Who is the Bach of literature?

no

Posting some more:

youtu.be/5_lHARqkibM?t=12m46s

youtu.be/YszmEsvI6h8

youtu.be/LzVEe0ObiLE

youtu.be/cOzwicNcopQ

>Pope

but he was a Lutheran, thou cur

Borges
for the way everything works together and clicks and has an air of inevitability and models the deeper workings of the universe

This

One owes the Christian church: its 'intolerance' made the European mind refined and supple. One sees immediately how in our democratic age, with the freedom of the press, thought becomes coarse. The Germans invented gunpowder - hats off to them! But they made up for it: they invented the press. The ancient polis was of just the same disposition. The Roman Empire, in contrast, allowed much freedom of belief and unbelief: more than any empire allows today: immediately, the consequence was an enormous increase in the degeneracy, doltishness and crudeness of the mind. - Leibnitz and Abelard, Montaigne, Descartes and Pascal - how good they look! Seeing the supple audacity of such minds is an enjoyment one owes the church. - The intellectual pressure of the church is essentially the unbending severity with which concepts and valuations are treated as fixed, as aeternae. Dante gives us pure enjoyment through this fact: that under an absolute regime one certainly need not be narrowly restricted. If there were restrictions, they were stretched across a tremendous space, thanks to Plato; and one could move within them like Bach within the forms of counterpoint, very freely. - Bacon and Shakespeare seem almost revolting when one has thoroughly learned to savour this 'freedom under the law'. Likewise the most recent music in comparison to Bach and Handel.

>nothing special
>personally requested by Frederick II
fuck off.

Shakespeare wasn't as adherent to the classic models.

Except Bach has strength.

Joyce/Wallace/Pynchon - Catastrophic hodgepodges, the apex of Formalism, quantity over quality, obsession with puns and juvenile humor analogous to obsession with polyphony, antithesis to the Good, spitting in the face of man, spitting in the face God, basically Demonic.

Plato.

>apex of formalism
>joyce/wallace/pynchon
fucking retarded. do you know what form in literature even is?

>obsession with puns and juvenile humor analogous to obsession with polyphony
Not at all, the juvenile is the antithesis of the senile.
>antithesis to the Good, spitting in the face of man, spitting in the face God, basically Demonic
Again, Bach is the opposite (and that's not even a good thing).

This is even worse than the Melville comparison. Read

You're absolutely right.

Both highly overrated.

>no BWV 1056

Goethe

matthew passion is so good, mein got
youtube.com/watch?v=du8F3yj9xm4
also i personally really liked this recording of art of fugue with clavicords + string, forget how they was called, but i think they were quite controversial

>Borges doesn't have >strength
topkwk

>be a boookish Argentinian kid
>grow up reading Shakespeare and Schopenhauer
>travel with papá to Europe and meet avant-garde writers
>come back to Buenos Aires with no friends nor qualifications
>become mildly successful writing mediocre stories about gauchos and detectives
>develop reputation as pretentious douche
>don't feel content with current work
>start writing about DUDE LABYRINTHS LMAO
>massive international success
>hailed as the greatest writer of the century
>bluff in every single interview
>everybody buys it
>tfw people value the persona of Borges over actual merit
>tfw attempts to point out the mundanity of work come off as even more vain
>tfw published a book under a pen name and was treated as a lowly impostor
>tfw denied a Nobel by leftist academia
>tfw only wanted to write humble pulp stories
>tfw died blind and trapped in own labyrinth
>tfw all because of DUDE LABYRINTHS LMAO

youtube.com/watch?v=65xLkTU7JWA
youtube.com/watch?v=ytkyLt1ZiXE

>Karl Richter
>Glenn Gould
>piano anything
mfw

Props for picking Andreas Scholl, though

>Bach
>Beethoven
>Chopin
The rest of keyboard composition is trash.

>no schubert

>No Sviatoslav Richter.
Plebs... The lot of you...

>no Liszt

Ravel...? Debussy?

Not in the same league but deserves and honorary mention. Schubert shines in chamber music.

Only the Années de Pèlerinage are on this level.

Ravel and Debussy only made effeminate, homosexual post-romanticism that is but musical mud.

