bach and Handel are giants of course, and it's perhaps best to appreciate both for their undoubted genius without feeling the need to proclaim one as superior to the other.


----------



## Weston

Is it not true that Handel had already embraced the _style galante_ that was turning away from contrapuntal writing and eventually led to Mozart, Haydn, and then on to Beethoven? This would explain why he would not be considered as great contrapuntal master.

Bach is one of the few composers we revere for NOT being forward looking. Instead he refined what had already come before, reaching the very pinnacle of the Baroque. Which is not to say that Handel didn't write some tasty fugues as well, but maybe with not quite the same balance of both emotionally moving and intellectually stimulating that Bach achieved.


----------



## Kuntster

Please can someone give one example of a Handel Fugue. 

I know there are many pieces that begin Fugue-like but are NOT fugues. There's not enough elements.


----------



## Yosser

TresPicos said:


> Why is Bach perhaps the greatest composer that ever lived, but Händel is far from it? Where is the big difference? What makes Bach that great?


G F Händel wrote some very fine pieces, including some unquestioned masterpieces, but he had only a moderate influence on the evolution of music. If you were to ask a composer or a musicologist which set of pieces has been the most influential in the history of music, the answer will almost always be J S Bach's 'Well Tempered Clavier'.

The influence of Bach is obvious in Beethoven's late piano sonatas, Schumann is supposed to have said that one should 'begin every day with the WTC', Brahms' musical style was heavily influenced by Bach ... etc. Bach can be heard in very many composers writing long after he was dead, very probably right up to the present day. Händel was more of a 'one-off'.

I am not arguing that anyone who prefers Händel's music to Bach's is an inferior being, just giving an outline of the reason why so many people hold Bach in such high regard.


----------



## bdelykleon

Kuntster said:


> Please can someone give one example of a Handel Fugue.


Easy: _He trusted in God_ from the Messiah. Handel has all too many contrapunctual gems, he is not as brilliant as Bach, but he is a great composer in his own terms.


----------



## bdelykleon

Weston said:


> Is it not true that Handel had already embraced the _style galante_ that was turning away from contrapuntal writing and eventually led to Mozart, Haydn, and then on to Beethoven? This would explain why he would not be considered as great contrapuntal master.


No it isn't. Handel has nothing to do with the _galante _style in Galante style are Pergolesi, Galuppi, late Telemann and others. His music is harmonically intricate and he is a master of counterpoint, one of the greatest ever, only is a little less brilliant in part writing as Bach, but almost no one can be compared, maybe only Mozart can rival him, but in another less counterpoint laden style.

Just to show Handel's counterpoint:


----------



## Kuntster

He Trusted in God is a fugue. However, there is no countersubject. Yes, Bach wrote some fugues without a countersubject but developed the piece with more episodic material. 

Also there is no real recapitulation in the Handel piece. Yes voice 1 restates the subject at the end but no one else. There's no stretto which is something Bach probably would have done at that point. 

Bach is still the master of the Fugue.


----------



## bdelykleon

Kuntster said:


> He Trusted in God is a fugue. However, there is no countersubject. Yes, Bach wrote some fugues without a countersubject but developed the piece with more episodic material.
> 
> Also there is no real recapitulation in the Handel piece. Yes voice 1 restates the subject at the end but no one else. There's no stretto which is something Bach probably would have done at that point.
> 
> Bach is still the master of the Fugue.


A countersubject is not necessary to a fugue as you may know. He trusted in God is a small fugue due to the context of the piece (as is Omnes generationes in the Magnificat), so not all formal characteristics are there, and the main point of a fugue finale is not the reexposition but the returning of the main tonality.

But I agree, Bach is the master of fugue.


----------



## Weston

Kuntster said:


> Please can someone give one example of a Handel Fugue.
> 
> I know there are many pieces that begin Fugue-like but are NOT fugues. There's not enough elements.


The second half of the Overture to Messiah is listed in _Materials and Structure of Music, Volume 2 _(workbook) as a fugue in E minor, albeit a short one. I find it very satisfying as a fugue.


----------



## Kuntster

Handel does this type of stuff all the time. Starts something Fugue-like but does not complete it. 
It's all over Elijah (boring).


----------



## jhar26

Kuntster said:


> Handel does this type of stuff all the time. Starts something Fugue-like but does not complete it.
> It's all over Elijah (boring).


Elijah is a Mendelssohn oratorio, unless you mean a Handel work unknown to me with the same title.


----------



## Kuntster

I'm so sorry. God I feel stupid. I was actually thinking of Samson and Judas Maccabaeus, not Elijah.


----------



## jhar26

Kuntster said:


> I'm so sorry. God I feel stupid.


No need for that. That sort of thing can happen to us all. I once had a black out and credited Cage's 4'33 to Ligeti.


----------



## Weston

bdelykleon said:


> Handel has nothing to do with the _galante _style in Galante style are Pergolesi, Galuppi, late Telemann and others.


I think I had in the back of my mind this summary passage on Handel from Grout's _A History of Western Music_:

"Handel's greatness and historical significance rest on two achievements: his contribution to the musical treasure of the late Baroque and his anticipation of many elements that became important in the new style of the mid-eighteenth century."

So I guess "elements that became important" probably refers to later. But that is where I got the idea he had some connection with the _galante_.

There is a wealth of other information in there apropos this thread. Earlier in the passage Grout says, "His style is simpler than Bach's, less finely chiseled, less subjective, less consistently contrapuntal." That's pretty much what some of us have been saying. None of that however is necessarily saying that Bach's music is better.


----------



## bdelykleon

Weston,
I'm not at home so I don't have relevant bibliography at hand, but I remember a passage in the New Grove saing he had nothing to do to with the new galante style. The fact is that Handel was less influenced by the high polyphony of the north german school than Bach, it is not that he is more simple, when Handel wants to do some polyphony he does (like in the fugues of keyboard he published), but he is more interested in other, less polyphonic, traditions, I mean specially the baroque tradition of Italy, of Scarlatti and others.


----------



## starry

Well I'm glad this thread moved away from the idea that just because the two composers styles are different that one must be superior to another based on that. Now if someone argued that one composer simply composed more great music than the other and was better that would make more sense.


----------



## Fibonacci

My understanding of music from a technical standpoint is very rough and unrefined. I play guitar but I do not speak the language of music very well. I taught myself to play. I have my own system by which I use to define music. I do try to compose, but I am probably not all that good at it. Nonetheless, I think I understand enough about music to see why so many people would choose Bach. I prefer Handel however. And it took me much longer to start enjoying Handel. For years I thought Handel was boring and repetitive and bit simple. Same with Vivaldi. Now I enjoy them both more than Bach.


