# I just don't get Bach



## adriesba

Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post. 

Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.

I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.

I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.

I don't understand. 

What am I missing?


----------



## Guest

adriesba said:


> It seems like *everyone *on this forum likes his music ... a lot.


Appearances can be deceptive.



adriesba said:


> I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy.


Well, that's enough to be going on with.

There's no more an obligation to love Bach than there is to love any other composer. Love what you love and live with it.


----------



## millionrainbows

I was making some CDs for a neighbor, and asked him if he wanted any Bach, and he said no. He got rock, jazz, blues, but no Bach. He said, "Remember that Switched-On Bach stuff? I thought that was interesting."


----------



## larold

If your preference is highly emotionally charged romantic music then it is easy to see why you dismiss Bach as boring since he generally demonstrates few or none of the characteristics that make that music popular: great changes in volume, pitch and speed and, generally speaking, far less duration of individual musical ideas. He never wrote a symphony of any length or topic since that form didn't exist in his day.

What makes Bach meaningful to me are other characteristics hundreds of them. The first is counterpoint or note against note. Bach's music tends to demonstrate two voices in some ways competing against each other all the time. In keyboard music this is left hand against right hand. Yet it is never nonsensical or just noise, it always works.

He also is very melodic with many famous melodies: the Air on a G string, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, Wauchet auf or sleeper's awake, the Toccata and Fugue in D minor for organ, Sheep may safely graze and the first variation from the Goldbergs are just a few of his greatest hits that regularly get played and appear together in recorded collections.

Bach knew all the instruments and could sing all the parts so he knew the range and ability of instruments and how they worked together. His Brandenburg concertos masterfully demonstrate these capabilities; so do the violin, oboe and keyboard concertos.

His music is so perfect is can be transferred to just about any instrument other than the one he wrote it for. His Goldberg variations has been successfully performed and played on a great range of instruments including string quartet, woodwind quartet, brass quartet, even the harmonica. It never sounds wrong on any instrument.

Bach was one of the great mathematical geniuses in music that is most easily identified in his counterpoint. It is also demonstrated in his many fugues and variations. His music begins, travels, comes back to main themes, and reconciles itself perfectly almost always. Structurally few composers are his equal.

There is also an emotional element to his music, especially his sacred choral music. The B minor mass, St. Matthew Passion and many of his cantatas demonstrate a solemn commitment of man to God and creation one doesn't hear in other music.

Bach wrote spectacularly for solo instruments like violin, cello and especially keyboard. His "48" preludes and fugues changed the art of keyboard training in his day and are today recorded and played more than any other group of musical creations like them. His six keyboard Partitas, groups of French dances ranging in duration from 3-7 minutes, are considered the Baroque equal to Beethoven's 32 keyboard sonatas. No composer in history has written more great music for the church organ than J.S. Bach.

Aside from all this he was one of the most interesting composers ever. He wore out one wife and married another, bore 20-plus children, two of whom went onto fame as composers, largely invented the fugue, oratorio and equal temperament (the 48 preludes and fugues), could play all the instruments and sing all the parts, and even spent a night in jail once over a musical dispute. Yet he never played for a king or court and never held a post in a major European musical capital, instead performing in regional towns like Cothen. He wouldn't write opera, popular in his day, because he thought it superfluous.

Some of his greatest music was never played until years or decades after his death. Felix Mendelssohn unearthed the St. Matthew Passion a century after he died. Mendelssohn and Shotakovich we just two of many composers who tried to copy his "48" preludes and fugues.

Chances are if you find Bach boring today that will change down the road as you become exposed to more music. Cream generally rises to the top and J.S. Bach is definitely cream.

Here is some music on YouTube that demonstrates my point of view. The longest one is 42 minutes and most are just a few minutes:

For counterpoint the fugue from *Prelude and Fugue No. 7* of Book 1 of Well Tempered Clavier by Glenn Gould: 




For musical joy the *Brandenburg Concerto No. 3*: 




For keyboard mastery Elena Kuschnerova playing the *Partita No. 6*; here is the opening section: 




Or Dubravla Tomsic playing the *Toccata, Adagio and Fugue BWV 912*: 




For solemn joy and tribute to God the *Cantata No. 82* from Dietrich Fischer Dieskau: 




For great organ music the *Prelude and Fugue in E flat "St Anne"*: 




For unbridled joy in vocal music the *Easter Oratorio*: 




The *Orchetral Suite No. 2 *with its wonderful writing for flute here played one to a part as chamber and not orchestral music: 




Or for just plain fun listen to *Switched On Bach*. Here's the Air on a G String from that album:


----------



## hammeredklavier

adriesba said:


> I don't understand.  What am I missing?


I don't understand either, what you're missing. If you don't tell us the specifics or elaborate on your points (what kind things you look for in a composer, are there any contemporaries of Bach do you enjoy, what specific elements or parts of Bach do you find interesting/boring, what are you aesthetic preferences, etc), I wouldn't know what to tell you exactly. There are people who've spent a lot of time listening to much classical music (even on this forum; Sixfootscowl, mbhaub, Fabulin), but just don't care for Bach. You might just be one of them.
Of course, we can just list the "essential Bach" you should listen to: "listen to the B minor mass, Well-tempered clavier, or this or that,, etc", - but is this the kind of answer you want? Or do you just want to hear various stories of how other people developed a taste for Bach?
If you find certain Bach works "dry", you should try recordings played with different instruments. I find the Art of the Fugue to be a 'passionate' work with catchy rhythmic/motivic ideas propelling/driving it forward, (if you get familiar with the sound of 18th century instrumental/vocal contrapuntal harmony, you'll agree) and it sounds best when played by the string quartet. I think the Wedge Fugue sounds better on instruments other than the organ. WTC sounds best on the harpsichord.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't understand either, what you're missing. If you don't tell us the specifics or elaborate on your points (what kind things you look for in a composer, are there any contemporaries of Bach do you enjoy, what specific elements or parts of Bach do you find interesting/boring, what are you aesthetic preferences, etc), I wouldn't know what to tell you exactly.


Indeed. Tell us what you like, as otherwise any comments will be in a bit of a vacuum.


----------



## DavidA

Never mind if you don’t get Never mind if you don’t getBach just leave his wonders to those of us who do. I don’t get John Cagebtw


----------



## jegreenwood

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. Tell us what you like, as otherwise any comments will be in a bit of a vacuum.


Further to that, do you like other Baroque composers, e.g. Handel and Vivaldi? If so, what does their music offer that you don't hear in Bach's?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

My default "starter Bach" sampler. All relatively short pieces. Listen to them one at a time and see what you think.

A heart-wrenching, improvisatory piece that sounds like a transcription of a doleful operatic arioso:





Makes you want to dance in glee:





Sumptuous, lyrical beauty from first note to last:





One of the most wonderful melodies ever written:





The perfect starter fugue - concise, beautiful, and organic:





More to come with vocal music in the next post...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

If the opening chorus of the St. Matthew doesn't send a jolt through your heart, I don't know what will:





Try this Gloria for some uninhibited joy:





Listen to this cantata and you won't regret a second of it:





Same with this one, one of Bach's most operatic creations:





Finally, if your interest has been piqued, you can listen to a half-hour of sheer bliss, the BWV 243 Magnificat. Happy Baching!!


----------



## Bigbang

My question is what do you want to get? If you don't really care to listen then what are you missing? And naturally the question is what baroque music do you like? Anyway, you are missing nothing as you are allowing a forum to make you think you are. Just because a forum draws in a group of people who tend towards certain composers/performers, there are those who go living their lives doing their thing. 

Most Bach is background music for me. Remember, the making a big deal over his orchestral music is the stuff that survived to this day, so what did not make it?


----------



## Manxfeeder

It's okay if you don't get Bach. It's better if you don't get COVID-19. Just putting it all into perspective.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Bach's most operatic creations


Don't forget:


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


Start with the easy pieces , like the Brandenburg Concertos and Overtures, see how you go from there.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I really don’t get threads like this at all. What's the purpose? No one can change another person's mind, especially if it’s a mind that is already made up. The OP mentioned right out to the gate that he found Bach boring and that he’s the least interesting composer he’s heard. With that kind of assessment already out in the open, any attempt to reason with them and give them what they want is a waste of time.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I can see the point of all y’all saying “if you don’t get something, that’s OK!” and to that effect. But also, I would argue, shouldn’t we encourage anyone who doesn’t understand the towering pinnacles of an art so that they can “see the light” and have their life enriched? If an English student “didn’t get” Homer and Shakespeare, would we say that’s alright and their works are unnecessary if their subjective taste doesn’t agree with them? Or if someone claims to be an art junkie and says that Rembrandt and Michelangelo are “not interesting,” should they expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no criticism of you intended, adriesba, because I started out the exact same way as you and now Bach is one of my life heroes (the piece that did it for me was the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor, but I didn’t include that in my little survey because I wasn’t sure how you’d react to it). I believe firmly that certain things in art make up the objective highest pinnacles of their fields, and if someone gives Bach a fair shot over a long period of time and still concludes they don’t like him, that’s perfectly fine! But to say that no one has to try and like him? To me that is closed-minded and could potentially rob someone of great enrichment and fulfillment. If I had said, after my first week or so of trying to like Bach, that he “just wasn’t for me” and never tried to revisit him I think I would be the worse off for it. And there are composers I feel the same way about - Scriabin for one. I keep trying every once in a while with an open mind. Mozart isn’t my absolute favorite, but I recognize his canonical position as a master and I have come to be moved by much of his music. In fact Schumann has just clicked for me after 2 years of being befuddled by his music. Bottom line - be open to new experiences and always accept that your tastes are in flux as you go down the felicitous voyage of artistic discovery!


----------



## annaw

Neo Romanza said:


> I really don't get threads like this at all. What's the purpose? No one can change another person's mind, especially if it's a mind that is already made up. The OP mentioned right out to the gate that he found Bach boring and that he's the least interesting composer he's heard. With that kind of assessment already out in the open, any attempt to reason with them and give them what they want is a waste of time.


Really depends on the person I guess. I had a similar "problem" and looking back I think I know why. When I got into classical music, I moved very quickly into Romantic music which I adore greatly. The problem is that after listening to a lot of Romantic and late-Romantic music, the contrast with Classical and Baroque can be quite huge - they might sound "boring". I was very determined to like them though, and after some listening and trying out different pieces, I started liking Bach. He's music is very immense and expresses emotions just differently, sometimes even in a more refined way, than Romantic music. it ranges from deep and dark to bright and joyful. I also love German vocal music and thus the cantatas should be a good fit.

This process just needed the determination because I knew that Bach had a huge effect on subsequent music and is one of the most important composers overall. I understood that there's must be a reason why he's so highly praised, why he is maybe the only composer who has been so universally hailed as one of the greatest musical geniuses who has ever lived - that's what I wanted to explore and understand.


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I really don't get threads like this at all. What's the purpose? No one can change another person's mind, especially if it's a mind that is already made up. The OP mentioned right out to the gate that he found Bach boring and that he's the least interesting composer he's heard. With that kind of assessment already out in the open, any attempt to reason with them and give them what they want is a waste of time.


I think there is something of a history on TC of people changing their minds after posting that they don't like X and getting advice. The advice and the change of mind might not be linked but mind changes do happen and they often start with a question like the OP.


----------



## Simplicissimus

I started my musical life’s journey with Bach. My parents had the mid-century conviction that playing recordings of Bach all the time would make my siblings and me smarter or something like that. If they’d let us listen to Mozart or Beethoven or Schoenberg instead, I wonder whether I’d be so attached to Bach as an adult. The people who come to Bach later often impress me as greater fans than those cradle Bach fans like me. What would be hard for me to understand is if you like other Baroque music but not Bach. Although I love Baroque music, I know it’s not everybody’s cup of tea.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I can see the point of all y'all saying "if you don't get something, that's OK!" and to that effect. But also, I would argue, shouldn't we encourage anyone who doesn't understand the towering pinnacles of an art so that they can "see the light" and have their life enriched? If an English student "didn't get" Homer and Shakespeare, would we say that's alright and their works are unnecessary if their subjective taste doesn't agree with them? Or if someone claims to be an art junkie and says that Rembrandt and Michelangelo are "not interesting," should they expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no criticism of you intended, adriesba, because I started out the exact same way as you and now Bach is one of my life heroes (the piece that did it for me was the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor, but I didn't include that in my little survey because I wasn't sure how you'd react to it). I believe firmly that certain things in art make up the objective highest pinnacles of their fields, and if someone gives Bach a fair shot over a long period of time and still concludes they don't like him, that's perfectly fine! But to say that no one has to try and like him? To me that is closed-minded and could potentially rob someone of great enrichment and fulfillment. If I had said, after my first week or so of trying to like Bach, that he "just wasn't for me" and never tried to revisit him I think I would be the worse off for it. And there are composers I feel the same way about - Scriabin for one. I keep trying every once in a while with an open mind. Mozart isn't my absolute favorite, but I recognize his canonical position as a master and I have come to be moved by much of his music. In fact Schumann has just clicked for me after 2 years of being befuddled by his music. Bottom line - be open to new experiences and always accept that your tastes are in flux as you go down the felicitous voyage of artistic discovery!


But there's always the possibility that someone just doesn't like Bach. I think it's more important to pursue music that gives you pleasure than waste your time on trying to understand a composer that you obviously have expressed to have no interest in or find 'boring' or whatever. I think one has to be either intellectually or emotionally stimulated by a composer's music for there to be a connection to be made. If a person continues to listen something they're just not into, what will ultimately happen is not only a strong dislike, but eventually an avoidance of the composer altogether. I say continue to explore a genre or time period that interests you and forget about whether it's okay or socially acceptable to dislike something that everyone else seems to hold in high regard. I'm speaking as someone who has been obsessed with classical music for 12 years. If all I did was listen to what everyone else was listening to, I would've got nowhere, because I would be pursuing music based on someone else's likes/dislikes and not listening to my own inner voice. I have to say I have done a fine job of avoiding music I have no interest in and my own musical journey as a result has been enriching.


----------



## Neo Romanza

annaw said:


> Really depends on the person I guess. I had a similar "problem" and looking back I think I know why. When I got into classical music, I moved very quickly into Romantic music which I adore greatly. The problem is that after listening to a lot of Romantic and late-Romantic music, the contrast with Classical and Baroque can be quite huge - they might sound "boring". I was very determined to like them though, and after some listening and trying out different pieces, I started liking Bach. He's music is very immense and expresses emotions just differently, sometimes even in a more refined way, than Romantic music. it ranges from deep and dark to bright and joyful. I also love German vocal music and thus the cantatas should be a good fit.
> 
> This process just needed the determination because I knew that Bach had a huge effect on subsequent music and is one of the most important composers overall. I understood that there's must be a reason why he's so highly praised, why he is maybe the only composer who has been so universally hailed as one of the greatest musical geniuses who has ever lived - that's what I wanted to explore and understand.


Yes, we're all different. Personally, if I'm having trouble with a composer that I 'sort of' like already, then I come back and try later on to see if I understand their music better that time around. And there are occasions where I end up loving a composer I didn't enjoy say 4 or 5 years ago and a lot of this stems from what I have learned during those intervening years. Sometimes time away from a composer does wonders and I think this is what the OP should do since he's simply not connecting with much from the composer in question at the moment.


----------



## annaw

Neo Romanza said:


> But there's always the possibility that someone just doesn't like Bach. I think it's more important to pursue music that gives you pleasure than waste your time on trying to understand a composer that you obviously have expressed to have no interest in or find 'boring' or whatever. I think one has to be either intellectually or emotionally stimulated by a composer's music for there to be a connection to be made. If a person continues to listen something they're just not into, what will ultimately happen is not only a strong dislike, but eventually an avoidance of the composer altogether. I say continue to explore a genre or time period that interests you and forget about whether it's okay or socially acceptable to dislike something that everyone else seems to hold in high regard. I'm speaking as someone who has been obsessed with classical music for 12 years. If all I did was listen to what everyone else was listening to, I would've got nowhere, because I would be pursuing music based on someone else's likes/dislikes and not listening to my own inner voice. I have to say I have done a fine job of avoiding music I have no interest in and my own musical journey as a result has been enriching.


I have experienced the same thing that Allegro Con Brio described. I didn't like opera at all but I felt I was missing out on something. I tried and listened to different bleeding chunks from different operas until I fell in love with Wagner's music after listening to _Die Walküre_. Now I'm a sworn Wagnerite! Opera itself is also one of my favourite, if not the favourite, classical music genres and the struggle was well worth it!

EDIT: I think it's something similar as you described in your second post .


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> But there's always the possibility that someone just doesn't like Bach. I think it's more important to pursue music that gives you pleasure than waste your time on trying to understand a composer that you obviously have expressed to have no interest in or find 'boring' or whatever. I think one has to be either intellectually or emotionally stimulated by a composer's music for there to be a connection to be made. If a person continues to listen something they're just not into, what will ultimately happen is not only a strong dislike, but eventually an avoidance of the composer altogether. I say continue to explore a genre or time period that interests you and forget about whether it's okay or socially acceptable to dislike something that everyone else seems to hold in high regard. I'm speaking as someone who has been obsessed with classical music for 12 years. If all I did was listen to what everyone else was listening to, I would've got nowhere, because I would be pursuing music based on someone else's likes/dislikes and not listening to my own inner voice. I have to say I have done a fine job of avoiding music I have no interest in and my own musical journey as a result has been enriching.


I more or less agree and it is certainly not compulsory to like Bach. But I would have missed out on so much of the music that I love if I had just accepted my first feelings about it.

