Your browser isn’t supported anymore. Update it to get the best YouTube experience and our latest features. Learn more
Read the original article
Comments
Bach is the greatest composer and perhaps the greatest artist in human history. Full stop. He is able to condense so much complexity into his works, and he speaks to the heart as equally as he speaks to the intellect. He is proof that the mind and the heart do not have to be at cross purposes, but can be wholly engaged together when stimulated by sublime works of art.
By jancsika 2025-11-213:13 > He is able to condense so much complexity into his works, and he speaks to the heart as equally as he speaks to the intellect.
Just to add to that-- the complexity of Bach is something like going half-way around the circle of fifths in the middle of a long fugue in G#-minor. And he does this not just for kicks, but because this is one in a 24-part polemic to push other composers/musicians to use his favored equal temperament tuning system. "Using my system, you too can visit foreign keys with confidence and ease! Never sound out of tune again!" That's the whole point of Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier.[1]
Similarly, Mozart's complexity was taking a social issue-- like egalitarianism-- and sneaking it into an opera by quickly composing 3 dances of different classes (and meters!) to be performed concurrently on the stage. Apparently he cued the on-stage musicians for each dance when he conducted the premiere of Don Giovanni.
I mention the latter because Bach's favored textures were thick and busy, and Mozart's tended toward light and effervescent. There's a tendency to confuse texture with deeper musical complexity, and that can lead people to overlook Mozart's contributions and/or give Bach credit for the wrong things.
1: Lazy theory-- Bach wrote Book I so the keyboardist could tune first using equal temperament, then choose any key and sound in tune. But most collections of pieces (e.g., dance suites) were all in the same key anyway, so this wasn't much of a practical advantage. However, if he modulated to various keys in a single piece, then those keys would sound poor in just intonation. Then the musician would be forced to use equal temperament to play the piece! Unfortunately, not all of the fugues in Book II are as harmonically adventuresome as the G#-minor fugue, so a lazy theory it remains.
By reactordev 2025-11-2019:204 reply That’s debatable. Mozart was good too. But my real OG is Camille Saint-Saens. You want dark and moody? Light and fluffy? Dazzles and sparkles? He’s your man.
I think from a technical perspective, this is basically still true about Bach. It's not to say he has the most enjoyable music to listen to, but rather his music is built in a way that shows he was basically metagaming his music harder than anyone else ever has.
Why do you say metagaming? Did he really advance the art so far? I think he was just incredibly good at producing music within his specific parameters.
(Said as a huge fan of his work. I spent a year playing essentially nothing but one of his fugues.)
By Ericson2314 2025-11-2022:45 Yeah he did hugely advance it.
This didn't really get noticed in his own day, as they were busy dumbing things down into the classical period, but he was hugely influencial through rediscovery.
Except for Italian humanists rediscovering Greek and Roman writings, I'm having a hard time thinking of an earlier instance of a chiefly posthumous legacy.
By dabluecaboose 2025-11-2019:282 reply Danse macabre is a true masterpiece. Incredible composer.
By reactordev 2025-11-2020:112 reply Carnival of the Animals is better…
Aquarium was my sons childhood theme song
By BeFlatXIII 2025-11-2114:08 Carnival of the Animals introduced me to high-effort shitposting. There is no other way to describe the less-famous movements.
By reactordev 2025-11-2022:53 Someone yells from the back “What about the cellos?” :D
By pfcd 2025-11-215:22 This performance is also very great (No. 1 only, not the whole concerto): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcsfDxojdV8
Nah Bach shits on Mozart. Mozart make extremely catchy music like Justin Beiber. I seriously do love mozart, but he merely wrote music. Bach weaved math into his music more than anyone before or after. His music sounds dense and more multi dimensional than mozart or saint saens. It really doesn't sound like he was trying to write beautiful music ( even though it is ) , it sounds like he was solving an equation and just writing out the answers as a harmonic sequence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmsNH8t25ck - This guy is like 95 and still shredding on youtube
By jancsika 2025-11-215:57 > Mozart make extremely catchy music like Justin Beiber.
Mozart was the quintessential "Dark Forest" composer, hiding musical sentience in plain sight of light classical period textures.
Here he is with 2 measures of a simple major key "Justin Bieber" clarinet sequence interleaved with 2 measures from the strings that keep modulating to minor keys:
https://youtu.be/xdVo0MsJMOc?t=1074
Keep listening to the section marked "Tutti" in the score for a re-orchestration and reharmonization of that same clarinet sequence, but now in a surprisingly lush, chromatic style similar to Wagner or Brahms. It quickly disappears, too.
Similarly, Bach's own output is encoded inside Mozart's. E.g., the coda of the Rondo in A Minor doubles as a two-part invention, complete with invertible counterpoint between left- and right-hand.
He also built a nifty hash table that could be used to efficiently generate and stream music over the internet. (Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to patent and sell it to Yahoo for 6 billion dollars.)
