Looking for a JS Bach piece


A while back, in a documentary about JS Bach, I heard one of his compositions, but the number of it was spoken so fast I overheard it.

The piece is special because Bach never finished it, left off in the middle of a tact. And so when it is played, it is played up to that point, and then abruptly finished.
The effect is amazing, it's like peering into the intestines of the composition.

It is a piece for a chamber orchestra or a chamber group of strings (I think it is just strings, but I'm not sure, it's been quite a while since I saw it).


Does anyone know it?

Thank you.

the art of fugue?

A weird coincidence - I was just contemplating starting a thread about J.S. Bach and Mozart. Anyway ....

Are you referring to Contrapunctus XIV from (as $outh$star also guessed) the Art of Fugue?

Apparently, composer Michael Ferguson (http://www.birolius.com/abmife.html) has composed a completion to the work.

You can access this composition - as well as a great deal of Bach's other works at the Classical Music Archives (http://www.classicalarchives.com/live/b.html#BACH). You can listen to the lo-fidelity versions of the tracks for free; to gain full access, it costs twenty dollars per year (if I remember correctly) - you can access 1000 compositions a month, so it's very reasonable value!

That's the only well-known composition J.S. Bach left unfinished that I'm aware of! As I said, it's available on the afore-mentioned site, but the recording there is for piano - not for a string ensemble. I'm sure you could find another recording of it somewhere though.

Hope that helps!

The art of the Fugue. Die Kunst der Fugue is FUCKING GOD!

I have a copy of Joanna MacGregor playing it on the keyboard. She has to use a few tricks for some of the tracks, but the effect is awe-inspiring. I also have a version performed by Canadian Brass, but I don't care for the busy orchestral versions as much as the simple piano versions.

The art of the fugue starts out simple. I put on my headphones and started listening and I even had the audacity to send off an email to the person who through indirect methods led me to seeking out this music to listen to and I said, "Interesting melody. Nice."

Ha!
Interesting melody.
Nice.
Fucking buffoon.

I fell asleep with it playing in my ears and I awoke two hours later (I had it on repeat) with the most amazing and awe-inspiring.... music playing in my head. I had never experienced the emotions that were inspired by that. I'm an atheist, but for a moment I tottered.

Tottered.

And Bach would understand as he was a most devout man.

Die Kunst der Fugue.

Art? Fugue? They call it music?
That's an understatement.

He also composed many other fugues but none surpass those of his final work.

As to it being unfinished. Apparently the legend goes that he was composing it when he died. Contrapunctus XIV bears his signature. B.A.C.H. (Apparently Germans have a strange musical notation.)

From Godel, Escher, BAch: An Eternal Golden Braid:
...in Germany, Bach's own homeland, the convention has always been similar [Invert: That the musical notation runs from A to G#], except that what we call 'B', they call 'H', and what we call 'B-flat', they call 'B'. For instance, we talk about Bach's "Mass in B Minor", whereas they talk about his "H-moll Messe".

Therefore, he was able to embed his name Contrapunctus XIV and legend has it that he then died.

However, the legend is apparently wrong. From what I've discovered by web-crawling, Bach actually wrote Die Kunst der Fugue 10 years prior to his death. His death didn't interrupt the composing of the... music (I still loathe using that term for this great thing) but rather interrupted the engraving and the publishing.

The legend was spurred by his own son's words (or at least in his handwriting): "N.B. In the course of this fugue, at the point where the name B.A.C.H. was brought in as countersubject, the composer died."

Anyway.
If you haven't heard, then you MUST.


My second favorite work by Bach is the Goldberg Variations. I have both of the Gould renditions. The man might have been a bit odd and it is a touch disconcerting to hear him muttering and humming to himself as he plays but his playing is masterful.

Nice post invert; thanks for the info!

water, was that the piece you were looking for?

I think it's appropriate to add: you don't actually need to become a member of the afore-mentioned site[i] (i.e. the Classical Music Archives (http://www.classicalarchives.com/)) to listen to the piece. In fact, the hi-fidelity version of that piece isn't even available, so there's not much point in registering if that's the only composition you're looking for!

P.S. I'm listening to arias from his [i]St. Matthew's Passion at the moment. Even if one is somewhat put-off by the religious associations, there's no denying it's amazing music!

I don't care as much for the chorales as I do the piano work. They are beautiful, yes. But, even so they don't inspire me in the same way.

It's ironic that I find the piano work so compelling as the pianoforte was only being devised in Bach's time.

In 1747, Bach visited the court of Frederick the Great at the behest of his son, Carl Phillip Emmanuel, who was in the employ of the king at that time and had apparently touted his father quite strongly. Strong enough for Frederick, who was a music afficionado and a flute player, to issue an invitation. And, as the story goes, when news arrived that Bach had entered the city, Frederick was so excited that he sent messengers to drag Bach to the court before he'd even had the chance to shake the road dust off his clothes and put on proper attire for such a stately occasion. The apologies issued by Bach for his unseemly attire were quite profuse as the story goes...

Anyway. Frederick was a music afficionado and had purchased 15 piano-fortes (bet you thought it was called a piano, didn't you? Fucking prole...) from Gottfried Silbermann, the premier German organ maker who was trying to make the 'perfect' piano-forte.

Now. I could be wrong here, but the idea that I've come up with from various readings is that it was during this spring visit to Frederick's court at Potsdam that Bach first played the piano at the age of 62. And he played it masterfully well, according to all accounts.

The difference, of course, between a harpsichord and the piano-forte is that the keys can be struck soft or loud on the piano. And the pedals provide sustain and whatever (to be honest, I'm no piano expert so if I'm wrong on any of these details, please correct me.)

This visit was, of course, the occasion which Frederick gave Bach a short theme upon which to compose a fugue. Bach improvised two fugues on the spot. A three voiced fugue and a six voiced fugue. And then after Bach had returned to his home in Leipzig, he composed ten canons and a trio sonata to go with them and then gifted them to Frederick as a Musical Offering. The Musikalisches Opfer.