As a child I soaked up music and can't remember disliking that much - even though I had favourites and less favourite pieces - and I grew up with a taste for most of the more reputed classical composers from Bach and Handel to Stravinsky, Bartok and Britten. After that there were many other composers of stature (like Messiaen, Schoenberg and Dufay) that I felt for a long time that those composers were not for me. First attempts with their music got me nowhere. I still didn't like them. I persevered because so many people who had otherwise similar tastes to me were strongly of the opinion that they were very worthwhile. And I'm glad I did!

This said, "persevering" for me does not mean sitting through something I am hating, gritting my teeth and trying to understand what the music was "saying". For me it is just a matter of trying again and again (often changing the record if I wasn't liking it) and eventually finding a time when suddenly it felt good.


----------



## Neo Romanza

annaw said:


> I have experienced the same thing that Allegro Con Brio described. I didn't like opera at all but I felt I was missing out on something. I tried and listened to different bleeding chunks from different operas until I fell in love with Wagner's music after listening to _Die Walküre_. Now I'm a Wagnerite! Opera itself is also one of my favourite, if not the favourite, classical music genres and the struggle was well worth it!
> 
> EDIT: I think it's something similar as you described in your second post .


I suppose I'm a more individualistic listener in that I never truly felt I was missing out on anything that I disliked. I'm quite content knowing that something just isn't for me. I like some opera, but it's a genre I never truly felt any kind of kinship with and, honestly, the vocal music that I do like are more in the lines of oratorios, cantatas, lieder/songs/mélodies, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone simply not liking something. I'll go further to say that just because a composer is 'universally acclaimed' or whatever high superlative you want to give them, doesn't mean I'm going to like the music. I think there comes a point in every listener's journey where they have listen to what their gut tells them and, more importantly, what their heart tells them about the music. If you get zero gratification from a composer, genre or whatever, then you're under no obligation to like it and I think the OP needs to realize this.


----------



## Strange Magic

Few composers do Joy as well as Bach. Also, few do "I am the Master of What I'm About" as well as Bach. ¡Oye como va!


----------



## annaw

Neo Romanza said:


> I suppose I'm a more individualistic listener in that I never truly felt I was missing out on anything that I disliked. I'm quite content knowing that something just isn't for me. I like some opera, but it's a genre I never truly felt any kind of kinship with and, honestly, the vocal music that I do like are more in the lines of oratorios, cantatas, lieder/songs/mélodies, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone simply not liking something. I'll go further to say that just because a composer is 'universally acclaimed' or whatever high superlative you want to give them, doesn't mean I'm going to like the music. I think there comes a point in every listener's journey where they have listen to what their gut tells them and, more importantly, what their heart tells them about the music. If you get zero gratification from a composer, genre or whatever, then you're under no obligation to like it and I think the OP needs to realize this.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with not liking some composers and their music! Neither do I think that one is supposed to torture oneself but I was rather trying to say that it's good to try multiple times. It's not adequate that after having listened to couple of pieces by Bach, I declared that I don't like Bach. Musical taste also develops and thus I think the advice you gave to have a break and then listen again after some time is actually very good. That's how I got into Shostakovich!


----------



## Flamme

I really dig the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor although I was shocked and confused by it when I was younger, but I lack knowledge of his other worx...


----------



## Art Rock

annaw said:


> There's absolutely nothing wrong with not liking some composers and their music! Neither do I think that one is supposed to torture oneself but I was rather trying to say that it's good to try multiple times. It's not adequate that after having listened to couple of pieces by Bach, I declared that I don't like Bach. Musical taste also develops and thus I think the advice you gave to have a break and then listen again after some time is actually very good. That's how I got into Shostakovich!


My experience is that for the first ten years or so of listening to classical music, preferences for certain composers tend to go upward or downward, the more you hear. If after 10 years a composer has not clicked with me, there's no point in pursuing it further (YMMV of course). I expect very few people like all famous composers, so it is quite 'normal' to strike out on some famous names.


----------



## Guest

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


Rather than speculate on the validity of your observations, or on your ulterior motive in starting this thread, can I ask you directly, what kind of answer are you looking for? Do you want to be given recommendations of the works you should be getting (and, therefore, persevering with in your listening)? Or a detailed explanation of what it is that the Bach lovers love?

Or are you really just making a statement about your views, without any expectation of conversion?


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> I suppose I'm a more individualistic listener in that I never truly felt I was missing out on anything that I disliked. I'm quite content knowing that something just isn't for me. I like some opera, but it's a genre I never truly felt any kind of kinship with and, honestly, the vocal music that I do like are more in the lines of oratorios, cantatas, lieder/songs/mélodies, etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with someone simply not liking something. I'll go further to say that just because a composer is 'universally acclaimed' or whatever high superlative you want to give them, doesn't mean I'm going to like the music. *I think there comes a point in every listener's journey where they have listen to what their gut tells them and, more importantly, what their heart tells them about the music. *If you get zero gratification from a composer, genre or whatever, then you're under no obligation to like it and I think the OP needs to realize this.


But how long do you try? If you just go by gut on first hearing I think you may miss out on much and will end up in a sort of musical ghetto. Instead of your sentence that I have highlighted I would say

"I think there comes a point in every listener's journey where they have to go beyond themselves to explore what is new and perhaps initially alien to them. Others may have gone there first and can help." But don't fear - you will still be in control as your taste expands.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Neo Romanza said:


> But there's always the possibility that someone just doesn't like Bach. I think it's more important to pursue music that gives you pleasure than waste your time on trying to understand a composer that you obviously have expressed to have no interest in or find 'boring' or whatever. I think one has to be either intellectually or emotionally stimulated by a composer's music for there to be a connection to be made. If a person continues to listen something they're just not into, what will ultimately happen is not only a strong dislike, but eventually an avoidance of the composer altogether. I say continue to explore a genre or time period that interests you and forget about whether it's okay or socially acceptable to dislike something that everyone else seems to hold in high regard. I'm speaking as someone who has been obsessed with classical music for 12 years. If all I did was listen to what everyone else was listening to, I would've got nowhere, because I would be pursuing music based on someone else's likes/dislikes and not listening to my own inner voice. I have to say I have done a fine job of avoiding music I have no interest in and my own musical journey as a result has been enriching.


I think we agree on this, we just expressed it in different ways. I'm just saying that everyone should be encouraged to discover as much as they can about all sorts of genres and styles, and if they don't at first like the "canonical" composers, they should keep trying and keep the spirit of curiosity alive. After a while if nothing is working, pursue your own path. Sometime down the road, you just may come back and everything will fall into place.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

annaw said:


> I have experienced the same thing that Allegro Con Brio described. I didn't like opera at all but I felt I was missing out on something. I tried and listened to different bleeding chunks from different operas until I fell in love with Wagner's music after listening to _Die Walküre_. Now I'm a sworn Wagnerite! Opera itself is also one of my favourite, if not the favourite, classical music genres and the struggle was well worth it!
> 
> EDIT: I think it's something similar as you described in your second post .


If I only decided to stick with the things I liked when I was just starting to get into classical, I would dislike everything with singing, most of Bach, and all music past 1920 among other things. Point being to the OP - listen without any preconceptions and do so enthusiastically. After all, even if you don't connect with something, listening should be an exciting and joyful experience.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> But how long do you try? If you just go by gut on first hearing I think you may miss out on much and will end up in a sort of musical ghetto. Instead of your sentence that I have highlighted I would say
> 
> "I think there comes a point in every listener's journey where they have to go beyond themselves to explore what is new and perhaps initially alien to them. Others may have gone there first and can help." But don't fear - you will still be in control as your taste expands.


My point is only YOU can decide for yourself what music is worth pursuing and what isn't.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I think it's important to understand that there is no right perspective on listening and appreciating music. I dislike most Baroque and Classical Era composers (with a few exceptions), but this is because I’m simply not drawn to these time periods and I have no interest in them. I don’t feel I’m shutting myself off from anything, because I have more than 200 years of music that does excite me and to explore. I say forget what people tell you that you should be listening to and continue to follow your own path.


----------



## Ethereality

Some reasons people don't have Bach as a favorite but do appreciate him:

-While Bach enthusiasts find his note complexity very attractive, it depends on what kind of listener you are. Many have said he oftentimes has a false air of complexity; just a lot of extra notes that seem complex. 

-Bach enthusiasts have said his note placement is always perfect, but others have argued against this using common later examples of timing and structure. Yes, the structures and aesthetics of the Baroque era don't compete with those of the Classical and Romantic, but Bach innovated in great number of ways to also help this along.

-Some people also think that Bach's thematic form in of itself simply feels try-hard or obvious, in some way similar to Rameau or Chopin, lacking somewhat in subtlety and development. A good example of the opposite would be more like his son CPE Bach or Haydn.


----------



## larold

_I really don't get threads like this at all. What's the purpose? No one can change another person's mind, especially if it's a mind that is already made up._

It should be mentioned the original poster asked, "What am I missing?" as if to say if s/he hears something anew his or her perspective could change.

If there is a point to threads like this it is to offer alternatives. If someone rejects them, fine.

Classical music isn't static; it's like a river -- always flowing and carving out new bends. People that follow it all their lives find new composers and new music all the time.

A person that doesn't like a composer today may like her or him tomorrow or sometime in the future.


----------



## EdwardBast

Ethereality said:


> Some reasons people don't have Bach as a favorite but do appreciate him:
> 
> -A certain group finds his note complexity very attractive, but I guess it depends on what kind of listener you are. People have said he has a false air of complexity that isn't always there; just a lot of extra notes. Others have said his placement of notes is always perfect, but that has been argued from other perspectives of later developments of timing and structure.
> 
> *-The structures and aesthetics of the Baroque era simply don't compete with those of the Classical and Romantic.* Not that Bach didn't innovate in a plethora of ways to help this along.


For me there are exceptions, like the contrapuntal fantasy type works. Bach's Toccata, Adagio, and Fugue in C, for example or the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor. These are dynamic, unified forms I find satisfying. Some of the fantasies of Sweelinck and Purcell too.


----------



## Knorf

The compositions of J. S. Bach are why I fell in love with music. I don't know how to explain it. To me it seems like trying to explain what's beautiful about the ocean.


----------



## adriesba

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed. Tell us what you like, as otherwise any comments will be in a bit of a vacuum.





jegreenwood said:


> Further to that, do you like other Baroque composers, e.g. Handel and Vivaldi? If so, what does their music offer that you don't hear in Bach's?


As for what I tend to like in music, I'd say generally emotional expression as evidenced by Wagner being my favorite composer. But there are later Stravinsky works that I'm finding I enjoy that aren't emotionally charged. So I'm not sure that emotional expression is the whole story.

As for other Baroque music I find I don't like much of it. I do like Handel's _Messiah _and I seem to really enjoy the little bit of Rameau I've heard. The thing is I don't get why I would like Rameau but not Bach. That confuses me.

As for what I don't like about Bach, I think the first paragraph of post 4 is getting on to something. I also feel like Bach is about following all the forms, which is something I find boring. He also seems to like to squeeze in as many notes as possible which I find tedious. And any supposed emotional expression in Bach's music is rather restrained compared to later composers.

I sort of think maybe I could appreciate Bach more if I knew music theory, but I don't know.


----------



## Vasks

...............


----------



## TMHeimer

Being a clarinetist, I have really little interest in Bach since there were no clarinets back then, thus no music for clarinet. I have played the Chaconne for unaccompanied violin on clarinet (Eb clarinet). It was a fun and challenging piece. Very technical, but at times melodic. I suppose I should listen more to Bach to get a more rounded opinion. Of course we studied the Baroque a lot when I was getting my music degree, but that was 45 years ago.


----------



## annaw

adriesba said:


> As for what I tend to like in music, *I'd say generally emotional expression as evidenced by Wagner being my favorite composer.* But there are later Stravinsky works that I'm finding I enjoy that aren't emotionally charged. So I'm not sure that emotional expression is the whole story.
> 
> As for other Baroque music I find I don't like much of it. I do like Handel's _Messiah _and I seem to really enjoy the little bit of Rameau I've heard. The thing is I don't get why I would like Rameau but not Bach. That confuses me.
> 
> As for what I don't like about Bach, I think the first paragraph of post 4 is getting on to something.* I also feel like Bach is about following all the forms, which is something I find boring.* He also seems to like to squeeze in as many notes as possible which I find tedious. And any supposed emotional expression in Bach's music is rather restrained compared to later composers.
> 
> I sort of think maybe I could appreciate Bach more if I knew music theory, but I don't know.


Had the same problem but _The Art of Fugue_ played on organ solved it! The depth of it is stunning!

Regarding the forms, there's much more to it. I think Allegro Con Brio shared a very interesting website some time ago (thank you!): http://www.jsbachcantatas.com/. The content and the musical forms of Bach's cantatas seem to go often hand in hand as in Wagner's operas. You might find them rather fascinating!


----------



## adriesba

Allegro Con Brio said:


> *I can see the point of all y'all saying "if you don't get something, that's OK!" and to that effect. But also, I would argue, shouldn't we encourage anyone who doesn't understand the towering pinnacles of an art so that they can "see the light" and have their life enriched?* If an English student "didn't get" Homer and Shakespeare, would we say that's alright and their works are unnecessary if their subjective taste doesn't agree with them? Or if someone claims to be an art junkie and says that Rembrandt and Michelangelo are "not interesting," should they expect to be taken seriously? Absolutely no criticism of you intended, adriesba, because I started out the exact same way as you and now Bach is one of my life heroes (the piece that did it for me was the Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor, but I didn't include that in my little survey because I wasn't sure how you'd react to it). I believe firmly that certain things in art make up the objective highest pinnacles of their fields, and if someone gives Bach a fair shot over a long period of time and still concludes they don't like him, that's perfectly fine! But to say that no one has to try and like him? To me that is closed-minded and could potentially rob someone of great enrichment and fulfillment. If I had said, after my first week or so of trying to like Bach, that he "just wasn't for me" and never tried to revisit him I think I would be the worse off for it. And there are composers I feel the same way about - Scriabin for one. I keep trying every once in a while with an open mind. Mozart isn't my absolute favorite, but I recognize his canonical position as a master and I have come to be moved by much of his music. In fact Schumann has just clicked for me after 2 years of being befuddled by his music. Bottom line - be open to new experiences and always accept that your tastes are in flux as you go down the felicitous voyage of artistic discovery!


Yes! This is why I started the thread. I am legitimately curious and feel like maybe I'm missing out on something.


----------



## howlingfantods

adriesba said:


> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.


I wonder if you could list out specific recordings and specific works you've sampled? I'm curious if, for instance, you've mostly listened to non-HIP versions of things or HIP versions, which keyboard works you've sampled, in which instruments, that kind of thing. I think more than most composers, the experience one has of a Bach piece can vary hugely because of performance practice choices.


----------



## Bulldog

adriesba said:


> As for what I don't like about Bach, I think the first paragraph of post 4 is getting on to something. I also feel like Bach is about following all the forms, which is something I find boring. He also seems to like to squeeze in as many notes as possible which I find tedious. And any supposed emotional expression in Bach's music is rather restrained compared to later composers.


With the above in mind, I just don't get you. :lol:


----------



## MusicSybarite

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


You're not alone here. I have a similar experience with this composer. What I enjoy by him are the concertos, the Overtures (orchestral suites), cello suites, violin partitas, some keyboard music and choral music, but I'm not crazy about his style. Maybe too much counterpoint? Too much solemnity? Too much religiosity? I don't know. As a true pinnacle of greatness among composers, that's definitely undeniable.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Sometimes I understand why somebody has different tastes about a composer (or recording, or performer, or work) than me and I can offer suggestions to help them appreciate it. For example, I can see why someone might think Bach is a bunch of dry academic exercises (which is what I thought at first), and I would give that person examples that might make them change their mind. But some of the opinions on Bach expressed in this thread I simply can’t understand...as in, I have a tough time believing we’re listening to the same composer. Too solemn? Limited emotional expression? Too many notes? Unimpressive structure??? All I can say to that is just listen, because I can’t even comprehend how anyone could think that. 

I’m about to upset Bulldog, but adriesba just might want to try some Stokowski transcriptions


----------



## Knorf

Anyone who says Bach was limited in his creative use or exploration of musical form clearly has not listened to much of his music. I have listened to all 20 or so hours of Bach's organ music, most of his total solo keyboard music, almost all of his instrumental ensemble music, all of his solo non-keyboard music, and well over half of the existing cantatas.

And I will not hesitate to state I'm not sure any composer, from any other age _ever_, undertook and succeeded at a greater or wider exploration of the principles of form and its tonal harmonic underpinnings than Bach.

It's true that the sonata principle wasn't a thing yet in Bach's day, but every other kind of musical form certainly was. It's hardly fair to hold against him that he didn't explore a form that no one had even dreamed of yet. On the other hand, Bach made use of formal principles that no one even has words for, and certainly exploded the potential of every single other kind of established form, from simple binary, rounded binary, ternary, ritornello and on through to the rondo principle, free forms, ostinato forms, fugue, multi-movement forms, and beyond.

There are over two hundred cantatas by Bach. As I said, I've heard more than half of them, and studied in significant detail many of those. There is not a single one that doesn't have something remarkable about it, and none of them come across as formulaic in terms of their use of musical form. In fact, in every single one of them Bach tried something distinctive and many have forms that were basically unprecedented.

Bach's accomplishments in musical form represent nothing less than some of the all-time greatest achievement in art.


----------



## adriesba

MacLeod said:


> Rather than speculate on the validity of your observations, or on your ulterior motive in starting this thread, can I ask you directly, what kind of answer are you looking for? Do you want to be given recommendations of the works you should be getting (and, therefore, persevering with in your listening)? Or a detailed explanation of what it is that the Bach lovers love?
> 
> Or are you really just making a statement about your views, without any expectation of conversion?