----------



## DanBCarson

I feel that, though meticulously crafted and a good example of fine counterpoint and harmonic content, I would choose Handel's music any day to listen to for pleasure. I find that there are more memorable melodies in Handel's music than in Bach's. Obviously they both wrote a ton of music, so it's hard to generalize about their output, but take the opening Kyrie of Bach's B Minor Mass: the introduction is nice, but after that, we proceed through almost 9 minutes of exhausting counterpoint and academia. There's that nice oboe melody to start it off, but then as soon as the voices come in, it seems to me that the rest of the movement is rather academic and boring. 

To me, this piece exemplifies what Bach tends to sound like: academic, long, confusing, unmemorable. Though I have to, and willingly do, acknowledge his influence and his unparalleled skill as a composer, I believe there's value in not only showing off skills of craftsmanship, but in the ability to write something catchy and fun to listen to. And to me Handel is superior in this regard.

This is all just my opinion, and I welcome any and all others! I am currently exploring the music of J.S. Bach more thoroughly and trying to gain a sense of what people find so alluring!


----------



## DanBCarson

And for Handel's fugue's, what about the second movements of his Concerti Grossi, Opp. 3 & 6? Or do they only _startlike fugues?_


----------



## kv466

For me, Tom Hulce said it best:

'Play Handel' "Oh, I don't like him!"



Truly, though, as important as he may be in history...he just ain't no Bach.


----------



## tdc

Bach to my ears always sounds brilliant, and I must admit Handel has been the tougher nut for me to crack. I enjoy his music, but I don't often find it overwhelming or anything like I do Bach. The times I am really impressed it seems are in moments where he ends up sounding a lot like Bach, (for example moments of his Dixit Dominus HWV 232). I'd like to try some period recordings of more of his works eventually to see if that helps.

If anybody has some suggestions of the most important works by Handel to look into aside from the Messiah, Organ Concertos, Music for Royal Fireworks, Water Music, Concerti Grossi, or Gulio Cesare I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## Obscenic

DanBCarson said:


> Obviously they both wrote a ton of music, so it's hard to generalize about their output, but take the opening Kyrie of Bach's B Minor Mass: the introduction is nice, but after that, we proceed through almost 9 minutes of exhausting counterpoint and academia. There's that nice oboe melody to start it off, but then as soon as the voices come in, it seems to me that the rest of the movement is rather academic and boring.
> 
> To me, this piece exemplifies what Bach tends to sound like: academic, long, confusing, unmemorable. Though I have to, and willingly do, acknowledge his influence and his unparalleled skill as a composer, I believe there's value in not only showing off skills of craftsmanship, but in the ability to write something catchy and fun to listen to. And to me Handel is superior in this regard.
> 
> This is all just my opinion, and I welcome any and all others! I am currently exploring the music of J.S. Bach more thoroughly and trying to gain a sense of what people find so alluring!


Nail ------> head

At least for me. Even an uneducated rube such as myself who's only been listening to classical for a few years can't deny the brilliance of Bach. He's certainly one of the most brilliant composers in history, imho.

Don't get me wrong, I love listening to a lot of Bach, particularly his Goldberg Variations (I prefer to hear it on harpsichord) and his harpsichord concertos and suites blow my mind to bits. But from a melodic standpoint, given my druthers, I would listen to Telemann or Handel.


----------



## Webernite

DanBCarson said:


> Obviously they both wrote a ton of music, so it's hard to generalize about their output, but take the opening Kyrie of Bach's B Minor Mass: the introduction is nice, but after that, we proceed through almost 9 minutes of exhausting counterpoint and academia.


The Kyrie is probably my favorite movement of the Mass in B minor... I don't really see what's academic about it. It's late Romantic music in the Baroque era!* Handel's counterpoint is far more textbook and academic, which is why his choral fugues were so easily imitated by Haydn, among others. Nowhere (or very rarely) in Handel do you get the waves of chromaticism and dissonance that you find in Bach's greatest fugues.

Of course, Handel was a great composer. His _Dixit Dominus_ is arguably better than anything that Bach was producing at the same age, and people always underestimate his influence not only on Haydn and Mozart but on Beethoven as well. But still, there's a reason why Bach sells so many more records. 


*In fact, if you play it with a big orchestra, it literally sounds like a late Romantic piece.


----------



## PeterK

*Handel v Bach can't split 'em*

Comparing the two is a waste of time. They had completely different styles. Bach was very religious and this influenced a lot of his music - and brilliant it was. Handel was paid by the British aristocracy to produce 'big budget productions'. And brilliant and inspiring they were too especially the Water Music.Bach may have been more technically brilliant but Handel knew how to bring quality music to the masses at that time, and maybe that is a more important point. Transferring the public from religious to 'mainstream' music for the first time. That's why he was remembered at that time whereas Bach faded.I will not pick one over the other but I do see why the music of Handel has been become so popular especially as it so festive, which is what a lot people want these days.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would most certainly not look askew at anyone who claimed that they felt the greatest composer of all time was Handel. I would personally place Handel within my top 5. The deeper I have delved into his oeuvre... his exquisite Italian cantatas, his wealth of oratorios and operas... the more I am absolutely dumbfounded by his musical achievements. Bach remains at the pinnacle of my personal canon, but Handel is not as far behind as some would suggest. They are stylistically very different... yet I feel that they are quite even when it comes to vocal/choral compositions. I think Bach gets the upper hand with regard to his instrumental work, yet Handel in not necessarily a slouch there either.


----------



## poconoron

Beethoven himself expressed his opinion on the greatness of Handel:

"Handel is the unattained master of all masters. Go to him and learn how to produce great effects with scant deploy of means".

"In the future, I shall write after the manner of my grand master Handel".

"Handel is the greatest , the most solid of composers; from him I still can learn something". (shortly before Beethiven died)

It looks like he agreed with you, TresPicos.


----------



## PetrB

Yosser said:


> G F Händel wrote some very fine pieces, including some unquestioned masterpieces, but he had only a moderate influence on the evolution of music. *If you were to ask a composer or a musicologist which set of pieces has been the most influential in the history of music, the answer will almost always be J S Bach's 'Well Tempered Clavier'.*


*...Insupportable nonsense*.


----------



## GiulioCesare

Interesting bump.

