This is from an inchoate file of mine of notes on music- forgive the proofreading situation but you'll get the jist.
Bach's intellectual approach to counterpoint provides great art through exploration of form, reaching into extraordinary intricate possibilities and opening up that sense of freedom out of selection of notes with space and freedom from congestion etc around them
It shows what greatness formal art can provide, but as with Beethoven's selection of motifs for their developmental potential rather than beauty or aesthetic merit per se, the interest is not in the music in a moment-to-moment way- and thus is compromised because of its intellectuality- and the renaissance polyphonic tradition it issues from.
The keyboard music has similar density and homogeneity to polyphony and doesn't admit to the phrasing and symmetries of fully intelligible melodic contrapuntal music, ie one melody raised above the rest etc ie melody surely being primary to music; the rhythm & metre of course is also almost totally regular.
Note hence that polyphony (& eg the late Beethoven quartet slow movs) and Bach is music that is formal but is verging on incomprehensibility because of its lack of melody (ie & tonality in polyphony)- whereas Wagner and Strauss, and the composers interested in repetition and juxtaposition, transcend symmetrical or intellectual formal concerns altogether
Ie form plus melody/ tonality, ie small plus large scale formal design, is fullness of music. Bach & polyphony, like Wagner & minimalists are also thereby hard to turn off, providing magnetism from the lack of symmetrical points and onward movement and fascination.
There's also the question of the mawkishness of melody though and the purity of the lack of emotions- but no, just need unaffected emotions, not to be rid of them. The absence of emotion, though almost becoming exciting in Bach, ie beginning to emerge but then clobbered over again by the continuing rhythmically monotonous polyphony, isn't the same situation as eg in Wagner, where emotion is there but controlled from within. With a chip of ice in his heart he can hence give emotion its full reign and power while remaining detached from it: nobody before or since builds climaxes like Wagner.
No matter what this sexy girl does to impose shape, the music remains an aesthetically limited, if profound, abstraction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zniPN07Gf-4
I don't understand how people can have such an hard time with Bach. Really Sean, you disappoint me there. :-\
Also, that girl might want to try harder then next time. She has a good technique, but she emphasizes certain passages too much, and i heard a few mistakes as well. Too fast perhaps? That prelude is one of Bach's most heartfelt pieces, btw.
Where is Contrapunctus to weigh in here?
Honestly Sean, if you want to dogmatize your personal preferences then go ahead, but do not expect others to take the arguments seriously. If you like homophonic textures best then more power to ya, but your arguments are vacuous and the standards arbitrary. Melody is not necessarily primary to music and tonality and "form plus melody/ tonality, ie small plus large scale formal design, is fullness of music" is not the case merely because you say so. Real art admits a plurality of approaches and for every change in style there is a gain and a loss. Bach's endlessly spinning melodies are unmatched in many respects by anyone who came after him.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 09, 2007, 03:03:04 PM
I don't understand how people can have such an hard time with Bach. Really Sean, you disappoint me there. :-\
Also, that girl might want to try harder then next time. She has a good technique, but she emphasizes certain passages too much, and i heard a few mistakes as well. Too fast perhaps? That prelude is one of Bach's most heartfelt pieces, btw.
It's a very mechanical, graceless, one-dimensional performance.
Okay, I thought as much: we had a similar thread before.
I like this performance though and she tries to give it what architecture she can, using the piano's added expressivity with intelligent restraint to do so. The character of the music is indeed remains 'one-dimensional'- but it's not so much her fault; try the Gould videos- not so different.
Quote from: Larry Rinkel on May 09, 2007, 05:53:08 PM
It's a very mechanical, graceless, one-dimensional performance.
I think better of it. Not wonderful, but on the right track. Insufficient variety of touch and dynamics along with some awkward phrasing in the faster pieces (I also listened to additional tracks from Suites 2 and 3).
Sean, I think that you might be interested in Copland's advice on listening to polyphonic music.
Now he said that trying to listen to polyphonic music the same way that you would homophonic music would make it sound ugly and complex. And you're not following what's happening.
This is what you should do-- listen to one theme, and only follow that (ignore the rest), then relisten paying attention to the next one etc etc until you know each part on it's own, and then you're ready to follow them. Each theme (at least for Bach) is elegant and melodic, but confusing when heard together unless you can hold them each in your head. And that's what you need to be able to do to appreciate Bach.
