The Eternal Debate: Bach vs Rach

[stoudemirestat]

And when they do, you'll also find you're wrong...
Well, pianists anyway

Well! I disagree. But, you are entitled to your opinion!

[celegorma]

You say Bach's music is harmonically more complex.

You have to be kidding me. Have you never heard the finale of Rach 2, or anything in Rach 3? The harmonies are unbelievably brilliant and beautiful-better than Bach and his fugues could ever do.

Rach was writing harmonies like everyone else around his time. Compare Rach to Scriabin, Rach loses. Compare Bach to Telemann, Bach wins.

Bach's counterpoint is way more complex than whatever Rach has written.

How is this even a fair comparison. Name 1 composer in Bach's era who is more influential than him?
Now name 1 composer from Rach's era:
Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel then later Stravinsky, Schoenburg, Prokofiev, Shostakovich.

Rach isn't even the top 10 composer of his time, how can he compare to the greatest composer of all time.

[alclub]

This is the worst thread ever made in the history of the internet.

Seriously, what??!

To compare Rachmaninoff with Bach is so ridiculous that it's mind boggling, almost embarrassing. How is anyone even taking this seriously? I hope the89thkey is some master troll...

@stoudemirestat
I'm quite surprised Die Kunst Der Fuge (The Art of Fugue) didn't take the #1 spot, it is widely considered (especially by me) to be the most precious work of counterpoint, more sacred than the bible. Some have declared it to be the "greatest work of art" ever (although I've heard the same thing about the mass, which admittedly I've haven't studied all that much yet).

[thesuineg]

for 89th key, you cannot compare the pieces, you compare the people right. Bach was obviously more intelligent. He obviously had a stronger personality, or at least a more firm one. i hope i don't need to provide proof. His dedication to music was second to his dedication to god, who he dedicated his music to in the first place.
and if you do compare pieces, take pretty much any serious set/piece from bach, and try to let rach match up to it. it'll never happen, neither in personality, genius, creativity, influence on future.

For the idiots who say you can't compare, why not? Serious musicians may not say "better," but certainly in their mind they will understand that Bach's importance was much greater than that of Rach.

Its late and i can't think straight.

but yah, and for that guy who compared verdi to rach and had verdi win........
...................
..............

[p2u_]

For the iDiot™s who say you can't compare,

Diot is not a popular first name for men and an equally uncommon last name for all people. Besides, I am not a sausage from the French region of Savoy, and no, I don't own any Apple devices; I'm a regular PC user...

why not?

Just because, thesuineg, just because...

Paul

[rachmaninoff_forever]

For the idiots who say you can't compare, why not? Serious musicians may not say "better," but certainly in their mind they will understand that Bach's importance was much greater

I've already explained myself.  Influence doesn't discern who's a better composer.

Some guy said that this is like comparing Thursday to roast beef.  Whoever said that was spot on right.

Besides, it doesn't matter if you don't like the composer. 

Idiot.

[lukejones1]

Awfully long thing you got yourself there...
Unbelievable that you think Mass in B minor can compare to Rach 3...

I'm sorry but that statement just completely diminishes any musical intelligence you may have had. To possibly even consider that Rach 3 is even comparable to the B Minor Mass is idiotic and absurd.

[charliefreak]

It seems many posters here need to be reminded that music is art - not a sporting event - you can't 'win' at art.  It's entirely personal and subjective.  In the same way as asking "Which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

Any right minded person knows that it's simply a matter of personal taste.  You cannot change my view by informing me that chocolate is harder to prepare and the chef must have incredible technique.  Or maybe you'd say that chocolate was invented by an amateur hobbyist in the kitchen, but vanilla by a world renowned chef.  None of this stuff matters.  I still prefer chocolate.  It just tastes better to me, period.  There's no accounting for personal taste.

So with that in mind, my personal experience is this.  Rachmaninoff's music is on a whole different level that makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes.  It's sublime and expressive and touches my soul.  When I listen to Rach, I become easily lost in it and forget that I'm even listening to music, or a piano.  I'm just awash in all these colors and sounds and i'm transported to another place.

To me, this is what music is all about.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

It seems many posters here need to be reminded that music is art - not a sporting event - you can't 'win' at art.  It's entirely personal and subjective.  In the same way as asking "Which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

Any right minded person knows that it's simply a matter of personal taste.  You cannot change my view by informing me that chocolate is harder to prepare and the chef must have incredible technique.  Or maybe you'd say that chocolate was invented by an amateur hobbyist in the kitchen, but vanilla by a world renowned chef.  None of this stuff matters.  I still prefer chocolate.  It just tastes better to me, period.  There's no accounting for personal taste.

