Quote from: Frumaster on April 06, 2009, 11:23:24 AM
Also, music was much more than mere entertainment in the Baroque period and earlier (sacred music).
Bach's music draws on the popular dance tradition, which was pure entertainment, basically aristocratic hoedowns. Music back then wasn't all choirs extolling the glory of God.
Quote from: CRCulver on April 06, 2009, 11:26:38 AM
Bach's music draws on the popular dance tradition, which was pure entertainment, basically aristocratic hoedowns. Music back then wasn't all choirs extolling the glory of God.
Not at all, but Bach's
sacred music had a pretty clear purpose, no matter how many secular motifs it contained. Maybe he brought a little fun to church music...but it still reflects strong Lutheran faith.
Quote from: Frumaster on April 06, 2009, 11:23:24 AM
Because change is not always for the better, wouldn't you agree? Some amount of change is inevitable, but we can surely resist cultural degeneracy to some degree.
The changes that have not been good (perhaps beneficial is a better word) have generally been the disruptive, sudden, and short term ones. I believe that humanity as a whole has always been going forward. Whatever was not beneficial for the species as a whole did not suceed in the long run and it was dropped in lieu of something better. This is the way nature works. I think humans are in a much better place today then they were in the baroque period in every way.
Quote
Also, music was much more than mere entertainment in the Baroque period and earlier (sacred music).
Yes, but it comes as a whole. Religion was much more prevailent and supressive back then (not a good thing IMO), there were very limited civil liberties (not good), most people did not even have the chance to listen to music let alone choose a genre (not good). If I was given the option to choose between listening to only baroque music or every other music that exists today except classical music, I'd go for the second one.
Quote
Prior to the 20th century. Most of the great composers began as children too.
True perhaps, but what percentage of people had the chance to regularly listen to music? And more importantly what choices did they have?
Quote
Lets hope so, but I don't like the trajectory we're on.
Be careful what you hope for >:D There is no guarantee that what will replace rap music will sound any better.
Quote from: CRCulver on April 06, 2009, 11:26:38 AM
Bach's music draws on the popular dance tradition, which was pure entertainment, basically aristocratic hoedowns.
Nonsense. The music of Bach draws from Bach, and had nothing to do with aristocratic hoedowns or anything whatsoever that is outside Bach.
A quote...
"Johann Sebastian Bach wrote hundreds of pieces of music, about half of them based on popular hymn tunes of the day, called chorales.
Many of these tunes were used several times in his organ music, and in his dramatic music, the passions, oratorios, and cantatas."
Not so sure about half his music being chorales, but you get the idea. Another quote from a different source.
"Today, many of the Lutheran chorales are familiar as hymns still used in Protestant churches, sung in four-voice harmony. Often the harmonizations are taken from the final sections of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. The melodies of the chorales were only in a few instances composed by Bach; the large majority of melodies were based on chorales that were already familiar to his congregation."
Here is another quote
"Bach moved to Weimar in 1708 to work for Duke Wilhelm Ernst. In 1709, Wilhelm's nephew, Ernst August, became a second duke that was in charge of the same town. The courts of the two dukes were openly opposed and even hostile to each other, but Bach was friendly with both leaders. Bach even became teacher to Ernst August's younger half brother, through whom he learned of the Italian styles of Antonio Vivaldi. Bach was especially interested in Vivaldi's L'estro armonico concertos. This added influence helped Bach develop a style that he used from now on. The style combined the Italian use of harmonies and themes with touches of German and French influences from his boyhood. Bach wrote his first non-religious cantata using this new style, Was mir behagt, ist nut die muntre Jagd, otherwise known as the " Hunt Cantata" BWV 208."
Then there is this.
" He had the foresight to realize that Frederick might well be an important figure who could be of use to Bach in the future. Bach's works now began to reflect his new galant style (a mix of the new Italian style with the strict counterpoint of Palestrina called stile antico)."
Mike
"Arisocratic hoedowns..." I'll have to remember that. It reminds me of the phrase my little brother invented- "Digital hippie." Interesting ones...
Quote from: Que on April 03, 2009, 09:05:08 AM
Gurn, in the eyes of outsiders we are not just listening to just any music, but we are listening to art.
And the thing is....they are actually right. ::) Only we perceive art (in this case in musical form) as something that is essential and indispensable in our lives, they see it as something they do not understand, and thus "elitist", regrettably. :-\
Q
I second that, entirely!
