11 ms·

Maybe he was a dissident, but his music is still boring to me. Or maybe his predecessors were just so boring that he was the first step away? I usually don't u

Maybe he was a dissident, but his music is still boring to me. Or maybe his predecessors were just so boring that he was the first step away? I usually don't understand from his music why he is celebrated. Is it that he is just historically important? Like the discovery of logarithmic tuning of sqrt_12(2)? It could also be that I am just moved more by the romantic era. Mozart generally gets relegated lower in my list of great composers, but in Mozart's case my objection is the strict adherence to tempo and clear tone. Edit: It should also be mentioned that the organ is not a very versatile instrument when compared to a piano. Although I have been treated to some great organ interpretation with a distinct familiarity to Daft Punk.

jacquesm 7y ago
Bach boring? No arguing about taste I guess. As for the organ not being very versatile compared to a piano: think of an organ not as a piano, but as a very early version of a synthesizer without 'touch sensitivity'.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Could one describe a famous mathematician's output (as a whole) as boring and put this opinion down to taste?
  - mikorym 7y ago
    You can describe output as boring, but you can't argue about correctness. Music does not have definibility of the latter.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- mikorym 7y ago
  Yes, exactly. So Bach was limited by his era and this is my suspicion about why I am not that interested in his music.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    All composers are limited by their era. Technology is part of it. What would Bach have produced if he had sampling? But equally importantly, all composers are limited by only having heard their contemporaries and predecessors. Bach was exposed to a certain set of music. You are exposed to a superset of the music he was exposed to. People heard his music juxtaposed with everything else they had heard. Some of it sounded fresh, some too different to be enjoyed. We hear his music juxtaposed with all the music composed after him, including music composed be people who heard his music and innovated further. That’s the nature of progression. His music, like Mozarts, has timeless beauty. But it will always be “less” in a certain way than the music we hear today.
atoav 7y ago
I think it has little to do with the music and everything to do with the interpretations and the instruments. I realized that when hearing non-traditional versions used by Andrey Trakovsky in his films, e.g.: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SUEWCddsQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SUEWCddsQ
- mikorym 7y ago
  Interpretation is an important point. My music teacher discouraged interpretation of Mozart. I in turn refrained from discussing much about composition with the teacher and instead did that independently. She wasn't a bad teacher, but I don't think she liked me.
  - atoav 7y ago
    I am mostly a autodidact when it comes to music, but one who made it to some level (I play in a improvisational band). In my experience there are only few classical musicians who are able to work freely when interpreting a existing piece (and they are usually very good at what they are doing). But when you ask a regular classical trained musician to improvise, they will look at you in fear or start playing a piece they know by hard. I think this is sad, because musician should be about fooling around and experimenting with sounds, melodies and phrases that come out of your instrument. Of course you can refine it all for a concert, but beeing a perfect classical musician should be more like Picasso and less like someone who tries to paint like a photograph (and keep in mind: Picasso was pretty good at the photorealistic stuff too if you look at early stuff). Music needs soul and that you only get through interpretation.
mikorym 7y ago
Downvoting opinions just because you disagree is specifically discouraged in the HN guidelines.
- psilocipher 7y ago
  HN guidelines are an absolute joke. "Anything that would satisfy intellectual curiosity" basically means "whatever we decide it is at the moment".
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    That is everything beyond fundamental physics, not just HN. You can argue that laws are an absolute joke, morality is an absolute joke, society is an absolute joke, nations are an absolute joke, company cultures are an absolute joke (to be sure!), relationships are an absolute joke (evnen an absurd joke) and so on. Nothing of interest to humans has immutable laws that are so objective to never require judgement. I stress the word “immutable” because if you give me a law that intends to produce a certain outcome, I’ll give you a game, and once it becomes a game, we’ll need to adjust the laws to preserve the intended outcome. That’s why we have moderators. And that’s why HN evolves over time. Old timers like me may shake their fist at the way it has changed, but we cannot expect it to remain preserved in crystal like a mosquito in amber.
    - psilocipher 7y ago
      Utter BS. Bach would be flagged, first because he's a white male, and second because he was a "rebel". Of course that wig would win him points, he's clearly cross-dressing.
      - iron0013 7y ago
        Do we really have to get this kind of reactionary BS in every single thread? Can it and enjoy the Bach, pal.
        7y ago
madengr 7y ago
Agree with you. Mendelssohn and Dvorak are my favorites, though Bach’s cello suites are pretty good.
- mikorym 7y ago
  Yay, someone who is open to the idea! So yes, I think Dvorak is a good counterargument to Bach. I personally feel that for anyone to appreciate Bach, in 2019, you need to overlay some form of intellectualism before you can appreciate Bach. And that is something I don't like; music should grab your from the first second, if possible. I would concede that I would appreciate Bach better if there was less public emphasis on his music. Someone like Grieg is to me fresh because it is unfamiliar. In that sense I would have had a much more open approach to Bach if the first time I heard his music had been through exploration, rather than publicity.
Doctor_Fegg 7y ago
> It should also be mentioned that the organ is not a very versatile instrument when compared to a piano. I wouldn't say that at all. It's versatile in a different way. Listen to some 20th century organ music - maybe start with Howells, Duruflé, Cochereau and explore from there.
nosianu 7y ago
Then why do you even bother (and us too) by clicking on a story explicitly about Bach according to the headline? Imagine doing that in real life. Every time you witness a conversation about something that doesn't interest you you go over there and tell them.
- mikorym 7y ago
  It could change my opinion.
QuesnayJr 7y ago
Bach is celebrated for himself, not his historical importance. He reached his current status as one of the most celebrated classical composers in the Romantic era, well after his Baroque style had become old-fashioned. Bach is so celebrated because it has a precision to it, and because all of the musical quality is right there on the page. It's the exact opposite of modern pop music, for example, which is production-driven, and relies much more on dramatic musical gestures.
bloak 7y ago
As I understand it, we don't know how Bach tuned his keyboard instruments. We know he cared about tuning and tuned his own instruments, but apparently there are reasons to believe that he didn't use equal temperament. Bradley Lehman has a bizarre theory, which you could look up if you're interested. I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether it's a good theory.
- madhadron 7y ago
  We know that most of his performance was done using meantone systems, like the rest of his contemporaries. They are are quite precisely known. What his well tempering might have been is a matter of conjecture and many fascinating proposals have been put forward. I had a great time playing in the orchestra for the Bach 4 harpsichord concerto trying out one particularly wild experiment.
madhadron 7y ago
I hear this a lot from people, and I think much of it is due to the milquetoast performance practice for Baroque music that was until recently widespread outside musicological circles. I remember how I was taught to play Bach orchestral suites or Corelli sonatas when I was young, and it was mind numbing and dull. Fortunately my father was also playing me Christopher Hogwood and company at home so I knew something was up.