Since you said that Bach and Beethoven are "incomprehensible" I know that your difficulties must lie with not listening to the music right, so I hope this will be of help to you. :)
David
QuoteThis is what you should do-- listen to one theme, and only follow that (ignore the rest), then relisten paying attention to the next one etc etc until you know each part on it's own, and then you're ready to follow them. Each theme (at least for Bach) is elegant and melodic, but confusing when heard together unless you can hold them each in your head. And that's what you need to be able to do to appreciate Bach.
Well that strikes me as a tall order: I don't think the mind really works like that, in music or in anything else. Polyphony was basically just huge big mistake as far as I can see. They began with plainchant and just thought okay, we'll add another line or two of the same sort of thing: all very reasonable, but incomprehensible until 17thc counterpoint straightens the homogeneous mass out for us. Thanks anyway! (& can't remember criticizing Beethoven...)
How can you say polyphony was a big mistake? On what criteria? Certainly not popularity (consider the eminence of Bach) and certainly not influence. I would say polyphony was a great success (not that that necessarily makes it greater than monophony). So, what's left is personal opinion. I wonder, why do you attempt to objectively justify the superiority of your preferences above those of others? I mean, what's the point? Do you think those who previously liked polyphony would go "Right, now I realise how misguided I was. This Bach fugue really is incomprehensible. Hah! And to think I thought it was beautiful... I'm sure glad Sean set me straight. In the trash can it goes. Now, for some Wagner...."
Quote from: Sean on May 10, 2007, 08:48:31 PM
David
Well that strikes me as a tall order: I don't think the mind really works like that, in music or in anything else. Polyphony was basically just huge big mistake as far as I can see. They began with plainchant and just thought okay, we'll add another line or two of the same sort of thing: all very reasonable, but incomprehensible until 17thc counterpoint straightens the homogeneous mass out for us. Thanks anyway! (& can't remember criticizing Beethoven...)
Polyphony is the foundation of the whole bloody Western musical tradition. That's like saying blues was a big mistake for Jazz music.
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 11, 2007, 06:57:32 AM
Polyphony is the foundation of the whole bloody Western musical tradition. That's like saying blues was a big mistake for Jazz music.
In Sean's world, all established foundations are up for grabs. Well, it does keep one's mind occupied.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:06:52 AM
Good suggestion! How can one not like or be moved by the harmonically rich tapestry found in the greatest polyphony. Can you imagine music without, so one dimensional, easily digestable and rather well, dull...
Perhaps Sean isn't keen on musical dialogue.
Quote from: Sean on May 10, 2007, 08:48:31 PM
I don't think the mind really works like that, in music or in anything else.
It may take some effort if you are no used to it, but after a while it becomes second nature. It's not as unnatural as you think. The forest pygmies are known for their complex polyphonic textures, often improvised in nature, and they have been doing it for thousand of years. Surely, a highly educated and civilized man such as yourself shouldn't have a problem getting the hang of it, right? ;)
To be frank, after being involved with polyphonic music for so long i can barely stand homophony at all, and i never found harmony that interesting to begin with. For me, counterpoint died with Beethoven, and the number of composers who actually understood the aesthetic principles of polyphony after that point can be counted on ones fingers.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:59:04 AM
The theory underpinning his use of counterpoint has yet to be understood by music scholars. He was so advanced that people are still having trouble working out how he composed contrapuntally.
Actually Bach's counterpoint is understood as well as anything in the repertoire. Bach's counterpoint is the now the textbook rule. From Mozart to Beethoven to Chopin and further, most composers have been weaned on the WTC and other works. That Bach was a genius is not in dispute, but his technique is pretty much fully understood
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 08:29:51 AM
not so my friend...many composers after tried very hard but couldn't....
Could not what, write music that sounds like Bach could have wrote it?
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 08:40:43 AM
no, fully grasp how it was conceived and written....go up a few and read what i said earlier again, i dont feel like repeating....thanks.
No, the technique is fully grasped. The artistic genius behind it is no more understood than that of Mozart or any other composer.
Daidalos &
bwvQuoteHow can you say polyphony was a big mistake?
I was thinking of the period of renaissance polyphony in particular, and early tonal contrapuntal music in general. The sacred polyphonists are
very hard to justify to the listener after the emergence of the rules of counterpoint.
QuoteDo you think those who previously liked polyphony would go "Right, now I realise how misguided I was.
