can anyone tell me the specific bach chorale or piece that begins at 6;45. iTS RIGHT AFTER THE PART WITH THE FRENCH PIANIST DESCRIBING BACH HARMONIES...???
@MikeJMck You are in luck buddy. I REALLY wanted to know too, but had no idea what the hell he was saying. Then figured out it was chorale number 1. The BWV Number is BWV 140
@onemiketwelve I searched for the piece with this number in Youtube but could not find it.. the orchestration in this video at 6:42 is very elevating and touching.. it would be great if you can provide a link to the complete orchestral piece and also the piano version..
What is the piece that starts at 6:42 called? I have forgotten. And I don't want to go through all my Bach to find it, because then I'll just find something else great and listen to that instead.
i'm afraid I'm going to bow out of this one, as I'm beginning to forget where I started. Nevertheless, I greatly enjoyed this debate, and look forward to conversing with you more.
Opps. The comment that begins, "specifically to musical intelligence should be labeled "B-III", and the sequence number of each subsequent comment should (of course) be increased by one.
...watching people play chess in the park. Anyone above a certain level of a certain kind of intelligence will eventually figure out what's going on, and the greater this kind of intelligence the more quickly he will do so.
It may not be the exactly same sort of intelligence that enables one to solve partial-differential equations, or paint a picture that is worth looking at or a sonnet that is worth treading, but it is a mental faculty just the same.
...my use of the"intelligence" stems, ironically, from the narrowness of your own working definition of this word.
Presumably this arises from the fact that words like "intelligent" and "smart are in general colloquially confined to mathematical, analytical and problem-solving ability.
But there are many exceptions, and great artist are referred to as "geniuses" all the time -and quite rightly.
Your analogy is flawed in that you assume that the person witnessing this chess game has the intent and/or interest in deciphering it. An intelligent individual who has no interest in chess at all will not necessarily begin to naturally analyse the game due to his/her sheer intelligence. Intelligence doesn't necessarily equal enjoyment and interest in activities or arts that inspire higher intelligences, though it may lead to a respect or disrespect of that art/activity.
I hate it when people fight about music. That's not why music exists. And don't say its because you're passionate about it, because if you were you'd just enjoy it without having to prove somebody wrong about something.
Cuh, the guy talks as if he himself could write better than Vivaldi. His concertos definitely don't peter out as they go along - he keeps a wonderful balance in the composition. Ofc I can hardly assess - I'm no master composer, or even a second-rate one - but try, like me, writing a concerto movement like Vivaldi; harder than you would think, no matter how accessible his music is! Then again, might be a lot easier for someone with the training etc., but he still had a very individual genius
Don't forget that the man who is damning Vivaldi is a keyboard player. :)
Whatever, I personally don't care too much that some pseudo-intellectual pianist doesn't approve of Vivaldi. I can honestly say that I don't personally know a classical musician who doesn't like Vivaldi. And I do know alot of musicians in my area. :)
Haha, your slamming of him inclines me to believe you are an ardent fan of Vivaldi! If so, great! And what are you saying about keyboard players then ;) ?
And yes, I think only snobs who want the most supremely intellectual music could possibly say they don't like Vivaldi, and even then they'd be lying to themselves, surely! I even think a lot of fans of rock could love Vivaldi if they hear the right renditions of the right stuff! I might make a Vivaldi-rock playlist... (without debasing him!)
Ah well yes, of course, Bach's music is timeless... and I can say that even though I am yet to fully appreciate his whole complexity and the full scope of his works (for example, I have to admit I don't even know a single Bach cantata yet...) But you can just hear that distinctive intelligence in his musical vocabulary that tells you that this is music that came from a real person who knew how to transmute the world (and the human world) and all its emotions into music
I think I disagree with you there. I don't think Bach was able to completely transmute the human world) and all its emotions into music . I think he was able to transmute more than the vast majority of composers that lived at his time, and was able to do it using the complicated and somewhat emotionally dull art of counterpoint. That's an incredible achievement, and it is arguable that there were very few composers who were able to do that to such a level.
If he was able to cover the whole spectrum of human emotion, then there would have been no reason for people to write anymore music. There would have been no reason for the baroque era to die off and the classical and romantic eras to appear.
now, I know someone is going to attack me about the counterpoint comment, but it is true for the uneducated. Counterpoint is very dull, and is only interesting if one knows the basics of music theory. This is in part why is was abandoned during the early classical, because people wanted to widen the vocabulary of music. It was rediscovered in part due to the music of JSB. This is my hypothesis anyways, and is not a universal opinion I assume.