I've come across several versions of this tale and am unsure which to take as true, if any. Apparently, Bach didn't fully write out the canons, instead writing a basic part which then would need to be expanded upon based upon various clues provided. I've read some accounts that state the Frederick did this himself. Others state that Frederick probably didn't as he was about to go off on some war or another. But, regardless, somebody did. And the result is the musical offering. One has to wonder if the riddles were fully solved or not though.


Another aspect of Bach's career that I've read varying accounts of is his fame. I've read some that spoke of him as famous in his day. But others that say that he was a virtual unknown until about a hundred years later when he was 'discovered' by Mendelssohn. And also by Beethoven and Mozart who fastened upon his fugues (cointerpoint, contrapunctus) as a way to liven up their own work.

As a result of this interpretation of his work by later artists being the seat of his fame, an interesting effect occurs. Beethoven and Mozart viewed Bach as the KappelMeister and because of this the fugue become synonomous with the sacred. However, I wonder if this is necessarily an aspect of him being placed into a specific category or if it isn't more integral to his work than that. Before hearing the Art of the Fugue I had no idea about Bach or his character. I thought he was somewhat quaint. Talented, yes, but no match for Beethoven. But, the Art of the Fugue is sacred. I had no need of being told that Bach was a Kappelmeister for this to happen. However, there has been a long tradition that has instilled such sounds into the culture and thus perhaps I had no need of direct knowledge...


My. This is quite rambling isn't it?

Bach is an amazing character. He deserves his place as the greatest composer of all time. Hands down.


And. As far as I know, Contrapunctus XIV is the only unfinished piece by Bach. So, it has to be the piece that Water is referring to.


Edit:
Hmm. I just realized something. Bach died in 1750. This means that the Art of the Fugue was written before the Musical Offering.
Interesting.

SouthStar, Yamayama, Invert, thank you. I'll go to the library and/or to the store to hear Contrapunctus XIV first ear.


* * *

Apparently, composer Michael Ferguson has composed a completion to the work.

Thank you. So I know whom to watch out for -- I don't want any "completions".


* * *

invert_nexus,


You can fall asleep while listening to music? I could never do that.


(Apparently Germans have a strange musical notation.)

From Godel, Escher, BAch: An Eternal Golden Braid:
...in Germany, Bach's own homeland, the convention has always been similar [Invert: That the musical notation runs from A to G#], except that what we call 'B', they call 'H', and what we call 'B-flat', they call 'B'. For instance, we talk about Bach's "Mass in B Minor", whereas they talk about his "H-moll Messe".

Yes, so it is here. The only ones more silly than the English are the French and the Italians, still wrapped in do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do.


... the composing of the... music (I still loathe using that term for this great thing)

So say Musik.


The legend was spurred by his own son's words (or at least in his handwriting): "N.B. In the course of this fugue, at the point where the name B.A.C.H. was brought in as countersubject, the composer died."

Ah, Basti was full of strange ideas. He would take certain numbers or names, and encode them into music and such.
(Have you read "The Joy of Music" by Leonard Bernstein?)


Anyway.
If you haven't heard, then you MUST.

I have certainly heard it, but I have not memorized it.


My second favorite work by Bach is the Goldberg Variations. I have both of the Gould renditions. The man might have been a bit odd and it is a touch disconcerting to hear him muttering and humming to himself as he plays but his playing is masterful.

Gould played it true to baroque style, right? There are some renditions that are played as if Bach's music were some sort of romantic jabber.


* * *

Yamayama,


I think it's appropriate to add: you don't actually need to become a member of the afore-mentioned site[i] (i.e. the Classical Music Archives) to listen to the piece. In fact, the hi-fidelity version of that piece isn't even available, so there's not much point in registering if that's the only composition you're looking for!

Yes, thank you! All I need is the exact number of a piece, so that I can go to the library and look it up. Our libraries are quite well-stashed.


P.S. I'm listening to arias from his [i]St. Matthew's Passion at the moment. Even if one is somewhat put-off by the religious associations, there's no denying it's amazing music!

Hm.

You can listen to that Musik and post on sci, simultaneously?

* * *

invert_nexus,


I don't care as much for the chorales as I do the piano work. They are beautiful, yes. But, even so they don't inspire me in the same way.

I listen to Das Wohltemperierte Klavier to set my mind straight; soem of the compositions are like a metronome for the mind.


Another aspect of Bach's career that I've read varying accounts of is his fame. I've read some that spoke of him as famous in his day. But others that say that he was a virtual unknown until about a hundred years later when he was 'discovered' by Mendelssohn. And also by Beethoven and Mozart who fastened upon his fugues (cointerpoint, contrapunctus) as a way to liven up their own work.

Here at least, the legend goes that Bach was not appreciated in his time. He often composed pieces very hard to sing or play (the famous retort by his second wife: "Aber Johann, das kann man ja nicht singen!"). So there are basically two groups of pieces in his work: one, containing his real music, the one he was not appreciated for, and the other, containing the "useful" and "doable" and "easy" pieces.


Before hearing the Art of the Fugue I had no idea about Bach or his character.

He had for his own choir of children, 20 or so. That should tell you something about his character. Well, not, but anyway.


I thought he was somewhat quaint. Talented, yes, but no match for Beethoven.

Careful here.
Baroque music is something completely different than later periods. I hope Perfect joins in here, and gives his input.

But for starters, there are two important aspects to note:
1. The general technological aspect. The instruments and their quality available in Bach's time was a lot different from those in Beethoven's time. What could be played on those instruments was limited by the instruments, as they didn't allow for great dynamics.
2. The aspect of what was expressed in music. Music wasn't always "personal", the way we are used to view it nowadays.


But, the Art of the Fugue is sacred. I had no need of being told that Bach was a Kappelmeister for this to happen. However, there has been a long tradition that has instilled such sounds into the culture and thus perhaps I had no need of direct knowledge...

