Bach is the very best composer.

[karlhenning]

I don't think these oddball techniques take better advantage of tone production in the violin, they strike me as an attempt at novelty for novelty's sake.

Well, you seem quite instransigently disposed against them (viz. your adjective oddball) . . . it strikes me as a bit quaint, to take aesthetic umbrage to col legno (which has now been with us ca. 200 years, and is scarcely novelty for novelty's sake any longer). Sul tasto, con sordino, col legno do take "better advantage of tone production" of the string choir, by giving greater breadth to the tone-color pallette.

I might add that while I happily make use of these time-honored techniques, in general, Scarpia, I probably share your philosophical disregard for "extended techniques."  In purely technical terms, I write quite conservatively for the clarinet, for instance.

[Scarpia]

Well, you seem quite instransigently disposed against them (viz. your adjective oddball) . . . it strikes me as a bit quaint, to take aesthetic umbrage to col legno (which has now been with us ca. 200 years, and is scarcely novelty for novelty's sake any longer). Sul tasto, con sordino, col legno do take "better advantage of tone production" of the string choir, by giving greater breadth to the tone-color pallette.

I might add that while I happily make use of these time-honored techniques, in general, Scarpia, I probably share your philosophical disregard for "extended techniques."  In purely technical terms, I write quite conservatively for the clarinet, for instance.

What I personally respond to in music is melody, harmony, rhythm, and value tone color as it helps to underline the three basic attributes.   For instance, probably in contradiction to most people, I find Brahms to be the most effective orchestrator because of his skill in finding just the right voicing and instrumentation to highlight his complex harmonic language.  I'm all for testing the limits of the instruments if it furthers that goal.  For instance, the opening of the Rite of Spring looks like a student's error on the page, with the bassoon playing beyond the limits of its conventional range while the english horn and oboe players sit idle.  But it gives that melody a quality that it would not have with conventional scoring, particularly when the other woodwind instruments enter.  (A case where the line between error and stroke of genius is perhaps hard to define, objectively.)

Unconventional use of the instruments in the orchestra is sometimes used to great effect, but more often than not I find it a distraction.

[mikkeljs]

It's not my "model," -- it [the original article, written by David Hurwitz] is meant to be a joke using stereotypes. I'm sorry if it offended you.

haha - ok But the title of this thread would in fact fit very well to this model. Just thinking how many threads on gmg belongs to the group of favourit/top 20 composers/best symphonists etc., when it´s better to just accept that composers are always different levels and still wrote good music.

[Opus106]

it´s better to just accept that composers are always different levels and still wrote good music.

I hear they do exactly that in Utopia. Anyway, I'm sure half or more of these "favourite/best/rating threads" were created by MN Dave in jest, as was the present one.

[quintett op.57]

I really really really wanna listen to Schnittke's 3rd quartet right now.
He's the best right now in the territory that goes from my kitchen to my bathroom.

Whoever says Bach is the best is wrong if I read his post from my kitchen

Banana

[Franco]

I think there is a difficulty with the definition of "idiomatic."  All those oddball techniques such as col legno, etc, strike me as anti-idiomatic.   Idiomatic, for me, means laying well and taking full advantage of the timbre and tone production of the instrument.  Nothing can be more idiomatic to the violin than Bach's violin concerto in E.  Not a virtuoso piece (well, what do I know, I don't play the violin) but seems to flow so naturally from the instrument.  (I'm thinking of Grumiaux's recording.)

There's nothing "oddball" about col legno, IMO.  Berlioz and Holst thought it a legitimate technique and called for it their works.  It produces an effect unavailable otherwise, and can be put to valuable use by a good composer.

[Scarpia]

There's nothing "oddball" about col legno, IMO.  Berlioz and Holst thought it a legitimate technique and called for it their works.  It produces an effect unavailable otherwise, and can be put to valuable use by a good composer.

If you refer to my subsequent post, I mentioned that I find that unconventional techniques are used to great effect, but more often then not I find them a distraction. 

Regarding Holst's col legno, you're referring to Mars, from the planets.  Yes, effective, but it's a novel sound effect there.  Berlioz?  I don't know, life is to short to listen to Berlioz (IMO, of course).

