Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

I will be the first one to say that J.S. Bach is my favorite overall composer, Partita No.2, Chaccone is my favorite piece, but what specifically makes his music great, influential, and worth all the recognition? How would you explain this to a musician and a nonmusician?

Views: 4052

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

speaking of sh!tposts........the prize goes to....  Hannibal Dexter    snort snort guffaw

you are a piece of work( or is it a piece of something else )
 
Dave Dexter said:

Unless they are on a suspended forum member operating under a new account. In which case they might be considered germane, you shitposting cunt you! Rodney was bang on my side when I got you suspended last time so I suspect he'll tolerate these diversions

Serenity Laine said:

People must know by now that ad hominem attacks on fellow forum members are simply diversionary and totally irrelevant.

..but why employ the keenest rapier at a task for which a plastic spork is more than sufficient?

roger stancill said:


I fully expect you to whip out you sharpest rapier and cut me to shreds, but..

Kristofer Emerig said:

Oh please, let's not be so coy. Of course we want to expound in ever and ever finer minutiae, for each extraneous detail warrants several even more excruciatingly inane citations, like the heads of the Hydra all branched and nested in an unbound tangle of confusion.

Why, with twenty four idle hours in each day to be filled, should you stop at all?

Serenity Laine said:

 though we might want to spell out some of these connections in more detail. 



Once again, your kindness is overwhelming and your grace unmatched.

Thank you thank you thank you.

yawn, that was predictable and 1 of 2 responses I expected.

I guess I really should be grateful that your highness even took the time at all.

It is truly an honor.  Just ask Fred.
Kristofer Emerig said:

..but why employ the keenest rapier at a task for which a plastic spork is more than sufficient?

roger stancill said:


I fully expect you to whip out you sharpest rapier and cut me to shreds, but..

Kristofer Emerig said:

Oh please, let's not be so coy. Of course we want to expound in ever and ever finer minutiae, for each extraneous detail warrants several even more excruciatingly inane citations, like the heads of the Hydra all branched and nested in an unbound tangle of confusion.

Why, with twenty four idle hours in each day to be filled, should you stop at all?

Serenity Laine said:

 though we might want to spell out some of these connections in more detail. 


I just noticed that the Volume entitled Bach and God takes up in Part IV, the issue of "Religious Expression in Secular Chamber Music."  Chapter 7 is entitled,  "The Theological Character of Bach's Musical Offering..."  According to one description of the book, "Bach & God explores the religious character of Bach's vocal and instrumental music in seven interrelated essays. Noted musicologist Michael Marissen offers wide-ranging interpretive insights from careful biblical and theological scrutiny of the librettos. Yet he also shows how Bach's pitches, rhythms, and tone colors can make contributions to a work's plausible meanings that go beyond setting texts in an aesthetically satisfying manner ..."   "...Finally, even Bach's secular instrumental music, particularly the late collections of 'abstract' learned counterpoint, can powerfully project certain elements of traditional Lutheran theology. Bach's music is inexhaustible, and Bach & God suggests that through close contextual study there is always more to discover and learn."

This is good to know.  I am unsure about the issue of "traditional" Lutheran theology, especially as it pertains to our understanding of the wider philosophical implications of Bach's work for the ages, and his belief in God's inspiration.  I don't know if it resonates with many Italian, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean performers of Bach's music.

[As a side note, I embrace tolerance.  It's a bit odd for someone who wants to censor or evict others to express concern or hope that he will be tolerated.  I am all for tolerance, in matters of musicology, and in matters pertaining to speech in most forums.  An article recently appeared in "The New Yorker:"   "Bach’s Holy Dread The composer has long been seen as a symbol of divine order. But his music has an unruly obsession with God," it begins. There is some discussion of "tolerance" in this article, and I have to stress the fact that, according to the author, tolerance is preferable to compulsion, generally.  I do agree.]  

Next let us study BWV 211 and learn of Bach's profound reverence for caffeine.

