Mozart or Bach

[DavidMahler]

Just gotta comment because rainy brought them up......The Beatles.....are about as close to "genius" as popular music in the 20th Century has ever come. I firmly believe that centuries from now people will still be listening to the Beatles almost as much as Bach is listened to today. The Beatles existed in a very brief moment where Popular music was Art Music. It was only that way approximately from 1965-75. And the frontier was headed by the Beatles. You may not like them, though I'd like to know your reasons......but if you listen to their music from Rubber Soul onward, I sincerely doubt you will dislike them........The Beatles I'm talking about are not the She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah and I Want to Hold Your Hand Beatles...........that's a whole different Beatles........In my opinion the Beatles are plagued somewhat because the bulk of their imagine and social consciousness capsulized in 1964.....a year that defines their beginnings (in America anyway), but is total boy band stuff..........that the Beatles were able to create the artistry of Rubber Soul, Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Abbey Road, the White Album speaks endlessly about their gifts as songwriters, musicians, and record making pioneers.........even the classical musicians whom I work with who have no regard for popular music at all, still tip their hat to the Beatles..........when the Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper....they made something on the level of a Beethoven Symphony. It's true.....and make sure before you debate that comment, that you hear Pepper in Mono as it is meant to be heard.

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidhunternyc /img/forum/go_quote.gif O.K. Now that you've brought Beethoven into the mix... I think it is a must that all musical lovers listen to Beethoven's late string quartets. It will demonstrate the vastness of his genius. The above reply commented on Beethoven's 5th as being overplayed and to his ears, "indulgent". In contrast his late string quartets are an entirely different animal. The 5th is to the da Vinci's Mona Lisa as the late string quartets are to Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. So dissonant. It is Webern before his time. So perhaps Beethoven's scope reached wider than any other composer. It still comes out of Bach however. Bach perfected the wheel. Whether its a stage coach, an automobile, or the Space Shuttle, you gotta have wheels.

What is a good performance of the late string quartets? I'd like to listen to them!

 

[rainy]

DavidMahler: re: reasons for disliking Beatles. I am aware of their later output, I have Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, White Album, Sgt Pepper, and one volume of B-sides. I probably have other albums, too. I don't like them because for all the diversity, in a strange way, their songs seems very formulaic to me. Have you listened to "Bambaloo Jim" (sp?) on White Album? I think 98% of their best songs are to some extent, copies of that song. There's a folksy part of the song followed by a sweet honey-dew part of the song then followed again by a folksy part. It's hard for me to explain this. I'm not sure I understand myself fully why I dislike them. I also hate their sloppy choice of words when writing lyrics. Compare them to Dylan, Byrds, Leonard Cohen, early Floyd, I could make a long list here . Lennon once said in a letter to Paul "yes, we did change the world, but.." and then went on about their squabbles. *blink*. You couldn't even change your music style! I have a distinct feeling that most of their different songs were done for the sake of showing that they could. It's like an old joke where a reviewer says that the poem is both original and beautiful but the parts that are original are not beautiful and the parts that are beautiful are not original. . Beatles were only good insofar as Lennon was reining in worst excesses of Paul and vice versa. But in the end they produced a hodgepodge of what each of them could do much better alone. I figure that if they did solo careers from the early 60s, Paul would end up doing 20 albums similar to Band on the Run, essentially forgettable, while Lennon could have done something very interesting, that would never be popular but would be far more significant than Beatles catalogue.

To be fair to poor Beatles, though, I must add that if they were not put up on top and instead would be thought of in line with other good bands like the Byrds, early PF, LedZep, Jethro Tull, Jefferson Airplane, Gentle Giant, The Who, Yes, and many others, I would like them much better.

I should listen to them again, though - I haven't listened to them in many years.

Oh, one other thing, Beatles don't really have a one quintessential song that's almost on the other side of perfection. For me, it's Granchester Meadows from PF catalogue, White Rabbit from JA, Schooldays by GG..

 

[DavidMahler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainy /img/forum/go_quote.gif DavidMahler: re: reasons for disliking Beatles. I am aware of their later output, I have Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, White Album, Sgt Pepper, and one volume of B-sides. I probably have other albums, too. I don't like them because for all the diversity, in a strange way, their songs seems very formulaic to me. Have you listened to "Bambaloo Jim" (sp?) on White Album? I think 98% of their best songs are to some extent, copies of that song. There's a folksy part of the song followed by a sweet honey-dew part of the song then followed again by a folksy part. It's hard for me to explain this. I'm not sure I understand myself fully why I dislike them. I also hate their sloppy choice of words when writing lyrics. Compare them to Dylan, Byrds, Leonard Cohen, early Floyd, I could make a long list here . Lennon once said in a letter to Paul "yes, we did change the world, but.." and then went on about their squabbles. *blink*. You couldn't even change your music style! I have a distinct feeling that most of their different songs were done for the sake of showing that they could. It's like an old joke where a reviewer says that the poem is both original and beautiful but the parts that are original are not beautiful and the parts that are beautiful are not original. . Beatles were only good insofar as Lennon was reining in worst excesses of Paul and vice versa. But in the end they produced a hodgepodge of what each of them could do much better alone. I figure that if they did solo careers from the early 60s, Paul would end up doing 20 albums similar to Band on the Run, essentially forgettable, while Lennon could have done something very interesting, that would never be popular but would be far more significant than Beatles catalogue. To be fair to poor Beatles, though, I must add that if they were not put up on top and instead would be thought of in line with other good bands like the Byrds, early PF, LedZep, Jethro Tull, Jefferson Airplane, Gentle Giant, The Who, Yes, and many others, I would like them much better. I should listen to them again, though - I haven't listened to them in many years. Oh, one other thing, Beatles don't really have a one quintessential song that's almost on the other side of perfection. For me, it's Granchester Meadows from PF catalogue, White Rabbit from JA, Schooldays by GG..

