BACH not important?

[chopinaninoff]

So I was reading the newspaper and an article came up in the music section about some modern musician named Robert Bradford who was claiming that Bach is not important or beautiful as other composers...this is his arguments.
1. Bach has no high climatic points or places that really move you.
2. Why waste time into learning it for such a long time if the public wont understand all the voicing and polyphony. I highly doubt that there is a hall or concert stage that is full of high class musicians that know whats going in in every measure of his fugues. 
3. How can you compare the beauty of piano concertos of Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Chopin,Prokofiev, that literally ends with a standing ovation, to a few Bach concertos. or his preludes and fugues that take a while to learn, to the romantic and heart sweeping preludes of Chopin or Rachmaninoff.
4. The audience come to listen to beautiful music. Beautiful harmonies, beautiful textures, colors. take any random person off the street, show him Scriabin's op 8 no 12 etude and Bach's C major fugue. Which one do you think they'll choose?
5. What good will Bach's polyphony give me if there is not another composer that uses this method? For instance, Chopin developed etudes for every difficulty that one might encounter in a piece of music, and made it sound gorgeous. Mozart wrote piano concertos that showed the basic form of a concerto and would help prepare for the big ones like Grieg and Tchaikovsky.
6. Bach wrote for a harpsichord, which means there is no dynamics. Why should teachers force students to play Bach for such a long time, trying to achieve the perfect voice leading and tone, if he originally didn't write it for dynamics? 

Well...that was a mouth full...I don't even know how to respond to this...What are your thoughts on this?

[fleetfingers]

1. I am working on the Italian Concerto, and each time the main theme is played again, I am moved. It is usually preceded by certain harmonies and progressions that hint it's coming again, and I get excited every time. So, I disagree that there are no high points or places that move you.
2. Last time I checked, the "public" doesn't listen to classical music, Bach or otherwise. People who attend such concerts do appreciate it, for the most part.
3. Not all music is meant to be grand and sweeping. If it isn't, does that make it less valuable or enjoyable?
4. Again, people off the street don't go to classical concerts, generally speaking. Even so, I know someone who plays hip-hop violin and she writes her own stuff, but it sounds just like Bach. People don't realize it's Bach-esque, but it is. And they love it.
5. Playing Bach requires a great deal of brain work. You have to really listen to the melodies you're playing. Also, your hands are required to play different articulations and melodies against each other, which trains them to be independent of each other. Playing Bach is a great way to develop overall control and technique, and it will prepare you to play other composers with more control and better technique.
6. When studying Bach, you can glean much about composition, counterpoint, and voicing. Whether he wrote for dynamics or not, it is still useful.

Sorry, I'm not articulate about this kind of stuff but I wanted to answer anyway because I LOVE Bach!

[keyboardclass]

I'm afraid I agree with Mr Bradford.  Bach's technique is not a healthy one - only to be learnt under strict supervision.  As for understanding the music - you really have to play it.  Chopin showed how the piano should be played.

[djealnla]

What a load of utter hogwash.

So I was reading the newspaper and an article came up in the music section about some modern musician named Robert Bradford who was claiming that Bach is not important or beautiful as other composers...this is his arguments.
1. Bach has no high climatic points or places that really move you.

No evidence is provided for this, so there is nothing to say in reply to it. Anyway, how about giving a listen to the Dona Nobis Pacem from Bach's B minor Mass?

2. Why waste time into learning it for such a long time if the public wont understand all the voicing and polyphony.

You could say the same about classical music in general - "why listen to all this nerdy stuff, when everybody cries when listening to R.E.M., while Bruckner's dissonances hurt everybody's ears?"

3. How can you compare the beauty of piano concertos of Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Chopin,Prokofiev, that literally ends with a standing ovation, to a few Bach concertos. or his preludes and fugues that take a while to learn, to the romantic and heart sweeping preludes of Chopin or Rachmaninoff.