So with that in mind, my personal experience is this.  Rachmaninoff's music is on a whole different level that makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes.  It's sublime and expressive and touches my soul.  When I listen to Rach, I become easily lost in it and forget that I'm even listening to music, or a piano.  I'm just awash in all these colors and sounds and i'm transported to another place.

To me, this is what music is all about.

+1

[vsrinivasa]

It seems many posters here need to be reminded that music is art - not a sporting event - you can't 'win' at art.  It's entirely personal and subjective.  In the same way as asking "Which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

Any right minded person knows that it's simply a matter of personal taste.  You cannot change my view by informing me that chocolate is harder to prepare and the chef must have incredible technique.  Or maybe you'd say that chocolate was invented by an amateur hobbyist in the kitchen, but vanilla by a world renowned chef.  None of this stuff matters.  I still prefer chocolate.  It just tastes better to me, period.  There's no accounting for personal taste.

So with that in mind, my personal experience is this.  Rachmaninoff's music is on a whole different level that makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes.  It's sublime and expressive and touches my soul.  When I listen to Rach, I become easily lost in it and forget that I'm even listening to music, or a piano.  I'm just awash in all these colors and sounds and i'm transported to another place.

To me, this is what music is all about.

Well said! Although I somewhat prefer Bach, I can see why one would like Rachmaninoff better, for these reasons that you have listed.

[celegorma]

It seems many posters here need to be reminded that music is art - not a sporting event - you can't 'win' at art.  It's entirely personal and subjective.  In the same way as asking "Which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

Any right minded person knows that it's simply a matter of personal taste.  You cannot change my view by informing me that chocolate is harder to prepare and the chef must have incredible technique.  Or maybe you'd say that chocolate was invented by an amateur hobbyist in the kitchen, but vanilla by a world renowned chef.  None of this stuff matters.  I still prefer chocolate.  It just tastes better to me, period.  There's no accounting for personal taste.

So with that in mind, my personal experience is this.  Rachmaninoff's music is on a whole different level that makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes.  It's sublime and expressive and touches my soul.  When I listen to Rach, I become easily lost in it and forget that I'm even listening to music, or a piano.  I'm just awash in all these colors and sounds and i'm transported to another place.

To me, this is what music is all about.

Same can be said for every composer. Its a personal taste. Speaking for all Bach lovers, I find Rachmaninov's music too sentimental and not intellectual enough. I can listen to Bach over and over again without getting sick of it because it always challenges my mind. While I fell in love with Rach at first, it got stale after a few years. I would say Bach is the bread and Rach is the dessert. Dessert tastes better but you will always need bread.

[the89thkey]

I'm sorry but that statement just completely diminishes any musical intelligence you may have had. To possibly even consider that Rach 3 is even comparable to the B Minor Mass is idiotic and absurd.

This is more subjective than my claim, so I wouldn't go there.

[alclub]

It seems many posters here need to be reminded that music is art - not a sporting event - you can't 'win' at art.  It's entirely personal and subjective.  In the same way as asking "Which is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream?"

Any right minded person knows that it's simply a matter of personal taste.  You cannot change my view by informing me that chocolate is harder to prepare and the chef must have incredible technique.  Or maybe you'd say that chocolate was invented by an amateur hobbyist in the kitchen, but vanilla by a world renowned chef.  None of this stuff matters.  I still prefer chocolate.  It just tastes better to me, period.  There's no accounting for personal taste.

So with that in mind, my personal experience is this.  Rachmaninoff's music is on a whole different level that makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes.  It's sublime and expressive and touches my soul.  When I listen to Rach, I become easily lost in it and forget that I'm even listening to music, or a piano.  I'm just awash in all these colors and sounds and i'm transported to another place.

To me, this is what music is all out.

<begin rant>
ALL this tells me is that you have never studied Bach.

Sorry, but you immediately lose the respect of the music community when you say Rach makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes. It's like when your co-worker proclaims that the Beatles are the greatest musicians who ever lived. Sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but you know deep down that it's not an opinion that's well informed.

All you Rach lovers, rather than continuing to fight us on this, why not be open-minded enough to do some study on Bach. Honestly, I just think you're missing out. Discovering Bach was a life changing epiphany for me, especially because his music had no impact on me prior to that. Bach is perhaps considered, almost without dissent, the greatest artist in history. Shouldn't this compel you to study Bach, and not dismiss it as nursery rhymes? To clarify, I say 'study' Bach, because you can't passively listen to his music. It generally requires a great deal of active intellectual involvement to make any sense of it at all. Perhaps if you're interested I can provide you with a playlist that may serve as an introduction to Bach?

