The Serenity of the Music of JS Bach

George, I'm totally with you on the sublime transcendence of Bach's music, but I'm very glad that for me there's plenty of music written since (and before!) that I find equally transcendent.

Dear Fred,

I think it is rather like superb wine!

Too much gives you a headache, but enjoyed in moderation, it is probably not bad for you!

But if you have tasted enough of the best wine, then supermarket plonk seems a poor substitute!

There is a good deal of music from before and after ranging from Purcell and or even back to Dowland that I find myself in tune with, and coming nearer our time, I could not part with anything from Haydn, and Mozart, but some Beethoven appeals less than once. Schumann no longer speaks to me. Tchaikowski and Brahms are composers where certain works attract me. Walton also. Sibelius always! Prokofiev in parts! 

But Bach is knockout every time. Did he ever put a foot wrong?

Okay that the Saint Matthew Passion is too long to physically listen to it in one go, but that is addressed in London [Easter concert by the Bach Choir] at least where Part One is given after lunch, and Part Two in the evening. Helpful for players, singer and audience alike ... At least on a recording you can listen to half and take a rest and recommence when you have recovered sufficiently!

Fred, you may find this surprising, but I find some modern music easier to enjoy than a good deal of romantic! 

I think it a sign that I have left middle age and entered the last quarter that I find such comfort in Bach's music. It is not really easy music for youngsters is it? Do you agree?

Very best wishes from George

Too much Bach makes Jack a dull boy. Try this....

JSB may grow your intellect, but it will NEVER make you dull. Long live JSB  

Let it go Topper, the King is gone.

So in five responses the topic of JS Bach now includes both Foetus and Elvis?

While I agree that Bach is a great composer and that I as well like his music a lot. It doesn't mean that other music wouldn't be as great as well. In classical quite a number of composers after Bach have also written fantastic music, Beethoven, Mozart.....and 100+ others

And in other styles of music you also find fantastic music....

So I will keep my collection, and you can sent the rest of your collection to me.

George,

I'm with Fred, Bert and the others here who appreciate great music and actually have a deep love and desire to be in relationship to the music itself.  One may pick their favourite foot ball team or favourite bicycle or favourite automobile but in the end which is more genuine?  The pursuit that you receive your satisfaction from the "name" of the team or the sport itself, the "name" on the bicycle or that you enjoy the pleasures of cycling or the brand of the automobile or that you enjoy driving and motorsport?

It is not for me to judge your motives or personal choices but the following (again) is just rather extreme for a view even if I'm not totally sure what it could mean - honestly?

The trouble for me is that every new discovery nails the fact that most music written since seems to be noisily empty by comparison. 

While I am with you on the importance of the music of Bach and I recognize the same need for him in my life as well but there is a big wide world out there to discover and enjoy.  No matter how great the quality and pleasing the wine may be man can not live on wine alone.  In the end though this is your choice whether you choose to broaden your viewpoints and focus on the music rather than only on a name or the idea.  While you are entitled to your own opinion here and I am sure you are perfectly happy but in this quote my own view on this type of statement is one of profound sadness.  I guess it is a choice and you have made yours and I have made mine and I understand the sentiment behind the wisdom in that "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink."  

Of course I would love nothing more than to shed some light on the subject and could give countless examples and explanations of serene and profound music through any period but it would be futile unless you had the genuine need to have the thirst.

Best Regards,

Doug

Dear Doug,

I am not on any side in this.

I find all football a form of tribal excuse for what would not otherwise be accepted. I find a choice of car boring. A taxi will do ...

I am not interested in "names" be they of football teams, cars, or other capitalist schemes that benefit only a few individuals.

I find that the music of Bach is always a pleasure to encounter for for the first time, and learn more about. Only one composer I have discovered so far - Haydn - is almost as satisfactory in these respects.