Well, the *actual* difference between the sacred and the not sacred is arbitrary.


Bach is an amazing character. He deserves his place as the greatest composer of all time. Hands down.

It all depends on the criteria.

A part of the baroque style of composing music is to take in consideration the natural tendencies of the used instruments.
The idiomatic style if used today would not allow new instruments to be ingrained. But yeah, Bach made some of the first pieces for piano in history.
And when we bear in mind that this is baroque, Bach did build the launching pad for piano. I am grateful that he did not dapple with Gallant and chose to continue the complicated polyphonic road (Johann Christian Bach, for example, was a Gallant man).

Invert
I've come across several versions of this tale and am unsure which to take as true, if any. Apparently, Bach didn't fully write out the canons, instead writing a basic part which then would need to be expanded upon based upon various clues provided.

You are talking (kind of) about the figured bass.
It's a style that was born from Basso Continuo during baroque. And it is not a detective game, Detective Stooge.

The figured bass: The only written note is the bass, follow trough the notation and transform the notes into containing quarts (using the strict rules of figured bass). Complement this via adding marks for intervals to get the accord with the chords.

An example of the figured bass (excuse the terminology, there are no dictionaries for music terminology that I’ve seen (Finnish to English)):

The first bar:

The g-key: e and c
The f-key: c, c and g

The above is an (5/3)

Second bar:

The g-key: g and c
The f-key: e, e and c

The above is an 6

Third bar:

The g-key: g and c and e
The f-key: g, g

The above is an 6/4

To play basso continuo you need throughout knowledge and the skill for improvisation - the piece played is being defined by the soloist.

A line of e, f, g , a, h, a, fis, e with the numbers 6 below f and 6 below g. 9 below h and 6/5 below fis - it depends on the player how this will play out.
Takes skill to play using this art form.

------

invert
Art? Fugue? They call it music?
That's an understatement.

That sounds like... so terribly gay.

Music music music music music britney music music music bach music music

water
You can fall asleep while listening to music? I could never do that.

Well aren't you special.

------

Water
Yes, so it is here. The only ones more silly than the English are the French and the Italians, still wrapped in do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do.

Yeah, like it's so different from c-d-e-f-g-a-h-c.
We used do-re-mi... in elementary school as means to practise prima vista, it helped.

Hah, point me to an Italian composer who.... ah forget it.

Water
You can listen to that Musik

I don't ask for much but please.. PLEASE don't walk the pedantic path and seriously start saying Musik .

Careful here.
Baroque music is something completely different than later periods. I hope Perfect joins in here, and gives his input.

But for starters, there are two important aspects to note:
1. The general technological aspect. The instruments and their quality available in Bach's time was a lot different from those in Beethoven's time. What could be played on those instruments was limited by the instruments, as they didn't allow for great dynamics.
2. The aspect of what was expressed in music. Music wasn't always "personal", the way we are used to view it nowadays.

I've gnawed on this before.

So imma' just say one thing: If Bach were alive today, during romanticism etc... He would have been very, very different.

I spent most of my childhood learning and playing Bachs music written for lute transcribed for classical guitar. Hours a day for years. Of course not just bach, but Bach every day for sure. The resolution in some of those pieces made me think " oh my god, Thats exactly IT!" it would astonish me (as it still does) and move me to tears. Like the resolution was a perfect mystery hidden in the body of the work the whole time, revealed like a solution to all of the worlds problems in the last few to several measures.

Perfect,

That sounds like... so terribly gay.
Like Water, I had been looking forward to your input to this thread. And imagine my disappointment to find you so jaded to the beauty of Bach. I "discovered" Bach only very recently. And on that night that I found myself crying over the beauty of the Contrapunctus, or rather the next day when I was having a conversation about it, I put forth the question if there were those out there who had heard this so much that it meant nothing to them. Nothing but a technical issue.

The question has been answered.

I feel sorry for you, Perfect.
I really do.

You can call my reaction to Bach gay, but I don't care. That doesn't change the feeling and the emotion that was and still is inspired by listening to that wonderful music. And I still find it hard to call it music. And 'musik' is no better. There should be some better word for it than that. Something more all-encompassing. Something that can express some small part of that emotion that is conveyed through the musical notation. But, alas, in this words fail. And will always fail.

So. We're left with music. At least nobody's calling it 'Jazz Fusion' or 'Dark Metal'. I've always despised labels and in the case of the Contrapuncti, even music is a label. An empty label that seeks to limit that which is.

Don't like it?
Fuck you.

You are talking (kind of) about the figured bass.
It's a style that was born from Basso Continuo during baroque. And it is not a detective game, Detective Stooge.

Well. The sources that I've read say differently.

Let's start with the fugues. From GEB:
In the copy which Bach sent to King Frederick, on the page preceding the first sheet of music, was the following inscription:
Regis Iusfu Cantio El Reliqua Canonica Arte Refolula.
("At the King's Command, the Song and the Remainder Resolved with Canonic Art.") Here Bach is punning on the word "canonic", since it means not only "with canons" but also "in the best possible wat". The initials of this inscription are:
RICERCAR
--an Italian word, meaning "to seek". And certaily there is a great deal to seek in the Musical Offering.

So. The riddles begin already. And this is in the fugues that are written out in full.

To continue:
Both of the Fugues are inscribed "Ricercar", rather than "Fuga". This is another meaning of the word; "ricercar" was, in fact, the original name for the musical form now known as "fugue". By Bach's time, the word "fugue" (or fuga, in Latin and Italian) had become standard, but the term "ricercar" had survived, and now designated an erudite kind of fugue, perhaps too austerely intellectual for the common ear. A similar usage survives in English today: the word "recherche" means, literally, "sought out", but carries the same kind of implication, namely of esoteric or highbrow cleverness.

But, it isn't until the canons where the real riddles begin. So far all we've seen is clever word play with no real significance.