I see, very interesting. I can't pretend to know all (who does?) but yeah, I suppose if you're tied by the rules of a fugue, for example, then you don't have the same formal freedom that can intstil your music with that emotion... I mean, the man even wrote 'fugues' for the solo violin in his 3 solo violin sonatas! Pretty audacious to write a fugue for what is essentially a monophonic instrument! I guess when I talk about his emotions, I'm thinking more of his great melodies, ones which for me
do carry that special insight which makes them so penetrating in emotion. But yes, he can be rigorous. You talk about counterpoint being dull, but isn't it at the root of most western music? Because didn't harmony arrive through the practice of setting notes in counterpoint? I've got a treatise on composition by Charles Villiers Stanford, who says that one should learn counterpoint so that they can master harmony. Anyway, I currently don't feel I know enough about anything to comment!
Yes, but if you think about the most popular and beautiful pieces in classical music, you may be surprised to find that the one thing they all have in common is a powerful melody. Even Bach! His most famous fugues, like the "little fugue" in G minor have melodious fugue subjects. For those uneducated in music theory Melody = Beauty.
No no. Despite the fact that I have a musical educational, I admit that I'm a melodist. I'd rather listen to a Schubert lieder over a complicated fugue anyday.
Mm, well I agree, and I think it's very natural and human. After all, consider the satisfying melodies in old folk music, often doing what you want them to, it just shows how such a desire stems from the heart. I suppose fugues are essentially very mathematical, scientific, and more people would get pleasure out of them mainly for learning about counterpoint rather than pure listening satisfaction, apart from the fugues of those like Bach, which as we've said can be very melodious!
I've never made that connection but I do know that any Baroque listening streaks I have tend to be short-lived. Counterpuntal harmony is so ingrained into music that we now take it for granted and it sounds familiar, almost like a "hook" of sorts.
I always wondered about the dramatic shift into the Classical era and your theory about counterpoint explains some of it. What about polyphony though? It's my favorite aspect of Baroque and going to homophony almost seems like a step backwards.
In regards to complexity, perhaps, but it was necessary in increasing the emotional and textural language of music, not to mention it lead to the dominance of secularized music.
Yes, you are right in many ways. But what made Bach's use of counterpoint... the best (and therefore not dull), really, was his innate strong harmonic sense. His counterpoint is always harmonically driven. His harmonies are enriched by the individuality and daring of his part writing. He just made it impossible for us mortals to write one or the other - let alone both at the same time - without falling short of his examples :-)
I think part of your statement is redundant. Of course his counterpoint was harmonically driven; that's what counterpoint is all about. Though yes, I agree that with your following statements. Bach's harmony is of course a part of the appeal. But ONLY a part. I don't think it's the key. Do you think his music would have the same impact on the listener without his melody? Jan Dismas Zelenka's music shows counterpuntal skill possibly equivalent to Bach, but why is he forgotten, and Bach not?
Well, counterpoint is NOT all about harmony. Without stating the obvious (harmonic sensibility coming out of Renaissance counterpoint, etc. ). Before the "common practice" linear thinking prevailed over the vertical, with due attention to sonorities. What makes Bach use of counterpoint stronger is the harmonic structure (harmonic sequences, harmonic rhythm) conceived more or less at the same time as the linear structure (parts' motion, non-harmonic tones, motives, periods, phrases etc.).
I personally believe that the foundation of modern classical music is the melody, as before the baroque masters, the idea of melody was very different from what we consider today. Maybe that's why there are no supreme (Ie Mozart's, Beethoven's, top spectra) musical masters (by modern standards) pre-baroque. Yes there is Palestrina, but does he compete with Mozart and the others? No.
...never before him MELODY and HARMONY made so much sense. This said, Bach was the first to admit the importance of a good tune, "a good inventio", as he called it. Please, don't misinterpret my comments: I agree with you that melody and rhythm are more... appealing, important, memorable, etc. than a good triple invertible counterpoint with mediocre melodic invention. Bach saw and used counterpoint and melody as part of a whole. At least, that's what his music tells me (more below)
An example (quoted in the video!): the famous tune from cantata 140: a fantastic melody full of appoggiatura's, suspensions, anticipations, over an ever changing harmonic scheme (and I'm leaving out the chorale tune proper!) . All of those non-harmonic tones "hit the ear" that way (and the heart) BECAUSE of the underpinning harmony, they feed off each other, so to speak. Yes, the florid tune is fantastic by itself, but its peculiarities gain significance becaue of the harmony.
... that is, gain significance because of the melody in the bass + the (more important) melody in the soprano + the chorale tune in the tenor = counterpoint! But - you'd say - what is the milkmaid going to remember? The soprano line of course! The other voices/parts she wouldn't consider worth mentioning. Well, you get my point... after all, I think I'm agreeing with you at the end :-)
Its very simplistic and above all far too easy to say 'really good music started with Bach'. You don't even mention Sweelink or Gibbons or Buxtehude, Byrd or Dowland, narvaez, da milano, Corelli, Castaldi, Gurerro, Josquin (Just off the top of my head).You just let Palestrina stand up for all music pre-Bach and then knock him down by comparing him to Mozart. If you don't know much about something, and this case you don't, try to avoid making broad statements about that something's worth.