[outin]

<begin rant>
ALL this tells me is that you have never studied Bach.

Sorry, but you immediately lose the respect of the music community when you say Rach makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes. It's like when your co-worker proclaims that the Beatles are the greatest musicians who ever lived. Sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but you know deep down that it's not an opinion that's well informed.

I am sorry about the music community if it really is so close minded… Glad to not really be part of it, instead I’m able to make up my own mind about things. And opinions are just that, they don't necessarily become invalid just because someone who disagrees is more informed on the matter. It's also about the different views and frame of reference people use when approaching the issue. Studying something excessively also often leads to not seeing the whole picture anymore...

All you Rach lovers, rather than continuing to fight us on this, why not be open-minded enough to do some study on Bach. Honestly, I just think you're missing out. Discovering Bach was a life changing epiphany for me, especially because his music had no impact on me prior to that. Bach is perhaps considered, almost without dissent, the greatest artist in history. Shouldn't this compel you to study Bach, and not dismiss it as nursery rhymes? To clarify, I say 'study' Bach, because you can't passively listen to his music. It generally requires a great deal of active intellectual involvement to make any sense of it at all. Perhaps if you're interested I can provide you with a playlist that may serve as an introduction to Bach?

I am not a Rach fan, but I cannot understand why those of you are into Bach cannot understand why others may think Bach is boring or non-interesting. To me it is too much about the German/Austrian tradition of music that took over during the 18th and 19th century. It’s so much about harmony in expense to some other aspects in music that I find interesting. So no, I am not going to study Bach, at least not too much, instead I want to study music that to me has a more interesting and diverse base. But that doesn’t mean that I do not believe those of you who do study Bach that his music is ingenious and groundbreaking in its own limits.

[alclub]

I am not a Rach fan, but I cannot understand why those of you are into Bach cannot understand why others may think Bach is boring or non-interesting. To me it is too much about the German/Austrian tradition of music that took over during the 18th and 19th century. It’s so much about harmony in expense to some other aspects in music that I find interesting. So no, I am not going to study Bach, at least not too much, instead I want to study music that to me has a more interesting and diverse base.

*facepalm*

[unholeee]

did bach even compose anything for piano.....it's not hard to justify nursery rhymes when anything on the harpsichord sounds like gameboy music.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

All of you Bach lovers here are sounding like snobs.

[vsrinivasa]

All of you Bach lovers here are sounding like snobs.

I don't intend to be snobbish, but I just prefer the sound of Bach's music. Baroque music and Impressionist music are the two time periods that stand out for me.

[perprocrastinate]

*facepalm*

Everyone, look, a way to exhibit condescension without gathering words into a coherent sentence!

[alclub]

All of you Bach lovers here are sounding like snobs.

I believe this thread was started by a Rach fan...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I believe this thread was started by a Rach fan...

Hey we don't count him as one of us!

[vsrinivasa]

Hey we don't count him as one of us!

Maybe I should start a thread comparing Debussy and Ravel. That would probably lead to this exact thing.

[zezhyrule]

did bach even compose anything for piano.....it's not hard to justify nursery rhymes when anything on the harpsichord sounds like gameboy music.

Yeah, that's why they invented the harpsichord, to make music that sounds like it came from one of those gameboy games that were so popular in the 17th century.

[chadbrochill17]

<begin rant>
ALL this tells me is that you have never studied Bach.

Sorry, but you immediately lose the respect of the music community when you say Rach makes Bach's music look like nursery rhymes. It's like when your co-worker proclaims that the Beatles are the greatest musicians who ever lived. Sure, he's entitled to his opinion, but you know deep down that it's not an opinion that's well informed.

All you Rach lovers, rather than continuing to fight us on this, why not be open-minded enough to do some study on Bach. Honestly, I just think you're missing out. Discovering Bach was a life changing epiphany for me, especially because his music had no impact on me prior to that. Bach is perhaps considered, almost without dissent, the greatest artist in history. Shouldn't this compel you to study Bach, and not dismiss it as nursery rhymes? To clarify, I say 'study' Bach, because you can't passively listen to his music. It generally requires a great deal of active intellectual involvement to make any sense of it at all. Perhaps if you're interested I can provide you with a playlist that may serve as an introduction to Bach?

