But if J.S. Bach were Philip Glass, there would be a Philip Glass subreddit with 100,000 members dissecting every single section of each peculiar new album.
One section of a piece would consist of the melody of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to Be an American" somehow fittingly trudging along below Philip Glass music. Another section would overlap three Philip Glass musics with staggered entrances, turning each upside down for a subsequent section.
Yet another piece would have just one Philip Glass music, overdubbed with a Disney movie theme, a Lady Gaga song, and some generic hip hop music he heard while watching a dance competition at the mall.
One double album would consist solely of sophisticated mashups of songs chosen exclusively from the tin pan alley era-- one for each common tempo on the metronome-- served over a nice bed of Philip Glass ostinatos.
After getting banned from SNL for going overtime with a tasteless tin-pan-alley style freestyle rap/dj'ing experiment, Philip Glass would have moved to Dayton, Ohio to write weekly 45 minute religious services in the style of golden age Broadway musicals for a small evangelical church. (Edit: he would also personally perform Philip Glass music at the piano for the service's prelude and postlude.)
Shoddy writing, meant to hype up a recording. They could just as well have written that Bach was significant in establishing the tuning of the same 12 notes that Philip Glass uses today. Saying both use "patterns" is almost an insult to the reader.
I'm aghast at this article and wish I could finish a bottle of wine on a rooftop agreeing with you, but that's nigh impossible and sitting here writing all of my negative thoughts would be a huge waste of time, so here's a recording I made recently of movement 8 of Bach's WMV 4 "Christ lag in Todesbanden" on an instrument, the Pyramid Eel 2, I've been developing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aXbkDKGa8wf4iQ4P_kt0KZOco_b...
I listen to both Bach and Glass somewhat regularly. ie. they pop up in my Spotify "made for you" list form time to time.
The clear difference to me is that compositions by Glass never stop me in my tracks, make me think, make me feel anything. It's background music, full stop.
I've had the pleasure to see Philip Glass perform on two occasions. I would rate it with the time I saw The Blue Man Group. An entertaining evening. Never bored. Couldn't wait to get to the restaurant afterwards. And the concert wasn't discussed as much as the appetizers.
Indeed. In particular, when OP said he wasn't moved emotionally by Glass's music, I immediately thought of the track "67 Cities" from Errol Morris documentary, The Fog of War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM
Glass's score makes this a very powerful scene, IMO.
I have the same opinion, but imho this is not on Glass. Bach is simply something else, even within his own generation, his music transcends everyone else. Maybe my music knowledge isn't very wide but I spent some decent time dissenting many baroque composers to find something, even remotely remotely close to, e.g. BWV 1004 (especially Chaconne).
Open to suggestions here! I don't have a formal music theory education but I've been playing violin (classical training) since my childhood.
Have you heard some more well-known Baroque composers already like Corelli, Frescobaldi, Couperin, Purcell, Scarlatti, Rameau, and Geminiani?
Bach is pretty outstanding, maybe this is only because I heard so much Bach growing up, but I can recognize a Bach piece almost immediately. Apparently Bach was mostly forgotten for hundreds of years though up until the last century.
More Renaissance than Baroque, but some of John Dowland's lute pieces have the same emotional impact on me as Bach. Lachrimae Pavane, his most famous, is exceptional when played on lute. Although in all fairness the instrument itself is something I find quite magical.
I'm absolutely fine with that being your opinion, but will say I'm a huge fan of Glass (and Bach), and can enjoy it as foreground music, even the most meditative works like Music in 12 Parts and the piano pieces. But I've been moved by some works. The Mishima soundtrack and Itaipu come to mind. Also the Reggio soundtracks, although it's hard to separate those in my mind from the movies, which are also great.
I love this comment so much because I very intensely feel the opposite. Glass' music teleports me to another world.
Bach... Okay Bach actually has a lot of incredible pieces. But also a ton of on-hold music.
I love disagreeing so strongly about this because it tells me there's at least one entire parallel universe to how I experience music. So there's so much more to experience.
This is why music is such an incredible art form. It's all sine waves of air at the end of the day, but there are entire universes hidden somewhere there in the air. You can be a musician, explore classical western music, jazz, rock, pop etc... and still discover a brand new genre or avant-garde style that sounds nothing like any other music.