Is White Rabbit a Quintessential song? I think theres at least 40 beatle songs that are more quintessential. Bambaloo Jim is not a Beatle Song I think you mean Bungalow Bill.....but either way, their songs are not copies of Bungalow Bill....it doesnt seem to me you are very familiar with the BEatles, whcih is fine......but don't dismiss them with a reference to Bungalow Bill, which even Lennon considered a throwaway song.

And by the way......a Beatle song which could be considered perfect....I'll name a handful....
A Day in the Life, Yesterday, Strawberry Fields Forever, Let it Be, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes the Sun, Blackbird, In My Life, Because, Something.....the list goes on...........but all those songs mentioned are surely more perfect and quintessential than White Rabbit and most songs by most of the Bands you mention as better than the Beatles.

 

[rainy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is White Rabbit a Quintessential song? I think theres at least 40 beatle songs that are more quintessential. Bambaloo Jim is not a Beatle Song I think you mean Bungalow Bill.....but either way, their songs are not copies of Bungalow Bill....it doesnt seem to me you are very familiar with the BEatles, whcih is fine......but don't dismiss them with a reference to Bungalow Bill, which even Lennon considered a throwaway song. And by the way......a Beatle song which could be considered perfect....I'll name a handful.... A Day in the Life, Yesterday, Strawberry Fields Forever, Let it Be, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here Comes the Sun, Blackbird, In My Life, Because, Something.....the list goes on...........but all those songs mentioned are surely more perfect and quintessential than White Rabbit and most songs by most of the Bands you mention as better than the Beatles.

I'm far more familiar with Beatles than I would like . I actually think their best song was one from an album before Rubber Soul and Revolver, the one with a trumpet. Of the songs you mentioned: A day in the life is meh, Yesterday is annoying, Strawberry fields forever is okay but is too similar to Lucy in the sky and Bungalow Bill (you're right, I remembered the title wrong), While my guitar gently weeps is very appealing on first listen but completely disappears after you keep it in rotation for a while - it's oddly forgettable; Here comes the sun I don't remember well enough to comment, Blackbird is actually quite good - one of their best from that period; In my life - I don't remember; Because - a very good song but too sweet; Something - a very good song, one of their best; I can add that "I'm only sleeping" is also one of their best as well as Paul's "Oh Darling" (which is the best song Paul could ever hope to do), and a couple of Harrisson's songs with sitar (I think they're the only truly experimental songs Beatles ever did, the rest are just posturing as experimental songs).

I just remembered the worst sin of Beatles - sentimentality. They did more sentimental songs than anyone should be allowed to.

I mentioned White Rabbit because I think that's where JA stopped making JA songs and just made a song that stands on its own, in timelessness. Beatles never lost their Beatle-ness. Another good example is 'Moonchild' by King Crimson.

 

[robm321]

Quickly commenting on Beethoven - he had many flaws musically compared to other composers. This comparison is pointed out in the "Joy of Music" how he used simple 5ths a lot in his music and struggled with counterpoint, opera, etc. What Beethoven did better than others according to Leonard Bernstein (which I agree) is just knowing which note should follow the last. No school can teach that.

If we are talking about influence on music, Bach is definitely at the top but may be trumped by Wagner.

As for composing talent: most musicologists would probably put Bach at the pinnacle of composers, followed by Mozart. Mozart is one of the few composers to write a perfect song (meaning in all these years no one has been able change a single note in the entire song to improve it) - how all that's figured out I have no clue, but I went through a phase where I read a butt load of books about classical music and this was pretty much the consensus.

My favorite is Mozart. His piano concerto K.466 is my favorite song of any genre. I like Mozart better (by a hair) simply because he gives the impression of perfection, and I am able to connect to his music almost like he is speaking to me. Also, what he can do with the most basic musical ideas is just incredible. With Bach things seem to be at a spiritual and innate level which is a completely different feel which I really like as well. Very intimate and amazing in its own right.