I feel like maybe you are misunderstanding why I posted this thread.

Ulterior motive? Yes, I want to destroy the dominance of Bach on this forum and bring you all down to kiss the feet of Wagner! First Talk Classical, then the world!

Lol, I'm kidding. :lol:

Seriously though, I want to try to find enjoyment in Bach's music or at least understand a bit more about why he is so respected here and in general in the classical music world.

I don't think I'm totally shut out to the possibility of enjoying Bach. I'd count Handel's _Messiah _among my favorite works, and I greatly enjoy the little bit I have heard of Rameau so far. Bach should hypothetically be a Baroque composer I could enjoy.

I'm not necessarily looking for a specific answer. Maybe some sort of explanation about what people like about Bach, works that helped them understand or enjoy his music, or maybe from my posts here someone can see how I might have "missed something" or have overlooked something that might help me understand. Perhaps others with similar lack of enjoyment of Bach can look at the thread for their own understanding.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

^I say have a listen to the works I posted a couple pages back and see what you think. Maybe try the cantatas _Ich habe genug_ and _Actus tragicus_ first since you like opera? If you can set aside 3-4 hours to just tune out from the world and listen to the any of the two passions straight through, that might be a good litmus test as to whether you are suited for Bach or not. As to reasons why I like Bach, they are too long to detail here, but suffice it to say that I find his mastery and exploration of the human condition second only to Shakespeare in all art.


----------



## jegreenwood

adriesba said:


> As for what I tend to like in music, I'd say generally emotional expression as evidenced by Wagner being my favorite composer. But there are later Stravinsky works that I'm finding I enjoy that aren't emotionally charged. So I'm not sure that emotional expression is the whole story.
> 
> As for other Baroque music I find I don't like much of it. I do like Handel's _Messiah _and I seem to really enjoy the little bit of Rameau I've heard. The thing is I don't get why I would like Rameau but not Bach. That confuses me.
> 
> As for what I don't like about Bach, I think the first paragraph of post 4 is getting on to something. I also feel like Bach is about following all the forms, which is something I find boring. He also seems to like to squeeze in as many notes as possible which I find tedious. And any supposed emotional expression in Bach's music is rather restrained compared to later composers.
> 
> I sort of think maybe I could appreciate Bach more if I knew music theory, but I don't know.


My first thought is to give a/another listen to the Passions, maybe even in the form of a video. A few years back Peter Sellars' staged version of the St. Matthew Passion" with The Berlin Philharmonic (which I admit I did not see) was received with rapture. Here's part of the Times review.

"In other words, the long, daunting passion is a ritualized form of participatory theater. Bach wrenches you out of your comfort zone as an audience member and pulls you into this story of faith and doubt, trust and betrayal, community and mob chaos. All of these qualities came through in the searing, sublime performance on Tuesday, the first of two, bringing to an end a mini-residency in New York for the Berlin Philharmonic, which had already played four concerts at Carnegie Hall."

There is a DVD (expensive), or you can watch it at the BPO concert website if you join (or utilize the 7 day trial).

On the other end of the spectrum are the cello suites - to be listened to late at night with an appropriate beverage in hand, especially if you are like me, and find the sound of solo cello inherently moving.. Start with No. 2.


----------



## Neo Romanza

adriesba said:


> Yes! This is why I started the thread. I am legitimately curious and feel like maybe I'm missing out on something.


You're not missing out on anything. Take the suggestions made from others here and go with it. If you don't like the music right now, come back a week, month or year later to see if you feel any differently about it. I never understood why people think they're missing out on something when we all have composers that we're drawn to for various reasons. If you feel like you're drawn to Bach, that's great, if not, then do as I and others have suggested by taking a break and then come back. There may be a good possibility that you'll never get Bach. As I said in one of my posts, I have more than 200 years of music to draw from and that excites me, I don't give a flip if I ever 'get' Bach or not. As the composer Frederick Delius once said "Always stick to your likings --- there are profound reasons for them." But also this quote from Rachmaninov is of note as well, "Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music."


----------



## consuono

Sorry to be blunt about it, but if you "don't get Bach" then you don't get music itself.


----------



## Flamme

Like I said before I dont know maqny of his works but the ones I heard are of ''highest quality'' whatever that means...Toccate N Fugue brings in me senses of fear and wonder...Or wander...Because when I heaqr them I feel like transported to the shores of vast, dark and silent cosmic ocean...


----------



## KenOC

consuono said:


> Sorry to be blunt about it, but if you "don't get Bach" then you don't get music itself.


Bluntness doesn't fill the drawer with sharp knives. Not so very long ago (but within my memory) a lot of people "didn't get Bach," considering his music mechanical and soulless. But they very much "got" more recent genres, especially late romantic and impressionism. Times change, fashions go round and round...


----------



## consuono

KenOC said:


> Bluntness doesn't fill the drawer with sharp knives. Not so very long ago (but within my memory) a lot of people "didn't get Bach," considering his music mechanical and soulless. But they very much "got" more recent genres, especially late romantic and impressionism. Times change, fashions go round and round...


Considering his music "mechanical and soulless" as compared to what? Music itself is mechanical in a sense, and calling Bach "soulless" would just betray ignorance.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I'm as guilty of this as anyone, having done it already several times in this thread, but I wonder if people often feel inhibited from enjoying the "great" artists because of the fawning superlatives bestowed upon them. I have to restrain myself in my uncontrolled adoration of Bach sometimes, but really the best advice I can give to adriesba and others is to go in without any preconceptions and listen for yourself. When I was struggling to "get" Bach, I would listen to, say, the Mass in B Minor and mentally tell myself, "OK, this is supposed to be the greatest piece of music ever written, and you will think that way!" Sure, it's helpful to know why things are so highly regarded, but actually experiencing the music is so much more important than reading all the adulations. In order for me to love Mozart, I had to get rid of the "miraculous music from another world from the greatest genius who ever lived" stuff and just experience his heart-melting, mind-cleansing art for myself. I could only like Schubert's string quintet when I didn't think of it as "the greatest chamber work ever written" and simply as a great piece of music. Reading _Hamlet_ and _King Lear_ and interpreting them according to my own mind allowed me to develop honest perceptions of Shakespeare and help me personally understand why he is considered so great. Learn about the music and its background - learn why Bach believed what he did and learn how he expressed it in his music, then dive in and have a blast.


----------



## Knorf

My entry into Bach (and thereby falling in love with music!), was via the famous Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, which I have come to decide I think _is_ authentic and by Bach, although the argument it might have been for violin originally makes some sense to me.

But the big one, the piece that changed my life, was the great Passacaglia in C minor, BWV 582, as an organ piece but especially in a tremendously inspired orchestration for double orchestra by René Leibowitz.

There are so many masterpieces from Bach. So many! I mean, who doesn't love the Cello Suites? The Double Violin Concerto in D minor? Etc.

For Bach's vocal music, it was the Magnificat and opening chorus to the St. John Passion that drew me in earliest. After that, add in the B minor mass, and I was hooked for life.


----------



## adriesba

howlingfantods said:


> I wonder if you could list out specific recordings and specific works you've sampled? I'm curious if, for instance, you've mostly listened to non-HIP versions of things or HIP versions, which keyboard works you've sampled, in which instruments, that kind of thing. I think more than most composers, the experience one has of a Bach piece can vary hugely because of performance practice choices.


Here are some albums I've listened to:

View attachment 138743


View attachment 138744


View attachment 138745


View attachment 138746


View attachment 138748


I've also listened to some things on YouTube (can't remember exactly what, it's been awhile) as well as some of one of those gigantic best of Bach albums my mom downloaded off Amazon (can't remember the name of the album, but perhaps those are not the best place to look).


----------



## adriesba

Neo Romanza said:


> Yes, we're all different. Personally, if I'm having trouble with a composer that I 'sort of' like already, then I come back and try later on to see if I understand their music better that time around. And there are occasions where I end up loving a composer I didn't enjoy say 4 or 5 years ago and a lot of this stems from what I have learned during those intervening years. Sometimes time away from a composer does wonders and I think this is what the OP should do since he's simply not connecting with much from the composer in question at the moment.


I've pretty much taken a break from Bach for the past five or so years. So, I figure now is as good a time as any to try again.


----------



## adriesba

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^I say have a listen to the works I posted a couple pages back and see what you think. Maybe try the cantatas _Ich habe genug_ and _Actus tragicus_ first since you like opera? If you can set aside 3-4 hours to just tune out from the world and listen to the any of the two passions straight through, that might be a good litmus test as to whether you are suited for Bach or not. As to reasons why I like Bach, they are too long to detail here, but suffice it to say that I find his mastery and exploration of the human condition second only to Shakespeare in all art.


Yes, thank you for posting all those pieces.  
I don't recall listening to the passions at all, so that would be a good place to try. I think I shall try a Bach listening session later today.


----------



## Bigbang

adriesba said:


> Here are some albums I've listened to:
> 
> View attachment 138743
> 
> 
> View attachment 138744
> 
> 
> View attachment 138745
> 
> 
> View attachment 138746
> 
> 
> View attachment 138748
> 
> 
> I've also listened to some things on YouTube (can't remember exactly what, it's been awhile) as well as some of one of those gigantic best of Bach albums my mom downloaded off Amazon (can't remember the name of the album, but perhaps those are not the best place to look).


I own the Gardiner Bach---very good Magnificat and cantata bwv 51..Emmy Kirby is excellent. The double forte...bwv 147/140 are oldies but goodies along with rest.

Unless singing is needed I think taking it one day at a time and listen to whatever appeals to one. I like the brandenburgs concertos but not everyday.


----------



## Bulldog

Bigbang said:


> Unless singing is needed I think taking it one day at a time and listen to whatever appeals to one. I like the brandenburgs concertos but not everyday.


Agreed. Twice in the past I tried doing comprehensive reviews of all the period instrument recordings of the Brandenburgs and failed both times. I couldn't listen to them repeatedly for weeks on end. The Goldberg Variations, WTC, Art of Fugue, and a few other keyboard works had a successful conclusion.


----------



## aussiebushman

Neo Romanza said:


> I really don't get threads like this at all. What's the purpose? No one can change another person's mind, especially if it's a mind that is already made up. The OP mentioned right out to the gate that he found Bach boring and that he's the least interesting composer he's heard. With that kind of assessment already out in the open, any attempt to reason with them and give them what they want is a waste of time.


How very true! I gave up long ago attempting to interest certain visitors in composers that were "outside" their proclaimed sphere. e.g. Mahler, Shostakovich, Wagner for persons besotted with Philip Glass, Saint Prieu etc

In a different context, but still appropriate, remember Johathon Swift's words:

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"


----------



## howlingfantods

adriesba said:


> Here are some albums I've listened to:


Yeah, thanks, that's helpful. I looove Bach but would be pretty bored listening to a lot of those albums you listed too; the selection is heavy on liturgical music and on HIP performance practice and authentic instruments. Not to turn this into an argument about HIP but I often find their aesthetic to be pretty sterile and emotionally uninvolving.

Here's a few suggestions:

- Argerich's collection of English Suite #2, Keyboard Partita #2, and the Toccata in c minor. Still has a lot of notes, but it will sound like the good kind of a lot of notes, not the bad kind

- Goldberg Variations, on a piano. Glenn Gould 1955 is a great place to start, or you might try Andrei Gavrilov or Grigory Sokolov or Maria Yudina

- Brendel's Bach disc. He only has one--it's a mix of the Italian Concerto, the Chromatic Prelude and Fugue, plus a bunch of Choral Preludes and other smaller pieces. I don't think he necessarily has the best performances of these pieces, but it's a really tasty selection of transcriptions.

- St Matthew Passion, but you might want to have your fast forward finger ready for all the recitative. Bach's recitative is more musically interesting than a lot of operatic recitative, but it's still recitative. I think either the Klemperer or the Solti are good places to start--you might check the streaming platforms you use for those, especially if they have "highlights" or "arias and choruses" type samplers of these two recordings

- The Brandenburg concertos are great summer garden music, like Beethoven's Pastoral, if you're in the mood for that kind of thing. I would again suggest trying out a non-HIP version--my personal favorite is the Klemperer, and the Benjamin Britten one is good too.

- The Keyboard concertos are very much the same as the Brandenburgs -- effervescent and lively and fun. Zoltan Kocsis has a great set for the piano, not sure if they're on streaming platforms. Gould recorded them too.

- The Violin concertos are also similar but with a violin! Oistrakh has a great set.


----------



## RogerWaters

adriesba said:


> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much?
> 
> What am I missing?


One word: counterpoint. This is the existence of multiple melodic voices criss-crossing at once, as opposed to a single melodic voice playing along with simple harmonic accompaniment (for the latter, think of playing chords with your left hand on a piano and a single melody line with your right hand - or a guitarist soloing over a bass line).

When you begin to hear that Bach's keyboard music contains more than one, and often more than two (up to six!), melodic lines - despite the performer only having two hands with which to play, then you are beginning your glorious journey into Bach's music.

Art of Fugue is filled with complex counterpoint. But I suggest starting with the French Suites and then moving onto the Well-Tempered Clavier - preferrably played by Gustav Leonhardt.


----------



## consuono

RogerWaters said:


> One word: counterpoint. This is the existence of multiple melodic voices criss-crossing at once...


To paraphrase Jacques Loussier in a BBC documentary on Bach from years ago, the thing is that in Bach there aren't any "unimportant" parts. Everything has its function and is interesting and valuable for that. And I think even more importantly I don't detect in Bach the disease that we're infected with, namely _cynicism_. To me, those are some of the things that makes Bach's music what you might call "Godly".


----------



## aioriacont

I think two very nice starting points to understand Bach are his St John Passion, especially the opening chorus and most of its arias, and the Harpsichord Concerto BWV 1052. Masterpieces like WTC and Mass in B Minor, while amazing, can be a bit off-putting for someone starting to delve into his works.
So, I would recommend:

-Saint John Passion - be sure to check the opening chorus, Herr Unser Herrscher - any recording for now
-Harpsichord Concerto BWV 1052 - any recording for now
-Brandenburg Concertos 1,2 and 5, especially the first movement of the second concerto - any recording for now
-Cantata BWV 61 - it has a very modern feel to it, sounding very strong! - any recording for now


Later, I can recommend some specific recordings of those works, but for now it is good to have a broader view of his music.

After that, the more complicated stuff, and also other brilliant works, can be achieved more easily I guess.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I try not to say things like "there is a _whole universe expanding_ and you're not hearing it", which can sound pretentious. But I'll try to say a bit of my honest thoughts: in Bach, there's a sense of "innocence" (in works such as the Goldberg variations), strong devotion toward something good and benevolent (such as God; I feel this even in the C sharp minor fugue of WTC I and the F sharp minor fugue of WTC II). Also there are solid craftsmanship, and a sense of willingness to stick to formality, both of which are admirable traits in my view. Bach doesn't always "overload" his music with notes. Certain preludes consist of simple figurations such as the one in the G major cello suite, and he is still capable of evoking all kinds of feelings including happiness and sadness.










Also there's an unique sense of tragedy (that's not really "replicated" by later music), which makes it feel like it's from a past "golden age". All these elements combine to make his music feel nostalgic.


----------



## Malx

A small suggestion - try the Italian Concerto played on piano. It was the first piece of Bach that grabbed me. It is concise, tuneful and on piano relatively easily digested.
Bach purists would say it should be listened to played on harpsichord but as an entry point I think piano is easier for newcomers.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> Sorry to be blunt about it, but if you "don't get Bach" then you don't get music itself.


Would you explain for myself and others who don't quite get Bach (I do enjoy his double Violin Concerto but I can't say I adore it) why we don't get music?


----------



## Enthusiast

Neo Romanza said:


> My point is only YOU can decide for yourself what music is worth pursuing and what isn't.


Can't argue with that! But I think it makes sense to be influenced about what might be worth a bit of time and even effort.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> Would you explain for myself and others who don't quite get Bach (I do enjoy his double Violin Concerto but I can't say I adore it) why we don't get music?


Darned if I know.


----------



## Enthusiast

consuono said:


> Considering his music "mechanical and soulless" as compared to what? Music itself is mechanical in a sense, and calling Bach "soulless" would just betray ignorance.


That is a key question, I think. Some of those who don't like Bach (actually, it is all Baroque music for most of them) are mostly interested in Romantic music - which is obviously fine - and feel that Baroque and Classical music "lacks emotion". That is not my experience (almost the opposite!) and I also end up asking "what do emotion and an absence of emotion sound like in music?"

The other side of the feeling that emotion is lacking is that some seem put off by the importance in form in - and the apparent formality of - pre-Romantic music. Those of us who like Bach might feel like me - that form gives shape to the emotional expression in the music - and might also think of Brahms, who was a very rigorous and disciplined Romantic. But I do get that the apparent formality of Bach's music might be an obstacle for some. Much of Bach's formality is very elaborate and as a non-musician I tend not to be interested in following it. What I hear is not so different to what I hear in, say, Mahler: elaborateness is lying beneath the music that I experience. So my advice to those who are perceiving and not enjoying the apparent reliance on form to put that form aside, to bury it so that the music itself talks.

I do know, however, that many of us follow the (technical) logic of music's language as part of their enjoyment of a piece. But they, surely, enjoy interesting, perhaps elaborate and innovative forms, anyway?


----------



## millionrainbows

I see this thread as being useful insofar as it can get Bach lovers to elaborate on their favorite works, and perhaps why they love them.