The ten canons in the Musical Offering are among the most sophisticated canons Bach ever wrote. However, curiously enough. Bach himself never wrote them out in full. This was deliberate. The were posed as puzzles to King Frederick. It was a familiar musical game of the day to give a single theme, together with some more or less tricky hints, and to let the canon based on that theme be "discovered" by someone else.

So. Perhaps Hofstadter is in error in calling this a game, puzzle, and/or riddle?

Now. Unfortunately, the book doesn't go into extreme details about the clues involved towards finding a solution to the various canons. So, perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's not a 'game'. Perhaps it's merely a technical excercise. Something boring and ho-hum with which one hones one's skills and impresses one's peers, mentors and proteges.

Perhaps.
Or perhaps you've lost your love for music somewhere in the technical knowledge?

Heh. This kinda leads back to Jimi, doesn't it?

One thing is for sure, Bach never lost it. He wrote the Musical Offering when he was 62 and his love for the music and the creation of it is obvious in style and intent.

Have you ever solved the Musical Offering, Perfect? Or just accepted them as feat accompli?


Water,

Thank you. So I know whom to watch out for -- I don't want any "completions".

I think the standard practice would be to include both the completion and the original. Cointerpoint by MacGregor is this way anyway. I'm unsure who composed the completion to her finished version.

You can fall asleep while listening to music? I could never do that.

Sometimes I can. I was very tired that night.

Yes, so it is here. The only ones more silly than the English are the French and the Italians, still wrapped in do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do.

What's wrong with Do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do?

Heh. I just realized. The Sound of Music must have been full of shit, then.
Do, a deer, my ass.

Ah, Basti was full of strange ideas. He would take certain numbers or names, and encode them into music and such.
(Have you read "The Joy of Music" by Leonard Bernstein?)

Basti? Oh. A pet name for Sebastian? Why is it that people give pet names to people like that. Gendanken does it with Nietzsche. And now you with Bach. Frederick called him "Old Bach".

Gould played it true to baroque style, right?

I don't know. All I know is I liked it.

I listen to Das Wohltemperierte Klavier to set my mind straight; soem of the compositions are like a metronome for the mind.

Mathematical precision. Which is why Bach fits in so well with Goedel and Escher.

Here at least, the legend goes that Bach was not appreciated in his time. He often composed pieces very hard to sing or play (the famous retort by his second wife: "Aber Johann, das kann man ja nicht singen!"). So there are basically two groups of pieces in his work: one, containing his real music, the one he was not appreciated for, and the other, containing the "useful" and "doable" and "easy" pieces.

I've heard that the Goldberg variations were near impossible to play.

And. I've also heard that people wondered why he never wrote operas. That was the way to acquire fame and fortune in those days. But he was a devout man and gave up those things to work in a church.
Funny little man.

Careful here.
Baroque music is something completely different than later periods.

Absolutely. But, even so, I've never heard anything to compare to Bach.
Baroque or not.

Well, the *actual* difference between the sacred and the not sacred is arbitrary.

Yeah. I know. I just thought it was interesting that there's a possibility that the Fugue has become sacred simply because Mozart and Beethoven viewed Bach as a Kappelmeister. It says something about interpretation and stereotyping.

But, I'm not so sure if those fugues could be anything but sacred.
Well. Except for jaded fucks like Perfect over there who thinks it's gay.

Dimvert goddamnit, I think I can see a tear.


You failed to see my point, and that's cool.
With Jimi as well, you failed to see my point, I gather.

I saw you defile music when you connect the word to something else than to the greats like Bach.

"Music, such an understatement!"

Can't you see? I did not realize you have fallen in the same bucket with the definitions and hippies that you much loathe.
What is music?
Music music music, britney?
I loathe people who migrate whole enormities into oblivion. If something is music, it is Bach.
So call it music, it is one of the things that deserves to be called music.

And you can not appearently see the figured bass, the basso continuos, since you find some technical aspects that you imagined up as distractions to be distasteful.

Let me have another crack at this with this visual example:


Imagine these balls as notes, written by the composer:

** ** * **
* * ** * ***
*** ** * *
* ** ** ** * *
* * * *

Etc.
The player plays these like an gyborg (well, nuances etc).

Now, using the figured bass you give the soloist an opportunity to improvise:

*
*


*

6 6/5


There's your sacred, veiled, tottering piece.
There is an aspect of Bach, an aspect of baroque.

Now, that is what I thought you meant with the game.

Invert
Or perhaps you've lost your love for music somewhere in the technical knowledge?

Or perhaps, I find more things to love, hmm?
Do you?

Well. Except for jaded fucks like Perfect over there who thinks it's gay.

Awww...

I did not want to take a piss in your drink, I really didn't.

You can call my reaction to Bach gay, but I don't care.

What I found gay was your reaction in excluding the true musician from music.
Creating idols and abandoning the general aspects to those not worthy.

And I like some labels, I can exclude pop via, you know, calling it pop.

Fuck this then. So sorry I replied with what you appearently took as an robotic technicality, I'll get back when I've weeped over the man.

For now, the interest I have towards the music exceeds any personal convictions.

edit:

I had been looking forward to your input to this thread. And imagine my disappointment to find you so jaded to the beauty of Bach

Pfft.

Even if that would be true, it should not be an issue.

Fucking shit. Let me run around pleasing and agreeing. Sometimes this scent of seriousness floating around in here truly amazes me.

Perfect,

I saw you defile music when you connect the word to something else than to the greats like Bach.

Ah.
Ok then.
Understood.
However, I still stand by my sentiment that words don't do it justice. It was this that I was trying to say by saying that 'music' doesn't cover the beauty that is the Art of the Fugue. But. It's what we're stuck with, so. It'll do.

And. I never mentioned Britney or any other crap that people call music. But, I will concede your point that it is such things that have degraded the word 'music' into something that seems to small for the likes of Bach's work.

