JS Bach

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

nup
Last edited by woggle on Sun Dec 28, 2014 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:If you compare the Complete Editions of Mozart and Bach, they are both around 170 Cds.
It took Mozart 35 years vs Bach 65 years to accomplish that.

So i must say they both are great but Bach was a lot slower;-D
It's about quality, not quantity.
Ah thanks for reminding me of Mozarts lousy quality :clown:

Post

Sampleconstruct wrote:But at Bach's time CDs were still recorded in 8 Bit at 11 Khz, so he actually produced twice as much compared to Mozart, no?
and because of the famous Barock converters back then it sounds a lot better than these crappy analog recordings from today. :ud:

Post

Stanoli wrote:
spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:If you compare the Complete Editions of Mozart and Bach, they are both around 170 Cds.
It took Mozart 35 years vs Bach 65 years to accomplish that.

So i must say they both are great but Bach was a lot slower;-D
It's about quality, not quantity.
Ah thanks for reminding me of Mozarts lousy quality :clown:
That's ok. I know people often forget he was a bit pants :hihi:
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:
spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:If you compare the Complete Editions of Mozart and Bach, they are both around 170 Cds.
It took Mozart 35 years vs Bach 65 years to accomplish that.

So i must say they both are great but Bach was a lot slower;-D
It's about quality, not quantity.
Ah thanks for reminding me of Mozarts lousy quality :clown:
That's ok. I know people often forget he was a bit pants :hihi:
Man, if I had to choose between Mozart and Bach Complete Editions, I`d take Mozarts in a heartbeat.
Having said that, I own and enjoy both. :phones:

Post

2ZrgE wrote:"Then, I started to realize that they actually made sense, and that Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and others sounded much more coherent. Suddenly, all those ornaments that many interpreters just played wrong, started to fit right in the music."

That's not an expression of preference, but of superiority. With Bach of course it's much easier to prove one's cultural elitism that with Mozart e.g.
That you need to characterize it so bellicosely suggests you're defensive about something, you had a bad experience with someone somewhere, something, which needn't apply here. See if you can give someone space enough to think differently than you do.
You run the risk with such a strawmanning modus operandi of revealing your own attitude, only projected.

I focused on JS Bach for a little while and became interested in the performance practice. I wasn't going to assert superiority over anyone in that milieu, I just was interested in it once I'd done a little research (writing a paper, for the purpose of enhancing my performance, which was crucial to me remaining there, I believed.).
There are things to know about it and one may well come to a point where the particular aspects, the weight/the rhythm/the tension and resolution in the expression of ornaments seem more integral to the musical line or the harmony, the musical thought, than other, less thought-through approaches.

Post

My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:
spaceman wrote:
Stanoli wrote:If you compare the Complete Editions of Mozart and Bach, they are both around 170 Cds.
It took Mozart 35 years vs Bach 65 years to accomplish that.

So i must say they both are great but Bach was a lot slower;-D
It's about quality, not quantity.
Ah thanks for reminding me of Mozarts lousy quality :clown:
That's ok. I know people often forget he was a bit pants :hihi:
i've heard that his lesser known stuff can get a lot more interesting than his "greatest hits", if you will.
won't say that stuff sucks, but it all has a bit of that "classical muzak" stench to it nowadays...i blame classical music radio uppity posers! :lol:

i'm sure when they were fresh his smash hits were hella inspirational and uplifting to most everyone.

bach does somehow seem beyond all that...it seems noteworthy considering how omnipresent he still is. not that easily overplayable.

Post

Mozart was commercial, he had to have hits in order to be viable and make money. JS Bach had a day job and his god was, well, God.
Mozart clearly the most advanced musician known for that time. This was long before the notion 'avant-garde' was anything but Wolfie made some things people did not agree with. In all probability, I think, there are times where he is deliberately crafting things for wider acceptance and occasionally getting himself off primarily.

I think because of his influence, on far lesser lights, we hear a kind of wash of this style in the cafes that play fast coffee wake-up music. I can't stand it, actually, a lot of quite mediocre music survived from the time somehow.
Which is, or is the same as, classical radio which isn't always programmed as carefully as I would like. At least for me, I am overexposed to these things surrounding that oeuvre. It's too much V-I for a long time for me, I have to say I more or less skip from JS Bach to late romanticism if not Debussy.

I saw the CCM production of Magic Flute when I was at school and this was a sort of innovative production and the talent was the very top drawer. With opera, it really is a live type of event that records are but a facsimile of. Such as, I'm not likely to want to hear all of Richard Strauss Salome at one time, but in the theater it's simply captivating. But here again, I skip half a century mainly because of the predictability of the harmonic language. JS Bach for me has an interest that transcends that consideration.

Post

fmr wrote:
2ZrgE wrote: To put it mildly, you seem like one those guys who read as much about music as they listen to, and then reproduce what they read with snobby academic rhetorics (or did you come up with your remarks about historically informed performance by yourself?)
No, I didn't come up with anything all by myself, since I wasn't born knowledgeable, therefore, I had to acquire every knowledge I have, and I am still learning. And yes, besides listening and playing, I also read and study a lot about music, which seems not to be the case with you.

Have all the fun you can playing Bach. That's what matters, anyway :tu:
Let me ask you a question: Do you have fun playing Bach? Because my strong opinion always was that you really get a deep understanding of music if you actually are able to play it.

I won't comment on your rather irritating comments about my educational background, since it's the Internet and anyone can claim anything without having the obligation to prove it. So any hint about my musical or academical foundation would be useless anyway. :clown:

Anyways, I want to take the opportunty to apologize for my harsh comments concerning your remarks.

BTT: Accidentally I stumbled upon some nice Bach transcription the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rTnFxPJODc



Now we could continue the discussion whether transcriptions of Bach's work are legitimate or not... :wink:


Some nice thought about that topic here.

Post

herodotus wrote: People who need to actually hear it to appreciate it are poseurs.
OK with you if I sig this ? Pretty darn funny . . .
expert only on what it feels like to be me
https://soundcloud.com/mrnatural-1/tracks

Post

Why it would make any sense to judge them by comparing their composition rates :lol: is beyond me, but in my humble opinion it's undeniable that the one who came first was indeed an important influence on Wolfgang Amadeus and many others of the greats that followed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-DCjOBpa9E

Post

I'm appalled to see that nobody here knows that about half of the music made by J.S. Bach is lost.
"A pig that doesn't fly is just a pig."

Post

Very few (as in, almost none) baroque composers still sound as current as Bach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bRZxGJ8SYs
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”