jacquesm 7y ago

Bach boring? No arguing about taste I guess. As for the organ not being very versatile compared to a piano: think of an organ not as a piano, but as a very early version of a synthesizer without 'touch sensitivity'.

vixen99 7y ago
Could one describe a famous mathematician's output (as a whole) as boring and put this opinion down to taste?
- mikorym 7y ago
  You can describe output as boring, but you can't argue about correctness. Music does not have definibility of the latter.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mikorym 7y ago
Yes, exactly. So Bach was limited by his era and this is my suspicion about why I am not that interested in his music.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  All composers are limited by their era. Technology is part of it. What would Bach have produced if he had sampling? But equally importantly, all composers are limited by only having heard their contemporaries and predecessors. Bach was exposed to a certain set of music. You are exposed to a superset of the music he was exposed to. People heard his music juxtaposed with everything else they had heard. Some of it sounded fresh, some too different to be enjoyed. We hear his music juxtaposed with all the music composed after him, including music composed be people who heard his music and innovated further. That’s the nature of progression. His music, like Mozarts, has timeless beauty. But it will always be “less” in a certain way than the music we hear today.

atoav 7y ago

I think it has little to do with the music and everything to do with the interpretations and the instruments. I realized that when hearing non-traditional versions used by Andrey Trakovsky in his films, e.g.: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SUEWCddsQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SUEWCddsQ

mikorym 7y ago
Interpretation is an important point. My music teacher discouraged interpretation of Mozart. I in turn refrained from discussing much about composition with the teacher and instead did that independently. She wasn't a bad teacher, but I don't think she liked me.
- atoav 7y ago
  I am mostly a autodidact when it comes to music, but one who made it to some level (I play in a improvisational band). In my experience there are only few classical musicians who are able to work freely when interpreting a existing piece (and they are usually very good at what they are doing). But when you ask a regular classical trained musician to improvise, they will look at you in fear or start playing a piece they know by hard. I think this is sad, because musician should be about fooling around and experimenting with sounds, melodies and phrases that come out of your instrument. Of course you can refine it all for a concert, but beeing a perfect classical musician should be more like Picasso and less like someone who tries to paint like a photograph (and keep in mind: Picasso was pretty good at the photorealistic stuff too if you look at early stuff). Music needs soul and that you only get through interpretation.

