Thanks Ted
Grin you're a complete joke.
So because most people like Bach and you don't, then it means everybody else forced themselves to like Bach?
LMAO! seriously.
Hm, that seems to be a rather gross oversimplification of a mere suggestion I made, so I wonder whether you even read my post. I dont think Ill even bother to defend myself here.
that's the biggest bullshit written in this thread so far. honestly, lik eemmdoubleew said, you don't have to force yourself to like bach! it can, amazingly, come naturally, purely because those people obviously CAN see what you don't, and yes it is there, you're just being too ignorant to see it. and like i sad in my previous post, if you want to understand bach more READ about him it's the only way you can put his music into context. man, you seriously can't say there's no emotion in bach's music, it has no less than any of the romantic composers, it's just less self-oriented. and don't compare him to contemporary artists, because they are lazy and can't be bothered making an effort, something of which bach is most definately not
Thank you, I appreciate your thoughts, however I think your reasoning fits into my point. If one has to read books and look at historical context and such to appreciate his music, then that means his music cannot stand alone in itself. This is exactly what I was saying, everything else is meaningless if the music by itself is not moving. I dont know anything about Rachmaninoff but I still love his music to death. If you have to read a bunch of books and then listen to his music and say, "oh i see what he did there" or "i remember this concept from page XXX," then is it really the music that is good? Or, as I suggested, have you spent so much time on Bach that you are naturally used to his music and have begun to "force" him onto yourself. If you have to, as I say, look at a painting and read the artists dissertation of why its meaningful and genius and how perfect the brushwork is etc, then as I said, is it really the art itself that you love? As someone else said, if you "plunge into the mysteries of polyphony" in order to enjoy Bach, do you enjoy the music or the polyphony, which should not be the object of enjoyment in music but the music itself.
Also, I understand that maybe since you feel passionately about Bach and may take exception to my lowering of him, given the language and tone of your post, but please keep in mind. I do respect Bach for his musical contribution and innovation and I do understand he is well loved and that some people just like his music, because art is indeed subjective. What I am asking is why, and youre really not contributing anything to this answer which I have not already refuted.
Maybe you don't like Bach's piano music. But have you heard all his other works for organ, violin, cello & orchestra? Those are miracles of music, you should hear them before judging Bach because WTC is awful (I don't think WTC is awful by the way). You are plenty of good examples. (Goldberg Variatios, Brandenburg Concertos, Violin Sonatas & Partitas, etc.)
You should also try his violin concertos & most of his organ works.
Most of people said they didn't like Bach's piano music. But they should understand that the piano was still very primitive in Bach's age. He didn't reach explore all the range of sounds, effects and sonorities of the instrument, like the romantics musicians did. Maybe that's why his piano works could be considered plain & boring.
Well, I must say that I do agree with this somewhat. I have not heard his other non-keyboard music (i dont think piano even existed until he was very old), and I have heard only small segments of this other music and I think it is in stark contrast to his keyboard music. And YES!, this is part of what I believe: that since the piano was "primitive in Bach's age" and he didnt explore everything, etc, that solo piano works have been IMPROVED since Bach, they have grown and surpassed his. His was the first great step and we owe much to him, but how does this mean that the music must be the best in this first step all throughout its developement? The Romantic dynamics and emotional spectrum that came with the developement of the piano-forte whose very name implies range, diversity, and variety.
Now this, as I have stated before, is my opinion, and I am new to music and relatively "immature," but what Im asking is: someone prove me wrong! Show me, this is how Bach's music is appealing, how it is moving, without saying that you had to let it grow on you through studying and dissecting it and reading books about it and getting epiphanies, etc. As the original thread asks, what is so terribly great about his solo keyboard music IN ITSELF? If you examined a piece of boring, homogeneous wood, and dissected it, I have no doubt you would eventually be amazed at the structure of the grain and the formation of the carbon atoms to create something so simple yet so complex (forgive the sarcasm).
Anyway, Im fairly tired and Im rambling, so I dont really know what my point is, but just, please people, read my post and just dont incorrectly cite me out of context in your frustration, I honestly want to know. Thanks.
Topic: So... what's so great about Bach?