Your head is so far up bachs ass you are unable to see anyone else's opinion.

[pianoman53]

This is the sort of topic that makes me feel that democracy shouldn't be for everyone. I can understand why some people like the music of Rachmaninov more than the one of Bach, but I don't see how anyone can see Rach being a bigger genius than Bach.
I simple don't want people like that to vote... I mean, maybe you get the idea that the town idiot is a better president than someone who at least finished elementary school just because he's got a nicer beard...

[outin]

maybe you get the idea that the town idiot is a better president than someone...

OT but I have got the impression that the Americans were quite happy to have one as their president for quite a few years? 

[unholeee]

This is the sort of topic that makes me feel that democracy shouldn't be for everyone. I can understand why some people like the music of Rachmaninov more than the one of Bach, but I don't see how anyone can see Rach being a bigger genius than Bach.
I simple don't want people like that to vote... I mean, maybe you get the idea that the town idiot is a better president than someone who at least finished elementary school just because he's got a nicer beard...

As opposed to failing the most basic of reading comprehension. It ''simple'' asks which music is better, akin to which do you prefer. That sounds pretty subjective to me. If you prefer bach's more because he was an avid composer who contributed more to music - fair enough. Nowhere does it state though who is the greater composer or who contributed more to music. And the op is remedial.

[unholeee]

Yeah, that's why they invented the harpsichord, to make music that sounds like it came from one of those gameboy games that were so popular in the 17th century.

I am sure chief zu!u was also a fantastic composer for the tribal drum and wrote (sorry, i mean grunted) a lot of unconventionally timed rhythms in his heyday.

[michaeljames]

Too late to cast a vote, nor would I.  I prefer to play and listen to Rachmaninoff ANY DAY...but then again, I prefer Romantic era composers in general.  A little Bach goes a long way for me. 

And for what it's worth, my Shih Tzu prefers almost anything over Bach!  He usually is curled up right by my leg as I play, but when I was working on Bach's Partita no. 2 in C minor, he was noticeably unsettled.  Cracked me up! I don't like learning Bach, either, but once learned he's fun to play...whereas I don't mind the process of learning anything written by Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff,  Debussy....etc.

[forte88]

Personally I think humans on an individual level have been degenerating for some time now. Yes, humanity as a whole is still moving forward, but there's definitely an 'inflation' of the soul.
Inflation of the soul doesn't become apparent in technology,( coz that obviously doesn't have a soul) but when it comes to music and art in general, people's IQ's have dropped considerably since the Baroque. It's almost like a reverse correlation between technology and creativity. Especially in the 20th century coz technology has made an inexpensive way of listening to music possible and this hasn't exactly encouraged people to learn to read music. That's how people in the Classical period and the Baroque 'listened' to music. You were forced to be a producer either in your mind to hear or as output coz there wasn't much around. Now technology has dumbed most ppl down to being consumers. Nobody's encouraged coz of greats like Mozart, Bach, etc to write their own coz these guys are so much better. And the closest you can get to matching them is by learning a piece(that they could compose on the spot and then in performance improvise to)they wrote and hope to play properly in a few weeks time.

Of course there will always be people that say it's just a matter of taste, that you can prefer the Backstreet Boys over the Beatles or Rachmaninov over Bach but to me that just implies either bad taste or just low musical intelligence.

 

[pianoman53]

*Facebook-like*

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Of course there will always be people that say it's just a matter of taste, that you can prefer the Backstreet Boys over the Beatles or Rachmaninov over Bach but to me that just implies either bad taste or just low musical intelligence.

 

You're being ridiculous, no it doesn't.  

I like geometry more than Calculus.  Wanna know why?  Because that's just how it is!  It's not because I have a low mathematical intelligence, it's because I don't like Calculus!  It's that simple.  

People who fail to recognize that music isn't a sport, and acknowledges that there is no such thing as good or bad taste implies to me arrogance and narrow mindedness.

[vsrinivasa]

You're being ridiculous, no it doesn't.  

I like geometry more than Calculus.  Wanna know why?  Because that's just how it is!  It's not because I have a low mathematical intelligence, it's because I don't like Calculus!  It's that simple.  

People who fail to recognize that music isn't a sport, and acknowledges that there is no such thing as good or bad taste implies to me arrogance and narrow mindedness.

Well said.

[forte88]

You're being ridiculous, no it doesn't.  

I like geometry more than Calculus.  Wanna know why?  Because that's just how it is!  It's not because I have a low mathematical intelligence, it's because I don't like Calculus!  It's that simple.  

