Is Bach's music ahead of OUR time?

[Bill (Unique as my name)]

I am not mystified that the allure of Bach's music endures through
time.
I lack to explain its draw. Not educated in this field, and having so
many times in the past mistaken fool's gold for the genuine stuff, it
would be nice to have a some kind of measure more objective to cite
than my own delight in the experience.

Bowing in advance with gratitude for helpful contributions.

[Thomas Wood]

Your own delight isn't enough? Why not?

Tom Wood

Post by Bill (Unique as my name)
I am not mystified that the allure of Bach's music endures through
time.
I lack to explain its draw. Not educated in this field, and having so
many times in the past mistaken fool's gold for the genuine stuff, it
would be nice to have a some kind of measure more objective to cite
than my own delight in the experience.
Bowing in advance with gratitude for helpful contributions.

[Bill (Unique as my name)]

On Apr 16, 9:26 pm, "Thomas Wood" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I suppose the question was silly. I often hear how so-and-so is/was
ahead of his/her time. I just wondered how does somebody make that
determination about music.

Post by Thomas Wood
Your own delight isn't enough? Why not?
Tom Wood

Post by Bill (Unique as my name)
I am not mystified that the allure of Bach's music endures through
time.
I lack to explain its draw. Not educated in this field, and having so
many times in the past mistaken fool's gold for the genuine stuff, it
would be nice to have a some kind of measure more objective to cite
than my own delight in the experience.
Bowing in advance with gratitude for helpful contributions.

[Ioannis]

Post by Bill (Unique as my name)
I suppose the question was silly. I often hear how so-and-so is/was
ahead of his/her time. I just wondered how does somebody make that
determination about music.

There's a lot of mathematical information codified inside JSB's music. What's
strange is not the information itself, rather the fact that he was not a
mathematician. Even if he was, some of this info seems to have been ahead of
him.

Here's one example with combinatorics:
http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/music/analysis.html

For some more leanient examples, Google "Bach Gematria".

And let's not forget: We are talking about all that, *in addition* to the fact
that his music is simply beautiful. For me, all that points towards "ahead of
his time".

[sagespath]

Post by Ioannis

Post by Bill (Unique as my name)
I suppose the question was silly. I often hear how so-and-so is/was
ahead of his/her time. I just wondered how does somebody make that
determination about music.

There's a lot of mathematical information codified inside JSB's music. What's
strange is not the information itself, rather the fact that he was not a
mathematician. Even if he was, some of this info seems to have been ahead of
him.
Here's one example with combinatorics:http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/music/analysis.html
For some more leanient examples, Google "Bach Gematria".
And let's not forget: We are talking about all that, *in addition* to the fact
that his music is simply beautiful. For me, all that points towards "ahead of
his time".
--
I.N. Galidakis ---http://ioannis.virtualcomposer2000.com/

There is some math involved in contrapuntal technique, especially in
the construction of canons. To study this , see the 'Technique of
Canon' by Hugo Norden. Counterpoint synthesizes fat chords into
points. The analogy is that counterpoint is very digital and melody
over strummed chords is stupefyingly analogue. Bach's IQ was well
over 300 and well ahead of our own time.
Can anyone out there compose a fugue in Bach's own musical language?
If not, get your act together.

[Tom Hens]

Counterpoint synthesizes fat chords into points. The analogy is that
counterpoint is very digital and melody over strummed chords is
stupefyingly analogue.

From which I can only conclude that you don't know what "digital" and
"analog" mean.

Bach's IQ was well over 300

Asking for a source for this preposterous statement is, I'm sure, futile.
Especially considering nobody until the early 20th century, when "IQ tests"
were invented, had an IQ at all, and that the whole concept is ridiculous
to begin with. (For the invention of "IQ" by American psychologists, see:
Stephen Jay Gould, 'The Mismeasure of Man', an excellent book.)

[sagespath]

Post by Bill (Unique as my name)
I am not mystified that the allure of Bach's music endures through
time.
I lack to explain its draw. Not educated in this field, and having so
many times in the past mistaken fool's gold for the genuine stuff, it
would be nice to have a some kind of measure more objective to cite
than my own delight in the experience.
Bowing in advance with gratitude for helpful contributions.

In appreciation of your search beyond that swamp we call
'aesthetics'. In seeking to discover what made Bach's music so
different from everyone elses, I found no simple answers but stayed in
music school til I was 27. In answering your same question I learned
all his music and composed original music in his own forms and styles.
From earlier composers (Palestrina and Frescobaldi to Buxtehude) Bach
learned rigorous craftsmanly standards that were later codified into
the five species of counterpoint in 'Gradus ad Parnassum' of J.Fux, a
Viennese kapellmeister. This manual was assimilated later by Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven and some later composers. I learned it from
Normand Lockwood (1906-2002) who studied with Respighi.
Pop culture is not even aware of these standards and that is why it
all sounds the same.
Good question!