This is a load of subjective nonsense, so there is no need to reply to it.

4. The audience come to listen to beautiful music. Beautiful harmonies, beautiful textures, colors. take any random person off the street, show him Scriabin's op 8 no 12 etude and Bach's C major fugue. Which one do you think they'll choose?

This, again, is subjective. BTW, is this guy trying to say that Bach's music is not masterly crafted? In any case, it's clear he never heard Glenn Gould remark that the 25th variation from Bach's Goldberg Variations contains the greatest amount of enharmonic relationships anywhere between Gesualdo and Wagner, or that the 14th Contrapunctus from Die Kunst der Fuge has passages that could have been taken out of Schoenberg's early works.

5. What good will Bach's polyphony give me if there is not another composer that uses this method?

This is conclusive evidence that this guy is a clueless retard. Or perhaps he is simply an attention seeking troll. Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms, Mahler, Bruckner and many other geniuses revered Bach and studied his music (not just counterpoint).

6. Bach wrote for a harpsichord, which means there is no dynamics. Why should teachers force students to play Bach for such a long time, trying to achieve the perfect voice leading and tone, if he originally didn't write it for dynamics?

Perhaps because we can study his works for ensembles and get an idea of how his keyboard works should be interpreted?

In closing:

"Not all musicians believe in God, but all believe in J. S. Bach." - Mauricio Kagel

P.S.: I hope somebody catched my R.E.M. joke...

[djealnla]

Bach's technique is not a healthy one - only to be learnt under strict supervision. (...) Chopin showed how the piano should be played.

Which is probably the reason why Chopin's Etude No. 2 has caused more hand injuries to this day than Bach's complete keyboard works combined.

[keyboardclass]

Not if done with a natural technique that suits the piano.

[pianowolfi]

This guy is a completely clueless idiot. He writes just for the sake of provocation but his arguments are too lame to provoke because...he has no clue.

[iratior]

De gustibus non disputandum est.  If this Robert Bradford finds no beauty in Bach, that's his opinion.  On many other matters, though, he's just plain wrong.  There are plenty of climactic (climatic?  well, I can't prove otherwise) effects in Bach.  Take, for example, the A-minor fugue from the first volume of the WTC.  How does it reach a climax?  With SILENCE!  Yes, think of that inverted seventh chord at measure 80.  No dynamics when you have only a harpsichord?  Think again.  Of course, Bach is said to have thought that, if you needed dynamic markings to bring out the best in music, you weren't a good enough musician to be playing it in the first place.  And on technique -- when Bach writes a fugue where the subject has a trill in it, watch out.  You may very well have to do a trill and a melody at the same timei with one hand.  I don't know of any Chopin etudes that test that.  Beethoven does, though.

[keyboardclass]

Bach has always been a musician's musician and he always will be.

[thalbergmad]

I have always thought JC to be as important as his daddy.

Thal

[keyboardclass]

And WF if you only but knew it!  CPE is overrated.

[cygnusdei]

If anything, Bach seems to be quite important for the record companies. Here are the numbers of unique recordings with works from each composer (from Arkiv Music):

Mozart: 7,114
JS Bach: 6,626
Beethoven: 5,464
Tchaikovsky: 3,301
Chopin: 2,397
Ravel: 1,940
Rachmaninov: 1,820
Prokofiev: 1,471
Grieg: 1,232
Scriabin: 453

Bach is #2. That ain't so bad, is it?

[chopinlover23]

Bach IS Important, some of Bach's music like WTC are the foundation of Western Music. And I've read in Wikipedia Chopin's Etude op 10 no. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tude_Op._10,_No._1_(Chopin) is like the form of the Prelude in C from WTC

 Debussy's Dr. Gradus ad Parnassum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Corner begins similarly to Bach's Prelude no. 1.

