Dietrich Buxtehude

If anyone plays the organ here I recommend Buxtehude's works. He is second only to Bach. All his preludes (and fugues) and also his passacaglias I highly recommend. He is a joy to play, and the similarities with Bach are huge. He is one of if not the number one influence on Bach's counterpoint and obviously his organ composition style. One of the secrets behind Bach is the inheritance of the Buxtehude style (even more so than Pachelbel if you ask me).

If anyone plays the organ here I recommend Buxtehude's works. He is second only to Bach. All his preludes (and fugues) and also his passacaglias I highly recommend. He is a joy to play, and the similarities with Bach are huge. He is one of if not the number one influence on Bach's counterpoint and obviously his organ composition style. One of the secrets behind Bach is the inheritance of the Buxtehude style (even more so than Pachelbel if you ask me).

Amen.

I love Buxtehude. If there hadn't been Buxtehude then would Bach be who Bach was? I doubt it.

I read in Phillip Spitta's "Bach", that huge three volume biography. I read

that Bach felt compelled to meet all the great organist of Germany. So he walked to meet them. Buxtehude he met last and he was the greatest of the others. I believe Bach became them all in one. By meeting them he in a sense inhertited all of their powers. Bach WAS the Baroque all in one - the pinnacle.

Spitta even said that Bach took that rushing unrestrained power of Buxtehude and tempered it into wonderful structure with what he learned from the school of Pachelbel. (I mean school in that he studied his works)

Bach united the two. Dare I say he united all the composers before him.

Yes, the one aspect you can notice in Bach's organ works as compared with Buxtehude's, is the more unified structure of his works, as opposed to the more contrasting sectional nature of the "Stylus Fantasticus" of Buxtehude's works (which are more akin to a Bach fantasia), and this structural aspect in Bach as you very well said is an influence coming from another angle, possibly Pachelbel like you mentioned. So in these most personal of Bach's works (organ preludes/toccatas and fugues) we see a merging of the two schools. In any case I consider Buxtehude to be a brilliant composer in his own right and quite underrated or overlooked. And since you mention the presence of other organists in the formation of Bach, there is also the important Georg Bohm school to be mentioned, which involves the composition of Chorale Partitas. These were also culminated by Bach, and in fact they were his introduction to composition. For me these are the earliest glimpses of Bach's genius, to see where he was taking the Chorale Partita form already at a very early age, which he inherited from Bohm.

In any case I consider Buxtehude to be a brilliant composer in his own right and quite underrated or overlooked.

I agree. If all his works had been recovered and we had more of his works he would be considered a true great indeed.

I hear his greatest works were for harpsichord. According to Phillip Spitta's

"Bach". It's to bad those works were lost. I believe he did a Planets suite that was lost. A cosmic type of work. And interestingly I see the stars of heaven when I hear Buxtehude and Bach. Sadly we can only imagine how

great they were.

Right now I'm learning BWV 543, Prelude and Fugue in A minor. That one right there just about sums up this merging of the Buxtehude style with the Bach approach to structure. What a f'kin colossal piece of music it is, I am still having trouble getting over the intimidation of it. Just the prelude alone is huge, he works over this few couple of figures relentlessly and just when you thought there were no more possibilities he throws in a sequence alternating with the pedals. Im still trying to figure out exactly what is happening harmonically in the opening of the prelude, with these chromatic alterations to the figure. It's an effect he also uses in a fugue subject in his BWV 914 Toccata (in which case he alternates ascending and natural minor scale degrees in the figure). This is apparently a melodic device which Buxtehude was fond of. And the BWV 543 fugue is colossal, a typical organ fugue with a long subject and somewhat loose coutnerpoint, and one of my favorites of his. Sublime is an understatement for this music.

Right now I'm learning BWV 543, Prelude and Fugue in A minor. That one right there just about sums up this merging of the Buxtehude style with the Bach approach to structure. What a f'kin colossal piece of music it is, I am still having trouble getting over the intimidation of it. Just the prelude alone is huge, he works over this few couple of figures relentlessly and just when you thought there were no more possibilities he throws in a sequence alternating with the pedals. Im still trying to figure out exactly what is happening harmonically in the opening of the prelude, with these chromatic alterations to the figure. It's an effect he also uses in a fugue subject in his BWV 914 Toccata (in which case he alternates ascending and natural minor scale degrees in the figure). This is apparently a melodic device which Buxtehude was fond of. And the BWV 543 fugue is colossal, a typical organ fugue with a long subject and somewhat loose coutnerpoint, and one of my favorites of his. Sublime is an understatement for this music.

Yes, I love that piece.

Can anyone ever figure out Bach? He is the only classical composer I feel I cannot put my finger on. He far outreaches my horizons. Beethoven said his last name should have not been Bach which means brook, but rather the German word for Ocean. His ideas and genius seems to be as vast and as deep as the ocean.

I always see the stars of the heavens when I hear that Prelude. As if it were working through the stars. The fugue has always reminded me of a great wedding. I call it the Marriage of the Lamb fugue.

