Really, it seems like we need a thread to discuss such a person of his significance. Some people call him boring, some people call him a genius; to some it isn't just quite their cup of tea, others simply may respect him and leave it at that. I, for one, call him a genius and happily listen to Bach freshly, however, I strongly prefer Gould's performances of Bach over anybody else (unless, of course, Bach himself came back to life to hear his organ).

I will expand on my opinions and possibly openly lecture on such a phenomenon as Bach.

I, as well, encourage ALL feedback in this thread; the more written in your comments, the more I (and others) shall respect them.

"Market's Open."

I admire his fugues due to their complexity. You don't appreciate what goes into writing a fugue unless you've tried it out yourself.

Bach is the best! Currently playing the fugue section of his violin sonata no. 1 and its amazing!

About like or dislike his music, that is just something subjective. Not everybody is going to like the same. And not everybody have the same taste or same interests. Some people concentrate more in the analysis of a piece and others just in its own sound, if sounds "cool" or no; maybe a mix of both.

But there is something for sure that everybody must appreciate of him and is his whole attribute to the music and the things he applied to it, plus the evolution of it. And the big influences in other composers.

Bach Violin concerto's will always remain a classic. You could even hear a rearrangement of it in Vampire Knights.

I think his Well tempered clavier is a corner stone both in musical literature and in a pianist life. Fixing the peculiarity of each major and minor key is not an easy task but Bach was able to attribute a single expressive value and a particular esthetic function to each one of them. Values and functions which have practically remained unchanged up to the present. There is no doubt he was a genius. Today I think his work is essential for a pianist who really wants to call himself like that.

I agree with the Well Tempered Clavier being a corner stone in musical literature, but when I question it, I am not entirely sure why. Same as I would agree with the Beethoven Sonatas and the Chopin Etudes being other corner stones, but couldnt actually give you a reason why I think this. I think its something that we're taught from a very young age to respect without question.

As this is a Bach thread, im not going to discuss Beethoven or Chopin; apart from to say they are just as big as Bach, why does he deserve a whole thread?

The Well Tempered Clavier was written to demonstrate the merits of the newly discovered twelve tone tuning system. Bach himself did not invent this- it came from the Pythagorean school in Ancient Greece based on the intervals of the harmonic series, and underwent various transformations in the following years. Im not going to bore people with the details and various tweaks etc because its not what the thread is about. Anyway- a lot of people mistakenly attribute the invention of equal temperament to Bach, which is not true. Bach just chose this method of tuning over just intonation.

So in essence this corner stone of piano literature is simply a set of compositions created with a particular method of tuning that happened to become the preferred one of composers for generations to come. Bach died just over 250 years ago... in the grand scheme of things thats not that long to have an influence on music, considering the Greek influence has been around for 2000+ years.

I dont really understand what chopin 4525 means about 'fixing the peculiarity of each major and minor', but in any way I can interpret it, again it was not Bach. The Greeks assigned different characteristics and qualities to specific tones and modes. The major third is the 4th interval in the harmonic series, the minor third is the 5th interval in the harmonic series. He did not 'create' major and minor.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that whenever Bach is discussed I sense a habit of people attributing the work of many over thousands of years to one man. He is not a God.

another point- and dont really question me on this because im no mathematician- but a journal I was reading by the modern Greek composer Xenakis was demonstrating how in the Baroque and Classical periods, music was created based on mathematical theories that the composers themselves didnt realise at the time (exception of Mozart who was a mathematical genius)- because if they had the use of mathematics in composition in the 20th century wouldnt seem so contemporary.

it is so amazing to look back through history and see how music has developed and its origins and everything the Greeks gave to it that is still around today and we dont realise. it really irritates me how in traditional music history and theory all that is really focused on are the Baroque and Classical periods- because there is so much that happened before all of that. i hope someone will correct me; i hope someone can turn round and say 'actually, in music theory/history i learned a lot about Greek music and musical philosophies and the development of temperament etc etc'. but i seriously doubt someone will do that...

so yeah thats my view. tried to keep it as objective as possible, sorry if any of it sounded like i was just slagging him off. if it wasnt for Bach the world would have missed out on a numberless amount of amazing music by composers who idolised him. just sadly, in my opinion, none of this amazing music was actually produced by Bach himself.