What? I never said that, and never intended to say that. That is not my opinion at all (look at my channel, that should be enough to prove that). That's a complete misinterpretation of what I am trying to say.
Well, *I'm* going to attack you, but not for the reason you might expect. :)
"Counterpoint is very dull, and is only interesting if one knows the basics of music theory."
I know nothing whatever of music theory but find counterpoint in the works of J.S. Bach endlessly fascinating and effortlessly accessible; and I must say it comes as something of a surprise to me that the contrary is simply to be assumed.
I would have thought all that is required is a certain kind of native intelligence.
Your fascination with the music without musical training is because you are naturally interested in the construction and science of the music. Not every "intelligent" person listens to music or watches a film or reads a book and naturally analyses it.
Forgive me, but you seem not to have understood my comment.
My point is that formal training is precisely what I altogether lack, and is, unless I have misread you, precisely what you appeared to suggest is a prerequisite to the appreciation of counterpoint.
Perhaps the very fact that I am to be found watching this video suggests to you that I have some formal musical knowledge, but I assure you I cannot so much as read a score, and this has, so far as I can tell, this has....
..posed not the slightest hinderance to my appreciation of Bach's contrapuntal ingenuity, which I'm quite confident I gained instantaneously upon my very first hearing of the Brandenberg concertos.
I understood counterpoint quite well before I even knew what it was.
Now, assuming this is not a self-flattering illusion (it would have to be an extraordinarily vivid one) or a hollow boast, surely what you call my "natural interest" is the result of an innate, biologically indicated...
...cognitive capacity to comprehend the complexities of Bach's musical logic, which strikes me as self-evidently universal, if obviously abstruse to the simple minded.
I notice that you place "intelligent" in quotes, presumably so as to imply that the word is somewhat misapplied. Understand that I speak specifically of musical intelligence, which is every bit as much the result of neurological complexity as is an exceptional aptitude for language or mathematics.
All I am saying is that your particularily scientific appreciation of this music despite a lack of knowledge within the field is simply not universally held.
I'm sure I come off as both stolid and snarky, but I do hope you'll reply once more.
I've formed a genuine respect for your opinion based upon the dozens of your comments and I've stumbled across over the past year or so and am sincerely interested in what you have you say.
"surely what you call my "natural interest" is the result of an innate, biologically indicated cognitive capacity to comprehend the complexities of Bach's musical logic, which strikes me as self-evidently universal, if obviously abstruse to the simple minded."
I hate this reference to the "simple minded". There are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest or comprehension of this music. Intelligence is not that narrowly defined.
Why? Are all minds equally complex? Unless you're prepared to argue that they are, I don't see that you have any valid grounds for objection to my use of this phrase.
Apparently I have offended your sense of egalitarinaism. I run into this a lot.
I am an unapologetic elitist, which is *not* to be confused with a snob. They aren't the same thing at all.
An elitist is simply someone who recognizes that human beings vary dramatically...
...in their capacity to create and comprehend art, and who flatly refuses to accede to demands that he pretend otherwise -nor is he hard of heart if he remains unmoved.
An elitist prefers genius to talent and has no interest in mediocrity at all.
Do you really see anything wrong if this?
If so, What?
"There are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest in the comprehension of this music."
No, frankly, there are not. I point out for the second time that I refer...
..specifically to *musical* intelligence. Do you object to this concept, or are you simply confused by semantics?
There are subsets of intelligence.
Just as different computers are better designed than others to run different kinds of programs , different brains tend to better able to perform certain cognitive tasks.
I could say, "there are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest in the comprehension of *mathematics*", but if I said this in the same sense...
BI-V ... as your sentence that I paraphrase, it would be highly misleading.
James Joyce may have had no may have had no serious interest in mathematics, bu this is almost surely because his gifts lie elsewhere "i.e. language and metaphor) . One's interests are tremendously influenced by one's abilities, and I aver that he primary -indeed almost the sole- determinant of one's taste in art is the capacity -or incapacity- to comprehend it.
No, but that doesn't mean that people who don't share your interests are not. intelligent. Not all intelligent individuals share the same interests. Like I said, intelligence is not that narrowly defined.
Vivaldi always gets a bad wrap from analysts, but I think he had a great imagination for melody, good inventive ideas. He didn't explore harmonic or thematic development as successfully as Bach, but he had great soul and taste.
I agree completely! I am something of a Vivaldi addict (his music is just so ENJOYABLE!) and yet just because he didn't write master fugues like Bach, he's often mocked. Okay, he may not have had the great multi-voiced, contrapuntal imagination and genius of Bach, but he was an excellent melodist, a more than successful innovator in concerto form, and the different reasonances he brings out of the string orchestra are amazing. And his aria-like slow movements are truly a world of their own...