Händel, that SOB capable of making you want to stand up and dance in the middle of an oratorio.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

jhar26 said:


> I pretty much agree with Toccata here. Bach is King but Handel's reputation continues to grow. It's not for nothing either that it's always Handel who is made the challenger of Bach in these threads because nobody would take a, say, Bach vs Vivaldi or Telemann thread seriously. Both Bach and Handel are giants of course, and it's perhaps best to appreciate both for their undoubted genius without feeling the need to proclaim one as superior to the other.


I'd take a Bach vs. Telemann thread seriously, hehe.


----------



## thebicyclethief

Can someone on this thread point me towards a Bach work that is as complete, in every sense of the word, as 'L Allegro, il Penseroso ed il Moderato' ... the words and music in perfect harmony and brimming with heartfelt passion.


----------



## hpowders

I'd say the B Minor Mass, but I do love Handel as in Giulio Cesare and Semele.


----------



## Blake

I enjoy Handel much more, but I can't deny Bach's genius.


----------



## hpowders

There is a wealth of fine works composed by each.


----------



## GiulioCesare

Vesuvius said:


> I enjoy Handel much more, but I can't deny Bach's genius.


Came in to post this.

Händel is my favourite composer, but Bach is the greatest composer of all time (well, depending on the day I might give Mozart that title).


----------



## Ingélou

What an interesting thread - I'm so glad it was dug up. Several old posts make the same point, that though Bach's music is more complex & interesting, Handel's is more melodic, and that's why they like him better. This is pretty much my view too; I remember seeing in a BBC documentary several singers saying that Handel's choral works seemed to be tailored to the voice, and were a dream to sing. All my life I have loved songs - in my cot, I would sing nursery rhymes to myself every night - so now I know why, despite my fiddle teacher's view & my husband's view, I prefer Handel.


----------



## Flamme

I also love more melodic stuff regardless is it an black metal band or classical music composer


----------



## KRoad

TresPicos said:


> If I would claim that Handel (Händel) is the greatest composer of all time, the reaction would probably be "Really?". But if I said the same thing about Bach, not even Beethoven fanatics would question my sanity, although they might disagree with my choice.
> 
> To me, Bach and Handel are pretty much equals. They lived at the same time, they both wrote lots of really fine baroque music. Händel wrote the Water Music and Fireworks Music, Bach wrote the Brandenburg concertos etc etc.
> 
> So what is it that I don't get? Why is Bach perhaps the greatest composer that ever lived, but Händel is far from it? Where is the big difference? What makes Bach that great?


Different folks, different strokes...

I think that Händel is more "accessible"; to me he is a master of melody. Bach is a master of counterpoint and polyphony. Is there any way in which to claim one is "greater" than the other in _objective_ terms? And to what end? Why not enjoy and celebrate what each has to offer? They have so very much to offer us in their own terms after all.

What is the point in all these silly comparisons in any case? Is there a common denominator that defines art, taste, or creative integrity in terms of better or worse, greater and less great?

Isn't it to miss the point by attempting to claim one is "greater" than the other? I mean WTF?


----------



## KenOC

Just a note that Beethoven seems to have placed Handel ahead of Bach, if not by much. And he knew a thing or two about music!


----------



## SottoVoce

Skip to 5:09. The Bachian difference.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> Just a note that Beethoven seems to have placed Handel ahead of Bach, if not by much. And he knew a thing or two about music!


Though how much and what Bach he knew is an open question. And as much as I love him, I have to admit that Beethoven was less enthusiastic in public about those who most influenced him than he should have been.

*p.s.* By the way, the topic of this thread seems to have been in the air recently. From Brendel's latest book:



> Since the second half of the twentieth century something miraculous has happened: the complementary figure of George Frederic Handel has reemerged. The opportunity to familiarize myself with a multitude of Handel's works has been, for me, one of the greatest gifts. The drama of his operas and oratorios, his vocal invention (by no means inferior to Mozart's or Schubert's), the fire of his coloratura, and his characteristic clarity and generosity now make him stand beside the figure of Bach as comparable in stature.


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arc...d-brendel-a-pianists-a-to-v/?pagination=false


----------



## SottoVoce

KenOC said:


> Just a note that Beethoven seems to have placed Handel ahead of Bach, if not by much. And he knew a thing or two about music!


There's some question on the sincerity of Beethoven's statements, especially by Lewis Lockwood, because he was in England, a place where Handel was and still is enormously popular. Beethoven's fugal and countrapuntal technique is much more akin to Bach, and he played, copied, and recopied the Well-Tempered Clavier throughout his whole life, as did many composers after him. As Charles Rosen says above, a whole generation of composers, notably the Early and Late Romantics, learned how to compose through the Well Tempered Clavier. Of course, this says nothing about Handel's genius, which is absolute and doesn't require any proof through comparison.


----------



## KenOC

SottoVoce said:


> There's some question on the sincerity of Beethoven's statements...


Possibly so. Here are some of his comments, as reported:

To Seyfried, from his death-bed in 1827: "Handel is the unattained master of all masters. Go and learn from him how to achieve vast effects with simple means."

To young Gerhard von Breuning, on receiving Handel's complete works in February 1827: "Handel is the greatest and ablest of all composers; from him I can still learn. Bring me the books!"

To J. A. Stumpff of London, Fall of 1823: "Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived. I would uncover my head and kneel on his grave."

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


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Again... the question remains as to just how much of Bach Beethoven was aware of. The Brandenburg Concertos were largely lost until 1849. The Cello Suites were unknown until the 20th century. Mendelssohn is credited with the revival of Bach's choral works.


----------



## SottoVoce

In the end, I would simply say what James Joyce said when he had to make the awful choice between Dante and Shakespeare: "I would think hard, but not for very long; the Englishman is richer". Given Charles Rosen's comments, and the breadth of Bach's writings, I don't think that would be too unfair, although comparing two artists of this great stature is always bound to do extreme injustice.


----------



## Flamme

This topic is too darn hot to Handel


----------



## KenOC

Flamme said:


> This topic is too darn hot to Handel


But don't worry, it'll come Bach again and again...


----------



## Flamme

:lol: My goodness these classical PUNS are THE BEST


----------



## hpowders

As Schumann the clown prince of music told Clara and Johannes as he was being dragged away to the mental institution:

"Don't you worry, I WILL be Bach!!!"