mikorym 7y ago

Downvoting opinions just because you disagree is specifically discouraged in the HN guidelines.

psilocipher 7y ago
HN guidelines are an absolute joke. "Anything that would satisfy intellectual curiosity" basically means "whatever we decide it is at the moment".
- braythwayt 7y ago
  That is everything beyond fundamental physics, not just HN. You can argue that laws are an absolute joke, morality is an absolute joke, society is an absolute joke, nations are an absolute joke, company cultures are an absolute joke (to be sure!), relationships are an absolute joke (evnen an absurd joke) and so on. Nothing of interest to humans has immutable laws that are so objective to never require judgement. I stress the word “immutable” because if you give me a law that intends to produce a certain outcome, I’ll give you a game, and once it becomes a game, we’ll need to adjust the laws to preserve the intended outcome. That’s why we have moderators. And that’s why HN evolves over time. Old timers like me may shake their fist at the way it has changed, but we cannot expect it to remain preserved in crystal like a mosquito in amber.
  - psilocipher 7y ago
    Utter BS. Bach would be flagged, first because he's a white male, and second because he was a "rebel". Of course that wig would win him points, he's clearly cross-dressing.
    - iron0013 7y ago
      Do we really have to get this kind of reactionary BS in every single thread? Can it and enjoy the Bach, pal.
      - 7y ago

madengr 7y ago

Agree with you. Mendelssohn and Dvorak are my favorites, though Bach’s cello suites are pretty good.

mikorym 7y ago
Yay, someone who is open to the idea! So yes, I think Dvorak is a good counterargument to Bach. I personally feel that for anyone to appreciate Bach, in 2019, you need to overlay some form of intellectualism before you can appreciate Bach. And that is something I don't like; music should grab your from the first second, if possible. I would concede that I would appreciate Bach better if there was less public emphasis on his music. Someone like Grieg is to me fresh because it is unfamiliar. In that sense I would have had a much more open approach to Bach if the first time I heard his music had been through exploration, rather than publicity.

Doctor_Fegg 7y ago

> It should also be mentioned that the organ is not a very versatile instrument when compared to a piano. I wouldn't say that at all. It's versatile in a different way. Listen to some 20th century organ music - maybe start with Howells, Duruflé, Cochereau and explore from there.

nosianu 7y ago

Then why do you even bother (and us too) by clicking on a story explicitly about Bach according to the headline? Imagine doing that in real life. Every time you witness a conversation about something that doesn't interest you you go over there and tell them.

mikorym 7y ago
It could change my opinion.

QuesnayJr 7y ago

Bach is celebrated for himself, not his historical importance. He reached his current status as one of the most celebrated classical composers in the Romantic era, well after his Baroque style had become old-fashioned. Bach is so celebrated because it has a precision to it, and because all of the musical quality is right there on the page. It's the exact opposite of modern pop music, for example, which is production-driven, and relies much more on dramatic musical gestures.

bloak 7y ago

As I understand it, we don't know how Bach tuned his keyboard instruments. We know he cared about tuning and tuned his own instruments, but apparently there are reasons to believe that he didn't use equal temperament. Bradley Lehman has a bizarre theory, which you could look up if you're interested. I am not qualified to have an opinion on whether it's a good theory.

madhadron 7y ago
We know that most of his performance was done using meantone systems, like the rest of his contemporaries. They are are quite precisely known. What his well tempering might have been is a matter of conjecture and many fascinating proposals have been put forward. I had a great time playing in the orchestra for the Bach 4 harpsichord concerto trying out one particularly wild experiment.

madhadron 7y ago

I hear this a lot from people, and I think much of it is due to the milquetoast performance practice for Baroque music that was until recently widespread outside musicological circles. I remember how I was taught to play Bach orchestral suites or Corelli sonatas when I was young, and it was mind numbing and dull. Fortunately my father was also playing me Christopher Hogwood and company at home so I knew something was up.