Oh my! I find Bach easy to listen. His music soothes my soul, comforts me and moves me. Gives a meaning to life somehow. But it is ok to have different opinions. I respect it and find it sincere and genuine. Thank you.The music it's all about ourselves. As any kind of experience in life I think. We experience a travel, a relation differently.
Something to keep in mind that is that the Bach adoration is very strong among musicians. And not just classical musicians, either. Jazz musicians adore Bach probably more than any other classical composer (if you added some syncopation to the violin sonatas and partitas, a lot of it would sound pretty close to bebop). You're unquestionably correct that his music is dense and complex, but it's precisely those qualities that leave musicians in awe. Everyone who's ever taken an introductory harmony class has been forced to write 4-part chorales, and everyone who's taken a counterpoint class has been forced to write an invention followed by a fugue. Most of us do them badly. But Bach is just impossibly great at those things. And unlike a lot of later composers, he does not have a bunch of unpredictable modulations, or harmonic movement that defies any kind of conventional analysis. Everything can be explained relatively easy using conventional classroom methods, but it's still inexplicable how any one human could have come up with it all. Musicians love to admire things they can't do, and nobody can do certain things better than Bach. It is also true that musicians, when listening to other people's music, can lose the forest for the trees. They also have a much higher tolerance for "eating your vegetables" than most audiences. I think a good analogy is Shakespeare. It's a truism to call him the best writer in the English language, just like it's a truism to call Bach the greatest composer. And writers today, even ones writing in a completely different style, can still be in awe at how he was able to write these wonderfully complex plays while remaining almost entirely in iambic pentameter. And there are certainly lots of people who love Shakespeare, read a ton of it, attend the plays, etc. But if you were to inject truth serum into someone and force them to answer, would the majority of people really say that Shakespeare is their favorite author, or even in their top five favorite authors? Probably not, and there's no shame at all in admitting that.
As a musician, being both a pianist and composer, I can certainly appreciate complexity; my problem is when the complexity draws attention to itself and stands in the way of my enjoyment of the musical expression. That has always been my main problem with Bach. When I am in the rare mood to respond to intricate intellectual processes for their own sake, I'll gladly listen to Bach, just as I'll gladly listen to Stravinsky. But most of the time I prefer not to be made so painfully aware of the wheels turning around in a piece of music.
Great comment. It's interesting where that admiration meets enjoyment and emotional response. He was intelligent, he was a very hard and serious worker, but he also had all the musical sensitivity, excitement and such profound creativity. He was a good listener as well. Charlie Parkers lines were not only right, they were true as well. Bach was not only the greatest musical genius, but he had soul as well, and he knew the blues. But I guess that's also part of him being the greatest. (I've always found the Andante from BWV1041 to be very bluesy, just like the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th)
Don't know if I agree, I'm a composer myself, he's smart, but musically speaking, his music lacks a lot of character and personality for me, Stravinsky, Ravel, even Brahms and Wagner are examples of composers that expressed something to me and have great richness of orchestration, form, etc. Tbh I just don't like most music before Beethoven, and even including Beethoven, for me things got really good somewhere in the XIX century when it acquired a bit more richness, but lost itself somewhere at the middle of the XXth century (Schoenberg was great, Ginastera was amazing, Berg was great, Webern was ok, Messiaen was good, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and many others weren't good at all)
@@musicfriendly12 i guess youre refering to Schoenberg's pre atonal music. Cause after that its just unlistenable, pointlessly ugly and dissonant all the time.
I have a similar confession: I have tried for years to really be moved by much of Mozart’s music. It’s beautiful and some of it reaches me in a deep place. But overall I’m not the fan of his compositions I feel I’m supposed to be. I often listen to Mozart more out a sense of duty than pleasure. Bach, on the other hand, engages me on every level I can think of. I guess we are all simply wired differently regarding what stuff floats our boat and what music confuses us as to why anyone would be that delighted to listen to it.
@@keybawd4023 It's Ok to prefer some composers to others. Musical cults don't matter. Mahler, Bruckner or Wagner. I don't like music because a cult says I should but because I do. I may like some Bach more than others. But I like what I like. Some Schubert I can leave alone; others I love. Same with Bach.
It is fascinating because I am essentially the opposite. I can listen to Mozart for hours on end but I cannot enjoy Bach for more than a brief period at a time. I understand and respect the music but it doesn't move me like Mozart. Goes to show how music can mean something completely different to each person!
This happens to me with Mozart. With the exception of a couple of operas and concertos, the rest doesn't move me much. We all have major composers we do not particularly care about, an it's OK.
@@ornleifs oh goodness! Can’t argue with peoples tastes no no, but (and my relationship with certain things of Bach is the same) over the decades I have had an almost stealth realisation that Mozart never bores me no matter how many the repetitions. Well maybe not much of his teenage stuff but that ten years or so at the end, well, I’m not sure anyone has surpassed that (although a lot of later music I enjoy is more exciting, more effects etc I’ll concede)
Once again in this case, as I discover your video on your "Bach Problem", I highly appreciate your frankness. For me, frankness and intellectual honesty are cardinal values in any relationship with art. Knowing how to sweep away snobbery and preconceived ideas, to simply say that you don't care about them in order to really say what you think of a composer's work, for example, is very precious. Because this attitude can help a lot of people who don't dare say what they think, for fear of being looked at as idiots. I appreciate all the more what you say about Bach, as I have the same relationship to his music. And after so many years, I think I'm quite lucid about his work, which is certainly gigantic. But this work is very often a cerebral work of art, made for the intellect above all, and sensitivity comes afterwards. I've changed my relationship with Bach over the years, and works that were very difficult for me to grasp have now become familiar to me. But the fact remains that the music is very severe, which can be explained by the intellectual and spiritual context of Bach's life. This predominance of counterpoint in everything, for example, is something that can satisfy calculating minds (many mathematicians adore Bach), but which in music can prove very repetitive and boring. To say so is not to diminish one's relationship with Bach; on the contrary, it is to show oneself to be lucid in this relationship. Everything else, i.e. the reason why so many people feel obliged to say that they "adore" Bach in music, stems from the social excess of snobbery, which makes so many people believe that they are obliged to say that they adore Bach, otherwise they'll be seen as idiots. On the contrary, to know how to evolve oneself in listening to a work is to know how to refine one's own lucidity. Personally, if I've had trouble with many of Bach's works in the past, I've learned to admire them while at the same time being able to identify the codes of writing that are often off-putting. And I'm talking about works that I now admire almost hysterically, such as the St Matthew Passion. All in all, I think this exercise in lucidity and honesty that you're inviting us to engage in here is highly valuable.
Great chat, thank you very much! had the Bach-problem, too, for decades. I worked my way through most of his music without being touched, until I got to the cantatas and then I began to enjoy him. And after that I began to like some of the keyboard music, too. But he still comes not even close to being one of my favorite composers. In roughly his time, I like Vivaldi, Telemann and Froberger a lot more and my absolute heroes are Haydn, Wagner, Bruckner, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov, Sibelius and Shostakovich. In recent years, I have discovered Atterberg, Pettersson and Leifs and am enjoying them immensely. Perhaps one day, I will start to *really* appreciate Bach, as one is supposed to do, but I fear it will never happen.
Bach was my initiation into classical music. I first heard toccata and fugue in d minor when I was 10 and was blown away. As soon as I figured out who the composer was I started buying Bach tapes. He was my favorite composer as a kid and I still love his concertos and orchestral suites and organ music and keyboard music etc etc While I agree his music is very complex and sometimes difficult, much of it is actually quite melodic and accessible.
I don't see Bach as difficult at all. The 48, the cello suites and the B Minor Mass, for instance, are joyful things that go to the heart as directly, and linger there as long, as any Beethoven.
Bach is difficult for musicians and music analysts, but meanwhile very friendly to casual listeners. To me this is what makes Bach special, that he grips ears on first listening, but at the same time there's so much to offer when going deep that could make a serious musician busy for decades
@@Tlll123 I do take Dave's point about the music seeming relentless at times, but I think this also has to do with ways of listening and what we want music to do. He talks of being "moved", but that can be overrated. We can be deeply satisfied (for want of a better word) by architecture or natural forms, without necessarily being moved by them, and Bach can affect us that way too.
Andreas Schiff said in one of the youtube recordings that "If you don't like Bach, you keep quiet about it". Apparently not :-) I personally love Bach, and he is my favorite composer. However, I also love your point of view. It is refreshing that you have a point of view. It is easy to say Bach is great. It is harder to pick apart his music and love it conditionally like you do. I find myself enjoying someone like Telemann more for example, just because it doesn't feel as much like brain surgery. So I get you.
Isn’t it amazing that Bach and Handel composed at the same time since they are SO different. I just relate to Handel more easily on a human relationship and emotional level
We all have our own opinions and I appreciate yours - it’s why I’m a viewer. This is like a foreign concept. I listen to Bach every day - it’s like a vitamin for the brain and heart (for me) - and it makes life worth living. Appreciate you Dave!
Well, I love Bach, and there have been times I've told people (when asked) that he was my favorite composer. At other times, I've said Mozart, or Brahms, or Beethoven, or Haydn (thanks, in part, to your championing of him). The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that one of the most pointless exercises is to argue about who's the "greatest." Too many duels have been fought over this. There's just great music and lots of it, created by--no doubt about it--great composers.
Thank you for saying that. I couldn't agree more. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time deleting stupid comments by people who say Bach is "the greatest" and infinitely better than "compser X," who sucks in comparison. Silly nonsense.
Absolutely true. Certainly the last sentence. Taste is so personal! That also applies to 'Great' Composers. There are so many composers and so many favorites, to compile a list would take up a couple of pages, which I think is not for this forum. My foremost favorites are Symphonies and Large Orchestral works. But there are also many works with smaller ensemles, f.i. Serenades, 'Music', 'Partita', 'Suites', and what-have-you, for Strings.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sometimes I want to listen to JS Bach's counterpoint. Sometimes I want to hear lavish, Romantic lyricism as in Rachmaninoff. Sometimes I prefer the style of counterpoint that I associate with the Hammerklavier Sonata... or infused in a symphonic structure as in the last movements of the fifth symphonies of Bruckner or Mahler. Sometimes I want to listen to something actually fun. Which is better? It's like choosing between cars. Or even between a dog or a cat.
@@warrenj3204 1. your worn-off joke inadequately applied in this context makes me wonder the same about you ;) 2. even fun people have their serious moments (comment on Bach) 3. he’s responding to someone who has a problem enjoying Bach - that’s not fun to begin with 4. Yes I’m also boring, who cares.
I'm totally sold on Bach, for the reasons mentioned by others below. Two quick additions: (1) Bach benefits from imprinting. If you grow up, as I did, in a house where Bach was playing nonstop, then listening to six partitas at once, or at least one book of WTC from beginning to end, is a breeze -- almost the only way to listen to them. (My dad drilled into me at 2 that the world was propped up on the three B's. He suffered heroically and stoically when I asked to put on Mozart.) (2) Indeed, Bach at his best requires careful listening. Just listened, in the last couple of days, about a dozen times in succession to Cantata 106 (I recommend Vox Luminis). Definitely not chuga-chuga-chuga.
The problem with that "Brainwashing until i really really get to enjoy Bach for what it really really is" kind of method that people use with good old J.S is that you are are missing on tons of equally interesting and enjoyable music in the meantime. Bach is enjoyable to listen to and very rewarding to study (i certainly do both) but his cult status is such that some people are more concerned about listening to Bach's genius than Bach's music.I think if people went to such lengths to carefuly listen to others as much as they do Bach they'll find that there are a lot more rabbit holes to dive into out there, ones they might actually enjoy listening better.
Honest 'take', much appreciated. It still is very very intellectual and I appreciated it as a composer and pianist. The 'hype' about him is true in a sense, because you're in awe of his ability to write amazing things with the hardest types of forms. But for me he is more fun to 1. play 2. analyse ... I can't say I'm an avid listener. Beethoven for example studied him and called him something like the 'god of harmony', but he adored Handel and you can tell he modelled much from him.
Thanks Dave. I couldn't agree more! As a student violinist and then violist I have had to sit through hours and hours of studio classes full of the six sonatas and partitas and then the six cello suites played on viola. I am also surrounded by people that explode when a fugue is motioned. I love certain things in Bach's output such as the opening choruses to the passions, the Mass in B Minor, and some other pieces here and there, but I can't really sit down and go through hours of his music. I agree that it does make good driving music!
I would never have thought to use the word 'relentless' to describe the music, but..... We recently attended a concert here in Jerusalem of both books of the Well-Tempered Clavier, played by a series of Israeli musicians on a number of different instruments. We had purchased tickets for both parts of the concert, but after book 1, there was a intermission and we left. We were over-tempered.
That's a mistake many concert organizers make. Bach never wrote those pieces to be played in a row. IMHO, even the Goldbergs were not probably intended to be performed but in chunks, selections of a few variations: in fact, they're organized in groups, and you can select a few of these groups and works just the same, or even better. And the same goes for suites: in Bach's time, suites were in fact collections of dances grouped by key, the performer was supposed to select several of them, not necessarily every movement as in concerts or symphonies, because that is not like suites were meant to work. Marais compiled gigantic viola suites made of dozens of pieces grouped by key, you were never required to play them all, that was nuts. Baroque was way more flexible about what a performance of a multi-movement work was, but romantic tradition has imposed a very different, rigid and boring way to do it. And, of course, you don't have to play a whole book of compiled works just because they were published or binded together.
I find Bach fantastic on headphones while writing code. It extends my concentration time. Maybe not what he intended but the end result is that I listen to more Bach than anything else.
Yes, when I was in graduate school listening to Bach really helped me to study and write. It seemed to rewire my brain to accomplish more than it could normally.
Thank you so much for voicing exactly the same considerations I have about his music. I've been listening to it for c. 60 years, wondering what others are hearing that makes them say he's their favourite composer, and no longer asking them why because when I have it's been interpreted as an invitation for them to indulge in a weird display of spiritual oneupmanship! Which isn't being spiritual at all ...
You are a brave man! I share your "Bach problem" and cannot thank you enough for confessing it publicly. Your example strengthens my convictions. As to cults of personality - is there a greater example than that surrounding Bach? It's so ubiquitous and ingrained it's almost invisible - until you go against the grain!