I believe that's exactly what happened: modal polyphony collapsed catastrophically in the early 17th century after holding sway (the brief 14thc ars nova a possible exception) since the 9th: that's 800 years of dullness in part writing, before Monteverdi etc shed some light on things. Schoenberg also saw it was a great cultural error.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 07:06:52 AM
Good suggestion! How can one not like or be moved by the harmonically rich tapestry found in the greatest polyphony. Can you imagine music without, so one dimensional, easily digestable and rather well, dull...
It's not that it's entirely dull, just that it's unfulfilled- and unfulfiling music: I'd might put it that its content remains in the last analysis unrealized by the underlying underdevelopment of its technical contrapuntal means.
& As you horizontal/ vertical harmony associations is a complex area: horizontal harmony surely became more complex in as far as it became, I believe, more natural in classical and romantic music.
This whole "Bach's music is intellectual" argumentation is a LOT more boring (amongst other things) than Bach's music supposedly is. 8)
Q
JosquinQuoteIt may take some effort if you are no used to it, but after a while it becomes second nature.
I can tell you I'm used to it (Bach and older more severe polyphony) and it doesn't become second nature, unless you mean gaining the expectation of being a bit bored with it.
QuoteIt's not as unnatural as you think. The forest pygmies are known for their complex polyphonic textures, often improvised in nature, and they have been doing it for thousand of years. Surely, a highly educated and civilized man such as yourself shouldn't have a problem getting the hang of it, right? ;)
Well I take a different view, and the ethnomusicology thing is a whole thread in itself, if you don't mind me dodging that.
QuoteTo be frank, after being involved with polyphonic music for so long i can barely stand homophony at all, and i never found harmony that interesting to begin with. For me, counterpoint died with Beethoven, and the number of composers who actually understood the aesthetic principles of polyphony after that point can be counted on ones fingers.
We may be arguing past each other a bit there- my question is polyphony as equality and homogeneity of melodic lines cf 17thc-onwards counterpoint as one line dominant over the others (related harmonically to a single mode (or two modes, Ionian & Aeolian) being dominant over the rest)...
Polyphony is parallel with the rediscovery of painting in a perspective of 3 dimensions.
Polyphony cannot be seen as a mistake or a detour. Even the few I-IV-V chords accompanying a simple melody or hymn can be viewed as a "second theme": they sure beat a drone note!
Any musical debate between the polyphonists and the harmonicists was also parallel with the painting debates in the French Academy on line (intellectuality) versus color (sensuousness).
Percussion texturing is the stepsister of true polyphony.
Check the opening to the last movement of Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony!
And for nonuple counterpoint, see Prokofiev's Second Symphony!
James
Quote...name me a composer who wrote contrapuntally has profoundly as Bach did?
Many many renaissance masters, for instance Palestrina and Lassus: they're extremely skilled in their democratically conceived homogeneous polyphony as much as their note for note homophony, but neither communicates as does simple but quality counterpoint with one line supported by subordinate lines.
CatoQuoteAny musical debate between the polyphonists and the harmonicists was also parallel with the painting debates in the French Academy on line (intellectuality) versus color (sensuousness).
Well I can admire its purity.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 08:57:51 AM
irregardless of the mere formal expansions of mozart, his music is a simplification after bach. name me a composer who wrote contrapuntally has profoundly as Bach did? where the horizontal/vertical conception is so perfect, its widely considered that he is the highest achiever in this area, the hardest and most rigourous in composing. Beethoven's counterpoint, in fact, all counterpoint after Bach's time was conceived and heard quite differently as ive already stated. the proof is in the music.
Yes the counterpoint was different, just as Bach's polyphony was different from Josquin's. Composers after Bach had different aesthetic goals.
Quote from: Que on May 11, 2007, 09:07:01 AM
This whole "Bach's music is intellectual" argumentation is a LOT more boring (amongst other things) than Bach's music supposedly is. 8)
Q
Can't argue with the above logic. I've been listening to Fellner's WTC Bk. 1, and it's much more rewarding that these posts arguing the worth of polyphony.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 08:57:51 AM
irregardless of the mere formal expansions of mozart, his music is a simplification after bach, and vertically conceived
Not texturally or rhythmically. Bach is very simple in this regard compared to Mozart
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 09:50:17 AM
name me for instance a mozart keyboard work that is as polyphonic in texture as a bach one? how about a large scale religious work? etc etc etc
Why limit to keyboard works? Ever heard the finale of the Jupiter Symphony? There is no finer example of counterpoint in the repertoire. Can you name a piece of Bach that has quintuple invertible counterpoint?