My guess is you flunk on logic

[rachmaninoff_forever]

My guess is you flunk on logic

Analogy

A comparison between two things.  Typically on the basis of Their structure and for the purpose of Explanation and clarification.

[unholeee]

I was listening to bach at work and the guest said nice music.

and then added that would drive her insane.

[49410enrique]

the instigator in me wants to see a fight.

*quickly grabs a weapon and throws it into the ring hoping one of the combatants will take up arms....

[j_menz]

When I said "get a haircut", that's NOT what I meant. 

[49410enrique]

When I said "get a haircut", that's NOT what I meant. 

you're probably right. i don't have the right forehead to pull it off.

perhaps a little more off the top.

[the89thkey]

Ah...where is this forum GOING? Please stay ON TOPIC
Bach vs Rach was the beginning of this forum and Bach vs Rach it shall STAY.

[zezhyrule]

Ah...where is this forum GOING? Please stay ON TOPIC
Bach vs Rach was the beginning of this forum and Bach vs Rach it shall STAY.

You keep using that word. This is not a forum. This is a thread. Or a topic. Hence, "on-topic".

It is posted in the performance board, a sub-forum of the overall piano forum. You are welcome. 

[nocturnetr]

Mozart, Schubert, Ravel, Wagner, Haynd, Haendel, and all of those ordinary composers win against Rachmaninoff? The most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Rachmaninoff is the GOD (I mean GOD) of romanticism and lyricisim. Maybe Beethoven and Chopin could be ties. But Rach #3 makes all the pieces of music no more emotional than Nursery Rhymes.

[pianoman53]

Who said he was better than any of those?

Though, I must say that it might be tough to beat Beethoven. Bach and Beethoven are, imo, those two composers who had the greatest impact on music. It's hard for anyone to really compete with them on being "The greatest". You might like Rachmaninovs lyricism more, but he was clearly not as great as Beethoven or Bach. ... Nor was anyone else.

[the89thkey]

Mozart, Schubert, Ravel, Wagner, Haynd, Haendel, and all of those ordinary composers win against Rachmaninoff? The most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Rachmaninoff is the GOD (I mean GOD) of romanticism and lyricisim. Maybe Beethoven and Chopin could be ties. But Rach #3 makes all the pieces of music no more emotional than Nursery Rhymes.

Somebody who understands the depth of Rach 3 for a change. Thank you sir, for not being a close-minded idiot.

[perprocrastinate]

arguing with these people is like arguing with a four year old, and presents no challenge, due to the fact that no matter how much staunch evidence you can produce they will still say they are right, not necessarily because they don't understand the things you say, but because they think they are right and are NOT going to change their minds.  I'm waiting for one of them to throw a temper tantrum, honestly.

Pretty neat quote, huh? Sums up this thread quite nicely.

I, for one, have nothing substantially useful to add to this discussion, but I can safely say that the lines between fact and opinion have been greatly blurred.

[p2u_]

Somebody who understands the depth of Rach 3 for a change. Thank you sir, for not being a close-minded idiot.

I object against being called a close-minded idiot, because that's what that last sentence suggests. The depth of Rach 3, which we all acknowledge, has NOTHING to do with Rachmaninov's ranking among other composers in general.

Paul

[the89thkey]

I object against being called a close-minded idiot, because that's what that last sentence suggests. The depth of Rach 3, which we all acknowledge, has NOTHING to do with Rachmaninov's ranking among other composers in general.

Paul

Ah, but it does. Because people have been claiming that Bach's B minor mass exceeds the concerto...which is utter garbage.

[p2u_]

people have been claiming that Bach's B minor mass exceeds the concerto...which is utter garbage.

And what if it does in terms of, for example, architecture? What does the depth of Bach's B minor mass have to do with the depth of Rach 3? And why would the depth of one piano concerto make the composer of that work greater than all the others?

Paul

[j_menz]

The choral writing is certainly superior in the mass. The piano writing undoubtedly better in the concerto.

Until there is an agreed definition of what "greatness" means for a composer (and it is clear from this thread that there is no such agreement), any discussion as to who has more of it than someone else is rather futile.

[andreslr6]

Somebody who understands the depth of Rach 3 for a change. Thank you sir, for not being a close-minded idiot.

OH MY GOD! THE IRONY!!! IT BURNS!!! AAAHH!!! KILL ME NOW!!!!!

..Or is this some kind of super advanced sarcasm that I can't understand?