Music is one of the earliest forms of the sacred known to man. Even before language there was dance and song. Even before cave paintings the tribe was dancing and hooting to itself in an all-encompassing welding of the tribe into one.

Music.

You're right. The word should convey more than it does. And it is because of the defilers, the candy coated crap that is cranked out the pop mills that it no longer bears the proper relation to it's referrent.


Did you know that the jumping spider, Habronattus dossenus, dances for his mate? It's an amazing courtship display that resembles the flamenco, by all accounts. This probably doesn't surprise you much. But, it's been recently discovered that there is an auditory element to this display as well. A series of scraping sounds, buzzes, and thumps all accentuated by the spider's dance is the real courtship ritual. He sings to her. And then she probably kills him seven times out of ten afterwards. (I'm unsure, actually, whether this 'murder' takes place habitually in this species. But it is a rather common trait to spiders in general. The Black Widow isn't the only widow in the arachnid family tree.)

Music has roots that are ancient and deeply embedded in instincts. It's a pity that the word has lost so much of its value in the modern day overwhelming of culture with so much music. It's become... blase. And, the truth is that it's not even the pop culture that is to be blame. It's the overwhelming ease of acquiring any type of music. It's everywhere. It's blasting over radio frequencies all over the world. All you need to do is turn a dial and voila. Music.

There was a time when music was special because it was not manufactured it was created. In front of your eyes. By masters. Or by apprentices. Or by hacks. Or by the competent. Or the incompetent. Or whatever. But it was made there on the spot. By someone.

A man given a gift will not respect that gift as much as one who earns a prize.
The curse of times of plenty.

Dimvert goddamnit, I think I can see a tear.

You would have seen more than one that night I woke up with that heavenly music reverberating through my skull.
And even now I can still touch that emotion.

And you can not appearently see the figured bass, the basso continuos, since you find some technical aspects that you imagined up as distractions to be distasteful.


No. It's not that the technical aspects are distasteful. It's just that you seemed to discount the fun in the game. Do you gather a sense of joy from playing with music? Aren't you stirred when you hear these songs? How can you not be? It was that which surprised me and which I found distasteful. That you seemed jaded. And I suppose I found it distasteful because it seems impossible to me, right now, to ever become jaded to such things, but it is possible, isn't it? And if one man can become jaded to music, then isn't it a trap into which I too might fall? I don't want to. I don't want to lose the magic of that night when I understood how small I was. And how great.

I'll get back when I've weeped over the man.

I didn't weep over the man. I weeped over his music. I find his life to be as quaint as I once I thought of his music. But his music is something else altogether.

Or perhaps, I find more things to love, hmm?
Do you?

As a matter of fact, yes. I'm not a musician, but I do play the guitar a bit. And it was only after I began to play guitar that I began to appreciate the more melodic forms of music as opposed to the crude and rude heavy metal to which I had always been in thrall to prior. I've always found it ironic that I actually do better playing Beethoven fingerstyle than playing Slayer with a pick. I never would have foreseen such a circumstance before learning to play.

I've even managed to work up a sort of apologist argument for Metallica. I can understand their desire not to be trapped into a simplistic form of music which is only endless repetitions of the same thing over and over again. But, the argument fails, I'm afraid, because there are a large number of innovations that they could introduce into their music without sinking to the depths to which they fell after becoming mainstream pop. And, of course, James can't sing. And they fucking wore makeup! Ha!

Anyway.
Yes. I do see more to love in music knowing how it's made (somewhat). But it's just that I read you as finding no joy in it.
Perhaps I erred. This medium is known for draining emotion from the words leaving it cold and stark.


As to the game. I'm afraid I really don't know music theory well enough to understand very well. I'm mostly a finger monkey, I'm afraid.


Edit:

Even if that would be true, it should not be an issue.

I suppose you're right.
I think that another aspect of my reaction to finding what I thought was a lack of joy in the music is that those around me find the music itself horrible and grating. They refuse to listen because it's not electric guitar or candy-coated bullshit marketed just for them to lick up like the good little dogs they are.
I mean, here's this music that is fucking amazing and awe-inspiring. And they won't even listen to it to discover that for themselves.

And then. Here you are. Someone who has heard the music. And you didn't merely focus on the technical. You ridiculed (seemingly) the emotional response.
It was worse that them. At least they're ignorant. You know?


Hmm. This reminds me of a scene from Five Easy Pieces. Nicholson plays a musician who gave up music to go work on an oil rig. Running from his musical family traditions. Well, he goes to visit his family because his father had a stroke or something. His brother's girlfriend asks him to play for her. So he does. Some piece by Chopin that I didn't recognize. It was nice. Simple. I wouldn't doubt that Nicholson actually played it himself. They showed his hands and it was pretty basic. Hardly moving, in fact.

Well, he plays and they show her face and she's rapt with attention. The loveliness and the beauty of the piece. And after he's done she compliments him and says how beautiful it was.

He laughs a little and explains to her that he picked the simplest tune he could think of. That he played that song when he was eight years old and he played it better then than he did now.

She ran off upset, of course. And then they had sex... But that's besides the point (don't even think it fag!)

He spit on her by ridiculing her emotional response to his playing.

I guess that's sort of what I felt.

And it shows how the emotive response is not always in tune with the technical challenge.

However, I note that he didn't try playing the Goldberg Variations or the Art of the Fugue. Did he? Those aren't simple works.

Fucking shit. Let me run around pleasing and agreeing. Sometimes this scent of seriousness floating around in here truly amazes me.

Damn right.
Mind your p's and q's, young man. They'll demand that sort of thing from you in the civil service someday. You must learn to act politely and properly. And there's no time like the present to start embedding such ideals into your psyche.

Now. Kiss my feet.

words so often defile the beauty.,

BACH, LOL!

And. I never mentioned Britney or any other crap that people call music.

You hate Brittany Spears and you love Bach?

