And they said that bravery is dead ...

QuasiUnaFantasia

I yesterday received some music: The "Matthäus-Passion", and the "Johannes-Passion" by J. S. Bach. My experience with his music does not include music of this sort (orchestra, choir, and solo singers), but has been mostly restricted to keyboard works, and the Brandenburg concertos.

Despite my bad experiences with his music (being mostly of the bored-out-of-my-skull type), I shall now proceed boldly to listen to the first of these 5 fun-filled disks. No need to wish me luck, or anything. I know my unwavering willpower will see me through this experience. 😁

CyberGene

There’s great music in both passions although I’m not a huge fan of stuff like recitatives and other fill-up numbers. The introduction to Johannes Passion is one of the greatest Bach moments though, I’ve even arranged it for synths and posted it here some time ago 🙂

Pete14

Thy bravery shall not go unnoticed nor will it go unrewarded, for I will personally stand guard by the gates at the other end of thy odyssey!

I shall meet thee, my friend! I shall meet thee by the gates guarding the secrets of Andromeda, time immemorial, Sodom & Gomorrah, and a moon orbiting three suns. We shall then ride on a beam of light directly connecting Bach to our pagan world; Bach, himself, a nod to Galileo, to-and-from parallel worlds; this is what awaits thee, my friend, this is what awaits thee by the moon that should not, yet does orbit around three stars.

HZPiano

Pete14 Thy bravery shall not go unnoticed nor will it go unrewarded, for I will personally stand guard by the gates at the other end of thy odyssey!

I shall meet thee, my friend! I shall meet thee by the gates guarding the secrets of Andromeda, time immemorial, Sodom & Gomorrah, and a moon orbiting three suns. We shall then ride on a beam of light directly connecting Bach to our pagan world; Bach, himself, a nod to Galileo, to-and-from parallel worlds; this is what awaits thee, my friend, this is what awaits thee by the moon that should not, yet does orbit around three stars.

Yeah, well, yeah, you know, eh…

😲

QuasiUnaFantasia

Well, I'm back from the first disk, and it's ... well, it's basically an opera, with a singing narrator. Not bad, as far as the music goes. But the story line is terrible; I think the hero gets knocked off early. It's all so gloomy, and sad. I hate it, when the hero gets it. Well, there's still disks 2 and 3, I suppose; maybe it'll end on a positive note. Even a major positive note.

😊

CyberGene

I know this will be a rather sacrilegious opinion from a Bach aficionado such as me but I find it difficult to listen through an entire passion and while it’s undoubtedly Bach, I don’t think it’s his best. OK, crucify me, fellow Bach-brothers ✝️

I much prefer his Mass in Bm and I think it contains a highly concentrated essence of the rather limited quantity of the really great parts in the passions. I’d highly recommend it and my personal favorite is

QuasiUnaFantasia

CyberGene I'll keep that in mind, for when I'm through with the St. Matthew, and St. John passions. 🙂

Pete14

CyberGene know this will be a rather sacrilegious opinion from a Bach aficionado such as me but I find it difficult to listen through an entire passion and while it’s undoubtedly Bach, I don’t think it’s his best. OK, crucify me, fellow Bach-brothers ✝️

I will spare thee from crucifixion, and perhaps I should also admit having trouble getting through anything demanding my full attention nowadays. It’s that darn internet!

Now, from what I’ve heard, it seems like Bach was always on a tight schedule and pressured to produce one masterpiece after the other; which he attempted, but not always succeeded at. That being said, if we look at Bach in his entirety; the limited resources available, and the overall crushingly difficult circumstances surrounding him, it is still an outstanding body of work, and even if we judge by the mere amount of notes he managed to put on paper (by hand), it is still a monumental achievement that still baffles me….how the hell did he do it?

Rumor goes that he had some minions working out the minor details, and at least one of his wives supposedly ‘helped’ him out; nonetheless, the pathways were always set by Bach; IMHO!

I truly hear ‘a bit of Bach’ in music worth listening to (whether classical, jazz, pop, or otherwise), and this influence is so deeply embedded into our subconscious, that most musicians aren’t even aware of the fact that they are frequently invoking Bach through their own compositions/improvisations. I also believe he is indeed the father of ‘modern music’ as we know it; and without him we might’ve never had a Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, nor even a Jones, Quincy Jones!🙂

Del Vento

Pete14 I truly hear ‘a bit of Bach’ in music worth listening to (whether classical, jazz, pop, or otherwise), and this influence is so deeply embedded into our subconscious, that most musicians aren’t even aware of the fact that they are frequently invoking Bach through their own compositions/improvisations.

Pete14 I also believe he is indeed the father of ‘modern music’ as we know it

This is actually a matter of fact, not a belief. Music before Bach, even great music before Bach was much different than his (and everything that follows). He basically "invented" harmony. Okay, one could argue that harmony is inherent in human physiology, so we could also say "discovered" harmony. But either way, go listen to Palestrina, for example. Great counterpoint, if you like that (which Bach kept, but subsequent authors ditched), but no harmony, just independent melodic lines without harmonic relationships to each other (and I'll bet 99% of people here will deem way more boring than Bach). Even worse, go listen to music before Palestrina: pure melody and very simple ones for that, so much so that Pythagorean tuning was sufficient and that none of that is performed today besides for historical reasons for very niche audience.

