Other pieces I love are the 3rd and 5th Brandenburg concertos, as well as “Wachet Auf”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgXL_wrSPF0
No shade if he still doesn’t click with you. I’m just particularly ardent on the subject of Bach and baroque music!
Then, they burnt to ashes in 1945. The only extant copies were caught in the bombing of Dresden. We tend to think of "lost works" as something that happened in Antiquity. Nope.
Media is very fragile.
This is also one aspect why they absolutely hated the Jews. The Jewish culture emphasizes education and Christian were forbidden to take interests in the middle ages. So the Jews became the wealthy educated elite. They were the substrate for the German culture. So in some sense that hatred against the Jews was hatred against the educated and "the establishment".
Also the cities and cultures a lot of famous people, like philosophers and also later statesmen, essentially the countries elite, came from is now destroyed and doesn't belong to Germany any more.
I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
> I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
I also find that sad, but honestly why would they? There weren't exactly welcomed throughout the history in Europe. While there were phases when they were, the opportunity to have your own state with people just like you certainly sounds convincing. In addition a lot of people simply couldn't, since they were dead or for some deported/"emigrated".
As for my home country, Germany, while we retained the cultures of the rich capital owners, we lost the cultures of the poor philosophers and smart statesmen. I think this is a deep hidden reason, why we suck now-a-days. Another culture, that wasn't as rich for philosophers and state men, but instead for entrepreneurs and competitive societies, didn't lost their landscape, but instead was destroyed by 40 years of socialism.
I think we should stop blaming the social and political landscape on idioticity, but instead recognize it as the successful work of 60 years of dictatorial indoctrination it is.
"Take interests"? If by that you mean in education, then this is false.
If you look at the centers of learning in the Middle Ages and who was contributing the most, these were Christians and it was the Church. The first universities-as-universities were founded then. Scholasticism was intellectually very rigorous and supplied the philosophical foundations for the modern sciences. This was an incredible period.
And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration. Those who were were often disproportionately merchants, of course, and because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews (the Church forbade Catholics from issuing loans with compound interest to anyone, hence why the Medicis, Fuggers, etc. didn't make their fortunes through interest), they were more likely to engage in money lending of that kind.
No.
> because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews
Exactly, what I was saying, so you did get it.
> And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration.
I did not say that. What I stated was that the rich educated were disproportionally (secular) Jews.
Not a great response.
> What I stated was that the rich educated were disproportionally (secular) Jews.
That came later, in the 19th century with the so-called emancipation of the Jews. Before that, "secular Jews" were not really a thing.
>> If you ment ... > No I didn't.
What more is there to say?
> That came later, in the 19th century with the so-called emancipation of the Jews. Before that, "secular Jews" were not really a thing.
Yes, I was talking about the German culture from late 19th to 20th century, which was what the Nazis found and were eager to destroy. This did have roots in the middle ages, which I mentioned.
A few rich people are enough to hate a whole group. White men are also not all rich, yet they are displayed as the privileged which need to be disadvantaged by some today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EKanXXMkz8
Amazing musicality, but the cellist never made it big cause she was a woman
Karl Richter’s version is my personal favorite but there’s lots of different recordings. IMO Bach’s St Matthew Passion is the best piece of musical art, maybe art in general too idk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsxP-YjDWlQ (arioso from the cantata 156, here for oboe)
which I think stands up just fine against pretty much any other classical piece baroque or not.
Personally I have a very big soft spot for his organ works, as I play (badly) some organ myself, and among those I don't see the trio sonatas recommended nearly often enough (here is a live recital of all of them, which is super impressive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK9irE8LMAU
among those I probably enjoy the most the vivace of BWV 530. Other favorite pieces are the passacaglia and fugue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVoFLM_BDgs the toccata adagio and fugue in C major https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klh9GiWMc9U (the adagio especially is super nice), but there's so many. Among organists I often come back to Helmut Walcha, and am always amazed at how he was able to learn everything just by listening, him being blind.
Put on a good set of headphones and go sit in the corner.
Also obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah392lnFHxM&list=RDAh392lnFH...
The thing I appericiate most about bach is:
you can play it fast.
you can play it slow.
you can play it with an ensemble of random instruments.
you can play a single voicing all by itself.
all of it screams "musical". which, if you do play say, Tuba, or one of the larger instruments, is a godsend, as most of your lines in other pieces will bore you to death.
But also, I think there are two camps of fans of "classical music" (by which I mean music in the styles: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, etc). There are those who listen to the music, and those who play it.