I could talk for a lifetime of the wonders of Bach's music, even Buxtehude's.

Worth pointing out, I think, besides how great Buxtehude is, is that this year marks the 300th anniversary of his death. Somehow I doubt he'll receive a fraction of the attention Mozart got last year, but I for one will do what I can to make it so. Spread the word.

I hope i'm not repeating myself here, Dietrich Buxtehude was a bad-donkey organist and composer for the insturment, and a master of counterpoint. Theres a particular style involved in playing and composing for the instrument (its a school of playing that comes from Sweelinck, see his organ toccatas) and Buxtehude just about sums it up almost more so than Bach. The guy obviously liked to improvise, I might add.

PraeludiumUndFuge, Invisionary, and EldKatt, have any of you written any music in the style of Buxtehude or Bach? I would be very interested in hearing some.

Truthfully, I enjoy Buxtehude much more than Bach. I like the unrestrained power in many works written before Bach... The daring harmonies, virtuosistic melodies and appealing counterpoint would probably surprise many listeners who think Baroque just means Bach.

Not that I don't enjoy Bach... but I think Buxtehude, Froberger, and Pachelbel (and even earlier, Frescobaldi and Sweelinck) were just as able composers. Right now I'm learining Frescobaldi's Canzona Quarta and some of Pachelbel's Hexachordum Apollinis on the harpsichord. Its good to know that somebody besides myself appreciates Buxtehude.

Are you familiar with BuxWV 148? I just posted (on the piano board) my passacaglia based on the theme of the ostinato at the end of BuxWV 148, Praeludium in G Minor. vbmenu_register("postmenu_76023", true);

Nice to see you like this early organ music as much as I do echurchhill. As far as the harmony goes none is as daring for the time as that of Bach's, however what you will find in Buxtehude is a less restrained treatment in general. The most adequate description I can find for this is the fact that these composers you mention were very improvisatory in fashion, and this is where you get the "disrestraint" from. Of course Bach is not the only baroque composer and considering the spirit of baroque music he is a very particular composer, considered mechanical in some points of view (especially those of many contemporaries). With Buxtehude you can see he was simply having fun at the organ, improvising and composing in this "Stylus Fantasticus" which is the approach you describe. In some points of view he lacks robustness or depth of structure in his works but for me he is simply a master of handling the organ and would be the number one symbol of the isntrument (and is to some) were it not for Bach. Sweelinck of course is where the whole school of playing the instrument as we know it today comes from and is also one of the great masters. His toccatas is where the whole style parts from in my opinion. Froberger i enjoy more for his cembalo works which are in the French style which has a very beautiful harmonic language which is so essential to the baroque style. In any case as you said the baroque music art is far mroe than just Bach and these composers should never be overlooked because in many cases they show a more pure baroque spirit than most of what people are familiar with from Bach's output.

It's true, I've fallen into a bit of a I-hate-Bach phase. I like Bach. And his harmonic language is very advanced. And his architectural sense is awesome.

But at the same time, the tiny sectional forms of earlier composers appeal to me alot... I loved Bach alot, and I still do. I used to listen to his fugues alot, they were very good.... but sometimes I think too long, you know? On the other hand, listening to some of the mini fugues inside of Buxtehude's preludes or Froberger's capriccios, they have such cool subjects and they are just right in length.... What I like alot especially is the older ricercars and canzonas.... they would chain together five minifugues based on the same subject but varied each time, and show some fantastic creativity, more than just "fun at the organ"

Or also in rhythms.... sometimes it seems to me like Bach was a bit too addicted to perpetual 16th note motion, over and over, especially in some fugues. Of course, I can't generalize; now as I say this dozens of rhythmicaly interesting Bach fugues are coming to me. Nonetheless, I think rhythm is one aspect of music that was declining by Bach's time.

Any harmony.... well, I don't know where to begin. Bach's harmony was very modern, even by Classical standards. But I think it was too tonal... you know, looking a Bach music, there are tons of accidentals and clashing harmonies beacuse of the different minor forms. But I think he lost some of the rich possibilities of modal harmony.

For example, I was listening to a Sweelinck toccata, and it was fantastic when I heard a circle-of-fifths sequence all of the sudden.... but in reverse!! It was a plagal sequence, a chain of notes flowing totally against the normal direction of harmony. Or in Buxtehude, where in minor you might find a VIIb chord (very modal, tends to go to the relative major) and right afterwards a secondary dominant (very tonal and modern). It makes for some cool and undescribable emotions, at least as I hear it.

Well, I guess I just like the old harmonies.

But either way, the Bach music that I like is the stuff you all like. BWV 543 for example has the sort of creative structure that I love. Bach's Well Temepered Clavier is boring compared to the full development the organ fugues get. I'd lake to hear other thoughts you have about Bach's place among the Baroque.