Thanks for coming out David! I love Bach. I’ve gone through the entire cantatas without listening to anything else. In fact once I went through the 60 cds and started in again, but I agree - Bach can be hard - really hard and he really takes work. The organ works were indecipherable for quite a while - and the cello sonatas - whoa! He is a world apart and transitioning from him to the Romantics and back again is quite an adjustment. I’ve always thought Bach was a real challenge - thanks for acknowledging that. Someone mentioned Shakespeare and I think he’s similar. He too is very difficult of course. I had enough glimpses of his genius to keep going and then I “got him” and realized no one comes close. An absolutely unique figure.
I completely agree - "relentless" is exactly the word I generally use to describe my feelings on Bach. DH refers to the mechanical quality, and it is this that I find so unappealing. It is so unyielding and never "breathes" in the way so much other music does. Often when listening to a piece of Bach I'm initially struck by a sense of profound ascetic beauty, but very quickly I find it just becomes tiresome!
At around 4:30, when Mr. Hurwitz was talking about how Bach rambles on with a single affect, I immediately thought of the D Minor Piano Concerto that he mentioned 10 seconds later. 😂 I like that work, but I can see why 5 minutes into the outer movements you'd say "ok, I get it... D Minor... dark, straight-jacketed, harsh..." As always, Mr. Hurwitz brightens my day with his talks!
As an amateur pianist, I do agree that he's difficult: Bach is never easy. At the same time I do have to confess that I love him, but I'm no fanatic, the one-partita-a-day-rule is one I live by ;)
My aversion to Bach is not his fault. It's because all my amateur classical listening life, beginning in junior high school, it was pounded into me-- by critics and media-- to revere Bach above all composers. I couldn't escape him. In high school Bach was on the cover of TIME Magazine because he'd been dead 200 years or something.
I agree 100%. Most Bach is like a rich brownie. Delicious in small bites but you wouldn't want to eat a whole tray of them. The exception for me would be the Brandenburg Concertos and the two main violin concertos and the double concerto. I can listen to those in one sitting, no problem. Everything else is better in smaller doses or when you're in a very particular mood.
@@patrickhackett7881 I love them both but I think the Brandenburgs have more color and the fact that so many instruments get solo turns is more engaging.
I can't listen to Bach every day, but, in the right mood, there's nothing quite like him, particularly his solo pieces, so searching, a perfect blend of emotion and rationality.
Whew! Thank you. I love and am moved by much of Bach. I'm in awe of the heights he could reach. But Handel is my Baroque god. So human, robust, inventive, with didacticism the furthest thing from his mind when he sat down to compose something; which, alas, seems too often to be Bach's jumping off point. I love the Brandenburgs but Handel's Op. 6 I believe are even more inventive given the modest instrumentation he was dealing with, endless variety, ingenious harmonic twists, feline suppleness without a scintilla of stiffness. Handel is an entertainer, Bach is a teacher too often. P.S. If sometimes one wants to have Bach step down from his pedestal--nobody should miss Peter Shickele's A Bach Portrait. It's great fun and perfect for the middle of a Bach evening.
Handel is more lyrical (on the whole, but Bach could be such when he wanted) and more tonal. He does no daring chords (I remember watching a video in whicha chord that he used was not used by anyone else until John Coltrane!) The glory of Bach is that one can listen to very different works by him when one is not in the mood for something else. One cannot say that of many other composers. Chopin? Nope. Brahms? Certainly not! Mahler? Negatory. Shostakovich? uh, no.
When someone tells me they don't like cheese, I always think (and sometimes I say it out loud), What a sad life! I feel the same way about Bach. And I enjoy his music very much--maybe the cantatas not so much, but I love just about anything I listen to by him.
Interesting confession. This never became an issue for me because I never put much thought into why I preferred to listen to Bach in short bursts. Typically, I'll listen for five minutes and be satisfied and move on to something else. Duration does seem to be a factor.
"Too many notes?" XD Just kidding. Yep, if you are not confortable with some vehicle of expression, a lengthy exposition to it just makes the experience harder to enjoy.
@@victormanteca7395 Then perhaps for some too many notes is the problem. Back to the Beecham utterance too there then. In the end, it's all about the music that we can enjoy and the composer we need to respect, not the other way around.
Very interisting comment. I agree that Bach dense polyphony requires an attention hard to keep for long. And if you are not focused, Bach punishes you by making his music sound like unpleasent overwhelming noise... I guess he was pedagogic even to listeners: you stay focused or you suffer !
I think playing Bach is more enjoyable than listening to him because no matter the peice its gonna be a masterclasses in counterpoint/voiceleading. He was a great Composer but an even better teacher.
At last, someone has given an honest assessment of Bach. He was correctly rated as a poor man's Telemann in his day, and having listened to 1000s of pieces by both men, I agree with that. One of many examples: Tafelmusik versus Brandenburgs.
when i'm young,long time ago,i have know bach,and loving bach with jacques loussier trio,and walter carlos,and after i listen originals,and i love the counterpoint in the music of bach.....20 years ago ,my uncle david ( born in scotland), who played well piano,told me one day.....''when i listen the piano music of bach,i listen the music of the LEFT HAND....i'ts more beautiful of the music of the rigth hand....since this time,i am his counsel....sometimes.
Thank you very, very much for that confession, because that's exactly how I feel about Bach's music. And as a musician and singing teacher I am almost crucified for that and for feeling something similar about Puccini's music (another sacrilege among opera singers). I feel a little more normal person from now on.
THANK YOU!!!! I have never been over enamored of Bach. When I say that, people look at me like I have grown an extra head. I don't dislike him; he's just okay. My stepmom belonged to a choral group that specialized in Bach. Every year we'd have sit through the B Mass ( never send a Lutheran to do something a Catholic should do...I was raised Lutheran) I needed double gin and tonic to fortify myself to that evening . I prefer Handel and the Italians from this era much better. Like you I play a couple of pieces at a time. I'm glad to meet someone who feels the same way I do.
Bach was a protestant and you can hear that in his music. Everything is controlled, managed and sterile. Musically of course he was a master genius, but in a bizarre way his music lacks pathos, joy, passion (yes!) and humanity. It's very German.
I like how you say 'at least not yet'. It seems we all have our self-defeating blind spots and quirky aversions. You have helped remove quite a few of mine. I agree with comments below about best in small doses as I can't sustain the level of concentration necessary to enjoy the music with its unique and profound pleasures.
You have very eloquently described how I feel about Bach. We disagree on the solo violin or cello which is my favorite Bach music, but I do not own a ton of Bach outside of that. I’ve listened to the Brandenburg concertos and orchestral suites many times and felt cold and that’s the way lots of Bach makes me feel. Cold. I would much rather listen to Handel or Corelli when it comes to that type of music. Im in agreement he is amazing but I have just accepted a lot of his music is not for me and I am totally fine with that.
David, do you know? I concur with everything you have said about Bach, down to the very last syllable... I did laugh so loud when you sang a harpsichord section! Someone on the BBC radio many years ago described Bach as "music written for the sewing machine" Not bad: like you, I still love chunks of it, but not all of it.
True, and I heard it being said like that, but there's also none other than the great Rowan Williams who voiced this experience from Bach's music on the same BBC radio: "To put some of your ideas on hold, to listen to this, to go with it, that for me is a deep meditative moment". Listening to the Cello Suites and just let oneself be moved :-)
@@geertdecoster5301 Thank you for this: in spite of my comments, when I am distressed in any way, the music of Bach tells me that all is well - the universe is ticking over in its own way, life goes on, and all is well with the world. In other words his music is very reassuring - he tells you that all is 'steady' if you understand what I say!
Great David. I had the same problem with Bach, I didn't love his music I was afraid of it. After I saw a German TV serie about his life, always fighting and running away from jobs; the noise of several children in the house, the loss of the wife and the meeting of the new love,... finally, I began to perceive the joke in the notes, what seemed a rigid music became jocular, attractive and flexible. Today I see Bach as a warm, ever-present friend.
Doesn't make his music any easier to listen to, but yes, you're right. Saw the same tv series. Add to it that he was a marvellous craftsman who wrote some really great music. Of course, it's not always on the same level. David is right that at certain moments it's about stuffing the amount of notes in.
This takes me back to my good-natured arguments with my late friend Fred, a devoted and knowledgeable music lover, a lifelong operaphile and absolute Wagner nut, whose face would take on the most dolorous and disgusted appearance whenever Bach would come on the radio. "No balls!" he would proclaim. Hey, de gustibus and all that. My love of Bach came immediately upon my first set of Brandenburgs (the great Friedrich Tielegant and the Southwest German Chamber Orchestra on RCA, don't you know) and has only expanded from there. What it is that drew me in, and still permits me to enjoy it in huge gulps? I think it may be my inherent love of interesting musical pattern, which also explains my love of New Orleans Jazz, Reichian minimalism, and certain electronica. It's as if the music becomes a complex structure that I can crawl inside and view with fascination from all angles. I can get all ASMR with this stuff! And what you and others hear as relentlessness of texture and mood, I find to lend the music a quality of monumentality. It calms and focuses the mind. But I get that others feel strongly otherwise, and that his music isn't for everyone. Whose music is? And I *totally reject, resent and say all sorts of mean nasty horrible things about* the notion that maybe I'm some kind of Bach cultist (says the dude with the MA license plate BWV988). Now it's time to check out the Martinu Double Concertos you hyped this morning...
I agree about Bach. Most of his stuff is boring, so I don't listen to it. (Obviously I have tried, but I can only take so much utterly redundant note-spinning.) On the other hand, I feel Vivaldi still doesn't get the respect he deserves. He is too often dismissed simply because his music is easy to enjoy and there is a lot of it. Never mind his remarkable instrumental imagination, expressiveness, formal innovation, and memorability! I think he is the greatest Baroque composer of concertos, for certain.
"Give him the respect of disliking him." That really is an amazing statement. Thank you for putting it that way. There is much Bach that I love, much that I don't. The Italian concerto is one of those pieces that drives me up the wall with its -- to use your word -- relentlessness. I've been revisiting your Bach videos because my wife is singing the B Minor next Spring. Curiously, I find the St Matthew far more moving -- perhaps because it tells a story? Anyway, thank you for always giving me something to think about. Wesley
I appreciate your honesty and have to admit I myself do not listen to much Bach anymore. Three years ago I purchased Helmuth Rilling's complete set of Bach's cantatas, but I have only listened to maybe a dozen of them. The Bach that I regularly listen to includes the Double Violin Concerto, the Passacaglia & Fugue, the Brandenburg Concertos, the Magnificat, the opening chorus of Cantata No. 19 and Fugue in C (BWV 564). The later two short pieces fill me with the greatest joy imaginable and, along with selections from Handel's Messiah, lift my spirits quicker than most all other music. My favorite Bach compositions are those that I connect with almost entirely on an emotional level. Sometimes I feel, although, that I own recordings of many of Bach's works because I am obligated to, even though some can be a bit fatiguing to listen to. But listening to the remainder of Bach's cantatas while taking my daily walks should actually be a privilege. At age 71, I owe this to myself.
Seventy-Three Thumbs Up!!! You are a BRAVE and HONEST person -- there are no other music critics like you, which is why I find your reviews valuable and incredibly enjoyable. I had a job where I was paying bills for an entire chain of restaurants -- all day long, I opened invoices and paid for raw beef, chicken, corn, Coca-Cola -- you name it. One day, it occurred to me that I could LISTEN TO MUSIC, ALL DAY LONG while I worked! I listened to that glorious GIGANTIC double-box set "The Great Pianists," or whatever it was called, I listened to THE COMPLETE WORKS of Beethoven, all kinds of things. One ...uh... few MONTHS, I listened to THE COMPLETE WORKS OF BACH. The Cantatas lasted WEEKS, for an entire month, I heard nothing but ORGAN MUSIC, I heard "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" about 17,000 times -- Bach used that melody a LOT -- and I remember feeling like I was sitting in a chapel waiting for a funeral to begin for approximately one month, during the complete organ works. There were other offices working for this same restaurant chain where my job was to pay for invoices. One day, in the middle of my "funeral month," the lady in the office down the hall walked quietly up to my office door, SLAMMED IT VIOLENTLY SHUT, and walked away. She put up with the complete symphonies of Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Sibelius, Brahms... all their chamber music, too, but Bach was the one that finally created violence in the workplace. I recall, too, hearing -- in person -- Mstislav Rostropovich on more than one occasion. Was it just me? He seemed not to like applause. One got the impression that after he played his cello -- be it Dvorak or Prokofiev, whatever, with an orchestra -- he just wanted to go home. On TWO separate occasions, years apart, after a thunderous ovation following a concerto, he quieted the audience by muttering: "Bach Sarabande, D minor," then he would play the quietest of all movements from the Bach Cello Suites. EVERY TIME, the audience clapped politely as they picked up their purses, coats and hats. It always had the effect of ending the applause and sending everyone home. Thank you for your honesty!
Ah yes, the Yo Yo Ma experience. He did all 6 at the London proms one night with 4,000+ people there and I should put it really in Dave's series of "terrible concerts we have been to". It was far, far less than the sum of its parts and listening to all six in tandem was insufferable. It reminded me of that Woody Allen movie where Hugh Grant is shuffling in agony at a Bach cello recital
I love Bach but I can understand where you're coming from. For me, Bach works better as a listening experience at home rather than in the concert hall. At home, I have more flexibility to step away at a suitable stopping point (between parts of the Passions or after the first half of the WTC, for example), regroup or refresh my coffee, and come back to the music when I'm ready for it. I don't know if I would be able to get through 2-3 hour Bach marathons at a live concert with my attention span (or bladder) intact!
It depends on what you grew when you discovered music. It's something emotional and related to your youth. Being a rock-educated teen, I first discovered serious music through baroque music: Handel and Vivaldi opened a new world for me, and since then, even if I listen to tons of music of all eras and styles, I have a special, emotional link, with baroque expression, affect and complexity, and Bach is the epitome of all that, so I revere his music, and enjoy it the most. I own all of his music, many times, in fact I could assemble several different complete compilations of his recorded work. I own no less of 60 different Brandenburg recordings, and I have a room full of recordings of his vocal music. What I mean, I'm kind of a Bach fanatic; yet, I get your point, and I understand it. You probably grew your "musical spirit" or whatever snob name we may give it, with romantics, and romatic music is what really gets to you. For example, I don't really get Mahler, I find those wonderful symphonies everybody adores just... long and winding, never entirely satisfactory, like anorgasmic masturbation, you get the idea. XD
BTW, The reason I love Bach is that, contrarily to most of his contemporaries, even if he adhered to rigorous academic conventions, he was never as formulaic as them: he's quite unpredictable; ritornellos never end when and how you were guessing they would, and musical phrases develope in a different way you were led to believe, and in a more satisfactory and clever way. It's never boring. And, TBH, even if I truly adore his music, never got into a personality cult. In fact, I'm always exploring less known authors and even anonymous music, because quality music isn't always neccesarily linked to famous composers.