By reactordev 2025-11-2022:513 reply See, music isn’t just math, it’s feel. I guess that’s why I dislike him the way I do. It’s too robotic.
Truth is, they were ALL Justin Bieber. It’s all pop music of the time.
Ahh yes, so robotic
https://youtu.be/_1xJoVzoIQg?list=RD_1xJoVzoIQg
Also they were not all justin beiber. Bach was a working church musician when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women. Only one of them was in it for the fame. In fact you could say that mozart and liszt were 2 of the first "pop stars" because that archetype didn't exist before them. There was basically no "beatlesmania" over bach. He had a steady job, but he didn't die wealthy or famous.
Did not expect one of the most unhinged discussions on HN to start over classical music but aight.
I have to say, I enjoyed "Nah Bach shits on Mozart" much more than I should have.
Is that because there is some more depth to the joke, that Mozart did this for real "when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women" - "shit on women"? So Bach metaphorically shits on Mozart for being the greater composer who was in it for the music and now gets more fame?
Because I was rather appalled by that language, but maybe lack background context.
By reactordev 2025-11-2122:52 Mozart loved wild parties and had a feces obsession. He also was born 6 years after Bach died so no, Bach didn't shit on Mozart, only the Academics do. The only shits Bach cared for was getting paid and making good music. Mozart on the other hand was "paraded across europe" but as a child. By the time he was an adult, he had a job. By the time America decided it had had enough of the British, Mozart left for Vienna.
By stavros 2025-11-2111:59 I really want that to be the case, so I'm just retconning it.
By throaway123213 2025-11-2116:091 reply Its well-known that Mozart had a poop obsession.
https://www.thepiano.sg/piano/read/mozart-and-his-infamous-l...
Hm. Not convinced that this qualifies for a poop obsession. Rather sounds like using language for a shock effect(on 2 occasions), but thanks for the link.
By throaway123213 2025-11-2316:55 Well, in their family, they had a good-night verse that went like this. Maybe not an obsession but definitely a healthy interest!
Gute Nacht (good night)
Scheiss ins Bett dass es kracht (shit into the bed so that it bangs)
Reck den Arsch zum Mund (stretch your ass towards your mouth)
und sei recht kugelrund (and be spherically round))
And Mozart wrote a canon from it
"Buona Nox - bist a rechter Ox" (and the end of the text is what I wrote above)
By reactordev 2025-11-211:281 reply When someone gushes over Bach, I tend to go off. Glad that others are just as knowledgeable as I am in Baroque.
By reactordev 2025-11-2115:01 I’ve heard everything Bach and still choose to not accept him on the upper shelf.
mozart was truly the R kelly of his time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch
By reactordev 2025-11-211:27 Basically the first Disney Channel Child Star…
> Bach was a working church musician when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women
Bach died 6 years before Mozart was born.
He was still working!!
He was just decomposing instead of composing.
(Old sixth grade camp joke)
By throaway123213 2025-11-2116:10
By jawilson2 2025-11-2316:36 I'm sorry, I just can't listen to Bach piano pieces unless Glenn Gould is making strange sounds in the background that the sound engineer can't remove.
By erfgh 2025-11-2111:14 Pop music also existed back then you know.
By stevage 2025-11-2022:27 I don't care for Mozart but Saint Saens yes. The second movement of the organ symphony is utterly sublime.
By a ridiculous stroke of luck I got to perform that piece as soloist once. Unforgettable.
By Waterluvian 2025-11-211:482 reply I would describe Prelude in C as having one of the highest “simplicity to depth” ratios of any piece I’ve played. I wonder if anyone else has any they’d suggest as being incredibly simple while also being incredibly deep. (I get this is pretty subjective but I think you know what I mean)
By maroonblazer 2025-11-212:131 reply I picked up a collection of several hundred of his 4-part chorales. I like to flip through the pages and pick one seemingly at random and play it. While some hit me harder than others, nearly all of them express this "simplicity to depth" ratio.
My latest favorite: Oh God, Hear My Sighs: https://soundcloud.com/nick66/oh-god-hear-my-sighs-bach
By sudara 2025-11-2111:28 Love the chorales, thanks for sharing that one.
By vixen99 2025-11-218:31 Chopin's 4th Prelude. Very simple harmonically and just about the easiest piece he ever composed. Listening to it one understands how appropriate it was for it to be played at his funeral.
Something I have always been interested about, but sort of afraid to ask because it is a VERY small jump to unintended racism...
Are there any composers from other cultures that come close to doing what Bach (and Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc) did? Like, I want to hear the Japanese equivalent of the Brandenburg Concertos or Mass in B Minor, all guns blazing. Don't tell me "well, it's the space between the notes that matter..." just overwhelm me with genius that is self-evident the second the music starts. I have a few theories, but haven't really researched it.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2114:30 Different cultures have different florescences. Where are the other cultures when Egypt invented hieroglyphics, where were the other cultures, when the Greek were philosophizing, where were the other cultures, when the Mayas flourished. Where were the other cultures, when the Romans played with rethoric. What were the other cultures doing when the Chinese culture flourished.