I think that is exactly an aspect of Bach which comes to mind, the fact that his harmony was already very tonal and modern in nature. In any case he was very advanced in its use, if in a more tonal sense. At a quick glance, diminished 7th chords abound in his music (especially organ music), something I understand to be quite particular to his style for the time, and modulations pivoting on secondary dominant chords to distant keys are evident in some other works (his major vocal works come to mind). In general his use of dissonance in organ music at least, as compared with Buxtehude and etc, is much richer. This has become especially evident to me when playing their music at the organ. There is almost a sense of bareness in Buxtehude or others of the time as compared with Bach. Not to detract from their greatness obviously, since each have their own appeal.

I'm personally trying to learn and understand a little more about this earlier baroque harmonic language with its modal influences (and harmony in general at that, which is something I'm still quite green at). This modal-flavored harmonic language is something I've noticed the French style is very rich in. You hear it in Couperin, Froberger, et al.

Of course there is the major VII in minor mode formula (tonicizing the relative major), which is like a baroque cliche (the "La Folia" chord progression being the timeless example), as well as the use of the minor dominant chord.

But some of these other mannerisms of the style I'd like to become more acquainted with, they really give the music a richness you don't hear in later styles of music.

As far as structure, that is something wich places Bach above the rest. His economy of ideas and his overall working of a piece into a whole is what makes his music transcendental to something mroe than simple tidbits of pretty music. Don't get me wrong as I am just as much a lover of nice little phrases in the music as the next guy, but with Bach there is that added aspect of depth and intellect in elaboration which makes his music what it is.

As much as I admire him for that I will confess to you, as you rightly pointed out, there is a pure and simple gracefulness of this baroque spirit in some of these earlier artists which Bach can tend to lack. Like I said there are these little secrets of harmonic language these early keyboard composers had which gave the music an intrinsic and unique beauty.

The one from the D minor violin partita is AFAIK the only chaconne Bach wrote. Then there's the C minor passacaglia and fugue for organ, which I guess lends itself better to orchestration, but... it's not a chaconne. End random musing.

Hah; makes sense. The topic of the thread. Apologies!

Listening to Bach's BWV 532 prelude in D for organ. The opening and some select passages throughout are so Buxtehudian you could mistake it for such.

However I must say their differences become more apparent every day. Where Buxtehude is illustrative and free, Bach is relentlessly focused. There is more to baroque music than Bach, much more. It's nice to appreciate all of it.

Where Buxtehude is illustrative and free, Bach is relentlessly focused.

Definately.

Buxtehude was very free and yet full of splendor, whereas Bach seemed to take this wonderful ability of Buxtehude and give it driving purpose.

I've in the past compared Buxtehude to water running through a faucet without a screen to filter it's flow. It comes out with force and seemed to come out very pure. Whereas Bach's is the same water just filtered and comes out straight and controlled.

Buxtehude's music seems very pure.

I've heard some of the Buxtehude chamber works now here, harpsichord arias and etc, and he distinguishes himself more at the organ than in these kind of works. I'm not surprised. He is so organistic, what he best sums up as a composer is this "stylus fantasticus" which was popular for the organ.

Very very interesting name...

Which name?

umm this name...Dietrich Buxtehude, it's so ownage. :) At least from my point of view.

word up

Recently I've been stydying organ music and especially Buxtehude's style a bit, and in a fit of inspiration I wrote this tiny little fragment in the toccata stylus phantasticus style. It's not a fugue, but it has a central motive, a descending tetrachord, repeated quickly in various homophonic and contrapunctal ways. I mean it to be like the faster transitions and introductions in Buxtehude's praeludia.

I'm posting it here instead of on "Solo Keyboard" because it's less than a full minute, because that Luzideus guy is distacting everyone from the good music, and because it's directly relevant to Buxtehude's style rather than Bachian or classical or romantic music.

How do you think it measures up to Buxtehude's style? I don't pretend to be even near his command of harmony and counterpoint, and even if I were I would still lack a personal style. For now I'm emulating various Baroque composers; eventually I'll develop a style of my own after I have a better feel for melody, harmony and counterpoint. Also, how idiomatic is my music on the organ? Previously I've only written for the harpsichord.

Toccata F dur - eSnips, share anything

I can't tell you if it's exactly like buxtehude, but it does sound harmonically like buxtehude and definately embodies the opening section found in some of his preludes... I like it, if that's any help.

Thanks, knowing that it sounds good to someone else is the most important thing... otherwise this would be a mere mechanical exercise.

This is a very nice imitative passage. Very 17th century-like. This could fit in a free Buxtehudeian fantasia-like piece. The pedal point introduced around the middle works very nicely too. The passage would work just fine on the organ especially introducing a registration change to the ruckpositiv or a brustwerk with a bright registration. The stylus fantasticus is very free and sectional. This could be used to open a prelude or be thrown in somewhere within it, with toccata style passages (using the plenum) and the like, and the pedal effecting modulations (very Buxtehudian). Maybe a pedal solo right after this. I'd love to hear a finished prelude/fantasia with it.