They refuse to listen because it's not electric guitar or candy-coated bullshit marketed just for them to lick up like the good little dogs they are.

And you are contemptuous of people who listen to pop music.

Well, aren't you speshul.

Hey, I can reference Douglas Hofsteader books I've never read too.
In a mind's eye.
Geddit?! Wow, aren't I so educated!

Ah. You know. I actually thought that you might have been talking about this thread when I read your other post.
Interesting.

I take it that you're a big Britney fan, then?
Figures.

As to GEB. I've yet to make it all the way through. One has to take the time to actually work their way through the book rather than just swallowing it down. But, I am reading it.

What's up your ass anyway?


Edit:
Oh. And this:
And you are contemptuous of people who listen to pop music.
I was contemptuous, if you must know, of my brother walking in the door and saying, "What's this shit that you're listening to?" in a tone of utter contempt for something that he'll never understand.

I happen to listen to other forms of music as well. In fact, it's only recently that I've been moving towards an appreciation of classical forms of music. Beethoven was always my favorite because of the moodiness. And, by the way, since you brought up Clockwork Orange in your thread, I don't care that much for the 9th. I like the Moonlight Sonata the best, if you must know. I like the simple piano pieces.

But, after beginning to read GEB, I sought out works by Bach and was dumbfounded by The Art of the Fugue. This is recent... two weeks ago? Something like that. I am awestruck and I hope that I never lose that feeling.

Anyway.
I repeat.
What's up your ass?

Perfect,


I saw you defile music when you connect the word to something else than to the greats like Bach.

"Music, such an understatement!"

I concede. But I still like Musik, because I can speak accent-free German! Ha.


* * *


invert_nexus,


Ah.
Ok then.
Understood.
However, I still stand by my sentiment that words don't do it justice. It was this that I was trying to say by saying that 'music' doesn't cover the beauty that is the Art of the Fugue. But. It's what we're stuck with, so. It'll do.

Words are not meant to "do it justice" anyway.
You are like the nasty Westerner who has to grab everything, analyze everything, render it in some meta-form, all this because he is so unable to simply say "This!"

Words are only frustrating and don't do justice to something when one cherishes one's thoughts about something more than the thing itself.


And. I never mentioned Britney or any other crap that people call music. But, I will concede your point that it is such things that have degraded the word 'music' into something that seems to small for the likes of Bach's work.

"Such things" have *not* degraded the word 'music' into something that seems to small for the likes of Bach's work.
The degradation is only in the minds of those so unsure of the quality of something, that they must make comparisons all the time.


You're right. The word should convey more than it does. And it is because of the defilers, the candy coated crap that is cranked out the pop mills that it no longer bears the proper relation to it's referrent.

Says who?
Does the shit someone flings at you become an integral part of who you are?

I'm not saying Britney is shit. But for me, her presence does not in any way affect what other music is to me.


Music has roots that are ancient and deeply embedded in instincts. It's a pity that the word has lost so much of its value in the modern day overwhelming of culture with so much music. It's become... blase. And, the truth is that it's not even the pop culture that is to be blame. It's the overwhelming ease of acquiring any type of music. It's everywhere. It's blasting over radio frequencies all over the world. All you need to do is turn a dial and voila. Music.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE LAZY.


There was a time when music was special because it was not manufactured it was created. In front of your eyes. By masters. Or by apprentices. Or by hacks. Or by the competent. Or the incompetent. Or whatever. But it was made there on the spot. By someone.

And? If you can listen like someone, it doesn't bother you where the music comes from.


No. It's not that the technical aspects are distasteful. It's just that you seemed to discount the fun in the game. Do you gather a sense of joy from playing with music? Aren't you stirred when you hear these songs? How can you not be? It was that which surprised me and which I found distasteful. That you seemed jaded. And I suppose I found it distasteful because it seems impossible to me, right now, to ever become jaded to such things, but it is possible, isn't it? And if one man can become jaded to music, then isn't it a trap into which I too might fall? I don't want to. I don't want to lose the magic of that night when I understood how small I was. And how great.

Deemotionalize.

If you want to make music, you have to know your business, and the same goes as well if you're merely a listener.
Knowing your business takes hard work, and full concentration. If you want to make music, you have to know the technicalities, or you're just bladdering away, being "emotional".

If Beethoven had cried tears of sorrow when writing the 2nd mvt of the 5th piano concerto, the thing would be mere drivel, and not the lovely music it is now.


I didn't weep over the man. I weeped over his music. I find his life to be as quaint as I once I thought of his music. But his music is something else altogether.

Have you read "Combray" by Marcel Proust? Magdalen cakes (or ..., I don't know the English word) play a crucial role there in how the story is told. Bach is full of such Magdalen cakes.



I mean, here's this music that is fucking amazing and awe-inspiring. And they won't even listen to it to discover that for themselves.

Puuuuuh-leeeeze. Just before, you complained how the word "music" doesn't do Bach justice, and now you use "fucking" when describing it. Blegh.


And then. Here you are. Someone who has heard the music. And you didn't merely focus on the technical. You ridiculed (seemingly) the emotional response.
It was worse that them. At least they're ignorant. You know?

Hmm. This reminds me of a scene from Five Easy Pieces. Nicholson plays a musician who gave up music to go work on an oil rig. Running from his musical family traditions. Well, he goes to visit his family because his father had a stroke or something. His brother's girlfriend asks him to play for her. So he does. Some piece by Chopin that I didn't recognize. It was nice. Simple. I wouldn't doubt that Nicholson actually played it himself. They showed his hands and it was pretty basic. Hardly moving, in fact.

Well, he plays and they show her face and she's rapt with attention. The loveliness and the beauty of the piece. And after he's done she compliments him and says how beautiful it was.

He laughs a little and explains to her that he picked the simplest tune he could think of. That he played that song when he was eight years old and he played it better then than he did now.

He spit on her by ridiculing her emotional response to his playing.