Also these are not really competing, but more like morphing into another. During the Antique there was trade with India and China, subsahara parts of Africa. The Arabian mathematics was preserved in Greek literature. This was then rediscovered and translated into Latin, which kick-started European philosophy and sciences.
The same is true for religion. Christianity is the mix of Jewry and Greek philosophy. The Greek were heavy influenced from the Egypt culture. The Jews took their knowledge from the Arab peoples in their regions and also part from Egypt. This Monotheism came from earlier Polytheism and earlier natural religions.
By digdugdirk 2025-11-2113:35 Just a point of context - you're looking back at Bach from a historical vantage point where he's been gobbled up and lumped together with the entirety of "western culture".
To his contemporaries, he was a member of a specific national "culture", and influenced by the greats of other European (and non-European) cultures of the time.
By cassepipe 2025-11-2114:05 Different cultures have access and then value different cultural expressions. Asking why there isn't the japanese Bach is a bit like asking why there is no spanish Lee Changho
You could make the argument of how elaborate is a piece of art but in the case of individuals like that they are so far off from the median person in their culture that it'd be quite hard to see their achievement as coming from their culture instead of their own cognitive abilities. The societies they grew into either fought them or allowed them to strive but that's about it.
I would maybe look at this a bit differently.
Where are the great classical artists in even the rest of Europe? The great classical composers of the 18th century were all German and all made their careers in Vienna, Austria in the 1700s. This was where you wanted to be. Its like the musical equivalent of silicon valley in the 2000s. Vienna was among the wealthiest cities in the world. Habsburg nobility had an unusual fascination with funding arts and culture. Spurs competition to push the art to its limit, in hopes of attracting the wealthiest backers. Budding industrial revolution make the production of complicated musical instruments more viable.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2223:09 In addition to the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46012832, German(y) wasn't a state back than but a much larger common cultural term. People living in different parts of Europe would understand themself to be German, even if they wouldn't be considered to be now by their ancestry. It was simply the cultural lingua franca of Central Europe at that time, the countries were smaller and quite numerous. People used to speak German in the same way as they now speak English.
I think the mobility at that time is underestimated, it was very common to relocate to a place where the innovation happens and the other great minds were. It was more common to tour through Europe as part of the Education, than it is now. Sure a journey would take a week instead of a few hours, but you also don't relocate every day.
By lodovic 2025-11-227:19 Your argument is ignoring musical geniuses such as Vivaldi, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, none of them came from Vienna or Germany.
By nobodyandproud 2025-11-2114:28 I’m a poor student of music and history but my opinion:
Europe was a civilization in a perpetual state of war with power rarely concentrated, so even concentrated wealth was local and therefor still distributed amongst different kingdoms and nobles.
This means more opportunity and support: One village/patron/noble/king doesn’t like your style? Go travel and find someone else to sponsor you.
I don’t think this was possible elsewhere. East Asia for example—thanks in part to Confucianism—had China dwarfing most of the region, with a stifling top down meritocracy.
And today, China and the United States have incredible sway over the globe I imagine things are stalled.
By hodgehog11 2025-11-2018:3311 reply Do you have any particular pieces in mind when you wrote this?
Bach is impressive, no doubt, but to each their own perhaps. I acknowledge that I have not received the appropriate training to fully appreciate the complexity in his works, so I wish I could hear what you do. To my ear, (and this isn't a novel opinion in the slightest), I think the Baroque era was more limited in expression due to the inherent limitations in the instruments and consequent styles at the time. Within those constraints, calling Bach an absolute titan of composition would be an understatement. But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
By PotatoPancakes 2025-11-2020:014 reply Bach's most approachable music might be his cello suites.
But also, I think there are two camps of fans of "classical music" (by which I mean music in the styles: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, etc). There are those who listen to the music, and those who play it.
For the most part, those who only listen to music often prefer Romantic and Impressionist styles. From the moody and dramatic to the gentle and contemplative, these styles are very approachable to the untrained ear.
But those who play an instrument (or sing in a choir) spend lots of time practicing and rehearsing and interpreting the music as it's written on the page. This extra time makes all of the little nuances of Baroque music truly come to life. The classic example is Bach's Crab Canon, which is a fine little piece of music... but once you realize that the whole thing is a palindrome, and you can actively appreciate how the same parts work in a forward and backward context, it becomes really interesting and pleasant.
So if Bach doesn't do it for you, and you play an instrument, try diving into playing it yourself.
By sbrother 2025-11-2021:59 I think that's true about Bach's instrumental music, but his big sacred works like his Passions and the Mass in B minor are as "romantic" as the Baroque period gets. Like OP, I think of these works as basically the pinnacle of human artistic achievement. They somehow have all the nuance and complexity you're referring to -- while also telling a deeply emotional story, and just being heart-wrenchingly beautiful even if you don't know the story.