What is most sad to me is, nowadays music mostly taught as a means of practice. People go through entire schools of music without composing their own pieces. As a total nooby, composing music is one of the most fun I have interacting with music, it allows me to explore what these composers thought about writing their music. Like, pick up a guitar and try to improvise a jazz piece, or pick a classical composer (Bach/Mozart/Glass/etc...) and try to write variations based on their theme or re-harmonize the piece. It shows you what each composer valued the most, and why certain trade-offs made sense.
For example, Bach was absolutely obsessed with polyphonal/contrapuntal music, maybe to an insane, unhealthy degree. He was so obsessed with this idea, that he went ahead and wrote entire fugues for solo violin, and entire suites for solo cello that have nothing but arpeggiated chords. Once you realize what was the "musical project" (so to say) of each composer was (not just classical but also any genre of music including mainstream pop), your music enjoyment increases an order of magnitude. Like, when Bach was alive the art form of "fugue" was considered outdated and old, but he loved it so much that he simply dedicated his life to exploring contrapuntal music.
I share your opinion. I listen to Glass somewhat regularly, almost always as background music. Its fun, though The more attention I give it the less I enjoy it.
Whereas with Bach, I am always returning to him. I go and listen to Mozart...and halfway through the piece I stop and switch it to Bach. Go and listen to a favorite movement of Beethoven, and then I’m back into endless Bach. Spend a few hours enjoying Metallica or Megadeth, and then I round out my day with Bach.
Bach unifies the emotional and intellectual life unlike any other art I’ve encountered. His music is almost unbelievably deep. I’ve listened to some movements an absurd number of times, yet there is always something new to notice.
It seems so common for technical people to be into Bach, but I don't get it. To me, Bach is basically slow, boring religious stuff, or grating harpsichord stuff.
What am I missing? And I mean that as in, what can I listen to, that will help me see what others see?
A lot of Bach (and "classical" music in general) may feel slow, but is actually quite fast if you measure the amount of notes played per minute. But this is something I only realized when I started to learn guitar and tried playing some pieces.
Anyway, what I really like about Bach is how much many of his compositions just swing. He was a big fan of the canon, where a melody is played simultaneously by several voices/instruments, but with an offset and counterpoints. He uses this to create what to me are beautiful textures and great rhythm.
> A lot of Bach (and "classical" music in general) may feel slow, but is actually quite fast if you measure the amount of notes played per minute. But this is something I only realized when I started to learn guitar and tried playing some pieces.
Not sure classical music generally is much slower or faster than "modern" music (there is of course a wide variety in both), but I would say, also generally, that a classical piece is harder to learn to play because it tends to have a more complex structure and is less repetitive than most contemporary pieces.
(This is not a slight against modern music; personally, I enjoy listening to both classical and modern.)
We are in agreement. I was mainly commenting on the feel of the music.
I remember as a teenager listening to Mozart and thinking "this is slow and boring", while Metallica is "super fast and cool", when in actuality the Mozart piece has a faster tempo and many, many more notes produced per minute.
Not a dig on Metallica, I still enjoy their music, just that my horizons have broadened.
There are a couple of different kinds of music that Bach composed. Of course he is well known for his chorales, but based on your comment those probably don't speak to you.
What might be a better place to start would be the cello suites. The first is so well known that it's hard to come to it with an open mind. But my favorite is the second in d minor. Here is a performance by Mischa Maisky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki9ySiWQNu8 Much more lyrical and passionate than we often associate with Baroque music.
Bach is, of course, very well known for his counterpoint, which probably is why a lot of technical people like his music so much. I personally like these pieces best on organ. The fugues in particular are always a great deal of fun as each line comes in and the piece gets richer and richer. Here is a performance of the Great Fugue in G major: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6clTa8_QYQE I think there's really no substitute for listening to these pieces live, though. With a good organ you just get enveloped in the sound. The next best thing to do is wear good headphones and really crank up the volume, but headphones just can't match the bass of 64 foot pipes.
it was a demo of the gist of his composition, his music making: he introduces a melody, the motif, and then overlays it with itself and variants of itself and I admit the details completely escape me.