Chopin's Preludes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preludes_(Chopin) are compared to the WTC. I think Chopin and Debussy were inspired by Bach and wanted to compose like him but in their own style of music

these are just thoughts of mine  I love Bach and his work

[chopinaninoff]

Yeah..I agree with everyone. I don't know why they would even publish this..but then again there are a lot of idiots out there that seek attention, even if it includes negative attention...

[keyboardclass]

Bach IS Important, some of Bach's music like WTC are the foundation of Western Music.

Fraid not,  Fischer  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Caspar_Ferdinand_Fischer) was the first to write Preludes and Fugues in all keys.  And what about Couperin?  Froberger?  Buxtehude? There are legions of great contemporaries.  That's not to say he didn't have the greatest musical mind of any age, it's just that he put it to the service of counterpoint! (which, historically speaking, kind of went out with the dodo)

[gerryjay]

Every now and then a person arises with a brand new point of view of history. This has two sides: it can be quite boring, when it's just devoted to promote someone's career; but it can be quite interesting, if the article/book/proceeding is sharp and precise.

Well, I can't say if Mr. Bradford's case is the first, but it is not the second for sure.

1. Bach has no high climatic points or places that really move you.

This is absolutely subjective. He feels nothing, other people do. End of discussion.

2. Why waste time into learning it for such a long time if the public wont understand all the voicing and polyphony. I highly doubt that there is a hall or concert stage that is full of high class musicians that know whats going in in every measure of his fugues.

Here I think he have a point (I don't like to overcomplicate performance), but he is missing something fundamental. Why Bach is Bach? Because the most influential musicians since him felt his counterpoint technique is outstanding. So, that is why people waste time into learning his music. Furthermore, lay concert people do think Bach is important, and then it is unimportant whether they understand it or not. In many cases, the critic will translate for them what was important about the counterpoint and the like.

3. How can you compare the beauty of piano concertos of Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Chopin,Prokofiev, that literally ends with a standing ovation, to a few Bach concertos. or his preludes and fugues that take a while to learn, to the romantic and heart sweeping preludes of Chopin or Rachmaninoff.

This is to laugh at, but let me get serious. Again, we are talking about personal taste, and - again - he is missing a point: music function. Rachmaninoff is a shallow composer, devoted to standing ovation only. And he works! Nothing compares - in this field - to the sensation of a full crowd getting mad at the end of his 2nd or 3rd piano concerti. It's almost like pop music, or soccer. Bach is not about that and this doesn't make him better or worst than Rach: they are different things, just it. For instance, if you want to dance with your date, Bach would be a bad choice. Rach as well... But Lady Gaga can probably make the magic.

4. The audience come to listen to beautiful music. Beautiful harmonies, beautiful textures, colors. take any random person off the street, show him Scriabin's op 8 no 12 etude and Bach's C major fugue. Which one do you think they'll choose?

Well, here we have his opinion and nothing more. He doesn't have any basis for saying that, and I wonder what would be the result of a serious research (let's say, 2500 people interviewed on the streets, in different places).

5. What good will Bach's polyphony give me if there is not another composer that uses this method? For instance, Chopin developed etudes for every difficulty that one might encounter in a piece of music, and made it sound gorgeous. Mozart wrote piano concertos that showed the basic form of a concerto and would help prepare for the big ones like Grieg and Tchaikovsky.

Plain ignorance, nothing more. I start to think that he knows very little music indeed.

6. Bach wrote for a harpsichord, which means there is no dynamics. Why should teachers force students to play Bach for such a long time, trying to achieve the perfect voice leading and tone, if he originally didn't write it for dynamics?

Well, another time, plain ignorance. First and foremost, the harpsichord do have dynamics. Then, he didn't write if for dynamics as well as teachers and players don't study and play Bach for dynamics. Furthermore, trying to achieve the perfect voice leading and tone is not an exclusive feature of Bach: Chopin, Mozart, Rach... all those composers need perfect voice leading and tone to be proper rendered.