By spectralista 2025-11-2112:221 reply I think Bach's lute music is the most approachable because it sounds the most modern like guitar music. Even though the baroque lute is an alien instrument visually to the average person today, the sound is closer to what people have grown up on.
The whole question though is like what is the best David Bowie album to start with multiplied by 100.
The catalog is just so immense, the sounds are just so varied that one person's favorite might completely be wrong for someone else.
I think the most relatable after thinking about it more is Stephanie Jones playing lute music on classical guitar.
Like BWV 1006a on guitar is the closest thing I can think of to modern pop music and Stephanie's virtuosity is just ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyySAFA2En8
By leephillips 2025-11-220:37 She is amazing. Brings out the lines with such clarity.
By hodgehog11 2025-11-213:56 Funnily enough, I actually play the cello and have enjoyed playing some of his cello suites in the past. Yes, I certainly admire the famous Suite I and it has an incredible mood to it.
I most enjoy playing music as a social affair rather than in isolation though. That may have a fair amount to do with my impression of composers from each era (Baroque is fine in a group, Classical can be unforgiving, Romantic is a lot of fun, etc.).
Looking at many of the responses here though (which have been wonderful), there are quite a few pieces from Bach that I was not aware of, or had forgotten about. He really was incredible.
By reactordev 2025-11-2020:202 reply I cut my teeth on Bach on Cello when I was 7. By the time I was in high school I could play all the instruments. I still don’t consider Bach to be the genius everyone says he was. He was a nepo baby with a big purse. His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society. However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it. Now, Jean-Babtiste Lully was a character…
By PotatoPancakes 2025-11-2021:221 reply If you don't like it, that's fine, I won't argue over taste. But your other descriptions of Bach's life deserve to be fact-checked.
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse. His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society. However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
This interpretation is not particularly historically accurate. Let's investigate:
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse.
Musicians of the baroque era weren't particularly wealthy or notable. Musical fame wouldn't come until the Classical era. And yes, music was his family trade, but that's how most trades went in that time. His parents both died before he turned ten, so he was mostly raised by his older brother. By all accounts they were not wealthy. So I think the term "nepo baby" is misleading, and "and "with a big purse" is simply incorrect.
> His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society.
This is highly overexaggerated. JS Bach had two brothers who survived childhood, and neither was particularly "prominent." Most of his "notable family" were his children, especially CPE Bach.
> However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
Bach's career was one of slow and steady growth. It doesn't appear that he leaned on his connections or family name much.
Bach did get some widespread acclaim by the end of his life, but mostly as an organist, not as a composer. His compositions were mostly discarded and ignored for a whole century until Felix Mendelssohn revived interest in his compositions. The cello suites, for example, were lost for nearly two hundred years, and only re-discovered in the 1920's.
By reactordev 2025-11-2021:551 reply He was known as an organist until the 18th century when someone decided to lump him in with the greats. His works were polished. Yes, he dedicated his life to music - but that’s also where his tenure started. Baroque style borrowing from others and making “commercial” music of his day. He was a nepo baby by our standards. His older brother that raised him wasn’t a Duke, but wasn’t poor either. He went to the best schools. They all borrowed from each other in this age.
By Ericson2314 2025-11-2022:531 reply He wasn't so "commercial" because he was doing more complex and countrapuntal music after it was falling out of fashion, and he never did an opera, which was all the rage.
By reactordev 2025-11-2023:55 In his home land of Germany, it wasn’t about the opera, it was about the church - and Bach obliged.
>He was a nepo baby with a big purse.
Interesting interpretation of "he was orphaned at 10 and left with nothing and had to go and live with his brother".
By reactordev 2025-11-2023:021 reply His father had lots of children, 4 of which became musicians, of which JSB was the last child, the baby. Barbara Margaretha tried to take the family purse (having already been twice widowed). JSB was “orphaned” but his older brothers were adults. Let’s be real.
(Who gets married and dies 3 months later?)
By TheOtherHobbes 2025-11-212:12 At the time, many people. Death stalked the land, children were lucky to reach adulthood, women were lucky to survive childbirth, and almost everyone experienced grief and bereavement.
It's all in his music - the manic passion of trying to master a craft against that background, a burning faith in a better future, against constant reminders of the horrors of the present.
It's not just four part counterpoint. There's a lot more going on.
Sure! When I think of why I love Bach, I often think of works where he demonstrates an ability to express often conflicting emotions at the same time. For example, in St. Mathew’s Passion, there’s a famous piece entitled “Mache Dich, Mein Herze” — it’s sung at a part where the followers of Christ are laying his body to rest, and somehow merges genuine despair with hope, representing the promise of resurrection. I think his ability to represent despair and hope at the same time is pretty extraordinary.
Other pieces I love are the 3rd and 5th Brandenburg concertos, as well as “Wachet Auf”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgXL_wrSPF0
No shade if he still doesn’t click with you. I’m just particularly ardent on the subject of Bach and baroque music!