There is one thing I never understood. How people can give emotional accounts about music. Like, I was somewhere once where someone played piano, and other girls were commenting on how beautiful it was and blah blah, but hell, I had no words. I thought is was just dull.

I never had much to say about the "beauty of music".

Water,

Words are not meant to "do it justice" anyway.
You are like the nasty Westerner who has to grab everything, analyze everything, render it in some meta-form, all this because he is so unable to simply say "This!"

Words are only frustrating and don't do justice to something when one cherishes one's thoughts about something more than the thing itself.

"Nasty westerner"? Your underwear's showing.

Anyway. You didn't object to my sentiment about calling it music earlier. Why?

"Such things" have *not* degraded the word 'music' into something that seems to small for the likes of Bach's work.
The degradation is only in the minds of those so unsure of the quality of something, that they must make comparisons all the time.

Uh. You realize that that is Perfect's argument? Not mine.
But, while I did concede his point at first (and still think it does have some part to play in the whole process) I worked through it in my post to the point where I decided that the real issue involved is the ease of which music is accessible to the modern. A blase attitude. Music? Ho-hum.

And, of course, you found objections to this as well. But, your objections were somewhat weak and besides the point.
"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE LAZY."
The right? If you say so.
But, the point is that you must first be aware of how you're being lazy before you can 'not be lazy'. The problem is that the ease of music acquisition is something ingrained deeply into our culture. And it is deeply embedded in us before we even have the chance to realize what it is. It is something that exists without words and so it takes a moment such as this to bring out into words where it can be worked with in a conscious fashion.

This is what happened last night when I worked it out in my post. It is actually something that I've been aware of previously, but I've never applied it so wide a target as this. It's something that one becomes aware of when one learns to play an instrument. Or, at least, it's something that I became aware of. It came hand in hand with that newfound respect for melodic forms which I'd hitherto held in contempt myself. (Which, by the way, was instilled in the same way as the lazy attitude towards music. Wordlessly and early in development.)

And? If you can listen like someone, it doesn't bother you where the music comes from.

Not necessarily. Listening 'like someone' is a weak definition. You have to listen like 'someone'. No matter how you listen. But, the problem is that music has become something more like background noise, musak, elevator music. It's something that is anywhere and everywhere and everywhen. You really think that the supply and demand won't play a part in the psychology of those caught up in this musical overflowing?

Deemotionalize.

If you want to make music, you have to know your business, and the same goes as well if you're merely a listener.
Knowing your business takes hard work, and full concentration. If you want to make music, you have to know the technicalities, or you're just bladdering away, being "emotional".

If Beethoven had cried tears of sorrow when writing the 2nd mvt of the 5th piano concerto, the thing would be mere drivel, and not the lovely music it is now.

So. You're saying that one shouldn't be moved by music?
One shouldn't feel sorrow, joy, or any emotion from music?
What about contentment? What about enjoyment?
All these emotions get in the way of the 'proper' appreciation of the music then?
Interesting outlook.
I'll pass, but thanks for sharing anyway.

And as to creating music, do you think that people don't feel emotions as they write? They're just cold, emotional automatons calculating the proper note to come next?
What an odd idea.

Have you read "Combray" by Marcel Proust? Magdalen cakes (or ..., I don't know the English word) play a crucial role there in how the story is told. Bach is full of such Magdalen cakes.

No. What's a Magdalen cake?

Puuuuuh-leeeeze. Just before, you complained how the word "music" doesn't do Bach justice, and now you use "fucking" when describing it. Blegh.

I don't see a problem with using 'fucking' in the way that I did. "Fucking" tacked on to 'beautiful' that way opens it up. It makes it more expansive. More all encompassing.

I can't help you with your distaste for profanity. That's a personal issue and one you'll have to work through on your own. I've already spent my time defending the profane from the inane.

I never had much to say about the "beauty of music".

Well. Shame for you then. It doesn't matter much to me, either way, of course. I found the Art of the Fugue to be amazingly beautiful. "Fucking beautiful." I cried when I heard it. I won't lie. I won't make any bones. I won't hem and haw and downplay the reaction I felt from listening to the music. Why should I? Because you don't have much to say about the 'beauty of music'? Or because Xev decided to stick her big nose in to insinuate that the only reasons that I've mentioned either Bach or GEB are that I'm trying to get in your e-panties or that I'm trying to pretend intelligence?

Yeah. Right.
Whatever.
I feel what I feel. And fuck off if you don't like it. It's a shame that you can't. But, that's your problem, not mine.

Invert,

I meant no offense. I'm just an artsy European snob. I'll reply to your post tomorrow, it's late here and I'm tired.

Water,

Heh.
Don't worry about it.
I didn't take that much offense either.
It's just that, to me, right now, The Art of the Fugue is something special and it seems that people enjoy pissing on what other's hold special.
I suspect you didn't mean to come off that way necessarily, but it is how it came across.

I cried. Ok? I've never cried for music before. Ever. I found it beautiful beyond the ability to describe. Beyond words. Beyond definition.
And I hope I never lose that sense of magic.

Water,

Heh.
Don't worry about it.
I didn't take that much offense either.
It's just that, to me, right now, The Art of the Fugue is something special and it seems that people enjoy pissing on what other's hold special.
I suspect you didn't mean to come off that way necessarily, but it is how it came across.

I cried. Ok? I've never cried for music before. Ever. I found it beautiful beyond the ability to describe. Beyond words. Beyond definition.
And I hope I never lose that sense of magic.


Heh, how horrible until you cried to this music! Im a big troll of a guy, seriously trollish, maybe a little frightening... and I cant go to see live philharmonic or guitar recital without wetfaced snivelling. I sit in the back. People dont know what to make of a wetfaced troll. Sometimes they stare. I whisper " hey why dontya watch the music!". People that watch music crack me up.
It feels wonderful to be an open nerve, sensitive and exposed and vulnerable to the rapture that comes in musics.

Deemotionalize.