What Bach shows is that noisy bombast and faulty harmony is not satisfactory. Wagner took the rules and broke them, but without the necessary genius to get away with it. His music is a noisy empty vessel. Beethoven never learned compression properly so his music rambles to a degree where boredom quite rightly comes onto the playing field.

Schubert is death obsessed, and I no longer find any Schubert can speek to me. It is too long and to self-obsessed. Schumann was someone who rightly was committed insane. Brahms has some good points. Elgar is a sad Wagner obsessed failure with perhaps three good tunes to his name. Tchaikovsky was an honest [but in his time] unacceptable figure who produced at least one good symphony and some wonderful tunes in his ballet music. 

And so it goes.

Apart from Mozart and Haydn after Bach, I really am finished with what is called "classical music," except for some music by Beethoven. Greig still speaks to me, but he was a peasant in European musical terms, accepted because of multiculturalism rather than genuine enthusiasm ...

But is all a view piont!

Don't stress yourself about someone who shares very little of your musical taste. After all I cannot stand Phil Collins either!

ATB from George

Dear George,

What?  You don't like Phil Collins either?  Now that just says it all.  There isn't much left on earth that you do like then, do you?   

Seriously though, of course I strongly disagree with your over-generalizations of Beethoven, Schubert, and Schumann etc.  I am not really worried about what anyone else likes or doesn't like but I am only concerned about misinformation or the presentation of opinion as fact.

What Bach shows is that noisy bombast and faulty harmony is not satisfactory.

 

Beethoven never learned compression properly so his music rambles to a degree where boredom quite rightly comes onto the playing field.

Boredom is usually a sign of lack of understanding of a listener.  It is easier to use straw man tactics and point to boredom rather than admit or take responsibility for ignorance or understanding of the subject.  I've heard it all before.  If you don't like Schubert you just say his works are too long and never end etc. etc.  Spend an hour with the Art of the Fugue and you may mistake this for Art of the Fatigue.  It is not easy unless you are well rested and in shape to focus for 3 hours of St. Matthews Passion either.

What has compression to do with musicality?  What does this mean in a musical sense in the first place?  Musical ideas are musical ideas and there is no set formula for this.  The musical message is quite clear to me from these composers and millions of others including children and through all ages to elderly and anyone who has a heart.  Baroque era music is hardly the shining example for compression though.  Put the Brandenburg Concertos against Beethoven's string quartets or trios and you cannot argue that it is Beethoven who does not understand compression.  Because harpsichords were so "quiet" they had to spit out a flurry of notes to flood the output in order to compete or even be heard.

Noisy bombast?  Now you are just sounding like a surly baroque era school headmaster here that is just following rules and cultural dictates .  I am sure you are aware that even cellos were banished and had a difficult start in this time as they too were considered too loud.  Today's grand pianos are also too loud and therefore shunned by evening quoting Bach's displeasure with the keyboard evolution of the time (even though this is simply not true).  It gets downright annoying and pointless to whisper all day long.  Emotion conveyed through phrasing has highs and lows just as speaking should.  Music is just another form of language and is not a monotone Morse code.

Faulty harmony?  Show me an example of faulty harmony (that is not derived from an elevated opinion) in Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Debussy, Prokofiev.... 

The harmony and counterpoint throughout is second to none in every composer that followed Bach.  You are not familiar with very much Chopin, for example, are you?  Chopin's Preludes are every bit as miraculous and ingenious as Bach's are.  Chopin studied and referred Bach's WTC and used them as a model and instruction for his own.  

George, I believe you paint a false picture of music (the majority of everything in existence) that has as its only fault (in your eyes) that it doesn't suit your style or personality.  Nothing more.

Really, I think you are right in that you should sell everything.  157 discs of Bach and a bit of Haydn is really still a lot of music for anyone by any standard.  Continue to tell us what is great about this music. It really isn't necessary to tell us what music is condemned as it is perfectly clear.

Best Regards,

Doug

+1.