I think it boils down to a question of comprehension and language.
If someone speaks to me in Russian I hear the sounds but I don't understand anything. If the same person switches to English, then he/she can communicate with me.
Same with music. The nurses are hearing sounds, whereas Gurn is hearing music.
Conclusion : Although some exceptional people are born speaking music, most of us have to learn the language ......
Quote from: orbital on April 06, 2009, 10:08:11 AM
Well civilization is not something that stopped around 1900's. It, too, is constantly evolving and I have a very difficult time understanding the resistance to change, particularly in something like music which has always (even in the high-art ages) been a vehicle of entertainment ::)
Are you really sad that not many western youngsters today are listening to classical music? When have they ever...? ::)
Rap music was born as a contemporary protest music -the anticulture which has become a culture itself, just like Beatles did in the 60s. It will be replaced by what is surely upcoming.
I. Protest against what? Paying attention in school? Respecting women? Using modest language? 8)
II. Coming soon: an opera based on
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged 0:)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 06, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
The music of Bach draws from Bach, and had nothing to do with aristocratic hoedowns or anything whatsoever that is outside Bach.
Oh, but that
is nonsense. So
Bach's music has no source or referents outside of Himself, eh?
Time for you to review the first two commandments 0:)
Quote from: knight on April 06, 2009, 02:51:03 PM
A quote...
"Johann Sebastian Bach wrote hundreds of pieces of music, about half of them based on popular hymn tunes of the day, called chorales.
Many of these tunes were used several times in his organ music, and in his dramatic music, the passions, oratorios, and cantatas."
Not so sure about half his music being chorales, but you get the idea. Another quote from a different source.
"Today, many of the Lutheran chorales are familiar as hymns still used in Protestant churches, sung in four-voice harmony. Often the harmonizations are taken from the final sections of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. The melodies of the chorales were only in a few instances composed by Bach; the large majority of melodies were based on chorales that were already familiar to his congregation."
Here is another quote
"Bach moved to Weimar in 1708 to work for Duke Wilhelm Ernst. In 1709, Wilhelm's nephew, Ernst August, became a second duke that was in charge of the same town. The courts of the two dukes were openly opposed and even hostile to each other, but Bach was friendly with both leaders. Bach even became teacher to Ernst August's younger half brother, through whom he learned of the Italian styles of Antonio Vivaldi. Bach was especially interested in Vivaldi's L'estro armonico concertos. This added influence helped Bach develop a style that he used from now on. The style combined the Italian use of harmonies and themes with touches of German and French influences from his boyhood. Bach wrote his first non-religious cantata using this new style, Was mir behagt, ist nut die muntre Jagd, otherwise known as the " Hunt Cantata" BWV 208."
Then there is this.
" He had the foresight to realize that Frederick might well be an important figure who could be of use to Bach in the future. Bach's works now began to reflect his new galant style (a mix of the new Italian style with the strict counterpoint of Palestrina called stile antico)."
Mike
Dude, don't confuse him with the facts: his mind is made up! 8)
And facts are a poor substitute for Truth, bwahahahahaahaahaaaa!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 06, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
Nonsense. The music of Bach draws from Bach, and had nothing to do with aristocratic hoedowns or anything whatsoever that is outside Bach.
Mike and Karl beat me to it, but something so patently wrong-headed bears repeated refutation. The idea that any great artistic GENIUS, be it Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, da Vinci, pick your poison, operates in a vacuum, and does not draw inspiration from anyone or anything other than that artist's inner self, is completely absurd. Moreover I would say that one of the things that mark them AS Geniuses is their profound talent for using and adapting existing ideas and techniques to new purposes, each generation building upon the next. This is not to deny the presence of a divine creative spark in the greatest artists; but to fail to grasp how an artist uses his predecessors and the world around him in his art is to fundamentally misunderstand human culture and how it evolves through time -- it's not even debatable, it's just plain wrong, and I can't say it strongly enough.
You seem like a very clever fellow in many respects, but you are digging yourself into a hole with this argument -- you really ought to take a step back and rethink this.