@@warrenj3204 I don't imply that. "Serious" is just common nomenclature, for what is usually called "western classical" music, another traditional misnomer, and I used it just for lack of another better, more accurate way of naming what is in fact a very diverse corpus of music that extends all over 1000 years and consists of very different styles and backgrounds. I don't intend to disparage "pop-rock music" (another simplistic generalization) at all, which I often listen and enjoy too, and I have another nice collection of it. It's simply that there's no other way to call it, since I prefer to call "classical" the style that dominated Europe in the times of Boccherini, Haydn, Mozart and the young Beethoven.
We appreciate the confession, Dave! But: we already knew. :) (Cantata schlep? Goldbergs just as driving music? :) ) One of the fascinating lessons for me is that someone whose musical opinion I respect so much can feel so different about a composer that's so important to me. There's no way I can get around it; I can't say "oh, Dave is a bit of a poser, that's why he doesn't like the good stuff like Bach..." because nothing can be further from the truth. You like music the way I like it, AND you don't like Bach. It's a fascinating thing to get my head around! But the lesson goes both ways. I've loved Bach my whole life, and you have to believe me when I say that when I listen to a fugue from the WTC, or a movement from a Partita, the depth of emotion-the feeling that this music is just *more beautiful* in some fundamental way than everything else-is not because I belong to a Bach cult, or think or care what others think of him. The same goes for the other people in my life who love him (my piano teacher, my father, some of my friends.) It's perhaps an equally challenging lesson on your end: there are people whose musical opinions you agree with on many important things, who simply love Bach, and for all the right reasons. Anyway, let's all keep on listening. (I have to get back to Rusalka, which is a part of my newly found Dvorak love that you've inspired.)
I adore Bach. He's my favorite composer to listen to, my favorite to play. But I also loved real analysis as an undergrad, and my favorite languages are highly inflected. I like puzzles and complexity and tightly designed mechanisms where every piece is doing double or triple duty. Bach doesn't let you get away with anything. I love Chopin, but Chopin lets you get away with murder. Who can fit 17 notes against five perfectly? No normal human, but that's okay, we can approximate. Bach demands that every last note, every last incidental and ornament, be perfectly in its place. Though, if you're like Glenn Gould, you can insist that every last note be perfectly in _your_ place, not Bach's. But I have my moods. Some days I want the "Art of the Fugue", some days I want Brahms's Paganini Variations. And some days I want Shostokovich's Preludes and Fugues rather than Bach's. I'm with you on the evils of personality cults. Bach doesn't need one. He's brilliant, but he's not the summum bonum of musical composition. There's no such thing. I play him as an exercise for the mind and because I appreciate the elegance of a perfectly rendered choral prelude, but a world of just Bach would be like sitting in a clockwork heaven under the cold gaze of a geometer God. You need flowers and slobbery dogs and hamsters to make it all livable.
I agree with you, David. Bach is generally a composer I admire rather than love (I do genuinely love a few of his works, like his keyboard concerti). He’s definitely more of a “head” than a “heart” composer; nothing wrong with that, of course, I just respond better to music which more outwardly expresses emotion. As a cellist, I am expected (by my colleagues) to revere his 6 cello suites as the absolute Olympus of the classical repertoire and to never grow tired to hearing and playing them. They’re fine works, for sure, but there’s so much other great music out there. A case of the Germanic-centric worldview of many classical musicians, I suppose…
During my stellar four-year post-retirement career as an Uber & Lyft driver through western Mass. and environs (almost 10,000 rides!), the only rider who recognized my license plate (BWV988) was a young lady from China who was studying some STEM field at Mt. Holyoke College. Bach is universal!
I heard that in a two-lute recording, in a Tower Record store in 1982. I couldn't believe my ears, and bought the CD on the spot (as I similarly did recently at Amoeba records in LA the first time I ever heard Schnittke).
Another very enjoyable and pertinent video. The point you make about exposure time is a very good one. I was once taken to hear the whole of the well tempered clavier played by Daniel Barenboim. I was already planning my escape route after 20 minutes. By the end I wanted to scream- too much in one go to take in. It was never written to be listened to in this way I’m sure. It would have been better to have had contrasting pieces in my view. It was all too relentless and “samey” I say this as someone who likes Bach’s music by the way. This over-reverential programming seems to be ultimately counter productive.
I had written this long comment and it got lost. Long story short I love Bach and could listen all day. The methematical precision of the counterpoint is just incredible. Never boring. I feel I never want the music to end when I am listening.. Like when I hear “ Mein glaubiges Hertze”. Also the emotional connection of remembering my dad explaining the technicalities of the fugues. The music theory always fascinated me. And there is soooo much of it. I grew up listening to my dad play the partitas and the Well Tempered Klavier on the piano ….never get tired. Ever. I feel there is something so particular that just makes you say “Bach”. That unmistakable never boring, at times ballsy ( in the chutzpah sense) sound. Anyway unfortunately I am not a musician and these are my lay 2 cents. Also you kind of remind me of my dad so you have an instant fan here.
I disagree 100% from you: Bach is the music itself. But I do adore your sincerity and your sense of humor. This is one of your best videos and I have laughed as never before in many, many years. Keep on this way. Everyday I watch one of your videos. I like your comments, learn a lot and enjoy new music or at least new versions of pieces I’ve always loved. Thank you for bringing your knowledge and sense of humor to our lives. No day without a Hurvitz. Your “prizes” with multicolored scarfs are as funny as cruel too, even if I agree with you on Lang Lang. “Puah”, as you seem to say: he’s like drinking perfume.
A couple of years ago (2022) at the Leipzig Bachfest, the highlight for me was listening to Angela Hewitt playing WTC II. The complete set, every prelude and fugue. There was a short intermission between F# minor and G major. Really amazing. He did nothing by halves is the way I've heard it put, and maybe that describes his fans also.
It's so refreshing to hear your commentary and read people's comments about which composers' music they don't like without being lambasted for it. It feels so therapeutic. That being said, I can't stand Brahms' larger scale works which he is so famous for. As is my understanding, there is a subset of people who warm up to his music after some time. I wonder if that will be me. But right now, I'm one of those people who "doesn't get it". Thank you for this video.
I really can see your point here. It took me long before I felt up to listening to Bach at all (apart from the Brandenburg Concertos). And when I studied classical guitar in my youth I had to do some parts of the lute and cello suites. Later I've started to like more of his music, especially some (parts of) cantatas and some organ music, and the lute suites. But indeed difficult and relentless are terms I can relate to. I've never yet summoned up the courage to listen to the passions, even though I love the Christmas Oratorio. So I guess I'll keep discovering bits and pieces of his music for the rest of my life...
As a young piano enthusiast, it used to frustrate me no end when my teachers wanted me to waste time playing Bach (or Mozart, for that matter) instead of my beloved Beethoven. The music just seemed so bland and uninteresting in comparison with Beethoven, and all of those exciting sforzandos! Many years later, having grown wise enough to develop some degree of genuine appreciation for Bach, I was nonetheless gratified to learn that the great pianist Moritz Rosenthal had expressed very similar sentiments, writing of the lack of genuine passion in Bach's music compared with some of his artistic contemporaries, let alone the likes of Beethoven.
Have to say that I believe that we can like anything we want and dislike anything we want. This includes more or less everything in life. It’s all personal taste. It’s why I lay no stock by reviews. It’s still only one person’s opinion no matter their experience. I prefer to listen and make up my own mind. Re Bach I like what I’ve heard. But most of that is not keyboard orientated as I’m not a huge fan of that genre. Keep up the great work Dave. Always generates debate.
I feel 100% the same way. I always assumed it was because I just didn’t understand what was actually happening in the music. (This is probably true, at least to some degree.) But, I only have so much time to listen so I choose to spend it elsewhere.
An interesting confession which I can relate to. I find Bach is more enjoyable to play than to listen to, (I am a pianist). Also that it takes a long time to really 'know' his music. I think I understand a given composition, but it's only after many years (of not hearing it) that I encounter it again and then realize that, as an odd, quirky consequence of how music 'ferments' in memory, the music is endowed with more interest and emotional impact for me. As you say, there are a few things that I find really extremely moving, and quite a bit that I find interesting enough to learn. Bach was was ingenious with harmony and in combination with that mechanical thing you mention, there is often a wonderful kaleidoscopic effect, and that can be mesmerizing -- many of the preludes in WTC I/II exemplify this quality. But in general his music isn't as penetrating for me as composers of the 19th & early 20th century. I feel it's got something to do with Bach having been a creature of his time, which was before the advent of a humanistic view of life, a perspective that involves an embrace of our life on earth, rather than the 'after life'. Bach's work is dedicated to "the Glory of God" (a God that doesn't exist for me, and therefore I find a degree of pointlessness as regards his core source of artistic inspiration). I have the same issue with Bruckner, but Bruckner's music is so overwhelming that I'm willing to pretend that I believe in God when I listen to it. I think that in parallel with this change in the general Zeitgeist around the turn of the 19th century came an increasing openness to the significance of inner experience, which finds outlet in the work, first of Beethoven and then in the music of many composers who took inspiration from him.
My Bach epiphany came very early and now, very late in life. Early: Ormandy's full-orchestra transcriptions. Late: my epiphany was the Sonatas for Violin and Keyboard, which helped me understand that Bach was an amazing melodist. Slow mov'ts in the Brandenburg's reinforced that epiphany and now I'm going through Suzuki's Cantatas. Yeah, I gotta go there: the Center-left HIP approach -- such as Suzuki's seems to bring out the sensual, light, dance element of Bach's "seemingly endless" rambling in outer mov'ts. I never pondered the idea of a Bach "cult," thankfully. Just time, curiosity, and case-by-case approach, whether performer or piece.
Thanks David. Good take. I'm taking a long time to get through my box set of Bach precisely because I dip in and out, enjoying the work, but not too much at a time. Baroque music, as you point, can often be mechanical, and I can as easily listen to music of Graupner or Telemann as Bach, and still find the same benefit.
Wow I got where you’re coming from when you described Yo Yo Ma playing all freaking six suites in one concert. I could not agree more that doing that let alone sitting through that is the definition of complete madness!! And I am a huge fan of the solo cello and violin stuff…. Dave I thank you for articulating the Bach worship that we’ve all - with due if private queasiness -witnessed.
For someone who doesn't care for Bach, you've been generous in talking about him. Considering how much you listen to, you can't like everything. WCRB-FM Boston has the Bach Hour every Sunday morning and that's how I start my day, getting ready for church. BTW, I finished One Hundred Miracles and thanks for recommending it. I'm part of a clergy reading group and we've agreed to read and discuss it.
I'm not sure what to make out of the comment about Yo-Ya Ma's performance of the Bach cello suites at the Royal Albert Hall. I'm not sure whether it's a critique to the choice of venue (that certainly isn't suited to the cello suites, as it doesn't allow the performer to convey all the nuances in the music) or to the perceived repetitiveness of the music itself. I'm a cellist myself, so I can't be objective here, but I feel I will never tire of that music precisely because it's so nuanced and full of life and detail. As I've read in another (brilliant) comment, Bach is a favorite among musicians because this complexity leaves them in awe. However, I feel it's not all about "complexity" and admiring his incredible skill (and, above all, how all this complexity always "flows" naturally from his music), but about the experience of playing Bach too. Playing and listening to music are very different things. For example, a 60-minute concert that may feel never ending to a listener goes by in a moment from a player's point of view. In that regard, I think that with no other composer this difference is bigger than with Bach. When you are playing his music, the score takes you from one place to another in a continuous stream of thought that often feels exhilarating, because you must play every single note. For me, playing a Bach suite is like going off to a journey. In contrast, a listener might find Bach really exhausting because often his best music lacks clear formal reference points, specially the fugues or preludes. Bach's form (except for dances or da capo arias) tends to feel "welded together". And even if you get the entrance of the theme or the re-interation of a motif, if you leave your mind wander even for a minute it often feels almost as if you've missed the train. For me, that makes the experience of playing/listening to Bach radically different and (at least partially) explains his devout following among musicians that is sometimes snobbishly mimicked by some people.
I have always percieved Bachs music as "systemic" or "mathematical" demanding that you are in the right mood for it, more than is the case with most other composers. I rarely put on Bach for tbe pleasure of it whereas I consider Händel and Vivaldi as pure hedonism that almost always put a smile on my face at some point. Bach don't.
I love Bach. I could easily sit through a whole mass in b minor. Sit through all brandenburg concertos and orchestral suites. Sit through all the harpsichord concertos and violin concertos. However I cannot sit through the whole violin sonatas and partitas and the cello ones either. I agree with what you said with the organ trios but I prefer the performances using recorder and harpsichord for those
Yes, and Richard Strauss was a far greater composer than Bach. Incomparably greater. I would prefer listening to every opera Strauss wrote, back to back, than listen to 5 minutes of Bach.
I've been saying for years - and I'm so very pleased that you echoed my long-held sentiment - that anyone who endures, without pause, a concert consisting ENTIRELY of Bach's Cello suites or Violin sonatas/partitas is either insane or a closet masochist! A much respected classical music friend of mine once told me, "I like Bach... but I LOVE Haydn, Schubert & Brahms!" In short, "noodling" endlessly about on ANY instrument does not make for great music-making... except, possibly, for those sonata-form pieces written for that one-man orchestra that is the piano.