By lovehashbrowns 2025-11-210:16 This piece is my favorite: https://youtu.be/Piw53UPooYU?si=WJIjWDKJUJ8HrDPO Können Tränen meiner Wangen
Karl Richter’s version is my personal favorite but there’s lots of different recordings. IMO Bach’s St Matthew Passion is the best piece of musical art, maybe art in general too idk.
By cons0le 2025-11-2023:25 Here's a fantastic quality recording of suite 3 from BBC 1974
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EKanXXMkz8
Amazing musicality, but the cellist never made it big cause she was a woman
By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-2020:172 reply I presume you know Zelenka as well, a contemporary of Bach's (both knew each other and respected each other as composers).
By 1718627440 2025-11-2023:15 There were a lot of these components in middle Germany at that time. Basically every reigning dynasty employed one, and there were a lot of those. They aren't famous now, but Bach wasn't famous at that time either. That he is famous now, is due to Mendelsohn.
Jan Dismas Zelenka wrote for the Saxon king, and many of his works were never released as a result.
Then, they burnt to ashes in 1945. The only extant copies were caught in the bombing of Dresden. We tend to think of "lost works" as something that happened in Antiquity. Nope.
By bombcar 2025-11-2112:28 The number of silent movies that are lost forever is huge - but even “talkies” are lost, too.
Media is very fragile.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2114:142 reply I think this is the real long-term harm the Nazis have done. Sure killing and murdering people is very bad, but after a century it amounts all to the same. What you can't bring back is the whole culture they destroyed.
This is also one aspect why they absolutely hated the Jews. The Jewish culture emphasizes education and Christian were forbidden to take interests in the middle ages. So the Jews became the wealthy educated elite. They were the substrate for the German culture. So in some sense that hatred against the Jews was hatred against the educated and "the establishment".
Also the cities and cultures a lot of famous people, like philosophers and also later statesmen, essentially the countries elite, came from is now destroyed and doesn't belong to Germany any more.
The city where I live, Ostrava, had mostly Jewish intelligentsia, as it was otherwise an industrial city with most people working in mines and steel mills.
I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2222:55 Exactly what I mean.
> I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
I also find that sad, but honestly why would they? There weren't exactly welcomed throughout the history in Europe. While there were phases when they were, the opportunity to have your own state with people just like you certainly sounds convincing. In addition a lot of people simply couldn't, since they were dead or for some deported/"emigrated".
As for my home country, Germany, while we retained the cultures of the rich capital owners, we lost the cultures of the poor philosophers and smart statesmen. I think this is a deep hidden reason, why we suck now-a-days. Another culture, that wasn't as rich for philosophers and state men, but instead for entrepreneurs and competitive societies, didn't lost their landscape, but instead was destroyed by 40 years of socialism.
I think we should stop blaming the social and political landscape on idioticity, but instead recognize it as the successful work of 60 years of dictatorial indoctrination it is.
By lo_zamoyski 2025-11-224:341 reply > The Jewish culture emphasizes education and Christian were forbidden to take interests in the middle ages. So the Jews became the wealthy educated elite.
"Take interests"? If by that you mean in education, then this is false.
If you look at the centers of learning in the Middle Ages and who was contributing the most, these were Christians and it was the Church. The first universities-as-universities were founded then. Scholasticism was intellectually very rigorous and supplied the philosophical foundations for the modern sciences. This was an incredible period.
And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration. Those who were were often disproportionately merchants, of course, and because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews (the Church forbade Catholics from issuing loans with compound interest to anyone, hence why the Medicis, Fuggers, etc. didn't make their fortunes through interest), they were more likely to engage in money lending of that kind.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2211:46 > "Take interests"? If by that you mean in education, then this is false.
No.
> because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews
Exactly, what I was saying, so you did get it.
> And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration.
I did not say that. What I stated was that the rich educated were disproportionally (secular) Jews.
By mitthrowaway2 2025-11-2018:481 reply I'm not the GP but I can recommend Bach's Partita in D minor, said to have been composed after returning from travel to find that his wife had died and been buried in his absence.
Brahms said of it: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."
best version here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZFOhkGGr8A
By mitthrowaway2 2025-11-210:22 That's a completely different piece, but also beautiful!
You should listen to Hilary Hahn's renditions of Bach's partitas and sonatas. She brings out the subtleties of Bach's composing beautifully, and the purity of his music is easy to appreciate in these solo pieces.
https://inv.nadeko.net/playlist?list=PLor_18TcpRrxQmne5_SKRy... (YouTube proxy)
> You should listen to Hilary Hahn's
Absolutely
> renditions of Bach's partitas and sonatas.
Don't think so. Her recordings of his violin concerts on the other hand are able to clearly show his genius due to the more complex orchestration and interplay between the different instruments.
By poly2it 2025-11-2114:51 I mean, I enjoy them too. Good mention. I had a feeling the parent wasn't a fan of the baroque counterpoint, and the violin concertos feature more of that.