As mentioned by others, Bach is a master of counterpoints - that's what made me listen to his pieces over and over.
I guess his slow chorales are played the most in churches and ads. but he composed so much more. Some of my favorites are The Well-Tempered Clavier, Goldberg Variations, and English/Italian Suites.
I'm far from an expert in Baroque music, but I think if both of these pieces are boring to you you're definitely not into Bach! And they couldn't be more different.
Bach: Harpsichord Concerto No.1 in D Minor BWV 1052 (Jean Rondeau)* I'm sure some people will hate on this unorthodox interpretation, but to me this is sublime.
Bach's music greatly appeals to me as a mathematician because of the sense of universal harmony it irradiates. Many of JSB's compositions are based on precise constraints (symmetries, translations). I think many technical people can somehow perceive the schemes underlying the music, even if they are not musically trained enough to identify them consciously. This is at least how I explain my love for Baroque music.
I found it surprising nobody yet mentioned the “Gödel, Escher, Bach” book by Douglas Hofstadter. Not sure how popular the work is today, but some years ago it was really famous.
Yeah, thanks for mentioning GEB, it was really the original inspiration for my previous question.
I read the book years ago, and loved it. Learning about Gödel's incompleteness theorems had already my blown my mind; Escher already was, and still is, my favorite visual artist. I remember well, at a general level, the book's explanations of counterpoint, constraints, and logic in Bach's compositions. In stark contrast to the rest of the book's content, that was all somewhat academic since the book didn't play any music.
Ever since reading the book, it has greatly saddened me to think about how much enjoyment I get from the work of Gödel and Escher, and that I'm missing out on the third component of Hofstadter's holy trinity of self-reference.
That lumpy blue sweater you're wearing? It's actually cerulean.
I've been dealt a very different view, perhaps because I'm tainted by the analytical snobbery of a formal musical education, one that included studying, arranging, and performing the works of both. The pioneers of minimalism - Terry Riley, Philip Glass, Steve Reich et al - redefined my expectations and comprehension of music, and I perceive their ideas bright and clear in every genre today from pop to EDM to incidental.
I too have seen and heard Mr Glass play live, in two very different settings. Once in a very small chamber close enough to hear the piano stool creak in Metamorphosis, and once as part of the 2013 staging of Einstein on the Beach. Both were mind-blowing, and the only topic of conversation afterwards was the music.
For my generation of music students, both Glass and J.S.Bach remain towering geniuses whose influence will ripple for centuries, whose ideas are clearly still identifiable, and thereby form an indelible contribution to the arts.
Spotify won't give you the whole of Mishima, in the same way it will never collect together the three essential recitals of the Op.92 II. Allegretto, nor will it knowingly preface The Orb's Adventure's Beyond The Ultraworld with Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint, nor Hendrix with Handel, and in general is not a conscientious guide to anyone's oeuvre or the relationships across music forms.
I just listened to some of the music you mention in your post, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Do you have any other recommendations? Especially where you see connections between modern musicians / electronic artists and classical? I've listened to a lot of electronic music, especially at parties, but I'm still fumbling around in the classical world.
> the three essential recitals of the Op.92 II Allegretto
Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic (1963) for grave and majestic, Gardiner and the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (1994) for bright and invigorating - but what's the third?
Well, obviously I'm joshing a little, since there are certainly more than three worth the listen, and no "top 3" can be definitively argued. For example, I actually prefer Karajan's 1951 recording with the Philharmonia, and of the more sprightly renditions I go for the Christopher Hogwood (1997) with the Academy of Ancient Music, which is salient not merely for its instrumentation but also the interplay of the ensemble.
Nevertheless, for my personally selected essential version, I'll always nominate Erich Kleiber (1950, Decca) with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. Once heard, never forgotten, it is spine chilling.
His son Carlos's is better known, but I think it's a goofy misreading.
Bonus: the Liszt transcription for piano reveals fascinating details that otherwise tend to submerge in the symphonic effusion. There's a pleasing version on Youtube purporting to be from Glenn Gould, but note that the provenance is disputed.