>Not in the same league
>Only the Années de Pèlerinage
>musical mud.

You need to go to more concerts, you sound like a dilettante.

youtube.com/watch?v=ONE0s528hl0
This is probably my favorite Bach cantata, although there's plenty of great ones. What makes Bach so unique among great composers whas that he was just so prolific. He worked constantly and lived to a high age.

Nigger....? Are you retarded? Do you even know anything past the Meme-Tier classical music?

youtu.be/hKgcHjq1xKQ?t=14m28s

youtube.com/watch?v=LPBEdKyfDH8

youtube.com/watch?v=m26NQfXPU6Q

youtube.com/watch?v=9xNfmsN_8hQ

>you sound like a dilettante
Says the person whose sound-system is too shit for them to realise the superiority of studio recordings to live performances (essentially the same thing without the perfection of several takes and post-production).

Some masterpieces haven't been professionally recorded, nevermind receiving regular performance, you utter plebeian.

Now you're just sounding too ridiculous, shitty bait

>he hasn't read the loser

>post-production
>doesn't even know about the godlike Richter recordings in Prague

just kys

*teleports behind you*

*whispers in your ear*

Beethoven > Bach

*teleports out of thread*

'not an argument'

>doesn't even know about [exception]
Even if I didn't, doesn't change the fact that 99.9% of the time, studio recordings are superior.

>Richter
>Richter
>Richter

What is this meme?

Ah, yes. Gould the great genius that plays Bach like an automaton and hums during studio recording.

>like an automaton

You sound like you never been to a concert hall. Do you live in America?

You sound like a degenerate who can only respond by imagining things about the other person then using those for a personal attack.

No, I'm not a dilettante, American, or shut-in who never attends concerts. The fact that such things would concern you either way marks you out as a resentful peon, however.

t. dilettante American shut-in who never attends concerts

Your resentment towards synthesizers, the greatest contemporary nation, and people who can handle solitude, only reveals an even more inferior character to those.

no shit, beethoven was standing on the shoulders of giants such as bach to begin with

youtube.com/watch?v=puwboQ_zNNI

-Everything- about this is wretched.

>he hasn't read the loser
Why would he need to read his biography?

German: occupational name or status name for an arbiter or judge, Middle High German rihtære (from rihten 'to make right').

Germans are good peeps mang, two of those references you ">" are about the same guy

Those who dont like Gould are either mediocre pianists (or even "good" ones) or idiots.

I have a feeling you could be both

>-Everything- about this is wretched.

t.Not A. Composer

t.Not A. Philosopher

>t.Not A. Composer
or fan of music, passion, vigor, genius, exceptionalism, artistry, rarity, power, beauty, sublimity, cunning, subtlety, ferocity

Post a version or two you think are better, and, be honest, did you listen to the whole thing?

inb4 no it was so bad I had to stop after 30 seconds-3 minutes

>-Everything-
>version
Learn to read.

Contrapuntal greatness ... Only Gene Wolfe can compare to the greatness of Bach, with his embedded stories resonating throughout the whole to create a perfection the dimwitted and foolish and everyone except me will never see.

youtube.com/watch?v=3_ISQ-kqopE

youtube.com/watch?v=Ehbar90jHz8

>Learn to read.
learn to listen

you really are an unfortunate ling of sap, the fool pities you

youtube.com/watch?v=FuoaorXbXVI

youtube.com/watch?v=crQ8YEUkUjg

Cervantes

Let me guess, youd prefer a performance by a player piano for you are more able to identify with its soul

>2016
>not realizing that classical music is best when the performer is free to improvise over the music
I hate this current trend of Bach-by-the-numbers. You're not supposed to play it mathematically perfect, you're supposed to FEEL it. The impromptu was essential to Western music until the 20th century.