@Phygos2008 - Sounds very sordid to me. Perhaps I'm not 'with it.' Whatever the definite article is supposed to represent in that context, I'm contrary to 'it' in every way.
i mean two
johnsmith21197 5 days ago
hahahaha it takes to people to play what glenn gould plays over lunch.
johnsmith21197 5 days ago
ummm, is the old dude in the beginning high??? xD
ernadmahmic 2 months ago
Can someone tell me the piece that's played at 6:42? It's beautiful.
dsw67 2 months ago
@dsw67 Sleepers, Awake!
wildnites558 1 day ago
"He got into a sword fight with a student after saying he had "played the bassoon like a goat"
i respect him more right at this moment than ever before
Hayden0117 3 months ago
The last piece is called Sleeper's Wake.
Eamesam 3 months ago
Nice talk about Buxtehude by Koopman.
OrchestrationOnline 3 months ago
thats why his kids died.... he married his cousin lol i know it was different back in the day
LINX29X92 8 months ago
can anyone tell me the specific bach chorale or piece that begins at 6;45. iTS RIGHT AFTER THE PART WITH THE FRENCH PIANIST DESCRIBING BACH HARMONIES...???
MikeJMck 8 months ago
@MikeJMck You are in luck buddy. I REALLY wanted to know too, but had no idea what the hell he was saying. Then figured out it was chorale number 1. The BWV Number is BWV 140
onemiketwelve 8 months ago in playlist BACH DOCUMENTARY
@onemiketwelve
hey, I didn't see you get the proper thank you for the impossible task of finding that piece of music..
you helped me out alot.. been looking al night and pretty much have downloaded all of bach's music and listened to alot of it..
I actually am not into classical music.. so I was getting hopeloess.
so thanks again.
bigfartingloser 3 months ago
@onemiketwelve I searched for the piece with this number in Youtube but could not find it.. the orchestration in this video at 6:42 is very elevating and touching.. it would be great if you can provide a link to the complete orchestral piece and also the piano version..
praneeth34 4 weeks ago
@MikeJMck Also, its the 4th movement I just found out
onemiketwelve 8 months ago in playlist BACH DOCUMENTARY
LOL the weird ending at 1:57 is pretty funny, especially the old guy.
Tand0oriCh1cken 9 months ago
:43 Isn't that piece contrapunctus IX?
gepetio 10 months ago
2:02-2:23 what is the name of that piece?
Akee1990 11 months ago
@Akee1990
"Ach, Herr, lehre uns bedenken" from the second movement of BWV 106.
apoteos 11 months ago
@apoteos Thank you :)
Akee1990 11 months ago
I wonder why he doesn't mention J.C. Bach amongst great composers-> 1:49
firebreathone2 1 year ago
...Bach is God...yes....but so is Ton Koopman in my humble opinion!
peteryyz43 1 year ago
haha it amazes me no one's made a major motion picture of his life. Wine, women, fights, insults, it's got the makings of a blockbuster.
Not to mention the best soundtrack ever.
agreatguy6 1 year ago 3
I see Bach did not suffer supidity and mediocrity well! "You play like a goat!"
sosome57 1 year ago
great docu but ol ton koopman is off his barnett
lens2optic 1 year ago 8
what is the name of that piece in 6:28 - 6:37?
Kingofblacklabel 1 year ago
@Kingofblacklabel choral prelude for piano or one of them i think
iambanzo 1 year ago
@Kingofblacklabel The piece is "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme" also known as "Sleepers Wake"
fozziebear2009 1 year ago
He banged his cousin in Church and cut somebody w/ a sword..real gangsta
wisesatyr72 1 year ago 4
@wisesatyr72
heheheheh Kudos for that comment,
manenir 1 year ago
Vivaldi was good at composing beginnings but didn't handle the rest of the music well??? Are you kidding me?
Marzipancat 1 year ago 20
@Marzipancat I understand that no other composer was able to work a composition through to it's perfect logical conclusion as Bach did.
pobinr 1 year ago
@Marzipancat #LOL
brunofujii 7 months ago
Vicious harpsichord playing. :-/
LaDivinaAriell 1 year ago
Bach's music is a direct path to the kingdom of the God.
alnamree 1 year ago 3
Woo! I'm going to see St Matthew's Passion on Friday
Nizlopi2 1 year ago
married his cousin!!
cormballs 2 years ago 4
@cormballs Well they don't mean cousin cousin... More like a very very distant cousin
Bachlives2 2 years ago
Joanna MacGregor is performing Bach with Britten Sinfonia at Londons Roundhouse on 23th Jan.
tomkihl 2 years ago
called WACHET AUF RUFT UNS DIE STIMME
vanya2309 2 years ago
It's choral prelude Es-dur
vanya2309 2 years ago
What is the piece that starts at 6:42 called? I have forgotten. And I don't want to go through all my Bach to find it, because then I'll just find something else great and listen to that instead.