----------



## tdc

I disagree with the idea that Handel's music is more melodic than Bach's. Easier to sing - I'm sure yes, but not more melodic. The youtube clip in post #50, shows how Bach's inner harmonies are more intricate and unique than Handel's, but I also think those two clips are a good example showing the singing quality of Bach's music compared to Handel's. Handel's _music_ I find often lacks this 'singing' quality, and rather it sounds rather clunky and awkward rhythmically.


----------



## Weston

SottoVoce said:


> Skip to 5:09. The Bachian difference.


Yes the five minute mark onward pertains to this thread -- and how eloquently put! But, no! Watch the whole video. Fascinating.


----------



## Ingélou

KRoad said:


> Different folks, different strokes...
> 
> I think that Händel is more "accessible"; to me he is a master of melody. Bach is a master of counterpoint and polyphony. Is there any way in which to claim one is "greater" than the other in _objective_ terms? And to what end? Why not enjoy and celebrate what each has to offer? They have so very much to offer us in their own terms after all.
> 
> What is the point in all these silly comparisons in any case? Is there a common denominator that defines art, taste, or creative integrity in terms of better or worse, greater and less great?
> 
> Isn't it to miss the point by attempting to claim one is "greater" than the other? I mean WTF?


:tiphat: KRoad, I so agree that we should *enjoy and celebrate what each has to offer*. I love Handel, but I acknowledge that Bach's genius was greater - as you say, it is 'different folks, different strokes', just a matter of personal taste.

But I *disagree* that there is no point in a thread like this. Look at the posts it has produced, your own excellent one included: posts that try to *analyse the difference & explain one's own preferences*, and by so analysing, we can *realise and celebrate the greatness of both*.

The thread also includes posts which give a historical overview of how the world, not forgetting Beethoven, has viewed the merits of each composer over the centuries.

I watched Sotto Voce's clip :tiphat: - I have, in fact, seen the whole video - and I noticed that the commentator said that Handel's saraband had 'simplicity' and was 'extraordinary', but that Bach's saraband had 'richness' and was 'without parallel', and I agree, absolutely. I love *both* composers' offerings.

Yet in fact I prefer Handel's saraband, because *simplicity* (I'd call it *limpidity* or *clarity*) is actually a quality that appeals to me & that I have valued all my life. I'm not bothered at all whether anyone agrees with me, but I am grateful to Sotto Voce for helping me to sort this out for myself.

*Consciousness-raising*!


----------



## Art Rock

tdc said:


> I disagree with the idea that Handel's music is more melodic than Bach's. Easier to sing - I'm sure yes, but not more melodic. The youtube clip in post #50, shows how Bach's inner harmonies are more intricate and unique than Handel's, but I also think those two clips are a good example showing the singing quality of Bach's music compared to Handel's. Handel's _music_ I find often lacks this 'singing' quality, and rather it sounds rather clunky and awkward rhythmically.


Thanks, I was starting to wonder. Bach is my favourite composer, Handel is not in the first few hundreds. And I love melody (next to the rather undefinable _emotion_) more than most things in music - but also on that point, I prefer Bach by far. Although if the melodies are mainly found in Handel's operas, I would not have heard many, as pre-romantic opera does not do it for me.


----------



## presto

I think Tea is a better drink than Coffee!


----------



## Ingélou

Ah well, you have good taste: Handel in Georgian England must have been a tea-drinker! :lol:


----------



## Marx

Handel's Dixit Dominus is probably his best work composed when Handel was around 22. I've listened to Handel's Concerto Grosso and such, they don't resonate on the same level as Bach's music does although if you find a good recording of Handel's Dixit Dominus then the overall effect is lasting and transcendent as Bach's music


----------



## hpowders

Listen to Handel's Giulio Cesare in a stylistically informed performance and then tell me your opinion of Handel hasn't changed.


----------



## TresPicos

KRoad said:


> Different folks, different strokes...
> 
> I think that Händel is more "accessible"; to me he is a master of melody. Bach is a master of counterpoint and polyphony. Is there any way in which to claim one is "greater" than the other in _objective_ terms? And to what end? Why not enjoy and celebrate what each has to offer? They have so very much to offer us in their own terms after all.
> 
> What is the point in all these silly comparisons in any case? Is there a common denominator that defines art, taste, or creative integrity in terms of better or worse, greater and less great?
> 
> Isn't it to miss the point by attempting to claim one is "greater" than the other? I mean WTF?


Since you quoted my original post, I guess your beef is with me. Well, I think you are the one missing the point here. I didn't start this thread in order to arrive at some objective result in a "Bach vs Händel" competition. I just asked an honest question. I don't see the big difference between Bach and Händel, so I wanted to know the reasons why Bach is almost always considered to be the "greater" of the two. And I think I got some good answers. If you want to discuss the silliness of the word "great", please use other threads for that.


----------



## Blancrocher

Ingélou said:


> Ah well, you have good taste: Handel in Georgian England must have been a tea-drinker! :lol:


Interesting, though that puts him in the minority--most everyone drank gin at that time.


----------



## quack

If Handel wrote as many cantatas and as many solo instrument works as Bach then this question might stress me out

Although I doubt it, life's too short for _vs._


----------



## hpowders

Yes, but he did write some fabulous operas and oratorios.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Bach was more musically intelligent. The Handel arias are quite beautiful, though. Perhaps I have underestimated him. The Keyboard Suites are fantastic, too.


----------



## Blake

Handel's organ concertos are superb.


----------



## KRoad

TresPicos said:


> If you want to discuss the silliness of the word "great", please use other threads for that.


So because you are the OP-er, you own this thread... ? As its first contributer you're just part of the overall cut'n'thrust of the debate. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## hpowders

At this super level of genius how on earth could anyone determine objectively who was the greater genius whether it was Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Mozart or Brahms?

Relax and enjoy the music! Such discussions are futile.


----------



## shangoyal

'Why is Bach better than Handel?'

I think counterpoint is counterpoint enough.


----------



## hpowders

Bach is not "better" than Handel. Handel was more theatrical and was writing for a different audience. The English loved their operas and oratorios.


----------



## Henrique

Actually Beethoven's counterpoint is absolutely different from Bach's, and far closer to Handel's or even the counterpoint exhibited in the works of numerous Renassaince composers. Bach's counterpoint is fluid, whereas Beethoven's is awkward and cramped. Take for instance the fugues in the Missa Solemnis: bombastic, majestic, a seemingly endless procession of fast notes that alternate true counterpoint with choral like passages... hardly like the ones present in the work of Bach, but very much like Handel's fugues. 