Unspeakably irreverent but great fun (though you've probably already encountered it) is Joachim Horsley's Beethoven in Havana: https://youtu.be/mZRb0FyAa9s
What is the musically educated snobbish opinion on Einaudi? Might not be a pioneer in the same sense as Glass, but the style is in many ways similar, no?
For me their greatest similarity is structural, and it is not so much that they are similar to each other; rather, they both differ in similar ways from what we usually think of as the canonical form of composition in classical music - specifically, the sonata form, which prevailed precisely during the period just after Bach and just before Glass.
In the music of Mozart or Beethoven, for example, you have a primary leading melodic voice, and the music is organized by the progression of chords that support the main melody. This is why they wrote such good concertos.
In Glass and in Bach, the music is more "textural" as it were, but for different reasons. In Bach's case, owing to his use of polyphony, the shape of his musical ideas is distributed in the harmonic interactions between independent voices, each with its own melody. In Glass's case, we don't typically find voice leading, but repeating arpeggios.
For what it's worth, in my opinion pretty much everything of value in Glass he took from Steve Reich, and I have yet to meet a single Glass composition that doesn't seem implicit in Reich's "Piano Phase".
Well, there is not much similarity, i.e. no more similarity than with any other randomly selectd composer. But Bach certainly was no "minimalist", and he apparently lived in another epoch. And both undoubtedly have a lot to do with music. The article is probably meant more as a homage than as a scientific treatise. Actually, I neither see much similarities with Steve Reich (besides both are known to be "minimalists").
I agree with everything you say until the last paragraph. My perception of Reich and Glass as composers is that despite coming from the same city, during the same period, and being lumped together by history they feel like two composers whose style and methods run parallel but never quite meet. They've both built reputations around styles reliant on repetition, but the ways they employ it and the character of their music are very different.
While the musical motif of Reich's 'Piano Phase' - an ostinato arpgeggio - is something that Glass also employs in his own music, their individual uses of such a fundamental and common musical figure diverges tremendously. Reich (for the most part) fixates on that single motif and the patterns that appear by "phasing" it in and out with it's copy. Glass' typical approach for this period is to develop the figure through harmonic development or through the contraction or expansion of the phrase's length.
While you could argue that Glass' style developed from Reich's initial idea. To suggest that Glass' entire catalog of the period is somehow fully contained and found in the content of 'Piano Phase' and never added anything new is a major stretch.
That would be like arguing that everything Led Zeppelin wrote was already implicit in 'Johnny B. Goode'.
> style and methods run parallel but never quite meet
Or as if they were on the same tracks but on... different trains?
Glass generates a rhythmic tension that is similar to Reich's loops moving in and out of phase by changing the time signature feel (eg duplets vs. triplets). These are not the same mechanisms but for me both generate a curious shifting feeling where suddenly I'm listening to the "wrong" line. With Glass, I'm now also feeling the "wrong" beat! The effect from Reich's loop asynchrony is more gradual, transformational, just as surprising (perhaps even more so) but they are definitely different animals.
If you are a fan of virtual games, then go to https://mr.bet/at/game/view/demo/mega-moolah that offers slot machines (more than four hundred), which have earned popularity among beginners and experienced gamers of various ages. On the pages of the gaming catalog, the software of the world leaders in the production of virtual gaming software is presented
Philip Glass' music is repetetive. It's always the bee-swarm horror overtones that make all his music sound extremely sloppy and cheap. I mean when 99% of your core of songs are just focused around a cheap effect, then it sounds all the same. Sure we have to have certain scticks, some times, but, I mean, every Philip Glass composition is really more or less identical to every other. And I'm not saying this to lessen things, the One Philip Glass Song (tm), which is thus Every Philip Glass Song (tm), is really pretty great. But it's really just One Song Dudes (tm).
I was just playing my way through Bach's miscellaneous keyboard works, and there was a particular piece that struck me as could have easily have been written by Glass, but only that one bore the resemblance to my eyes.
There is a specific Glass style that is a repeated and evolving arpeggio syncopated against an Alberti bass, which sounds more like some Handel (e.g. Zadok the Priest vs. Glass' Mishima V) than a lot of Bach, but Handel was a Bach contemporary. Dinnerstein is a master, so I have no doubt she hears structure and form between the two I can't appreciate yet.
