How can I move on from Bach?

Originally Posted by maelstromtempest

no, they write because they want to express, and like I have said a MILLION times, this is my friggin opinion.
[...]
I know for a fact that every composer has tried to infuse a certain level of meaning in their pieces

See, I think the problem is that while you keep repeating that it's just your opinion, you say things in a way as if they are universal facts. "I know for a fact" and "it's just my opinion" just don't mix too well.

Originally Posted by maelstromtempest

Do they write music because they WANT to write counterpoint. Do they write music because they WANT to have an oboe and clarinet playing some random notes? no, they write because they want to express...

Ummm, sorry to be a difficult sod here, but are you sure about that one?

Why must everything be about 'self expression', about getting out all of your feelings that you cannot possibly express in words and so must do so in music, or about fulfilling a calling that you feel to bring your massively self expressive music to the world? Can one not write music because one simply wants to write music? I love writing counterpoint, I like the feeling of writing something - something not necessarily remotely self expressive - and going to the piano, playing it, and enjoying the fact that I've created something - even if it is just an exercise in two part counterpoint. It may not be a symphony, but it's still certainly writing music.

My 2 pence - none of this foreign stuff

Heh, whatever you say. No, but seriously, I was just trying to be helpful and some people are just trying to be difficult. If I say something that you don't agree with, that doesn't necessarily mean that you are right too. You may be right. Oh well. Fine.

The internet is funny

Have fun, kid

Feldman's music has no "meaning", nothing to "express". Why should we like Feldman's music less than Mahlers?

Originally Posted by maelstromtempest

exactly. Its my opinion. I've said that enough. When I said: "just chords" I meant that it was strictly a variation on a theme and that it lacked emotion for me. I am not going to get into an argument/discussion because it is my opinion and I am entitled to that, if nothing else.

Beethoven wrote Theme and Variation pieces....

The finales of TWO of his better known symphonies are Theme and Variations.

Originally Posted by SSC

Says you~

If it's dead, then so is tonal harmony, counterpoint, ETC ETC ETC. No music style dies, it just falls out of fashion. No composition technique dies, it just gets less use.

More over, my problem with this guy's post was the Rhythmic Bach thing, like I pointed out. I don't care what he considers emotional, I could as well consider a Toyota more emotional than Mozart's sonatas. That doesn't mean anything so I'm not even going there.

Either way, again with rating people on imaginary scales. Why the shit is John Williams worse or better than Beethoven? What kind of objective parameters are we using here? Oh, none? I thought so. If you hated the thing with this guy's passion for Tchaikovsky based on whatever parameters you thought silly, I'd like to hear YOUR argument as to why Williams is worse than Beethoven, since apparently you think the comparison is ridiculous.

SSC, are you the kid that goes to Stanford and studies with Bryan Fernihough (sorry I probably butchered his name)? I think I may be thinking of someone else. Either, I have something to say to you about your posts.

All your posts, for the most part, come off as incredibly hostile and just dripping with vitriol. Not to mention the amount of profanity you use in every single one of your posts. Honestly, is that necessary? Now as far as my post, I don't need to explain with Beethoven is Beethoven, and John Williams is John Williams, you're just trying to start an argument over nothing to get your rocks off. I don't have time to argue with you on something so insipid. Never did I say John Williams is bad, by the way. In the mean time, watch your mouth. Spouting "shit" and "fuck" all the time in every single of one of your posts doesn't exactly make you come across as mature or collected.

k thx bye.

No, you're thinking of someone else, and I'll use as much profanity as I feel is necessary to properly convey may statements. There are times where profanity is great, and times where it isn't.

And, for that matter, I come off incredibly hostile because I have very little tolerance for blanket-statements which don't mean anything. Also? Way to backpedal out of the junk you said, but you know what? It's fine, like you said, I don't care for arguing about insipid things, which less with someone who can't stand by what they say and instead choose to use personal attacks to backpedal out of a potentially disastrous argument.

Case to point:

Originally Posted by gms5287

Throwing someone into the world of John Cage and Milton Babbitt is NOT going to help someone like 20th century-present music. Seriously. That whole era of post 1945 Avant-Garde is dead, and thankfully it lived a short life

And I come off as hostile, imagine that.

Originally Posted by gms5287

Thanks, I just can't stand that sometimes. People that mentality are the same people that think John Williams is the modern day Beethoven. Seriously, someone told me that yesterday, A MUSIC MAJOR. Ludwig Van is probably still vomiting in his grave.


PS: Nothing against John Williams of course but.......come on!

If that isn't a comparison and subsequent assumption of Beethoven's superiority over Williams based on "come on" grounds, I don't know what is.

So, you know. Before you go off talking about how much profanity I use, think that at least I don't go claiming entire styles of music are dead, much less trying to establish some inherent superiority of X composer over Y composer.

My guess is? You were just angry when you posted the stuff you posted, and you said some things that were best worded differently. No need to go off on me like that, yes?

Besides, this is derailing this thread enough already, so enough of this nonsense.

Right. This is getting ridiculous, and I think it's largely because people are just pouring themselves out onto the keyboard without actually thinking through what they're saying. Maelstromtempest's error, as far as I can detect, is not that he likes Beethoven. That he prefers Beethoven to Bach is inconsequential. Asking him incredulously, "haven't you heard BWV XYZ?!" is not going to change that. The three statements that confuse me are firstly that Bach's music was mainly focussed on rhythm, rather than harmony (this seems bizarre, but others have picked up that thread and it doesn't really interest me), secondly that Bach was 'less emotional' than Beethoven, and thirdly that the sole purpose of good art is to reveal emotion. Now, if somebody fails to be moved by the work of a composer on any level from the first instance, there's little I can do to address the second point. I don't care that somebody prefers Beethoven to Bach; as I see it, emotion is easier to contrive with more instruments and more chords, but often becomes just that - contrived.

What does confuse me however is the idea that emotion is the sole virtue of music. Is there not more to it than that? To reveal the skill of the composer, for example? To reveal inner truths about mankind? To glorify God? Many of these aspects can only be detected on closer analysis of a score, yet I consider their merit equal, if not greater to that of instant, emotional gratification.

Mozart and Haydn wrote beautiful, lightweight music, but writing about it and analysing it is so much less satisfying than analysing the Art of Fugue. Even Bach's pedagogical works are rife with symbolism, messages and meaning. In my opinion, this adds an additional dimension to musical appreciation that amazes me. To be able to write a six part motet with only two bars of music? To write a fugue that functions perfectly both back-to-front and upside-down? Bach wrote both these as gifts, to friends, on scraps of paper. One is on what appears to be a tablecloth.

This genius gives only the slightest indication as to the power contained in that music which actually meant something to Bach. It is astounding in sound, in scope, on paper and in analysis. I feel a certain sadness contemplating what Bach's life must have been like. He must have felt terribly isolated, perhaps finding solice in his family, music and God alone.

I also think Bach's live must've been pretty lonely in an artistic sense. He was pretty much against the new "fashion" at the time, being the last to really keep the counterpoint tradition with the inaudible symbolisms and etc. He was considered old fashion, passé, etc. Poor guy really, he was a victim of trendiness in the end.