Is Bach a Great Composer?

[Tsearcher]

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

What do people think of these?

[(poco) Sforzando]

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

What do people think of these?

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

[Josquin des Prez]

What do people think of these?

I think that anybody who has ever listened to a piece by Vivaldi and a piece by Bach and doesn't understand why the latter is superior to the first in every possible conceivable way is obviously too stupid to be considered seriously. Sorry for being blunt, but i'm not in the best moods today to tolerate the constant raping of the masters by attention seeking mediocrities and their revisionist delusions.

[The new erato]

Reese does a great job of refuting Fernandez' muddled thinking.

[Ephemerid]

I think that anybody who has ever listened to a piece by Vivaldi and a piece by Bach and doesn't understand why the latter is superior to the first in every possible conceivable way is obviously too stupid to be considered seriously. Sorry for being blunt, but i'm not in the best moods today to tolerate the constant raping of the masters by attention seeking mediocrities and their revisionist delusions.

Ouch.  But I agree with you, Josquin.  Fernandez sounds like he just has an axe to grind.

[quintett op.57]

I know this text very well.
There are true things, but the conclusion is far too severe for JSB.
The author tries to define what "greatness in music" is, this is the problem (he makes the same mistake than those who claim than Bach is objectively greater than Beethoven, Haydn or Brahms...)

[quintett op.57]

I think that anybody who has ever listened to a piece by Vivaldi and a piece by Bach and doesn't understand why the latter is superior to the first in every possible conceivable way is obviously too stupid to be considered seriously.

Love this kind of intervention : I hold the truth, if you don't believe it you're stupid

[hornteacher]

I agree with Josquin.  I could go into a lot of intellectual point per point arguments regarding the article but I really don't want to waste my time on a fool.

Bach was great.  The article is rubbish.  The end.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Love this kind of intervention : I hold the truth, if you don't believe it you're stupid

Chopin signed his letters to his pupils: "Play Bach for me." For Beethoven he was not Bach (brook) but Ocean. Casals played two preludes and fugues from the WTC every morning of his life. It's not Josquin who holds the truth; it's the accumulated understanding of dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of serious musicians, among them virtually every major composer who came after Bach. Beethoven, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Brahms, Schoenberg, you name it - they all were in awe of Bach's achievement. I can't blame Josquin in the slightest if some pipsqueak thinks he knows better. What rot - to think on a supposed classical music forum one should have to defend Bach.

[Don]

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

What do people think of these?

What does Tsearcher think of these?  He's the one who seems to be unsure.

[Lethevich]

The original article is nonsense, of course - but I am glad that it was written, as I very much enjoyed the rebuttal.

[(poco) Sforzando]

The original article is nonsense, of course - but I am glad that it was written, as I very much enjoyed the rebuttal.

The rebuttal was indeed brilliant. It is similar in effect to a classic article by Edward Lowinsky entitled "On Mozart's Rhythm," where by intelligent musical analysis (without any admixture of "personal preference" or "taste" or "it's all a matter of opinion" and the like) the author demonstrates how Mozart's inventive and original use of rhythm was indeed superior to the lesser figures of his time. Charles Rosen's analyses in "The Classical Style" and "The Romantic Generation" are further examples of how a gifted musical understanding can demonstrate the value of several important musical figures - the first Viennese school in the first book and figures like Chopin and Berlioz in the second.

[c#minor]

Try playing any Bach keyboard works and then it's easy to understand how Bach is great. Then after that try composing any counterpuntal music in the Baroque style and then it's even more apparent why Bach has been called the "Old Testament."   

[karlhenning]

The rebuttal was indeed brilliant. It is similar in effect to a classic article by Edward Lowinsky entitled "On Mozart's Rhythm," where by intelligent musical analysis (without any admixture of "personal preference" or "taste" or "it's all a matter of opinion" and the like) the author demonstrates how Mozart's inventive and original use of rhythm was indeed superior to the lesser figures of his time.

Even to . . . Dittersdorf?  0:)

[Mark G. Simon]

1. Vivaldi sold more records in 1960, and "The Four Seasons" continues to sell well. Meanwhile, Bach's support seems to come mainly from learned writings, meaning that his appeal is intellectual.

It would not surprise me to find that Vivaldi sells more records,

Reese gives Fernandez too much credit here. He takes Fernandez' word that Vivaldi is more popular than Bach, apparently based on record sales in 1960. What about all the years since then?

Bach actually has quite a large number of popular hits, including "Jesu Joy", "Sheep May Safely Graze", "Wachet Auf", "Air on a G String", "Invention in F major", "Invention in D minor", The C major prelude from WTC book 1, etc., too many pieces that everyone loves, even those who otherwise show no particular inclination towards classical music, to justify consigning Bach to the realm of effete intellectual snobs.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Even to . . . Dittersdorf?  0:)

Dittersdorf is indeed one of the composers singled out in the article.

[PerfectWagnerite]

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.

[(poco) Sforzando]

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.

Hmmm, missed that. Mr. Reese's article has lost some of its brilliance.

[Josquin des Prez]

I wouldn't say Mr. Reese is mistaken regarding Schubert's technical side but "fertile imagination" is a colossal understatement. Schubert's inspiration is almost without peer.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I wouldn't say Mr. Reese is mistaken regarding Schubert's technical side but "fertile imagination" is a colossal understatement. Schubert's inspiration is almost without peer.

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