I forgot "key". Exploring each major and minor key, Bach was able to set up moods and feelings of each key. In that sense his work is a classic and if you pick one of Chopin Studies or Preludes you understand what major influence Bach had on him. I never claimed Bach invented anything. I am praising him as the best polyphonic composer and as the musician who firstly wrote 24 compositions firmly fixing their quality over the future. This is the reason why Bach is not boring at all and why his compositions are always a fresh raw material for composers of any time. Also we cannot put a genius in simple mathematical terms. Music is not about calculation, music is about art which is different. Today there are software which can compose music. They are perfect in terms of chords, melody, rhythm but their music is simply horrible. Why? Because you don't need math to compose the Polonaise op.53. You need a gift from God and a true love for your country. Concepts and feelings which are very hard to express in terms of equations.

Mistake. Sorry. I'm too tired tonight. x_x

im also too tired...

but ill find you the article. baroque and classical music in particular is VERY much mathematical. as to be fair is some 20th century music, look at Debussy for example- will get back to you with the book title tomorrow but i read something a few years ago that showed similarities in the majority of his works in terms of mathematical structure

Chopin came from a different era, where music had a different meaning and role to what it had in the earlier periods. the piano itself had a whole different role- Liszts' creation of the piano recital for example.

but yeah... so amazingly tired- will come back to this *yawns*

AND... (god im gna be thinking about this all night rather than sleeping so running away from computer after this) keys were around before Bach, it just wasn't possible to modulate freely between them because of tuning. all Bach did was demonstrate that the new system of tuning allowed for free modulation between any of the keys.

+ mood and characteristics of each key... im not really sure what you mean by that. different keys meant different things to different composers- they dont really have their own character. and like i said that was something that the Greeks had already done with modes...

I don't like the idea of music being solely an expression of emotions. I am reading a compilation of philosophies of many people, and as the focal point, Glenn Gould. The book is entitled Philosopher at the Keyboard: GLENN GOULD written by (forget the first name at the moment) Elizabeth. It explains many great theories and philosophies about music, performance, composition and creation of thinking (yes, they are different).

To be more on topic of flow here, I 100% agree with Thorn, and I don't quite agree with chopin4525. There is something to be said, however, with the coloring of each key, but you cannot say (without truly stating every reason supporting it and making artistic sense) that Bach gave each key "moods and feelings." It's daft when people say that, and you're daft, chopin4525. I will not take that comment back, yet still respect your external feeling of artistic intelligence of Bach simply because you have stated more than once and feel for it (but don't feel with integrity, I am afraid).

Thorn, on the other hand, has a very respectful essay of sorts. You tackled, not only Bach, but sciences and arts supporting his "existence." That's what I am looking for. You did not go off topic and you proved a point and enlightened all of us. If anyone would dare to badmouth his performance of writing, I would severely segregate your closed-minded thoughts as would others-- however --I encourage you accustom yourself to thinking about what he (and others) say ABOUT Bach, AGAINST Bach and apply to ANYTHING else Bach or not Bach.

My feelings and thoughts on Bach are simple. He studied various practices and theories on contrapuntal music. He was a master of the Chorale, Keyboard, Instrumentation (for the availability at the time) and above all, Contrapuntal/Counterpoint.. as well as modulating. There has been no one else in history with his style, and after becoming infatuated with the science of his music and (recently, in the past several months) his passion. I cannot get over the fact that it wasn't all for art-- quite the contrary-- he was writing for money and churches, but you have to believe that there's a difference when you talk about Fall out Boy and a Chorale Montet on Nun danket alle Gott. Sure he used a theme, but that is some interesting and genius new settings he made for that entirely based soprano line in the alto voice on the organ.

There is a separate legacy of Bach that no other composers has touched; Beethoven has his separate characteristics, along with Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, Ravel, Stravinsky, Ligeti, etc. Bach gave us some of the first showings of virtuosity (I do not know many composers before him or around his time, but I DO know about himself and to a good degree). His pieces may not be on the same caliber as Liszt's Transcendentals, but certainly Liszt cannot touch Bach with his trio sonatas for the organ (Liszt's few organ pieces, even his tribute to B-A-C-H, are close but not quite as original.. and don't tell me that you don't fight for the people who were original and followed an early flow). With the new thinking of actually using your thumb at the harpsichord in the last several years before Bach, he utilized the dexterity of the entire hand and the fingers. Many people say Bach is easy and isn't very hard to play: WRONG! That's like saying Mozart is easy or that a Beethoven sonata is a simple, standard piece. I would love to go into more detail with this; quote this and ask if you want to hear more... it really is it's own separate discussion in all of this.