Quote from: jwinter on April 07, 2009, 05:12:49 AM
Mike and Karl beat me to it, but something so patently wrong-headed bears repeated refutation. The idea that any great artistic GENIUS, be it Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, da Vinci, pick your poison, operates in a vacuum, and does not draw inspiration from anyone or anything other than that artist's inner self, is completely absurd. Moreover I would say that one of the things that mark them AS Geniuses is their profound talent for using and adapting existing ideas and techniques to new purposes, each generation building upon the next. This is not to deny the presence of a divine creative spark in the greatest artists; but to fail to grasp how an artist uses his predecessors and the world around him in his art is to fundamentally misunderstand human culture and how it evolves through time -- it's not even debatable, it's just plain wrong, and I can't say it strongly enough.
You seem like a very clever fellow in many respects, but you are digging yourself into a hole with this argument -- you really ought to take a step back and rethink this.
Not to hijack the topic (although maybe someone should 0:) ), but this argument, along with a good deal of tangible evidence, is precisely why I find the idea that
Edward de Vere wrote the Shakespeare plays so convincing.
For the Stratford man, you need too much "but-he-was-a-genius" argumentation to make the case that he could have been the author.
Quote from: Cato on April 07, 2009, 03:56:27 AM
I. Protest against what? Paying attention in school? Respecting women? Using modest language? 8)
They've had plenty of things to protest against. Going into that will derail the topic immensely, but don't tell me that the American black population did (do) not have reasons to be angry.
Quote
II. Coming soon: an opera based on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged 0:)
It would better suit the times we live in than an abduction from Topkapi Palace for sure ;D
Quote from: Cato on April 07, 2009, 03:56:27 AM
I. Protest against what? Paying attention in school? Respecting women? Using modest language? 8)
That may be what some rap has become now that it's gone mainstream, but orbital is correct: the genre was born of a cultural need to assert and express the black experience, including the negative. One of the first great rap songs was The Message...which still has a message today. It's not wise to stereotype any form of music, including rap
and classical ;)
Sarge
Quote from: Cato on April 07, 2009, 05:19:29 AM
Not to hijack the topic (although maybe someone should 0:) ), but this argument, along with a good deal of tangible evidence, is precisely why I find the idea that Edward de Vere wrote the Shakespeare plays so convincing.
For the Stratford man, you need too much "but-he-was-a-genius" argumentation to make the case that he could have been the author.
The primary weakness of the de Vere theories, it seems to me, isn't that de Vere is a bad fit for the facts (he isn't), but that we don't really know enough about the Stratford man's life to know whether or not he could have written the plays, and thereby whether there's sufficient reason to discredit the longstanding tradition. So much of what fills Shakespeare biographies is pure conjecture or supposition -- there just isn't very much real historical evidence of the man, which isn't that surprising given the records of the period.
I'll grant that de Vere is a much better fit than Bacon or any of the other candidates out there, and there are some interesting connections between his life and some of the plays. But saying that de Vere could have written the plays is very different from saying that Shakespeare couldn't have, and I'm not seeing anything that convinces me that we need to disregard Occam's Razor here. Lack of school records, for example, doesn't mean he was uneducated, it just means we don't know. It's maddening to have such a high level of uncertainty about the greatest writer in English, but that makes it all the more important to resist the urge to fill in the blanks without hard evidence.
OK, thread officially derailed now. ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 06, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
Nonsense. The music of Bach draws from Bach, and had nothing to do with aristocratic hoedowns
;D Right... I suppose he called his movements gigue, menuet, sarabande, gavotte, allemande just for the hell of it? Nothing whatsoever to do with the dance?
I guess you never learned to square dance, Prez. Never heard of an allemande left? ;D
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 07, 2009, 06:06:51 AM
;D Right... I suppose he called his movements gigue, menuet, sarabande, gavotte, allemande just for the hell of it? Nothing whatsoever to do with the dance?
I guess you never learned to square dance, Prez. Never heard of an allemande left? ;D
Sarge
Is that the same as the
SPD? $:)
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 07, 2009, 06:06:51 AM
;D Right... I suppose he called his movements gigue, menuet, sarabande, gavotte, allemande just for the hell of it? Nothing whatsoever to do with the dance?
Notwithstanding the fact that, by the time Bach came around, those musical forms already bore little relation to the original dances from which they inherited their rhythmic scheme (I.E., you can't dance to any of them), those forms were utilized by many other baroque composers as well. Same goes for the use of Lutheran chorales. Yet, none of those composers was Bach. Should i really berate on that?
