Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Whoaaa...Doug. Bach vs. Bush Message-ID: <4657@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:10:33 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4657 Posted: Thu Jul 11 07:10:33 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:49:40 EDT References: <3021@decwrl.UUCP> <4623@mit-eddie.UUCP> <373@mhuxr.UUCP> <4636@mit-eddie.UUCP> <4637@mit-eddie.UUCP> <376@mhuxr.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 89 ["Now there's a look in your eyes like black holes in the sky."] > From: elf@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) Regarding Bach: > Please please please stop discussing this stuff on the net. These > comparisons are unfair, unilluminating, unintelligent and undue. I > feel almost physical pain when reading this stuff (including this > message), because it's non-constructive and pointless. I feel even > more pain when someone says Bach lacks emotional feeling. Smarten up > and get constructive (this also applies to me). Jeez, you'd think I spit on the Pope or something! Since when is Bach god? I said that I thought he was a complete and total genius, but offered some suggestions on how I think his music could have been improved. Why is this unfair, unilluminating, unintelligent, undue, and unconstructive? In my opinion, Bach's music lacks the emotional power of a lot of the music that I listen to. This isn't to say that it is totally emotionless -- I find it "pleasant", but that's not a very strong emotion, and I'd rather listen to something that hits me more deeply. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion too. If you find love, hate, pain, fear, joy, dread, frustration, satisfaction, desire, repulsion, hunger, longing, satiation, desperation, hope, etc. in Bach's music, then good for you. I don't. I do find all of these things in one particular album I like by an artist I like better than Bach, though, and to a lesser degree in albums by other artists. I'm told that in some culture or another they thought minor scales were happy and major scales were sad, so I guess things are relative. Some people like driving around in Model T's because they're historically significant cars, or something. Me, I'll take a Porche 928 instead! > From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel Simon) >>> [Marcel:] You might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented >>> the Western system of musical notation, something that EVERY other >>> musician that came later owes to him, including Kate Bush. >> [Me:] You might want to reflect, also, that there are many musicians, >> including Kate Bush, who don't use this extremely limiting system of >> musical notation. > [Marcel:] But they learned it, at least in beginnings, used it, and > then went on to less restrictive (to them; an amazingly broad range of > music has been notated in Bach's system or slight extensions of it) > So they still walked the paths cleared by old Joe, even if they later > went beyond. I'm not convinced that any of this is true. Many talented musicians don't read music because they are self-taught. From an interview with Kate Bush from 1982: Q: Can you read music now? A: No I can't.... Q: Do you work up from the root and then add the third and the fifth? A: No, I never work that way -- I just go for what sounds right.... Also, why do you say that Bach invented the Western system of musical notation? As far as I know, western musical notation goes as far back as the eleventh century. It even starts to look a lot like the notation we use today by the fifteenth century. This is three centuries before Bach's arrival on the scene. I won't argue if you tell me that he made some improvements, because I don't know much about it. Also, I'm beginning to think that Bach fans tend to greatly exagerate Bach's historical significance. Some will have you believe that Bach single-handedly pulled the world out of the depths of monophonicity, which is clearly false. Maybe Leonin or Perotin deserves instead to be considered the most significant figure historically in music. The book "The Enjoyment of Music" by Joseph Machlis says of Bach, "His position in history is that of one who consumated existing forms rather than one who originated new ones." This would seem to make him even less important historically. I appreciate those who perfect a style, but I respect more those who innovate more (even though I might rather listen to the music of the person who perfected the style rather than the innovator -- then there are those few who both innovate and perfect a style at the same time! ...). "She would rather be a riddle But she keeps challenging the future With a profound lack of history" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)