Thank you so much Dave for this video; as someone who has these kinds of problems with most canonical composers, I was so glad to hear your thoughts! For me, I also don't particularly dislike Bach, but will probably never buy a Bach CD. Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but my biggest problem (kind of related to the cult problem), apart from all the Illuminati/code stuff, is when people say something along the lines of "Bach is eternal; his music captures the entirety of humanity and will always be the most relevant to understanding human nature!" despite the fact that Bach's entire angle (as it seems to me) was to write music for the glory of God. Where is the ugliness, for instance? Where is the savagery? Where is the attempt to understand human destruction from a human perspective? Where is the adoration of nature, love, etc. for their own sake? Surely we have moved beyond the entirely Lutheran world he moved in, into a less clear, more unsettling one. Another thought: I remember a different video on this channel referring to Liszt as an algorithm. I have a similar idea of Bach as a machine; shove a subject into the 'Bach-omatic', and out comes a perfect fugue. My reaction to that is, "OK, you can write a very complex fugue very well. And you can do that a lot. So? Why should I care?" Perhaps it's because, even though I cannot predict where the music is going to go (I am dreadful at polyphony), I can still predict exactly where the music is going to go. It's almost as if I think of him as a one-trick pony, despite the fact that the trick may be a very impressive one. In any case, many thanks again.
I have somewhat of an opposite problem, with Bach's great precursor. I absolutely adore Schütz. I have listened repeatedly to every single recording I can get my hands on, but I find that for most people, they just don't hear what I hear. Not only is he clearly the greatest German before Bach, I find his music wondrous, but obviously few agree. Outside of Germany and the Alsace Lorraine region of France (including Switzerland, but, curiously, not Austria), his music just doesn't command the respect we Schützians just KNOW it deserves. His instrumental music, and Daphne, the first German opera, are all lost, so all there is (with few exceptions), is the sacred music. Which is VERY serious. But it rewards careful attention, and, as someone else mentioned, imprinting. Repeated hearing eventually brings intense appreciation. At least it has for me.
Im subscribed and have watched many of your vids, but this is my fav. Its good to hear this coming from someone so knowledgeable. I dont feel abnormal. I know quite a bit of JSB, and for decades I'd would say he was the greatest ever. I STILL would prob reply that now. However... the funny thing is, I very rarely reach for his CD's. They're mostly gathering dust. Sibelius, Debussy, Bruckner, Chopin will be more often then not playing. Hell, theres more pop/rock that I will play regularly than Bach. I would never say these musicians/compsers are "greater" than Bach. But what does "greatness" mean if the music is never being played? Thanks.
As you have also said so wonderfully, Dave, the problem I have with Bach is his fans. The fanatic Bach cult that relentlessly attack any other composers who "were not up to Bach's standards." My favourite composer is G. Ph. Telemann. And I despise how those people always compare him to Bach. Here and there and in RUclips comments. I remember one that insult Telemann's set of modal fugues of being too easy and compare them with big Bach's ones, not knowing that they were pedagogical in nature. They were intended as teaching and learning materials for church modes, not show pieces. Beside, Telemann is simplicity, it was his life motto. Comparing him to Bach's complex way of things is as absurd as it can be. Bach as this untouchable spirit of profundity and spirituality, the god-like figure of music is ridiculous. To hell with this 'profundity'! Bach is great and all of that. I agree, a very great composer. But he is not to be the measurement against which others are to be judged. Anyhow, The Bach cult is the worst of its kind I have found in the musical world, beyond the likes of Wagner's or even Chopin's and any others. It is disturbing and concerning really. Telemann all the way for me, as for the Bach fans, please be respectful to other great composers and their works.
Thank you for this honest chat! I think, as I guess Richard Taruskin, that the all-too-big Bach-cult is partly based on German nationalism, and partly on Bach's true musical genius. I find his music often very interesting, even exhilirating, especially tha cantatas; likely because the counterpoint and harmonies and Baroque grandeur, and the marvellous built up - but there's also some features, that weren't so much international Baroque features, but are very much Bachian. The rigidity of themes, the ubiquitous sequences, some formalisms (running 16th notes in countersubjects) etc.: those for me shakes his reputation as the 'greatest'. In this sense I think the contemporary critics of Bach were right. (Also as Dave commented: this 'greatest' etc comments are ,,silly nonsense". There were many eras of music, and these are basically incomparable. In the 15-16th century some composers wrote so called proportional canons, or prolation canons: there were a 'canto firmo', which appeared in one part in 2/4, in the others 3/4, 9/8 - AT THE SAME TIME! A canon in DIFFERENT TIME SIGNATURES! And what these talents - like Ockeghem, Desprez - would have been capable of if they would have lived in the 18th century?!...) And no, not all Baroque music is like that - usually just Germans, sometimes. All in all, even if JSB was truly a musical genius, his cult is usually founded on SNOBISM. As boldly as that: the complexity of his music and its almost 200 years of reckless worship lead to this. The Wagner-cult was also built upon his musics complexity and is depth, so intellectualism. In Bach's time there were many great composers - Zelenka certainly was as talented and crafty in counterpoint as Bach - even if not dedicated to explore it in so many facets -; and if Telemann (Deus tuum judicium, his Grand Motet for example) or Lotti (Missa a Tre...) or Fux etc. writes contrapunctal textures they are actually damned close to Bach! The Italian composers of the late Baroque were also very, very talented. And actually emotionally expressive, and no, a lot of Bach is not! His vocals works: yes, but a lot is not. Maybe beautiful, but not so ,,musical" as Mozart used this word. And Bach always wanted to be more complex than everyone (H.C. Schonberg also sensed this): his ecclesiastical works in latin are usually in 5 or more vocal parts, because most composers wrote in 4 etc. So yes, he was kind of arrogant. And what I hate about this when they say that ,,no one is comparable to Bach" - not only bullshit, but dogmatic almost to the point of religious worship. And of course Bach respected many of his contemporaries - so if he could, why not his fans? Well, because many of his fans are minor compared to him, even in human values (empathy, understanding etc.)! So there's a lot of nonsense about Bach: the works of many others attributed to him, then praised (Telemann's too!) and so on. All in all: I also detest cults!
Interesting. I have the same 'issue' - where I am not a person who feel as if I have to be in a camp, one way or the other. I have listened to classical music all my life, and the way I see it, it is pick and chose, as if in a meadow, between the various pieces of various composers. It might be a very nice meadow, but not everything is, and everyone would have a different viewpoint. I applaud that we are not all the same, and that individuality and taste is allowed as varieties. People are not supposed to be the same. It would be quite boring, very quickly, to exist in an echo chamber. Great videos, by the way.
I heard Yo Yo Ma do that recital when I was a student at Tanglewood. It was amazing, but it was also an open air concert and I could walk the grounds while he played and hear it perfectly fine. If I had to sit through it....that's a different story 🤣
Thanks you for sharing your thoughts on Bach. I kind of suspected you wouldn’t be a fan. I’m fairly new to your channel and most definitely not even a remotely educated listener. I was introduced to Bach with the Brandenburg Concertos and instantly fell in love. He was my gateway to the Baroque. Since then I’ve collected and enjoyed as many CDs of different Baroque composers as my budget allowed . Though I’ve expanded my listening beyond the Baroque, that era remains my favorite in all of “Classical” music. To me, Bach’s music (and the music of many other Baroque composers) is beautiful, moving, and often profoundly poignant. It speaks to me of the human condition. The emotion expressed in later repertoire seems to me to be more overstated, often “operatic” in intensity. I prefer a more understated emotionalism. I also prefer Baroque music because of its more limited dynamic range. After a lifetime around jet engines and machinery, my hearing is not great and I have tinnitus. As much as I love Beethoven, I rarely listen to him because the greater dynamic range makes it difficult-if I turn the volume up to to hear the quiet passages, the loud passages blow out my ears, and when I turn down the loud parts, I can’t hear the quiet parts. Baroque is “easy listening” for me! I’ve really been enjoying your channel. I’ve learned a lot, and even though much of what you review seems to be focused on music more recent than the Baroque (and I love HIP!), I always find what you have to say interesting, informative and entertaining. I’ve even bought some of your recommended CDs and enjoy listening to them. I look forward to discovering more of your content. Thank you for doing what you do.
I know exactly what you mean. Every year we have a Bach concert in my hometown. Only Bach‘s music. Then the audience is full of „Bildungsbürger“ (imperfect translation: educated bourgeoisie), a special kind of people in tweed jackets, who are making „Hausmusik“ at home. I respect his music, I like some pieces, but a concert only with Bach‘s music can be tough. Greetings from Northern Germany
I do so agree. I feel the same about Bach and Mozart. They wrote a hell of a lot of music. Its all mostly well crafted, and often lovely. But say with mozart if find a select group of works to be masterworks, 8 or 9 of the symphonies, string quartets, quinters, concertos, operas are sublime. But not all are on that level to me. Same with Bach, there are a select number of works that I feel are to me outstanding. Much of the organ works. Keyboard. Works, concertos etc. I love the mass, and a few of his cantatas, but not so much the passions, and chamber works. That's just me, enjoy what you like. Not all great composers works are all great.
I'm right there with you Dave. Apart from the Brandenburg Concertos I don't care much for Bach myself. I think his importance lies in the fact that he influenced many composers that came after him. It's much easier to respect him than to actually enjoy the music. The Brandenburg Concertos are great though.
Wow! This video was so great; wonderful to hear your truthful position when it comes to Bach's music. The B Minor Mass, to me, is the greatest Bach. I loved that work from the first moment of hearing it. The mass, along with the Christmas Oratorio are my two favorites. I must confess to having major trouble with the Cantatas..... Thank you for your wonderful and honest views.
I have the same confession or similar feelings about Bach. You are courageous for saying! The aptly described “relentless” sacred polyphony of much of Bach’s music wears me down. At the same time, I’ve enjoyed the Brandenburg Ctos., Goldberg variations, Harpsichord Ctos and the Cello suites. Also, I’ve listened to the Passions. However, the contrast between Handel’s keyboard suites and Bach’s French or English suites is a case in point with me. Bach’s suites are technical wonders and contain very affecting parts, but I can listen to them only occasionally. They are better on harpsichord imo. Something about the timbral ambience of the harpsichord suits the music. By comparison, the Handel keyboard suites are magical, exciting, gorgeous pieces that I can listen to over and over. Can’t get enough! Same with the little Purcell harpsichord suites played by George Malcolm. They are so magical, they give me goosebumps! Not so with Bach.
My main, first instrument is the violin. I find that violinists tend to like Bach more than just enthusiasts or even pianists - I have no idea why this is the case other than his violin sonatas and partitas are pure wonder (better than his piano stuff). In my most depressed states Bach touches me in a bare and inanely emotional way. But of course when you're depressed most things can touch you in this emotional way. Then this phenomenon might have been due to me self-learning the piano by trying out Bach violin sonatas on the piano. There is something intimate there - he is something very special for me. The first Chopin pre-requisite if anything. But agree that it would be a heady overdose, a bit meaningless, to listen to Bach continuously. Btw my summer holidays are slowly being gobbled up by your videos, Dave, and I am enjoying it to the max Also I notice you have a rock collection, PLEASE show them in more detail if you can!
Dave, I agree with you about Bach and I only like the piano music and a few other of his compositions - and I own about 25+ Bach discs. I prefer more spontaneous Baroque composers like Biber, Uccelini, Pandolfi.... as for solo violin compositions I like Tartini's sonatas the best because of their nuance and warmth. Paganini, Bach, Locatelli all grate on my nerves.
I've known Bach-meisters and they definitely listen to his music. I am not one of them But, I keep an open mind and my appreciation has very slowly grown. I didn't get much of anywhere with the Well Tempered Clavier but like his English Suites. I really fell hard for his Mass in B minor recently. But, if I am in the mood to torture myself, I play a CD of his sonatas for harpsichord and flute!
I think the word you were looking for at the end is honesty. I like Bach but I couldn't listen to him for a long period of time. Haydn and Boccheriini though, I can listen for hours.
I'll take Handel over Bach any day! Sir Thomas Beecham once said "I would give the whole of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos for Massenet's Manon and would think I had vastly profited by the exchange." There you are.
I am not a musician and have no musical training whatsoever, but I love many works by the old composers. And I like Bach, especially the concertos. Whenever a piece is over, I have the feeling that something wonderful has happened. I also own a box set of the Cello Suites 1 to 6 interpreted by Pablo Casals, but I've never listened to more than one at a time. It's actually also a mystery to me how you can listen to all six in a row in a concert hall (without being able to escape😱😉).
I am a fan of all types of Classical music, I presume just like most everyone in here. In the year 2000, during the 250th anniversary of J.S. Bach's death, I primarily listened to his music for the whole year. It was a fulfilling and rewarding musical experience. Anytime I was subjected to hear another composer's music, even for a few minutes, it sounded shallow! It was some experience. I have vowed that at some point in my life I will set aside my thousands of CD's, and I will primarily listen to J.S. Bach and Richard Wagner, just because there is no such thing as Bach operas. I will still attend some live concerts of other great composers, however I've found out that J.S Bach's music alone is more satisfying to me.
Oh my! I find Bach easy to listen. His music soothes my soul, comforts me and moves me. Gives a meaning to life somehow. But it is ok to have different opinions. I respect it and find it sincere and genuine. Thank you.The music it's all about ourselves. As any kind of experience in life I think. We experience a travel, a relation differently.
I love Bach. I also don't like all of Bach.
He can get laborious at times, but the vocal fugues are chef's kiss
Something to keep in mind that is that the Bach adoration is very strong among musicians. And not just classical musicians, either. Jazz musicians adore Bach probably more than any other classical composer (if you added some syncopation to the violin sonatas and partitas, a lot of it would sound pretty close to bebop).
You're unquestionably correct that his music is dense and complex, but it's precisely those qualities that leave musicians in awe. Everyone who's ever taken an introductory harmony class has been forced to write 4-part chorales, and everyone who's taken a counterpoint class has been forced to write an invention followed by a fugue. Most of us do them badly. But Bach is just impossibly great at those things. And unlike a lot of later composers, he does not have a bunch of unpredictable modulations, or harmonic movement that defies any kind of conventional analysis. Everything can be explained relatively easy using conventional classroom methods, but it's still inexplicable how any one human could have come up with it all.
Musicians love to admire things they can't do, and nobody can do certain things better than Bach. It is also true that musicians, when listening to other people's music, can lose the forest for the trees. They also have a much higher tolerance for "eating your vegetables" than most audiences.
I think a good analogy is Shakespeare. It's a truism to call him the best writer in the English language, just like it's a truism to call Bach the greatest composer. And writers today, even ones writing in a completely different style, can still be in awe at how he was able to write these wonderfully complex plays while remaining almost entirely in iambic pentameter. And there are certainly lots of people who love Shakespeare, read a ton of it, attend the plays, etc. But if you were to inject truth serum into someone and force them to answer, would the majority of people really say that Shakespeare is their favorite author, or even in their top five favorite authors? Probably not, and there's no shame at all in admitting that.