Also, to all the people saying "because Bach is more complex": complexity just means it employs a more vast amount of technical resources. Does that make it better? Obviously not. Some works composed in the 50's by some dreadful American Schoenberg-wannabes are so intricate that to study them is almost a mind-blowing experience. Compared to them Bach is ridiculously simple. Would that make them better composers? I think we all can agree that no, so Bach being more complex than Handel does NOT make him a better composer, by any stretch of the imagination.

Personally, I prefer Bach's instrumental works and Handel's vocal ones.


----------



## hpowders

Beethoven's counterpoint is "awkward and cramped"? And to illustrate this, you select one of his most sublime works, the Missa Solemnis? Wow! Are we ever on different planets!!!


----------



## Henrique

I did not say it sounded bad. Hell, Beethoven is my favourite composer, and I absolutely adore the Missa Solemnis. Nevertheless, I must admit fault where it exists - and comparing the fluidity and obvious facility of Bach's counterpoint to Beethoven's quasi-struggling one, it is obvious that, where technical aspects are concerned, Bach's counterpoint is easily top-notch whereas Beethoven's is not very impressive. There are tons of composers that write in a more fluid polyphonic style than Beethoven - but that doesn't mean their works are better. A technical comparison is not an auditory one, something you must have misunderstood in my post. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is an astonishing work whose worst passage is still miles ahead of almost anything else. But that doesn't mean that, as far as the industrious craftsman is concerned, I'd praise to the skies Beethoven's counterpoint. It is awkward, it is cramped, and it is marvellous. I think it's obvious one thing does not in any way stop the other from being possible. Don't you?


----------



## hpowders

Too bad Beethoven isn't around to rewrite the Missa Solemnis based on your concerns. I'll just have to listen to the flawed version that he left us.


----------



## KenOC

Quite true that Beethoven was no Bach! Of course Bach was hardly a Beethoven, either...


----------



## Henrique

hpowders said:


> Too bad Beethoven isn't around to rewrite the Missa Solemnis based on your concerns. I'll just have to listen to the flawed version that he left us.


I frankly don't understand your comment. Concerns? I have no concerns. I like the Missa Solemnis. Why should he rewrite it? Every work is flawed. It is a good thing the Missa Solemnis has so little flaws in it that all I can say is that it is "technically inferior to Bach".

Honestly, I don't understand - a romance may be incredible for its content, despite the crasftman-like aspect of writing being of inferior quality to the amazing plot or to the works of another, maybe one even whose works are utterly boring. Is it truly so difficult to comprehend that that is all I'm saying?


----------



## TresPicos

KRoad said:


> So because you are the OP-er, you own this thread... ? As its first contributer you're just part of the overall cut'n'thrust of the debate. Nothing more, nothing less.


No, I'm just pointing out that you are going off-topic.


----------



## guy

Bach said:


> I play a lot of his oboe music, and like every baroque composer other than Bach, he uses mainly homogeneous rhythms in the crotchet, quaver and semiquaver vein. Bach uses nested triplets, demis, hemi-demis and rhythmic heterogeny all over the place.
> 
> Look at any Scarlatti sonata - wonderful music but it's all in quavers or semiquavers.. the same applies to Handel.


In his Contrapunctus XIII, he has triplets and a dotted rhythm _*at the same time.*_ What the heck.


----------



## hpowders

Henrique said:


> I frankly don't understand your comment. Concerns? I have no concerns. I like the Missa Solemnis. Why should he rewrite it? Every work is flawed. It is a good thing the Missa Solemnis has so little flaws in it that all I can say is that it is "technically inferior to Bach".
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand - a romance may be incredible for its content, despite the crasftman-like aspect of writing being of inferior quality to the amazing plot or to the works of another, maybe one even whose works are utterly boring. Is it truly so difficult to comprehend that that is all I'm saying?


In that case, as long as you put it that way.....


----------



## GiulioCesare

hpowders said:


> Listen to Handel's Giulio Cesare in a stylistically informed performance and then tell me your opinion of Handel hasn't changed.


I tried that. Didn't cut it for me.


----------



## hpowders

GiulioCesare said:


> I tried that. Didn't cut it for me.


Can't please everybody.


----------



## GiulioCesare

hpowders said:


> Can't please everybody.


I think you missed the sarcasm.


----------



## hpowders

GiulioCesare said:


> I think you missed the sarcasm.


You know, posting sarcasm on a forum is one of the easiest ways to be misunderstood. That and sly attempts at humor.
For these, face to face interactions work best; inflections of voice, facial expressions; So your comment went completely over my head! 
Meanwhile, if it wasn't for the period performance movement, I would never have appreciated Handel's greatness.


----------



## millionrainbows

Weren't Handel & Bach from different eras? It does seem unfair to compare them. Handel's keyboard suites are just as enjoyable as Bach, if played with enough fluency. Try Richter's version.
After hearing mezzo Lorraine Hunt-Lieberson sing the Handel arias, I gained a new respect for Handel, beyond the usual Water Music. One _must_ hear Richter on the suites, and Hunt-Lieberson on the arias to gain a true perspective.


----------



## guy

millionrainbows said:


> Weren't Handel & Bach from different eras? It does seem unfair to compare them. Handel's keyboard suites are just as enjoyable as Bach, if played with enough fluency. Try Richter's version.
> After hearing mezzo Lorraine Hunt-Lieberson sing the Handel arias, I gained a new respect for Handel, beyond the usual Water Music. One _must_ hear Richter on the suites, and Hunt-Lieberson on the arias to gain a true perspective.


They were both born in 1685, so no.


----------



## PetrB

One could drop the whole vs. mindset altogether, and maybe enjoy each equally... just an off-handed thought.


----------



## guy

PetrB said:


> One could drop the whole vs. mindset altogether, and maybe enjoy each equally... just an off-handed thought.


Maybe... but then it wouldn't be fun, and I wouldn't listen to more Handel.


----------



## KRoad

PetrB said:


> One could drop the whole vs. mindset altogether, and maybe enjoy each equally... just an off-handed thought.


Yes! Nuff said...


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> Weren't Handel & Bach from different eras? It does seem unfair to compare them. Handel's keyboard suites are just as enjoyable as Bach, if played with enough fluency. Try Richter's version.
> After hearing mezzo Lorraine Hunt-Lieberson sing the Handel arias, I gained a new respect for Handel, beyond the usual Water Music. One _must_ hear Richter on the suites, and Hunt-Lieberson on the arias to gain a true perspective.