Uvanekrafs 2 years ago 2
"Zion hör die wächter singen"
from "Wachet auf, ruft uns die stimme"
dareal92 2 years ago
Comment removed
Stehnz 2 years ago
BWV 140
Raoul3434 2 years ago
@Uvanekrafs Is calles "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 645"
asmodevsluxuria 1 year ago
Why are people talking about chess here?
telephilia 2 years ago
Arrgh. Fucking typos.
polymath7 2 years ago
i'm afraid I'm going to bow out of this one, as I'm beginning to forget where I started. Nevertheless, I greatly enjoyed this debate, and look forward to conversing with you more.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Opps. The comment that begins, "specifically to musical intelligence should be labeled "B-III", and the sequence number of each subsequent comment should (of course) be increased by one.
polymath7 2 years ago
B-V
"All I'm saying that your particularly scientific appreciation of this music..is not universally held".
I don't understand your use of the word "scientific", but such an appreciation most definitely *is* universal in the sense that I intend this word.
I said "universal", not "unanimous" two very different concepts.
By universal, I mean not context dependent.
An analogy:
Suppose someone entirely ignorant of the game of chess (and of the English language) spends a few hours...
polymath7 2 years ago
B-VI
...watching people play chess in the park. Anyone above a certain level of a certain kind of intelligence will eventually figure out what's going on, and the greater this kind of intelligence the more quickly he will do so.
It may not be the exactly same sort of intelligence that enables one to solve partial-differential equations, or paint a picture that is worth looking at or a sonnet that is worth treading, but it is a mental faculty just the same.
Your misunderstanding of...
polymath7 2 years ago
B-VII.
...my use of the"intelligence" stems, ironically, from the narrowness of your own working definition of this word.
Presumably this arises from the fact that words like "intelligent" and "smart are in general colloquially confined to mathematical, analytical and problem-solving ability.
But there are many exceptions, and great artist are referred to as "geniuses" all the time -and quite rightly.
NOW, do you understand what I'm talking about?
Is there anything left to which you object ?
polymath7 2 years ago
Your analogy is flawed in that you assume that the person witnessing this chess game has the intent and/or interest in deciphering it. An intelligent individual who has no interest in chess at all will not necessarily begin to naturally analyse the game due to his/her sheer intelligence. Intelligence doesn't necessarily equal enjoyment and interest in activities or arts that inspire higher intelligences, though it may lead to a respect or disrespect of that art/activity.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Can someone can tell me Please the name of the song at the 2:00 min to the 3:15
Thank You
matte205 2 years ago
now playing: Bach, Johann Sebastian (1685-1750), Bach-Ensemble - Helmuth Rilling - [Kantaten BWV 106-108 Bach-Ensemble CD 92.034 #03] Bach J.S. BWV 106 / Lento (T): Ach, Herr, Lehre uns bedenken [2:17m/1244kbps/44.1kHz]
s400py 2 years ago
I hate it when people fight about music. That's not why music exists. And don't say its because you're passionate about it, because if you were you'd just enjoy it without having to prove somebody wrong about something.
thereisonlyonething 2 years ago 2
WHAT!!?? What he just said at 3:40??!!
skellez83 2 years ago
he played awesome
God gave him a great gift
stargirlsusan 3 years ago
Cuh, the guy talks as if he himself could write better than Vivaldi. His concertos definitely don't peter out as they go along - he keeps a wonderful balance in the composition. Ofc I can hardly assess - I'm no master composer, or even a second-rate one - but try, like me, writing a concerto movement like Vivaldi; harder than you would think, no matter how accessible his music is! Then again, might be a lot easier for someone with the training etc., but he still had a very individual genius
thelightisahead 3 years ago
Don't forget that the man who is damning Vivaldi is a keyboard player. :)
Whatever, I personally don't care too much that some pseudo-intellectual pianist doesn't approve of Vivaldi. I can honestly say that I don't personally know a classical musician who doesn't like Vivaldi. And I do know alot of musicians in my area. :)
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
Haha, your slamming of him inclines me to believe you are an ardent fan of Vivaldi! If so, great! And what are you saying about keyboard players then ;) ?
And yes, I think only snobs who want the most supremely intellectual music could possibly say they don't like Vivaldi, and even then they'd be lying to themselves, surely! I even think a lot of fans of rock could love Vivaldi if they hear the right renditions of the right stuff! I might make a Vivaldi-rock playlist... (without debasing him!)
thelightisahead 3 years ago
I am, but I am also an ardent Bach fan as well.
