Why do people pretend Bach was the most complex musician?

Why do people pretend Bach was the most complex musician?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
youtube.com/watch?v=gBS0CXtNxz4
youtube.com/watch?v=ryu7WcPV7fg
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because bach is actually good

>twelve tone

Because Bach doesn’t have a moment that’s wank. His complexity is always justified.

>being this 16

One day you'll realize the average Renaissance artist was more "trippy" and "out there" than mostly every pseudo-intellectual postmodern faggot.

>implying I can tell what the fuck is going on on that chart

>not beging able to tell what the fuck is going on on that chart

>Bach
>Renaissance
>Stockhausen
>postmodern

Stockhausen is the definition of postmodern. You're like the kid who says dumb shit like "music wasn't really INTERESTING until Debussy, maybe".

I think Stockhausen is just modernist. An example of someone whose post-modern would be Sam Hyde or Alex Jones.

Whatever, it's still jive-ass tripe.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Because there's a lot in Bach that he only partially notates because his music was written for the closed world of church musicians of his era who knew the drill. Basically, you have to know a hell of a lot more before trying to play Bach than you do almost anyone who came after him. I know people who play Rachmaninoff for fun who won't play Bach if there's anyone listening to them because the potential for misreading is too great.

>"music wasn't really INTERESTING until Debussy, maybe".

Who the fuck says this? Music stopped being interesting after him

>Stockhausen is the definition of postmodern
wrong. his aesthetic trajectory is (late) Modernist. one might point to Hymnen as a composite work a la Schnittke (an actual postmodernist composer), but the piece is structured in line with modernism (the musical quotations are "reference" not "pastiche")

>people STILL can't into metamodernism

sad

>the average stockhausen fag
youtube.com/watch?v=gBS0CXtNxz4

That the discussion is brought to essentially nonsense words is proving my point.

People who are fixated on the wrong things.

Yes, and Stockhausen was around during the modernist art movement.

you're a brainlet who has never engaged with art history beyond pragerU videos

comparing the fucking man bach to stockhausen

jesus christ this board

What's nonsense about that comment? It's perfectly clear

postmodernism is over long time ago now, it's a fixed point in time is what im trying to say

It's name dropping and jargoning.

yo

aye

explain how Stockhausen is postmodernist without reference to any other composers or "jargon" (aka words you don't know)

Post-war turd-polish.

>3/4
Absolutely disgusting.

>"I don't understand it so it's nonsense"

so this is the power of brainlets

I understand it perfectly. It's an excuse for being talentless and avoiding personal growth.

>muh art history class
Your professor's a lazy hack who's created dick. That's why he's a professor.

it took enormously more talent for Stockhausen to compose his best works than it took Bach to compose anything.

if Bach even looked at Stockhausen's scores he would be dumbfounded.

music has evolved so much sense Bach and become so much more complex and to cling to Bach like he was some GOAT brilliant master is really sad and you would be laughed out of any group of people that took music seriously.

you learn to play Bach in your first year of studying music, you don't get to Stockhausen until you're close to your master's degree. Bach is baby shit. he had virtually no growth throughout his life.

the sheer fact that Stockhausen had to work with so many more aspects and variables in such massively complicated ways with deeper means of understanding them is what gives his works far more depth than anything Bach scribbled down.

I'm sure Hankus thinks you're a really good goy.

this, people who shit on modernism/postmodernism are just retards who can't appreciate anything that isn't harmonically or melodically "beautiful" because they have been spoonfed ultra pretty basic music there whole life while being told that it's the best there is.

t. fantano

>how can I bring up Sam Hyde in a music thread again
I swear you fags are doing this intentionally

>Postmodernism is hatred of beauty

Yeah, you despise what you lack the self-reflection and sensitivity to be.

How's your CI degree treating you?

>>Postmodernism is hatred of beauty

where did I say that? post-modernism is finding beauty in the abstract and the challenging.

it's like enjoying a really good drama versus enjoying a disney flick. they can both be great experiences but one has a lot more depth and emotion whereas the other is sweet and simple and doesn't offer anything thought-provoking. (Bach would be disney)

What you're calling "abstract" and "challenging" is really "shallow and pedantic".

Stockhausen is this thing that the intelligentsia all piled onto as the "next thing" in the 1960's, which was prime time for people doing exactly that. And now it serves only to mystify very mundane concepts.

Tonal counterpoint is the key to developing creative control over one's music. Settling for less is settling for mediocrity. Fight it all you want.

Bach IS shallow and pedantic. Bach IS settling for less.

Stockhausen pushed boundaries, broke new ground, innovated, revolutionized even.

In an objective sense it is impossible to argue that Bach is anywhere near as complex or masterful as Stockhausen, because he demonstrably isn't. it's fine to like him but to pretend he was as much of a genius as Stockhausen is absolutely laughable.

Bach is a relic of the past. music has gone in much more advanced directions.

Give me a fucking break. Stockhausen was rehashing Messiaen on a good day. In, precisely, what area does his music demonstrate complexity, Mr Reddit Space?

have you heard of this thing called google?

Nobody who listens to Western art music actually thinks like this, so what's the point of this meme?

Also, "shallow and pedantic" is a Family Guy joke, so again, why is this discussion happening? Have either of you ever listened to either of the composers you're talking about?

Oh look, an informed post, no wonder nobody replied.

the people who actually compose it know that, though. consumer opinions have very little value.

Nope, that's another lie, no trained musician regards Bach as anything but a genius.

that's kinda weird considering I know multiple classically trained musicians who shit on Bach all the time

The only person I know who did this got scammed and fucked over by everyone around him because he thought he knew everything.

imagine being such a brainlet that you think 'beauty' is non-contingent and that all measures of art should converge upon it

Imagine thinking calling people "brainlet" makes you a genius.

i'll have you known that i'm an accredited art scholar with an MA from PragerU

But you don't. You're lying.

why would I lie on Sup Forums?

This is great, source?

To pretend there's an evidential basis for the bullshit you're saying. People use the "why would I be that pathetic?" argument when they've already proven that they're pathetic by seeking to start an argument on Sup Forums.

I don't put nearly that much thought into this anonymous imageboard bro

I honestly feel sorry for brainlets who can't appreciate the genius of a Xenakis or Feldman or Nono or Lachenmann because their demands of art belong to the 19th century

Xenakis and Feldman are good.

Stockhausen is the loser cousin of that style.

Why don't you go try to write a fugue based on a theme that contains all chromatic notes and then come back to me about how Bach wasn't complex.

youtube.com/watch?v=ryu7WcPV7fg

I have never heard a single musician or composer who has studied Bach call him "underrated."

I did meet a girl who said his work was the result of hard work more than some kind of innate genius.

Glenn Gould called him "arguably the greatest craftsman the West has ever produced."

Hillary Hahn says "playing Bach keeps me honest."

Gauss said "Read Euler, read Euler, read Euler, he is the master of us all."

Bach seems to occupy this role in classical music.

For some reason, jazz hobbyists and people who can't let go of the 20th century think unresolved appogiatura is the most amazing thing on this side of the wheel.

Genuinely interested, what are the elements of Bach that make it so intimidating and difficult to interpret?

For some reason so-called music hobbyists who can't let go of the sanctity of their own taste think being underwhelmed is the object of listening.

He who enjoys the most wins. You're a loser, friend.

thats just one part out of a poliphony.
besides the whole baroque era traded harmonic and melodic complexity against rhythmic simplicity. one cant do all three at once without overloading the piece.

As a matter of fact, that would make me an eternal champion.
That I call things what they are is to say I appreciate things for what they are. Nothing is sacred or unattainable to me :^)

>twelve(space)tone

Daily reminder that baroque classical is overrated

>it's another Bach circlejerk thread

We get it, fugue is "real classical music"

You need to have a good grasp of theory to appreciate some of the more crafty and clever things Bach does. While all his music has an obvious beauty that can be appreciated by anyone, if you want to get down into the nuts-and-bolts of it you have to study.

I'm not a great piano player and I know almost no theory but I slogged through brute-force learning a Bach fugue and it was extremely rewarding. The way he constantly moves between keys and constantly revives harmonic themes is wonderful. That's in many ways the richness of Baroque/counterpoint (as opposed to Bach himself) but I've found Bach much more stimulating than say Couperin.

If you're really interested you'll want to study counterpoint writing, canons and fugues, species counterpoint etc.

Rosalyn Tureck has some really cool videos on Youtube about Bach which are for a popular audience. These videos helped unlock Bach for me. Glenn Gould is also a great communicator of Bach, in his playing but also as a lecturer.

Baroque, more like, Bagay

this makes no sense, gay people are some of the most oppressed people ever

other user here
the phrasing is less legato than in classical style. schweitzer described some of it in his JS Bach book.
countless other details like playing a dotted note in the length of two triplets instead of 3/2 of its value, which only became standard in 19th century.

who calls their friends "loser"? that's what i wanna nkow

You're not funny, bro. Telling you as a friend :^)

In all musical arguments, this. By not liking a thing all you ever accomplish is reducing your own possible enjoyment and by being overly closed to things you think you "shouldn't" like you increase the chances of you not liking it. Nobody in all of existence will ever be impressed that you don't like something. You're just shooting yourself in the foot and shoving the bloody shoe in everyone's faces like its a badge of honor.

You still said Bach was a Renaissance artist, which devalues any other statement you make.

Way to miss the point. I never said that, dipshit. Stockhausen is "DUDE WEED LMAO" tier.

I've never heard anyone sat that he was, that's not why he is so revered.

Stockhausen isn't twelve tone you fucking mongoloid
In Freundshaft isn't even serial

You're an idiot.
Oh yeah for sure Corelli is more interesting than L'Apres...
I would call almost all of his work post-1960s Postmodern.

The one on the left is basically a sick guitar solo and the one on the right is random notes plucking back and forth. Don't believe me? Try playing them in your head and see for yourself. Also the left sheet music leaves a lot of details for the performer to interpret on their own while the music on the right is trying to micro manage everything.

Why did you randomly bring it up then?

Let me try again;

With all things considered, there isn't anything groundbreaking or even distinct about Stockhausen's music.