Since you found Handel opera and oratorio arias you like, why not get the entire opera or oratorio from which they come? Each complete work is guaranteed to contain many great arias. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Richard8655

I think Handel was the greater boroque composer from my point of view. Handel was much more lyrical and melodic, while Bach more mechanical like a timepiece. Although Bach was known for composing incredible fugues, this to me is more of an interesting musical device that doesn't move me the way Handel's soaring melodic lines do. I guess I see exactness and intricacy in Bach while heart and emotion in Handel.


----------



## hpowders

Listen to the First and Fifth Keyboard Partitas and Well Tempered Clavier Book One Preludes and Fugues Numbers One and Seventeen.

Perhaps this will give you a new respect for Bach's greatness.

Even if it doesn't-no big deal.

Like whom you like. Never worth fighting over.


----------



## Blancrocher

If I'm asked which I prefer I'd answer Bach without hesitation, but while I'm actually listening to the op. 6 Concerti Grossi I can never think of anything I'd rather be doing.

*p.s.* Interesting that you picked #17, hpowders--a lovely and relatively neglected piece.


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> If I'm asked which I prefer I'd answer Bach without hesitation, but while I'm actually listening to the op. 6 Concerti Grossi I can never think of anything I'd rather be doing.
> 
> *p.s.* Interesting that you picked #17, hpowders--a lovely and relatively neglected piece.


I have a thing for A Flat Major. A lovely, relatively neglected key that Bach elevated to greatness.


----------



## clavichorder

It is very interesting how as the Op states, in the smaller pond of baroque music it's practically a fair contest between Bach and Handel, but when we talk about all of Western classical music history, Handel is less likely to be considered eligible for anything beyond top 5 maximum, maybe top 10 in the pantheon.

When I was younger and a consistently more excitably intuitive but also less patient listener, Handel was my preferred composer. There wasn't much that felt as close to heaven in musical form as The Water Music Suites and I was also fondly acquainted with organ, keyboard music of Bach, as well as the orchestral suites.


----------



## Andolink

Richard8655 said:


> I think Handel was the greater boroque composer from my point of view. Handel was much more lyrical and melodic, while Bach more mechanical like a timepiece. Although Bach was known for composing incredible fugues, this to me is more of an interesting musical device that doesn't move me the way Handel's soaring melodic lines do. I guess I see exactness and intricacy in Bach while heart and emotion in Handel.


The emotional profundity of Bach exceeds that of Handel by a long shot IMO. Virtually every one of his 200 or so sacred cantatas contains at least one aria and/or chorus of deeply moving emotion and beauty. The B minor Mass and the St. Matthew Passion are packed full of some of the most emotional music ever conceived by a human being.

Listen to this to get an idea of just how emotional his purely instrumental music can be too:









Oh, and by the way, I'm in awe of Handel too!


----------



## Strange Magic

It is one of the curiosities of music that the two great Baroque masters should have been born only months apart, in towns only several score kilometers apart, to have been acknowledged the two greatest organists of their time, and that Bach set out to meet Handel and perhaps trade sessions on the organ with him, in 1719, only to find that Handel had left town only a little previously. Brockway and Weinstock, with their habitual assurance, hold Bach's Mass in B Minor to be the greatest composition ever written, and Handel's Messiah to be its only rival. And they never met.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Bach as the _ZOMG gr8test composer evar_ is an invention of middle to late Modernism (1920s through 1970s - key figures including Stravinsky, Bud Powell, Glenn Gould, and Steve Reich), because they could make him sound like high precision machinery, which was more or less their aesthetic ideal. (The real greatest composer of all time is of course Mozart.)

As we get further and further removed in time from that ideal, and play Bach more like music and less like the Platonic ideal of music, we may counterintuitively diminish his prestige by playing him better. Probably we'll just end up misinterpreting him in some other way. But who knows, maybe we'll actually come closer what he really was. I would say his music should sound as purple as the Pietist-influenced texts that he set.

_Consider, how His blood-stained back
in every aspect
is like Heaven,
in which, after the watery deluge
was released upon our flood of sins,
the most beautiful rainbow
as God's sign of grace was placed!_

-----

As clavichorder notes, even though Bach is supposed to be greater than Handel, when Baroque music is considered by itself, they're seen as peers. _That's_ a major change of the balance of power, in Handel's favor, as compared with the first half of the 19th century, when the Romantics weren't nearly as interested in Georg as they were in Johann. Note also the revival of interest in Handel's operas.


----------



## Nereffid

Intriguingly, when I look at the results of my TC polls, there's pretty much no contest between Bach and Handel (we're talking popularity here, of course). Once you eliminate Handel's three obvious pieces - Messiah, Water Music, and Fireworks Music - he's about at the popularity level of a Weber or Hindemith. And even those three pieces are swamped by many more-popular works by Bach.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Well, Handel's oratorios and operas are doing _way_ better business than Weber and Hindemith these days - not to mention his omnipresence on public radio - so maybe the conclusion to draw is that TC ain't with it.


----------



## Richard8655

Nereffid said:


> Intriguingly, when I look at the results of my TC polls, there's pretty much no contest between Bach and Handel (we're talking popularity here, of course). Once you eliminate Handel's three obvious pieces - Messiah, Water Music, and Fireworks Music - he's about at the popularity level of a Weber or Hindemith. And even those three pieces are swamped by many more-popular works by Bach.


That's the problem. People just know Handel's war horses, played over and over on classical radio and popular concerts. Handel's creativity and lyricism exists throughout his works and just need to be discovered and played. Then Bach would get a horse race.


----------



## ArtMusic

Nereffid said:


> Intriguingly, when I look at the results of my TC polls, there's pretty much no contest between Bach and Handel (we're talking popularity here, of course). Once you eliminate Handel's three obvious pieces - Messiah, Water Music, and Fireworks Music - he's about at the popularity level of a Weber or Hindemith. And even those three pieces are swamped by many more-popular works by Bach.


If you look at concert repertoires and recorded music of Handel versus Weber or Hindemith, just about all of Handel's have been revived, studied and performed, certainly all of his operas, oratorios, orchestral, chamber and keyboard music. This is not including Handel institutes and research groups.


