Is Bach a Great Composer?

[Ten thumbs]

Reese isn't denying Schubert's imagination but his technique. In what way is Schubert technically deficient?

All innovators seem to be regarded as technically deficient because they go beyond the 'textbooks' of their time. There's no excuse for this attitude when considered in retrospect.
I haven't heard Bach called technically deficient before. If he is then the whole of Western music must be rubbish! Actually I rank Bach and Schubert side by side. Definitely great.

[(poco) Sforzando]

there's nothing deficient in his string quintet or his unfinished symphony. It's just that some consider they know what one has to put in a piece of music for it to be good.   
They'll say : "this lacks in Schubert"
You'll reply : "but this lacks in Bach"
They'll answer "ok, but this does not count"

The problem is that for some of us it counts and it has nothing to do with the inferiority of our taste, whatever they say.

In all honesty, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[EmpNapoleon]

People should be forced to listen to Bach (after several listens, even the most inexperienced listener would hear greatness).  The governent should also enforce a national diet based on the food pyramid and our vast scientific knowledge and resources.  I know, a lot of work would need to be done to keep people "straight."  But nobody cares about creating a healthy society.  I probably won't live to the day when Bach is glorified and there is no obesity in the U.S.

If Bach's not a great composer, 2 X 2 = 1 fig.  As another poster said, Bach doesn't need to be defended.  Unless a superior race makes us become apes, Bach is a great composer.

[Rod Corkin]

Reese is so much smarter than Fernandez it ain't even funny.

Fernandez's mistake was bringing Vivaldi into the equation, there was no need for it. I have said myself many times that Bach has become a cult figure, worshiped beyond all reason. His musical output does not in any way justify it as far as I am concerned.

[quintett op.57]

In all honesty, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

All I wanted to say is that composers don't have the same qualities and some people assume they know which are the essential qualities (as if it were objective or absolute).

[Ten thumbs]

All I wanted to say is that composers don't have the same qualities and some people assume they know which are the essential qualities (as if it were objective or absolute).

This is too true. There is no way that polyphonic music is superior to homophonic music.
Yet Bach remains a great composer, and so does Schubert.

[Norbeone]

I have said myself many times that Bach has become a cult figure, worshiped beyond all reason. His musical output does not in any way justify it as far as I am concerned.

An opinion is an opinion, but I must say I strongly disagree with this comment. I don't think the english language has a vast enough vocabulary to make it even possible to over-estimate Bach.

Of course, that's just an over-emphasised way of saying that Bach's relentless praise and 'worship' is definately justifiable. Maybe listening to him more may persuade you of this, but then again, maybe you have listened to him a lot. I don't know.

[karlhenning]

"Beyond all reason" is a phrase best reserved for the Corkster's praise of Handel and Beethoven, of course.

[bassio]

Remember Bach was not a cult figure. In fact he stayed in the dark for years until Mendelsohn reintroduced him to the public and made people aware of his existence.

During these years, I believe only serious musicians, composers and musicologists knew Bach (refering to him as "the father", to differentiate him from CPE, who ironically was more famous than his father) while his music suffered terrible abandon and regarded as "antique unfashionable music". I remember reading somewhere for example, that Mozart came to know Bach's music through Baron van Sweiten, who was obviously an "antique music" enthusiast and kept works of Bach in his library, probably where Mozart had access to some of his works, maybe notably the well-tempered Klavier which he arranged some of these for strings. No one can be sure though. For example, I might make a guess that Haydn - being located in England (correct?) did not care for Bach, or even heard many of his compositions (although a link via Handel - who also stayed in England could have been there). On the other hand, Beethoven knew Bach through his teacher who assigned him the WTC.

So I will have to say that Bach is not an overrated "cult figure"; but he just now receives his complete (and lawful) rights as the one of the greatest musicians (if not the greatest by a far margin) to have ever lived.

So it is not only the masses who acknowledge the man, but also great musicians came to admire him.

To this day I have to wonder if Mozart and Beethoven lived for a few more years, what will their music sound like? (given their archaic tendencies and the apparent Bach influence in their music as evident in their very late works - just imo)

And since Vivaldi is mentioned, no one has to deny the influence of Vivaldi on the old man himself. 

[Rod Corkin]

Remember Bach was not a cult figure. In fact he stayed in the dark for years until Mendelsohn reintroduced him to the public and made people aware of his existence.

I didn't say Bach was a cult figure in his own lifetime!! He became a cult figure long after his demise, up until today and no doubt beyond. Ye Gods..

[Rod Corkin]

An opinion is an opinion, but I must say I strongly disagree with this comment. I don't think the english language has a vast enough vocabulary to make it even possible to over-estimate Bach.

Of course, that's just an over-emphasised way of saying that Bach's relentless praise and 'worship' is definately justifiable. Maybe listening to him more may persuade you of this, but then again, maybe you have listened to him a lot. I don't know.