By cons0le 2025-11-2023:08 Lately lots of japanese players have been tearing it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZFOhkGGr8A
By biophysboy 2025-11-214:34 I would highly recommend listening to any of his fugues. The great thing about them is you do not need any training to appreciate the complexity. All you need to do is listen to the starting melody.
That melody will repeat itself again and again, if you listen closely. It will harmonize with itself as more voices are added. It will be modulated into different keys and durations.
In a way, you can kind of think of Bach as the first electronic musician, in the sense that his works consist of "discrete tracks" that get layered on to each other. I'm sure there are youtube videos out there that demonstrate this visually.
By tetraodonpuffer 2025-11-2020:341 reply when it comes to Bach I am surprised more people don't mention pieces like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsxP-YjDWlQ (arioso from the cantata 156, here for oboe)
which I think stands up just fine against pretty much any other classical piece baroque or not.
Personally I have a very big soft spot for his organ works, as I play (badly) some organ myself, and among those I don't see the trio sonatas recommended nearly often enough (here is a live recital of all of them, which is super impressive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK9irE8LMAU
among those I probably enjoy the most the vivace of BWV 530. Other favorite pieces are the passacaglia and fugue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVoFLM_BDgs the toccata adagio and fugue in C major https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klh9GiWMc9U (the adagio especially is super nice), but there's so many. Among organists I often come back to Helmut Walcha, and am always amazed at how he was able to learn everything just by listening, him being blind.
By bathMarm0t 2025-11-2020:492 reply If you're going to give them the triosonatas, you gotta give them the good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOTtDYTc5JY&list=PLCDB42413B...
Put on a good set of headphones and go sit in the corner.
Also obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah392lnFHxM&list=RDAh392lnFH...
The thing I appericiate most about bach is:
you can play it fast.
you can play it slow.
you can play it with an ensemble of random instruments.
you can play a single voicing all by itself.
all of it screams "musical". which, if you do play say, Tuba, or one of the larger instruments, is a godsend, as most of your lines in other pieces will bore you to death.
By Tokkemon 2025-11-2021:36 Nice to see the Zenph recording get some love. It's such a fascinating process they had to do. It's way better than the original Gould recordings with all his singing along.
By cons0le 2025-11-2023:28 and you can throw away the metronome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1xJoVzoIQg
By thinkingtoilet 2025-11-2019:121 reply This is only scratching the surface but I will present one of his most famous pieces to people who might ask why something like this is said. Keep in mind this was written 300 years ago. That's 300. fucking. years. ago. Think about how dated something from the 80s might sound. How modern does this sound? How completely universal is it's beauty? To me, this could have been written today and still sound fresh and beautiful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWoI8vmE8bI
This piece is still deeply moving despite centuries of tastes changing. This is only barely scratching the surface of Bach. As a musician, when I listen to other great musicians speak, they all speak about Bach as the best. Of course that's subjective, and there are no 'wrong' answers on who is your favorite, but when the feeling is so nearly unanimous amount people who are often, frankly, contrarian and counter culture it says something.
By bombcar 2025-11-2112:31 Bach is still found even in modern music - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2puubv2e0L4
By orlp 2025-11-2110:10 > Do you have any particular pieces in mind when you wrote this?
(not me, but...)
Bach - Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor, BWV 582
> But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
Bach-Busoni - Chaconne from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004
By cons0le 2025-11-2022:51 Try this one on for size
By dylan604 2025-11-2019:50 > But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
I had a friend that said if Mozart/Bach/et al had access to modern music production equipment, they'd all write psytrance. But it is just another example of "take great talent from long ago and put them in modern day" comparisons.
By Tokkemon 2025-11-2021:33 The Cantatas. All of them.
I disagree; I find many of Bach’s compositions to be devoid of heart, just intellectual in some mathematical way.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy many of his compositions for what they are. The thing about music and many other arts is that it is a fools errand to attempt to give them a total ordering; there are things to enjoy about wildly differing styles of music that I think people do a disservice to themselves being restrictive.
For example, some don’t like classical music because they say it’s not danceable. Well, duh it’s mostly not, but that’s not the point of it. It about enjoying the melodies and harmony and structure.
So one can compare art on specific axes, but to say such and such is the greatest composer is kind of meaningless to me.
By telesilla 2025-11-2114:30 By throaway123213 2025-11-2116:071 reply Actually it's a myth that classical music wasn't meant to be danced to. There was much dancing going on.
By d-lisp 2025-11-2210:04 In case of Bach, we know at least that the "dance" suite weren't meant for "social dancing" due to the fact they are highly stylized.
By missedthecue 2025-11-2120:01 jesu joy of mans desiring is such a simple melody but at least in my brain chemistry sounds like a doorway to heaven. I find it full of heart and emotion.
What pieces do you know ? I mostly listen violin/lute partitas (I sometimes prefer them transcribed to classical guitars (I really enjoy Vidovic and Bream renditions)). I do really like the simplicity of such pieces, which I find to be very lyrical, of course in a far different manner than e.g. Vivaldi...
