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)
@@gon9684 i guess youre refering to Schoenberg's pre atonal music. Cause after that its just unlistenable, pointlessly ugly and dissonant all the time.
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 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)
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
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.)
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 ;)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
Thank you for verbalizing what has always bothered me about Bach. I always felt guilty that I didn’t adore this master. But now I know: He’s perfect in small doses!
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.
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 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.
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 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.
I am currently 52, and I am dealing with this issue since I was 18. Most of the time, whenever I put a Bach work on my player I discover myself turning it off 15 minutes later and looking for some other stuff. I have tried, again and again, but it doesn't move a bit of my soul, mind or heart. In case of harpsichord or piano (specially the harpsichord...) the 15 minutes are reduced to 5. And I can't help it.
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 ...
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.
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 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!
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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 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'm a German Lutheran church musician, so I have really grown up with this music, but I share a lot of the criticism you name, even though my conclusions differ. It's never good to put any person on a pedestal, and Bach had major weaknesses as did any other composer. In his mature period, Bach had the ability and proclivity to produce from a single idea a giant, perfect arch of music, which isn't easily approachable in a way. If you look art especially his very early works, there's a lot more imperfection and an abundance of fresh ideas, which often aren't much elaborated on. Those are much more approachable and maybe loveable, for example early cantatas like 4,150,106 or the organ chorales from the Neumeister collection. There is one more important aspect that I want to name: The doctrine that Bach (or any music of his time) has to be played with mechanical rhythm is pretty much modernist and unsupported by anything we know about the era. I completely agree that it needs flexibility to be enjoyable and to make sense, but especially in the piano and organ world most people don't take such freedom and thus unjustly cage in the music.
@@Me-uv6kc It is, that commentary applies more to the very earliest pieces (pre-1705) like the Neumeister Chorales, and also ‘a lot more imperfection’ when talking about Bach still means very little imperfection compared to other composers ;)
Mechanical rhythm (think of Gustav Leonhart) was in vogue among some devotees. Before that, there was the 'stately' playing of early music as if it were Haydn. (No, those two masters were as different as Chopin and Mahler!) For a short time I heard people trying to elicit the idea that a composer like Vivaldi could have rhythmic verve as if Bartok. (Interesting, but Vivaldi is nothing like Bartok!) Mechanical rhythm is necessary for marching bands, but where not necessary it can get very boring very fast.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
Observation: I started with Beethoven and forward in music. Bach was an acquired taste, which didn't develop until I began to play the organ seriously. Now, I love his music, but in an odd way. Even though I'm not a great player, I enjoy it most when I'm playing it rather than listening to it. I'm not sure why. Possibly I can communicate with it better when studying and playing the notes. I've never been really close to the music that was made for listeners (the cantatas, masses, etc.) excepting the Brandenburg Concertos. Nothing more than this, but I think it's an odd type of appreciation.
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 how you feel about Bach, David. I enjoy some of it very much, like Brandenburg #6 for one example. And that piece about shepherds in the field, or whatever it’s called for another.
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.
Interesting as always Dave. Those that may be so designated as Bach cultists should not color one's appreciation or enjoyment of old JS. They haven't in my case fortunately. Love the BWV1052! It's afterglow carries on thereafter. Gloriously unmechanical to my ears. I will only listen to that which I am in mood for in any case, and JS has his place among the others. I won't for example listen all the way through his organ works. Just savor the parts as I feel moved to do so. Each listen to any and all only enhances the aural experience and enrichment.
If I want to cut my teeth on JS Bach, what would you recommend? Back in college I studied his fugues in a Form and Analysis class. It reminded me of diagraming sentences in 7th grade! Thus it ruined my experience of just listening to his music with pleasure. So what would you recommend to simply experience his appeal?
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.
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.
As Beecham said, "Too much counterpoint, and what is worse, Protestant counterpoint." I've always viewed Bach as being the musical equivalent of tofu; rather bland by itself, but spiced right as part of another dish it can be quite tasty. I unashamedly adore the Stokowski transcriptions, for instance, and find them infinitely more enjoyable than listening to the originals. I also love Jacques Loussier's jazz refashionings of Bach. Bach was an incomparable technical genius, but apart from a small handful of pieces, nothing of Bach really moves me to any great extent. The religious works in particular, apart from the B Minor Mass, I find to be absolutely unbearable. Whenever I encounter the Passions or Cantatas I feel like I'm suffocating, desperately gasping for air. So your reservations about Bach are perfectly understandable to me.
Very dumb critic by beecham.Bach didn't care that much about technique most of his Works are religious,this Idea of focusing on technique came with the boring national romantics,during baroque people were more flexible
@@gim12345 Wow, not only do you totally miss the point of Beecham's remark, but what you say here is entirely nonsensical and inaccurate. I'm frankly stunned.
I love Bach, but my absolute favorite recording has always been the Eugene Ormandy Bach Album, with all those passé orchestral arrangements. Does that make me a philistine?
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.
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.
Like an earlier comment stated: interesting confession. When I was a child I stayed with my gran a lot and I watched then Ken Clark's Civilization on a French channel in the afternoon. Loved the old gentleman in his tweed (the family concern) talking in such lovely French (beautiful dubbed, of course) about art and music. Well, he painted a lovely picture of Bach's music with the pelgrim church of the Wies in the background and families of architects like the Zimmemann as contemporaries. Zimmermann means carpenter in German, he told us, linking the whole period and thus its music to families of skilled craftsmen.
To me, a lot of baroque composers very clearly compose "linearly", meaning that they write one section, move on to the next section, and move on to the next section. I feel like bach has "ulterior motives" while composing. When listening to Bach, I feel like I always know on what page in the musical story I'm on.
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.
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
Very interesting. For me, the main problem of Bach's musique is its mix of grieving and hope. That's depressing. When you are sad, you must play Bach told me a piano teatcher. But it is insane. Bach is a narcotic. It does not remove your sorrow. It makes it lovable. The main cure to Bach is Scarlatti.
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 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 🤣
With few exceptions the Bach I love is his secular orchestral works, especially the Brandenburg Concertos. My father loves the Matthew Passion but that puts me to sleep. However I do love the Mass in B Minor. Go figure.
I generally find the John Passion more intriguing, though I will admit I usually skip most of the recitative and unlike Monteverdi's recitative, Bach's is usually boring. I find it advisable to listen to the passions and even the Mass in separate chunks because it kind drags on forever otherwise.
Bach was one of the first composers I really loved....but that was because my dad had Jacques Loussier and the Swingle Singers jazzing it up. I got into it thinking, this is playful and fun, and it was a treat to pick out some of the themes on the piano. Then, when I discovered the violin concertos, the Magnificat, the Violin chaconne, the 48, the Brandenburgs, the Passions (I sang in the St John), it never seemed difficult. A miracle...those fugues that go backwards, the beauty of Ebarme Dich, the delicacy of the English and French suites....well, he's the tops for me. The B Minor Mass! Oh god, I'm so sorry you don't quite get it, dear Dave. I don't really get Mozart: far too often just pretty. Bits are great, the operas are lovely....but.... Each to their own. I do like these discussions.
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.
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.
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 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 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 like Bach's music well enough - though I find I do have to be in the mood for it. If I'm not in the mood, the music will just go in one ear and out the other.
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.
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.
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.
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 love Bach’s music. Probably his keyboard works especially. Me being a pianist, I suppose that has something to do with it. I have sat through listening Bach’s WTC!
