Bach is the greatest composer and perhaps the greatest artist in human history. Full stop. He is able to condense so much complexity into his works, and he speaks to the heart as equally as he speaks to the intellect. He is proof that the mind and the heart do not have to be at cross purposes, but can be wholly engaged together when stimulated by sublime works of art.
> He is able to condense so much complexity into his works, and he speaks to the heart as equally as he speaks to the intellect.
Just to add to that-- the complexity of Bach is something like going half-way around the circle of fifths in the middle of a long fugue in G#-minor. And he does this not just for kicks, but because this is one in a 24-part polemic to push other composers/musicians to use his favored equal temperament tuning system. "Using my system, you too can visit foreign keys with confidence and ease! Never sound out of tune again!" That's the whole point of Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier.[1]
Similarly, Mozart's complexity was taking a social issue-- like egalitarianism-- and sneaking it into an opera by quickly composing 3 dances of different classes (and meters!) to be performed concurrently on the stage. Apparently he cued the on-stage musicians for each dance when he conducted the premiere of Don Giovanni.
I mention the latter because Bach's favored textures were thick and busy, and Mozart's tended toward light and effervescent. There's a tendency to confuse texture with deeper musical complexity, and that can lead people to overlook Mozart's contributions and/or give Bach credit for the wrong things.
1: Lazy theory-- Bach wrote Book I so the keyboardist could tune first using equal temperament, then choose any key and sound in tune. But most collections of pieces (e.g., dance suites) were all in the same key anyway, so this wasn't much of a practical advantage. However, if he modulated to various keys in a single piece, then those keys would sound poor in just intonation. Then the musician would be forced to use equal temperament to play the piece! Unfortunately, not all of the fugues in Book II are as harmonically adventuresome as the G#-minor fugue, so a lazy theory it remains.
I disagree; I find many of Bach’s compositions to be devoid of heart, just intellectual in some mathematical way.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy many of his compositions for what they are. The thing about music and many other arts is that it is a fools errand to attempt to give them a total ordering; there are things to enjoy about wildly differing styles of music that I think people do a disservice to themselves being restrictive.
For example, some don’t like classical music because they say it’s not danceable. Well, duh it’s mostly not, but that’s not the point of it. It about enjoying the melodies and harmony and structure.
So one can compare art on specific axes, but to say such and such is the greatest composer is kind of meaningless to me.
Something I have always been interested about, but sort of afraid to ask because it is a VERY small jump to unintended racism...
Are there any composers from other cultures that come close to doing what Bach (and Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc) did? Like, I want to hear the Japanese equivalent of the Brandenburg Concertos or Mass in B Minor, all guns blazing. Don't tell me "well, it's the space between the notes that matter..." just overwhelm me with genius that is self-evident the second the music starts. I have a few theories, but haven't really researched it.
I listened to them the other day, and I can't say I find them interesting additions to the Bach repertoire, certainly not in comparison to works that date to just a few years later.
My absolute personal favourite is Toccata and Fugue played by organist Hans-André Stamm on the Trost-Organ of the Stadtkirche in Waltershausen [1]. Great videography, great organ and very expressive organist. From 3:28 on you can also see the foot work.
17 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 25.7 ms ] threadJust to add to that-- the complexity of Bach is something like going half-way around the circle of fifths in the middle of a long fugue in G#-minor. And he does this not just for kicks, but because this is one in a 24-part polemic to push other composers/musicians to use his favored equal temperament tuning system. "Using my system, you too can visit foreign keys with confidence and ease! Never sound out of tune again!" That's the whole point of Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier.[1]
Similarly, Mozart's complexity was taking a social issue-- like egalitarianism-- and sneaking it into an opera by quickly composing 3 dances of different classes (and meters!) to be performed concurrently on the stage. Apparently he cued the on-stage musicians for each dance when he conducted the premiere of Don Giovanni.
I mention the latter because Bach's favored textures were thick and busy, and Mozart's tended toward light and effervescent. There's a tendency to confuse texture with deeper musical complexity, and that can lead people to overlook Mozart's contributions and/or give Bach credit for the wrong things.
1: Lazy theory-- Bach wrote Book I so the keyboardist could tune first using equal temperament, then choose any key and sound in tune. But most collections of pieces (e.g., dance suites) were all in the same key anyway, so this wasn't much of a practical advantage. However, if he modulated to various keys in a single piece, then those keys would sound poor in just intonation. Then the musician would be forced to use equal temperament to play the piece! Unfortunately, not all of the fugues in Book II are as harmonically adventuresome as the G#-minor fugue, so a lazy theory it remains.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy many of his compositions for what they are. The thing about music and many other arts is that it is a fools errand to attempt to give them a total ordering; there are things to enjoy about wildly differing styles of music that I think people do a disservice to themselves being restrictive.
For example, some don’t like classical music because they say it’s not danceable. Well, duh it’s mostly not, but that’s not the point of it. It about enjoying the melodies and harmony and structure.
So one can compare art on specific axes, but to say such and such is the greatest composer is kind of meaningless to me.
Are there any composers from other cultures that come close to doing what Bach (and Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc) did? Like, I want to hear the Japanese equivalent of the Brandenburg Concertos or Mass in B Minor, all guns blazing. Don't tell me "well, it's the space between the notes that matter..." just overwhelm me with genius that is self-evident the second the music starts. I have a few theories, but haven't really researched it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnuq9PXbywA&list=RDNnuq9PXby...
A system for buying arrangements of the Well-Tempered Clavier for any combination of instruments:
welltemperedconsort.com