The chaconne from the 2nd partita in D minor [BWV 1004] I find very powerful; very different from the Brandburg Concertos, which I tend to fancy less.
I mean, of course in the thousand of pieces he wrote, there are pieces that you won't like, and "greatest composer" is an impossible and absurd proposition.
By leephillips 2025-11-220:511 reply That chaconne is one of my favorite pieces of all time. I heard it first on guitar, played by Segovia, and, probably because of that, still prefer it on guitar to the original violin. I even used to play it, pretty decently, I think.
By d-lisp 2025-11-229:37 I also play the Segovia transcript more than the urtext version (some would argue that this is kitch or innapropriate, but yeah ... why would I care ?)
Well, you surely also are a Sonata No.1 [BWV 1001] enjoyer, aren't you ? I find the four movement to be exceptionnally good, and they cover a lot of ground.
By layer8 2025-11-2018:46 You should be aware that that’s a hugely subjective thing.
By dumpsterdiver 2025-11-215:42 I can agree that Bach is the greatest, but Beethoven will always be the original rockstar in my mind, and I don’t have a favorite between them.
By hearsathought 2025-11-2019:144 reply > Bach is the greatest composer and perhaps the greatest artist in human history. Full stop.
He's aight. Obviously you enjoy his music and that's fine. But have you experienced all the art from all cultures through all human history to make such authorative statements on such subjective matters?
This is a riposte at the level of "Then name all composers. Nanananana." Obviously, the answer to your question is going to be "no," but really a great amount of music is available to us, and everything that came before the Renaissance was, crudely put, simple music. So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
IMO too, Bach is the greatest. There's really no-one who can so seamlessly merge content and form and achieve intellectually, musically and emotionally fulfilling results.
By jancsika 2025-11-216:35 > So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
Unless they are an active scholar in pre-Baroque era music I'd question that. There are just too many cultural cues for common practice music (i.e., from Bach to Mahler) and too few for everything before. It's almost a certainty that the commenter will prefer the music with forms and harmony baked into them that hold the most cultural significance.
E.g., if an action filmscore has Berlioz-style brass and a big field drum, everyone is instantly on board. What about if you play the L'homme armé tune that Renaissance composers went gaga over?
Those composers would take that tune, stretched it out into really long held pitches, and then write entire sections of the mass around it with faster moving melodies. Was it just a trend like the vocoder? Did monks get psyched when they heard it embedded in the mass? I know a lot of those masses, but I honestly have no idea.
By hearsathought 2025-11-2218:022 reply > This is a riposte at the level of "Then name all composers. Nanananana."
It isn't. It's pointing out silly fanboying of silly people.
> and everything that came before the Renaissance was, crudely put, simple music.
Does "simple" mean worse? Using your logic, then eminem or taylor swift are greater musicians than bach. After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music. But then again, there are dunces who think lord of the rings or harry potter are greater works than the bible, iliad, aeneid, hamlet, etc.
> So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
The commenter was not only weighing bach's merits against his contemporary musicians, he was weighing them against all ARTISTS - musicians, poets, dramatists, writers, etc. The commenter claimed bach was the greatest artists. full stop.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2221:38 > Does "simple" mean worse?
Not OP, but I think no.
> Using your logic, then eminem or taylor swift are greater musicians than bach. After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music. But then again, there are dunces who think lord of the rings or harry potter are greater works than the bible, iliad, aeneid, hamlet, etc.
Before Renaissance with the exception of Hungary, where it died out due to the Turks, there was a lack of polyphony. There was also a serious lack in the ability for dynamic. Previously the concept of measure didn't exist. The very composer we are discussing here, also took part in research about the nature of keys and famously invented an intonation equally useful for all keys. There was quite a lot of research and innovation at that time.
> eminem or taylor swift
Modern music is often lacking in complexity compared to older music. It is popular, because to be able to process that complexity in real-time, which is a precursor to understanding and enjoying the music, early child-hood training of the ear is needed by exposure, which a majority of the population wasn't subject to.
Early digital music was innovative, since it was created by geeks educated in both computers and music, but these days are long gone. Modern music is quite simple and more some return to earlier monophonic music with modern instruments.
By tgv 2025-11-2319:02 > After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music.
That's based on absolute lack of knowledge, and hoping that modifying a argument will result in one with the same truth and weight. It doesn't. Or it was plain trolling.
I understand that a comment such as mine would rankle. I acknowledge that art is subjective, that there's no accounting for taste, etc. And yet, I don't really believe that, deep down. If I did, I'm not entirely sure how I could speak meaningfully to the differences between great and no so great art. Is War and Peace really as good as any other novel? Would it be possible for any two people to meaningfully communicate about art, if it really all boils down to mere instinctual taste? I think there must be more, even if I can't quite prove it. But I will acknowledge that I can't point to some objective rubric that obtains across all art when I say what I say.
By hearsathought 2025-11-2218:101 reply > I understand that a comment such as mine would rankle.
It doesn't rankle. It just makes you look childish and immature.