But otherwise, I can't make _real_ sense out of the apparent purpose of this thread and the display presented by the OP. I've never approached music in simplistic terms of "what I like" being elevated to such importance. I don't hold my "identity" in such high esteem as does the OP. I have perspective; what *I *think is not the most important thing in the world, and certainly not worth creating a thread about it, and inviting the attention of people who can "fix" it.

I've always approached music humbly, and have put my own "ego" aside.

I think it ultimately boils down to a matter of psychology and identity; in other words, I find an element of pretense in this thread, and a desire for attention.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ As you approach Nirvana you might try not to look down on those of us who tend to write about what we like and perhaps seek to explore why we like it. But you do have a point that approaching music with humility and respect is preferable and very difficult for some of us (I include myself in this).


----------



## norman bates

larold said:


> His music is so perfect is can be transferred to just about any instrument other than the one he wrote it for. His Goldberg variations has been successfully performed and played on a great range of instruments including string quartet, woodwind quartet, brass quartet, even the harmonica. It never sounds wrong on any instrument.


I love Bach, but I don't think the fact that a lot of his music can be easily played on many instruments has to do with its perfection, but more with the fact that his music resolves around pitch and counterpoint more than sound or color, often with brief notes and without wild dynamics and that's what makes a lot of his pieces effective on a lot of instruments.


----------



## adriesba

OK!

I listened to the _Matthew Passion_, the Solti recording specifically:

View attachment 138790


I actually decided to listen through the whole thing in one sitting. I wasn't necessarily planning to at first, but something was just keeping me there. It just didn't feel right to leave. Perhaps it would have been better to listen to it in separate sittings as I was exhausted at the end of those three hours. Any loss of attention experienced was more due to fatigue than anything. But really, if only it were twenty minutes or so longer to finish the story!

With regards to performance, I can't say much as this is my first time listening to the piece. I would like to hear some different singers though. Some of the singers' voices here just sounded too thin for my preference.

As for the recitatives, I was happy to hear them. They are indeed beautifully written. The free nature of the recitatives seemed to contrast well with the structured arias and choruses.

Some of the numbers that stood out to me were 1, 29, 39, 44, 59, and 68.

There were parts that were not emotional enough for my tastes, and some parts I thought just lasted too long. One thing I've noticed about Baroque music especially is that lines of text are often sung three, four, or more times. I've never liked that and still don't.

As for adherence to form, there were definitely times that I just wanted the music to break out of its format and roam free. Perhaps that's why I liked the recitatives so much. I wouldn't count formats against Bach though as that was just practice at the time.

As for my idea that Bach liked to squeeze in notes, that simply did not happen here. It just sounded right.

Overall, it was a three hours well spent. Though there were some things I didn't like, there was much I did like. The writing, including the recitatives, was very beautiful. The way the musical phrases all sound pleasant on the end allows one to get comfortable with the piece. The counterpoint is fun (would probably be even better if I knew German and didn't need to reference a translation). The music created a solemn atmosphere that kept me attached. Like I said, I didn't want stop. The numbers I mentioned above were very beautiful and a true pleasure to hear. The work is very cohesive.

Now I'm trying to decide which work suggested here I should try next.


----------



## aioriacont

glad you liked the St Matthew Passion, that's Bach's summit IMO together with the Mass in B Minor and St John Passion.
Maybe you'd like the Mass in B Minor too at this point then, also a very cohesive work.

For me, Bach's sacred and secular vocal music is very timeless, you can listen to them (the Cantatas, Passions, Oratorios and Masses) as we listen to modern concept albums in progressive rock for example, they never sound outdated. His music is timeless.


----------



## millionrainbows

adriesba said:


> ...With regards to performance, I can't say much as this is my first time listening to the piece. I would like to hear some different singers though. Some of the singers' voices here just sounded too thin for my preference. As for the recitatives, I was happy to hear them. They are indeed beautifully written. The free nature of the recitatives seemed to contrast well with the structured arias and choruses. Some of the numbers that stood out to me were 1, 29, 39, 44, 59, and 68.
> One thing I've noticed about Baroque music especially is that lines of text are often sung three, four, or more times. I've never liked that and still don't. As for adherence to form, there were definitely times that I just wanted the music to break out of its format and roam free. Perhaps that's why I liked the recitatives so much. I wouldn't count formats against Bach though as that was just practice at the time.


Suddenly, the OP's intelligence level seems to have grown exponentially! References to "thin voices," "recitatives," "arias," "choruses," "adherence to form"...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

adriesba said:


> OK!
> 
> I listened to the _Matthew Passion_, the Solti recording specifically:
> 
> View attachment 138790
> 
> 
> I actually decided to listen through the whole thing in one sitting. I wasn't necessarily planning to at first, but something was just keeping me there. It just didn't feel right to leave. Perhaps it would have been better to listen to it in separate sittings as I was exhausted at the end of those three hours. Any loss of attention experienced was more due to fatigue than anything. But really, if only it were twenty minutes or so longer to finish the story!
> 
> With regards to performance, I can't say much as this is my first time listening to the piece. I would like to hear some different singers though. Some of the singers' voices here just sounded too thin for my preference.
> 
> As for the recitatives, I was happy to hear them. They are indeed beautifully written. The free nature of the recitatives seemed to contrast well with the structured arias and choruses.
> 
> Some of the numbers that stood out to me were 1, 29, 39, 44, 59, and 68.
> 
> There were parts that were not emotional enough for my tastes, and some parts I thought just lasted too long. One thing I've noticed about Baroque music especially is that lines of text are often sung three, four, or more times. I've never liked that and still don't.
> 
> As for adherence to form, there were definitely times that I just wanted the music to break out of its format and roam free. Perhaps that's why I liked the recitatives so much. I wouldn't count formats against Bach though as that was just practice at the time.
> 
> As for my idea that Bach liked to squeeze in notes, that simply did not happen here. It just sounded right.
> 
> Overall, it was a three hours well spent. Though there were some things I didn't like, there was much I did like. The writing, including the recitatives, was very beautiful. The way the musical phrases all sound pleasant on the end allows one to get comfortable with the piece. The counterpoint is fun (would probably be even better if I knew German and didn't need to reference a translation). The music created a solemn atmosphere that kept me attached. Like I said, I didn't want stop. The numbers I mentioned above were very beautiful and a true pleasure to hear. The work is very cohesive.
> 
> Now I'm trying to decide which work suggested here I should try next.


The St. John Passion is shorter and more operatically dramatic than the St. Matthew, and its theatricality may be a good remedy to the problem you're having of "strict forms." Then there are several cantatas in this vein as well - try BWV 20 and 21 for a start. Glad you gave the St. Matt a fair shot; it was very interesting to read your thoughts. Even if it's not music you want to return to frequently, you can at least say you had the experience, and that's something to celebrate in itself!


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> I think it ultimately boils down to a *matter of psychology and identity*; in other words, I find an *element of pretense* in this thread, and a *desire for attention*.





millionrainbows said:


> Suddenly, the OP's intelligence level seems to have grown exponentially! References to "thin voices," "recitatives," "arias," "choruses," "adherence to form"...


So you're saying that the OP actually "knows and understands" everything, but he pretends he doesn't, just to draw attention to himself?



millionrainbows said:


> Also, why are there all these new "teaching beginners" threads all of a sudden?


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I've always approached music humbly, and have put my own "ego" aside.


Not as humbly as me, but I see your point.


----------



## jegreenwood

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The St. John Passion is shorter and more operatically dramatic than the St. Matthew, and its theatricality may be a good remedy to the problem you're having of "strict forms." Then there are several cantatas in this vein as well - try BWV 20 and 21 for a start. Glad you gave the St. Matt a fair shot; it was very interesting to read your thoughts. Even if it's not music you want to return to frequently, you can at least say you had the experience, and that's something to celebrate in itself!


And to vary things a bit, why not try an HIP performance. The old Harnoncourt recordings from the 60s/70s were important in my growing appreciation of Bach. That's not to say you will prefer HIP recordings (and there are many of them). And I will repeat my recommendation of the cello suites.

If you want to try the Well-Tempered Clavier, you might start off with Samuil Feinberg who has a unique way with them that is definitely NOT formulaic.


----------



## Knorf

millionrainbows said:


> I've always approached music humbly, and have put my own "ego" aside.


I heartily endorse the attitude.

Art is not meant to be merely served as a commodity: consumed and then scored by how well it suits the consumer's subjective taste. Such treatment is for capitalist consumer products, not art.

As I wrote elsewhere, art is meant to engage you in an experience of the ineffable.

There can be great reward in approaching art, not merely from the consumerist first response as to whether it suits one's own tastes or not, but rather considering what one can bring forward in allowing oneself to seek first to learn, understand, and be willing to be changed by the work.

One still won't like absolutely everything, and that's fine, but the experience will be potentially so much more substantive, whether ultimately liked or disliked.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

I'm sorry but this thread kind of feels like sitting in a group psychotherapy (it reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). 
Hi, I'm George and I don't like Bach... Matthew's Passions will serve as medication, if they don't work, we will prescribe Goldberg's Variations and we have more than 1,000 more "pills" in stock...


----------



## Knorf

DaddyGeorge said:


> I'm sorry but this thread kind of feels like sitting in a group psychotherapy...
> Hi, I'm George and I don't like Bach...


And rightly so.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> So you're saying that the OP actually "knows and understands" everything, but he pretends he doesn't, just to draw attention to himself?


Yes, in a sense; I call it "growing up."



Enthusiast said:


> As you approach *Nirvana* you might try not to *look down* on those of us who tend to write about what we like and perhaps seek to explore why we like it. But you do have a point that approaching music with humility and respect is preferable and very difficult for some of us (I include myself in this).


You can give it that "Eastern" spin if you wish. I don't see humility as an exclusively Eastern characteristic. I call it "being receptive."


----------



## jegreenwood

DaddyGeorge said:


> I'm sorry but this thread kind of feels like sitting in a group psychotherapy (it reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).
> Hi, I'm George and I don't like Bach... Matthew's Passions will serve as medication, if they don't work, we will prescribe Goldberg's Variations and we have more than 1,000 more "pills" in stock...


Considering the OP's most recent post, it seems like our advice was helpful.


----------



## adriesba

aussiebushman said:


> How very true! I gave up long ago attempting to interest certain visitors in composers that were "outside" their proclaimed sphere. e.g. Mahler, Shostakovich, Wagner for persons besotted with Philip Glass, Saint Prieu etc
> 
> In a different context, but still appropriate, remember Johathon Swift's words:
> 
> "There are none so blind as those who will not see"





millionrainbows said:


> I see this thread as being useful insofar as it can get Bach lovers to elaborate on their favorite works, and perhaps why they love them.
> 
> But otherwise, I can't make _real_ sense out of the apparent purpose of this thread and the display presented by the OP. I've never approached music in simplistic terms of "what I like" being elevated to such importance. I don't hold my "identity" in such high esteem as does the OP. I have perspective; what *I *think is not the most important thing in the world, and certainly not worth creating a thread about it, and inviting the attention of people who can "fix" it.
> 
> I've always approached music humbly, and have put my own "ego" aside.
> 
> I think it ultimately boils down to a matter of psychology and identity; in other words, I find an element of pretense in this thread, and a desire for attention.





millionrainbows said:


> Suddenly, the OP's intelligence level seems to have grown exponentially! References to "thin voices," "recitatives," "arias," "choruses," "adherence to form"...





DaddyGeorge said:


> I'm sorry but this thread kind of feels like sitting in a group psychotherapy (it reminds me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).
> Hi, I'm George and I don't like Bach... Matthew's Passions will serve as medication, if they don't work, we will prescribe Goldberg's Variations and we have more than 1,000 more "pills" in stock...


Seriously, what is with all the antagonism? Why is it so hard to believe that this thread was started out of a genuine desire to learn?

There has been lots of Bach loving on this forum. I've seen it all over in polls and thread topics. The point at which I decided to inquire was here: the second highest tier... - to June 28

The piece in the lead (by a lot) there was a Bach piece. I've seen the TC recommended works list, and I can appreciate most of the pieces in the top tiers. But Bach I wasn't sure about. The idea was maybe I hadn't heard the right pieces, the best recordings, or maybe just didn't have the right mindset to enjoy his music.

Perhaps my OP was brutally honest, but I started it out of genuine curiosity and have since clarified what I was asking.

And by no means do I have to be the only one asking questions. This thread could be a place for anyone who doesn't like Bach to learn and for helpful guidance and discussion to occur.

...

Instead what do we have? A thread with people calling me an attention seeker?

And how is my post regarding the _Matthew Passion _an exponential growth in intelligence? Because I mentioned elementary concepts such as aria, recitative, chorus, and forms?

Thank you, to everyone who has actually contributed to the thread in a meaningful way. Unfortunately it seems as if some have entered the thread with the mindset of attacking.


----------



## Fabulin

adriesba said:


> Seriously, what is with all the antagonism? Why is it so hard to believe that this thread was started out of a genuine desire to learn?


In my view the thread is of good value so far.


----------



## Itullian

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


i didn't like Bach at first either.
i thought he was dry, depressing and boring.
Tastes do change and i love him now.

When i first put on Brahms' symphonies i thought the same thing, now i love them.

Put Bach's music aside for awhile and listen to what you like.
i think one day you'll feel the urge to go back and listen.
Sometimes it happens right out of the blue.
It did for me.

Just give it a try from time to time and see what happens.
In the mean time there's a lot of great music out there.
Go for it.


----------



## Guest

adriesba said:


> Seriously, what is with all the antagonism? Why is it so hard to believe that this thread was started out of a genuine desire to learn?
> 
> There has been lots of Bach loving on this forum. I've seen it all over in polls and thread topics. The point at which I decided to inquire was here: the second highest tier... - to June 28
> 
> The piece in the lead (by a lot) there was a Bach piece. I've seen the TC recommended works list, and I can appreciate most of the pieces in the top tiers. But Bach I wasn't sure about. The idea was maybe I hadn't heard the right pieces, the best recordings, or maybe just didn't have the right mindset to enjoy his music.
> 
> Perhaps my OP was brutally honest, but I started it out of genuine curiosity and have since clarified what I was asking.
> 
> And by no means do I have to be the only one asking questions. This thread could be a place for anyone who doesn't like Bach to learn and for helpful guidance and discussion to occur.
> 
> ...
> 
> Instead what do we have? A thread with people calling me an attention seeker?
> 
> And how is my post regarding the _Matthew Passion _an exponential growth in intelligence? Because I mentioned elementary concepts such as aria, recitative, chorus, and forms?
> 
> Thank you, to everyone who has actually contributed to the thread in a meaningful way. Unfortunately it seems as if some have entered the thread with the mindset of attacking.


I asked questions of you because I saw that some were jumping to conclusions. I'm disappointed you've misread _my_ intentions.


----------



## annaw

Itullian said:


> i didn't like Bach at first either.
> i thought e was dry, depressing and boring.
> Tastes do change and i love him now.
> 
> When i first put on Brahms' symphonies i thought the same thing, now i love them.
> 
> Put Bach's music aside for awhile and listen to what you like.
> i think one day you'll feel the urge to go back and listen.
> Sometimes it happens right out of the blue.
> It did for me.
> 
> Just give it a try from time to time and see what happens.
> In the mean time there's a lot of great music out there.
> Go for it.


(Itullian, I love your positive input which brightens up the tense threads  !)


----------



## DaddyGeorge

I apologize for the bitterness but I really don't quite understand how a debate (although including dozens of fabulous recordings) can change someone's "personal relationship" with a composer (especially if nothing worked before). I think I can't force myself to like something and everyone has to "listen through" to it on their own. It's hard to believe it could work like this:
1) I don't like Bach
2) I read twenty posts from people who adore Bach
3) I like Bach


----------



## adriesba

MacLeod said:


> I asked questions of you because I saw that some were jumping to conclusions. I'm disappointed you've misread _my_ intentions.


Somehow I saw the words "ulterior motive" and ended up misinterpreting your intentions as being ready to pounce depending on my response.

I have taken your quote out of my post as I now see you are not being aggressive.

My sincere apologies for reading into your post too much.


----------



## jegreenwood

DaddyGeorge said:


> ^^^
> I apologize for the bitterness but I really don't quite understand how a debate (although including dozens of fabulous recordings) can change someone's "personal relationship" with a composer (especially if nothing worked before). I think I can't force myself to like something and everyone has to "listen through" to it on their own. It's hard to believe it could work like this:
> 1) I don't like Bach
> 2) I read twenty posts from people who adore Bach
> 3) I like Bach


Didn't you forget:
2a) I listen to one of the fabulous recordings recommended ("St. Matthew Passion")
3) I found something by Bach I liked overall. 
4) I will keep listening.

Apologies to adriesba if I misrepresented him/her.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

jegreenwood said:


> Didn't you forget:
> 2a) I listen to one of the fabulous recordings recommended ("St. Matthew Passion")
> 3) I found something by Bach I liked overall.
> 4) I will keep listening.
> 
> Apologies to adriesba if I misrepresented him/her.


I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the OP already knew Bach's music (at least the most famous pieces) and tried to listen to it repeatedly and it didn't work...


----------



## Knorf

If someone asks a question like the OP, barring evidence to the contrary, I think the best practice is to give them the benefit of the doubt, and not go out of one's way to impugn that poster's motives.


----------



## Alinde

larold said:


> For solemn joy and tribute to God the *Cantata No. 82* from Dietrich Fischer Dieskau:


I haven't read the whole thread yet but it occurs to me that there's a chance that my experience might be useful. I was fairly deaf to Bach till I heard the above recording one night on the radio. It was life-changing for me. I got hold of everything I could find by that singer and he educated my ears and opened up new worlds. I've had a similar ear-opening experiences following other favourite artists - The Alban Berg Quartet, Arthur Rubinstein, Nikolaus Harnoncourt ....

