Who is greater: Bach or Brahms?

[Lethevich]

Maybe I am blind (wham, ouch!), but what achievement are you referring to?

I would rate Bach's achievement in both his unprecedented complexity (I feel that he alone is keeping the baroque genre from being somewhat lacking in ambition), his absolute internalised love for the craft of music, something which he seemingly considered part of his personality or dedication to his religion: Romantics wrote for posterity, but composers prior to that considered music far more functional and not requiring much thought or polish. Even greats such as Handel wrote reams of lesser music, seemingly quite casually written, but Bach somehow managed to evade this trap of laziness (although as I say, at the time it wasn't considered  to be that) through some heroic effort, despite being expected to produce huge amounts of "functional" music.

In terms of what he produced, I find that his organ works stand alone, once again in complexity. It took me a while to care about this word I keep using, but after a long phase of listening to organ music, then returning to Bach, I found the density of his invention an absolute revelation. The same applies to his concertos, which are more restless in stylistic influences and form, not to mention content, than any other contemporary I have heard. His harpsichord music I also feels stands aside in its sheer quality. The WTC is one of the most transcendent compositions out there. To write a piece of that length is very easy, but to write one that the masses and performers fall in love with is quite another. I am less attuned to his choral output at the moment, but look forward to more discoveries there, especially given peoples high opinion of it.

I suppose the key to Bach is not to try to listen to it from a Romantic POV. The Romantics may have loved Bach, but to some degree they didn't fully understand him. He wrote music fully of its time, but of a quality that none of his contemporaries could understand the point of, let alone write themselves. I am very far from an expert on Bach, mind you, and ironically (given wat I said a sentence or two before) I am writing this in part as an emotional reaction to the music rather than a deep technical understanding.

[Gurn Blanston]

Maybe it is as simple as that. I always feel like I am the odd man out on Bach.

No, no, you're not alone. Bach's OK, a good composer. I like some of his stuff. He's certainly no Beethoven though. Or Haydn or Mozart either. You know, Neal, you like what you like and someone else likes what they like, and if it isn't the same thing, that's hard cheese.

I think most people here know where we're coming from and don't hold it against us, so all that's needed is becoming reconciled with having an opinion that differs from the majority. Personally, I'm good with that.   

Thread duty:

Brahms.

[mc ukrneal]

I suppose the key to Bach is not to try to listen to it from a Romantic POV.

This is probably something I should consider more closely. I do like everything a bit romantic (including the Bach I like - Stokowski transcriptions anyone?). I've never really considered it might require a paradigm shift on my part. Even Shoenberg and company (not my favorites), well I can appreciate their music even though I don't love it. Perhaps I understand it better and Bach less so than I thought. Appreciate your sharing that.

Bulldog - Perhaps you are right, but there is something in me that just inherently revolts against that. My goal is not to make Bach my 'favorite', but to gain some insight on why others do so that maybe I can inch that much closer to a better appreciation. And just to clarify - I do find a 'live' organ interesting (and enjoyable). Oh, and Bach is not hell. I can think of much, much worse!

Gurn - I guess I just want to feel a little bit of what people feel when they hear Bach. You are right to some degree that we like what we like, but I think by shedding more light on why people feel the way they do about Bach that I will be able to at least feel a little of what they do.

[Scarpia]

Bulldog - Perhaps you are right, but there is something in me that just inherently revolts against that. My goal is not to make Bach my 'favorite', but to gain some insight on why others do so that maybe I can inch that much closer to a better appreciation. And just to clarify - I do find a 'live' organ interesting (and enjoyable). Oh, and Bach is not hell. I can think of much, much worse!

What makes Bach miraculous to me is the way he can imagine different melodic lines which are beautiful in their own right, and sound as free as any melody could be, but which magically interlock with other melodies to make or imply a perfect harmonic impression.  Handel wrote wonderful counterpoint too (as did others of the time) but I never find in them the apparent freedom of melodic invention of their voices.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Brahms, generally.

Bach's up there, too.

[Josquin des Prez]

Voted Bach. What else?

[Bulldog]

This is probably something I should consider more closely. I do like everything a bit romantic (including the Bach I like - Stokowski transcriptions anyone?).

There you go.  To me, those Stokie transcriptions are abortions.  Also, I've tried my best to stay clear of the Bach/Hyperion transcription series; the parts of the series I dislike the most are the piano transcriptions of powerful organ works. 

[ajlee]

Thou shalt not compare the delicate exquisiteness of  caviar (like Bach) to the full-bodied flavor of prime steak (like Brahms).




That said, I'm very much a steak person. =P

[mc ukrneal]

There you go.  To me, those Stokie transcriptions are abortions.  Also, I've tried my best to stay clear of the Bach/Hyperion transcription series; the parts of the series I dislike the most are the piano transcriptions of powerful organ works.

Well whatta you know!? I love all those transcriptions you named. I don't think it's a catching disease though!