Johnstaf

Del Vento He basically "invented" harmony.

https://youtu.be/eqt005j1dB0

This was written over a century before Bach was born.

QuasiUnaFantasia

Not trying to take anything away from Bach here, but I want to inject a point: in my view, harmony is implied in melody, so even if you have only a single tone sounding at a time, there exists an implied harmonic relationship based on the succession of tones.

Del Vento

QuasiUnaFantasia Not trying to take anything away from Bach here, but I want to inject a point: in my view, harmony is implied in melody, so even if you have only a single tone sounding at a time, there exists an implied harmonic relationship based on the succession of tones.

Yes, I totally agree. But nobody before Bach had done it (as far as we know)

johanibraaten

I love both the St Matthew and St Johannes passions and I'm trying to consume at least one of them live once a year. It's said that the St Matthew passion is the one piece that brought back the fame of J S Bach after Felix Mandelsohn conducted it in 1829 and luckily opened up peoples eyes to Bach:s genius.

Del Vento

Johnstaf This was written over a century before Bach was born.

Thanks for posting this example.

I guess we can argue into what exactly constitute harmony. Before Bach, certainly there was polyphony, and occasionally some very beautiful ones such as the one you linked. Most of the polyphony before Bach is much more boring than this though. In any case some people do call this sort of polyphony "harmony". I personally think it's a stretch.

The scholars who would use the term harmony would also add the modifier coordinate, as in coordinate harmony per the description on the wikipedia page for harmony. I am not qualified (nor interested 🤣 ) to enter a scholarly argument about the technical details, but I hope we can agree that what Bach "invented" is different than what was done before, particularly the harmonic progressions and their resolutions. Those are the basis for any kind of things that today is considered music, regardless of genre (barring some fringe things such as atonality, dodecaphony, microtonality and to a lesser degree modal music).

Johnstaf

Del Vento but I hope we can agree that what Bach "invented" is different than what was done before, particularly the harmonic progressions and their resolutions.

I'm afraid I don't agree at all. 😀 I think the majority of music theorists and historians wouldn't agree either.

Del Vento In any case some people do call this sort of polyphony "harmony". I personally think it's a stretch.

It's the very essence of harmony, and could easily be written out as a series of chords with a clear tonal function, which is the opposite of so-called "coordinate harmony".

Del Vento

Johnstaf I'm afraid I don't agree at all. 😀

Well, we don't have to agree and still be friends 🙂

I think the majority of music theorists and historians wouldn't agree either.

So you are claiming the wikipedia article is incorrect in that statement?

Johnstaf

Del Vento Well, we don't have to agree and still be friends 🙂

Of course! 😀

Del Vento So you are claiming the wikipedia article is incorrect in that statement?

Not at all, but I don't see where it credits Bach with the fundamental shift in harmony from the meandering counterpoint of an earlier age to later tonal harmony -what Dahlhaus calls "subordinate harmony".

Bach's contemporaries such as Vivaldi and Handel also wrote "modern" harmony and counterpoint.

The biggest shift in harmony and counterpoint is probably that which took place around 1600, where hierarchical tonal structure took hold. It's interesting to study composers like Purcell and Monteverdi, who can sometimes sound like they are between two worlds.

Del Vento

Johnstaf Bach's contemporaries such as Vivaldi and Handel also wrote "modern" harmony and counterpoint.

That is true

Johnstaf It's interesting to study composers like Purcell and Monteverdi, who can sometimes sound like they are between two worlds.

Johnstaf I don't see where it credits Bach with the fundamental shift in harmony

Fair enough. Perhaps many people (including myself) credit too much Bach for this shift whereas changes (like many other things in culture and science) happen gradually with many contributors. Perhaps this view has arisen because Bach is the divide between these two worlds, with nothing of the previous one happening later? Just speculating now.

Johnstaf

Del Vento Perhaps this view has arisen because Bach is the divide between these two worlds, with nothing of the previous one happening later? Just speculating now.

Probably. He seems to have eclipsed the composers that came before him, and nowadays it's like music began with him. With a few notable exceptions, it's rare for a concert to include anything earlier than Bach, unless it's an "early music" concert.

CyberGene

I listen to a lot of early composers and I love them (to the disgust of my wife who once said it depresses and annoys her more than any other music… 🤦🏻‍♂️) and while I see Bach may not have invented harmony, polyphony and melody and is stepping on a very solid foundation, I find his music so much better than anything before or around his times. He didn’t just perfect what was available. I view his genius on an almost divine level above the standard, so to me that equates him to being the inventor of harmony or even music in itself 😀 I realize how wrong and superficial that sounds and biased of course because he’s to me the GOAT anyway.