BTW, I found the Well Tempered Clavier boring but now it is my go-to music when I can't sleep. It isn't exciting but it tickles the brain and there are some ravishing moments.


----------



## jegreenwood

DaddyGeorge said:


> I assumed (perhaps erroneously) that the OP already knew Bach's music (at least the most famous pieces) and tried to listen to it repeatedly and it didn't work...


Read the OP's posts.


----------



## aussiebushman

adriesba said:


> Seriously, what is with all the antagonism? Why is it so hard to believe that this thread was started out of a genuine desire to learn?
> 
> Instead what do we have? A thread with people calling me an attention seeker?
> 
> Thank you, to everyone who has actually contributed to the thread in a meaningful way. Unfortunately it seems as if some have entered the thread with the mindset of attacking.


Not so. There was no intention on my part to "attack" - merely to comment on the mindset of so many who reject something outside their routine sphere of interest. You have demonstrated a willingness to explore music that you previously rejected so my comments hardly apply to you.


----------



## Neo Romanza

DaddyGeorge said:


> I apologize for the bitterness but I really don't quite understand how a debate (although including dozens of fabulous recordings) can change someone's "personal relationship" with a composer (especially if nothing worked before). I think I can't force myself to like something and everyone has to "listen through" to it on their own. It's hard to believe it could work like this:
> 1) I don't like Bach
> 2) I read twenty posts from people who adore Bach
> 3) I like Bach


It won't work like that at all and that is a good point. No matter how much this or that member gushes about Bach's music, it's not going to change your own perspective and how you approach the music. What might be a good idea for the OP is to stop listening to the talking heads here and do some research themselves. Read about the composer's life, what influenced his music and how his music influenced others. When I first got into classical music, no one helped me out. I just dove right in because I genuinely had an interest in the music. To the OP, if you genuinely have an interest in Bach, then figure this out on your own, because, at the end of the day, you're the only one who can.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> Somehow I saw the words "ulterior motive" and ended up misinterpreting your intentions as being ready to pounce depending on my response.
> 
> I have taken your quote out of my post as I now see you are not being aggressive.
> 
> My sincere apologies for reading into your post too much.


Don't, you feel what you like or not .


----------



## dennisdeems

To me what this thread illustrates rather dramatically is that:
1. most people are very bad at articulating why they like a certain thing
2. maybe it's the Internet but a fair number of people treat the question as a debate rather than an invitation to reflect and then share those reflections
3. a depressingly significant amount of people will respond to the inquiry about why they like something with hostility


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I've always approached music humbly, and have put my own "ego" aside.





Knorf said:


> I heartily endorse the attitude.


Yes, I'm MacLeod and I put my ego aside when listening to music too. 



DaddyGeorge said:


> I'm sorry but this thread kind of feels like sitting in a group psychotherapy


----------



## consuono

dennisdeems said:


> To me what this thread illustrates rather dramatically is that:
> 1. most people are very bad at articulating why they like a certain thing
> 2. maybe it's the Internet but a fair number of people treat the question as a debate rather than an invitation to reflect and then share those reflections
> 3. a depressingly significant amount of people will respond to the inquiry about why they like something with hostility


I've heard much clearer articulation about why this or that one "gets" Bach. The other side is mainly "I just don't get it..."


----------



## janxharris

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


FWIW, Arnold Bax and Sir Thomas Beecham weren't entirely enamoured.


----------



## larold

_As for what I tend to like in music, I'd say generally emotional expression as evidenced by Wagner being my favorite composer. But there are later Stravinsky works that I'm finding I enjoy that aren't emotionally charged. So I'm not sure that emotional expression is the whole story._

Aside from emotional content a corollary is the two dissimilar composers cited are linear -- straight line start to finish. That isn't Bach. His music is less predictably direct and full of mathematical progressions that eschew linearity that, when combined with his counterpoint, make powerful requirements on listeners and sets even more stringent conditions on performers.

An obvious example is the 48 preludes and fugues of well-tempered clavier -- all one half note different from the one before. Or listen to the modulations in the opening of the Concerto for oboe & violin BWV 1060; the oboist plays related figures that change by a half-note just in the opening bars.






After the introduction the oboe then plays a binary tune with strings, typically Bach in two part counterpoint before returning to a similar theme and similar half-note alterations.

An even more extreme example are the 12 chorales (six sets of two placed closely together) in the St. Matthew Passion; in most cases the second of a set is written a half-note higher than the preceding chorale. This continues with one exception all the way through the music.

This was explained to me once as a way to represent something about the travails of Christ for his alleged crimes ... or his path to heaven ... or something. This is not to mention the placement of the chorales in the music. Bach always had a reason for making a change or innovation like these.

People that are naturally drawn to his music are in part because of this structure. It follows that people who don't "get" Bach likely are in part cast off by the structure of his music.

To love J.S. Bach is to coincidentally love mathematical disorder and reconciliation.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> FWIW, Arnold Bax and Sir Thomas Beecham weren't entirely enamoured.


"Too much counterpoint, and Protestant counterpoint, at that!"


----------



## Ariasexta

Not surprising, finally some specimen showing we are in the reality of popular mediocrity. I was shocked that many people here do love JS Bach, where are all those brisk stupidities we see everyday as a delightful bond between intellectual privacy and the general public.


----------



## janxharris

Ariasexta said:


> Not surprising, finally some specimen showing we are in the reality of popular mediocrity. I was shocked that many people here do love JS Bach, where are all those brisk stupidities we see everyday as a delightful bond between intellectual privacy and the general public.


Would help if you could clarify your exact meaning.


----------



## Enthusiast

DaddyGeorge said:


> I apologize for the bitterness but I really don't quite understand how a debate (although including dozens of fabulous recordings) can change someone's "personal relationship" with a composer (especially if nothing worked before). I think I can't force myself to like something and everyone has to "listen through" to it on their own. It's hard to believe it could work like this:
> 1) I don't like Bach
> 2) I read twenty posts from people who adore Bach
> 3) I like Bach


In the past I certainly have changed my opinion of some composers following a discussion on this forum and when I haven't I have at least come to understand better why I feel as I do. I don't think anyone would post about not liking Bach unless they were hoping for some help with that. Some might just want to find other like minded people, I suppose, but I read the OP as expressing to some extent an open mind about Bach's music and certainly some interest in what it is that those who love Bach enjoy.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Enthusiast said:


> In the past I certainly have changed my opinion of some composers following a discussion on this forum and when I haven't I have at least come to understand better why I feel as I do. I don't think anyone would post about not liking Bach unless they were hoping for some help with that. Some might just want to find other like minded people, I suppose, but I read the OP as expressing to some extent an open mind about Bach's music and certainly some interest in what it is that those who love Bach enjoy.


I don't agree. This thread is nothing in the world but a "I dislike _insert name here_ so prove to me that I'm wrong" thread. That's all it is and I think if the OP is really worried about 'getting' or understanding Bach, then they'd do some work themselves and figure out why they dislike the composer's music and try to get to the root of the problem. Having people make recommendations and share their experiences, doesn't actually help a listener in figuring out whether the composer in question is for them or not. Understanding a composer comes with making the effort and, so far, I've seen no effort made on the OP's part.


----------



## Fabulin

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't agree. This thread is nothing in the world but a "I dislike _insert name here_ so prove to me that I'm wrong" thread. That's all it is and I think if the OP is really worried about 'getting' or understanding Bach, then they'd do some work themselves and figure out why they dislike the composer's music and try to get to the root of the problem. Having people make recommendations and share their experiences, doesn't actually help a listener in figuring out whether the composer in question is for them or not. Understanding a composer comes with making the effort and, so far, I've seen no effort made on the OP's part.


Thanks to the listening suggestions in this thread, Bach moved in my mind from top 30 to top 10 composers. You can go home and rethink your life.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Fabulin said:


> Thanks to the listening suggestions in this thread, Bach moved in my mind from top 30 to top 10 composers. You can go home and rethink your life.


Why in the world would I suggest anything from Bach when I don't like the composer's music? Oh wait, that's right, I wouldn't! Now, go home and rethink your life.


----------



## Fabulin

Neo Romanza said:


> Why in the world would I suggest anything from Bach when I don't like the composer's music? Oh wait, that's right, I wouldn't! Now, go home and rethink your life.


What a brilliant rebuttal :tiphat: It makes clear that at least one of us is relatively good at rethinking things - and that the other is Neo Romanza.


----------



## Knorf

dennisdeems said:


> To me what this thread illustrates rather dramatically is that:
> 1. most people are very bad at articulating why they like a certain thing
> 2. maybe it's the Internet but a fair number of people treat the question as a debate rather than an invitation to reflect and then share those reflections
> 3. a depressingly significant amount of people will respond to the inquiry about why they like something with hostility


4. Eventually a comparison or reference to Hitler or Nazis will be made.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Fabulin said:


> What a brilliant rebuttal :tiphat: It makes clear that at least one of us is relatively good at rethinking things - and that the other is Neo Romanza.


You're the one who make an idiotic post to me not the other way around.


----------



## Fabulin

Neo Romanza said:


> You're the one who make an idiotic post to me not the other way around.


make............


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> I don't agree. This thread is nothing in the world but a "I dislike _insert name here_ so prove to me that I'm wrong" thread. That's all it is and I think if the OP is really worried about 'getting' or understanding Bach, then they'd do some work themselves and figure out why they dislike the composer's music and try to get to the root of the problem. Having people make recommendations and share their experiences, doesn't actually help a listener in figuring out whether the composer in question is for them or not. Understanding a composer comes with making the effort and, so far, I've seen no effort made on the OP's part.


You have no evidence to support your view that discussion here makes no difference to one's listening habits or opinions. Most contributors here have responded to the OP at face value. Your note of dissent has been noted. No need to labour it.


----------



## pianozach

Well. This thread is interesting reading.

I love Bach. I grew up playing it on piano. Competed in Bach fests. Bach has always been a part of my life.

Musicians and non-musicians alike give Bach "Big Three" status. And you don't really hear why.

Understandable, really. Bach is "different". Very different.

Probably the only question I have for you is whether you play an instrument, and if you do, have you ever played Bach, either solo or in an ensemble?

I'm kind of a "components" sort of guy. I love how all the pieces fit together.

But all I can offer you is my entry level Bach list, which is a subset of my *Beginner's Guide to Classical Music*. The list is designed for accessibility . . . so some of the more complex and demanding works are neglected.

By the time I'd gotten to the Top 180, it was quite interesting that *Bach* was _*under*_represented on my list, at least when compared to Mozart and Beethoven. So I fixed that with a set of Bach works to accompany the seven already listed.

http://www.yesfans.com/showthread.php?86027-A-Beginner-s-Guide-to-Classical-Music&highlight=

*7. Brandenburg Concerto #6, In B Flat
17. Cello Suite No. 1 in G major
20. Well-Tempered Clavier 2, Prelude in F# minor
58. Brandenburg Concertos
74. Well-Tempered Clavier
90. Toccata and Fugue in D Minor
113. Well-Tempered Clavier 2

http://www.yesfans.com/showthread.php?87259-A-Beginner-s-Guide-to-Classical-Music-Part-2&highlight=

181. Bourree in E minor, from the Suite in E minor for Lute, BWV 996 
182. Mass in B minor BWV 232
183. The Goldberg Variations, BWV 988
184. The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080
185. The Musical Offering, BWV 1079
186. Partita for Violin no. 2 in D minor
187. Air on the G String, the second movement from Orchestral Suite #3 In D, BWV 1068

In my "*guide*", most of these works have accompanying explanations as to WHY they're on the list, and what, specifically, one might find of interest about them. These explanations liberally "borrow" from other sources, so they might better represent the works of composers. And there will be one or more video links.

Frankly, I refer to my list so often in THIS blog, that I've considered many times simply importing it to THIS blog, where it might actually be enjoyed by far more people. That blog is mainly Prog Rock fans, specifically the band Yes, and as the band aged and splintered, so did the base of fans of Yes, making that blog somewhat of a ghost town these days.

So, for example, here's my little blurb on

*#7
Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 in B flat, BWV 1051
("Concerto #6 due Viole da Braccio, due Viole da Gamba, Violoncello, Violone e Cembalo")
Johann Sebastian Bach
1721*

It's an excellent example of Bach's mastery of polyphony. The entire collection is widely regarded as some of the best orchestral compositions of the Baroque era.

The six works, no two of which sound alike, encompass an impressive range of style and topic, and manifest in combination the courtly elegance of the French suite, the exuberance of the Italian solo concerto and the gravity of German counterpoint. Subtle and brilliant at the same time, they are a microcosm of Baroque music, with an astonishingly vast sample of that era's emotional universe.

There is an interesting story behind the music's survival: The manuscript was nearly lost in World War II, when being transported for safekeeping to Prussia by train in the care of a librarian. The train came under aerial bombardment, and the librarian escaped the train to the nearby forest, with the scores hidden under his coat.

Anyway, ALL of these concertos are great, each in their own way. Personally, if I were to pick just ONE movement, it would be tough, but I'd go with the _*3rd movement*_ of the *2nd Concerto*, with its piccolo trumpet solo bits (in this one the trumpet part is evidently played by George Washington),






.

followed very closely by the *1st movement* of the *4th Concerto*, dominated by a pair of recorders.






.

An awful lot of folks tend to give Bach's *5th Brandenburg* a lost of praise, so here's the *1st movement* of that one.






.

But when we're talking about 15-20 minutes of an entire piece, the *Brandenburg Concerto No. 6 in B flat* (probably the one written first, by the way) is remarkable for several reasons.

For starters there are no violins, just two violas, two violas da gamba, a cello, and the violone, which is near the cello range but from the gamba family. And a harpsichord.

16 minutes of joy.

_[and here's where this sort of thing breaks down. The link I used isn't blocked, but simply won't "*embed*"]_ on the other site, so you have to actually click through to Youtube to watch it. It will probably have the same problem here, although the process of inserting a video is different here.]






.

So, anyway, see what I did there. #7., Brandenburg #6 is prefaced with movements from the 2nd, 4th & 5th Concertos, ramping up the experience, and laying a foundation of the greatness of the composer. There's a little story of the "rescue" of the score, a list of the instruments.

My explanations for my list entries, at least at first, are simplistic, short, and intended for those with a short attention span. Try these four on for size. If they 'grab you a bit, visit the other blog and try on the next Bach entry on the list, #17, the Cello Suite No. 1 in G major. In THAT entry there are two video links, one to just the prelude, played not on a modern-day cello, but on a violoncello da spalla, played by Sigiswald Kuijken. The other is to a performance by modern-day virtuoso Yo-Yo Ma. I also provide some click-to links to audio-only versions by other masters: Mstislav Leopoldovich, Pablo Casals, Pierre Fournier, Jean-Guihen Queyras, and Janos Starker.

Below, another YesFans member mentions HIS favorite version of the work, one transcribed for guitar. Then embeds a video of part of *Bach's Christmas Oratorio.

*

Hope this helps.


----------



## Neo Romanza

MacLeod said:


> You have no evidence to support your view that discussion here makes no difference to one's listening habits or opinions. Most contributors here have responded to the OP at face value. Your note of dissent has been noted. No need to labour it.


Nor do you have evidence that the suggestions and sharing of experiences here have helped the OP. So what? That's beside my point. I called this thread like I saw it: an attempt to bring to attention to someone's dislike of a composer in hopes that some like-minded members will join in with the dislike. You don't start off a thread saying a composer is boring and then following up that opinion with he's the least interesting composer you know. That is a setup and it looks like all of you have wasted your precious time in trying to convince someone of the merits of a composer that they have no intention on getting to know.


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Nor do you have evidence that the suggestions and sharing of experiences here have helped the OP. So what? That's beside my point.


It's precisely the point. You partly support your assertions about the motivations of the OP with your unevidenced claim that



> Having people make recommendations and share their experiences, doesn't actually help a listener [_not the OP specifically_] in figuring out whether the composer in question is for them or not.


I do have personal evidence - and other posters here have also offered their own evidence - that having people make recommendations DOES help a listener in figuring out whether a composer is for them or not. It's one of the reasons why TC is here and is a popular Forum for discussing classical music. It's worked for me in changing my appreciation of works by Mahler and Sibelius, Cage and Messiaen...

I don't have to have evidence that the OP specifically has been helped in this way. S/he can speak for themselves.


----------



## Neo Romanza

MacLeod said:


> It's precisely the point. You partly support your assertions about the motivations of the OP with your unevidenced claim that
> 
> I do have personal evidence - and other posters here have also offered their own evidence - that having people make recommendations DOES help a listener in figuring out whether a composer is for them or not. It's one of the reasons why TC is here and is a popular Forum for discussing classical music. It's worked for me in changing my appreciation of works by Mahler and Sibelius, Cage and Messiaen...
> 
> I don't have to have evidence that the OP specifically has been helped in this way. S/he can speak for themselves.


Actually, TC is here to discuss classical music NOT change someone's mind that is already made up or had no intention of trying to understand a composer's music in the first place, which IS evident in the OP's initial post. If we're going to talk about taking something at face value, then it would actually do you some good to actually read what the OP has written in that initial post. If you can't read or have trouble comprehending what I'm saying, then I can't help you.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I really hate being negative about this and I’m sorry to the OP for making assumptions. Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Bulldog

Neo Romanza said:


> Actually, TC is here to discuss classical music NOT change someone's mind that is already made up or had no intention of trying to understand a composer's music in the first place, which IS evident in the OP's initial post.