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just gotta comment because rainy brought them up......The Beatles.....are about as close to "genius" as popular music in the 20th Century has ever come. I firmly believe that centuries from now people will still be listening to the Beatles almost as much as Bach is listened to today. The Beatles existed in a very brief moment where Popular music was Art Music. It was only that way approximately from 1965-75. And the frontier was headed by the Beatles. You may not like them, though I'd like to know your reasons......but if you listen to their music from Rubber Soul onward, I sincerely doubt you will dislike them........The Beatles I'm talking about are not the She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah and I Want to Hold Your Hand Beatles...........that's a whole different Beatles........In my opinion the Beatles are plagued somewhat because the bulk of their imagine and social consciousness capsulized in 1964.....a year that defines their beginnings (in America anyway), but is total boy band stuff..........that the Beatles were able to create the artistry of Rubber Soul, Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Abbey Road, the White Album speaks endlessly about their gifts as songwriters, musicians, and record making pioneers.........even the classical musicians whom I work with who have no regard for popular music at all, still tip their hat to the Beatles..........when the Beatles recorded Sgt Pepper....they made something on the level of a Beethoven Symphony. It's true.....and make sure before you debate that comment, that you hear Pepper in Mono as it is meant to be heard.

is funny that you mention that. I went to London a couple of years ago and did mi pilgrimage to the British Library to see the original manuscript of the Messiah. I was in rapture looking at it, along with some other works from Chopin and Bach. And guess what? next to it, there were some original chickencracth handwriting belonging to The Beatles. Some of their famous songs were right there as they wrote it! I thought that was really cool!

 

[coredump]

Can someone recommend a good/great Mozart Requiem recording?

 

[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by coredump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can someone recommend a good/great Mozart Requiem recording?

I'm going to sound harsh but I know other's are thinking it too: You really don't think that maybe you should start your own thread on this (or better yet, search the forums) before asking this on page 4? Like it never crossed your mind? These guys are having a really good conversation. I don't mind thread-jacking or threads taking on their own direction but this is just out of left field. 1) You'll get better responses if its in its own thread. 2) I guess it can't be said enough, search is your friend. Are you just getting on the internet for the first time? It's just common sense, basic forum etiquette stuff isn't it?

 

[Tyson]

Can anyone recommend a really good performance of Bartok String Quartets?

 

[gilency]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Can anyone recommend a really good performance of Bartok String Quartets?

Wrong thread?

 

[gregorio]

It's difficult to say who was the more influential. It's probably Bach because he was so early. Wagner was highly influential in the later romantic period and is creditied with creating chromaticism which was particularly influential for the impressionists and serialists but Debussy was also massively influential in C20th music.

Beethoven's 5th was regarded by many at the time as vulgar. This is partly because he was innovative and used extremes of contrast to create dramatic impact. Just the opening 4 notes of the 5th must have shocked the classical period audiences to the core.

Whatever you think of the Beatles music, they were one of the most talented bands ever. Their intonation, accuracy and general tightness of performance was second to none. There again, they rehearsed and performed harder than probably any other band in history.

 

[coredump]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm going to sound harsh but I know other's are thinking it too: You really don't think that maybe you should start your own thread on this (or better yet, search the forums) before asking this on page 4? Like it never crossed your mind? These guys are having a really good conversation. I don't mind thread-jacking or threads taking on their own direction but this is just out of left field. 1) You'll get better responses if its in its own thread. 2) I guess it can't be said enough, search is your friend. Are you just getting on the internet for the first time? It's just common sense, basic forum etiquette stuff isn't it?

Have you even read this thread? How about a recap of some post.


kikkomang said

Quote:

I prefer Bach. His chaconne is the greatest piece of music I've ever heard.

Rainy said

Quote:

I'd like to listen to it, which performance is the best in your opinion?

davidhunternyc said

Quote:

O.K. Now that you've brought Beethoven into the mix... I think it is a must that all musical lovers listen to Beethoven's late string quartets

Rainy said

Quote:

What is a good performance of the late string quartets? I'd like to listen to them!

Rednamalas1 said
Quote:

I prefer Mozart.. by a hair. Requiem was a masterpiece

I said

Quote:

Can someone recommend a good/great Mozart Requiem recording?

How am I being out in left field? I'm asking the same questions that rainy is and this is his Mozart vs Bach thread. Are you upset because I interrupted the beetles discussion?

 

[gilency]

I am really enjoying the comments. I have certainly learned and I am sure the OP is also having a good time. Lets not argue and keep posting about Bach and Mozart.
(By the way, some trivia about Bach: his city of birth (Eissenach) was recently in the news. An airplane crashed during an airshow there).

 

[davidhunternyc]

The late String Quartets I listen to are by "Quatuor Vegh" on the label Auvdis Valois. I have 3 CD's from the set. They were highly recommended at the time I bought them in all the Classical music magazines I was subscribing to. I was not disappointed. You won't be either. Sometimes I feel they were composed in the 21st century; they have such a bite!