Of course this is my opinion, but it is not an uneducated one. I have listened to a lot, and made an effort to listen especially to what Bach fans regard as his finest music. On the whole however I would say there are a few composers who have shown themselves to be of far more value to the world of art than JS Bach. My argument is not against Bach himself, he did his job and got paid for it, in between the copious amounts of sex he must have been having. No, my argument is with those who rate Bach above all without any logical or musical justification, and this includes many people in high musical places. Then there is all this crap about 'he was writing for God..' Crap, crap, crap. For example JE Gardiner is supremely guilty as a Bach cultist, he comes out with this kind of gushing fawning nonsense all the time. There are 2 interviews of his on this subject at my site, good examples of what I'm saying here.

[paulb]

http://www.critique-musicale.com/bachen.htm
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Defense-Bach%5BReese%5D.htm

What do people think of these?

FINALLY someone like Fernanez comes out with a  truth I've known for yrs , but not beinga   musicologist, could never mount a convincing argument.
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO to the high perception of Fernandez.
BINGO!!!

Now thats out the way i havea   few words to add from a listeners POV.

I have what is considered by all the Bachians the finest recording of Bach's major orchestral, Art Of Fuge, Brandenburgs, Orch suites, various concertos, the harpischord concertos barrowed from Vivaldi.
Its the 6 cd set by the french label Accord, featuring Karl Ristenpart and his all srat cast Chamber Orch of The Saar.
had it on LP 25 yrs ago, now have the cd set.
The Art Of Fuge is quite interesting, but its really no more than a  variations on a  theme, and oncea   year listen is really all I care for.
The rest...well only the harpischord concertos *hold my interest* but I much prefer Vivaldi's original

Interject: I have a  friend in BR who for 25 yrs has gone on and on about how utterly divine Bach is , so much so that decades ago NASA sent up a  spacecraft that would go into outerspace and the music of bach would be projected out using various sound waves and such, this way the very highest of man's art would be represented to other worlds capable of intercepting the waves

I just agreed with him, being fairly new to CM at the time, 1981, but not really sharing that strong sentiment towards Bach, for some intuitive reason, I had various Bach and Vivaldi on the Nonsuch LP's and felt a  closer sympathy with Vivaldi's genius.  I fely bach was too mechanical and strict, too old fashioned, outdated. But hey what did i know back then, through the yrs i just shrugged my sholders and did the best I could at pretending that i also liked Bach as much as anyone else.
I had to appear somewhat part of the CM group. Who really wants to feel left out and an *oddball*, even a  *quack*. "What do YOU mean you think Bach is out dated and Vivaldi is better music?"
So i played along.
But now finally  a true scholar, one who has keen musical perceptions and the mental finesse to pull the very truth and facts together and present a  qualified opinion.
This just *makes my day*
That said , I do like the Sonatas and partitas, but only as performed by BOTH recordings from Gideon Kremer, and no others.
Art Of Fuge, Ristenpart only please. these are 2 of Bach's finest works.
The B Minor Mass, i have the 2 finest Jochum and Richter, but actually the other day neither recording struck me as something I look forward to hearing, even though yrs had passed since the previous listen.
Don't get me wrong, Bach was a  high genius, and the music is impeccable, its just that...well...i prefer Vivaldi, has more soul.
True, i have not heard the passions, St John, but have heard clips.
I just don;t know, the connection is just not there for me.
I understand bach's greatest purpose for music as teacher for music's greatest composer, Mozart. yet i see Mozart as spiritual son to both Bach and possibly moreso to Vivaldi.

Anyway my 2 cents.

But Fernandez is worth its weight in gold.

[paulb]

Hmmm, the second article has this line:

I place Vivaldi somewhat in the same category as Schubert, who lacked the technical skill of the great masters but made up for it by a fertile imagination.

which should raise some eyebrows.

I put on Schubert's Wamderer Fantasy/Pollini.
Do people actually still listen to this stuff?
i made it through 5 seconds worth, maybe less.

I think Nietzsche was refering to music like this , when he said of german composers "they are constipated". The direct quote is much finer phrased.

[karlhenning]

I put on Schubert's Wamderer Fantasy/Pollini.
Do people actually still listen to this stuff?
i made it through 5 seconds worth, maybe less.

You're such a wuss, Paul! Use your ears like a man! 

[Rod Corkin]

I put on Schubert's Wamderer Fantasy/Pollini.
Do people actually still listen to this stuff?
i made it through 5 seconds worth, maybe less.

I think Nietzsche was refering to music like this , when he said of german composers "they are constipated". The direct quote is much finer phrased.

Well Handel was a German free of musical constipation, which is why on the whole his music is far better than Bach's or Vivaldi's, by whichever criteria you may wish to judge.

[paulb]

So I will have to say that Bach is not an overrated "cult figure"; but he just now receives his complete (and lawful) rights as the one of the greatest musicians (if not the greatest by a far margin) to have ever lived.