I believe the primary reason TC exists is because the owner put it here. Beyond that, there are all kinds of reasons why members are here: discussion, pontification, argument, ranking, voting, embedding videos, education, sharing, pleasant conversation, and likely dozens of additional motivations. It's what makes TC such an interesting website.


----------



## Knorf

Bulldog said:


> I believe the primary reason TC exists is because the owner put it here. Beyond that, there are all kinds of reasons why members are here: discussion, pontification, argument, ranking, voting, embedding videos, education, sharing, pleasant conversation, and likely dozens of additional motivations. It's what makes TC such an interesting website.


Agreed. The very broad range of interest and discussion here-type and quality-is a big part of what makes this an excellent forum. Certainly, it's the most satisfying I have come across.

Changing someone's mind (or inviting change to one's own mind) is a _perfectly valid_ motivation to post here.


----------



## Bulldog

Knorf said:


> Agreed. The very broad range of interest and discussion here-type and quality-is a big part of what makes this an excellent forum. Certainly, it's the most satisfying I have come across.


Same here. I often say that size matters - the more members we have, the greater diversity of opinions and motivations.

I see that I'm getting off the thread's theme - sorry. *Bach rules.*


----------



## BenG

I find almost every time when I analyse a piece by Bach, I love it so much more


----------



## Ethereality

Bach dabbling in the newer sound


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Actually, TC is here to discuss classical music NOT change someone's mind that is already made up or had no intention of trying to understand a composer's music in the first place, which IS evident in the OP's initial post. If we're going to talk about taking something at face value, then it would actually do you some good to actually read what the OP has written in that initial post. If you can't read or have trouble comprehending what I'm saying, then I can't help you.


If you like 

I reread the OP and my first reply to it (#2). I'm very happy that I read it 'correctly' and replied appropriately. You're entitled to think differently, though not, perhaps, to tell me what's good for me.


----------



## Rogerx

adriesba said:


> Hopefully I don't have to hide from everyone after this post.
> 
> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> I just have to ask why do all of you who love Bach's music love it so much? I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just legitimately don't understand. It seems like everyone on this forum likes his music ... a lot.
> 
> I've heard a bit of all the categories of his output(keyboard, vocal, orchestral), but I don't like much beyond maybe a few organ works, _Magnificat_, and some cantatas. And those works of his I do like I only slightly enjoy. To me Bach is one of the least interesting composers I've heard.
> 
> I don't understand.
> 
> What am I missing?


I do hope you don't left us because seeing all the somewhat harsh critics.


----------



## aioriacont

i do hope the thread's author comes back soon to share their views on the suggestion we gave. I'm curious!


----------



## gregorx

When we listen to Bach, we're listening to music that is centuries old with 21st century ears. When I first started listening to "Classical Music," I naturally went to the big guys, including JS. I decided that, among other things, the harpsichord was the worst sounding instrument ever, and that the (seemingly) incessant counterpoint was annoying as hell. I had this vision of a quite mad Vincent Price droning away on the instrument in some Roger Corman movie. But by this time I had purchased about 10 or so Bach CD's. Fortunately they included the Cello Suites and the Violin Sonatas, and because of those works I came to appreciate Bach. So, the Brandenburg Concertos gather dust, but not those two.

There is so much to choose from in Western Art Music that it doesn't matter if we "get" (whatever that means) composer X or not. I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that I don't listen to Mozart or Haydn anymore. I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. I appreciate both of them, they're just not my cup of tea.


----------



## aioriacont

gregorx said:


> When we listen to Bach, we're listening to music that is centuries old with 21st century ears. When I first started listening to "Classical Music," I naturally went to the big guys, including JS. I decided that, among other things, the harpsichord was the worst sounding instrument ever, and that the (seemingly) incessant counterpoint was annoying as hell. I had this vision of a quite mad Vincent Price droning away on the instrument in some Roger Corman movie. But by this time I had purchased about 10 or so Bach CD's. Fortunately they included the Cello Suites and the Violin Sonatas, and because of those works I came to appreciate Bach. So, the Brandenburg Concertos gather dust, but not those two.
> 
> There is so much to choose from in Western Art Music that it doesn't matter if we "get" (whatever that means) composer X or not. I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that I don't listen to Mozart or Haydn anymore. I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. I appreciate both of them, they're just not my cup of tea.


my relationship to the harpsichord was pretty weird. I once found it irritating as hell, now I love it.


----------



## Luchesi

gregorx said:


> When we listen to Bach, we're listening to music that is centuries old with 21st century ears. When I first started listening to "Classical Music," I naturally went to the big guys, including JS. I decided that, among other things, the harpsichord was the worst sounding instrument ever, and that the (seemingly) incessant counterpoint was annoying as hell. I had this vision of a quite mad Vincent Price droning away on the instrument in some Roger Corman movie. But by this time I had purchased about 10 or so Bach CD's. Fortunately they included the Cello Suites and the Violin Sonatas, and because of those works I came to appreciate Bach. So, the Brandenburg Concertos gather dust, but not those two.
> 
> There is so much to choose from in Western Art Music that it doesn't matter if we "get" (whatever that means) composer X or not. I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that I don't listen to Mozart or Haydn anymore. I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. I appreciate both of them, they're just not my cup of tea.


Does this demonstrate that JsB (especially JsB) takes a lot of time to appreciate. You like the melodic, clear sounding C Suites and V Sonatas with movements short and in concise forms (whether you hear a form's structure or not it seeps in). The forms in Haydn and Mozart are too obvious to some listeners and the 'melodies' are constrained in order to support the expected and long accepted forms (sonata). Bach is freer with melodies.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Anyone who says Bach is their favorite composer is lying.


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> Anyone who says Bach is their favorite composer is lying.


All the people who buy the recordings. All the musicians who work to express themselves with his 'unemotional' craftings. The Romantics loved him (he was no threat to their artistic assumptions).
They all might be lying.


----------



## DaddyGeorge

Tchaikov6 said:


> Anyone who says Bach is their favorite composer is lying.


Don't lie...
...and don't drink and post...


----------



## Tchaikov6

DaddyGeorge said:


> Don't lie...
> ...and don't drink and post...


exactly!! some of the idiotic posts in here talking about bach being some "great" composer, like how da ***** do they think they are


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

It's fine not to like Bach, especially if you are not into contrapuntal music in general. They are acquired taste in the sense that they are not naturally intuitive.

Some don't get Beethoven, some don't get Mozart, some don't get 20th century music. There is nothing wrong with not getting it. Just try again later in life.

But if you really want to get into Bach, then maybe playing Bach would help. Once you start playing say the well tempered clavier (some preludes are pretty easy to pick up), you will start to appreciate its crafts and expressiveness. Just don't start with the "hard ones" such as Cello suite or the Art of fugue, try Brandenburg concertos, orchestral suite, or even guitar pieces to attune your brain to it.


----------



## premont

Tchaikov6 said:


> Anyone who says Bach is their favorite composer is lying.


Yes, they are lying prone, because they just bowled over while listening to his music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

premont said:


> Yes, they are lying prone, because they just bored while listening to his music.


^fixed for you.


----------



## premont

Tchaikov6 said:


> ^fixed for you.


No, fixed for you.


----------



## Bulldog

Tchaikov6 said:


> exactly!! some of the idiotic posts in here talking about bach being some "great" composer, like how da ***** do they think they are


You seem out of character today, not your usual upbeat self. If you want to talk about anything, I'm just a private message away.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Tchaikov6 said:


> Anyone who says Bach is their favorite composer is lying.


Okay, this would actually make sense if you didn't have him listed as one of your favorite composers in your 'About Me' section on your profile.


----------



## Guest

Thanks for these incredible links, Allegro con Brio, and your intelligent and accurate comments. IMO, *the Bach B Minor Mass is the greatest work ever composed in western classical music*. And it wasn't created as one unified work; Bach looked back on past material and re-used this or put together other pieces he hadn't used before. The result? A bloody miracle and no mistake.

If a person doesn't 'get' Bach they first of all shouldn't beat themselves up about it and, secondly, they need life experience under their belt to truly understand the existential nature of Bach's creativity. It is music for very grown up people and one cannot shy away from this. Even the most hardened atheist will appreciate the secular works of Bach and its links to the dense polyphonic/contrapuntal lines which he used in an exalted fashion in his religious work. The 'many voices' of Bach indeed.

For me, Bach is about the exalted; the belief in something way beyond the quotidian, the ephemeral and the ego. And yet, ego seems at the core of this kind of creativity and still capable of disappearing behind it; how could it not be? For me, then, it's exultation and the triumph of the human potential for creativity. It's a musical Michelangelo's "David" or "Last Super" or Bernini's "Pieta". A conjunction of musical instrument technology, musical notation, the 'taming' of wayward harmonics to provide standardization and sheer, staggering human ingenuity.

Bach was also a man; a lover of conviviality and pleasure. These things are to be found in his secular works too. It would represent a lifetime's work to discern all aspects of that.

Lastly, Bach the polymath; the man who enjoyed rhetoric and language and whose musical rhetorical skills are second to none. The logic, precision and incalculable ingenuity of his works are set to astound even the neophyte.

And Bach's influence is behind even this!!


----------



## Dimace

Without Bach and Beethoven, there is no life on the planet ''Classical music''. This is certain for any guy or gal wants to claim that he/she has (at least) a small relationship to the serious music we are conversating in this community. Unfortunately for the WE listeners, Bach is also a very difficult composer to get into. He is like Platon or Aristoteles. He demands devotion and great effort to be understood and, this is the most difficult, many repetitions (hearings). So, you can't say that is the best composer for easy listening. Something like this I understood from the comments have been made and were somehow negative for the Father of the Western Music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Neo Romanza said:


> Okay, this would actually make sense if you didn't have him listed as one of your favorite composers in your 'About Me' section on your profile.


Oops, you got me


----------



## Tchaikov6

Bulldog said:


> You seem out of character today, not your usual upbeat self. If you want to talk about anything, I'm just a private message away.


Sorry  but nah I was joking, Bach is my favorite composer of all time!!!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Tchaikov6 said:


> Oops, you got me


So you do like his music? You're sending some mixed signals.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Neo Romanza said:


> So you do like his music? You're sending some mixed signals.


I like his music, but the fact that he hasn't released anything in almost 300 years is a bit frustrating, whenever did he get so lazy??


----------



## Neo Romanza

Tchaikov6 said:


> I like his music, but the fact that he hasn't released anything in almost 300 years is a bit frustrating, whenever did he get so lazy??


Yeah, it's a bit difficult writing from the grave I suppose...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

DaddyGeorge said:


> Don't lie...
> ...and don't drink and post...


What about post and drink? Bach is my second most favorite composer forever. So cheers!


----------



## Guest

Neo Romanza said:


> Yeah, it's a bit difficult writing from the grave I suppose...


You mean decomposing?


----------



## aioriacont

Tchaikov6 said:


> I like his music, but the fact that he hasn't released anything in almost 300 years is a bit frustrating, whenever did he get so lazy??


Bach and the band Tool always do this to their fans. Shame on them!!


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Is this the thread to be drunk? Tool's last album was too boring and too expensive. Need a drink...wait Bach...My man! Tool, kind of modern to be kind of monks...


----------



## Guest

I see in my earlier posting I have falsely attributed, by omission, "The Last Supper" to Michelangelo. Of course, it's Da Vinci - but the analogy stands.


----------



## aioriacont

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Is this the thread to be drunk? Tool's last album was too boring and too expensive. Need a drink...wait Bach...My man! Tool, kind of modern to be kind of monks...


Tool's last album was amazing. Go back, listen to it again, and then say "sorry, my Master" to Adam Jones


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bulldog said:


> You seem out of character today, not your usual upbeat self. If you want to talk about anything, I'm just a private message away.


_"exactly!! some of the idiotic posts in here talking about bach being some "great" composer, like how da ***** do they think they are"_ -I think Tchaikov6 is saying Bach is "too extraordinary" to be considered just "some great composer".


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


> You mean decomposing?


Rotting, like Rott


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

aioriacont said:


> Tool's last album was amazing. Go back, listen to it again, and then say "sorry, my Master" to Adam Jones


Sorry, my Master, you are just not so goddam cool anymore! 
...I'm sure it's just me being bored with TOOL...now I like black metal and Donna Summer...


----------



## aioriacont

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Sorry, my Master, you are just not so goddam cool anymore!
> ...I'm sure it's just me being bored with TOOL...now I like black metal and Donna Summer...


well, considering you are not joking and that you are in fact into black metal, you might want to check some Enslaved and Ihsahn, awesome stuff. They also have a lot of prog elements, and some experimentation here and there.

that Tool album is a grower too, I did not get into it at first. I remember same thing happening with 10000 days.


----------



## Marc

It's hard to explain why I love Bach so much.
But I probably did an attempt to do so, in some of my earlier posts around this board. I do apologize that right now I'm just too lazy to do a thorough search, or another serious attempt.

Now, all I can say is that I never experienced a 'first time listening' like when I first heard the music of his Passions, when I was about 13 years of age. And I'm in love with his music still, even after listening to it for about thousands of times.

[_Opening choir of Johannes-Passion, BWV 245, Monteverdi Choir/English Baroque Soloists/John Eliot Gardiner:_]






[_Aria "Zerfließe, mein Herze, in Fluten der Zähren", Johannes-Passion, BWV 245, Nancy Argenta/English Baroque Soloists/John Eliot Gardiner:_]






I sometimes visit organ concerts, and when a recital ends with pieces like BWV 544, 546 or 548 (to name but a few), I leave the church very moved, with a mixture of utter awe, joy and (dis)belief.

[_Praeludium & Fugue in C minor, BWV 546, Leo van Doeselaar, Van Hagerbeer/Schnitger (1646/1725) organ, Laurenskerk, Alkmaar, NL:_]






By the way: if you're not hearing or experiencing the greatness of Bach, don't feel bad or puzzled about it. Just move on. There's plenty left in life to enjoy.


----------



## Luchesi

It seems that if you come from pop music to Bach, it's blah.

But if you come from piano lessons to Bach, it's wow!


----------



## aioriacont

to get into Bach at first, he/she needs to listen to Bach's hooks:

-first movement of the second brandeburg concerto
-herr, unser herrscher - opening chorus of the saint john passion


----------



## Luchesi

aioriacont said:


> to get into Bach at first, he/she needs to listen to Bach's hooks:
> 
> -first movement of the second brandeburg concerto
> -herr, unser herrscher - opening chorus of the saint john passion


It seems that new listeners can't hear music well enough to appreciate those examples.

When I was young I came across an old box of records in our cellar. I put on the LvB 7th and I couldn't hear a melody or much of anything memorable. It was just a wall of sound. 'Very tiring to listen to. To this day I remember that bad experience. I sympathize with some of my students. Do you remember a time in your life like that?


----------



## aioriacont

Luchesi said:


> It seems that new listeners can't hear music well enough to appreciate those examples.
> 
> When I was young I came across an old box of records in our cellar. I put on the LvB 7th and I couldn't hear a melody or much of anything memorable. It was just a wall of sound. 'Very tiring to listen to. To this day I remember that bad experience. I sympathize with some of my students. Do you remember a time in your life like that?


I think those two examples are easy enough for an impatient listener who would be new to Bach's music. Both pieces have enough hooks for anyone to like, and they could be a nice door to the full works.


----------



## Luchesi

aioriacont said:


> I think those two examples are easy enough for an impatient listener who would be new to Bach's music. Both pieces have enough hooks for anyone to like, and they could be a nice door to the full works.


Heh. Imagine yourself in a classroom with neophyte listeners.


----------



## Tchaikov6

hammeredklavier said:


> _"exactly!! some of the idiotic posts in here talking about bach being some "great" composer, like how da ***** do they think they are"_ -I think Tchaikov6 is saying Bach is "too extraordinary" to be considered just "some great composer".


no, close though!!


----------



## lowgold

'I just don't get Bach' 

.....but when you do, you'll know about. The first I heard of Bach was a grade 3 piano piece from 'Notebook for Anna Magdelena..' I didn't like it. I found it stuffy, hard to play, old fashioned and a bit square. It took a quite a few listens to the Well Tempered Clavier until it started to make sense to me. I can remember listening to the Art of Fugue on Brass instruments a couple of times thinking it sounded like thousands of random trumpets coming at me from all directions. Mind-boggling. Its like listening to a maze. The first few times. 

Theirs so much to love and and wonder at in Bach please don't give up on him until you've given him a good shot. Theirs some really 'catchy' (?) music in the Well Tempered Clavier. The first prelude from the second book is probably the first piece of Bach I fell in love with. I high recommend it.


----------



## Marc

Luchesi said:


> It seems that new listeners can't hear music well enough to appreciate those examples.
> 
> When I was young I came across an old box of records in our cellar. I put on the LvB 7th and I couldn't hear a melody or much of anything memorable. It was just a wall of sound. 'Very tiring to listen to. To this day I remember that bad experience. I sympathize with some of my students. Do you remember a time in your life like that?


It's just not the same for everyone.
I've heard and read more stories about people who began listening to Bach or Beethoven and were completely confused. They couldn't hear a 'song' in neither the famous Toccata in d BWV 565, nor in the famous first movement of Beethoven's Fifth symphony.

So, whilst one person wants/needs to start off with Vivaldi's Four Seasons or a Rossini Ouverture (like Guglielmo Tell), the 2nd person immediately feels attracted to a Bach fugue or a Beethoven symphony.

In my younger years, I liked them all... but the fugues already the best. 
I was meant for Bach, and Bach was meant for me. ( again)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

A good performance is very important for the uninitiated to get hooked on Bach. Gould is popular for a reason - many people began to understand Bach through Gould's Goldberg.