Seriously, I feel motivated to give Bach another look, although maybe I ought to get a book on him - any recommendations there? Sometimes knowing more helps to better understand the music.

[Lethevich]

I believe it was DavidW (and maybe others) who inspired me to buy this book:



It's extremely accessable, with illustrations, little aside captions, etc. It may be a little dry but that wasn't a problem for me, and the digestable format made it an easy read.

(Shame that the "Look Inside" seems unhelpful - it only gets the intro rather than any the main chapters.)

[Scarpia]

There you go.  To me, those Stokie transcriptions are abortions.  Also, I've tried my best to stay clear of the Bach/Hyperion transcription series; the parts of the series I dislike the most are the piano transcriptions of powerful organ works.

Although I generally find the Stokie transcriptions unattractive, I enjoy piano transcriptions of Bach Organ works (not that they could replace the originals).   The best of them, such as the Busoni, are not simple transcriptions, but re-imagining of the the works using the very different capabilities of the piano.  I have to admit I have every volume of the Hyperion series but one.  (You've just reminded me, I need to pick that one up too!)

[Brahmsian]

Seriously, I feel motivated to give Bach another look, although maybe I ought to get a book on him - any recommendations there? Sometimes knowing more helps to better understand the music.

I'm in this process Neal, and I'm really enjoying Bach.  I think just listening to Bach, without any preconceived notion that "I must feel like he is God and the greatest who ever walked the earth", and just listen to the music openly.  I am not a big fan of Bach's orchestral music, but a huge fan of his solo violin and cello works.  And now, I'm enjoying very much some of his keyboard works.  The Goldberg Variations especially, and also some of the WTC and the English Suites.

Also try The Art of Fugue by the Emerson String Quartet.

[Chaszz]

Brahms himself would have been abashed and unhappy to hear his own music championed over, or even compared with, that of Bach. He once said the two most important events of his lifetime were the founding of the unified German state and the publication of Bach's collected works. Of course, he was overly critical of his own musical achievements and those of his contemporaries, considering their greatness. He felt that music since Bach, Mozart and Beethoven was in serious decline. He did not foresee the modern period or participate in its nascent stirrings to the extent that Wagner did in Tristan. 

A few aspects of Bach's greatness that have not been mentioned here yet may provide some insight for those who are a little baffled by his gigantic reputation. I can't think of any other composer who reaches the heights of perfect form as Bach does in his instrumental contrapuntal works, and then extends his reach to human drama of unsurpassed intensity as he does in his choral music. Those who cannot abide church music unfortunately may never hear it, but those who can should explore the Mass in B Minor if they have not done so. Some of those choruses are among the most deeply felt music ever created, e.g. the Gloria section and the Cum Sancto Spiritu. The latter is every bit as perfect contrapuntally as anything else Bach wrote, yet the emotion is so glorious and searing that I get the shivers every time I hear it even after 55 years of listening to it. In works like this and the Chaconne Bach plumbs the depths of human feeling as powerfully as Beethoven does. Another aspect of him is his intense sunny joy in works like the Orchestral Suites and the opening movement of the Magnificat in D. Then there is the transcendent, almost mystical quality of works such as the final 6-voice fugue of The Musical Offering. Then there are his bass lines, which are more complex, melodic and meaningful than any other composer's, and which prefigured modern jazz bass. Then there is his pioneering explorations of the furthest reaches of harmony. It's his range over the full spectrums of formal perfection and human emotion from classical to romantic in their broad lower-case meanings, coupled with his excellent and professorial musical craftsmanship, that make him so formidable.

[PaulSC]

A few aspects of Bach's greatness that have not been mentioned here yet may provide some insight for those who are a little baffled by his gigantic reputation. I can't think of any other composer who reaches the heights of perfect form as Bach does in his instrumental contrapuntal works, and then extends his reach to human drama of unsurpassed intensity as he does in his choral music. Those who cannot abide church music unfortunately may never hear it, but those who can should explore the Mass in B Minor if they have not done so. Some of those choruses are among the most deeply felt music ever created, e.g. the Gloria section and the Cum Sancto Spiritu. The latter is every bit as perfect contrapuntally as anything else Bach wrote, yet the emotion is so glorious and searing that I get the shivers every time I hear it even after 55 years of listening to it. In works like this and the Chaconne Bach plumbs the depths of human feeling as powerfully as Beethoven does. Another aspect of him is his intense sunny joy in works like the Orchestral Suites and the opening movement of the Magnificat in D. Then there is the transcendent, almost mystical quality of works such as the final 6-voice fugue of The Musical Offering. Then there are his bass lines, which are more complex, melodic and meaningful than any other composer's, and which prefigured modern jazz bass. It's his range over the full spectrums of both formal perfection and human emotion from classical to romantic in their broad lower-case meanings, coupled with his excellent and professorial musical craftsmanship, that make him so formidable.

