How can I move on from Bach?

exactly. Its my opinion. I've said that enough. When I said: "just chords" I meant that it was strictly a variation on a theme and that it lacked emotion for me. I am not going to get into an argument/discussion because it is my opinion and I am entitled to that, if nothing else.

I think we were referring to the .. uhh, "short and focus on the rythmic aspect of music" part of your statement.

Bach was a great composer, no doubt, and it isn't wrong to exclusively listen to him. But seriously, the majority of his pieces are short and focus on the rythmic aspect of music. In my opinion, this style doesn't... carry me in my emotions. Mozart and Haydn lack emotional harmonies as well. So, I think you should try listening to some Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, and Brahms. This will give you a good idea of the importance of chords. Then, work your way back to Beethoven. I feel that his music is the perfect balance between harmonious and rythmic complexity.

*rhythmic

Emotion emotion emotion emotion emotion blahblahblahblah

What is an "emotional harmony", can you please tell me that? What about a harmony is inherently emotional? Isn't the lack of emotion an emotion anyway? Listen, I'm pretty sure you say the word "emotion" at least 7 times in each of your posts and it really isn't helping your credibility, it's the real reason someone here might have a problem with your posts, they just haven't admitted it. I can understand if you find some of the gestures and ideas of Romantic composers attractive, some of it is quite good, but seriously drop the whole "OH IT'S SO EMOTIONAL :sadtears: :sadtears: :sadtears: :sadtears:" schlock. To be frank, it's an immature way to approach music, any music. What, do you think Beethoven just sat at his piano sobbing for hours as he transcribed the sound of his tears hitting the ground and that became the Pastorale symphony? No, he was still very concerned about technique, form, sound, orchestration, motivic transformations and coherence, all the things every composer of EVERY era was and has been concerned about. Now the thing with the Romantic era is that you find a wider array of "emotions", styles, images, what have you in a given movement which you don't find in the Baroque and Classical, but this obviously doesn't make any of this music not worth giving any time. Most "emotion" in music is created by the performers anyway, not the composer. I've heard some dim performances on the Fifth, that's just life. Honestly though, I know you're young so you'll get over it soon (I was there once haha), but there is more to music than the bombast. "Oh man, big loud chords and drums and oh my god this is so amazing and EMOTIONAL OH MY GOD", and then you hear the Goldberg Variations and you think, "Oh this is boring". I get where you're coming from, you're going to get over it. Because seriously....give me Bach or John Adams any day over.....Dvorak/Tchaikovsky (shudders). Stravinsky even said that his music doesn't truly express emotion, not in the abstract sense anyway. But aren't we all emotionally moved in some way by Stravinsky's music? His music is certainly not a failure.

For the record, just because *you* don't like a piece of music does not mean that that particular music lacks effect for others that hear it. Therefore, a piece can't "lack emotion", you just don't like it. People really need to practice more objectivity on this board.

By the way, if you're ever a conductor, please don't be the conductor that programs nothing but Tchaik and has to have flagrant and uncontrolled gestures just because THE MUSIC MOVES YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH. Those conductors never go anywhere in life. They're trying to be Lenny Bernstein, but the thing they forget is that Lenny Bernstein is....Lenny Bernstein. He still had a lot of control and maturity anyway, otherwise he wouldn't have been conducting the NY Phil. Same with Michael Tilson Thomas, lots of energy and personality in his conducting, but out of control for the sake of "emotion", never.

Books. There are loads of books about music after the 50's (Paul Griffiths' "Modern Music: The Avant-Garde after 1945" is a great introduction to the later 20th century music), the experimental music until the 70's (Michael Nyman's book "Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond", one of the best books on experimental music, focusing mainly on the american scene, but also on the european scene, with artists such as Cardew), contemporary music (David Toop's books, among others) and you can find loads of books on individual composers, and of course the endless articles on wikipedia. I realise it's a bit hard to have access to CDs and audio samples/scores of more contemporary composers, but you can definitely find loads of samples in websites such as bmic.co.uk and criticalnotice.co.uk (and the respective music information centres of other countries). You can always check iTunes and Amazon.com audio samples, before buying a CD, and you can find loads of CDs for a cheap price on ebay. For scores, you can preview scores at most of the music information centres and sheetmusicplus.com . Of course, becoming a member at a library with loads of music scores and CDs can also be very helpful.

You have to explore these things on your own, and you may shape your journey on exploring composers by asking people to suggest pieces to you, but their suggestions will mostly be based on what you already like and what they might think you'll like, so it's not as if someone could make a certain list of things to listen to for people who are "stuck on Bach" or something.

