Bach Is Boss

Found a very good post today:

http://leadingtone.tumblr.com/post/16453143058/why-is-bach-boss

Do give it a read and share your responses. I think it is spot on. Some people really underestimate Bach's laying of the foundations for over 300 years of Western music. I'd specifically like to hear from yous folks who hate/dislike Bach and why. You know who you are!

There is a statement I particularily agree with:

"Today, to (...) a much more enthusiastic and violent degree than ever before, young creators often concern themselves first and foremost with being iconoclasts".

That normally means loudly trashing people whose art is most widely revered. Forgetting why are they so widely revered in the first place. And sounding so much as little more than vocal envy.

I must confess that I am not Bach's biggest fan. Many of his works I don't find as pleasant or enjoyable as the music of later composers. Others, however, I do like a lot, and almost feel obliged to consult from time to time. But I would never deny that everything these later composers did, was founded in Bach's endeavors. I respect his precission and craftmanship, and his huge, unmistakably contribution to the development of tonal language and keyboard technique. And can recognize Bach's presence everywhere on the later music. Even an 'iconoclast' like Schoenberg advocated a certain 'back to Bach' attitude.

Good recommendation, Mr. Tokke. Thanks for sharing this article!

Well I like the article's emphasis of Bach as a working musician but he had more help than the article suggests - like a farmer who has a ton of kids, Bach had his kids recopying scores (as well as his wife taking care of storing copper engravings) and had employed assistants while cantor at his church. In fact later in his life he didn't play as much organ because his job became more administrative - he had a little more time compose. Finally Bach was a HUGE reviser. He was known to revise many of his works or like the Mass in B minor recycle. The real prolific composer who could write perfect polyphony as if writing a note on a greeting card was Telemann - yet the results are not as popular or interesting as some of Bach's stuff (though Telemann did write some fantastic stuff).

I do not like to consider Bach the foundation of the past 300 years of Western music. He was very important but he is part of a larger whole. The posting shows how students today fail to go before Bach until later in their lives. Listen to Desprez, Gombert, Byrd, Purcell, Monteverdi for some beautiful harmonic polyphony. Listen to a smattering of Corelli, Frescobaldi, and Vivaldi to get an idea of where Bach got some of his chromaticism. And of course Buxtehude ...

So, Bach was an excellent composer, but enough of putting composers on pedestals.

Young composers are typically more interested in emulating existing styles and composers, later developing an individual voice. Just take a look at pieces uploaded here on YC: "Sonatas", "Symphonies", "String Quartets" and incidental music a la Hans Zimmer.

Cool, Phil - from your comment I'm coming to realize that our site is the single most representative reunion of modern young composers :horrified:.

What you point out is the real, natural process of growth among serious composers of any era. Not what is done by a few guys coming out from a prestige-laced school or teacher (or a garage band, for that matter) and wishing for a quick ticket to notoriety.

Misquote:

Actually, wait: weren't you the person who considered atonal composition to be a shallow attempted to gain fame and respect? If so: your ideas of what can be considered to be 'iconoclasm' are probably....unique.

So you're attempting to deny that abolishing tonality altogether was an act of 'iconoclasm' in itself? Whew, and I'm being unique :hmmm:...!

I was using YC as an example (which you already knew of course, but chose to disregard).

Just as you chose to disregard that few, if any, of the YC members is the kind of estabilished composer the article is referring to.

Sweet paradox, one constructed intentionally as a demonstration of wit, no doubt. My favorite part is your refusing to seperate the terms 'majority' and 'iconoclast'.

Sweet misrepresentation, one constructed intentionally as an attempt to ridicule the opponent, no doubt. I didn't even mention a 'majority'. I did point out there are a few guys who would do anything to gain notoriety - all too often blaming their failures to the listeners' dumbness.

It seems we both agree that my description of the output of young composers to be accurate, however, I'm not sure if you understand what kind of attitude iconoclasm entails. Emulating composers who have been highly acclaimed for centuries =/= iconoclasm.

Another misquote. Emulating highly acclaimed composers is not iconoclasm, nor did I ever say that. On the contrary, there are people who (without even having made a contribution themselves) have the nerve of trashing these very same composers and their styles, as well as the composers who strive to develop their own voices within these styles. These are the guys more concerned with being 'iconoclasts' as a shortcut to notoriety without the hard work.

So you're attempting to deny that much like how every time a car tire is placed on a car rim, 'the wheel' is not being invented: a living composer writing an atonal work is not "abolishing tonality altogether"?

That might be true now, one century after Schoenberg. But on Schoenberg's day, when there were no known precedents on atonality, he was certainly an iconoclast. And he did abolish tonality altogether, at least for himself. The fact that others came to believe this was the ONLY way to compose from then onwards, it's another story.

Austenite: you keep saying things like "there are too many guys who do this just become notorious" or "so many people do this and blame their failures because of the listeners' dumbness". Do you actually know of any composers who have done this, or are you forming a fallacious perception of forward looking composers and simply spouting from the top? These generalizations based on what seems to be nothing, aren't as insulting to some composers as they are simply revealing of your own misunderstanding of the territories Classical Music has gone in the last century.

My dear Phil... It's very clear we have antagonizing conceptions about these topics. I can respect that - but absolutely not the fact of implicitly labeling any differing opinion as a show of ignorance.

I must thank you, however, for the unintended compliment that I'm "simply spouting from the top", which of course requires me to actually BE on the top ;). I don't think of myself as highly, but thanks anyway.

I still have my patience with me, so I'll go step by step.