Well said! To your shortlist of recommendations for listening, I'd add the first and final choruses of the St. Matthew Passion, for their multi-layered grandeur, as well as selected arias (maybe: "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein"; "Erbarme dich, mein Gott"; and "So ist mein Jesus nun gefangen" with those spectacular interjectons from the chorus).

[karlhenning]

. . . A few aspects of Bach's greatness that have not been mentioned here yet may provide some insight for those who are a little baffled by his gigantic reputation. I can't think of any other composer who reaches the heights of perfect form as Bach does in his instrumental contrapuntal works, and then extends his reach to human drama of unsurpassed intensity as he does in his choral music.

This is only true if we essentially define perfection of musical form, and the summit of human drama as the way Bach did it.

Mind you, I admire the perfection and content of Bach's music no less than anyone on this forum.  But, guess what? Music is bigger even than Bach; and the idea that Bach is the gold standard to which all other music must be compared, is stultifying and circular.

I'll say it again: Music is bigger even than Bach.

And to repeat a theme of mine: you cannot really compare Bach and Brahms, because they worked in entirely different environments. For only one thing, Brahms worked in an environment which already contained Bach.

[DavidRoss]

And to repeat a theme of mine: you cannot really compare Bach and Brahms, because they worked in entirely different environments. For only one thing, Brahms worked in an environment which already contained Bach.

Thus such thread questions always boil down to "Whom do you like better?" with and without such rationalizations as are felt necessary, all of which helps us to know one another better and maybe even provide food for thought leading to enlarged perspectives for some of us.  Personally, I prefer Bach's solo keyboard and string music and violin concertos (though Brahms's is pretty good!) and like Brahms's symphonies and piano ctos better, and the rest is pretty much a toss-up.  Sort of like a Yamaha FZ-750 is great for canyon carving but a minivan is better for hauling the band and its gear to gigs.

[mc ukrneal]

Brahms himself would have been abashed and unhappy to hear his own music championed over, or even compared with, that of Bach. He once said the two most important events of his lifetime were the founding of the unified German state and the publication of Bach's collected works. Of course, he was overly critical of his own musical achievements and those of his contemporaries, considering their greatness. He felt that music since Bach, Mozart and Beethoven was in serious decline. He did not foresee the modern period or participate in its nascent stirrings to the extent that Wagner did in Tristan. 

A few aspects of Bach's greatness that have not been mentioned here yet may provide some insight for those who are a little baffled by his gigantic reputation. I can't think of any other composer who reaches the heights of perfect form as Bach does in his instrumental contrapuntal works, and then extends his reach to human drama of unsurpassed intensity as he does in his choral music. Those who cannot abide church music unfortunately may never hear it, but those who can should explore the Mass in B Minor if they have not done so. Some of those choruses are among the most deeply felt music ever created, e.g. the Gloria section and the Cum Sancto Spiritu. The latter is every bit as perfect contrapuntally as anything else Bach wrote, yet the emotion is so glorious and searing that I get the shivers every time I hear it even after 55 years of listening to it. In works like this and the Chaconne Bach plumbs the depths of human feeling as powerfully as Beethoven does. Another aspect of him is his intense sunny joy in works like the Orchestral Suites and the opening movement of the Magnificat in D. Then there is the transcendent, almost mystical quality of works such as the final 6-voice fugue of The Musical Offering. Then there are his bass lines, which are more complex, melodic and meaningful than any other composer's, and which prefigured modern jazz bass. Then there is his pioneering explorations of the furthest reaches of harmony. It's his range over the full spectrums of formal perfection and human emotion from classical to romantic in their broad lower-case meanings, coupled with his excellent and professorial musical craftsmanship, that make him so formidable.

For me, I think I just intrinsically rebel against the idea that anyone's music is 'perfect', so I'll just put that thought to the side. While I do enjoy some of St.  Matthew's Passion, I usually skip around (so I don't get the flavor of the whole). Which version of the mass would you recommend keeping in mind that I have no problem with the HIP approach, but prefer modern instruments? Although, if played well (and sound good), I won't care about the instruments (and so even PI would be ok). I could give another piece a try.

[Bulldog]

This is only true if we essentially define perfection of musical form, and the summit of human drama as the way Bach did it.

Mind you, I admire the perfection and content of Bach's music no less than anyone on this forum.   

Yes, but admiration and love are two different things. 

[mc ukrneal]

I believe it was DavidW (and maybe others) who inspired me to buy this book:



It's extremely accessable, with illustrations, little aside captions, etc. It may be a little dry but that wasn't a problem for me, and the digestable format made it an easy read.

(Shame that the "Look Inside" seems unhelpful - it only gets the intro rather than any the main chapters.)

That looks interesting. Anothers seems to be interesting as well. Perhaps you or someone else could comment if they are familiar:
Bach: The Learned Musician by Christopher Wolff

[Antoine Marchand]

Yes, but admiration and love are two different things.

Yes, but love without admiration is something to be avoided, IMO. Probably the only exception is the filial love.

Admiration without love is another story.