I haven't listened to much Reger, but what I've listened to so far is fun.

Throwing someone into the world of John Cage and Milton Babbitt is NOT going to help someone like 20th century-present music. Seriously. That whole era of post 1945 Avant-Garde is dead, and thankfully it lived a short life

Omg I love you.

Thanks, I just can't stand that sometimes. People that mentality are the same people that think John Williams is the modern day Beethoven. Seriously, someone told me that yesterday, A MUSIC MAJOR. Ludwig Van is probably still vomiting in his grave.

PS: Nothing against John Williams of course but.......come on!

but that's his gift to you. Imagine him saying "Thank God someone heard me in 2008." When he died in 1750-ish, there were less than one billion people on the planet and we were already fighting over resources and religion, and audiences sat quiet and united when they heard his work. There are now 10 billion plus people here, and art remains the only answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?"

You now have the distinct advantage of being alive and not having to reinvent Bach's wheel...so consider being the Johnny Appleseed of his seed. Bach probably had someone he wished he could have been as well (and probably someone with good hair).

Give at least one listen to New Order's 'Elegia', or the opening bars of 'Sub-Culture', or the follow up pieces 'Crystal' and 'Regret'. They are at best an orchestral blueprint, but they punch toward the heart which beats 'smart' music any day. This is where the struggle to survive the human condition is being fought during the time you can affect it. 'We' used to cater to mad Popes or Kings or Lords of the Land...same was true for Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald as well.

Contemporary music is now the property of people who text message in to 'American Idle', and it's a blessing that we can can feed the starved. Write something brave and loud and play it on the streetcorner.

Your'e not feeling sorrow, you're feeling urgency, so time to go to work.

TPBennan.

but that's his gift to you. Imagine him saying "Thank God someone heard me in 2008." When he died in 1750-ish, there were less than one billion people on the planet and we were already fighting over resources and religion, and audiences sat quiet and united when they heard his work. There are now 10 billion plus people here, and art remains the only answer to the question "what is the meaning of life?"

You now have the distinct advantage of being alive and not having to reinvent Bach's wheel...so consider being the Johnny Appleseed of his seed. Bach probably had someone he wished he could have been as well (and probably someone with good hair).

Give at least one listen to New Order's 'Elegia', or the opening bars of 'Sub-Culture', or the follow up pieces 'Crystal' and 'Regret'. They are at best an orchestral blueprint, but they punch toward the heart which beats 'smart' music any day. This is where the struggle to survive the human condition is being fought during the time you can affect it. 'We' used to cater to mad Popes or Kings or Lords of the Land...same was true for Shakespeare and F. Scott Fitzgerald as well.

Contemporary music is now the property of people who text message in to 'American Idle', and it's a blessing that we can can feed the starved. Write something brave and loud and play it on the streetcorner.

Your'e not feeling sorrow, you're feeling urgency, so time to go to work.

TPBennan.

First of all, I don't know where you went to school, but there are only about 6 billion-ish people on the planet right now, not over 10 billion, that's ridiculous. It's going to get to that number in a couple decades, but right now, no.

Throwing someone into the world of John Cage and Milton Babbitt is NOT going to help someone like 20th century-present music. Seriously. That whole era of post 1945 Avant-Garde is dead, and thankfully it lived a short life

Says you~

If it's dead, then so is tonal harmony, counterpoint, ETC ETC ETC. No music style dies, it just falls out of fashion. No composition technique dies, it just gets less use.

More over, my problem with this guy's post was the Rhythmic Bach thing, like I pointed out. I don't care what he considers emotional, I could as well consider a Toyota more emotional than Mozart's sonatas. That doesn't mean anything so I'm not even going there.

Either way, again with rating people on imaginary scales. Why the scraggy is John Williams worse or better than Beethoven? What kind of objective parameters are we using here? Oh, none? I thought so. If you hated the thing with this guy's passion for Tchaikovsky based on whatever parameters you thought silly, I'd like to hear YOUR argument as to why Williams is worse than Beethoven, since apparently you think the comparison is ridiculous.

Well, then, mister GMS, why do composers write music. Do they write music because they WANT to write counterpoint. Do they write music because they WANT to have an oboe and clarinet playing some random notes? no, they write because they want to express, and like I have said a MILLION times, this is my friggin opinion. Not yours. Mine. I myself choose what crap I like and I choose what crap I don't like. My little quote about Mozart and Haydn was my opinion. Seriously. I think that their music is just fluffy fluff, and that is my opinion. Of course all music is good and composers are for the majority incomparable, but does that mean that my opinion is wrong? No!