ILOVECINEMA101 3 years ago
Ah well yes, of course, Bach's music is timeless... and I can say that even though I am yet to fully appreciate his whole complexity and the full scope of his works (for example, I have to admit I don't even know a single Bach cantata yet...) But you can just hear that distinctive intelligence in his musical vocabulary that tells you that this is music that came from a real person who knew how to transmute the world (and the human world) and all its emotions into music
thelightisahead 3 years ago
I think I disagree with you there. I don't think Bach was able to completely transmute the human world) and all its emotions into music . I think he was able to transmute more than the vast majority of composers that lived at his time, and was able to do it using the complicated and somewhat emotionally dull art of counterpoint. That's an incredible achievement, and it is arguable that there were very few composers who were able to do that to such a level.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
If he was able to cover the whole spectrum of human emotion, then there would have been no reason for people to write anymore music. There would have been no reason for the baroque era to die off and the classical and romantic eras to appear.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
now, I know someone is going to attack me about the counterpoint comment, but it is true for the uneducated. Counterpoint is very dull, and is only interesting if one knows the basics of music theory. This is in part why is was abandoned during the early classical, because people wanted to widen the vocabulary of music. It was rediscovered in part due to the music of JSB. This is my hypothesis anyways, and is not a universal opinion I assume.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
I see, very interesting. I can't pretend to know all (who does?) but yeah, I suppose if you're tied by the rules of a fugue, for example, then you don't have the same formal freedom that can intstil your music with that emotion... I mean, the man even wrote 'fugues' for the solo violin in his 3 solo violin sonatas! Pretty audacious to write a fugue for what is essentially a monophonic instrument! I guess when I talk about his emotions, I'm thinking more of his great melodies, ones which for me
thelightisahead 3 years ago
do carry that special insight which makes them so penetrating in emotion. But yes, he can be rigorous. You talk about counterpoint being dull, but isn't it at the root of most western music? Because didn't harmony arrive through the practice of setting notes in counterpoint? I've got a treatise on composition by Charles Villiers Stanford, who says that one should learn counterpoint so that they can master harmony. Anyway, I currently don't feel I know enough about anything to comment!
thelightisahead 3 years ago
Yes, but if you think about the most popular and beautiful pieces in classical music, you may be surprised to find that the one thing they all have in common is a powerful melody. Even Bach! His most famous fugues, like the "little fugue" in G minor have melodious fugue subjects. For those uneducated in music theory Melody = Beauty.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
Hehe, well yes, always good to have something to whistle to! I hope you're not implying that I am uneducated in music theory though hehe
thelightisahead 3 years ago
No no. Despite the fact that I have a musical educational, I admit that I'm a melodist. I'd rather listen to a Schubert lieder over a complicated fugue anyday.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
Mm, well I agree, and I think it's very natural and human. After all, consider the satisfying melodies in old folk music, often doing what you want them to, it just shows how such a desire stems from the heart. I suppose fugues are essentially very mathematical, scientific, and more people would get pleasure out of them mainly for learning about counterpoint rather than pure listening satisfaction, apart from the fugues of those like Bach, which as we've said can be very melodious!
thelightisahead 3 years ago
Yes. :)
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
I've never made that connection but I do know that any Baroque listening streaks I have tend to be short-lived. Counterpuntal harmony is so ingrained into music that we now take it for granted and it sounds familiar, almost like a "hook" of sorts.
I always wondered about the dramatic shift into the Classical era and your theory about counterpoint explains some of it. What about polyphony though? It's my favorite aspect of Baroque and going to homophony almost seems like a step backwards.
randomwords7007 2 years ago
In regards to complexity, perhaps, but it was necessary in increasing the emotional and textural language of music, not to mention it lead to the dominance of secularized music.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Yes, you are right in many ways. But what made Bach's use of counterpoint... the best (and therefore not dull), really, was his innate strong harmonic sense. His counterpoint is always harmonically driven. His harmonies are enriched by the individuality and daring of his part writing. He just made it impossible for us mortals to write one or the other - let alone both at the same time - without falling short of his examples :-)
bersa888 2 years ago
I think part of your statement is redundant. Of course his counterpoint was harmonically driven; that's what counterpoint is all about. Though yes, I agree that with your following statements. Bach's harmony is of course a part of the appeal. But ONLY a part. I don't think it's the key. Do you think his music would have the same impact on the listener without his melody? Jan Dismas Zelenka's music shows counterpuntal skill possibly equivalent to Bach, but why is he forgotten, and Bach not?
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Well, counterpoint is NOT all about harmony. Without stating the obvious (harmonic sensibility coming out of Renaissance counterpoint, etc. ). Before the "common practice" linear thinking prevailed over the vertical, with due attention to sonorities. What makes Bach use of counterpoint stronger is the harmonic structure (harmonic sequences, harmonic rhythm) conceived more or less at the same time as the linear structure (parts' motion, non-harmonic tones, motives, periods, phrases etc.).
bersa888 2 years ago
I was speaking in a more generic and less specific sense, but I understand what you are saying.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Bach's counterpoint gives me 12 inch long intellectual boners.