----------



## MartinAustria57

tdc said:


> Bach to my ears always sounds brilliant, and I must admit Handel has been the tougher nut for me to crack. I enjoy his music, but I don't often find it overwhelming or anything like I do Bach. The times I am really impressed it seems are in moments where he ends up sounding a lot like Bach, (for example moments of his Dixit Dominus HWV 232). I'd like to try some period recordings of more of his works eventually to see if that helps.
> 
> If anybody has some suggestions of the most important works by Handel to look into aside from the Messiah, Organ Concertos, Music for Royal Fireworks, Water Music, Concerti Grossi, or Gulio Cesare I'm open to suggestions.


For me the Concerti Grossi Op 6 recorded with the English Chamber Orchester under Raymond Leppard is a very good recording, most other recordings are to fast or to mechanical (for example i like christie in general but i don't like his recording of the Op 6), but what the ECO does to that works is just amazing.

Another favourite of mine by Händel is the oratorio Belshazzar, watch it on DVD with Rene Jacobs, Bejun Mehta, Rosemary Joshua, and the RIAS chamber choir and you will see how exiting his music can be


----------



## Pugg

MartinAustria57 said:


> For me the Concerti Grossi Op 6 recorded with the English Chamber Orchester under Raymond Leppard is a very good recording, most other recordings are to fast or to mechanical (for example i like christie in general but i don't like his recording of the Op 6), but what the ECO does to that works is just amazing.
> 
> Another favourite of mine by Händel is the oratorio Belshazzar, watch it on DVD with Rene Jacobs, Bejun Mehta, Rosemary Joshua, and the RIAS chamber choir and you will see how exiting his music can be


Nice first post, welcome to Talk Classical:tiphat:


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Richard8655 said:


> That's the problem. People just know Handel's war horses, played over and over on classical radio and popular concerts. Handel's creativity and lyricism exists throughout his works and just need to be discovered and played.


Very true. There are enough war-horses in Handel's stables to equip several cavalry platoons, and more people would realise that if they were given more air-time.


----------



## Woodduck

A lot of Handel's greatest music is in his 42 operas, most of which were forgotten and lay unperformed, and unperformable in anything like their original form and style, until the HIP movement in the mid-20th century began to reveal their theatrical viability, dramatic inventiveness, and fluency of melodic inspiration (although singers had always kept a number of their beautiful arias alive in recital and on recordings). 

I'd guess that few composers have been better remembered and loved for a smaller portion of their output. Handel stands in relation to Bach much as Haydn stands in relation to Mozart: highly creative, totally accomplished, exciting, successful composers who just happen to be up against slightly greater contemporaries.


----------



## Chronochromie

I'm not really impressed by most of Handel's operas and oratorios, or his other works except the Concerti grossi. I think Rameau is a more worthy contender to stand alongside Bach as the best of the later Baroque period.


----------



## JohnMinster

To know Handel is to know his oratorios. I don't think that very many people listen to them these days. The first thing I noticed when I started listening to them was how great a composer Handel was. The second thing I noticed was how much Beethoven was influenced by them. I heard in Judas Maccabeus (I think it was) the seeds to the scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, I couldn't believe my ears! I understand why Ludwig rated him no.1


----------



## dieter

Woodduck said:


> A lot of Handel's greatest music is in his 42 operas, most of which were forgotten and lay unperformed, and unperformable in anything like their original form and style, until the HIP movement in the mid-20th century began to reveal their theatrical viability, dramatic inventiveness, and fluency of melodic inspiration (although singers had always kept a number of their beautiful arias alive in recital and on recordings).
> 
> I'd guess that few composers have been better remembered and loved for a smaller portion of their output. Handel stands in relation to Bach much as Haydn stands in relation to Mozart: highly creative, totally accomplished, exciting, successful composers who just happen to be up against slightly greater contemporaries.


Once again, beautifully put.


----------



## regenmusic

Does anyone else feel a strong mysticism in Handel? I'm listening to his organ concertos (Biggs) and I'm feeling a lot of spirituality and expansiveness.


----------



## Pugg

JohnMinster said:


> To know Handel is to know his oratorios. I don't think that very many people listen to them these days. The first thing I noticed when I started listening to them was how great a composer Handel was. The second thing I noticed was how much Beethoven was influenced by them. I heard in Judas Maccabeus (I think it was) the seeds to the scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, I couldn't believe my ears! I understand why Ludwig rated him no.1


Decent studies .:tiphat:


----------



## Heliogabo

More interesting would be Handel vs Telemann. Opinions?


----------



## ArtMusic

Handel filled the world with his melodic inventions in vocal arias and chorus music. Bach blessed the world with his fugal inventions both as didactic and religious glorification music. Music of the old cannot be any better.


----------



## Larkenfield

Originally Posted by JohnMinster 
"To know Handel is to know his oratorios. I don't think that very many people listen to them these days. The first thing I noticed when I started listening to them was how great a composer Handel was. The second thing I noticed was how much Beethoven was influenced by them. I heard in Judas Maccabeus (I think it was) the seeds to the scherzo of the Ninth Symphony, I couldn't believe my ears! I understand why Ludwig rated him no.1"



Pugg said:


> Decent studies .:tiphat:


Oh come on. Almost 40,000 posts. Say something! But of course, now it's way too late.


----------



## flamencosketches

Dredging up a 10 year old thread to talk smack? 

Bach is a towering figure over all of music. The OP strikes me as someone who is not very familiar with Bach's massive output – "Bach wrote the Brandenburgs, Handel wrote Water Music". If all I'd heard by either composer was those two pieces, I would have a hard time comparing them too. They both have their benefits: the Brandenburgs feature richer part writing, and are a predecessor to what the symphony would become with Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and on; the Water Music suites feature some of the richest melodic sense of any music of the time and ever after, but are less contrapuntally oriented. But Bach goes far beyond that: the keyboard works (preludes, fugues, suites etc for harpsichord, not to mention the huge body of organ literature), the many other concertos, the freaking cantatas, passions, oratorios, the Mass... it's just an absolutely daunting body of work. Handel is no slouch either, as someone mentioned, he has written dozens of operas and many famous oratorios, no easy feat... but (and correct me if I'm wrong) isn't he notorious for recycling a ton of material, from himself and others? I would do the same too if I was trying to fill out 4-hour dramatic works year after year, always gunning for the next success... 

... having said all that, his operas and especially oratorios are a massive achievement too... but I would say he is not quite the towering, dominant figure in music that Bach would become. I think the Haydn/Mozart parallel is apt, and the very first response in this thread (talking about Bach's mastery of counterpoint) was right on the money too... 

... anyway, long story short, I don't have a good answer. Good thread.