The citations from Bach and God (some of which seems to be lifted from Schweitzer) do not address the question of whether or not the quality of Bach's music stems from god or from Bach's own technical skill.

It can't very well come from god since neither you or anyone else is able to provide objective evidence that such as fanciful creature exists.

Since when theological speculation can pass as serious musicology?

So, for us atheists there is no hope to ever know the essence of Bach's music then?

Oh well, who cares about essence (if there is any extra-musical as such). I still can enjoy it all the same.



Serenity Laine said:

I just noticed that the Volume entitled Bach and God takes up in Part IV, the issue of "Religious Expression in Secular Chamber Music."  Chapter 7 is entitled,  "The Theological Character of Bach's Musical Offering..."  According to one description of the book, "Bach & God explores the religious character of Bach's vocal and instrumental music in seven interrelated essays. Noted musicologist Michael Marissen offers wide-ranging interpretive insights from careful biblical and theological scrutiny of the librettos. Yet he also shows how Bach's pitches, rhythms, and tone colors can make contributions to a work's plausible meanings that go beyond setting texts in an aesthetically satisfying manner ..."   "...Finally, even Bach's secular instrumental music, particularly the late collections of 'abstract' learned counterpoint, can powerfully project certain elements of traditional Lutheran theology. Bach's music is inexhaustible, and Bach & God suggests that through close contextual study there is always more to discover and learn."

This is good to know.  I am unsure about the issue of "traditional" Lutheran theology, especially as it pertains to our understanding of the wider philosophical implications of Bach's work for the ages, and his belief in God's inspiration.  I don't know if it resonates with many Italian, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Korean performers of Bach's music.

[As a side note, I embrace tolerance.  It's a bit odd for someone who wants to censor or evict others to express concern or hope that he will be tolerated.  I am all for tolerance, in matters of musicology, and in matters pertaining to speech in most forums.  An article recently appeared in "The New Yorker:"   "Bach’s Holy Dread The composer has long been seen as a symbol of divine order. But his music has an unruly obsession with God," it begins. There is some discussion of "tolerance" in this article, and I have to stress the fact that, according to the author, tolerance is preferable to compulsion, generally.  I do agree.]  

M. zinos said, in effect, that the citations from Bach and God ...  do not address the question of whether or not the quality of Bach's music stems from God or from Bach's own technical skill. Why is this put in terms of an "either/or?"  The book itself, in detail, addresses the issue as a case where a great composer's work is produced by both the qualitative skill of the artist and the inspiration he receives, and many other factors.   I still haven't seen an explanation for the insistence on a false dichotomy.  In fact, choosing between the two would appear unnecessary.  [Incidentally:  There were no actual citations from the book.  I merely quoted one commentator on the book, "Bach and God." If you are going to participate in the discussion, please pay attention.] 

Aesthetic realities are not as simple as physical realities, and cannot be described so easily by equations.  I don't see how any particular performance by Bach, on his own organ, on any given day,  could be analyzed to discover how much of its "quality" was determined by any single factor.   How much was due to his musical training, his genetic endowments, what he had done or studied during the previous month, or what he had for breakfast that morning?  Determining God's precise role in any particular act of composition would be even more difficult, as hard as trying to discover how your mother or your father's love affected your personal developments and achievements at any given hour, on any given day, in any month or year.

Yet no one denies the importance or existence of "love" or similar intangibles.