Though I know more than one Bach specialist who would literally spit if you compared Glass to him as well.
But there is something about both Bach and Glass where the music has an effect. It's not about a performance or a spectacle, it's a very intimate conversation. It's like it loads up part of your brain so you can't focus on anything else, and then uses your attention to reveal these little subtleties. When you listen to Glass, you can hear how he understands human attention and form. I think we're going to discover a lot about music in this century.
Bach (JS) was not a Bach contemporary. His music felt rather "old-school" at his time. In his life, he was considered the master of all masters only as an organ tuner.
I had thought that Bach (JS) was influenced by Handel, but then read they were born the same year and did not meet. In terms of the influence of early and baroque music on Glass, Bach's giant and diverse catalogue could contain specific influential pieces (Vivaldi also wrote a massive number of pieces in the same era that apparently influenced Bach), but when you listen to the Handel's styled and less formal music, that's the baroque music I would say has more in common with Glass' style.
54 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadBut if J.S. Bach were Philip Glass, there would be a Philip Glass subreddit with 100,000 members dissecting every single section of each peculiar new album.
One section of a piece would consist of the melody of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to Be an American" somehow fittingly trudging along below Philip Glass music. Another section would overlap three Philip Glass musics with staggered entrances, turning each upside down for a subsequent section.
Yet another piece would have just one Philip Glass music, overdubbed with a Disney movie theme, a Lady Gaga song, and some generic hip hop music he heard while watching a dance competition at the mall.
One double album would consist solely of sophisticated mashups of songs chosen exclusively from the tin pan alley era-- one for each common tempo on the metronome-- served over a nice bed of Philip Glass ostinatos.
After getting banned from SNL for going overtime with a tasteless tin-pan-alley style freestyle rap/dj'ing experiment, Philip Glass would have moved to Dayton, Ohio to write weekly 45 minute religious services in the style of golden age Broadway musicals for a small evangelical church. (Edit: he would also personally perform Philip Glass music at the piano for the service's prelude and postlude.)
The clear difference to me is that compositions by Glass never stop me in my tracks, make me think, make me feel anything. It's background music, full stop.
I've had the pleasure to see Philip Glass perform on two occasions. I would rate it with the time I saw The Blue Man Group. An entertaining evening. Never bored. Couldn't wait to get to the restaurant afterwards. And the concert wasn't discussed as much as the appetizers.
Just one man's opinion.
Glass's score makes this a very powerful scene, IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDu9Ta1JWc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_(2011_film)
Open to suggestions here! I don't have a formal music theory education but I've been playing violin (classical training) since my childhood.
Bach is pretty outstanding, maybe this is only because I heard so much Bach growing up, but I can recognize a Bach piece almost immediately. Apparently Bach was mostly forgotten for hundreds of years though up until the last century.
Bach... Okay Bach actually has a lot of incredible pieces. But also a ton of on-hold music.
I love disagreeing so strongly about this because it tells me there's at least one entire parallel universe to how I experience music. So there's so much more to experience.
What is most sad to me is, nowadays music mostly taught as a means of practice. People go through entire schools of music without composing their own pieces. As a total nooby, composing music is one of the most fun I have interacting with music, it allows me to explore what these composers thought about writing their music. Like, pick up a guitar and try to improvise a jazz piece, or pick a classical composer (Bach/Mozart/Glass/etc...) and try to write variations based on their theme or re-harmonize the piece. It shows you what each composer valued the most, and why certain trade-offs made sense.
For example, Bach was absolutely obsessed with polyphonal/contrapuntal music, maybe to an insane, unhealthy degree. He was so obsessed with this idea, that he went ahead and wrote entire fugues for solo violin, and entire suites for solo cello that have nothing but arpeggiated chords. Once you realize what was the "musical project" (so to say) of each composer was (not just classical but also any genre of music including mainstream pop), your music enjoyment increases an order of magnitude. Like, when Bach was alive the art form of "fugue" was considered outdated and old, but he loved it so much that he simply dedicated his life to exploring contrapuntal music.