The point about texture is that Bach's music tends to have the same texture throughout the piece whereas changes in texture are characteristic of Mozart and the classical style in general.
And if Bach's technique was not well understood you could never have musical works like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgDcC2LOJhQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgDcC2LOJhQ)
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 09:50:17 AM
wha? i have to hear the mozart you are listening to.
name me for instance a mozart keyboard work that is as polyphonic in texture as a bach one? how about a large scale religious work? etc etc etc
bach wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at mozart's music, with its lean, clean and simple textures.....it and the music of that period is a vast simplification compared to the high baroque, believe it...
By focusing on harmony, which is just one aspect of music, you've missed out on other aspects. Whether Mozart's music is more rhythmically complex than Bach, I don't know. But I do feel that the tonal shading in Mozart's orchestral works can be more interesting than Bach. He more clearly writes specifically for the instruments that he intends, and also makes much better use of the wind instruments. I also think that Mozart is more melodic.
I don't think that Bach triumphs over Mozart. He is clearly better than Mozart in some ways, while Mozart is better than Bach in others. They approached music from different aesthetics.
The Gurnatron will be pleased, David! 8)
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 09:45:01 AM
er, this is a discussion forum....and id rather participate in thought provoking debates on music here than mindlessly list what you've purchased today, or are considering purchasing or are listening to etc (who cares?)...
Keep your shirt on my friend. There's plenty of room for purchasing, listening and talking. For me, the purchasing and listening to music leads to discussion. BUT, if push comes to shove, I'll take listening over all else. Another thing to keep in mind is that this discussion about polyphony is going nowhere. Sean isn't going to change his mind no matter what arguments are made in its defense.
Just for the record, I love polyphony. It enriches the emotional content and architecture. Now I'm off to follow up Fellner's WTC with the French Suites from harpsichordist David Cates.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 01:32:23 PM
i had my reasons for asking but ....you can't deliver ..
sounds like you don't Bach too well AT ALL, there are loads of Bach with 3 to 6 part counterpoint,
No, you do not understand the term INVERTIBLE counterpoint. there is a difference. The finale of the Jupiter Symphony is the only example in all of classical music which I am aware of. It is a masterpiece of contrapuntal writing not inferior to anything Bach wrote
Not an easy one - Bach's counterpoint vs. Mozart's. Just for the sake of experimentation, I gave my dog General Jackson a choice between a Bach cd of the Art of Fugue and a Mozart having the Jupiter Symphony.
The General chose the Bach; teeth marks do not lie. Wow! he has a great sense of aesthetics. That's why I often let the General choose the evening's musical program. Last night he selected Leif Kayser symphonies with the Chopin/Rachmaninov cello sonatas as a chaser. Unfortunately, I fell asleep during the second movement of Kayser's 2nd symphony. General Jackson did not like this development.
Can anyone tell me how many voices there are in the fugue section of BWV 965 a minor sonata? I can't figure it out ::)
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 01:46:46 PM
And what does this have to do with the my original point? Absolutely nothing.
Its one example of Mozart's mastery of counterpoint. You asked me to name a work comparable to Bach - that was your original point.
Quote from: James on May 11, 2007, 01:46:46 PM
And what does this have to do with the my original point? Absolutely nothing.
ps. Art of Fugue. Loads of invertable counterpoint, examine the canons, try Contrapunctus IV for starts....
Yup, Contrapunctus IV is a beautiful example of invertible counterpoint. Think I'll head for Gould's AoF and get a mix of piano and organ. You folks are inspiring my listening regimen today.
James
Quote...Beethoven didn't call Bach "The immortal God of Harmony" for nothing you know, he very well knew the immense ungraspable depths of Bach's greatest music.
Okay. I never had any doubts that Bach's keyboard output is great music, and I find AoF especially fascinating and rewarding, and interesting to understand, reaching into depths few other works do. But melody is surely central to what music is and unless you take a more purely formal view of art (as many modernist theorists do for instance) and ignore content for its own sake, Bach's music
has to be seen as only one of the key stepping stones to the true music of the romantic, where formal concerns, counterpoint and
emotional content can all be found in balance.