You're not supposed to improvise over the music, you have to understand the music so you can play with it.

not him but a lot of performs that play baroque don't "improvise" but just add ornaments to the music. some examples are angela hewitt and robert hill

The Art of Fugue is a masterpeice

youtube.com/watch?v=-a6KUAONwzM
youtube.com/watch?v=iIpUppB-NlI
youtube.com/watch?v=snAv1g80_Po
youtube.com/watch?v=LfQmitWzuTM

youtube.com/watch?v=jgR8yriJt7k

I appreciate the precision, thanks. I'll check out your examples and think about ornementation.
Just for fun, here's something I like to listen to
youtube.com/watch?v=oAo7fzI1syc
If user cares to comment, I'd really like to hear it.

No Satie, no Beethoven? Shame on you

>I appreciate the precision, thanks.
ideally, yes. but it's common to see different versions of bach piece (even popular ones, see "The Schwencke measure") because the original is either lost, is of dubious origin, and for any other variety of reasons.

sometimes there is an ornament on the score, sometimes there is a missing (or new) accidental, and sometimes the performer just pays too much attention to the dynamics/tempo markings (which bach himself did not write but a later editor of the score) and it just sounds like a romantic or late classical piece.

the question of a precise performance regarding bach is a complicated one, "artistic liberties" on performances are fine in my book as long as it doesn't ruin the piece.

Brandenburg concertos, and Goldberg variations too

youtube.com/watch?v=Ehbar90jHz8

youtube.com/watch?v=H3ygA12-ABo

My intention was not to stress the importance of precision in the context of interpreting Bach (or interpretation in general, even), I was thinking of what you suggested with ornementation in regard to improvisation.
>"artistic liberties" on performances are fine in my book as long as it doesn't ruin the piece
I agree. To deliver the piece intact, so to speak, is the point.

The problems you bring up are very interesting, by the way. I know very little about Bach, I'll listen to the different versions of "The Schwencke measure" for sure.

>I'll listen to the different versions of "The Schwencke measure" for sure.
it's just an inconsequential extra measure added by someone to the prelude in c major from WTC, but it caught my attention anyway

also, an interesting way to listen to bach is via the gerubach and smalin youtube channels

youtube.com/watch?v=XXQY2dS1Srk
youtube.com/watch?v=rRei_s97-U8

in the first video, the uploader explains where the main theme is derived from in the subsequent pieces and the second video shows how the variation is a canon in a intuitive way

That's fantastic, thank you so much!

I particularly think this is great piece of music, for night time in general, but also for reading and writing to, one of my favorites. Mozart wrote preludes to go with some Bach fugues

youtube.com/watch?v=k2JHxWqVarc

Dostoevsky

LOL I fucking hate Borges and all his garlic-stinking wine-swilling dago imitators. The French and the Southern Europeans are redeemable, naturally, but I wish the South Americans would just cut it out already.

youtube.com/watch?v=rcSteU9o1aA

youtube.com/watch?v=x69mB94G4_Y

youtube.com/watch?v=vMSwVf_69Hc

>Satie
are you 16 or sth?

>Thinking the Karl and Sviatoslav Richter are the same person

I find Gould either does my favourite interpretation of piece or one I find to be drivel with no middle ground. I greatly admire his range though. He is the only major pianist to play 12-tone music and you can find recordings for the English renaissance composers as well as earlier baroque music like Swedenborg.

Beethoven was too inconsistent to be considered greater than Bach. His early works are plagued with the overthrowing of his inherited musical legacy which ill suited him. He was pretty unique among composers for giving absolutely zero shits about what anyone thinks about his music. This supreme self confidence made his late work great but meant a lot of his middle work is crap. It's not until you get to his later Symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas that we see the real, true greatness of a classical music master. Bach however, in addition to writer more truly great music never wrote anything anywhere near as bad as the bad works by Beethoven.

>What makes Bach so unique among great composers whas that he was just so prolific.
Not really. Most composers of the time before Beethoven, being but mere servants had to write a lot of music. If you can think of a great composer who lived before Beethoven the odds are that they were prolific.

I think this channel is great for showing to people who don't know anything about classical music but asides from that I don't think it has much use. The visuals don't give nearly enough information that you would gleam from reading the score and the recordings he chooses are usually terrible (because he has to pick from copyright free recordings) and his piano playing isn't exactly masterful.