Quote from: jwinter on April 07, 2009, 05:12:49 AM
The idea that any great artistic GENIUS, be it Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, da Vinci, pick your poison, operates in a vacuum, and does not draw inspiration from anyone or anything other than that artist's inner self, is completely absurd.
Is this really that complicated to understand? There are hundreds upon hundreds of artists who inherited the same type of influences as the aforementioned masters, but none of them became a genius. It stands to reason that, of all the things that one can draw from his surroundings, genius isn't among them, and to classify genius according to those arbitrary influences is where absurdity really lies.
Quote from: Cato on April 07, 2009, 06:34:06 AM
Is that the same as the SPD? $:)
;D :D ;D ...nice pun, Cato.
Sarge
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2009, 06:35:13 AM
Notwithstanding the fact that, by the time Bach came around, those musical forms already bore little relation to the original dances from which they inherited their rhythmic scheme (I.E., you can't dance to any of them)
If they are played correctly, one certainly can dance to them.
Quotethose forms were utilized by many other baroque composers as well. Same goes for the use of Lutheran chorales. Yet, none of those composers was Bach. Should i really berate on that?
Our point being: Bach didn't just pull the music out of his immortal ass. He was a product of his environment, influenced by what he heard, just like every one else (he didn't compose ragas, he composed jigs). That he did more with what he'd been given...well, no question about that.
Sarge
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2009, 06:35:13 AM
Is this really that complicated to understand? There are hundreds upon hundreds of artists who inherited the same type of influences as the aforementioned masters
That's precisely what I'm arguing, that Bach didn't compose in a vacuum, that his music was influenced by many outside forces. Of course he brought something unique to the process -- call it genius if you like. But you need both sides of the equation for art to exist, which your previous statements seemed to refute. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2009, 04:38:28 AM
And facts are a poor substitute for Truth, bwahahahahaahaahaaaa!
Have some dignity Karl, and stop being the self appointed jester on GMG.
I appreciate your solicitous remark, Harry.
One question: Did Shakespeare lack for dignity when he wrote the drunk porter scene in Macbeth (II.iii)?
Quote from: Harry on April 07, 2009, 07:10:08 AM
Have some dignity Karl, and stop being the self appointed jester on GMG.
Says the self-appointed dictator. You're not the boss of him! $:)
Also remember.....we know next to nothing about that other great writer; Homer....(not the Simpson one greg).
And as Sarge wrote.....yes, the dances can indeed be danced to; I have seen it done.
Of course, this is that old LP form JDPs small, scratched collection: 'The Genius 12 incher'.
Mike
I didn't think there was material for more than an EP, Mike . . . .
Well, an engorged 8" EP maketh:
A 12" LP; very long, much played, worn out.
Mike
One of the shortcomings of the sandstone stylus, I guess . . . .
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 07, 2009, 06:35:49 AM
;D :D ;D ...nice pun, Cato.
Sarge
Wocka Wocka!
Now what was this topic about? "Weird and sort of sad..."
Must be talking about a
Yale man! 0:)
Are there any motifs here today?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 07, 2009, 06:44:27 AM
If they are played correctly, one certainly can dance to them.
Our point being: Bach didn't just pull the music out of his immortal ass. He was a product of his environment, influenced by what he heard, just like every one else (he didn't compose ragas, he composed jigs). That he did more with what he'd been given...well, no question about that.
Sarge
Product of the environment? ::) For all we know, there was a indeed a spiritual element that spoke through Bach, so as to constitute genius. If not, where were all the other Bach's that the environment was spitting out? Even within his own family (and a large one at that), no one accomplished anywhere close to what J.S. did. The fact that we even have to argue about Bach's "immortal ass" says quite enough.
I do not think that anyone was arguing about his ability; only the issue that his work appeared from a vacuum, which it conspicuously did not.
Mike
Quote from: knight on April 07, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
I do not think that anyone was arguing about his ability; only the issue that his work appeared from a vacuum, which it conspicuously did not.
Mike
Precisely. Obviously, environment alone doesn't create a Bach; but it's hard to argue that it doesn't
contribute to a Bach in some fashion...