> If I did, I'm not entirely sure how...
God you bore me. I'm not interested in having a discussion on the philosophy of art here. Just say he's your favorite musician so far and be done with it. Just like whoever was your previous favorite musician before bach.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2223:211 reply > God you bore me. I'm not interested in having a discussion on the philosophy of art here.
You are not, but he is and made his comment in this spirit.
> Just say he's your favorite musician so far and be done with it.
Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
When you say about a technical concept of your expertice, that X is the best way to do Y, it does not preclude, that there isn't a better way to be invented, or that exists elsewhere, that you just are not aware of. The same is true here.
I honestly can agree with lordleft. In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
By hearsathought 2025-11-2416:21 > You are not, but he is and made his comment in this spirit.
He made the comment in the spirit of being a silly fanboy. Just like most respondents so far.
> Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
Agreed. That's my point.
> When you say about a technical concept of your expertice, that X is the best way to do Y, it does not preclude, that there isn't a better way to be invented, or that exists elsewhere, that you just are not aware of. The same is true here.
We are talking about art. Not an objective "technical concept". Not only that, it's nearly impossible to say X is the greatest author/writer/etc, X is the greatest painter, X is the greatest musician, X is the great film director, etc. If we can't even decide within a particular art form, who is the greatest, it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP. That's my point. Not to mention that it's is nearly impossible to have consumed and understood all art, even within a genre. And we haven't even addressed the subjective nature of art.
> In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
Who cares? It just proves my point.
By spectralista 2025-11-2112:451 reply Bach's catalog would be like if Tolstoy wrote maybe 100 novels on the level of War and Peace.
It has nothing to do with subjective taste. The immensity of Bach's work is almost inhuman.
That still wouldn't capture Bach's influence on western music though.
The combination of the immensity, originality and influence is just mind boggling.
By prmph 2025-11-2117:11 A large and immense catalog does not greatness make. I consider Mussorgsky's Pictures At an Exhibition to be one of the greatest compositions ever, and yet Mussorgsky was probably not the most prolific composer.
By _menelaus 2025-11-2113:57 I read this in Frasier's voice <3
By stevenjgarner 2025-11-2019:49 Thank you and upvote to the OP for posting this. I love Bach and place him on a pedestal of my own.
Personally I lack the physiological or cultural understanding of the significance of Tuvan Throat Singing [1] and why "Kongurei" (Konggurei / 60 Horses) is often described as the most beautiful and heartbreaking song in the Tuvan Throat Singing (Khoomei) repertoire.
I also get that the Javanese gamelan orchestral masterpiece "Ketawang Puspawarna" [2] is widely cited as the candidate for the "most important, beautiful, and pivotal" global composition. So much so, that NASA included it on the Voyager spacecraft Golden Record in 1977 (side 2 track 2, together with 3 compositions of J.S. Bach). But I probably lack the aesthetic fabric to fully comprehend or appreciate its significance.
[1] Tuvan Throat Singing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8hrhBZJ98
[2] Ketawang Puspawarna, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irt2AsxYYnI
By spectralista 2025-11-2112:41 I am not even the biggest Bach fan but it is hard to think of a more towering figure in any artistic medium.
I suspect you don't understand music enough to understand the immensity of Bach's work and influence.
Maybe if Picasso had been born 200 years earlier he could have influenced painting in the same way.
The fact you don't give a counter example kind of shows your hand that you don't know much about this subject beyond your surface level understanding of critical theory.
By xav_authentique 2025-11-2022:083 reply Interesting to read that the complexity in his music is praised and seen as speaking to the intellect, whereas that is not the case when it comes to complexity in software.
By pianoben 2025-11-2022:48 complexity in software is invisibly-preceded with "unnecessary", and usually indicates software that is difficult to maintain or even to verify its behavior. A really cool software architecture can scratch a similar itch as a good fugue, but that's not its typical function nor is it the way we usually engage with software professionally.
Bach's complexity, incidentally, is seldom "for its own sake" - the pieces all fit together beautifully and without extraneous movement. Contrast that with some lesser works by later composers like Liszt, where you often get the sense that a given passage could be reduced or removed without harming the work.
By 1718627440 2025-11-2114:18 That kind of complexity, which means attention to detail, quality, concordance and consonance between different components, is also praised in software. This is however not what we mostly think of when talking about complexity in software.
By sambapa 2025-11-2022:33 Why pay a dominatrix for a flogging when you can just stub your toe
By mrbonner 2025-11-2019:56 And if you don't agree with me, I don't have to explain to you!
I spent a long time on a Bach project that didn't really sell well, but I was very impressed with the final result.
A system for buying arrangements of the Well-Tempered Clavier for any combination of instruments:
welltemperedconsort.com
By InitialLastName 2025-11-2115:30 If you don't want it, I'll take that name for my stoic-forward dating service.
By randogp 2025-11-2018:38 Apparently the works were known since long time, not 'recently found' as the title suggests. The novelty is the authorship attribution to JSB.