So it is not only the masses who acknowledge the man, but also great musicians came to admire him.

To this day I have to wonder if Mozart and Beethoven lived for a few more years, what will their music sound like? (given their archaic tendencies and the apparent Bach influence in their music as evident in their very late works - just imo)

But Mozart and Beethoven lived exactly to the point in time so ordained. they completed their life fully completely. i have no idea what you ae talking about *only IF they had more yrs*.

So Bach is well recognized by the main herds of classicphiles. So what does this prove to us in 2008? That some people do not want to change, make evolutions in their musical sensibilities? Are the musical valuation system of these Bachians , so cast in stone that when along comes new composers, they can't seem to pull the sword from that stone?
Music that is great has to carry the living values of the consciousness of a  particular generation. What my great grand father may have valued as *the greatest* may not apply to my enviornment 100+ yrs later.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Remember Bach was not a cult figure. In fact he stayed in the dark for years until Mendelsohn reintroduced him to the public and made people aware of his existence.

This is also wrong. Mendelssohn was no more single-handedly responsible for reintroducing Bach than Leonard Bernstein was single-handedly responsible for reintroducing Mahler. Bach died in 1750. Mozart was born in 1756. Beethoven was born in 1770. Mozart's discovery of the motets of Bach in the 1780s was a major watershed in his career. As a young student at the harpsichord, Beethoven's principal course of study was the WTC. The "cult" had already begun, no doubt much to Corkin's and Paulb's consternation.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Well Handel was a German free of musical constipation, which is why on the whole his music is far better than Bach's or Vivaldi's, by whichever criteria you may wish to judge.

I have it on good authority that Handel had trouble moving his bowels on several occasions.

[(poco) Sforzando]

FINALLY someone like Fernanez comes out with a  truth I've known for yrs , but not beinga   musicologist, could never mount a convincing argument.
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO to the high perception of Fernandez.
BINGO!!!

Now thats out the way i havea   few words to add from a listeners POV.

I have what is considered by all the Bachians the finest recording of Bach's major orchestral, Art Of Fuge, Brandenburgs, Orch suites, various concertos, the harpischord concertos barrowed from Vivaldi.
Its the 6 cd set by the french label Accord, featuring Karl Ristenpart and his all srat cast Chamber Orch of The Saar.
had it on LP 25 yrs ago, now have the cd set.
The Art Of Fuge is quite interesting, but its really no more than a  variations on a  theme, and oncea   year listen is really all I care for.
The rest...well only the harpischord concertos *hold my interest* but I much prefer Vivaldi's original

Interject: I have a  friend in BR who for 25 yrs has gone on and on about how utterly divine Bach is , so much so that decades ago NASA sent up a  spacecraft that would go into outerspace and the music of bach would be projected out using various sound waves and such, this way the very highest of man's art would be represented to other worlds capable of intercepting the waves

I just agreed with him, being fairly new to CM at the time, 1981, but not really sharing that strong sentiment towards Bach, for some intuitive reason, I had various Bach and Vivaldi on the Nonsuch LP's and felt a  closer sympathy with Vivaldi's genius.  I fely bach was too mechanical and strict, too old fashioned, outdated. But hey what did i know back then, through the yrs i just shrugged my sholders and did the best I could at pretending that i also liked Bach as much as anyone else.
I had to appear somewhat part of the CM group. Who really wants to feel left out and an *oddball*, even a  *quack*. "What do YOU mean you think Bach is out dated and Vivaldi is better music?"
So i played along.
But now finally  a true scholar, one who has keen musical perceptions and the mental finesse to pull the very truth and facts together and present a  qualified opinion.
This just *makes my day*
That said , I do like the Sonatas and partitas, but only as performed by BOTH recordings from Gideon Kremer, and no others.
Art Of Fuge, Ristenpart only please. these are 2 of Bach's finest works.
The B Minor Mass, i have the 2 finest Jochum and Richter, but actually the other day neither recording struck me as something I look forward to hearing, even though yrs had passed since the previous listen.
Don't get me wrong, Bach was a  high genius, and the music is impeccable, its just that...well...i prefer Vivaldi, has more soul.
True, i have not heard the passions, St John, but have heard clips.
I just don;t know, the connection is just not there for me.
I understand bach's greatest purpose for music as teacher for music's greatest composer, Mozart. yet i see Mozart as spiritual son to both Bach and possibly moreso to Vivaldi.

Anyway my 2 cents.

But Fernandez is worth its weight in gold.

Obviously great minds think alike.

[paulb]

Well Handel was a German free of musical constipation, which is why on the whole his music is far better than Bach's or Vivaldi's, by whichever criteria you may wish to judge.

I may explore some Handel, as the face looks interesting. I only know his Water music and found it delightful, though that was yrs ago, not sure at the moment.