Fairly young composers (under 40 or around) who could be described as 'estabilished' (i.e. having made a significant impact either through major festivals, broadcast media or commercial recordings): Eric Whitacre, Thomas Adés, Lera Auerbach, Gilad Hochman, Jay Greenberg, among others.

What surely is a "figment of your imagination" is confusing the term "degree" with the term "majority". "Majority" describes a quantity. There is a certain quantity of young composers who have a "violent degree" of concern with being iconoclasts. The writer isn't saying they are a "majority"; neither am I. (By your own definition, that certainly classifies as a misquote).

You had admitted (at least before carefully editing your post) that you were aware of statements by composers such as Boulez and Adorno, who had sought notoriety by rambling against "the grain". Take into account this were no isolated cases, but evidence of a widespread attitude of "modernists", which Arthur Berger (a biographer of Aaron Copland) describes as the belief "that they were a small vanguard leading the way (...) music and the other arts need be accessible to only a select cadre of the enlightened". There were (and are) composers who place terrible demands on their listeners, and then (upon a failure) complain that they don't have enough intellect to understand them (I'm also paraphrasing an interview given by Leonard Bernstein). The very usage of terms like "forward-looking composers" or whichever other translation of "avant-garde" is in itself semantically charged (like "all others go backwards"). Same goes for "modernism" (like "all others are antiquated"). This I find as an insulting generalization and an unacceptable display of arrogance.

To clarify: I am not attacking atonalism in itself - but the above-described attitude of preconceived "superiority" and equivalence with "intellect". Enough of putting vogues in pedestals.

This is actually good dialogue. :thumbsup: If you two decide to get an advanced discussion in Music (heck, any field), you will have to discuss, debate, and defend your view points in music the same way you are doing now. This will definitely appear in seminar classes. (Maybe I should moderate... :hmmm: ) In any case, keep this going with the footnotes! I love seeing musicians being passionate!!

I'm embarrassed for both of you.

This is actually good dialogue. :thumbsup: If you two decide to get an advanced discussion in Music (heck, any field), you will have to discuss, debate, and defend your view points in music the same way you are doing now. This will definitely appear in seminar classes. (Maybe I should moderate... :hmmm: ) In any case, keep this going with the footnotes! I love seeing musicians being passionate!!

I'm embarrassed for both of you.

It seems the audience is equally polarized :cool: ...

Your thinking this is understandable, seeing as how you are making your way to the 'top' with all these YC award nominations (how kind of you to remind us all in your signature ;)).

Isn't it natural for any composer to show a wish for his works to be listened? Or does that offend you?

You do realize that a person's 40s is referred to as their "mid life", right?

I do, provided that not everyone pulls an Elliott Carter. Anyhow, it's not me, but some international treaties, which define the upper 'youth' as limited by age 35 or even 40. That's why I wrote "FAIRLY young".

A "young creator" is someone such as myself. I'm 21 years old. I create things.

I'm so sorry for not including you in the short list. It wouldn't hurt if I heard other works from you besides this cool Toccatina...

I'm very pleased you have been actively informing yourself about composers and a collective train of thought which has long subsided. It'd be beneficial for you to acknowledge that the 'modernists' we are referring to at the moment (as well as the same group of people Berger refers to in his biography of Copland) are all dead or have moved on. In other words: his accounts of elitism don't describe composers of today or of the recent decades.

Well, these old 'modernists' might be dead, but their attitide has taken longer to die. Again, I'm not taking only Berger's account. In fact I've quoted so far five different sources to support my opinion: 1) Boulez, 2) Adorno, 3) Berger, 4) Bernstein, 5) the author of the article originating this thread.

Berger's thoughts on the SVS and it's successors is quite literally an asshole, coming out of another asshole.

This clearly illustrates my point. *insert Sar Lac Pit burp here*

You seem to harbor a misconception that these terms are somehow inherently derogatory. They're not. They are unbiased associations based on similarities (or lack of) to a particular time.

I must guess your sarcastic (?) references to my (not so) "unique" thoughts or to my signature including links to my music aren't derogatory either. That must have been another misconception on my part. <_<

Guys, this isn't helping anyone. The point was Bach's influence on Western Music. Stick to that please.

So... Bach was like.....really good...and stuff.... :nod:

I always suspected as much! The Bach fanboy in me likes to imagine that he's the culmination of all that came before, and the standard for all that came after, but I know that isn't the complete picture. It seems the same could be argued, at the very least, for Beethoven (seems like the more I learn about the Romantic Era, the more everyone was trying to emulate and/or improve Beethoven), and probably for many other composers.

I'm glad the article mentioned that, at least among other musicians, Bach was not completely unknown before Mendelssohn. I also have to agree with composerorganist that Telemann wrote some fantastic stuff -- and sometimes shockingly original.

Alas, we seem to have arrived at the same end as we do every time we butt heads on this exact matter.

Which is why we keep butting heads on this exact matter :toothygrin:.

I thought we'd both be able to find humor in the oversight: the cited writings of Berger condemned certain composers for their elitism and disparaging of the works of others, all the while Berger himself, was someone who was quick to criticize the compositional approach of others!

I'm always willing to smile at the life's ironies and people's inconsistency (hey, why not call that "flexibility"?)... *insert another Sar Lac Pit burp here*

Anyways, good luck on your nominations :thumbsup:

Thanks a lot - though I'd be surprised if you actually voted for it :P ...

The point was Bach's influence on Western Music. Stick to that please.

See post #2.

Although I'm not a fan of a good majority of his music (as with that of most baroque composers), I find his work invaluable for contrapuntal and formal study (as Haydn and Mozart did in their day).

However, I do find often myself humming some of the more tuneful numbers from some of the more popular cantatas.