For the most part, those who only listen to music often prefer Romantic and Impressionist styles. From the moody and dramatic to the gentle and contemplative, these styles are very approachable to the untrained ear.
But those who play an instrument (or sing in a choir) spend lots of time practicing and rehearsing and interpreting the music as it's written on the page. This extra time makes all of the little nuances of Baroque music truly come to life. The classic example is Bach's Crab Canon, which is a fine little piece of music... but once you realize that the whole thing is a palindrome, and you can actively appreciate how the same parts work in a forward and backward context, it becomes really interesting and pleasant.
So if Bach doesn't do it for you, and you play an instrument, try diving into playing it yourself.
Interesting interpretation of "he was orphaned at 10 and left with nothing and had to go and live with his brother".
(Who gets married and dies 3 months later?)
It's all in his music - the manic passion of trying to master a craft against that background, a burning faith in a better future, against constant reminders of the horrors of the present.
It's not just four part counterpoint. There's a lot more going on.
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse. His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society. However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
This interpretation is not particularly historically accurate. Let's investigate:
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse.
Musicians of the baroque era weren't particularly wealthy or notable. Musical fame wouldn't come until the Classical era. And yes, music was his family trade, but that's how most trades went in that time. His parents both died before he turned ten, so he was mostly raised by his older brother. By all accounts they were not wealthy. So I think the term "nepo baby" is misleading, and "and "with a big purse" is simply incorrect.
> His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society.
This is highly overexaggerated. JS Bach had two brothers who survived childhood, and neither was particularly "prominent." Most of his "notable family" were his children, especially CPE Bach.
> However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
Bach's career was one of slow and steady growth. It doesn't appear that he leaned on his connections or family name much.
Bach did get some widespread acclaim by the end of his life, but mostly as an organist, not as a composer. His compositions were mostly discarded and ignored for a whole century until Felix Mendelssohn revived interest in his compositions. The cello suites, for example, were lost for nearly two hundred years, and only re-discovered in the 1920's.
I most enjoy playing music as a social affair rather than in isolation though. That may have a fair amount to do with my impression of composers from each era (Baroque is fine in a group, Classical can be unforgiving, Romantic is a lot of fun, etc.).
Looking at many of the responses here though (which have been wonderful), there are quite a few pieces from Bach that I was not aware of, or had forgotten about. He really was incredible.
The whole question though is like what is the best David Bowie album to start with multiplied by 100.
The catalog is just so immense, the sounds are just so varied that one person's favorite might completely be wrong for someone else.
I think the most relatable after thinking about it more is Stephanie Jones playing lute music on classical guitar.
Like BWV 1006a on guitar is the closest thing I can think of to modern pop music and Stephanie's virtuosity is just ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyySAFA2En8
Brahms said of it: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."
https://inv.nadeko.net/playlist?list=PLor_18TcpRrxQmne5_SKRy... (YouTube proxy)
Absolutely
> renditions of Bach's partitas and sonatas.
Don't think so. Her recordings of his violin concerts on the other hand are able to clearly show his genius due to the more complex orchestration and interplay between the different instruments.
I had a friend that said if Mozart/Bach/et al had access to modern music production equipment, they'd all write psytrance. But it is just another example of "take great talent from long ago and put them in modern day" comparisons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWoI8vmE8bI
This piece is still deeply moving despite centuries of tastes changing. This is only barely scratching the surface of Bach. As a musician, when I listen to other great musicians speak, they all speak about Bach as the best. Of course that's subjective, and there are no 'wrong' answers on who is your favorite, but when the feeling is so nearly unanimous amount people who are often, frankly, contrarian and counter culture it says something.
That melody will repeat itself again and again, if you listen closely. It will harmonize with itself as more voices are added. It will be modulated into different keys and durations.
In a way, you can kind of think of Bach as the first electronic musician, in the sense that his works consist of "discrete tracks" that get layered on to each other. I'm sure there are youtube videos out there that demonstrate this visually.
(not me, but...)
Bach - Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor, BWV 582
> But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
Bach-Busoni - Chaconne from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004
Bach is impressive, no doubt, but to each their own perhaps. I acknowledge that I have not received the appropriate training to fully appreciate the complexity in his works, so I wish I could hear what you do. To my ear, (and this isn't a novel opinion in the slightest), I think the Baroque era was more limited in expression due to the inherent limitations in the instruments and consequent styles at the time. Within those constraints, calling Bach an absolute titan of composition would be an understatement. But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.