Bach Fugues Analysis

[greg]

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc.html

I might've posted this before, but it's a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY good site.

[BachQ]

since when do you like Bach, Greg ...... ?

since when do you like Bach fugues, Greg ...... ?

since when do you like Bach fugue analysis, Greg ...... ?

[mahlertitan]

Do you have to actually like something to like something?

[Larry Rinkel]

Do you have to actually like something to like something?

Of course not. You only have to like the something.

[greg]

Here is a good one for the Preludes & Fugues from the Well-Tempered Clavier Books I & II...

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~siglind/text.htm

hm, that's a pretty tough read. I'd suggest that AFTER studying fugues from "my" site since it might cover more.

since when do you like Bach, Greg ...... ?

since when do you like Bach fugues, Greg ...... ?

since when do you like Bach fugue analysis, Greg ...... ?

since always 
(never said i didn't like them) 

[johnQpublic]

Here's a novel suggestion:

How about analyzing them yourself, drawing your own conclusions then comparing and contrasting them to what others think?

[greg]

Here's a novel suggestion:

How about analyzing them yourself, drawing your own conclusions then comparing and contrasting them to what others think?

because that takes too long. It'd be best to do what you say to do in the opposite order.

[johnQpublic]

Ahhh. You must be one of those "Millennials" I've heard about. 

[toledobass]

because that takes too long. It'd be best to do what you say to do in the opposite order.

Don't a lot of guitar players think reading tab is 'faster' too?


Allan

[Cato]

Ahhh. You must be one of those "Millennials" I've heard about. 

Exactly what I thought as I scrolled through the section!   

Stereotypes come from somewhere!   

[greg]

Don't a lot of guitar players think reading tab is 'faster' too?


Allan

it is faster......
BUT...... i've often found crazy tab errors in tab books, that would've been helped by knowing how to read the notes that are printed in the staff right above.

if i had a scanner available, i'd show you, it's almost funny

Ahhh. You must be one of those "Millennials" I've heard about. 

millenial

[johnQpublic]

Every time I see TAB I ask:

"Where's the rhythm?...Where's the rhythm?"

[greg]

i know what you're talking about, John
internet tabs..... no rhythm..... bleh. You really have to know the song to play....
There's several different ways they do tabs- the internet text file w/o rhythm, the new style that you'll see in guitar magazines with note stems for every note connected to the tab to indicate rhythm, and just regular tab lined up with an equivalent score which is right above. The last one is what i'm used to most, since all of my tab books are like this, and all of the old guitar magazines that my dad had from the 80s use this style, too.

[lukeottevanger]

BUT...... i've often found crazy tab errors in tab books, that would've been helped by knowing how to read the notes that are printed in the staff right above.

I love that - crazy errors when music is printed by music illiterates. Such as the version of Stormy Weather I once saw in C major. With all Es spelt as F flat.....

[greg]

"...while Bach's music is accessible by the beginner it is probably the most intellectually rigorous music ever conceived by the human mind.

well...... close. The most intellectualy rigorous music i know of has to be Xenakis' formalized music..... not that it's his best, though. 

[Joe_Campbell]

Well what if Greg's the only one who doesn't think it's his best music? What if a large body of other listeners do?

I like Bach, but I can only handle so much of his music in listening sessions.

[greg]

well, whenever i hear the phrase "intellectually rigorous", i'd think ultracomplex math that takes forever to understand is more intellectual than a Bach fugue. A Bach Fugue, i think, is more artistic, rather than complex just to be complex. Two different things, which would take a lot of discussion about why they are two different things, and you could even give valid reasons why they could be the same thing, too 

[Joe_Campbell]

Well I was merely implying that James' use of artistic criteria to govern which music was more "intellectually rigorous" was just a bit intellectually dishonest. He was using terms like harmonic depth and controlled organic majestery (whatever that is) to counter your statement that Xenakis made music with more "intellect."

Sounds like another case of Bach Being Better by default.

[greg]

Sounds like another case of Bach Being Better by default.

he's playing with a BBB gun, huh?

[Joe_Campbell]

I'm not so sure. I think the same 'cohesiveness' could describe any composer of exceptional talent.
Nonetheless, I do know that you are a passionate JS Bach fan, and I respect your point of view.
Perhaps I will understand him sometime: I read about how much of a genius he was, and I listen to the music in anticipation, but for whatever reason, I can't handle too much of it right now. Soon, perhaps.