[Mirror Image]

Not a big fan of Bach, but I acknowledge and recognize his influence and mastery.

[Sid]

Regarding whether Bach is "the very best composer," I don't any composer can be said to be that. They were all good (or even great) in their own unique ways. I know many people around classical music boards like this worship J. S., but he is my least favourite Baroque composer. Much of his music (to me) sounds dry, technical and heavy. I like the lighter and warmer sounds of the Italians like Monteverdi & D. Scarlatti, and also the guy they hugely influenced, Handel. I've also recently acquired the two organ masses of F. Couperin.

I only own one J. S. Bach disc, as a matter of fact. However, I would like to see his music done live. Earlier in the year, there was a concert here in Sydney where they played all of the Brandenburgs (very intense). I like to see virtually any classical music live, so this would have been great. I would jump at the chance to see his Mass in B minor, that must be very moving. I also don't mind listening to music by him on radio (and of his sons). But as far as owning his music on cd, I'm not very interested. I want to get into the other Baroque composers more, though, as it's the era that I'm least familiar with, along with early/Renaissance music, which I also am beginning to enjoy.

[quintett op.57]

I would jump at the chance to see his Mass in B minor, that must be very moving.

no doubt, if the performers are good

[karlhenning]

Regarding whether Bach is "the very best composer," I don't any composer can be said to be that. They were all good (or even great) in their own unique ways.

Thank you.

There is no way to designate any single composer as The Best, without in effect defining what is good music in specific relation to that composer's work.

That said, I certainly observe a distinction between great and good composers (oh, and hacks, there really are hacks out there).  A further-nested corollary is, I have a passionate fondness for quite some work by "merely" good composers.

[Verena]

I like the lighter and warmer sounds of the Italians like Monteverdi & D. Scarlatti, and also the guy they hugely influenced, Hande

Yeah, I sometimes think I prefer Handel to Bach (Monteverdi and Scarlatti are also great). I think that many of Handel's works are still under-appreciated. Those gorgeous oratorios and great operas, for example, which IMO should be recorded and performed much more often. There are only few arias and choruses by Bach which I really like (though I like those a great deal), but many more by Handel.

[drogulus]

      I voted Bananafanamomana, because this is the least wrong answer. It asserts nothing as fact.

      1) is wrong because it does.

      2) is wrong since it states that it could be the case that Bach is the very best composer. It couldn't be the case. You might qualify the statement to reach an unavoidable presumption in favor of Bach, like best composer to study Bach, or do laundry, or some other tweaky kind of thing like "very best" means by this poll. Bach therefore wins the Bach poll if he gets enough votes.

      3) is ambiguous since it asserts either that Bach is not the very best composer, which is wrong, or that "Bach is the very best composer" is not true, which is right. This hinges on the correct assertion that there is no fact of the matter for the literal truth of what the proposition asserts.

      4) is included as a dumping ground for "one of these has to be right". I'm sympathetic, but no, none of them has to be right, and none of them is.

      Awww....some of my post got left on the cutting room floor. Too late now to fix it.

[jochanaan]

...I know many people around classical music boards like this worship J. S., but he is my least favourite Baroque composer. Much of his music (to me) sounds dry, technical and heavy...

That's a legitimate opinion, and one shared by many, but not by me.  Yet for a long time Bach's music suffered from being played by many performers who were too reverential to play it with real passion, style, and flexibility.  (This doesn't apply to the real greats like Pablo Casals and Wanda Landowska, nor even to Glenn Gould, although I'd call his readings idiosyncratic at least.)  Also, until the HIP movement took effect, musicians tended to play Bach too slow.  On the other hand, some (again, usually not the real greats, but many second-rank players and groups) contemporary performers simply race through Bach's music, especially the slower movements, with technical brilliance but no real passion and flexibility.  How they can do this, I can't even imagine!  I find Bach's music too great to play with anything less than the greatest musicianship, the best technique, the highest passion I've got.  If I play Bach's music and don't make people fall in love with it, I haven't done my job as a player.