Tired regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

Oh, well. I missed something.

Bach is important as far as we consider he an important composer. History is not a fixed, determined science. There are facts: their interpretation is up to musicologists, in our case. Basically, Bach was considered a fundamental composer in the last one hundred and fifty years (and the math is correct, btw). But ask any queer musicologist about him: a straight father of a hundred is probably of no interest. Ask an ethnomusicologist, and he probably won't feel the need to study Bach in a regular basis.

As far as our piano discussion is considered, it is very difficult to dismiss Bach. However, I would be delighted to read or listen to someone trying to, with solid arguments.

[pianowolfi]

Bach has always been a musician's musician and he always will be.

Let's see. 19 of my facebook friends who like Bach are non-musicians, 9 of them are musicians. Of course I know that this is in no way statistically relevant but anyway, I think it says something. Plus I perfectly know that there are many more who like Bach and didn't become a fan of the official "Facebook Bach page". But also in "real life" I know many people who love Bach and are not musicians.  

[keyboardclass]

They know and love who they think is Bach.

[pianowolfi]

They know and love who they think is Bach.

And who do you think is Bach?

[keyboardclass]

And who do you think is Bach?

Oh, a bit of Froberger, a bit of Buxtehude and even some of Bruhns.  Plenty of Couperin and Vivaldi.  That's what most admire - few see the great scientist he saw himself - the Newton of Notes!

[mussels_with_nutella]

I agree in some points with Mr Bradfort, as I have never been able to bear the sound of his works  I really detest their harmony and their robotic rythms. However, there is something I must say: They are really really complex. And complexity doesn't mind me. So, if it minded me, I would LOVE bach. When hearing to Goldberg variation, I saw just a simple melody with, again, that harmony. But a friend was crying of emotion, emotion which I didn't feel, not even a bit.

Finally, Bach is earlier than almost the rest of composers, and its advances in music where essential. That complexity in his textures was a lot of material to transform, to react, to... so his impact in Music History was, in my opinion, the greatest ever seen.

However, I hate Bach's music and still cannot bear his works. Maybe when older I will be able to appreciate life in a different way so that Bach is my idol, I don't know xD

Was Bach important? The most important composer Humankind ever had

[gep]

I don't even know how to respond to this...What are your thoughts on this?

I could not possibly respond. Bach is to me what water is to a fish, what air is to a bird, what flowers are to bees and much much more.
I know of no composer who has superseded Bach, only some who have managed to more or less reach Bach's height in some respects.

Sorry not to say more, but what that Mr. Bradfort says simply makes my brain stop working....

all best,
gep

[djealnla]

Bach is important as far as we consider he an important composer. History is not a fixed, determined science. There are facts: their interpretation is up to musicologists, in our case. Basically, Bach was considered a fundamental composer in the last one hundred and fifty years (and the math is correct, btw). But ask any queer musicologist about him: a straight father of a hundred is probably of no interest. Ask an ethnomusicologist, and he probably won't feel the need to study Bach in a regular basis.

The "queer musicologist" objection is pretty stupid. It's basically an ad hominem argument. As for ethnomusicology, that's like complaining that Bach did not influence the development of the rubato.

[djealnla]

That's what most admire - few see the great scientist he [Bach] saw himself - the Newton of Notes!

Let's not oversimplify this, though. Around the beginning of the 19th century (before Mendelssohn's "revivalist" activities), musicians started to realize that's Bach real genius lies in the ability to combine logic with expressivity.

[djealnla]

I really detest their harmony and their robotic rythms [sic].

Why?

However, I hate Bach's music and still cannot bear his works.

What a shame.

Maybe when older I will be able to appreciate life in a different way so that Bach is my idol, I don't know xD

I certainly hope so.

[mussels_with_nutella]

Why?

What a shame.