[Tom Hens]

Post by sagespath
From earlier composers (Palestrina and Frescobaldi to Buxtehude) Bach
learned rigorous craftsmanly standards that were later codified into
the five species of counterpoint in 'Gradus ad Parnassum' of J.Fux, a
Viennese kapellmeister. This manual was assimilated later by Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven and some later composers. I learned it from
Normand Lockwood (1906-2002) who studied with Respighi.

Apparently, Bach himself didn't much care for it. C.P.E. Bach, who never
had a composition teacher other than his father, wrote about his practice
in teaching composition:

"In der Composition gieng er gleich an das Nützliche mit seinen Scholaren,
mit hinweglassung aller der trockenen Arten von Contrapuncten, wie sie in
Fuxen u. anderen stehen." (Bach-Dokumente III/803)

My translation:

"In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types of
counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."

[sagespath]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by sagespath
From earlier composers (Palestrina and Frescobaldi to Buxtehude) Bach
learned rigorous craftsmanly standards that were later codified into
the five species of counterpoint in 'Gradus ad Parnassum' of J.Fux, a
Viennese kapellmeister. This manual was assimilated later by Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven and some later composers. I learned it from
Normand Lockwood (1906-2002) who studied with Respighi.

Apparently, Bach himself didn't much care for it. C.P.E. Bach, who never
had a composition teacher other than his father, wrote about his practice
"In der Composition gieng er gleich an das Nützliche mit seinen Scholaren,
mit hinweglassung aller der trockenen Arten von Contrapuncten, wie sie in
Fuxen u. anderen stehen." (Bach-Dokumente III/803)
"In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types of
counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."

If Fux is so dry, why did Bach produce a richly annotated version of
it in 1736? This has not yet been translated from the German. Bach
considered all of his works as models in composition for his
students. C.P.E Bach paid lip service to his father's disavowal of
Rameau's "Chord of Nature" but in his own works there is no trace of
his father's rigorous practice.

[Tom Hens]

<snip>

Post by sagespath

Post by Tom Hens
"In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types of
counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."

If Fux is so dry, why did Bach produce a richly annotated version
of it in 1736? This has not yet been translated from the German.

The simple answer is: he didn't.

Are you perhaps confused by the fact that one of Bach's pupils, Mitzler,
published an annotated edition of Fux?

And I notice you haven't answered my simple question as to what's wrong
with all editions of Clavierübung IV except the one by Ralph Kirkpatrick.
Or why someone who claims to be a harpsichordist and harpsichord builder
only recommends recordings of the work on piano, in particular the two by
Glenn Gould, not harpsichord recordings. It just seems rather odd.

[sagespath]

Post by Tom Hens
<snip>

Post by sagespath

Post by Tom Hens
"In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types of
counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."

If Fux is so dry, why did Bach produce a richly annotated version
of it in 1736? This has not yet been translated from the German.

The simple answer is: he didn't.
Are you perhaps confused by the fact that one of Bach's pupils, Mitzler,
published an annotated edition of Fux?
And I notice you haven't answered my simple question as to what's wrong
with all editions of Clavierübung IV except the one by Ralph Kirkpatrick.
Or why someone who claims to be a harpsichordist and harpsichord builder
only recommends recordings of the work on piano, in particular the two by
Glenn Gould, not harpsichord recordings. It just seems rather odd.

Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume
the master had a large part in all of it (including the edition by
Mizler (sic)). Mizler, a very minor composer, was unqualified to do
this on his own. Marputg's book on the tuning of keyboard instruments
is another similar example.
Most people prefer Gould's recordings. For harpsichord recordings
try those of Gustav Leonhardt.
Kirkpatricks edition is a true urtext. Most other editions of Bach,
(Bischoff, Kroll) incorporate things like phrasing marks, bad
fingerings, corrupt text- accretions held over from the 19th century
pianistic tradition.

[John_Sturmond]

Post by sagespath
Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume
the master had a large part in all of it (......)

And I presume that asking you the basis for 'our' presumption would
_not_ produce a lot of writing.

[sagespath]

Post by John_Sturmond

Post by sagespath
Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume
the master had a large part in all of it (......)

And I presume that asking you the basis for 'our' presumption would
_not_ produce a lot of writing.

It doesn't take a lot of words. If one can distinguish between the
quality of J.S. Bach's musical work and that of his students, and
given the encyclopedic scope of Bach's endeavors, my 'presumption'
doesn't need proof. It is self evident. It was generous of Bach to
let his students take credit for what he taught them.