Mabye you were just thrown off by the word emotion. When I said emotion, I meant meaning. NOW REALLY, this is MY OPINION. Keyword = opinion. It is my PERSONAL belief that Bach's music isn't AS deep and meaningful as that of the Romantic Composers.

I know for a fact that every composer has tried to infuse a certain level of meaning in their pieces, but seriously, with such short works ( >20 min is what I consider not short) how can you build up such meaning?

I have heard much more meaningful pieces than what Bach has wrote, but his music is still good to listen to.

That's my side of the discussion.

p.s. Frankly, that post was my opinion. I don't care about objectivity when I SPECIFICALLY say that it is my opinion. Who the hell has to believe me anyway? Like you said, I'm young, but it is MY opinion.

And yes, I said opinion probably 20+ times in this post

no, they write because they want to express, and like I have said a MILLION times, this is my friggin opinion.

[...]

I know for a fact that every composer has tried to infuse a certain level of meaning in their pieces

See, I think the problem is that while you keep repeating that it's just your opinion, you say things in a way as if they are universal facts. "I know for a fact" and "it's just my opinion" just don't mix too well.

Do they write music because they WANT to write counterpoint. Do they write music because they WANT to have an oboe and clarinet playing some random notes? no, they write because they want to express...

Ummm, sorry to be a difficult sod here, but are you sure about that one?

Why must everything be about 'self expression', about getting out all of your feelings that you cannot possibly express in words and so must do so in music, or about fulfilling a calling that you feel to bring your massively self expressive music to the world? Can one not write music because one simply wants to write music? I love writing counterpoint, I like the feeling of writing something - something not necessarily remotely self expressive - and going to the piano, playing it, and enjoying the fact that I've created something - even if it is just an exercise in two part counterpoint. It may not be a symphony, but it's still certainly writing music.

My 2 pence - none of this foreign stuff ;)

Heh, whatever you say. No, but seriously, I was just trying to be helpful and some people are just trying to be difficult. If I say something that you don't agree with, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are right too. You may be right. Oh well. Fine.

The internet is funny

Have fun, kid

Feldman's music has no "meaning", nothing to "express". Why should we like Feldman's music less than Mahlers?

exactly. Its my opinion. I've said that enough. When I said: "just chords" I meant that it was strictly a variation on a theme and that it lacked emotion for me. I am not going to get into an argument/discussion because it is my opinion and I am entitled to that, if nothing else.

Beethoven wrote Theme and Variation pieces....

The finales of TWO of his better known symphonies are Theme and Variations.

Says you~

If it's dead, then so is tonal harmony, counterpoint, ETC ETC ETC. No music style dies, it just falls out of fashion. No composition technique dies, it just gets less use.

More over, my problem with this guy's post was the Rhythmic Bach thing, like I pointed out. I don't care what he considers emotional, I could as well consider a Toyota more emotional than Mozart's sonatas. That doesn't mean anything so I'm not even going there.

Either way, again with rating people on imaginary scales. Why the scraggy is John Williams worse or better than Beethoven? What kind of objective parameters are we using here? Oh, none? I thought so. If you hated the thing with this guy's passion for Tchaikovsky based on whatever parameters you thought silly, I'd like to hear YOUR argument as to why Williams is worse than Beethoven, since apparently you think the comparison is ridiculous.

SSC, are you the kid that goes to Stanford and studies with Bryan Fernihough (sorry I probably butchered his name)? I think I may be thinking of someone else. Either, I have something to say to you about your posts.

All your posts, for the most part, come off as incredibly hostile and just dripping with vitriol. Not to mention the amount of profanity you use in every single one of your posts. Honestly, is that necessary? Now as far as my post, I don't need to explain with Beethoven is Beethoven, and John Williams is John Williams, you're just trying to start an argument over nothing to get your rocks off. I don't have time to argue with you on something so insipid. Never did I say John Williams is bad, by the way. In the mean time, watch your mouth. Spouting "scraggy" and "gently caress" all the time in every single of one of your posts doesn't exactly make you come across as mature or collected.

k thx bye.

No, you're thinking of someone else, and I'll use as much profanity as I feel is necessary to properly convey may statements. There are times where profanity is great, and times where it isn't.