Thank you for that excellent analysis!
As a musician, being both a pianist and composer, I can certainly appreciate complexity; my problem is when the complexity draws attention to itself and stands in the way of my enjoyment of the musical expression. That has always been my main problem with Bach. When I am in the rare mood to respond to intricate intellectual processes for their own sake, I'll gladly listen to Bach, just as I'll gladly listen to Stravinsky. But most of the time I prefer not to be made so painfully aware of the wheels turning around in a piece of music.
Great comment. It's interesting where that admiration meets enjoyment and emotional response. He was intelligent, he was a very hard and serious worker, but he also had all the musical sensitivity, excitement and such profound creativity. He was a good listener as well. Charlie Parkers lines were not only right, they were true as well. Bach was not only the greatest musical genius, but he had soul as well, and he knew the blues. But I guess that's also part of him being the greatest. (I've always found the Andante from BWV1041 to be very bluesy, just like the Allegretto from Beethoven's 7th)
Don't know if I agree, I'm a composer myself, he's smart, but musically speaking, his music lacks a lot of character and personality for me, Stravinsky, Ravel, even Brahms and Wagner are examples of composers that expressed something to me and have great richness of orchestration, form, etc. Tbh I just don't like most music before Beethoven, and even including Beethoven, for me things got really good somewhere in the XIX century when it acquired a bit more richness, but lost itself somewhere at the middle of the XXth century (Schoenberg was great, Ginastera was amazing, Berg was great, Webern was ok, Messiaen was good, Boulez, Stockhausen, Xenakis, and many others weren't good at all)
@@musicfriendly12 i guess youre refering to Schoenberg's pre atonal music. Cause after that its just unlistenable, pointlessly ugly and dissonant all the time.
I have a similar confession: I have tried for years to really be moved by much of Mozart’s music. It’s beautiful and some of it reaches me in a deep place. But overall I’m not the fan of his compositions I feel I’m supposed to be. I often listen to Mozart more out a sense of duty than pleasure. Bach, on the other hand, engages me on every level I can think of. I guess we are all simply wired differently regarding what stuff floats our boat and what music confuses us as to why anyone would be that delighted to listen to it.
@@keybawd4023 It's Ok to prefer some composers to others. Musical cults don't matter. Mahler, Bruckner or Wagner. I don't like music because a cult says I should but because I do. I may like some Bach more than others. But I like what I like. Some Schubert I can leave alone; others I love. Same with Bach.
@@keybawd4023 I am so "wired" for Bruckner that one of my favorite pieces became Schubert String Quartet no. 15 because it's like a Bruckner symphony
I agree with you on Mozart, but can’t agree with Dave on Bach.
It is fascinating because I am essentially the opposite. I can listen to Mozart for hours on end but I cannot enjoy Bach for more than a brief period at a time. I understand and respect the music but it doesn't move me like Mozart. Goes to show how music can mean something completely different to each person!
The same thing happens to me as to you. We must have a similar sensitivity. Mozart doesn't move me enough, but Bach I love him with all my soul.
This happens to me with Mozart. With the exception of a couple of operas and concertos, the rest doesn't move me much. We all have major composers we do not particularly care about, an it's OK.
@@ornleifs oh goodness! Can’t argue with peoples tastes no no, but (and my relationship with certain things of Bach is the same) over the decades I have had an almost stealth realisation that Mozart never bores me no matter how many the repetitions. Well maybe not much of his teenage stuff but that ten years or so at the end, well, I’m not sure anyone has surpassed that (although a lot of later music I enjoy is more exciting, more effects etc I’ll concede)
Maybe get your ears checked? What fills the place of Mozart for you? For me it's only Bach that can replace WAM
Once again in this case, as I discover your video on your "Bach Problem", I highly appreciate your frankness. For me, frankness and intellectual honesty are cardinal values in any relationship with art. Knowing how to sweep away snobbery and preconceived ideas, to simply say that you don't care about them in order to really say what you think of a composer's work, for example, is very precious. Because this attitude can help a lot of people who don't dare say what they think, for fear of being looked at as idiots. I appreciate all the more what you say about Bach, as I have the same relationship to his music. And after so many years, I think I'm quite lucid about his work, which is certainly gigantic. But this work is very often a cerebral work of art, made for the intellect above all, and sensitivity comes afterwards. I've changed my relationship with Bach over the years, and works that were very difficult for me to grasp have now become familiar to me. But the fact remains that the music is very severe, which can be explained by the intellectual and spiritual context of Bach's life.
This predominance of counterpoint in everything, for example, is something that can satisfy calculating minds (many mathematicians adore Bach), but which in music can prove very repetitive and boring. To say so is not to diminish one's relationship with Bach; on the contrary, it is to show oneself to be lucid in this relationship. Everything else, i.e. the reason why so many people feel obliged to say that they "adore" Bach in music, stems from the social excess of snobbery, which makes so many people believe that they are obliged to say that they adore Bach, otherwise they'll be seen as idiots.
On the contrary, to know how to evolve oneself in listening to a work is to know how to refine one's own lucidity. Personally, if I've had trouble with many of Bach's works in the past, I've learned to admire them while at the same time being able to identify the codes of writing that are often off-putting. And I'm talking about works that I now admire almost hysterically, such as the St Matthew Passion.
All in all, I think this exercise in lucidity and honesty that you're inviting us to engage in here is highly valuable.
Thank you!
Great chat, thank you very much! had the Bach-problem, too, for decades. I worked my way through most of his music without being touched, until I got to the cantatas and then I began to enjoy him. And after that I began to like some of the keyboard music, too. But he still comes not even close to being one of my favorite composers. In roughly his time, I like Vivaldi, Telemann and Froberger a lot more and my absolute heroes are Haydn, Wagner, Bruckner, Rimsky-Korsakov, Glazunov, Sibelius and Shostakovich. In recent years, I have discovered Atterberg, Pettersson and Leifs and am enjoying them immensely. Perhaps one day, I will start to *really* appreciate Bach, as one is supposed to do, but I fear it will never happen.
Bach was my initiation into classical music. I first heard toccata and fugue in d minor when I was 10 and was blown away. As soon as I figured out who the composer was I started buying Bach tapes. He was my favorite composer as a kid and I still love his concertos and orchestral suites and organ music and keyboard music etc etc
While I agree his music is very complex and sometimes difficult, much of it is actually quite melodic and accessible.
I don't see Bach as difficult at all. The 48, the cello suites and the B Minor Mass, for instance, are joyful things that go to the heart as directly, and linger there as long, as any Beethoven.
Bach is difficult for musicians and music analysts, but meanwhile very friendly to casual listeners. To me this is what makes Bach special, that he grips ears on first listening, but at the same time there's so much to offer when going deep that could make a serious musician busy for decades
@@Tlll123 I do take Dave's point about the music seeming relentless at times, but I think this also has to do with ways of listening and what we want music to do. He talks of being "moved", but that can be overrated. We can be deeply satisfied (for want of a better word) by architecture or natural forms, without necessarily being moved by them, and Bach can affect us that way too.
Andreas Schiff said in one of the youtube recordings that "If you don't like Bach, you keep quiet about it". Apparently not :-) I personally love Bach, and he is my favorite composer. However, I also love your point of view. It is refreshing that you have a point of view. It is easy to say Bach is great. It is harder to pick apart his music and love it conditionally like you do. I find myself enjoying someone like Telemann more for example, just because it doesn't feel as much like brain surgery. So I get you.
Thanks.
Isn’t it amazing that Bach and Handel composed at the same time since they are SO different. I just relate to Handel more easily on a human relationship and emotional level
yes! i always feel like Handel is my friend - a witty fun loving friend who is rarely boring.
Bach and Handel, the introvert and the extrovert.
We all have our own opinions and I appreciate yours - it’s why I’m a viewer. This is like a foreign concept. I listen to Bach every day - it’s like a vitamin for the brain and heart (for me) - and it makes life worth living. Appreciate you Dave!
Well, I love Bach, and there have been times I've told people (when asked) that he was my favorite composer. At other times, I've said Mozart, or Brahms, or Beethoven, or Haydn (thanks, in part, to your championing of him). The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that one of the most pointless exercises is to argue about who's the "greatest." Too many duels have been fought over this. There's just great music and lots of it, created by--no doubt about it--great composers.
Thank you for saying that. I couldn't agree more. I've spent a ridiculous amount of time deleting stupid comments by people who say Bach is "the greatest" and infinitely better than "compser X," who sucks in comparison. Silly nonsense.
Absolutely true. Certainly the last sentence. Taste is so personal! That also applies to 'Great' Composers. There are so many composers and so many favorites, to compile a list would take up a couple of pages, which I think is not for this forum. My foremost favorites are Symphonies and Large Orchestral works. But there are also many works with smaller ensemles, f.i. Serenades, 'Music', 'Partita', 'Suites', and what-have-you, for Strings.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sometimes I want to listen to JS Bach's counterpoint. Sometimes I want to hear lavish, Romantic lyricism as in Rachmaninoff. Sometimes I prefer the style of counterpoint that I associate with the Hammerklavier Sonata... or infused in a symphonic structure as in the last movements of the fifth symphonies of Bruckner or Mahler. Sometimes I want to listen to something actually fun. Which is better?
It's like choosing between cars. Or even between a dog or a cat.
Not a lot of music moves me as much as J.S. Bach's music - and that's not because of a cult. Thank you for sharing your view.
@@warrenj3204 LOL... Personally, love the Kaffeekantates.
@@warrenj3204 I’d party with Henrik for sure! Love me some Partitas.
@@warrenj3204 1. your worn-off joke inadequately applied in this context makes me wonder the same about you ;) 2. even fun people have their serious moments (comment on Bach) 3. he’s responding to someone who has a problem enjoying Bach - that’s not fun to begin with 4. Yes I’m also boring, who cares.
I'm totally sold on Bach, for the reasons mentioned by others below. Two quick additions: (1) Bach benefits from imprinting. If you grow up, as I did, in a house where Bach was playing nonstop, then listening to six partitas at once, or at least one book of WTC from beginning to end, is a breeze -- almost the only way to listen to them. (My dad drilled into me at 2 that the world was propped up on the three B's. He suffered heroically and stoically when I asked to put on Mozart.) (2) Indeed, Bach at his best requires careful listening. Just listened, in the last couple of days, about a dozen times in succession to Cantata 106 (I recommend Vox Luminis). Definitely not chuga-chuga-chuga.
The problem with that "Brainwashing until i really really get to enjoy Bach for what it really really is" kind of method that people use with good old J.S is that you are are missing on tons of equally interesting and enjoyable music in the meantime. Bach is enjoyable to listen to and very rewarding to study (i certainly do both) but his cult status is such that some people are more concerned about listening to Bach's genius than Bach's music.I think if people went to such lengths to carefuly listen to others as much as they do Bach they'll find that there are a lot more rabbit holes to dive into out there, ones they might actually enjoy listening better.
Honest 'take', much appreciated. It still is very very intellectual and I appreciated it as a composer and pianist. The 'hype' about him is true in a sense, because you're in awe of his ability to write amazing things with the hardest types of forms. But for me he is more fun to 1. play 2. analyse ... I can't say I'm an avid listener. Beethoven for example studied him and called him something like the 'god of harmony', but he adored Handel and you can tell he modelled much from him.
Dear David, I can not agree more ! I feel exact the same as you do.
Seconded. Though I like his organ works and several other instrumental pieces. But he's not going to my desert island.
Thanks Dave. I couldn't agree more! As a student violinist and then violist I have had to sit through hours and hours of studio classes full of the six sonatas and partitas and then the six cello suites played on viola. I am also surrounded by people that explode when a fugue is motioned. I love certain things in Bach's output such as the opening choruses to the passions, the Mass in B Minor, and some other pieces here and there, but I can't really sit down and go through hours of his music. I agree that it does make good driving music!
I would never have thought to use the word 'relentless' to describe the music, but..... We recently attended a concert here in Jerusalem of both books of the Well-Tempered Clavier, played by a series of Israeli musicians on a number of different instruments. We had purchased tickets for both parts of the concert, but after book 1, there was a intermission and we left. We were over-tempered.
That's a mistake many concert organizers make. Bach never wrote those pieces to be played in a row. IMHO, even the Goldbergs were not probably intended to be performed but in chunks, selections of a few variations: in fact, they're organized in groups, and you can select a few of these groups and works just the same, or even better. And the same goes for suites: in Bach's time, suites were in fact collections of dances grouped by key, the performer was supposed to select several of them, not necessarily every movement as in concerts or symphonies, because that is not like suites were meant to work. Marais compiled gigantic viola suites made of dozens of pieces grouped by key, you were never required to play them all, that was nuts. Baroque was way more flexible about what a performance of a multi-movement work was, but romantic tradition has imposed a very different, rigid and boring way to do it. And, of course, you don't have to play a whole book of compiled works just because they were published or binded together.
Relentless is the perfect word
Having read through the vocal lines for something like The Christmas Oratorio's Ehre Sei Dir Gott, relentless is the absolute perfect word
I feel the same way about Bach. More complex is not always better.
I find Bach fantastic on headphones while writing code. It extends my concentration time. Maybe not what he intended but the end result is that I listen to more Bach than anything else.
Yes, when I was in graduate school listening to Bach really helped me to study and write. It seemed to rewire my brain to accomplish more than it could normally.
Thank you so much for voicing exactly the same considerations I have about his music. I've been listening to it for c. 60 years, wondering what others are hearing that makes them say he's their favourite composer, and no longer asking them why because when I have it's been interpreted as an invitation for them to indulge in a weird display of spiritual oneupmanship! Which isn't being spiritual at all ...
You are a brave man! I share your "Bach problem" and cannot thank you enough for confessing it publicly. Your example strengthens my convictions. As to cults of personality - is there a greater example than that surrounding Bach? It's so ubiquitous and ingrained it's almost invisible - until you go against the grain!
Thanks for coming out David! I love Bach. I’ve gone through the entire cantatas without listening to anything else. In fact once I went through the 60 cds and started in again, but I agree - Bach can be hard - really hard and he really takes work. The organ works were indecipherable for quite a while - and the cello sonatas - whoa!