Whereas with Bach, I am always returning to him. I go and listen to Mozart...and halfway through the piece I stop and switch it to Bach. Go and listen to a favorite movement of Beethoven, and then I’m back into endless Bach. Spend a few hours enjoying Metallica or Megadeth, and then I round out my day with Bach.
Bach unifies the emotional and intellectual life unlike any other art I’ve encountered. His music is almost unbelievably deep. I’ve listened to some movements an absurd number of times, yet there is always something new to notice.
What am I missing? And I mean that as in, what can I listen to, that will help me see what others see?
Anyway, what I really like about Bach is how much many of his compositions just swing. He was a big fan of the canon, where a melody is played simultaneously by several voices/instruments, but with an offset and counterpoints. He uses this to create what to me are beautiful textures and great rhythm.
Not sure classical music generally is much slower or faster than "modern" music (there is of course a wide variety in both), but I would say, also generally, that a classical piece is harder to learn to play because it tends to have a more complex structure and is less repetitive than most contemporary pieces.
(This is not a slight against modern music; personally, I enjoy listening to both classical and modern.)
I remember as a teenager listening to Mozart and thinking "this is slow and boring", while Metallica is "super fast and cool", when in actuality the Mozart piece has a faster tempo and many, many more notes produced per minute.
Not a dig on Metallica, I still enjoy their music, just that my horizons have broadened.
What might be a better place to start would be the cello suites. The first is so well known that it's hard to come to it with an open mind. But my favorite is the second in d minor. Here is a performance by Mischa Maisky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki9ySiWQNu8 Much more lyrical and passionate than we often associate with Baroque music.
Bach is, of course, very well known for his counterpoint, which probably is why a lot of technical people like his music so much. I personally like these pieces best on organ. The fugues in particular are always a great deal of fun as each line comes in and the piece gets richer and richer. Here is a performance of the Great Fugue in G major: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6clTa8_QYQE I think there's really no substitute for listening to these pieces live, though. With a good organ you just get enveloped in the sound. The next best thing to do is wear good headphones and really crank up the volume, but headphones just can't match the bass of 64 foot pipes.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the Chaconne from his partita for violin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEbi-7tPaqo
Here is some slow, boring but not religious stuff, no hapsi and no singing:
js bach, the art of the fugue
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5BC3686A00C91558
it was a demo of the gist of his composition, his music making: he introduces a melody, the motif, and then overlays it with itself and variants of itself and I admit the details completely escape me.
yet the music captures me and allows me to think.
I guess his slow chorales are played the most in churches and ads. but he composed so much more. Some of my favorites are The Well-Tempered Clavier, Goldberg Variations, and English/Italian Suites.
Bach: Harpsichord Concerto No.1 in D Minor BWV 1052 (Jean Rondeau)* I'm sure some people will hate on this unorthodox interpretation, but to me this is sublime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcsfDxojdV8
Johann Sebastian Bach - Chaconne, Partita No. 2 BWV 1004 | Hilary Hahn * The solo violin bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjEVKxQCWs
Cello suites. See No. 6:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbH3JYfRjOQ
Violin concertos; e.g., D minor:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZFOhkGGr8A
Brandenburgs:
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbQORqkStpk
I found it surprising nobody yet mentioned the “Gödel, Escher, Bach” book by Douglas Hofstadter. Not sure how popular the work is today, but some years ago it was really famous.
I read the book years ago, and loved it. Learning about Gödel's incompleteness theorems had already my blown my mind; Escher already was, and still is, my favorite visual artist. I remember well, at a general level, the book's explanations of counterpoint, constraints, and logic in Bach's compositions. In stark contrast to the rest of the book's content, that was all somewhat academic since the book didn't play any music.
Ever since reading the book, it has greatly saddened me to think about how much enjoyment I get from the work of Gödel and Escher, and that I'm missing out on the third component of Hofstadter's holy trinity of self-reference.
https://www.chenalexander.com/Bach
It's not for everyone and that's fine. I have some suggestions to try though.
