How can I move on from Bach?

Originally Posted by Classical.Rocker

Bach > everyone.

Bach was the one who taught God how to play the guitar. True Fact.

Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by Zetetic

The thing is though, even all these instruments don't make Bach sound anything like Beethoven. If they did, I probably wouldn't like him as much. It's likely that the emptiness you perceive in Bach's instrumentation is precisely what I appreciate, and the oversaturation I hear in thick orchestration is precisely what makes you adore Beethoven. It's just about taste.

Thank god you finally understand .

"arguing on the internet forum is like competing in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded."

sorry couldn't help it.

Originally Posted by johnsamuelpike

I would advise you not to force yourself in any direction. Let your heart decide what to love.

Sometimes your heart can be stupid...

Use your brain, think about what you like and try and find things similar to the style of music that you enjoy. If you don't like it on first listen, usually you won't THAT interested in it.

lol

and thirdly that the sole purpose of good art is to reveal emotion.

Who are you to a) distinguish between "good" and "bad" art, and then say with great confidence that the sole purpose of art is to reveal emotion? How do paintings during the industrial age reveal emotion? How does a work by Feldman, a work by Cage, a work by Stockhausen reveal emotion? Even so, if I told maelstrom that some pieces by Schoenberg and Webern are highly emotional, he wouldn't like them. Even if I told him they are more emotional than a Bach piece or a Beethoven piece.

And you can't really call Feldman, Cage, Stockhausen, Schoenberg or Webern "non artists".

emotion is easier to contrive with more instruments and more chords

Again, says who? Do you think a symphony by Haydn has more to offer than an improvisation by Keith Jarrett? Why should it? Just because it's pre-thought, with 50 times the instruments than the Keith Jarret improvisation? I think "emotion" (in music in which emotion exists anyway - I don't think Bach wrote with "emotion" in mind either) is unrelated to the amount of chords (what about music that is not about chords? what about music that is not about notes/pitches, even? Can't music like that be "emotional" or even "artistic"?) and the amount of instruments used. In contrary, I could argue largely that it is, in fact, easier to convey emotion with as less instruments as possible, since you don't have to overburden yourself and your mind with sooo many writing details for all the instruments, so you can concentrate on the "emotion" itself.

Originally Posted by darkwonderer18

"arguing on the internet forum is like competing in the special olympics. even if you win, you're still retarded."

sorry couldn't help it.

It's 1995, my name is Al Gore, and welcome to the internet.

Perhaps you would like to make a Spice Girls reference next?

Originally Posted by jujimufu

lol Who are you to a) distinguish between "good" and "bad" art, and then say with great confidence that the sole purpose of art is to reveal emotion?

I assume you were referring to what I posted. You may have read it rather speedily and become inflamed without considering the (admittedly slightly confusing) syntax:

"The three statements that confuse me are firstly that Bach's music was mainly focussed on rhythm ... and thirdly that the sole purpose of good art is to reveal emotion."

I then shortly after wrote that:

"What does confuse me however is the idea that emotion is the sole virtue of music. Is there not more to it than that?"

I think we're probably in agreement.

Originally Posted by jujimufu

In contrary, I could argue largely that it is, in fact, easier to convey emotion with as less instruments as possible.

Again. I never claimed anything to the contrary. I said that I thought it was probably easier to contrive emotion with more instruments. When it comes to generating emotion that's plausible, it's probably equally difficult with any sized ensemble. Also, the fact you'd want to contradict me just for the sake of it seems rather counterproductive. I'm more interested in arriving at what I find most believable. You win the argument.

Originally Posted by jujimufu

Who are you to a) distinguish between "good" and "bad" art, and then say with great confidence that the sole purpose of art is to reveal emotion? How do paintings during the industrial age reveal emotion? How does a work by Feldman, a work by Cage, a work by Stockhausen reveal emotion?

I think this was also a product of speed-reading. I later retracted that statement:

And the part about emotion being solely what composers write for... again, I was slightly wrong in saying that. There usually is a meaning and purpose behind the music and that's what I meant.

All that you people are doing really is taking bits and pieces of what I said out of context and blowing them out of proportion. But what should I expect from you people

And who are you to say that the sole purpose of good art is not to convey emotion? When you look at it, "good art" is a matter of opinion and nothing else. Now, you'll probably parse this to mean something else... but what can I do. All I can ask of you is to read this carefully. Now as I was saying, you have as much right to call my opinion wrong as I have to call your opinion wrong too. If my opinion was to say that sitting on a toilet is artistic and you do not believe so, that is fine and you can call it wrong. The same goes if your opinion is that Schoenberg and Webern infuse meaning into their works; I can call that wrong too. In the end, who is right? Neither of us; in this scenario, there is no such thing as right or wrong. It is opinion.

And Zetetic, I think we are ALL in agreement. Its just that some people like to quote fragments of original posts and then make a huge ruckus: "oh emotion emotion emotion emotion". If you were to read my later posts, you would see that I actually was referring to a certain level of meaning.

Zetetic: sorry, yeah, I misread your post.. We do agree on that.

Ignoring pretty much everything that's been written in this thread (except the "special olympics" comment.. THAT got a guffaw from me), I'd suggest the following:

Define what it is you LIKE about Bach.

Is it the fugues?

If so, look for other composers who have composed fugues and listen to those. There are MANY post-bachian composers who wrote fugues, and some of them true masterpieces, right up into the 20th century, and beyond.

Is it the instrumentations?

If so, then try to find music that is for similar ensembles. If you really like Bach's vocal music, then find other vocal music to listen to. His Cantatas? Look for other pieces in similar form. His orchestral music? then look for music that is written for a smaller orchestral ensemble.


The only other thing I can suggest is to simply LISTEN to music! Go and listen to pieces suggested by other people.