Which brings me to the next legacy. Which composers utilized contrapuntal and counterpoint techniques (based from his Chorales) to a "T?" There is something very mysterious about Bach's keen ability to write counterpoint. No one every wrote Fugues like Bach and never will. Many people have become good and even great, but not magnificent to the point of a art. People studied contrapuntal music in Bach's time and even far before him, but they could not apply it as people can easily do now a days with researchers and Theorists such as Piston or Ottman (and many teachers in the Romantic Eras of music/art). The complexity and fluidity and even scientific-art that is contrapuntal is so intimate that few can imitate the aurora that Bach had set. Beethoven was able to write (in his sonatas) fugues intertwined with his standard piano score and even managed a double fugue in one of his later sonatas; it was a common gift between the two, but Beethoven was a different story and that's why you don't hear Beethoven and fugue in the same sentence! Analyze some of the WTK fugues and his chorales. Tell me another composers who was easy with writing watery-like parts and warm melodies such as him. I have an answer, "It'l be damn near impossible, because it basically is."

This was basically a back-up of my facts and expressions about the greatness that Bach managed to convey and that theorists picked up (even if Bach himself didn't know what his techniques and part-writing was about). I have a "scientific" view for Bach, as I do for EVERY other composer, but I do have a passionate and artistic view as a better equal. You need understanding in order to truly know what you "know."

I never stated music is "solely an expression of emotions". I said music is something that goes beyond mathematics and equations which is quite different. It's the difference between a common hearable piece and a masterpiece. Maybe "moods and feelings" were not the correct words to express the concept when talking about Bach music where sentimentalism is clearly banned. Coloring was the right term. What I stated was not a minimalistic expression of my personal taste but was a comment on Bach's critical edition of Alfredo Casella. I totally agree with him. I already know the difference between music of different eras but I challenge everyone to prove me there is no connection between Prelude in C Major of Bach and the Study in C major op.10 of Chopin. And the examples are countless. This is something called "allusive art" in literature.

P.S.: Daft? Hold down your adjectives, please. I can accept ignorant for not being able to express myself very well but not such epithets. I'm not your little brother. -.-

I am sorry you took it hard; I did not mean to offend you, yet only to pick apart things that arose red flags. When people give vague descriptions of art and inventiveness I feel compelled to bring a certain element out of them-- Truth.

If we can state something, how can it be true if we cannot give a credible reason why? This isn't a mathematical equation or a historical answer, but one that is filled with integrity.

If you can state that someone is a genius and give very stereotypical reasons why, then I cannot credit you. What IS so great about Bach's use of keys? He didn't lay a foundation of feelings in keys, everyone else had a separate relation to them; so comparing a few composers tunes to anothers (which you could be picking out one thing) doesn't do you any good. Your just an interpreter of that "fact" and there is no REAL backbone making me believe.

I still encourage you to speak, but when you've 'fought back for your word' more than once, I see your word is tricky.

---

Although: I would like to hear in more detail your findings of Bach.

Considering that some C.S.I. addicted told me to show some proofs on what I stated on my previous answers, I’ll take advantage of these holidays to go into the question.

I should tell I didn’t have too much sympathy for Bach at the beginning. I really started focusing on his work when I became the accompanist of a chorus and I started preparing each section of singers. I became aware of polyphonic importance in music which is crucial in the art of pianism. The piano itself is not able to fascinate using the simple force of sound. Listeners could be fascinated by the delicious sound of a violin, for example, or by the sound of an oboe. The piano, on the contrary, is a neutral instrument; it is pianism which implies manual and mental dexterity. While playing the piano, you can give the illusion of a legato although, physically, the legato is impossible. In pianism the symphonic element is really significant. Music becomes interesting only if the different threads of a composition are played so clearly that is possible to distinguish them all, creating a tridimensional effect.