Dear Doug,

I know this music that I find speaks less and less to me very very well. I can usually identify any symphonic music from Beethoven Schumann, Brahms, and many others sometimes from just an opening chord, or a few bars! I know this music very well. I don't condemn the music, I just point out that it speaks less to me these days! And I never said that there is widespread faulty harmony in any nineteenth century composer but one, and assuming that a discord is correctly resolved [rather than leading to another discord] then I stick to my view that one nineteenth century composer is responsible for a lot of faulty harmony! 

I think you are confusing my lack of enjoyment from quite a lot of music I used to really be passionate about with a generalised judgement of it rather than a current personal reaction to it.

All our tastes evolve, and the comments I make are personal responses and responses that have evolved and are evolving, rather than should be taken as a cast iron truth that can be found and shared by everyone. Of course there will be many who live an entire lifetime enthusiastic about music, which I am no longer enthusiastic about!

However there is one point that is significant in my opinion, and which you pick up on. Compression of music to a shorter length. Bach was a master of this as a study of multi soloist concertos will reveal. Each soloist gets his moment of precedence, but Bach manages the trick of allowing the music to be worked out as counterpoint where several soloists play together, and creates a wonderfully compressed and dense effect, such as the Second Brandenburg Concerto for one famous example. 

Beethoven in his Triple Concerto  lets the soloists play in series rather than in parallel most of the time, which leads to a rather rambling structure that takes perhaps forty minutes to perform even though it hardly scales the heights [musically or emotionally speaking] that Bach manages in the Second Brandenburg which is about 12 minutes [on a reasonable average] length in performance. 

In the time of the Beethoven Triple concerto I can listen to three great concertos by Bach ...

Anyway, please do not take my reactions of music that you like and I no longer do so much as a reason to feel affronted and write long and detailed posts defending what you like ... If I say that the music that I no longer enjoy sounds bombastic, noisy, and empty of genuine emotion, that is my reaction today. Thirty years ago my reaction was different and has evolved. 

The reason for this thread was that in finally having quite a lot of Bach's music that is new to me, I have found probably the fastest rate of change in my musical taste towards more gently spoken music than at any time previously. The music of sublime balance of structure and emotion that does not need to say it loudly to say it with devastating power!

ATB from George

You do realise that, by reducing your music 'collection' - while keeping outlay on equipment static, you are effectively altering your Hair-shirt Index ?

Not too worried about that one.

The replay is paid for and should last ten or twenty years without further great expense. By that time, I'll probably have given up on music altogether, or have a direct connection of my iPod to my hearing aids!

ATB from George

Originally posted by George J.

What Bach shows is that noisy bombast and faulty harmony is not satisfactory. Wagner took the rules and broke them, but without the necessary genius to get away with it. His music is a noisy empty vessel. Beethoven never learned compression properly so his music rambles to a degree where boredom quite rightly comes onto the playing field.

I haven’t noticed much rambling in Beethoven’s music; his best music is probably to be found in the string quartets, which are miracles of concision.

I have just come back from a weekend break in London, the highlight of which was a wonderful performance of The Mastersingers at the ENO, pure genius from first note to last.

I presume that your comment about one discord leading to another is a reference to Tristan, but this technique perfectly matches the tension in the story & is hardly ‘faulty’ harmony. You are in danger of sounding like Sixtus Beckmesser.

I’m guessing Schoenberg’s Verklarte Nacht is not one of your favourites either.

Dear Morton,

It is strange isn't it?

I have a superb Hollywood Quartet recording of the Schubert's String Qunitet in C and Transfigured Night.

It used to be the case that I listened to the Schubert and not the Schoenberg. Now it is the other way round. Strange harmonies and all!

I agree that Beethoven's music is for me most approachable these days from the String Quartets, specifically for me at least the late ones, some of which are highly compresses and some of which carry on at considerable though compelling length.

If I sound like a reactionary old musical conservative, then I am sure that you are basically correct in your observation. Basically right though not completely. One of my least favourite pieces of famous music is the Schoenberg Gurrelieder! Simply too loud for me ... and far too long for its musical content, at least for me.