And, for that matter, I come off incredibly hostile because I have very little tolerance for blanket-statements which don't mean anything. Also? Way to backpedal out of the junk you said, but you know what? It's fine, like you said, I don't care for arguing about insipid things, which less with someone who can't stand by what they say and instead choose to use personal attacks to backpedal out of a potentially disastrous argument.

Case to point:

Throwing someone into the world of John Cage and Milton Babbitt is NOT going to help someone like 20th century-present music. Seriously. That whole era of post 1945 Avant-Garde is dead, and thankfully it lived a short life

And I come off as hostile, imagine that.

Thanks, I just can't stand that sometimes. People that mentality are the same people that think John Williams is the modern day Beethoven. Seriously, someone told me that yesterday, A MUSIC MAJOR. Ludwig Van is probably still vomiting in his grave.

PS: Nothing against John Williams of course but.......come on!

If that isn't a comparison and subsequent assumption of Beethoven's superiority over Williams based on "come on" grounds, I don't know what is.

So, you know. Before you go off talking about how much profanity I use, think that at least I don't go claiming entire styles of music are dead, much less trying to establish some inherent superiority of X composer over Y composer.

My guess is? You were just angry when you posted the stuff you posted, and you said some things that were best worded differently. No need to go off on me like that, yes?

Besides, this is derailing this thread enough already, so enough of this nonsense.

Right. This is getting ridiculous, and I think it's largely because people are just pouring themselves out onto the keyboard without actually thinking through what they're saying. Maelstromtempest's error, as far as I can detect, is not that he likes Beethoven. That he prefers Beethoven to Bach is inconsequential. Asking him incredulously, "haven't you heard BWV XYZ?!" is not going to change that. The three statements that confuse me are firstly that Bach's music was mainly focussed on rhythm, rather than harmony (this seems bizarre, but others have picked up that thread and it doesn't really interest me), secondly that Bach was 'less emotional' than Beethoven, and thirdly that the sole purpose of good art is to reveal emotion. Now, if somebody fails to be moved by the work of a composer on any level from the first instance, there's little I can do to address the second point. I don't care that somebody prefers Beethoven to Bach; as I see it, emotion is easier to contrive with more instruments and more chords, but often becomes just that - contrived.

What does confuse me however is the idea that emotion is the sole virtue of music. Is there not more to it than that? To reveal the skill of the composer, for example? To reveal inner truths about mankind? To glorify God? Many of these aspects can only be detected on closer analysis of a score, yet I consider their merit equal, if not greater to that of instant, emotional gratification.

Mozart and Haydn wrote beautiful, lightweight music, but writing about it and analysing it is so much less satisfying than analysing the Art of Fugue. Even Bach's pedagogical works are rife with symbolism, messages and meaning. In my opinion, this adds an additional dimension to musical appreciation that amazes me. To be able to write a six part motet with only two bars of music? To write a fugue that functions perfectly both back-to-front and upside-down? Bach wrote both these as gifts, to friends, on scraps of paper. One is on what appears to be a tablecloth.

This genius gives only the slightest indication as to the power contained in that music which actually meant something to Bach. It is astounding in sound, in scope, on paper and in analysis. I feel a certain sadness contemplating what Bach's life must have been like. He must have felt terribly isolated, perhaps finding solice in his family, music and God alone.

I also think Bach's live must've been pretty lonely in an artistic sense. He was pretty much against the new "fashion" at the time, being the last to really keep the counterpoint tradition with the inaudible symbolisms and etc. He was considered old fashion, pass

Zetetic: Why does every expression of appreciation for one composer have to be "supported" by derogatory truisms about other composers? Such as calling Mozart and Haydn "lightweight" (whatever that means) and not very interesting for analysis? Especially if you don't explain it further. I do it too from time to time, so I understand it, but honestly, we won't get anywhere like that, as all it does is start a chain of "No you're wrong, you're underestimating composer X. He's not like Y, who is much worse.", and the next person doing the same.

SCC, that's not entirely true. Whilst Bach celebrated old forms, he also delighted in newer musical textures and was quick to reconcile the two. Before Bach, few had attempted to write fugues in anything less than the vocal, ricercarial, style antico; Bach wrote several with subjects far more reminiscent of the French improvisatory style. Likewise, the St John Passion is said to have horrified some of its more conservative listeners, who complained of its unduly operatic nature.

Having said this, the Art of the Fugue is reminiscent in part of music written hundreds of years before Bach's death - yet still incorporates both harmonic language prohibited by older idioms, and velocitous French rhythms. The influences were practically prehistoric, but the music they generated were quite unlike anything heard before.