If you want to make music, you have to know your business, and the same goes as well if you're merely a listener.
Knowing your business takes hard work, and full concentration. If you want to make music, you have to know the technicalities, or you're just bladdering away, being "emotional".

If Beethoven had cried tears of sorrow when writing the 2nd mvt of the 5th piano concerto, the thing would be mere drivel, and not the lovely music it is now.


knowing your business takes hard work and concentration is a must, but music without emotion is sound. The best classical musicians in my opinion are intensely emotional. The best music is made when technical abilities and the need to concentrate on memorized music and technical skills fade into knowing and become instinct and natural and one merges emotion with mechanics.

I cant imagine anyone writing music like beethoven or any of the greats without seeing them moved to tearful rapture over what theyd captured. I read here and there that this and that composer was all stoic and emotionless and I think bullshit. No one was sitting with these people when they wrote music, when they found their moments of inspiration. It was always after the fact. The ones who appeared to have the least emotion over their work probably had the most.

VossistArts,


Good points:


knowing your business takes hard work and concentration is a must, but music without emotion is sound. The best classical musicians in my opinion are intensely emotional.

I fully agree.


The best music is made when technical abilities and the need to concentrate on memorized music and technical skills fade into knowing and become instinct and natural and one merges emotion with mechanics.

My point exactly.

You cannot express your emotions in music, unless you *first* master you profession, unless you first master the tool.

Any pianist can sit down and play "emotional music" and express his emotions at it. But this is merely pathetic drivel, if his technical skills are poor.


I cant imagine anyone writing music like beethoven or any of the greats without seeing them moved to tearful rapture over what theyd captured. I read here and there that this and that composer was all stoic and emotionless and I think bullshit. No one was sitting with these people when they wrote music, when they found their moments of inspiration. It was always after the fact. The ones who appeared to have the least emotion over their work probably had the most.

Yes, but in the way a master would.
I can imagine Beethoven had to be able to detach himself from his emotions in order to be able to concentrate that the piece he was writing would be able to express his emotions as he wished.

Only a master is capable of such detachment.

Note: One thing are the emotions he might have wanted to capture. And something else are the emotions he had once he manged to capture the first ones right. This is how one can laugh at a tragic piece.


* * *


invert_nexus,



Anyway. You didn't object to my sentiment about calling it music earlier. Why?

I still don't object it.


Uh. You realize that that is Perfect's argument? Not mine.

And? I agree with him.


But, the point is that you must first be aware of how you're being lazy before you can 'not be lazy'. The problem is that the ease of music acquisition is something ingrained deeply into our culture. And it is deeply embedded in us before we even have the chance to realize what it is. It is something that exists without words and so it takes a moment such as this to bring out into words where it can be worked with in a conscious fashion.

Well, maybe it is easy for you. I wanted to take piano lessons when I was 6, but we couldn't afford it.

Also, cd's cost money, plenty of money. Music is not all that accessible.
The radio and TV do not offer studious listening.


This is what happened last night when I worked it out in my post. It is actually something that I've been aware of previously, but I've never applied it so wide a target as this. It's something that one becomes aware of when one learns to play an instrument. Or, at least, it's something that I became aware of. It came hand in hand with that newfound respect for melodic forms which I'd hitherto held in contempt myself. (Which, by the way, was instilled in the same way as the lazy attitude towards music. Wordlessly and early in development.)

I can understand your view, it is a common phenomenon in the society of plenty that people get desensitized and lazy.
As soon as something becomes hard to get, that laziness is challenged.


Not necessarily. Listening 'like someone' is a weak definition. You have to listen like 'someone'. No matter how you listen. But, the problem is that music has become something more like background noise, musak, elevator music. It's something that is anywhere and everywhere and everywhen. You really think that the supply and demand won't play a part in the psychology of those caught up in this musical overflowing?

Yes, definitely. But I see this as a good challenge.


So. You're saying that one shouldn't be moved by music?

Not at all.
One of the reasons I don't go to concerts anymore is because everyone is so damn earnest there (classical music is, after all, called also "serious/earnest music"), and I can't keep my face straight when a jolly piece is played.


One shouldn't feel sorrow, joy, or any emotion from music?
What about contentment? What about enjoyment?
All these emotions get in the way of the 'proper' appreciation of the music then?

My problem with "emotional responses to music" is that so often, the person knows jack squat and if the piece were played again an hour after the concert, they wouldn't know this is what they were listening to, and what made them "so emotional, praising its exquisit beauty".
It is this superficial emotionality that I find almost detestable.

In other words, it is emotional bullshit that I have troubles with.


And as to creating music, do you think that people don't feel emotions as they write? They're just cold, emotional automatons calculating the proper note to come next?

See what Vossis Arts said and my response to him.


No. What's a Magdalen cake?

A soft, crispy cake that dissolves if you dip it into tea.


I can't help you with your distaste for profanity. That's a personal issue and one you'll have to work through on your own.

*flexes intestinal muscles*
No shit.


Well. Shame for you then. It doesn't matter much to me, either way, of course. I found the Art of the Fugue to be amazingly beautiful. "Fucking beautiful." I cried when I heard it. I won't lie. I won't make any bones. I won't hem and haw and downplay the reaction I felt from listening to the music. Why should I? Because you don't have much to say about the 'beauty of music'? Or because Xev decided to stick her big nose in to insinuate that the only reasons that I've mentioned either Bach or GEB are that I'm trying to get in your e-panties or that I'm trying to pretend intelligence?

Yeah. Right.
Whatever.
I feel what I feel. And fuck off if you don't like it. It's a shame that you can't. But, that's your problem, not mine.

Uh. I laugh at some pieces (such jolly music!), have teary eyes at others, I only need to think of the last mvt. of Mahler's 8th, and I get goose skin and teary eyes. It's just that it never occured to me to speak much about that. It is definitely not the first thing I would say about a music.
Some things are to be kept private, and some things are just for me.