But Transfigured Night is not loud, and is nice and short. That is the crucial difference. 

I remember being eight and trying to choose a suitable instrument for me to learn. A trumpet was shown, and I clamped my hands over my ears at the very loud sound in the small music tuition room. I took up the piano ...

Much later I took up the double bass, which is a quiet instrument in any case, even when played flat out. One trombone is far louder than eight double basses ...

ATB from George

Ok, so if not in the string quartets, where exactly does he ramble? 

Missa Solemnis, and Choral Symphony for two famous examples ...

Choral Symphony sound like a not yet ready for prime time 9th.

Bach's B Minor Mass makes Missa Solemnis relatively compact and economical.

Part of Beethoven attraction for me is that his creation did not come easily like Mozart where he'd compse everythign in his head and just copy them on to the paper. Beethoven struggled and worked very hard at it. Makes it much more human. Just look at his revisions. This is a sort of creative process all of us who striving for the best go through. 

Perhaps not all of them are going to be the winners and some of them might ramble on. This does not make any less of Beethoven or his art in my mind.

Beethoven never learned compression properly so his music rambles to a degree where boredom quite rightly comes onto the playing field.

This is quite a sweeping statement;  I’m surprised you only managed two examples.

I am sure that you can think of many others without help from me. As I noted, "two famous examples," not an exhaustive list ....

ATB from George

No, actually I couldn’t.

For me, Beethoven is a prime example of a composer who does not ramble, which is why I was so struck by your comment. 

As I said earlier, and I re-iterate now. I find these things in the music. I used to adore almost everything from Beethoven.

Now I find a certain proportion of it to my liking, and an increasing amount otherwise.

I find it too long too loud and striving after rather than actually expressive of what I look for in music. When I thought of Beethoven as my favourite composer, then my two favourites today - Bach and Haydn - I found less attractive to me. 

To make reference to the first post, now having access to Bach's complete oeuvre, I have encountered a raising of the bar with respect to music that I have had doubts about for some time. 

From Bach I can think of no single piece that does not appeal to me. I must express doubts about Haydn's keyboard concertos, and certainly the oratorio "The Seasons," but otherwise I know no Haydn that I do not find more than a little enjoyable. Of course, it is true that I had never have access to all of Haydn's music ...

It would be utterly pointless for me to write a list of Beethoven music that I find too long for my own good, as clearly you love the heavenly lengths. 

There are some Bach works that I find it best to digest with lengthy pauses, such as the Saint Matthew Passion, but that is not to question their musical value, but that the meal is too rich for one sitting! 

Though it seems that you and Doug have confused my motivation in starting this thread for having a go at music I never liked, I think I should emphasise the point that what is happening is an evolution towards a different repertoire, which involves an increasing dislocation from music that I know very well, was once enthusiastic over, but now find merely a preparation for something else that I find sublime after an apprenticeship on less initially difficult to comprehend music! To have a certain antipathy to something one must know it well enough to know why this is so.

ATB from George

George, there is something in your story that goes beyond subjective preferences, I believe.

And I can perfectly understand that your musical journey brings you back to JSB over and over again and eventually will hold you there.

But I do not buy your explanation or "story" of your musical experience (remember Max Frisch : "Ein Mann hat eine Erfahrung gemacht, jetzt sucht er die Geschichte seiner Erfahrung").

Are you sure you are pushed towards JSB by Wagner's lack of genius or by Schumann's sickness ? Aren't you rather attracted by the serenity of JSB's music "in spite" of Wagner's genius and Schumann's force of imagination? I am almost absolutely ignorant about music, but I find it difficult to associate Wagner's prelude to Tristan with the perception of lack of genius. And if Schumann's Kreiseriana might evoke a certain sense of uneasyness at some point, this is certainly one I would not like to miss.

Best,

nbpf