To say, inspiration or some quality inherent in any work, "cannot come" from God, is simply to assert a lack of awareness of God on the conscious level.   You speak of "objective" evidence, which implies more than one type of evidence.   But the "evidence" for such things as mentioned previously, the qualities of love, kindness, compassion, wisdom and above all—THE EVIDENCE OF BEAUTY—in the music of Bach, and elsewhere is an issue you still avoid.  You can repeat the phrase "objective evidence," "objective evidence," "objective evidence," over and over, the way a mocking bird or a parrot repeats musical phrases.  You can do this as many times as you like.  The phrase does itself imply that there are other types of evidence, and proofs, which are not quantifiable in the way that Maxwell's, Planck's, and De Broglie's descriptions of physical reality quantify.  (And even those involve considerable nuance, as regards their exact meaning, in determining what "matter" is, and how it functions on the sub atomic level).  What kind of evidence do you offer for saying a thing is good, moral or beautiful?  It certainly cannot be "objective," in the narrow and scientific sense.  What is your response to the yet unanswered question, "how do you 'prove,' using measurements and data, that the most important things in life exist and can be quantified, such as 'the sublime,' the 'good,' generosity and beneficence?"  I don't see why you consistently avoid this type of question, unless you cannot answer it, or unless it puts a kink in your argument. Can you even demonstrate that Bach's music is good, "using information based on facts that can be proved by means of analysis, measurement, and observation." [words used to describe "objective evidence."]  I do not think you can.  I don't believe anyone can.  There must be another kind of evidence, which is not "objective."

 

 

 

 

I'm a phuka putz.



roger stancill said:

speaking of sh!tposts........the prize goes to....  Hannibal Dexter    snort snort guffaw

you are a piece of work( or is it a piece of something else )
 
Dave Dexter said:

Unless they are on a suspended forum member operating under a new account. In which case they might be considered germane, you shitposting cunt you! Rodney was bang on my side when I got you suspended last time so I suspect he'll tolerate these diversions

Serenity Laine said:

People must know by now that ad hominem attacks on fellow forum members are simply diversionary and totally irrelevant.

Serenity,

We poor atheists can't win if we are lacking awareness of god on a conscious level can we? Thank Dawkins  I am aware of Beauty, truth love, lager, hope, kindness etc.

Perhaps you are 'romanticising' the creative act and its source a little too much.

Bach may well have believed in God, but I would bet my mothers statue of Mary that once he started with (say) a theme for contrapuntal treatment, the last thing on his mind would be anything spiritual simply because the discipline at hand has to have  a cool head.

Have you ever studied in depth the disciplines Bach practised? If you had, you would soon realise that the deep familiarity you acquire with the notes themselves, whilst working contrapuntally, is enough to open the door to flowing musical thought or inspiration, without any help from 'above'. With such familiarity allied to awesome technique, the choice of which notes and procedures to use at first becomes an embarrassment of riches and then once settled upon, a powerful inevitability.

His reasons for starting a piece may well be spiritual, but when the quill touched the ms, that's when tangible musical woo woo started.

To say, inspiration or some quality inherent in any work, "cannot come" from God, is simply to assert a lack of awareness of God on the conscious level.  

You have been plaintive on the subject of my "ad hominem" attacks as "irrelevant" and "diversionary" from the original topic. Thing is, I AM tolerated; I just wanted to assure you that in all likelihood the forum member who began this topic is ok with my irrelevant diversionary ad hominem on the subject of OO/Laine and you needn't be concerned for the sanctity of the thread.

In any case, as Olmnilnolm you posted irrelevant diversion on topics - I'm surprised you find it this distasteful.



Serenity Laine said:

It's a bit odd for someone who wants to censor or evict others to express concern or hope that he will be tolerated.

Serenity. you post page after page of blather but never ever ever get to the point. That point is this: that to assert that god has anything to do with you Bach's musical output you must first provide objective evidence there is a god.

Like most religious people I've met, you want to first assume there is a god and then proceed to demonstrate how god works in people's lives. I and most likely a large contingent of rational people will not allow that assumption.

Do what I've asked and what is required. Provide objective evidence of the existence of your deity and you will have gone a some distance in your assertion about the origin of Bach's music. Until then, as Christopher Hitchens used to say "all of your work is still ahead of you."

Why do you guys attempt time and again to have meaningful discussion with a deliberate troll?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by Chris Merritt.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service