Also most listeners focus heavily on the classical to late romantic period so if you listen to Bach without context it feels jarring. But if you venture into the world of early music, the wonderful world of Scarlatti, Corelli, Vivaldi, Rameau, Teleman, Buxtehude or even Renaissance music, then you will appreciate Bach much more.


----------



## Luchesi

lowgold said:


> 'I just don't get Bach'
> 
> .....but when you do, you'll know about. The first I heard of Bach was a grade 3 piano piece from 'Notebook for Anna Magdelena..' I didn't like it. I found it stuffy, hard to play, old fashioned and a bit square. It took a quite a few listens to the Well Tempered Clavier until it started to make sense to me. I can remember listening to the Art of Fugue on Brass instruments a couple of times thinking it sounded like thousands of random trumpets coming at me from all directions. Mind-boggling. Its like listening to a maze. The first few times.
> 
> Theirs so much to love and and wonder at in Bach please don't give up on him until you've given him a good shot. Theirs some really 'catchy' (?) music in the Well Tempered Clavier. The first prelude from the second book is probably the first piece of Bach I fell in love with. I high recommend it.


Yes, that prelude is the one I first remember. It's so 'crafty' and interesting (not obvious, but memorable). Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Luchesi

Marc said:


> It's just not the same for everyone.
> I've heard and read more stories about people who began listening to Bach or Beethoven and were completely confused. They couldn't hear a 'song' in neither the famous Toccata in d BWV 565, nor in the famous first movement of Beethoven's Fifth symphony.
> 
> So, whilst one person wants/needs to start off with Vivaldi's Four Seasons or a Rossini Ouverture (like Guglielmo Tell), the 2nd person immediately feels attracted to a Bach fugue or a Beethoven symphony.
> 
> In my younger years, I liked them all... but the fugues already the best.
> I was meant for Bach, and Bach was meant for me. ( again)


Exactly. All my students are different. I can learn a lot about this question by watching what intrigues each of them.


----------



## pianozach

Tchaikov6 said:


> exactly!! some of the idiotic posts in here talking about bach being some "great" composer, like how da ***** do they think they are


Well, you know, some people like Bach, and others aren't as bright.


----------



## hammeredklavier

pianozach said:


> Well, you know, some people like Bach, and others aren't as bright.


Well, you know, some people like Bach, 
and others aren't as bright, and so they like pianozach.


----------



## pianozach

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, you know, some people like Bach,
> and others aren't as bright, and so they like pianozach.


I didn't know you were one of my fans. Would you like an autographed 8x10?


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

For a long time, I too would have said that "I just don't get Bach". To be specific, I did not understand the hype around him and the music never really hit me on an emotional level. During my playing days on the French horn, I did not look at Bach's music beyond the Brandenburg Concerto No. 1. That and the second Brandenburg concerto were fantastic in my opinion, but the rest of Bach's music seemed boring to me. I am not a huge fan of keyboard works, so pieces/collections like the Art of Fugue and the Goldberg Variations went to deaf ears. In college, I finally heard the orchestral suites, which I enjoyed, but I was not yet sold on Bach. What did he have that Handel or Vivaldi, my preferred Baroque composers did not have. My favorite era of classical music is the Romantic and its dramatic music, so Bach was a hard sell for me.

I then finally got around to listening to the Passions and the Mass in B Minor in 2018. These were pieces by Bach unlike any other that I had ever heard before up until that point. The music was emotionally charged, operatic, and there were harmonies and timbres that I would not have expected to come form Bach with my limited knowledge of his work. My understanding of Bach was that he was the so-called "Master" and a technical genius, but here were pieces where I heard something incredibly emotional and for a lack of better words "passionate". It was not an immediate epiphany for me; it took me several times to listen through the Passions and the Mass to realize that this was a side of Bach that really spoke to me. From there on out, I have been a big fan of Bach's cantatas and related works.

In the end of the day, I think that this is a personal matter and one aspect of Bach's music may not appeal to everyone. The cantatas and the Passions are my thing, but I am still not a fan of the keyboard works. Meanwhile, someone else in this thread might think the Goldberg Variations are incredible and are not keen on the Passions. I think the question is what from Bach you are looking to get.


----------



## starthrower

ThaNotoriousNIC said:


> In the end of the day, I think that this is a personal matter and one aspect of Bach's music may not appeal to everyone. The cantatas and the Passions are my thing, but I am still not a fan of the keyboard works. Meanwhile, someone else in this thread might think the Goldberg Variations are incredible and are not keen on the Passions. I think the question is what from Bach you are looking to get.


It's simply a matter of exploration, isn't it? So much music, so many interpretations. I like the vocal music for its expressive qualities. Same for the organ works. Other areas like the keyboard and string works have pockets of greatness and beautiful melody but much of it sounds like exercises to my ears, ingenious as it may be. I don't really enjoy the solo cello and violin stuff no matter who is playing it. I prefer the more extended and lyrical phrasing of later music.


----------



## Luchesi

What Bach (and Handel) did for keyboard music. Wow. Look at what they grew up with.

Piano lessons while you’re young? Get those brain circuits prepared for a lifetime of Bach. 

Often overlooked, the visual appreciation of Bach scores, especially the prominant lines in the keyboard works. You can imagine that the logic is 'continuous'..

Yes and the tactile appreciation for players is also a biggie, but not easy to relate to others about..


----------



## aioriacont

Bach is clearly the utmost superior human being ever born in this planet, who created the summit of all the art forms - not only music.
Besides being a genius, he was also industrious. He produced the most perfect music this universe will ever have the pleasure to listen to.
Does humanity have any real purpose after Bach? 
Does the homo sapiens even deserve to listen to such glorious and godly music?
Music should have ended once Bach died. There's no purpose to create anything more. Perfection was achieved.


----------



## starthrower

Music isn't about perfection. It's about transcendence.


----------



## janxharris

aioriacont said:


> Bach is clearly the utmost superior human being ever born in this planet, who created the summit of all the art forms - not only music.
> Besides being a genius, he was also industrious. He produced the most perfect music this universe will ever have the pleasure to listen to.
> Does humanity have any real purpose after Bach?
> Does the homo sapiens even deserve to listen to such glorious and godly music?
> Music should have ended once Bach died. There's no purpose to create anything more. Perfection was achieved.


Always interesting to hear people's opinions but, whilst acknowledging Bach's obvious ability, I could not disagree more with your post.


----------



## aioriacont

starthrower said:


> Music isn't about perfection. It's about transcendence.


yeah, I love Trance and Dance music too.


----------



## aioriacont

janxharris said:


> Always interesting to hear people's opinions but, whilst acknowledging Bach's obvious ability, I could not disagree more with your post.


oh yeah, let's not forget that we can't live without Gabriel-era Genesis too ;-)


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC

Exploration is definitely key! If it was not for looking at a wide variety of Bach's works, I wouldn't have found the pieces that speak to me the most. Reading through posts on the forum has exposed me to the idea that the hundreds of recordings of our favorite music bring with it so many different interpretations as well. I was in the thread yesterday about the St. Matthew Passion and it led me to listening to the Klemperer recording of the work, which was much different compared to the one I am used to (Jacobs). The many interpretations available will keep me occupied for a while. I agree with your comment on the keyboard works, where I can't help but feeling that the technical aspects are more apparent to me than the beauty of the music. Maybe hearing a couple different interpretations might help change that though.


----------



## Bigbang

aioriacont said:


> Bach is clearly the utmost superior human being ever born in this planet, who created the summit of all the art forms - not only music.
> Besides being a genius, he was also industrious. He produced the most perfect music this universe will ever have the pleasure to listen to.
> Does humanity have any real purpose after Bach?
> Does the homo sapiens even deserve to listen to such glorious and godly music?
> Music should have ended once Bach died. There's no purpose to create anything more. Perfection was achieved.


Frankly, you talk like an idiot. In other posts as well. I take it you are trolling.............


----------



## Tchaikov6

pianozach said:


> Well, you know, some people like Bach, and others aren't as bright.


In all seriousness, I don't agree with this statement at all. I do happen to love Bach a lot, but also I believe in complete subjectivity in art. Respect other people's opinions!


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> In all seriousness, I don't agree with this statement at all. I do happen to love Bach a lot, but also I believe in complete subjectivity in art. Respect other people's opinions!


I think as subjectivity increases, support for CM will dwindle.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> I think as subjectivity increases, support for CM will dwindle.


I'm curious to know your reasoning Luchesi. I for one remain unaware of an argument for objectivity that is tenable.


----------



## Botschaft

janxharris said:


> I'm curious to know your reasoning Luchesi. I for one remain unaware of an argument for objectivity that is tenable.


Bach is one argument.


----------



## janxharris

Waldesnacht said:


> Bach is one argument.


How so? .


----------



## DavidA

aioriacont said:


> Bach is clearly the utmost superior human being ever born in this planet, who created the summit of all the art forms - not only music.
> Besides being a genius, he was also industrious. He produced the most perfect music this universe will ever have the pleasure to listen to.
> Does humanity have any real purpose after Bach?
> Does the homo sapiens even deserve to listen to such glorious and godly music?
> Music should have ended once Bach died. There's no purpose to create anything more. Perfection was achieved.


Superior human being? A crusty guy who has a punch up with his verger? You are confusing character with talent. He was a great musician and a incredibly industrious man who wrote for the glory of God. But as a man as fallible as the rest of us


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> I'm curious to know your reasoning Luchesi. I for one remain unaware of an argument for objectivity that is tenable.


The notion of inter subjectivity is one argument that moves us away from the idea of 'absolute subjectivity' towards some notion of 'limited objectivity' (my phrase, not a quote). Whilst theoreticians might say that subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive absolute opposites, in reality, the subjectivists and subjectivists are probably closer together than some might admit.


----------



## aioriacont

what a load of pretentious "drunk philosophy".


----------



## Guest

...............


----------



## aioriacont

MacLeod said:


> Quite the wag .


i'm quite the Hag


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> The notion of inter subjectivity is one argument that moves us away from the idea of 'absolute subjectivity' towards some notion of 'limited objectivity' (my phrase, not a quote). Whilst theoriticians might say that subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive absolute opposites, in reality, the subjectivists and subjectivists are probably closer together than some might admit.


Your final 'subjectivists' = 'objectivists'?

The checkerboard shadow illusion might persuade those that believe we can see ultimate reality that maybe they can't. Kant's 'thing in itself' remains elusive I think.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> The notion of inter subjectivity is one argument that moves us away from the idea of 'absolute subjectivity' towards some notion of 'limited objectivity' (my phrase, not a quote). Whilst theoriticians might say that subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive absolute opposites, in reality, the subjectivists and subjectivists are probably closer together than some might admit.


I do think it's fair to assume that it is an great achievement if a piece of music becomes popular but that it isn't tenable to then extrapolate beyond and infer league tables.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Your final 'subjectivists' = 'objectivists'?
> 
> The checkerboard shadow illusion might persuade those that believe we can see ultimate reality that maybe they can't. Kant's 'thing in itself' remains elusive I think.


I'm not sure I get you...why 'final'? And why do you infer that I'm saying subjectivists _equal_ objectivists?

For all _practical_ purposes, there is a general agreement that regardless of personal preferences, there is a handful of composers held in higher regard than the rest. The fact of that agreement suggests that even if absolute objective criteria cannot be identified and agreed upon, there is something that binds opinion loosely together.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure I get you...why 'final'? And why do you infer that I'm saying subjectivists _equal_ objectivists?


The notion of inter subjectivity is one argument that moves us away from the idea of 'absolute subjectivity' towards some notion of 'limited objectivity' (my phrase, not a quote). Whilst theoriticians might say that subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive absolute opposites, in reality, *the subjectivists and subjectivists* are probably closer together than some might admit.



> For all _practical_ purposes, there is a general agreement that regardless of personal preferences, there is a handful of composers held in higher regard than the rest. The fact of that agreement suggests that even if absolute objective criteria cannot be identified and agreed upon, there is something that binds opinion loosely together.


This is just another way of saying that WAM, JSB and LVB are the most popular isn't it? Such achievement is, of course, to be admired - but it does not mean we can extrapolate and say their compositions were somehow objectively 'better'. We acknowledge, rather, their longevity.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> it does not mean we can extrapolate and say their compositions were somehow objectively 'better'.


That's right, nor am I saying that.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> I'm curious to know your reasoning Luchesi. I for one remain unaware of an argument for objectivity that is tenable.


Since I was young I've seen a broadening of subjectivity into so many subjects, but especially into the arts. If in its simplest form we say that subjectivity is one person, irrespective of their knowledge and experience, likes something while another person doesn't (for whatever reasons on either side, but nothing analytical). How does that sustain a serious art into the future?

Since pop music has become more sophisticated (1940s?) it seems that most people must be subjective about it.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> This is just another way of saying that WAM, JSB and LVB are the most popular isn't it? Such achievement is, of course, to be admired - but it does not mean we can extrapolate and say their compositions were somehow objectively 'better'. We acknowledge, rather, their longevity.


If by "most popular" it's meant that there's a consensus on the value of the work of these three, which to me *is* sort of an objective measure. There are solid reasons for that consensus and longevity. The fact the you or others don't "get it" isn't really going to change it. There are and have been critics and artists who don't care much for Rembrandt. The work of Rembrandt will still be great regardless.

To paraphrase Northrop Frye, I think there is ultimately "objective" in art, and it shows itself when you get the feeling from a particular work that "this is why this medium exists. This is what this medium exists to say". Most people get that feeling in music most often from the works of the musical Big Three, and I'm confident in thinking that thus it will ever be.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

^ We had our differences but I agree with the general sentiment you have described. Greatness is associated with discovering certain "artistic truth" that cannot be entirely arbitrary. There are dimensions along which you can say the big three or Rembrandt is "objectively" great (but I don't think that's what made them great).

But we should not be too carried away by the unquestioned "greatness". Tolstoy has this well-known ambivalence when it comes to Beethoven's music (unsurprisingly, Rachmaninoff was quite annoyed and dismayed about it during a visit). The short version of the story is that he was skeptical of the "excessive" power and passion incited by and embodied within the music. Indeed we find great work such as Beethoven's 9th having a troubling past, famous for being ironically "misappropriated" by a full spectrum of authoritarian regimes (and it totally worked as propaganda). It follows that Enlightenment ideal in this work (not Beethoven himself) should not be held sacred but worth some skepticism, especially if you are a man of the Enlightenment.

When it comes to Bach, certain developments also show that the structural complexity dimension of Bach's work may not be that special after all. Some Bachbot algorithms have already generated fragments of fugues and inventions that are indistinguishable from Bach's composition to musicologists during blind tests (UC Santa Babara has such a project). This of course does not detract Bach's immense genius but it sill makes us question what's valuable or great about their works when moving forward.

If the value of both the humanistic message and the crafts demonstrated by old masters are only the product of our time, then what is "eternal" or "objective" about their greatness when our time horizon is infinite? Or are their "eternal" greatness eventually just historical importance but are not necessarily relevant to the human conditions of the future?


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> Since I was young I've seen a *broadening of subjectivity *into so many subjects, but especially into the arts. If in its simplest form we say that subjectivity is one person, irrespective of their knowledge and experience, likes something while another person doesn't (for whatever reasons on either side, but nothing analytical). How does that sustain a serious art into the future?
> 
> Since pop music has become more sophisticated (1940s?) it seems that most people must be subjective about it.


Can you explain what you mean by 'a broadening of subjectivity'?

'Subjectivity' isn't merely about 'liking', though. In this context (standards in classical music) It's about the idea that there are no standards by which to judge the music that aren't based in personal response.



janxharris said:


> The notion of inter subjectivity is one argument that moves us away from the idea of 'absolute subjectivity' towards some notion of 'limited objectivity' (my phrase, not a quote). Whilst theoriticians might say that subjectivity and objectivity are mutually exclusive absolute opposites, in reality, *the subjectivists and subjectivists* are probably closer together than some might admit.
> 
> This is just another way of saying that WAM, JSB and LVB are the most popular isn't it? Such achievement is, of course, to be admired - but it does not mean we can extrapolate and say their compositions were somehow objectively 'better'. We acknowledge, rather, their longevity.


Umm. You quote my post, but without quote marks. You also didn't quite answer either of the questions I posted in #202.



consuono said:


> If by "most popular" it's meant that there's a consensus on the value of the work of these three, which to me *is* sort of an objective measure.


Hang on a minute. You quote janxharris who was incorrectly summarising me. So, he wasn't saying that, because I wasn't saying that.

(...and your opening sentence here is incomplete. Would you mind finishing it? Thanks.)


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Umm. You quote my post, but without quote marks. You also didn't quite answer either of the questions I posted in #202.


Apologies for not being clearer.

I thought you made a typo with your 'the subjectivists and subjectivists' - so I said your 'final' ie last use of the word 'subjectivists' (underlined) should be 'objectivist'.



> For all practical purposes, there is a general agreement that regardless of personal preferences, there is a handful of composers held in higher regard than the rest. The fact of that agreement suggests that even if absolute objective criteria cannot be identified and agreed upon, there is something that binds opinion loosely together.


I suppose it depends on what 'held in higher regard' actually means. I accept that the 'big' three have achieved a high degree of popularity.


----------



## consuono

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> When it comes to Bach, certain developments also show that the structural complexity dimension of Bach's work may not be that special after all. Some Bachbot algorithms have already generated fragments of fugues and inventions that are indistinguishable from Bach's composition to musicologists during blind tests (UC Santa Babara has such a project). This of course does not detract Bach's immense genius but it sill makes us question what's valuable or great about their works when moving forward.


The fact that Bach is being used as the standard is answer enough. An algorithm didn't come up with Bach's work; Bach did.