Liszt once told to one of his student, piano should not be played with two hands meaning two units. It should be played like a unit which combines two hands or like ten units in which each single finger is independent. It is a very good advice because there is no other way to face Bach. You can easily imagine a Chopin Nocturne where the right hand plays the melody and the left hand the accompaniment, without polyphony, while Bach keyboard music require that each finger is independent from the other. If they truly are, they can be reunited in a single unit.

The Well Tempered Clavier is a corner stone, not because Bach was the first analyzing the harmonic possibilities of each key, but because he was able to conciliate the most strict didactic and polyphonic discipline with a constant brilliance of imagination and a total absence of musical aridity.

Mendelssohn and Schumann tried to adapt Bach music in their time. Liszt tried to do the same with his transcriptions and Busoni with his arrangements. In the United States, Leopold Stokowski did the same with his orchestral arrangements. A progressive effort in order to approach Bach to contemporary. Why? Why is Bach so important?

I quote Mr. Hans von Bulow who once stated that the Well Tempered Clavier is like the Old Testament! What is the Old Testament? From one side is the history of Jew people and their experiences. From the other side is a collection of considerations on love, moral, ethics,… These considerations from the past offer a connection with the present and also a lesson for the future, showing to careful people where and how to find their own way.

That’s exactly how we should consider the Well Tempered Clavier: a lighthouse which lights up both the darkness of the past and the mists of the future. This masterpiece transmit to us all his musical precedent and the music at the time of Bach (it is not rare to see in the WTC, the influence of Vivaldi or Scarlatti) but also the way music could take in its development, the way which was actually taken (there were different tuning methods like Kirnberger, Werckmeister, Equal,… Bach did a precise choice at that time to celebrate the goodness of the tuning which today is commonly used).[Tip: You can use different tuning methods if you want to create serious problem in guessing notes, chords to a person who as perfect pitch. It usually works very well. :heh::heh::heh:]

The chromaticism of the Prelude in C#min of the first book recalls Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde. The Fugue in EbMaj seems to be taken from a Symphony of Bruckner. As I stated before, the Well Tempered Clavier is the sum of all previous musical experiences, but it also shows us the future way.. In European music history there are just a few examples of which you can tell the same. This is just one reason which explains why Bach has this towering stature in music.

But I know I have some skeptics to convince so, as I used Daniel Barenboim interview with Axel Bruggermann to describe my thoughts and feelings towards Bach, I will now use Casella critical edition of Bach Well Tempered Clavier to give an insight of Bach monumental work and the consequences of the same in the future.

Well Tempered Clavier, I book.

Prelude I------------Chopin Etude op. 10, n. 1; Chopin Prelude op. 28, n.1; Gounod Ave Maria.

Fugue III------------Wagner.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8955/fugue31.jpg

Prelude IV-------Beethoven Sonata op. 27, n.2.

Fugue IV---------Schubert “Der Dopplgangen”; Franck Symphony in d min.

Prelude XIII------Franck Prelude, Chorale and Fugue.

Prelude XIV--- Chopin Etude op. 10, n. 4.

Fugue XVI-------Beethoven “Alla danza tedesca”(don’t know how to translate this x_x ) quartet op. 130.

Fugue XIX-------Brahms Symphony n. 2.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5667/fuguexix1.jpg

Well Tempered Clavier, II book.

Fugue XII--------- Mozart Fugue for two pianos.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4609/fuguexiia1.jpg
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7913/fuguexiib1.jpg

Fugue XIII------- Beethoven op. 106.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7690/fugue131.jpg

When I said that Bach codified the colors of each major or minor key I didn’t exaggerate. Each composer uses each key in different way from others and he obtains different effects but sometimes in music there is a major example, like Bach, to whom different composers refer as we can see from the examples. Each note has his own color and we shouldn’t be astonished if composers use the same combination of colors (keys) in order to obtain similar feelings.

Bach, composing his Well Tempered Clavier, rested the first stone of a road continued by future generations because, as Santana said, a good song is like a truly solid house which will not give hospitality to one family but entire generations. This is what Bach did.

P.S.: This is what I think of this composer. A judgment which has changed thanks to my readings, experiences and, last but not least, my studies as a pianist. If this Papyrus is not enough to clarify my ideas, I don’t know what else to do. Maybe I can succeed more easily in converting Chachapoyas. ^_^

Omg, divide that in paragraphs! It's hard to read when is a whole big text without spaces. @_@

That's why it's a papyrus. :)

English paragraphs done. :think: