Tell me more ×
Musical Practice & Performance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for musicians, students, and enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 9 down vote favorite
2

I have been learning piano for many years and am able to really enjoy the music of Beethoven and Chopin. When it comes to Bach, I shamefully admit, I can't see why he is held in such high esteem. His work just seems like scales coming one after the other and one over the other. I am not able to associate any emotions with them. I think this inability could be due to one or more of the following:

  1. My ear for perceiving polyphony is not yet developed. As it happens over time, I will be able to see things in proper light.
  2. I am from India and I have grown up in a different musical tradition. Most of the music here is based on a system that has no harmony. I cannot relate to Bach due to this cultural shift.
  3. Only people who have a gift to appreciate such music, whose brains are designed to comprehend it, can like it.

I want to know which of these comes closest to the truth. Or is there any other reason?

Is it possible to train myself to enjoy his music? If yes, how can this be done?

share|improve this question
1  
Why the downvote? I think this is an interesting question. – Raskolnikov May 25 '12 at 8:28
Suggestion on BACH appreciation: Listen and study the following (basic Bach to mind blowing Bach): The two part inventions, The 48 Preludes and Fugues, The Brandenburg concertos, and finally The Toccata and Fugue in D minor. Bach is all about canon and fugue form at its most pristine. He is the master of harmony of the Baroque music period. Beethoven's work would have never crossed the river without Bach's bridge. – filzilla May 25 '12 at 18:26

4 Answers

up vote 1 down vote

Question: Would Beethoven and Chopin sound as good played on guitar? Answer: Probably not.

I think this captures what is going on - J.S. Bach wrote his keyboard pieces primarily for the harpsichord. I have heard Bach played on the harpsichord many times and it's absolutely wonderful. Last week I heard a skillful pianist play one Bach's pieces on the piano - I was shocked at how mechanical it sounds when played on the piano in comparison to music that was composed for performance on the piano.

My feeling is that it's difficult to appreciate J.S. Bach's music unless you hear it played on the instrument it was intended to be played on. Composers do take the characteristics of an instrument and how it can be played into consideration - these subtleties can sometime make something ordinary into something absolutely extraordinary.

share|improve this answer
1  
I find it much more mechanical on harpsichord to be frank. The piano allows for much more dynamics than a harpsichord can. – Raskolnikov May 31 '12 at 19:04
I agree somewhat with both you and @Raskolnikov. Bach on harpsichord is extremely interesting, and IMO many pieces sound fantastic that way, in part due to the mechanical sound of the harpsichord. In some other ways though the piano can sound bland for these pieces, particularly when single notes are being played and the sound is less rich. In any case, hearing music the way it was intended to be played is valuable. – Matthew Read♦ Jun 1 '12 at 16:58
up vote 4 down vote

For one thing, J. S. Bach's music for solo keyboard represents only a small fraction of his work as a composer. Bach was primarily a composer of choral and vocal music, and music for chamber orchestra. I would suggest listening to recordings of his choral and vocal music (notably, his cantatas and masses) and his orchestral music to gain a broader appreciation of who Bach was as a composer and artist.

share|improve this answer
up vote 11 down vote

I'd say 2. is likely the closest, but it may just be as simple as personal taste.

You're just not that used to hearing it and as you say, there's no emotion associated with it. I doubt I'd be capable of appreciating the subtle nuances and emotions in Indian Raga and I can't imagine such a melody stirring any great emotion in me. We have sounds and dissonances today which Bach would have hated - not because he wouldn't be able to "comprehend" it, but because it's not what he'd be used to.

But the thing that fascinates me about music is that you can enjoy it in spite of your level of understanding - no matter how small (or great) that understanding may be, which is why I think you should rule out your reasons 1. and 3.

For example, a non-musician might simply appreciate the Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor (BWV 582) because it sounds "dark and moody". An organist might enjoy it because it has a double fugue subject, a musicologist might enjoy it because the pedal ostinato may have been "borrowed" from French composer André Raison.

A lot (all?) of Bach's work is academically very clever and your comment that "it just seems like scales coming one after the other and one over the other" is almost testament to the genius of his work - it sounds deceptively simple and neat, yet when you dig beneath the surface it's vastly complex.

If you don't like it, you don't like it - no point in "training" yourself to like it! But if you want to give yourself a chance at maybe seeing something you've missed so far, maybe study his The Art of Fugue series of works and see how the complexity builds up.

Failing that, why not just have a dance?! Virgil Fox - Gigue Fugue

share|improve this answer
The problem with taking 2 for an answer is I am able to understand and appreciate harmonic material from other composers very much, especially, as I have mentioned, the romantic ones. There seems to be something very universal about it. This is so intense in some of the sections that I feel that I know these composers intimately, and I become one with their emotions. But with Bach, I am like 'I realise this is something grand, but I have no clue what u're trying to say.' – gigahari Jun 1 '12 at 13:49
up vote 1 down vote

I hesitate greatly in answering this (someone already dinged you)... after all everything is a matter of taste and opinion but... perhaps there just isn't enough harmonic tension or dissonance to satisfy your personal taste.

I had a teacher once equate dissonance with spicy food... at first it's too hot... but you start to like it after the first couple times and after that... well... food is bland without it. Not to say that there isn't tension and resolution in Bach's music. (On a side note... after learning the proper voice leading rules Bach used compared to Beethoven or Chopin; I find it odd that you would use the word "scales" as a discriptor here.)

To be truthful, it's been over a decade since I even thought about these things or the stylistic differences between the Baroque, Classical and Romantic era's. Even though my first instrument was violin and I grew up playing in orchestras & string ensembles; nowadays I have a hard time sitting through anything pre-Romantic period to be completely honest... I intellectually appreciate the way everything is resolving and moving independently in Bach's music but I personally like a lot of dissonance. (I didn't so much in the past... but hey... there's twelve notes afterall...)

If it's the case that you have a more "modern" harmonic palette... then I don't imagine you're going to suddenly find what you've been missing in his music.

However... if you really want to appreciate what he's doing harmonically, you really need to go and analyze what he's doing beat for beat... it's really amazing... and you'll really learn a lot.

share|improve this answer
I appreciate your very candid and honest answer but I would like to add that you didn't mention the one fluke of Bach where his use of dissonant tone clusters are clearly 300 years into the future: The Toccata and Fugue in D minor. – filzilla May 25 '12 at 18:35
To be honest, I'd forgotten that was him (probably because more than half the time all you get to hear is the first section); and precisely also because it is a "fluke"... – David Axtell Moore II May 28 '12 at 4:02
@filzila OK... I read up a little more on comment editing (always useful to know). but even saying it was written in 1708, your arguing what? That a minor second and two tri-tones that resolve are 100 years more dissonant that Charles Ives early period even? He ends his Symphony No.2 with an eleven note chord. Or course looking up Ives again brings up Poly-Tonality and also Quarter Tones. Which brings us back around to <iddle Eastern and Indian music again... Let me go find the reference I saw... – David Axtell Moore II May 28 '12 at 4:49
@filzila Of course... Microtonal Music ... "Microtonal music can refer to all music which contains intervals smaller than the conventional contemporary Western semitone. The term implies music containing very small intervals but can include any tuning that differs from the western 12-tone equal temperament. Traditional Indian systems of 22 śruti; Indonesian gamelan music; Thai, Burmese, and African musics, and music using just intonation, meantone temperament, or other alternative tunings may be considered microtonal." – David Axtell Moore II May 28 '12 at 4:56
show 7 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.