RainMan34 2 years ago
I personally believe that the foundation of modern classical music is the melody, as before the baroque masters, the idea of melody was very different from what we consider today. Maybe that's why there are no supreme (Ie Mozart's, Beethoven's, top spectra) musical masters (by modern standards) pre-baroque. Yes there is Palestrina, but does he compete with Mozart and the others? No.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
...never before him MELODY and HARMONY made so much sense. This said, Bach was the first to admit the importance of a good tune, "a good inventio", as he called it. Please, don't misinterpret my comments: I agree with you that melody and rhythm are more... appealing, important, memorable, etc. than a good triple invertible counterpoint with mediocre melodic invention. Bach saw and used counterpoint and melody as part of a whole. At least, that's what his music tells me (more below)
bersa888 2 years ago
An example (quoted in the video!): the famous tune from cantata 140: a fantastic melody full of appoggiatura's, suspensions, anticipations, over an ever changing harmonic scheme (and I'm leaving out the chorale tune proper!) . All of those non-harmonic tones "hit the ear" that way (and the heart) BECAUSE of the underpinning harmony, they feed off each other, so to speak. Yes, the florid tune is fantastic by itself, but its peculiarities gain significance becaue of the harmony.
bersa888 2 years ago
... that is, gain significance because of the melody in the bass + the (more important) melody in the soprano + the chorale tune in the tenor = counterpoint! But - you'd say - what is the milkmaid going to remember? The soprano line of course! The other voices/parts she wouldn't consider worth mentioning. Well, you get my point... after all, I think I'm agreeing with you at the end :-)
bersa888 2 years ago
I see what you mean, and I understand what you are saying, and I think that is a very convincing argument. Thanks.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Its very simplistic and above all far too easy to say 'really good music started with Bach'. You don't even mention Sweelink or Gibbons or Buxtehude, Byrd or Dowland, narvaez, da milano, Corelli, Castaldi, Gurerro, Josquin (Just off the top of my head).You just let Palestrina stand up for all music pre-Bach and then knock him down by comparing him to Mozart. If you don't know much about something, and this case you don't, try to avoid making broad statements about that something's worth.
LutenistDeMari 2 years ago
What? I never said that, and never intended to say that. That is not my opinion at all (look at my channel, that should be enough to prove that). That's a complete misinterpretation of what I am trying to say.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
And don't quote me on something I didn't write.
Don't insult me. Thanks.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Well, *I'm* going to attack you, but not for the reason you might expect. :)
"Counterpoint is very dull, and is only interesting if one knows the basics of music theory."
I know nothing whatever of music theory but find counterpoint in the works of J.S. Bach endlessly fascinating and effortlessly accessible; and I must say it comes as something of a surprise to me that the contrary is simply to be assumed.
I would have thought all that is required is a certain kind of native intelligence.
polymath7 2 years ago
Your fascination with the music without musical training is because you are naturally interested in the construction and science of the music. Not every "intelligent" person listens to music or watches a film or reads a book and naturally analyses it.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
I.
Forgive me, but you seem not to have understood my comment.
My point is that formal training is precisely what I altogether lack, and is, unless I have misread you, precisely what you appeared to suggest is a prerequisite to the appreciation of counterpoint.
Perhaps the very fact that I am to be found watching this video suggests to you that I have some formal musical knowledge, but I assure you I cannot so much as read a score, and this has, so far as I can tell, this has....
polymath7 2 years ago
II. .
..posed not the slightest hinderance to my appreciation of Bach's contrapuntal ingenuity, which I'm quite confident I gained instantaneously upon my very first hearing of the Brandenberg concertos.
I understood counterpoint quite well before I even knew what it was.
Now, assuming this is not a self-flattering illusion (it would have to be an extraordinarily vivid one) or a hollow boast, surely what you call my "natural interest" is the result of an innate, biologically indicated...
polymath7 2 years ago
III
...cognitive capacity to comprehend the complexities of Bach's musical logic, which strikes me as self-evidently universal, if obviously abstruse to the simple minded.
I notice that you place "intelligent" in quotes, presumably so as to imply that the word is somewhat misapplied. Understand that I speak specifically of musical intelligence, which is every bit as much the result of neurological complexity as is an exceptional aptitude for language or mathematics.
In this sense...
polymath7 2 years ago
IV .
..a Bach or a Mozart -or for that matter a Dante or a Picasso- is every bit as much a "brain" as a Gauss or a Newton.
polymath7 2 years ago
All I am saying is that your particularily scientific appreciation of this music despite a lack of knowledge within the field is simply not universally held.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
I'm sure I come off as both stolid and snarky, but I do hope you'll reply once more.
I've formed a genuine respect for your opinion based upon the dozens of your comments and I've stumbled across over the past year or so and am sincerely interested in what you have you say.