MacLeod said:


> ...
> Hang on a minute. You quote janxharris who was incorrectly summarising me. So, he wasn't saying that, because I wasn't saying that.
> 
> (...and your opening sentence here is incomplete. Would you mind finishing it? Thanks.)


I quoted janxharris, not you.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> If by "most popular" it's meant that there's a consensus on the value of the work of these three, which to me *is* sort of an objective measure. There are solid reasons for that consensus and longevity. The fact the you or others don't "get it" isn't really going to change it. There are and have been critics and artists who don't care much for Rembrandt. The work of Rembrandt will still be great regardless.
> 
> To paraphrase Northrop Frye, I think there is ultimately "objective" in art, and it shows itself when you get the feeling from a particular work that "this is why this medium exists. This is what this medium exists to say". Most people get that feeling in music most often from the works of the musical Big Three, and I'm confident in thinking that thus it will ever be.


I can't see that there is much to disagree with - as long as you aren't explicitly averring that their (the 'big' three's) compositions were, therefore, objectively superior. You use the word 'value' without actually clarifying what you mean.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Since I was young I've seen a broadening of subjectivity into so many subjects, but especially into the arts. If in its simplest form we say that subjectivity is one person, irrespective of their knowledge and experience, likes something while another person doesn't (for whatever reasons on either side, but nothing analytical). How does that sustain a serious art into the future?
> 
> Since pop music has become more sophisticated (1940s?) it seems that most people must be subjective about it.


I'm not quite following you Luchesi. You seem to be pointing out the (possible) negative fruits of subjectivism; could you clarify please?


----------



## Guest

consuono said:


> I quoted janxharris, not you.


I know you did. But what you quoted was his incorrect summary of what I had written, and I was not saying that the agreement about the big three was to do with popularity (though he still seems to think that this is all it boils down to).


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> I can't see that there is much to disagree with - as long as you aren't explicitly averring that their (the 'big' three's) compositions were, therefore, objectively superior. You use the word 'value' without actually clarifying what you mean.


"Value" means worth or importance. Are you averring that all works of art are of equal value, worth or importance, and that there is no hierarchy of value among them? That some are better or worse than others?


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> "Value" means worth or importance. Are you averring that all works of art are of equal value, worth or importance, and that there is no hierarchy of value among them? That some are better or worse than others?


I don't believe an objective measure exists that could determine such value - rather, we do it subjectively. 
No, I don't personally consider all works equal.

So you are making the case for works such as Bach's B minor Mass being superior to most if not all works considered 'great'? How are you going to make your argument credible without merely falling foul of an argumentum ad populum?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> How are you going to make your argument credible without merely falling foul of an argumentum ad populum?


Like this: Uuuuummmmmppphhh!


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Like this: Uuuuummmmmppphhh!


Closest yet...but no cigar.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> ...
> So you are making the case for works such as Bach's B minor Mass being superior to most if not all works considered 'great'? How are you going to make your argument credible without merely falling foul of an argumentum ad populum?


To me the B Minor Mass is superior, if not the St Matthew Passion. Others may not rank them as highly, but almost all would agree that they are "great". Now on what basis is there a consensus that the works are not absolute junk on the level of an Ed Wood movie? It seems to me there's an objective standard lurking there in the background.


> No, I don't personally consider all works equal.


Nobody except a nihilist would, and even then it'd probably be more rhetoric than an actual conviction.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> To me the B Minor Mass is superior, if not the St Matthew Passion. Others may not rank them as highly, but almost all would agree that they are "great". Now on what basis is there a consensus that the works are not absolute junk on the level of an Ed Wood movie? It seems to me there's an objective standard lurking there in the background.
> Nobody except a nihilist would, and even then it'd probably be more rhetoric than an actual conviction.


You said it: 'To me', the subjective.

I haven't suggested the work is 'junk' so there's no need for me to respond to that.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> You said it: 'To me', the subjective.
> 
> I haven't suggested the work is 'junk' so there's no need for me to respond to that.


"To me", but also to many many others. That isn't so much an argument from numbers as it is a preponderance of evidence. It doesn't matter to me if the majority loathes Bach...and face it, most are ignorant of him anyway.
So on what basis *don't* you call the work junk? If everything is *completely* subjective, if I say it's junk, then it's junk. No arguments.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> So on what basis *don't* you call the work junk? If everything is *completely* subjective, if I say it's junk, then it's junk. No arguments.


I recognise what I would call craft and inspiration to a degree - but his mass hasn't, thus far, done much for me personally.

If someone wants to call it junk then I don't have a problem with that. I feel the same if someone felt that about my favourite work.


----------



## consuono

janxharris said:


> ...
> If someone wants to call it junk then I don't have a problem with that. I feel the same if someone felt that about my favourite work.


That's disingenuous. You know it isn't true. I'm not a fan of Tchaikovsky, but I'd have a problem with anyone calling his work "junk". It plainly isn't.


----------



## janxharris

consuono said:


> That's disingenuous. You know it isn't true. I'm not a fan of Tchaikovsky, but I'd have a problem with anyone calling his work "junk". It plainly isn't.


One of my best friends described my favourite piece of music as,'like film music without any distinctive melody' (or something like that).

I don't think we have any real disagreement here consuono.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> Can you explain what you mean by 'a broadening of subjectivity'?
> 
> 'Subjectivity' isn't merely about 'liking', though. In this context (standards in classical music) It's about the idea that there are no standards by which to judge the music that aren't based in personal response.
> 
> Umm. You quote my post, but without quote marks. You also didn't quite answer either of the questions I posted in #202.
> 
> Hang on a minute. You quote janxharris who was incorrectly summarising me. So, he wasn't saying that, because I wasn't saying that.
> 
> (...and your opening sentence here is incomplete. Would you mind finishing it? Thanks.)


"Can you explain what you mean by 'a broadening of subjectivity'?

'Subjectivity' isn't merely about 'liking', though. In this context (standards in classical music) It's about the idea that there are no standards by which to judge the music that aren't based in personal response."

Thanks for your question. 
Subjectivity and with it the poison of relativism has been growing since the 1960s. Before that I don't know. The Great Books and Great Music aren't taught like they were. Books have been written about this huge subject..

If a person spends no time with CM they can still discern that a pop song isn't as valuable to study and analyze and perform as a major work by Brahms. Why's that?


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> If a person spends no time with CM they can still discern that a pop song isn't as valuable to study and analyze and perform as a major work by Brahms. Why's that?


It would depend on which song and lied you were referring to, surely.


----------



## Enthusiast

I am not going to try again to convince anyone that there are measures of worth that are objective and true. They are probably much more sophisticated than a simple hierarchy as they would need to pay attention to many different dimensions. Like Bowie's starman a full understanding of them would probably blow our minds! So far so mystical. But one thing seems certain to me is that the value of art to us is not merely subjective. That makes no sense to me at all and I have yet to see an argument that even begins to convince me otherwise.


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> It would depend on which song and lied you were referring to, surely.


Why?
Are you thinking of a specific example?


----------



## Luchesi

Enthusiast said:


> I am not going to try again to convince anyone that there are measures of worth that are objective and true. They are probably much more sophisticated than a simple hierarchy as they would need to pay attention to many different dimensions. Like Bowie's starman a full understanding of them would probably blow our minds! So far so mystical. But one thing seems certain to me is that the value of art to us is not merely subjective. That makes no sense to me at all and I have yet to see an argument that even begins to convince me otherwise.


I agree. What other people 'like' affecting my evaluations? Everyone's life path is different. As in science, we need reliable, repeatable evidence which everyone can learn about.


----------



## janxharris

Luchesi said:


> Why?


Because it's impossible to generalize. There is a lot of non-classical 'popular' music out there .



> Are you thinking of a specific example?


I wasn't.


----------



## consuono

I think Bach may be one of those composers that you have to be a musician to appreciate fully. Although I'd call myself more of a "piano player" before I'd flatter myself with the title of "musician", when I was a kid piano student Beethoven was my sort of "musical idol". Once I started playing Bach and understanding the music though that changed pretty quickly.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I think Bach may be one of those composers that you have to be a musician to appreciate fully. Although I'd call myself more of a "piano player" before I'd flatter myself with the title of "musician", when I was a kid piano student Beethoven was my sort of "musical idol". Once I started playing Bach and understanding the music though that changed pretty quickly.


Actually, in my opinion, the reason these debates (subjectivity/objectivity) remain so murky and unclear (unresolved) is because we limit ourselves to the already great examples which have endured the years. Composers and their works, they're all at the same high level, pretty much..


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> Because it's impossible to generalize. There is a lot of non-classical 'popular' music out there .
> 
> I wasn't.


Your point has been that it's impossible to generalize, but that's why we study any subject. So that we can categorize and generalize and learn something from the very long process, as our decades go by (and we hopefully grow).


----------



## Marc

consuono said:


> I think Bach may be one of those composers that you have to be a musician to appreciate fully. Although I'd call myself more of a "piano player" before I'd flatter myself with the title of "musician", when I was a kid piano student Beethoven was my sort of "musical idol". Once I started playing Bach and understanding the music though that changed pretty quickly.


I'm not sure.
I've seen plenty of non-musicians getting deeply moved by Bach's music.

As for myself: I played the piano a bit during my youth, and it is true that some of Bach's pieces completely stunned me, more than pieces by other well-known composers did. I'm talking already of the more 'easy' compositions, like his famous Bourrée in E minor (from BWV 996) and his first 2-part Inventionen. Those different voices talking to and fro each other... I found it just amazing.

But even without that, the opening choruses of his passions would have had the same mesmerizing effect. As I see it happen with other Bach newbies, too. Their enthusiasm after I took them to the passions is still great to experience... to hear them praise the choruses, and arias like "Ich will bei meinem Jesu wachen", "Erbarme dich, mein Gott" or "Mach dich, mein Herze, rein".

Or that unforgettable moment when my 'only pop and rock' loving roommate fell completely silent when he heard the slow movements of the violin concertos BWV 1041 and 1042 for the first time. He knew he was listening to something special. And I can assure you, he wasn't able to handle any music instrument at all. 

By the way: organ compositions of Bach can have the same effect. But it's difficult nowadays to convince people that an organ can be an amazing instrument. Also the fact that the organist can't be seen (esp. with baroque organs with a 'Rückwerk'), seems to be an obstacle. Many young people want to SEE when attending a concert. They expect a show. And Bach's music is just... plain music. (Which is more than satisfying to me, but hey... I'm a hopeless case, I am a certified Bach freak.)


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> "Can you explain what you mean by 'a broadening of subjectivity'?
> 
> 'Subjectivity' isn't merely about 'liking', though. In this context (standards in classical music) It's about the idea that there are no standards by which to judge the music that aren't based in personal response."
> 
> Thanks for your question.
> Subjectivity and with it the poison of relativism has been growing since the 1960s. Before that I don't know. The Great Books and Great Music aren't taught like they were. Books have been written about this huge subject..
> 
> If a person spends no time with CM they can still discern that a pop song isn't as valuable to study and analyze and perform as a major work by Brahms. Why's that?


Valuable for whom? There may be as much value in studying Eleanor Rigby as in studying a Brahms symphony. It rather depends on who is doing the studying and why.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the poison" of relativism. Whatever we mean by 'subjectivity' (and it seems to mean different things to different people.. appropriately enough) 'relativism' is not an inevitable adjunct.


----------



## ledzepp

As a newbie to classical, I have to say that this thread has been awesome. After listening to the Bach suggestions from user Allegro Con Brio in post #10, I have a better appreciation for Bach.

As a newbie, one thing I learned is that *who* plays the music makes all the difference. The Mass B Minor and Ich Habe Genug by Herreweghe & Collegium Ghent is absolutely to die for. I've ordered the CDs of both.


----------



## Luchesi

wrong reply sorry


----------



## SanAntone

adriesba said:


> Sorry but... I find Bach ... boring.
> 
> What am I missing?


Stephen Sondheim quoting Milton Babbitt: "Bach took four notes and built a cathedral."


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> ..................


Just wondered if you missed this MacLeod #209?


----------



## SanAntone

janxharris said:


> Just wondered if you missed this MacLeod #209?


Was this addressed to me? If so I don't know what you mean.


----------



## janxharris

SanAntone said:


> Was this addressed to me? If so I don't know what you mean.


No - to MacLeod.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Music is subjective. Period. I don't think anyone would argue against that? There is plenty of rap music I enjoy than certain Bach and Mozart pieces (that happen to be my two favorite composers). There is no "greatest work" and someone's junk can be someone else's masterpiece.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tchaikov6 said:


> Music is subjective. Period. I don't think anyone would argue against that? There is plenty of rap music I enjoy than certain Bach and Mozart pieces (that happen to be my two favorite composers). There is no "greatest work" and someone's junk can be someone else's masterpiece.





Tchaikov6 said:


> that's silly. There are plenty of rap albums I enjoy more than certain 19th century sleep-inducing Romantic symphonies. Comments like these are what make other genre lovers look upon classical fans as snobs.


maybe you're more a rap fan than a classical music fan at heart lol


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

hammeredklavier said:


> maybe you're more a rap fan than a classical music fan at heart lol


As a classical music fan, it is best to be cautious about judging genres I don't know much.

This video doesn't make Ben Shapiro look good. Rap is not garbage, I enjoyed a few Rap albums immensely, but Rap is more poetry than music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

hammeredklavier said:


> maybe you're more a rap fan than a classical music fan at heart lol


Ben Shapiro is a f*cking idiot but he can believe rap is garbage if he wants to. still absolutely loathe him as a person... and his politics.


----------



## Tchaikov6

and no, i still like classical more than rap but only a d*mbass would say that classical is "objectively" superior. whatever.


----------



## Luchesi

Tchaikov6 said:


> and no, i still like classical more than rap but only a d*mbass would say that classical is "objectively" superior. whatever.


how is classical is "objectively" superior?

Make a list for yourself.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Luchesi said:


> how is classical is "objectively" superior?
> 
> Make a list for yourself.


what? I just said it isn't objectively superior.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Just wondered if you missed this MacLeod #209?


No, I didn't. Thanks.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> No, I didn't. Thanks.


Still curious to know if it was a typo - and if not then I haven't fully understood you.


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> Still curious to know if it was a typo - and if not then I haven't fully understood you.


Ah - I see (at last). It _was _a typo. My apologies.

I was misled by your _apparent _quote of me saying ''subjectivists' = 'objectivists''. I couldn't see any 'equals' sign in my post, hence my query back to you in post #202. I simply didn't see my mistake.

What I meant to say was that "the subjectivists and objectivists are probably closer together than some might admit."

Having seen the same old circle go round and round (like buffering on the internet), there seem to be very few willing to concede an inch.


----------



## janxharris

MacLeod said:


> Ah - I see (at last). It _was _a typo. My apologies.
> 
> I was misled by your _apparent _quote of me saying ''subjectivists' = 'objectivists''. I couldn't see any 'equals' sign in my post, hence my query back to you in post #202. I simply didn't see my mistake.
> 
> What I meant to say was that "the subjectivists and objectivists are probably closer together than some might admit."
> 
> Having seen the same old circle go round and round (like buffering on the internet), there seem to be very few willing to concede an inch.


No problem MacLeod.


----------



## CC301233

For me, I like Bach's precision in all his works. He is extremely precise, and you can tell in his works, especially the "two and three part inventions." It becomes "sport like" to take a new OP you haven't heard and see if the precision matches all the other things you've heard of his. And, recall, Bach is the "fuguemeister." For a while, I thought that his "metronomish" fugues were a standard but not actually so (main point is the "contrapunctus...")


----------



## millionrainbows

Tchaikov6 said:


> Music is subjective. Period. I don't think anyone would argue against that? There is plenty of rap music I enjoy than certain Bach and Mozart pieces (that happen to be my two favorite composers). There is no "greatest work" and someone's junk can be someone else's masterpiece.


I agree, but let's keep some perspective. There are times when "objective" data about music can come in handy, like in modernism where knowing what the composer is trying to do can add greatly to the appreciation of a piece.


----------



## Luchesi

CC301233 said:


> For me, I like Bach's precision in all his works. He is extremely precise, and you can tell in his works, especially the "two and three part inventions." It becomes "sport like" to take a new OP you haven't heard and see if the precision matches all the other things you've heard of his. And, recall, Bach is the "fuguemeister." For a while, I thought that his "metronomish" fugues were a standard but not actually so (main point is the "contrapunctus...")


I think I know what you mean, but every composer's notes are just what they should be. I can't remember any examples of too many notes or the wrong notes in the harmony or accompaniment. If there are examples I assume they would be well known (infamous). ...But maybe that's not what you're referring to..


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> I agree, but let's keep some perspective. There are times when "objective" data about music can come in handy, like in modernism where knowing what the composer is trying to do can add greatly to the appreciation of a piece.


Everyone's music appreciation, individually, is subjective, but what does mean to anyone else?


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> Everyone's music appreciation, individually, is subjective, but what does mean to anyone else?


It should mean more than just "data" of a guy holding a clipboard, observing your behavior. It should make us "infer" that everyone's experience is valid, and exists, and give us empathy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Tchaikov6 said:


> and no, i still like classical more than rap but only a d*mbass would say that classical is "objectively" superior. whatever.


rappers can't even win on their home soil


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> It should mean more than just "data" of a guy holding a clipboard, observing your behavior. It should make us "infer" that everyone's experience is valid, and exists, and give us empathy.


That's obvious already, but it doesn't help in learning CM well enough to fully appreciate it. For many folks an appreciation of CM is merely accidental. This is not good for the future support of world class musicians etc. etc..


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> rappers can't even win on their home soil


I'm sorry...the point of these videos is...what?


----------