I certainly hope so.

hahaha I hope so too Being so important, it is really a shame for me hating his music. But emotions don't always follow rational thoughts. Hope... hahaha

[keyboardclass]

Let's not oversimplify this, though. Around the beginning of the 19th century (before Mendelssohn's "revivalist" activities), musicians started to realize that's Bach real genius lies in the ability to combine logic with expressivity.

That would be Van Swietan.  Bach's popularity is really the result of people like Griepenkerl and Forkel spinning him as the founder of the German keyboard school.

[gerryjay]

The "queer musicologist" objection is pretty stupid. It's basically an ad hominem argument. As for ethnomusicology, that's like complaining that Bach did not influence the development of the rubato.

No, you just get it wrong. There is no ad hominem argument (interesting comment for someone who dismissed an objection as "stupid". Perhaps I should ignore you, but for the sake of clarification, let me complete my point (although I thought it was simple and clear).

Bach is almost always considered a fundamental composer. The question is: why? So, I provide three examples: our piano community, gay musicology, and ethnomusicology. Let's see one by one, and hope you get right this time.

To pianists, Bach is and have been and probably will be for much time a basic composer. I think the statement stands for itself, but its just a question of looking at the studies, music, teaching, writings of near all composers since him to see that it is right. Period.

On the other hand, gay musicologists just don't have interest in him. There is anything wrong about that? No. Do I think they are nuts? No. Do I hate gay people? No. It's just an observation: Bach is not the object of any gay research, and he is not influential in gay analysis. It's a complete different interpretation of western music, and I find it very cool indeed. On the other hand, I don't think there is no hard feeling from gay musicology towards Bach: he just is of no interest.

Finally, why ethnomusicology? Because here we go to another world. And Bach doesn't even exist there. So, what importance could he have? Again, I don't think Bach must be influential in ethnomusicology, nor I propose any missing link.

Boring regards,
Jay.

[pianisten1989]

That would be Van Swietan.  Bach's popularity is really the result of people like Griepenkerl and Forkel spinning him as the founder of the German keyboard school.

Just a simple question:
Are you actually trying to start a discussion, on a piano board with loads of pianists, that Bach is a fraud, and not that great at all?
C'mon dude, what's the point with that?

[keyboardclass]

Just a simple question:
Are you actually trying to start a discussion, on a piano board with loads of pianists, that Bach is a fraud, and not that great at all?
C'mon dude, what's the point with that?

So "That's not to say he didn't have the greatest musical mind of any age" is not great enough for you?

[pianisten1989]

I might have misunderstood your point, and then I'm sorry, but you have said loads of stuff that doesn't seem as charming as what you just pointed out.

[keyboardclass]

Charm's not exactly one of my strong points though maybe in person....

[i_am_joey_jo]

Whoever thinks that Bach's music doesn't provoke emotion in highs and lows has never heard his Vavalidi transcriptions, beautiful!  Some of his best work

[thalbergmad]

That must be where I am going wrong, as I have never heard his Vavalidi transcriptions.

Thal

[richard black]

Well, citizen Bradford is simply doing what most of us do from time to time - justifying his personal tastes in dogmatic terms. So he doesn't like Bach much - fair enough, Bach's reputation will survive.

[thinkgreenlovepiano]

Well...that was a mouth full...I don't even know how to respond to this...What are your thoughts on this?

All I have to say is that I LOVE Bach.
I find his music very moving. There are a lot of moments where I think to myself... wow... such beautiful music!!!
I tend to practise Bach a lot more because I never get tired of it. My mom's always asking me "how come you always play that?" (she wants to hear Chopin )    
All that voicing and polyphony is what makes learning and listening to his music so interesting. I am not a high class musician, (more like a baby musician )  and I don't know what goes into every measure of Bach's fugues, but I like to learn and I enjoy the music all the same. 

[roseli]

I understand the importance of Bach in music/society/history, but I don't like him at all, his stuff is boring. :<

[pianisten1989]

I understand the importance of Bach in music/society/history, but I don't like him at all, his stuff is boring. :<

Then I don't think you understand it yet.. It will probably come, have an open mind.