>Bach
>Classical Guitar
good1 m8

>garlic-stinking wine-swilling dago imitators

>>Bach
>>Classical Guitar
>good1 m8

Bachs compositional technique, motive, method, was so such, that it could be transposed to any instrument and sound good.

We, who matter, listen to Bach to hear the I+I+I+I=IIII

The one + one + one + one = four
uno + uno + uno + uno = cuatro

un + un + un + un = quatre

is admittedly delectable icing on the cheerry cake.

you pungent poignancy of an ape fart

>I find Gould either does my favourite interpretation of piece or one I find to be drivel with no middle ground.

I can understand this, and even if it were true for me, as it might be, it wouldn't matter at all to me, because the fact of what he recorded that I do like is such a net positive, he could have had 1000 recordings of utter crap and I wouldn't be able to mind.

Here are some of my favorites I have found of his, of which, I don't know if I have reason to seek out other recordings of these pieces. Sure they may be better audio quality, I might find many that have qualities which I prefer, maybe better. But I just dont know, I feel it would be very hard to top these, plus that "these are these recordings of these pieces are the ones I have listened to hundred times and grown so accustomed to, so hearing any other performance would bother me hearing something slightly off..even if potentially I had heard those first and grown accustomed to them, I may prefer them in that way... but somehow I dont think thats the case with the Gould recordings I like, we shant attempt to speak of our ability to judge art objectively, but my subjective objective tastes, this is my opinion"

youtube.com/watch?v=wtVFbmi9meQ

youtube.com/watch?v=tkhwK5YEksI

youtube.com/watch?v=jh8q6CfhjtI
(Gould's memory capacity was legendary. Both his mental and finger memory made it possible for him to reproduce and play music literature many years after his last practice and performance of the same. A famous illustration of this statement would be an event that occurred in 1970, when the renown Italian pianist, Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, was unable to go through with his performance of Beethoven's Concerto No.5, Emperor, in Toronto. Gould was given a telephone call on Thursday evening. The problem was explained, and he was asked to substitute for Michelangeli the next morning, on Friday, when the Toronto Symphony and the conductor, Karel Ancerl, were scheduled to work with Michelangeli. Gould's answer was affirmative and good-spirited. In the space of the next few night hours, Gould rehearsed the Concerto he had not touched in four years. The program was televised and, subsequently, aired on September 12, 1970. To everyone's amazement, Gould played Beethoven's Concerto in front of the camera flawlessly and by heart.)

youtube.com/watch?v=bVrUaiL2gz8

youtube.com/watch?v=qpcgNrzMIH4

youtube.com/watch?v=jnRIU4u7B9o

youtube.com/watch?v=uzJsfZHssIs

youtube.com/watch?v=onfZgmojGY8

(forgot this cherry on top)

youtube.com/watch?v=qB76jxBq_gQ

Here ya go bud:
youtube.com/watch?v=EVqbl95Ezv4

youtube.com/watch?v=olW6-jhSgMg

youtube.com/watch?v=zaF0vu_AMSo

youtube.com/watch?v=2mZvdGAGlOo

Is satan really stubborn enough to resist these heavenly temptations?

this one is one of my favorites. an automaton my asshole.

alexander pope you shit eating retard

Shakespeare. Like Bach, he didn't create any new forms but built upon the work of his predecessors by giving them greater depth and complexity.

Good choice, user. Here are two of favourites.
youtube.com/watch?v=Y3lRdb5BSGA
youtube.com/watch?v=keT3Gnypbt4

Not a bad comparison

And not a bad rebuttal

>Shakespeare wasn't as adherent to the classic models.

>MERCUTIO.
>The pox of such antic, lisping, affecting fantasmines, these new tuners of accents! “By Jesu, a very good blade! A very tall man! A very good whore!” Why, is not this a lamentable thing, grandsire, that we should be thus afflicted with these strange flies, these fashion-mongers, these “pardon me’s,” who stand so much on the new form, that they cannot sit at ease on the old bench?

But you're more or less right, except Bach invented much of what are NOW "classic models"

youtube.com/watch?v=JaIQm0ToQJw

youtube.com/watch?v=w-Q0MnkwUuU

Do you prefer depressing or triumphant bach?

chekhov