BWV 999
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g4FrGcRAIs
Goldberg Variations #13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5-7QENoXoA
Erbarme dich, mein Gott
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zry9dpM1_n4
Cello Suite #6 Sarabande
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzb8aEW_Rdc
I'm going to go a little rogue with the Chaconne and suggest an arrangement ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljb5MvKv0Hw
I've been dealt a very different view, perhaps because I'm tainted by the analytical snobbery of a formal musical education, one that included studying, arranging, and performing the works of both. The pioneers of minimalism - Terry Riley, Philip Glass, Steve Reich et al - redefined my expectations and comprehension of music, and I perceive their ideas bright and clear in every genre today from pop to EDM to incidental.
I too have seen and heard Mr Glass play live, in two very different settings. Once in a very small chamber close enough to hear the piano stool creak in Metamorphosis, and once as part of the 2013 staging of Einstein on the Beach. Both were mind-blowing, and the only topic of conversation afterwards was the music.
For my generation of music students, both Glass and J.S.Bach remain towering geniuses whose influence will ripple for centuries, whose ideas are clearly still identifiable, and thereby form an indelible contribution to the arts.
Spotify won't give you the whole of Mishima, in the same way it will never collect together the three essential recitals of the Op.92 II. Allegretto, nor will it knowingly preface The Orb's Adventure's Beyond The Ultraworld with Steve Reich's Electric Counterpoint, nor Hendrix with Handel, and in general is not a conscientious guide to anyone's oeuvre or the relationships across music forms.
Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic (1963) for grave and majestic, Gardiner and the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (1994) for bright and invigorating - but what's the third?
Nevertheless, for my personally selected essential version, I'll always nominate Erich Kleiber (1950, Decca) with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra. Once heard, never forgotten, it is spine chilling.
His son Carlos's is better known, but I think it's a goofy misreading.
Bonus: the Liszt transcription for piano reveals fascinating details that otherwise tend to submerge in the symphonic effusion. There's a pleasing version on Youtube purporting to be from Glenn Gould, but note that the provenance is disputed.
Unspeakably irreverent but great fun (though you've probably already encountered it) is Joachim Horsley's Beethoven in Havana: https://youtu.be/mZRb0FyAa9s
In the music of Mozart or Beethoven, for example, you have a primary leading melodic voice, and the music is organized by the progression of chords that support the main melody. This is why they wrote such good concertos.
In Glass and in Bach, the music is more "textural" as it were, but for different reasons. In Bach's case, owing to his use of polyphony, the shape of his musical ideas is distributed in the harmonic interactions between independent voices, each with its own melody. In Glass's case, we don't typically find voice leading, but repeating arpeggios.
For what it's worth, in my opinion pretty much everything of value in Glass he took from Steve Reich, and I have yet to meet a single Glass composition that doesn't seem implicit in Reich's "Piano Phase".
While the musical motif of Reich's 'Piano Phase' - an ostinato arpgeggio - is something that Glass also employs in his own music, their individual uses of such a fundamental and common musical figure diverges tremendously. Reich (for the most part) fixates on that single motif and the patterns that appear by "phasing" it in and out with it's copy. Glass' typical approach for this period is to develop the figure through harmonic development or through the contraction or expansion of the phrase's length.
While you could argue that Glass' style developed from Reich's initial idea. To suggest that Glass' entire catalog of the period is somehow fully contained and found in the content of 'Piano Phase' and never added anything new is a major stretch.
That would be like arguing that everything Led Zeppelin wrote was already implicit in 'Johnny B. Goode'.
Or as if they were on the same tracks but on... different trains?
Glass generates a rhythmic tension that is similar to Reich's loops moving in and out of phase by changing the time signature feel (eg duplets vs. triplets). These are not the same mechanisms but for me both generate a curious shifting feeling where suddenly I'm listening to the "wrong" line. With Glass, I'm now also feeling the "wrong" beat! The effect from Reich's loop asynchrony is more gradual, transformational, just as surprising (perhaps even more so) but they are definitely different animals.
I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it, there is definitely some truth there ;-)
Though I know more than one Bach specialist who would literally spit if you compared Glass to him as well.
But there is something about both Bach and Glass where the music has an effect. It's not about a performance or a spectacle, it's a very intimate conversation. It's like it loads up part of your brain so you can't focus on anything else, and then uses your attention to reveal these little subtleties. When you listen to Glass, you can hear how he understands human attention and form. I think we're going to discover a lot about music in this century.