[ahinton]

I understand the importance of Bach in music/society/history, but I don't like him at all, his stuff is boring. :<

Whilst the latter part of that it a shame, you have much to which to look forward!

There's a whole lot more to Bach than mere "importance" anyway!

Best,

Alistair

[i_am_joey_jo]

Bach is boring?  You can find more variation in Bach than you can with Chopin and that is not just because we have thousands of his pieces compared to Chopin's handful.

Not only but it takes a really intelligent person to understand what Bach has to offer which is to basically summerize and explain more than a hundered years of Baroque style into one man's lifetime works. 

If Chopin was a product of his time then Bach REPRESENTED an era and all that was accomplished in music up until his death.  Bach wrote what we call the bible of music and without it's influence and his patronage of an ET system we may not be playing with an equal temperament today and I guarantee you this: Many Chopin pieces would sound like garbage on meantone.

[mike_lang]

I know how to respond to this: point by point!

1) In answer to the first charge, that Bach has no climaxes nor the capability to move the listener, I say: He who is not to be moved will not be moved!  I defy you to deny that there is a climax in every phrase, as well as climactic sections in this piece, a transcription of one of the organ sonata slow movements:

In fugues, there are climaxes, and they are often done with a concentration and thickening of the texture (much as in modern music, somewhat ironically), but the way that phrases are structure is a little different because they must often remain open for longer periods of time to invite new voices in.

2) In answer to the second charge, that the public cannot hear multiple voices or will not appreciate fugues, I say: This is not an argument against Bach.  This is an argument against playing a recital chock full of his fugues.  What about the Chromatic Fantasy?  Can the public not understand that?  And, by the way, does this not contain the power to move the listener?  What about the Italian concerto, with the desolation of its second movement and the exuberance of its third?  With regard to polyphony, the public deals with it constantly in the symphonic repertoire; the fugue is simply the most intellectual of Bach's genres, though it often contains great emotional and expressive power!

3) In answer to the third charge, that we cannot compare Bach to Chopin or Rachmaninoff, I concede to you that we can't.  And shouldn't!  It is a different era, a different country, a different person, and a different means of expression.  Apples and oranges, as the saying goes.  That having been said, Bach likely exerted great influence on Chopin's later work as well as much of Rachmaninoff's writing.

4) In answer to the fourth charge, that an audience would choose Scriabin over Bach, I say: Why give them the choice?  And how about the C Major prelude -- might they like that?  We create the rules of the universe for the hour that we give a recital, and our audience accepts those rules.  Perhaps we invite them in with something like WTC Bk 1's E Major prelude, or as I mentioned above, the C Major prelude, following with the fugue.  Of course if you slam them with a fugue with no foreplay, they're less likely to like it!  This of course goes back to my response to second question: Bach is not only fugues.

5) In answer to the fifth charge, that Bach is preparation for nothing, I say: What ignorance.  Bach is the ultimate étude for the ear, and is at the same time pleasurable.  In that sense, what he has done is much linked with Chopin.  Bach is, as one pianist put it, "our daily bread," in that it keeps the ear in command of the fingers, and not vice versa.  It builds our sense of rhythm, voicing (on many levels), balance, handling of textures, tone color (!), agility, ability to set character . . . am I forgetting anything?

6) In answer to the sixth and final charge, that we should not use dynamics because Bach had an instrument that was incapable of them, I say: Bach had other means of expression at his disposal, e.g., notes inégales and ornamentation.  While it might show a lack of taste to use romantic dynamic contrasts, we should certainly dynamics to shape, as well as to delineate sections.  Also, I highly doubt that he was imagining sound only in terms of harpsichord when he wrote the WTC (I keep returning to this work, since fugues seem to be Mr. Modern's chief understanding of Bach).