Quote...But all these insights & fumblings would have been guided by the unseen hand of the overtone series. So to summarise here ... I think parallel evolutions will have taken place and they would have cross-fertilised each other to some extent.
Yes I've been most interested in this line of thought, and I'm certainly on the side of the argument that looks for patterns across cultures, and against cultural relativism.
Quote... the sheer motor energy of Bach ... joy & life giving intensity.
I take these points, but I think you have adopt more of a formalist aesthetic stance (which I notice others also point out here)- which puts a lot of musical passion, as located in notes and melodies themselves and not just in their structural interrelations, out of your reach.
Mozart's melodies also
guide his counterpoint in ways that Bach's Germanic architectural theorizing doesn't allow: Mozart is then intuitively and more holistically satisfying on levels Bach simply doesn't reach. From our vantage point, we know you can't really justify a lengthy piece in completely monotonous rhythm no matter how good the polyphony is: natural musical syntax is missing- and I insist that this is perfectly observable and uncontroversial.
Quote from: Sean on May 11, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
James
Okay. I never had any doubts that Bach's keyboard output is great music, and I find AoF especially fascinating and rewarding, and interesting to understand, reaching into depths few other works do. But melody is surely central to what music is and unless you take a more purely formal view of art (as many modernist theorists do for instance) and ignore content for its own sake, Bach's music has to be seen as only one of the key stepping stones to the true music of the romantic, where formal concerns, counterpoint and emotional content can all be found in balance.
Yes I've been most interested in this line of thought, and I'm certainly on the side of the argument that looks for patterns across cultures, and against cultural relativism.
I take these points, but I think you have adopt more of a formalist aesthetic stance (which I notice others also point out here)- which puts a lot of musical passion, as located in notes and melodies themselves and not just in their structural interrelations, out of your reach.
Mozart's melodies also guide his counterpoint in ways that Bach's Germanic architectural theorizing doesn't allow: Mozart is then intuitively and more holistically satisfying on levels Bach simply doesn't reach. From our vantage point, we know you can't really justify a lengthy piece in completely monotonous rhythm no matter how good the polyphony is: natural musical syntax is missing- and I insist that this is perfectly observable and uncontroversial.
[/quote/]
The above is a perfect example of taking one's personal preferences and trying to build an objective/logical foundation to justify said preferences. I'm sure that every strong Bach enthusiast is well aware of the immensely effective outpouring of emotion in his music. Anyone who can't hear it doesn't know Bach.
Don, well you seem to be defining emotion differently to me- there is beauty of form, and beauty of melodic content (or vertical harmony as James says- for instance in Messiaen, or in ars nova music) per se. Bach's greatest music is the unaccompanied works for cello and violin- where his tendencies to contrapuntal deviousnessness were necessarily contained.
Quote from: Sean on May 11, 2007, 04:50:54 PM
Don, well you seem to be defining emotion differently to me- there is beauty of form, and beauty of melodic content (or vertical harmony as James says- for instance in Messiaen, or in ars nova music) per se. Bach's greatest music is the unaccompanied works for cello and violin- where his tendencies to contrapuntal deviousnessness were necessarily contained.
If we don't define emotion in a similar manner, there's no point to this communication. All I can say is that Bach's music covers every emotion possessed by humans and is not dominated by some structural rigidity.
But Sean, your head is in a different world than mine, and it's best to leave it at that.
Sure thing.
Quote from: Sean on May 11, 2007, 04:05:41 PM
From our vantage point, we know you can't really justify a lengthy piece in completely monotonous rhythm no matter how good the polyphony is: natural musical syntax is missing- and I insist that this is perfectly observable and uncontroversial.
I have no intention of contributing properly to this rather perverse thread - but I can't let this pass, from one of our leading cheerleaders for minimalism...natural syntax missing, huh? ;D ;)
Ah. I see I should have written '....leading guest cheerleaders...'
Just another of Sean's little hand grenades rolled under the door as he leaves........again.
Mike
I happened to recall today one of Mahler's statements about a musical work: There should be no harmony, only counterpoint.
Mahler was a great admirer of both Bach and Mozart, and supposedly, while on his deathbed, was dreaming Mozart's music: polyphonic enough, I would think!
Quote from: Cato on May 14, 2007, 08:53:19 AM
I happened to recall today one of Mahler's statements about a musical work: There should be no harmony, only counterpoint.
Heedless Watermelon is
largely in compliance.