Best regards.
polymath7 2 years ago
*what you have to say (I'm a little sauced).
polymath7 2 years ago
"surely what you call my "natural interest" is the result of an innate, biologically indicated cognitive capacity to comprehend the complexities of Bach's musical logic, which strikes me as self-evidently universal, if obviously abstruse to the simple minded."
I hate this reference to the "simple minded". There are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest or comprehension of this music. Intelligence is not that narrowly defined.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
B-I
"I hate this reference to the simple minded."
Why? Are all minds equally complex? Unless you're prepared to argue that they are, I don't see that you have any valid grounds for objection to my use of this phrase.
Apparently I have offended your sense of egalitarinaism. I run into this a lot.
I am an unapologetic elitist, which is *not* to be confused with a snob. They aren't the same thing at all.
An elitist is simply someone who recognizes that human beings vary dramatically...
polymath7 2 years ago
B-II
...in their capacity to create and comprehend art, and who flatly refuses to accede to demands that he pretend otherwise -nor is he hard of heart if he remains unmoved.
An elitist prefers genius to talent and has no interest in mediocrity at all.
Do you really see anything wrong if this?
If so, What?
"There are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest in the comprehension of this music."
No, frankly, there are not. I point out for the second time that I refer...
polymath7 2 years ago
B-II .
..specifically to *musical* intelligence. Do you object to this concept, or are you simply confused by semantics?
There are subsets of intelligence.
Just as different computers are better designed than others to run different kinds of programs , different brains tend to better able to perform certain cognitive tasks.
I could say, "there are plenty of people who are incredibly smart who have no interest in the comprehension of *mathematics*", but if I said this in the same sense...
polymath7 2 years ago
BI-V ... as your sentence that I paraphrase, it would be highly misleading.
James Joyce may have had no may have had no serious interest in mathematics, bu this is almost surely because his gifts lie elsewhere "i.e. language and metaphor) . One's interests are tremendously influenced by one's abilities, and I aver that he primary -indeed almost the sole- determinant of one's taste in art is the capacity -or incapacity- to comprehend it.
polymath7 2 years ago
Now you seem to be arguing in agreement with me, and I don't understand your writing in BI-V.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
"Why? Are all minds equally complex?"
No, but that doesn't mean that people who don't share your interests are not. intelligent. Not all intelligent individuals share the same interests. Like I said, intelligence is not that narrowly defined.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
i understand your comment perfectly well.
"Perhaps the very fact that I am to be found watching this video suggests to you that I have some formal musical knowledge"
Nope.
HARMONICO101 2 years ago
Vivaldi always gets a bad wrap from analysts, but I think he had a great imagination for melody, good inventive ideas. He didn't explore harmonic or thematic development as successfully as Bach, but he had great soul and taste.
IsaacIsaiahMusic 3 years ago 4
Vivaldi was incredibly inventive and ahead of his time. He was also a melodist though, and not a harmonist.
"But [Vivaldi concertos] don't handle the music very well after that"
Nice of this documentary to take a shit on Vivaldi by the way. Very tasteful.
HARMONICO101 3 years ago
Well said (see above reply to other person for elaboration!)
thelightisahead 3 years ago
I agree completely! I am something of a Vivaldi addict (his music is just so ENJOYABLE!) and yet just because he didn't write master fugues like Bach, he's often mocked. Okay, he may not have had the great multi-voiced, contrapuntal imagination and genius of Bach, but he was an excellent melodist, a more than successful innovator in concerto form, and the different reasonances he brings out of the string orchestra are amazing. And his aria-like slow movements are truly a world of their own...
thelightisahead 3 years ago
Can someone help me identify the piece played at 6:15 - 7:06min in this video? It's been bugging me for a while. Thanks!
timetable88 3 years ago
Thath is the Chorale Prelude to the cantate "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme". It's BWV number is 645.
molsada 3 years ago
You play bassoon like a goat!.. I challenge thee to a dual!!
wavertonian 3 years ago 33
wine .. swordfights .. secret dates .. well, he knew how to live :)
Phygos2008 3 years ago 23
@Phygos2008 - Sounds very sordid to me. Perhaps I'm not 'with it.' Whatever the definite article is supposed to represent in that context, I'm contrary to 'it' in every way.
AbsoluteMonarchist 1 year ago
the piece at the beginning is contrapunctus 9, right? or is 12 that similar
nolanryan999 3 years ago
the contrapunctus at the beginning is quite distinctive from the rest. i think it's 9. If you know it as 9 then yes it is
munkybrain 3 years ago
9.
wonderful at the harpsichord. But surely on the piano too, but much more difficult to convey.
radurak 3 years ago
yeah its 9 not 12
afffred 3 years ago
wonderful video
firebreathone 4 years ago 3
Wonderful video
alra1975 4 years ago 3