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on April 07, 2009, 05:53:54 AM
That may be what some rap has become now that it's gone mainstream, but orbital is correct: the genre was born of a cultural need to assert and express the black experience, including the negative. One of the first great rap songs was The Message...which still has a message today. It's not wise to stereotype any form of music, including rap and classical ;)
Sarge
The 'definitive' rap song - although it wasn't called rap at the time - is James Brown's 'Say it Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud' as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 06, 2009, 01:25:11 PM
Nonsense. The music of Bach draws from Bach, and had nothing to do with aristocratic hoedowns or anything whatsoever that is outside Bach.
I don't understand how anyone familiar with Bach's music could think that it was not influenced by the music before him or his environment. After all, he didn't live an isolated life in an Alaskan igloo.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 07, 2009, 01:21:17 PM
I don't understand how anyone familiar with Bach's music could think that it was not influenced by the music before him or his environment. After all, he didn't live an isolated life in an Alaskan igloo.
Well, an Alaskan igloo where he transcribed some
Vivaldi, for instance.
(I know why
Gurn siphoned this off, and he was right to do it . . . still, it
is Weird, and sort of sad...)
Quote from: Bulldog on April 07, 2009, 01:21:17 PM
I don't understand how anyone familiar with Bach's music could think that it was not influenced by the music before him or his environment. After all, he didn't live an isolated life in an Alaskan igloo.
I also don't see how there is any contradiction between the idea that Bach was influenced by his contemporaries and environment, and that he is a "genius," whatever that means. People use the word "genius" to describe such disparate peoples and skills that the word has little definite meaning to my ears.
Quote from: Bulldog on April 07, 2009, 01:21:17 PM
I don't understand how anyone familiar with Bach's music could think that it was not influenced by the music before him or his environment. After all, he didn't live an isolated life in an Alaskan igloo.
An Alaskan igloo where he traveled for meeting Buxtehude.
Quote from: nut-job on April 07, 2009, 02:41:48 PM
I also don't see how there is any contradiction between the idea that Bach was influenced by his contemporaries and environment, and that he is a "genius," whatever that means. People use the word "genius" to describe such disparate peoples and skills that the word has little definite meaning to my ears.
There is no contradiction at all. The point of discussion is whether he was influenced by others or if he just created his music out of a vacuum. (And yes, "genius" is quite a vague expression).
Quote from: Gabriel on April 07, 2009, 02:46:49 PM
An Alaskan igloo where he traveled for meeting Buxtehude.
That igloo also housed an organ and harpsichord.
And a lute.
Possibly a bass recorder made from a polar bear's thigh-bone.
Bach = Genius
Why?
Because I said so.
End of thread.
If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 08, 2009, 05:37:46 AM
If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.
;)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 08, 2009, 05:37:46 AM
If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.
The argument surrounding 'genius' is either related directly to religious beliefs, or is at least similar in nature to the argument surrounding religion. All I can say is, if there was/is a God, Bach was a closer to Him than most. If not, maybe nature just allows for freaks every so often. Bach, however, cannot be fully explained explained by: 'just like you and me', 'in the right place at the right time', or 'a product of his environment'. Sorry if my views are dehumanizing or abstract, but I've run out of options.
Although I don't altogether disagree with your post; I really am at a loss as to that your first sentence means.
Mike
Quote from: Frumaster on April 06, 2009, 11:55:29 AM
Not at all, but Bach's sacred music had a pretty clear purpose, no matter how many secular motifs it contained. Maybe he brought a little fun to church music...but it still reflects strong Lutheran faith.
Hmmm. Interesting. Do you feel that Beethoven's Missa Solemnis reflected Beethoven's faith? Just curious.
This is mostly another "nature vs. nurture" argument. But I have a little too much respect for the other Baroque composers to say they "didn't even come close" to Bach's achievement. Like Mozart after him, JSB basically did what the others did (except opera); he just did it better.
And anyone who says that none of the other Bachs came close to JSB's achievements obviously hasn't heard Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach's music. :D
Quote from: jochanaan on April 10, 2009, 12:36:25 PM
This is mostly another "nature vs. nurture" argument. But I have a little too much respect for the other Baroque composers to say they "didn't even come close" to Bach's achievement. Like Mozart after him, JSB basically did what the others did (except opera); he just did it better.
And anyone who says that none of the other Bachs came close to JSB's achievements obviously hasn't heard Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach's music. :D
You're back! I noticed! ;D
Thanks! Maybe not for long--I've got a lot of other stuff going--but I may drop in with a thud once in a while. ;D