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)