BACH not important?

[jbmorel78]

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

Thank God someone answered the original question.

[gerryjay]

Thank God someone answered the original question.

Er...did you read through the thread?

[gep]

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

And of Book II, too! I have those marvels (as a reissue on Olympia), and they are beyond words. Book I, the preludes and fugues in e-flat minor, or the one in b-flat minor... I can only rarely listen to these works+performances and then only some bits at any one time, for they are so huge that taking in more is not possible. Anyone hearing these works (and particularly these performances) or, if you take another work entirely - a piece like the Hohe Messe (take the Agnus Dei, for instance) - and you find it unimportant or even boring, well, you must be braindead in my opinion. The fact that you talk and walk and write and whatnot notwithstanding. The best of Bach makes all others merely composers...

all best,
gep

[pianisten1989]

Am I the only one here who doesn't like Richter's wtk?

That sucks... =/

[djealnla]

There is no ad hominem argument

Yes, there is one. You are dismissing a composer (or saying that it is perfectly acceptable to do so based on his sexual orientation) because of something which has nothing whatsoever to do with his compositional craft.

(interesting comment for someone who dismissed an objection as "stupid".

There is no ad hominem attack, because I actually dissected your argument.

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.

No offense meant, but if you take this seriously, then you have been brainwashed by the postmodernists. Musicologists analyze music, they do not publish crap like "Schubert's C Major Quintet - A Manifestation of Schubert's Repressed Homosexuality". We are talking about Bach's importance as a composer. Got that? Good.

[djealnla]

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.

This reminds me of the "What do you Hate Most About Pianists?" thread I was planning to create the other day. They are just utterly clueless of anything outside of piano music.

[keyboardclass]

I don't think Deconstruction can so easily be dismissed.

[lelle]

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.

what did I just read

[gerryjay]

Yes, there is one. You are dismissing a composer (or saying that it is perfectly acceptable to do so based on his sexual orientation) because of something which has nothing whatsoever to do with his compositional craft.

There is no ad hominem attack, because I actually dissected your argument.

No offense meant, but if you take this seriously, then you have been brainwashed by the postmodernists. Musicologists analyze music, they do not publish crap like "Schubert's C Major Quintet - A Manifestation of Schubert's Repressed Homosexuality". We are talking about Bach's importance as a composer. Got that? Good.

I think you just don't understand what I wrote, or was too lazy to care about. I give up one example, one that happens to have relation to this thread, that's just it. Did I evaluate gay musicology?

I think your  lack of respect about another point of view is a clear sign of ignorance or - as, you don't look like an ignorant one - stupidity. Please notice that I'm not even standing for my point of view here - because that part of my argument you didn't present any comment about.

Finally, let me present my agologies for not further arguing: I really don't like to waste my time.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

I don't think Deconstruction can so easily be dismissed.

Neither do I, although I don't work with Deconstruction or any other postmodern school of thought. My analysis are mainly mathematical, but I can't ignore what other scholars are doing. Furthermore, it is at least curious - normally, provocative - to read completely different point of views. It is a challenge too, try to walk another musician's path, but I think the whole study of music is that about.

I quote queer musicology, but I could quote any other trend and the effect would be more or less the same.

As far as I am concerned, reading an analysis is not about what kind of analysis it is (from Schenkerian to Kerman), but if the analysis is a good one. And there are cases of poor analysis and scholar in any school, as well as fantastic pieces of work among the most obscure analytical point of view.

Of course, this take for granted that you are confident enough with your own point of view, to accept that it is not right and it is not the only one. But that's the great challenge, imho, as a human being.

Best regards,
Jay.

[gerryjay]

what did I just read

Is it wrong? I think no, although (excuse me for marking this out) I don't think that way. My opinion about Bach is very distinct from that, but nevertheless there are another ones. Why should I think my own is THE one?

Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

[Pianists] are just utterly clueless of anything outside of piano music.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but of course that's not true of the healthy musician (pianist or not) . . . perhaps just the obsessive, hypercritical, and sometimes unnecessarily analytical (i.e., breaking things down, when such energies should be focused elsewhere) type that sometimes appear on this forum.

Reminds me of a related (even if slightly indirectly) story that you all might enjoy:
Menahem Pressler used to say to his students that every now and then they need to stop practicing, and take a walk in nature, read a book, go to a basketball game, etc.  One student proudly confessed to his love of life in this way, to which Mr. Pressler replied, "You . . . YOU should be practicing!"

Cheers,
Mike

[bachbrahmsschubert]

I honestly do not understand how any serious classical music lover can have a love for Chopin and a hatred for Bach.

It makes absolutely no sense. There is SO MUCH Bach in Chopin's music, so much woven in between the harmonies. SO MUCH COUNTERPOINT! Chopin would not be Chopin without Bach, and that is not a subjective argument. If you're a serious classical musician/a lover of Chopin who dislikes Bach's music, you have not listened to nor studied enough of it; you're only cheating yourself. Bach takes a lot of time and knowledge to truly understand, but dismissing him before you've made the effort is ignorant.

As far as the original post is concerned, well, I'm sure you can judge how I feel from what I wrote above.

Best wishes,

[pianoplayjl]

Chopin based his op 10 no 1 etude on bach's prelude in c major.

[danhuyle]

All teachers teach Bach. Pick any Bach piece you want, regardless of difficulty, and they will teach you. The only thing you have to do is hold up your end, i.e. learn the notes, rhythm and have it under control.

My teacher told me that Chopin regarded Bach as THE greatest composer, and Chopin played all of Bach WTC 1 & 2 among other Bach works.

I remember learning Bach Prelude and Fugue in G major from WTC 2, my teacher adds in staccato and some other articulation markings to add shade to the music. 

All the piano teachers I learned from who play the toughest virtuoso romantic pieces by Liszt, Chopin, Brahms, Rachmaninoff etc. all play Bach. One of my piano teachers just loves playing Bach and she knocks all the Chopin Etudes, Liszt Etudes (Transcendental, Concert, Paganini) among other hard pieces, out of the park.

Pros
- WTC develop skills in voicing
- play right notes and right rhythm and it's yours
- Who cares about musical expression in Bach
- No real style
- Very rewarding if you can play Bach
- ALL piano teachers WILL teach you ANY Bach piece you want


Cons - Why I hate Bach so much
- Mindblowingly hard to memorize
- Technically difficult pieces (even the easiest Bach you can name)
- Extremely boring music
- No interpretation demands
- Super hard to learn
- Teachers make Bach harder than what it should be

That was what I thought of Bach before.

How can playing Bach help me become a better pianist? 

[pianoplayjl]

I learnt Bach just because I though i had to learn a Prelude and Fugue before finishing grade 8.

[starstruck5]

It would be fun if the Bach detractor - forgot his name - would sign up to this forum and defend his views!

Personally I think Bach has written some awesome music, which civilization would be all the poorer without. He has also inspired many great works by other composers.  All of this has been said in this thread - I'll end there or this may turn into a rap!