He is a world apart and transitioning from him to the Romantics and back again is quite an adjustment. I’ve always thought Bach was a real challenge - thanks for acknowledging that.
Someone mentioned Shakespeare and I think he’s similar. He too is very difficult of course. I had enough glimpses of his genius to keep going and then I “got him” and realized no one comes close. An absolutely unique figure.
I completely agree - "relentless" is exactly the word I generally use to describe my feelings on Bach. DH refers to the mechanical quality, and it is this that I find so unappealing. It is so unyielding and never "breathes" in the way so much other music does. Often when listening to a piece of Bach I'm initially struck by a sense of profound ascetic beauty, but very quickly I find it just becomes tiresome!
Relentless??? It's called the fury of endless invention like Coltrane or Hendrix.....
At around 4:30, when Mr. Hurwitz was talking about how Bach rambles on with a single affect, I immediately thought of the D Minor Piano Concerto that he mentioned 10 seconds later. 😂 I like that work, but I can see why 5 minutes into the outer movements you'd say "ok, I get it... D Minor... dark, straight-jacketed, harsh..." As always, Mr. Hurwitz brightens my day with his talks!
Thank you very much!!
As an amateur pianist, I do agree that he's difficult: Bach is never easy. At the same time I do have to confess that I love him, but I'm no fanatic, the one-partita-a-day-rule is one I live by ;)
My aversion to Bach is not his fault. It's because all my amateur classical listening life, beginning in junior high school, it was pounded into me-- by critics and media-- to revere Bach above all composers. I couldn't escape him. In high school Bach was on the cover of TIME Magazine because he'd been dead 200 years or something.
I agree 100%. Most Bach is like a rich brownie. Delicious in small bites but you wouldn't want to eat a whole tray of them. The exception for me would be the Brandenburg Concertos and the two main violin concertos and the double concerto. I can listen to those in one sitting, no problem. Everything else is better in smaller doses or when you're in a very particular mood.
Odd. I greatly prefer the orchestral suites to the Brandenburg concertos.
@@patrickhackett7881 I love them both but I think the Brandenburgs have more color and the fact that so many instruments get solo turns is more engaging.
I can't listen to Bach every day, but, in the right mood, there's nothing quite like him, particularly his solo pieces, so searching, a perfect blend of emotion and rationality.
Whew! Thank you. I love and am moved by much of Bach. I'm in awe of the heights he could reach. But Handel is my Baroque god. So human, robust, inventive, with didacticism the furthest thing from his mind when he sat down to compose something; which, alas, seems too often to be Bach's jumping off point. I love the Brandenburgs but Handel's Op. 6 I believe are even more inventive given the modest instrumentation he was dealing with, endless variety, ingenious harmonic twists, feline suppleness without a scintilla of stiffness.
Handel is an entertainer, Bach is a teacher too often.
P.S. If sometimes one wants to have Bach step down from his pedestal--nobody should miss Peter Shickele's A Bach Portrait. It's great fun and perfect for the middle of a Bach evening.
Handel is more lyrical (on the whole, but Bach could be such when he wanted) and more tonal. He does no daring chords (I remember watching a video in whicha chord that he used was not used by anyone else until John Coltrane!)
The glory of Bach is that one can listen to very different works by him when one is not in the mood for something else. One cannot say that of many other composers. Chopin? Nope. Brahms? Certainly not! Mahler? Negatory. Shostakovich? uh, no.
When someone tells me they don't like cheese, I always think (and sometimes I say it out loud), What a sad life! I feel the same way about Bach. And I enjoy his music very much--maybe the cantatas not so much, but I love just about anything I listen to by him.
Interesting confession. This never became an issue for me because I never put much thought into why I preferred to listen to Bach in short bursts. Typically, I'll listen for five minutes and be satisfied and move on to something else. Duration does seem to be a factor.
"Too many notes?" XD Just kidding. Yep, if you are not confortable with some vehicle of expression, a lengthy exposition to it just makes the experience harder to enjoy.
@@victormanteca7395 Then perhaps for some too many notes is the problem. Back to the Beecham utterance too there then. In the end, it's all about the music that we can enjoy and the composer we need to respect, not the other way around.
Very interisting comment.
I agree that Bach dense polyphony requires an attention hard to keep for long.
And if you are not focused, Bach punishes you by making his music sound like unpleasent overwhelming noise...
I guess he was pedagogic even to listeners: you stay focused or you suffer !
I think playing Bach is more enjoyable than listening to him because no matter the peice its gonna be a masterclasses in counterpoint/voiceleading. He was a great Composer but an even better teacher.
At last, someone has given an honest assessment of Bach. He was correctly rated as a poor man's Telemann in his day, and having listened to 1000s of pieces by both men, I agree with that. One of many examples: Tafelmusik versus Brandenburgs.
when i'm young,long time ago,i have know bach,and loving bach with jacques loussier trio,and walter carlos,and after i listen originals,and i love the counterpoint in the music of bach.....20 years ago ,my uncle david ( born in scotland), who played well piano,told me one day.....''when i listen the piano music of bach,i listen the music of the LEFT HAND....i'ts more beautiful of the music of the rigth hand....since this time,i am his counsel....sometimes.
Thank you very, very much for that confession, because that's exactly how I feel about Bach's music. And as a musician and singing teacher I am almost crucified for that and for feeling something similar about Puccini's music (another sacrilege among opera singers). I feel a little more normal person from now on.
You're very welcome!
THANK YOU!!!! I have never been over enamored of Bach. When I say that, people look at me like I have grown an extra head. I don't dislike him; he's just okay. My stepmom belonged to a choral group that specialized in Bach. Every year we'd have sit through the B Mass ( never send a Lutheran to do something a Catholic should do...I was raised Lutheran) I needed double gin and tonic to fortify myself to that evening . I prefer Handel and the Italians from this era much better. Like you I play a couple of pieces at a time. I'm glad to meet someone who feels the same way I do.
Bach was a protestant and you can hear that in his music. Everything is controlled, managed and sterile. Musically of course he was a master genius, but in a bizarre way his music lacks pathos, joy, passion (yes!) and humanity. It's very German.
I like how you say 'at least not yet'. It seems we all have our self-defeating blind spots and quirky aversions. You have helped remove quite a few of mine. I agree with comments below about best in small doses as I can't sustain the level of concentration necessary to enjoy the music with its unique and profound pleasures.
You have very eloquently described how I feel about Bach. We disagree on the solo violin or cello which is my favorite Bach music, but I do not own a ton of Bach outside of that. I’ve listened to the Brandenburg concertos and orchestral suites many times and felt cold and that’s the way lots of Bach makes me feel. Cold. I would much rather listen to Handel or Corelli when it comes to that type of music. Im in agreement he is amazing but I have just accepted a lot of his music is not for me and I am totally fine with that.
David, do you know? I concur with everything you have said about Bach, down to the very last syllable... I did laugh so loud when you sang a harpsichord section! Someone on the BBC radio many years ago described Bach as "music written for the sewing machine" Not bad: like you, I still love chunks of it, but not all of it.
True, and I heard it being said like that, but there's also none other than the great Rowan Williams who voiced this experience from Bach's music on the same BBC radio: "To put some of your ideas on hold, to listen to this, to go with it, that for me is a deep meditative moment". Listening to the Cello Suites and just let oneself be moved :-)
@@geertdecoster5301 Thank you for this: in spite of my comments, when I am distressed in any way, the music of Bach tells me that all is well - the universe is ticking over in its own way, life goes on, and all is well with the world. In other words his music is very reassuring - he tells you that all is 'steady' if you understand what I say!
Great David. I had the same problem with Bach, I didn't love his music I was afraid of it. After I saw a German TV serie about his life, always fighting and running away from jobs; the noise of several children in the house, the loss of the wife and the meeting of the new love,... finally, I began to perceive the joke in the notes, what seemed a rigid music became jocular, attractive and flexible. Today I see Bach as a warm, ever-present friend.
Doesn't make his music any easier to listen to, but yes, you're right. Saw the same tv series. Add to it that he was a marvellous craftsman who wrote some really great music. Of course, it's not always on the same level. David is right that at certain moments it's about stuffing the amount of notes in.
Finding the right just the right interpretation is key. I never knew I can cry listening to a klavier fugue by bach till I heard nikolaievna play it
This takes me back to my good-natured arguments with my late friend Fred, a devoted and knowledgeable music lover, a lifelong operaphile and absolute Wagner nut, whose face would take on the most dolorous and disgusted appearance whenever Bach would come on the radio. "No balls!" he would proclaim. Hey, de gustibus and all that. My love of Bach came immediately upon my first set of Brandenburgs (the great Friedrich Tielegant and the Southwest German Chamber Orchestra on RCA, don't you know) and has only expanded from there. What it is that drew me in, and still permits me to enjoy it in huge gulps? I think it may be my inherent love of interesting musical pattern, which also explains my love of New Orleans Jazz, Reichian minimalism, and certain electronica. It's as if the music becomes a complex structure that I can crawl inside and view with fascination from all angles. I can get all ASMR with this stuff! And what you and others hear as relentlessness of texture and mood, I find to lend the music a quality of monumentality. It calms and focuses the mind. But I get that others feel strongly otherwise, and that his music isn't for everyone. Whose music is? And I *totally reject, resent and say all sorts of mean nasty horrible things about* the notion that maybe I'm some kind of Bach cultist (says the dude with the MA license plate BWV988). Now it's time to check out the Martinu Double Concertos you hyped this morning...
I agree about Bach. Most of his stuff is boring, so I don't listen to it. (Obviously I have tried, but I can only take so much utterly redundant note-spinning.) On the other hand, I feel Vivaldi still doesn't get the respect he deserves. He is too often dismissed simply because his music is easy to enjoy and there is a lot of it. Never mind his remarkable instrumental imagination, expressiveness, formal innovation, and memorability! I think he is the greatest Baroque composer of concertos, for certain.
"Give him the respect of disliking him." That really is an amazing statement. Thank you for putting it that way. There is much Bach that I love, much that I don't. The Italian concerto is one of those pieces that drives me up the wall with its -- to use your word -- relentlessness. I've been revisiting your Bach videos because my wife is singing the B Minor next Spring. Curiously, I find the St Matthew far more moving -- perhaps because it tells a story? Anyway, thank you for always giving me something to think about. Wesley
I appreciate your honesty and have to admit I myself do not listen to much Bach anymore. Three years ago I purchased Helmuth Rilling's complete set of Bach's cantatas, but I have only listened to maybe a dozen of them. The Bach that I regularly listen to includes the Double Violin Concerto, the Passacaglia & Fugue, the Brandenburg Concertos, the Magnificat, the opening chorus of Cantata No. 19 and Fugue in C (BWV 564). The later two short pieces fill me with the greatest joy imaginable and, along with selections from Handel's Messiah, lift my spirits quicker than most all other music. My favorite Bach compositions are those that I connect with almost entirely on an emotional level. Sometimes I feel, although, that I own recordings of many of Bach's works because I am obligated to, even though some can be a bit fatiguing to listen to. But listening to the remainder of Bach's cantatas while taking my daily walks should actually be a privilege. At age 71, I owe this to myself.
Seventy-Three Thumbs Up!!! You are a BRAVE and HONEST person -- there are no other music critics like you, which is why I find your reviews valuable and incredibly enjoyable. I had a job where I was paying bills for an entire chain of restaurants -- all day long, I opened invoices and paid for raw beef, chicken, corn, Coca-Cola -- you name it. One day, it occurred to me that I could LISTEN TO MUSIC, ALL DAY LONG while I worked! I listened to that glorious GIGANTIC double-box set "The Great Pianists," or whatever it was called, I listened to THE COMPLETE WORKS of Beethoven, all kinds of things. One ...uh... few MONTHS, I listened to THE COMPLETE WORKS OF BACH. The Cantatas lasted WEEKS, for an entire month, I heard nothing but ORGAN MUSIC, I heard "O Sacred Head Now Wounded" about 17,000 times -- Bach used that melody a LOT -- and I remember feeling like I was sitting in a chapel waiting for a funeral to begin for approximately one month, during the complete organ works. There were other offices working for this same restaurant chain where my job was to pay for invoices. One day, in the middle of my "funeral month," the lady in the office down the hall walked quietly up to my office door, SLAMMED IT VIOLENTLY SHUT, and walked away. She put up with the complete symphonies of Mendelssohn, Schubert, Schumann, Sibelius, Brahms... all their chamber music, too, but Bach was the one that finally created violence in the workplace. I recall, too, hearing -- in person -- Mstislav Rostropovich on more than one occasion. Was it just me? He seemed not to like applause. One got the impression that after he played his cello -- be it Dvorak or Prokofiev, whatever, with an orchestra -- he just wanted to go home. On TWO separate occasions, years apart, after a thunderous ovation following a concerto, he quieted the audience by muttering: "Bach Sarabande, D minor," then he would play the quietest of all movements from the Bach Cello Suites. EVERY TIME, the audience clapped politely as they picked up their purses, coats and hats. It always had the effect of ending the applause and sending everyone home. Thank you for your honesty!
Wow! That's quite a story!
Ah yes, the Yo Yo Ma experience. He did all 6 at the London proms one night with 4,000+ people there and I should put it really in Dave's series of "terrible concerts we have been to". It was far, far less than the sum of its parts and listening to all six in tandem was insufferable. It reminded me of that Woody Allen movie where Hugh Grant is shuffling in agony at a Bach cello recital
I love Bach but I can understand where you're coming from. For me, Bach works better as a listening experience at home rather than in the concert hall. At home, I have more flexibility to step away at a suitable stopping point (between parts of the Passions or after the first half of the WTC, for example), regroup or refresh my coffee, and come back to the music when I'm ready for it. I don't know if I would be able to get through 2-3 hour Bach marathons at a live concert with my attention span (or bladder) intact!
It's O.K. David. Admitting your problem is an important first step. Bach is endlessly patient and will be there for you when you are ready.
Like I said...