All best,
Mike

[mike_lang]

Rachmaninoff is a shallow composer, devoted to standing ovation only.

What makes you say that?

Mike

[gerryjay]

What makes you say that?

Mike

Dear Mike,
I think Rach music has a precise function: communicate with people who don't understand anything about music. In that sense, he is perfect. How does he achieved that? Writing music that is so direct, so common sense, that can appeal to any public in the world. It is a virtue and most pianists (because other people don't seem to bother about him) take advantage of that and the audiences are thankful.

On a side and personal note, I have a great difficulty listening a piece by him that lasts more than a couple of minutes. The concerti...well, I don't want to start any polemics, so I will not express my opinion about that.

Best regards,
Jay.

[pianowolfi]

Rachmaninoff is a shallow composer, devoted to standing ovation only. And he works! Nothing compares - in this field - to the sensation of a full crowd getting mad at the end of his 2nd or 3rd piano concerti. It's almost like pop music, or soccer. Bach is not about that and this doesn't make him better or worst than Rach: they are different things, just it. For instance, if you want to dance with your date, Bach would be a bad choice. Rach as well... But Lady Gaga can probably make the magic.

That depends on the individual. I'd rather dance to Bach and Rachmaninoff with a prospective date. I don't think any date who is Lady Gaga-(or similarly-) oriented would have any chance with me  

[gerryjay]

That depends on the individual. I'd rather dance to Bach and Rachmaninoff with a prospective date. I don't think any date who is Lady Gaga-(or similarly-) oriented would have any chance with me  

Well, Lady Gaga was perhaps an extreme example...

[roseli]

Then I don't think you understand it yet.. It will probably come, have an open mind.

I believe I do, as an historian I see pretty well what he have done. But that doesn't make me like his music.

[roseli]

Bach is boring?  You can find more variation in Bach than you can with Chopin and that is not just because we have thousands of his pieces compared to Chopin's handful.

Not only but it takes a really intelligent person to understand what Bach has to offer which is to basically summerize and explain more than a hundered years of Baroque style into one man's lifetime works. 

If Chopin was a product of his time then Bach REPRESENTED an era and all that was accomplished in music up until his death.  Bach wrote what we call the bible of music and without it's influence and his patronage of an ET system we may not be playing with an equal temperament today and I guarantee you this: Many Chopin pieces would sound like garbage on meantone.

congrats, you my friend, called me dumb...
I prefer chopin over bach, now way? because his music, is for me much more appealing than any other baroque composer I know. I'm a romantic, I don't like bach, more then half the pieces of mozarth annoy me to no end, etc etc give me chopin, give me shumman, give me those guys from russia, but don't give me anything from the 18century please.
As I said, I understand his importance in history, but that and his music are different things, we can't all like the same things. You like bach, I don't.
As a beginner I have to face the anna magdalena notebook, you may say it's not bach but wte, you just can not imagine the sacrifice it is for me to learn that minuet in g... it's plain horrible, I take no pleasure from it.

[chopinaninoff]

congrats, you my friend, called me dumb...
I prefer chopin over bach, now way? because his music, is for me much more appealing than any other baroque composer I know. I'm a romantic, I don't like bach, more then half the pieces of mozarth annoy me to no end, etc etc give me chopin, give me shumman, give me those guys from russia, but don't give me anything from the 18century please.
As I said, I understand his importance in history, but that and his music are different things, we can't all like the same things. You like bach, I don't.
As a beginner I have to face the anna magdalena notebook, you may say it's not bach but wte, you just can not imagine the sacrifice it is for me to learn that minuet in g... it's plain horrible, I take no pleasure from it.

I must admit. I feel the same. I understand the importance and foot prints they left in history. However, I am a hopeless romantic and if you were to pull up the pieces on my ipod, almost all composers are after the 1800s.

[lelle]

You guys need to find Richters recording of Das Wohltemperierte Klavier book 1