[Tom Hens]

sagespath <***@gmail.com> wrote...

<snip>

my 'presumption' doesn't need proof. It is self evident.

Why am I not surprised?

[Tom Hens]

Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume

Could you please list who constitute this "we" on whose behalf you
apparently speak?

the master had a large part in all of it (including the edition by
Mizler (sic)).

I used the spelling 'Mitzler' because that's the variant used by C.P.E.
Bach in his letter to Forkel of January 13, 1775. Standardized spelling of
names was a long time away.

Mizler, a very minor composer, was unqualified to do this on his
own.

Says who? The same mysterious "we" as before?

Marputg's

Marpurg (sic).

book on the tuning of keyboard instruments is another similar
example.

Says who?

Most people prefer Gould's recordings.

Says who?

For harpsichord recordings try those of Gustav Leonhardt.
Kirkpatricks edition is a true urtext. Most other editions of Bach,
(Bischoff, Kroll) incorporate things like phrasing marks, bad
fingerings, corrupt text- accretions held over from the 19th century
pianistic tradition.

Coming from someone who doesn't even know what the NBA is, and who
recommends the deeply corrupt phrasing (among other things) of Glenn Gould,
not to mention the corrupt use of a one-manual piano rather than a
two-manual harpsichord, which Bach expressly specified, that's rich.

[sagespath]

Post by Tom Hens

Bach's students produced a lot of writing on theory. We may presume

Could you please list who constitute this "we" on whose behalf you
apparently speak?

the master had a large part in all of it (including the edition by
Mizler (sic)).

I used the spelling 'Mitzler' because that's the variant used by C.P.E.
Bach in his letter to Forkel of January 13, 1775. Standardized spelling of
names was a long time away.

Mizler, a very minor composer, was unqualified to do this on his
own.

Says who? The same mysterious "we" as before?

Marputg's

Marpurg (sic).

book on the tuning of keyboard instruments is another similar
example.

Says who?

Most people prefer Gould's recordings.

Says who?

For harpsichord recordings try those of Gustav Leonhardt.
Kirkpatricks edition is a true urtext. Most other editions of Bach,
(Bischoff, Kroll) incorporate things like phrasing marks, bad
fingerings, corrupt text- accretions held over from the 19th century
pianistic tradition.

Coming from someone who doesn't even know what the NBA is, and who
recommends the deeply corrupt phrasing (among other things) of Glenn Gould,
not to mention the corrupt use of a one-manual piano rather than a
two-manual harpsichord, which Bach expressly specified, that's rich.

Confucius say: 'whoever thinks on only one channel, will never
compose two part invention' .

[Ben Crick]

Post by sagespath
If Fux is so dry, why did Bach produce a richly annotated version of
it in 1736? This has not yet been translated from the German. Bach
considered all of his works as models in composition for his
students.

As witness his Klavierübung, best translated as "Keyboard Praxis".
These are not mere "exercises for Keyboard Playing", in the style of
Czerny's "101". They are examples of the "best practice" in *Keyboard
Writing.*

The Orgelbüchlein is another case in point. If you can play all
the 46 Little Pieces in the Little Organ Book, you can play Organ!

Ben

[sagespath]

Post by Tom Hens

Post by sagespath
From earlier composers (Palestrina and Frescobaldi to Buxtehude) Bach
learned rigorous craftsmanly standards that were later codified into
the five species of counterpoint in 'Gradus ad Parnassum' of J.Fux, a
Viennese kapellmeister. This manual was assimilated later by Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven and some later composers. I learned it from
Normand Lockwood (1906-2002) who studied with Respighi.

Apparently, Bach himself didn't much care for it. C.P.E. Bach, who never
had a composition teacher other than his father, wrote about his practice
"In der Composition gieng er gleich an das Nützliche mit seinen Scholaren,
mit hinweglassung aller der trockenen Arten von Contrapuncten, wie sie in
Fuxen u. anderen stehen." (Bach-Dokumente III/803)
"In [teaching] composition, he immediately started his pupils on
practical work, leaving out all the dry distinctions between types of
counterpoint, as they can be found in Fux and other authors."

We might distinguish between Bach's genial first lessons to young
students and his passionate pursuit of conveying fugal and canonic
technique to future generations. Those who have never been through
the Gradus (I spent a year on it) or call it "dry as dust" cannot be
aware of the 'mission critical' nature of the Gradus to fugue writers.
Only so much can be gained from a study of the historical sources.
The rest must come from a knowledge of Bach's complete work and the
experience of learning to compose original work in that language.
Did Mizler annotate Fux? Wasn't it Bach who said: "Never send a
boy to do a man's job"