Gardener, I apologise. I fell prey to my own trap. Ultimately argument always boils down to the exchange of truism, but I stand by my statement that personal experience has led me to consider the analysis of Haydn and Mozart less enjoyable than that of Bach - irrespective of my stance in relation to the instant appeal their music presents. The term 'lightweight' implies a lack of intellectual depth, and was the conclusion I drew from uninteresting lessons spent analysing Figaro. Let's please not get Mozart stuck in this mess too!

Alright, I was wrong. Bach's music does not FOCUS on the rythmic aspect, but his pieces are very rythmyically complex, perhaps I should have said that instead. At least I can ADMIT I am wrong and not go on making ludricous statements like *some* people. The part about Bach being "less emotional" was my opinion. And the part about emotion being solely what composers write for... again, I was slightly wrong in saying that. I REALLY meant to say that composers don't USUALLY write music because they like seeing little handrawn notes covering a page. There usually is a meaning and purpose behind the music and that's what I meant. So yeah, Bach would not fall under the category of having no meaning behind the music. It is true that Bach's works are nearly perfect in every way, but my main quib with him is the lack of variety of instrumentation that I have heard so far. If anyone could give me a link to some Bach that involves a FULL orchestra, that would be nice. I consider the Brandenburgs a chamber ensemble, sorry.

I apologize for seeming ignorant. Some of what I said was ignorant. It would have been difficult to parse my words the way I did because I probably think of things differently than any of you. Again sorry. But at least I admit my mistake ;)

SCC, that's not entirely true. Whilst Bach celebrated old forms, he also delighted in newer musical textures and was quick to reconcile the two. Before Bach, few had attempted to write fugues in anything less than the vocal, ricercarial, style antico; Bach wrote several with subjects far more reminiscent of the French improvisatory style. Likewise, the St John Passion is said to have horrified some of its more conservative listeners, who complained of its unduly operatic nature.

Um... How about all these other people who wrote fugues before Bach? Say, Pachelbel and Buxtehude being good examples, with tons of others if I bothered to look. Froberger comes to mind.

But anyways, the attempt to combine Bach's style with what was trendy (Galant style) came from CPE Bach, but he didn't get a lot of attention sadly. By the time CPE Bach came around, the Vienna Classic stuff was in full swing so that may have eclipsed it him.

Alright, I was wrong. Bach's music does not FOCUS on the rythmic aspect, but his pieces are very rythmyically complex, perhaps I should have said that instead. At least I can ADMIT I am wrong and not go on making ludricous statements like *some* people. The part about Bach being "less emotional" was my opinion. And the part about emotion being solely what composers write for... again, I was slightly wrong in saying that. I REALLY meant to say that composers don't USUALLY write music because they like seeing little handrawn notes covering a page. There usually is a meaning and purpose behind the music and that's what I meant. So yeah, Bach would not fall under the category of having no meaning behind the music. It is true that Bach's works are nearly perfect in every way, but my main quib with him is the lack of variety of instrumentation that I have heard so far. If anyone could give me a link to some Bach that involves a FULL orchestra, that would be nice. I consider the Brandenburgs a chamber ensemble, sorry.

I apologize for seeming ignorant. Some of what I said was ignorant. It would have been difficult to parse my words the way I did because I probably think of things differently than any of you. Again sorry. But at least I admit my mistake ;)

Well, yes, you're certainly right there. Instrumentation and timbre certainly weren't focus areas for Bach. But that hardly has anything to do with him, but the time he lived in. The idea of actually "orchestrating" and using instruments directedly to achieve certain effects simply (almost) didn't exist yet back then, or was only very slowly starting to emerge. Just think of the concerto grosso, where you have the soloists, and then the "orchestra" which basically consists of every instrument that was available for the concert, the more the merrier, all playing the same couple of voices.

Of course there were also more sophisticated uses of instruments in orchestras (especially in operas), but in general, the concept of "timbre" etc. wasn't very important.

However, it's surely perfectly possible to write great music without a big range of instrumental colours. Otherwise all piano music would suck by definition.

SSC: Personally, I don't hear much "combinating the galant style with father Bach's style" in CPE Bach's music. Actually I don't think I hear any "father-influence" at all, in most pieces. It sounds totally classical to me.

Hmm. Try his stuff for clavichord. There's a bunch of examples but I can't name'em off the top of my head, where it's clear that he tried to grab stuff off his father and mix it up. The one who is purely classical is Christian Bach. :x