@@DavesClassicalGuide I think Berlioz shared your sentiment-but what did he know?😂
It depends on what you grew when you discovered music. It's something emotional and related to your youth. Being a rock-educated teen, I first discovered serious music through baroque music: Handel and Vivaldi opened a new world for me, and since then, even if I listen to tons of music of all eras and styles, I have a special, emotional link, with baroque expression, affect and complexity, and Bach is the epitome of all that, so I revere his music, and enjoy it the most. I own all of his music, many times, in fact I could assemble several different complete compilations of his recorded work. I own no less of 60 different Brandenburg recordings, and I have a room full of recordings of his vocal music. What I mean, I'm kind of a Bach fanatic; yet, I get your point, and I understand it. You probably grew your "musical spirit" or whatever snob name we may give it, with romantics, and romatic music is what really gets to you. For example, I don't really get Mahler, I find those wonderful symphonies everybody adores just... long and winding, never entirely satisfactory, like anorgasmic masturbation, you get the idea. XD
BTW, The reason I love Bach is that, contrarily to most of his contemporaries, even if he adhered to rigorous academic conventions, he was never as formulaic as them: he's quite unpredictable; ritornellos never end when and how you were guessing they would, and musical phrases develope in a different way you were led to believe, and in a more satisfactory and clever way. It's never boring. And, TBH, even if I truly adore his music, never got into a personality cult. In fact, I'm always exploring less known authors and even anonymous music, because quality music isn't always neccesarily linked to famous composers.
Actually, I started listening to Tom Lehrer.
@@warrenj3204 I don't imply that. "Serious" is just common nomenclature, for what is usually called "western classical" music, another traditional misnomer, and I used it just for lack of another better, more accurate way of naming what is in fact a very diverse corpus of music that extends all over 1000 years and consists of very different styles and backgrounds. I don't intend to disparage "pop-rock music" (another simplistic generalization) at all, which I often listen and enjoy too, and I have another nice collection of it. It's simply that there's no other way to call it, since I prefer to call "classical" the style that dominated Europe in the times of Boccherini, Haydn, Mozart and the young Beethoven.
We appreciate the confession, Dave! But: we already knew. :) (Cantata schlep? Goldbergs just as driving music? :) )
One of the fascinating lessons for me is that someone whose musical opinion I respect so much can feel so different about a composer that's so important to me. There's no way I can get around it; I can't say "oh, Dave is a bit of a poser, that's why he doesn't like the good stuff like Bach..." because nothing can be further from the truth. You like music the way I like it, AND you don't like Bach. It's a fascinating thing to get my head around!
But the lesson goes both ways. I've loved Bach my whole life, and you have to believe me when I say that when I listen to a fugue from the WTC, or a movement from a Partita, the depth of emotion-the feeling that this music is just *more beautiful* in some fundamental way than everything else-is not because I belong to a Bach cult, or think or care what others think of him. The same goes for the other people in my life who love him (my piano teacher, my father, some of my friends.) It's perhaps an equally challenging lesson on your end: there are people whose musical opinions you agree with on many important things, who simply love Bach, and for all the right reasons.
Anyway, let's all keep on listening. (I have to get back to Rusalka, which is a part of my newly found Dvorak love that you've inspired.)
I adore Bach. He's my favorite composer to listen to, my favorite to play. But I also loved real analysis as an undergrad, and my favorite languages are highly inflected. I like puzzles and complexity and tightly designed mechanisms where every piece is doing double or triple duty. Bach doesn't let you get away with anything. I love Chopin, but Chopin lets you get away with murder. Who can fit 17 notes against five perfectly? No normal human, but that's okay, we can approximate. Bach demands that every last note, every last incidental and ornament, be perfectly in its place. Though, if you're like Glenn Gould, you can insist that every last note be perfectly in _your_ place, not Bach's.
But I have my moods. Some days I want the "Art of the Fugue", some days I want Brahms's Paganini Variations. And some days I want Shostokovich's Preludes and Fugues rather than Bach's. I'm with you on the evils of personality cults. Bach doesn't need one. He's brilliant, but he's not the summum bonum of musical composition. There's no such thing. I play him as an exercise for the mind and because I appreciate the elegance of a perfectly rendered choral prelude, but a world of just Bach would be like sitting in a clockwork heaven under the cold gaze of a geometer God. You need flowers and slobbery dogs and hamsters to make it all livable.
I had a lower Bach problem for years, but much better now🤣
That's the 2nd time you've made a reference to Radar/MASH...you are a true scholar 👍
I agree with you, David. Bach is generally a composer I admire rather than love (I do genuinely love a few of his works, like his keyboard concerti). He’s definitely more of a “head” than a “heart” composer; nothing wrong with that, of course, I just respond better to music which more outwardly expresses emotion. As a cellist, I am expected (by my colleagues) to revere his 6 cello suites as the absolute Olympus of the classical repertoire and to never grow tired to hearing and playing them. They’re fine works, for sure, but there’s so much other great music out there. A case of the Germanic-centric worldview of many classical musicians, I suppose…
Bach is like early black metal. It is pure cold fire. Angelic rather than demonic, perhaps. Though light and darkness are part of the highest drama.
This is an awesome parallel! I'm a big black metal (and metal in general) fan and this makes sense. I can see Fenriz digging Bach.
During my stellar four-year post-retirement career as an Uber & Lyft driver through western Mass. and environs (almost 10,000 rides!), the only rider who recognized my license plate (BWV988) was a young lady from China who was studying some STEM field at Mt. Holyoke College. Bach is universal!
I heard that in a two-lute recording, in a Tower Record store in 1982. I couldn't believe my ears, and bought the CD on the spot (as I similarly did recently at Amoeba records in LA the first time I ever heard Schnittke).
Another very enjoyable and pertinent video. The point you make about exposure time is a very good one. I was once taken to hear the whole of the well tempered clavier played by Daniel Barenboim. I was already planning my escape route after 20 minutes. By the end I wanted to scream- too much in one go to take in. It was never written to be listened to in this way I’m sure. It would have been better to have had contrasting pieces in my view. It was all too relentless and “samey” I say this as someone who likes Bach’s music by the way. This over-reverential programming seems to be ultimately counter productive.
I had written this long comment and it got lost. Long story short I love Bach and could listen all day. The methematical precision of the counterpoint is just incredible. Never boring. I feel I never want the music to end when I am listening.. Like when I hear “ Mein glaubiges Hertze”. Also the emotional connection of remembering my dad explaining the technicalities of the fugues. The music theory always fascinated me. And there is soooo much of it. I grew up listening to my dad play the partitas and the Well Tempered Klavier on the piano ….never get tired. Ever.
I feel there is something so particular that just makes you say “Bach”. That unmistakable never boring, at times ballsy ( in the chutzpah sense) sound.
Anyway unfortunately I am not a musician and these are my lay 2 cents.
Also you kind of remind me of my dad so you have an instant fan here.
I disagree 100% from you: Bach is the music itself. But I do adore your sincerity and your sense of humor. This is one of your best videos and I have laughed as never before in many, many years. Keep on this way. Everyday I watch one of your videos. I like your comments, learn a lot and enjoy new music or at least new versions of pieces I’ve always loved. Thank you for bringing your knowledge and sense of humor to our lives. No day without a Hurvitz. Your “prizes” with multicolored scarfs are as funny as cruel too, even if I agree with you on Lang Lang. “Puah”, as you seem to say: he’s like drinking perfume.
A couple of years ago (2022) at the Leipzig Bachfest, the highlight for me was listening to Angela Hewitt playing WTC II. The complete set, every prelude and fugue. There was a short intermission between F# minor and G major. Really amazing. He did nothing by halves is the way I've heard it put, and maybe that describes his fans also.
It's so refreshing to hear your commentary and read people's comments about which composers' music they don't like without being lambasted for it. It feels so therapeutic. That being said, I can't stand Brahms' larger scale works which he is so famous for. As is my understanding, there is a subset of people who warm up to his music after some time. I wonder if that will be me. But right now, I'm one of those people who "doesn't get it". Thank you for this video.
I really can see your point here. It took me long before I felt up to listening to Bach at all (apart from the Brandenburg Concertos). And when I studied classical guitar in my youth I had to do some parts of the lute and cello suites. Later I've started to like more of his music, especially some (parts of) cantatas and some organ music, and the lute suites. But indeed difficult and relentless are terms I can relate to. I've never yet summoned up the courage to listen to the passions, even though I love the Christmas Oratorio. So I guess I'll keep discovering bits and pieces of his music for the rest of my life...
Neither do II thought I was alone in this. But I do like the cello Suites because I love the instrument so much
As a young piano enthusiast, it used to frustrate me no end when my teachers wanted me to waste time playing Bach (or Mozart, for that matter) instead of my beloved Beethoven. The music just seemed so bland and uninteresting in comparison with Beethoven, and all of those exciting sforzandos! Many years later, having grown wise enough to develop some degree of genuine appreciation for Bach, I was nonetheless gratified to learn that the great pianist Moritz Rosenthal had expressed very similar sentiments, writing of the lack of genuine passion in Bach's music compared with some of his artistic contemporaries, let alone the likes of Beethoven.
Have to say that I believe that we can like anything we want and dislike anything we want. This includes more or less everything in life. It’s all personal taste.
It’s why I lay no stock by reviews. It’s still only one person’s opinion no matter their experience. I prefer to listen and make up my own mind.
Re Bach I like what I’ve heard. But most of that is not keyboard orientated as I’m not a huge fan of that genre.
Keep up the great work Dave. Always generates debate.
I feel 100% the same way. I always assumed it was because I just didn’t understand what was actually happening in the music. (This is probably true, at least to some degree.) But, I only have so much time to listen so I choose to spend it elsewhere.
An interesting confession which I can relate to. I find Bach is more enjoyable to play than to listen to, (I am a pianist). Also that it takes a long time to really 'know' his music. I think I understand a given composition, but it's only after many years (of not hearing it) that I encounter it again and then realize that, as an odd, quirky consequence of how music 'ferments' in memory, the music is endowed with more interest and emotional impact for me.
As you say, there are a few things that I find really extremely moving, and quite a bit that I find interesting enough to learn. Bach was was ingenious with harmony and in combination with that mechanical thing you mention, there is often a wonderful kaleidoscopic effect, and that can be mesmerizing -- many of the preludes in WTC I/II exemplify this quality.
But in general his music isn't as penetrating for me as composers of the 19th & early 20th century. I feel it's got something to do with Bach having been a creature of his time, which was before the advent of a humanistic view of life, a perspective that involves an embrace of our life on earth, rather than the 'after life'. Bach's work is dedicated to "the Glory of God" (a God that doesn't exist for me, and therefore I find a degree of pointlessness as regards his core source of artistic inspiration). I have the same issue with Bruckner, but Bruckner's music is so overwhelming that I'm willing to pretend that I believe in God when I listen to it.
I think that in parallel with this change in the general Zeitgeist around the turn of the 19th century came an increasing openness to the significance of inner experience, which finds outlet in the work, first of Beethoven and then in the music of many composers who took inspiration from him.
My Bach epiphany came very early and now, very late in life. Early: Ormandy's full-orchestra transcriptions. Late: my epiphany was the Sonatas for Violin and Keyboard, which helped me understand that Bach was an amazing melodist. Slow mov'ts in the Brandenburg's reinforced that epiphany and now I'm going through Suzuki's Cantatas. Yeah, I gotta go there: the Center-left HIP approach -- such as Suzuki's seems to bring out the sensual, light, dance element of Bach's "seemingly endless" rambling in outer mov'ts. I never pondered the idea of a Bach "cult," thankfully. Just time, curiosity, and case-by-case approach, whether performer or piece.
Thanks David. Good take. I'm taking a long time to get through my box set of Bach precisely because I dip in and out, enjoying the work, but not too much at a time. Baroque music, as you point, can often be mechanical, and I can as easily listen to music of Graupner or Telemann as Bach, and still find the same benefit.
Wow I got where you’re coming from when you described Yo Yo Ma playing all freaking six suites in one concert. I could not agree more that doing that let alone sitting through that is the definition of complete madness!! And I am a huge fan of the solo cello and violin stuff…. Dave I thank you for articulating the Bach worship that we’ve all - with due if private queasiness -witnessed.
For someone who doesn't care for Bach, you've been generous in talking about him. Considering how much you listen to, you can't like everything. WCRB-FM Boston has the Bach Hour every Sunday morning and that's how I start my day, getting ready for church. BTW, I finished One Hundred Miracles and thanks for recommending it. I'm part of a clergy reading group and we've agreed to read and discuss it.
That sounds very interesting! Thank you for sharing this.
Oh No Dave!!! I feel the same way! I've felt guilty about this for years!
I'm not sure what to make out of the comment about Yo-Ya Ma's performance of the Bach cello suites at the Royal Albert Hall. I'm not sure whether it's a critique to the choice of venue (that certainly isn't suited to the cello suites, as it doesn't allow the performer to convey all the nuances in the music) or to the perceived repetitiveness of the music itself. I'm a cellist myself, so I can't be objective here, but I feel I will never tire of that music precisely because it's so nuanced and full of life and detail. As I've read in another (brilliant) comment, Bach is a favorite among musicians because this complexity leaves them in awe. However, I feel it's not all about "complexity" and admiring his incredible skill (and, above all, how all this complexity always "flows" naturally from his music), but about the experience of playing Bach too. Playing and listening to music are very different things. For example, a 60-minute concert that may feel never ending to a listener goes by in a moment from a player's point of view. In that regard, I think that with no other composer this difference is bigger than with Bach. When you are playing his music, the score takes you from one place to another in a continuous stream of thought that often feels exhilarating, because you must play every single note. For me, playing a Bach suite is like going off to a journey. In contrast, a listener might find Bach really exhausting because often his best music lacks clear formal reference points, specially the fugues or preludes. Bach's form (except for dances or da capo arias) tends to feel "welded together". And even if you get the entrance of the theme or the re-interation of a motif, if you leave your mind wander even for a minute it often feels almost as if you've missed the train. For me, that makes the experience of playing/listening to Bach radically different and (at least partially) explains his devout following among musicians that is sometimes snobbishly mimicked by some people.
Thank you for this very illuminating perspective on the question!
I have always percieved Bachs music as "systemic" or "mathematical" demanding that you are in the right mood for it, more than is the case with most other composers. I rarely put on Bach for tbe pleasure of it whereas I consider Händel and Vivaldi as pure hedonism that almost always put a smile on my face at some point.
Bach don't.
I love Bach. I could easily sit through a whole mass in b minor. Sit through all brandenburg concertos and orchestral suites. Sit through all the harpsichord concertos and violin concertos. However I cannot sit through the whole violin sonatas and partitas and the cello ones either. I agree with what you said with the organ trios but I prefer the performances using recorder and harpsichord for those
"Saint Matthew's Passion, perhaps - but not mine."