----------



## Enthusiast

I suppose if one must compare the Brandenburgs with something of Handel it should be the Opus 6 concerti grossi.


----------



## hammeredklavier

flamencosketches said:


> Handel is no slouch either, as someone mentioned, he has written dozens of operas and many famous oratorios, no easy feat... but (and correct me if I'm wrong) isn't he notorious for recycling a ton of material, from himself and others? I would do the same too if I was trying to fill out 4-hour dramatic works year after year, always gunning for the next success...


Bach also recycled his own music, as was the norm for his time. Many movements of his kyrie-gloria masses and B minor Mass contain material from his own cantatas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_B_minor#Movements_and_their_origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrie–Gloria_masses,_BWV_233–236

Tilge, Höchster, meine Sünden, BWV 1083 
Bach's adaptation of Pergolesi's Stabat mater


----------



## KRoad

I like (love) both Handel and Bach.

I find it pointless to argue that one is _greater_ or _better_ than the other. The best one can do is state a personal preference and perhaps say why in musicological or emotional or metaphysical or whatever terms. This being the case much of Handel's best music, IMO, is found in his Operas - more than even his Oratorios. Conversely, much of Bach's best music is found in his Cantatas. For me, it is essential to follow the texts of both H's Operas and B's Cantatas - after all both H. and B. set their music to texts in the form of libretti or adapted Bible scripture. I find it fascinating to listen to how these composers (or any composer for that matter) interpreted verbal utterances/semantics into music. What for me gives H. the edge sometimes, in terms of my personal taste, is a preference for opera libretti (far fetched, contrived and cliche though most Baroque libretti are) over Lutheran Dogma, which for the most part, but especially in the case of B.s Cantatatas, focuses on the evils of life on Earth and the promise of the glory of a never-ending here after with Jesus bathed in a celestial light beaming at our sides.

S.o. mentioned earlier Hydan and Mozart as being the Classical counterparts to B. and H.. Okay, but to say one is _greater_ rather than the other I think is wrong. _Acceptable_ would be to say that one is prefered over the other with the reasons why provided.

Also, it would be welcomed if we could move beyond the Brandenburgs and Water Music. Both B. and H. composed a vast body of music (with both resorting to recycling as as an accepted modus operandi).


----------



## elgar's ghost

I would never want to make any comparison here - both are towering figures in the history of music and we are fortunate that so much of their output survived.


----------



## flamencosketches

elgars ghost said:


> I would never want to make any comparison here - both are towering figures in the history of music and we are fortunate that so much of their output survived.


True, that :cheers:

Sometimes I wonder what other giants of the Baroque faded into obscurity just because their works were not properly preserved. I know that the majority of Telemann's works, for example, were destroyed. Not that I think he's on Bach's level based on his existing output, but it seems that the attitude of the times was that Telemann was the superior composer.


----------



## Louis XIV

Bach said:


> Everything about Bach is superior - compare the use of rhythm in these two excerpts from similar pieces:
> 
> Bach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's before you even mention the use of harmony and counterpoint.


I really love both composers. But I don't agree with you when he claims that "everything about Bach is superior". Both composers wrote brilliant works and masterpieces and also less interesting pieces. Bach fans often say that he is superior because of his superior mastery of the fugue and counterpoint in many of his works. Must we conclude that Bach had a deeper or better knowledge or science of counterpoint and fugue? Not necessarily. It is true that many Bach's works are more elaborated or developed at that level. And that most Handel's works may seem comparatively more "simple" and popular. But think about it. This might be simply due to an aesthetic choice. The public to which Handel's works were addressed or intended or presented was not the same as the one to which Bach's works were intended. These two musicians knew the tastes and expectations of their respective publics and they had to meet them, of course.

In some of his greatest works, Handel proved he possessed an equal mastery of counterpoint to that of Bach. For example, in some choruses of his "Dixit Dominus" or of his greatest oratorios. Moreover, you cannot evaluate or assess the genius or the "greatness" of a composer solely on the basis of ONE aspect, for example on the basis of his mastery of the fugue. In music, there are other aspects you must take into account: rhythmic and melodic invention, expressive and dramatic force, etc. For example, as far as melodic invention is concerned, though there are "pearls" in Bach, generally speaking Handel is superior.

As I said in the beginning, I love both composers, though I must confess a slight personal preference for Handel. For me, nothing beats "Messiah".


----------



## Louis XIV

*Good point!*



KenOC said:


> Just a note that Beethoven seems to have placed Handel ahead of Bach, if not by much. And he knew a thing or two about music!


Good point! Besides, I agree with Beethoven.


----------



## Ariasexta

I am very glad that someone would appreciate Handel so much, at least not to be absolute in the comparison. Both are great composers without a doubt, but to enjoy them both takes a lot love and understanding. I think OP will one day understand why JS Bach is so valued, there is no need to explain here for you. Comrade, keep on exploring both and enjoy. :tiphat:


----------



## larold

_To me, Bach and Handel are pretty much equals._

I agree. In the survey I conducted they came in Nos. 3 and 7 of all composers. Only Mozart and Beethoven ahead of Bach and only Brahms, Haydn and Tchaikovsky ahead of Handel -- and not by much ... 67 points for Brahms, 66 for Haydn and Tchaikovsky, 62 for Handel. The top three were way ahead of that.

So what's the beef?


----------



## Dick Johnson

KRoad said:


> I like (love) both Handel and Bach.
> 
> I find it pointless to argue that one is _greater_ or _better_ than the other. The best one can do is state a personal preference and perhaps say why in musicological or emotional or metaphysical or whatever terms. This being the case much of Handel's best music, IMO, is found in his Operas - more than even his Oratorios. .


This gets to the heart of the matter IMO. Handel poured much of his genius into his operas rather than instrumental works. As an opera fan, I much prefer Handel - but can understand that Handel never composed instrumental music that could compare with the Goldberg Variations or Cello Suite #1. Handel was a far different type of composer with far different achievements - mostly found in his operas. Both were geniuses.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Kuntster said:


> Please can someone give one example of a Handel Fugue.
> 
> I know there are many pieces that begin Fugue-like but are NOT fugues. There's not enough elements.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Don't argue with Beethoven. Handel was better. Mozart on Handel: "Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt"


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart on Handel: "Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt"


The sudden entrance of the "crucifixus" in C minor often reminds me of that quote:

*[ 11:40 ]*


----------



## SanAntone

Händel for his operas and oratorios, Bach for everything else.


----------