- Richard Strauss
Yes, and Richard Strauss was a far greater composer than Bach. Incomparably greater. I would prefer listening to every opera Strauss wrote, back to back, than listen to 5 minutes of Bach.
I've been saying for years - and I'm so very pleased that you echoed my long-held sentiment - that anyone who endures, without pause, a concert consisting ENTIRELY of Bach's Cello suites or Violin sonatas/partitas is either insane or a closet masochist! A much respected classical music friend of mine once told me, "I like Bach... but I LOVE Haydn, Schubert & Brahms!" In short, "noodling" endlessly about on ANY instrument does not make for great music-making... except, possibly, for those sonata-form pieces written for that one-man orchestra that is the piano.
I look forward to more confessions. Teasers?
Thank you so much Dave for this video; as someone who has these kinds of problems with most canonical composers, I was so glad to hear your thoughts! For me, I also don't particularly dislike Bach, but will probably never buy a Bach CD. Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but my biggest problem (kind of related to the cult problem), apart from all the Illuminati/code stuff, is when people say something along the lines of "Bach is eternal; his music captures the entirety of humanity and will always be the most relevant to understanding human nature!" despite the fact that Bach's entire angle (as it seems to me) was to write music for the glory of God. Where is the ugliness, for instance? Where is the savagery? Where is the attempt to understand human destruction from a human perspective? Where is the adoration of nature, love, etc. for their own sake? Surely we have moved beyond the entirely Lutheran world he moved in, into a less clear, more unsettling one.
Another thought: I remember a different video on this channel referring to Liszt as an algorithm. I have a similar idea of Bach as a machine; shove a subject into the 'Bach-omatic', and out comes a perfect fugue. My reaction to that is, "OK, you can write a very complex fugue very well. And you can do that a lot. So? Why should I care?" Perhaps it's because, even though I cannot predict where the music is going to go (I am dreadful at polyphony), I can still predict exactly where the music is going to go. It's almost as if I think of him as a one-trick pony, despite the fact that the trick may be a very impressive one. In any case, many thanks again.
I have somewhat of an opposite problem, with Bach's great precursor. I absolutely adore Schütz. I have listened repeatedly to every single recording I can get my hands on, but I find that for most people, they just don't hear what I hear. Not only is he clearly the greatest German before Bach, I find his music wondrous, but obviously few agree. Outside of Germany and the Alsace Lorraine region of France (including Switzerland, but, curiously, not Austria), his music just doesn't command the respect we Schützians just KNOW it deserves. His instrumental music, and Daphne, the first German opera, are all lost, so all there is (with few exceptions), is the sacred music. Which is VERY serious. But it rewards careful attention, and, as someone else mentioned, imprinting. Repeated hearing eventually brings intense appreciation. At least it has for me.
Im subscribed and have watched many of your vids, but this is my fav. Its good to hear this coming from someone so knowledgeable. I dont feel abnormal. I know quite a bit of JSB, and for decades I'd would say he was the greatest ever. I STILL would prob reply that now. However... the funny thing is, I very rarely reach for his CD's. They're mostly gathering dust. Sibelius, Debussy, Bruckner, Chopin will be more often then not playing. Hell, theres more pop/rock that I will play regularly than Bach. I would never say these musicians/compsers are "greater" than Bach. But what does "greatness" mean if the music is never being played? Thanks.
Social contagion, peer pressure, group psychology: these are what cause us to say "Bach is great" despite the blandness of his music.
As you have also said so wonderfully, Dave, the problem I have with Bach is his fans. The fanatic Bach cult that relentlessly attack any other composers who "were not up to Bach's standards."
My favourite composer is G. Ph. Telemann. And I despise how those people always compare him to Bach. Here and there and in RUclips comments. I remember one that insult Telemann's set of modal fugues of being too easy and compare them with big Bach's ones, not knowing that they were pedagogical in nature. They were intended as teaching and learning materials for church modes, not show pieces. Beside, Telemann is simplicity, it was his life motto. Comparing him to Bach's complex way of things is as absurd as it can be. Bach as this untouchable spirit of profundity and spirituality, the god-like figure of music is ridiculous. To hell with this 'profundity'!
Bach is great and all of that. I agree, a very great composer. But he is not to be the measurement against which others are to be judged. Anyhow, The Bach cult is the worst of its kind I have found in the musical world, beyond the likes of Wagner's or even Chopin's and any others. It is disturbing and concerning really. Telemann all the way for me, as for the Bach fans, please be respectful to other great composers and their works.
Thank you for this honest chat!
I think, as I guess Richard Taruskin, that the all-too-big Bach-cult is partly based on German nationalism, and partly on Bach's true musical genius. I find his music often very interesting, even exhilirating, especially tha cantatas; likely because the counterpoint and harmonies and Baroque grandeur, and the marvellous built up - but there's also some features, that weren't so much international Baroque features, but are very much Bachian. The rigidity of themes, the ubiquitous sequences, some formalisms (running 16th notes in countersubjects) etc.: those for me shakes his reputation as the 'greatest'. In this sense I think the contemporary critics of Bach were right. (Also as Dave commented: this 'greatest' etc comments are ,,silly nonsense". There were many eras of music, and these are basically incomparable. In the 15-16th century some composers wrote so called proportional canons, or prolation canons: there were a 'canto firmo', which appeared in one part in 2/4, in the others 3/4, 9/8 - AT THE SAME TIME! A canon in DIFFERENT TIME SIGNATURES! And what these talents - like Ockeghem, Desprez - would have been capable of if they would have lived in the 18th century?!...) And no, not all Baroque music is like that - usually just Germans, sometimes. All in all, even if JSB was truly a musical genius, his cult is usually founded on SNOBISM. As boldly as that: the complexity of his music and its almost 200 years of reckless worship lead to this. The Wagner-cult was also built upon his musics complexity and is depth, so intellectualism.
In Bach's time there were many great composers - Zelenka certainly was as talented and crafty in counterpoint as Bach - even if not dedicated to explore it in so many facets -; and if Telemann (Deus tuum judicium, his Grand Motet for example) or Lotti (Missa a Tre...) or Fux etc. writes contrapunctal textures they are actually damned close to Bach! The Italian composers of the late Baroque were also very, very talented. And actually emotionally expressive, and no, a lot of Bach is not! His vocals works: yes, but a lot is not. Maybe beautiful, but not so ,,musical" as Mozart used this word. And Bach always wanted to be more complex than everyone (H.C. Schonberg also sensed this): his ecclesiastical works in latin are usually in 5 or more vocal parts, because most composers wrote in 4 etc. So yes, he was kind of arrogant. And what I hate about this when they say that ,,no one is comparable to Bach" - not only bullshit, but dogmatic almost to the point of religious worship. And of course Bach respected many of his contemporaries - so if he could, why not his fans? Well, because many of his fans are minor compared to him, even in human values (empathy, understanding etc.)!
So there's a lot of nonsense about Bach: the works of many others attributed to him, then praised (Telemann's too!) and so on. All in all: I also detest cults!
Interesting. I have the same 'issue' - where I am not a person who feel as if I have to be in a camp, one way or the other. I have listened to classical music all my life, and the way I see it, it is pick and chose, as if in a meadow, between the various pieces of various composers. It might be a very nice meadow, but not everything is, and everyone would have a different viewpoint. I applaud that we are not all the same, and that individuality and taste is allowed as varieties. People are not supposed to be the same. It would be quite boring, very quickly, to exist in an echo chamber. Great videos, by the way.
I heard Yo Yo Ma do that recital when I was a student at Tanglewood.
It was amazing, but it was also an open air concert and I could walk the grounds while he played and hear it perfectly fine.
If I had to sit through it....that's a different story 🤣
Thanks you for sharing your thoughts on Bach. I kind of suspected you wouldn’t be a fan. I’m fairly new to your channel and most definitely not even a remotely educated listener. I was introduced to Bach with the Brandenburg Concertos and instantly fell in love. He was my gateway to the Baroque. Since then I’ve collected and enjoyed as many CDs of different Baroque composers as my budget allowed . Though I’ve expanded my listening beyond the Baroque, that era remains my favorite in all of “Classical” music. To me, Bach’s music (and the music of many other Baroque composers) is beautiful, moving, and often profoundly poignant. It speaks to me of the human condition. The emotion expressed in later repertoire seems to me to be more overstated, often “operatic” in intensity. I prefer a more understated emotionalism. I also prefer Baroque music because of its more limited dynamic range. After a lifetime around jet engines and machinery, my hearing is not great and I have tinnitus. As much as I love Beethoven, I rarely listen to him because the greater dynamic range makes it difficult-if I turn the volume up to to hear the quiet passages, the loud passages blow out my ears, and when I turn down the loud parts, I can’t hear the quiet parts. Baroque is “easy listening” for me! I’ve really been enjoying your channel. I’ve learned a lot, and even though much of what you review seems to be focused on music more recent than the Baroque (and I love HIP!), I always find what you have to say interesting, informative and entertaining. I’ve even bought some of your recommended CDs and enjoy listening to them. I look forward to discovering more of your content. Thank you for doing what you do.
I wish you the best and hope your hearing remains stable! You're right to take care of it, and I can think of many worse way to do it than Bach!
I know exactly what you mean. Every year we have a Bach concert in my hometown. Only Bach‘s music. Then the audience is full of „Bildungsbürger“ (imperfect translation: educated bourgeoisie), a special kind of people in tweed jackets, who are making „Hausmusik“ at home. I respect his music, I like some pieces, but a concert only with Bach‘s music can be tough. Greetings from Northern Germany
I do so agree. I feel the same about Bach and Mozart. They wrote a hell of a lot of music. Its all mostly well crafted, and often lovely. But say with mozart if find a select group of works to be masterworks, 8 or 9 of the symphonies, string quartets, quinters, concertos, operas are sublime. But not all are on that level to me. Same with Bach, there are a select number of works that I feel are to me outstanding. Much of the organ works. Keyboard. Works, concertos etc. I love the mass, and a few of his cantatas, but not so much the passions, and chamber works. That's just me, enjoy what you like. Not all great composers works are all great.
I'm right there with you Dave. Apart from the Brandenburg Concertos I don't care much for Bach myself. I think his importance lies in the fact that he influenced many composers that came after him. It's much easier to respect him than to actually enjoy the music. The Brandenburg Concertos are great though.
How about Bach's Cello Suites then? Just trying to move you along ;-)
There's other stuff from Bach also written in major keys, if that's what floats your boat.
Wow! This video was so great; wonderful to hear your truthful position when it comes to Bach's music. The B Minor Mass, to me, is the greatest Bach. I loved that work from the first moment of hearing it. The mass, along with the Christmas Oratorio are my two favorites. I must confess to having major trouble with the Cantatas..... Thank you for your wonderful and honest views.
I have the same confession or similar feelings about Bach. You are courageous for saying! The aptly described “relentless” sacred polyphony of much of Bach’s music wears me down. At the same time, I’ve enjoyed the Brandenburg Ctos., Goldberg variations, Harpsichord Ctos and the Cello suites. Also, I’ve listened to the Passions. However, the contrast between Handel’s keyboard suites and Bach’s French or English suites is a case in point with me. Bach’s suites are technical wonders and contain very affecting parts, but I can listen to them only occasionally. They are better on harpsichord imo. Something about the timbral ambience of the harpsichord suits the music. By comparison, the Handel keyboard suites are magical, exciting, gorgeous pieces that I can listen to over and over. Can’t get enough! Same with the little Purcell harpsichord suites played by George Malcolm. They are so magical, they give me goosebumps! Not so with Bach.
Very courageous indeed.
My main, first instrument is the violin. I find that violinists tend to like Bach more than just enthusiasts or even pianists - I have no idea why this is the case other than his violin sonatas and partitas are pure wonder (better than his piano stuff). In my most depressed states Bach touches me in a bare and inanely emotional way. But of course when you're depressed most things can touch you in this emotional way. Then this phenomenon might have been due to me self-learning the piano by trying out Bach violin sonatas on the piano. There is something intimate there - he is something very special for me. The first Chopin pre-requisite if anything.
But agree that it would be a heady overdose, a bit meaningless, to listen to Bach continuously.
Btw my summer holidays are slowly being gobbled up by your videos, Dave, and I am enjoying it to the max
Also I notice you have a rock collection, PLEASE show them in more detail if you can!
Dave, I agree with you about Bach and I only like the piano music and a few other of his compositions - and I own about 25+ Bach discs. I prefer more spontaneous Baroque composers like Biber, Uccelini, Pandolfi.... as for solo violin compositions I like Tartini's sonatas the best because of their nuance and warmth. Paganini, Bach, Locatelli all grate on my nerves.
I've known Bach-meisters and they definitely listen to his music. I am not one of them But, I keep an open mind and my appreciation has very slowly grown. I didn't get much of anywhere with the Well Tempered Clavier but like his English Suites. I really fell hard for his Mass in B minor recently. But, if I am in the mood to torture myself, I play a CD of his sonatas for harpsichord and flute!
I think the word you were looking for at the end is honesty. I like Bach but I couldn't listen to him for a long period of time. Haydn and Boccheriini though, I can listen for hours.
I'll take Handel over Bach any day! Sir Thomas Beecham once said "I would give the whole of Bach's Brandenburg Concertos for Massenet's Manon and would think I had vastly profited by the exchange." There you are.
I am not a musician and have no musical training whatsoever, but I love many works by the old composers. And I like Bach, especially the concertos. Whenever a piece is over, I have the feeling that something wonderful has happened. I also own a box set of the Cello Suites 1 to 6 interpreted by Pablo Casals, but I've never listened to more than one at a time. It's actually also a mystery to me how you can listen to all six in a row in a concert hall (without being able to escape😱😉).
I am a fan of all types of Classical music, I presume just like most everyone in here. In the year 2000, during the 250th anniversary of J.S. Bach's death, I primarily listened to his music for the whole year. It was a fulfilling and rewarding musical experience. Anytime I was subjected to hear another composer's music, even for a few minutes, it sounded shallow! It was some experience. I have vowed that at some point in my life I will set aside my thousands of CD's, and I will primarily listen to J.S. Bach and Richard Wagner, just
because there is no such thing as Bach operas. I will still attend some live concerts of other great composers, however I've found out that J.S Bach's music alone is more satisfying to me.