nobody's better than bach

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > nobody's better than bach

«‹›2 »

Mumpy Puffinz: Aug 11, 2008; Nap Ghost

dee eight posted:

a serious post:

edvard grieg. listen to "morning" then "anitra's dance" then "hall of the mountain king" in that order and its pretty cool

also rossinni. check out "william tell overture" in its entirety. don't be a shitbird and only think LONE RANGER LOL

e: i once kicked a man to death because he sang 'hello mudda, hello fadda' while i was listening to ponchielli's "la gioconda".

I agree with the william tell overture thing, but camp granada is classic.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 23:24

dee eight: Dec 18, 2002; The Spirit
of Maynard

Mumpy Puffinz posted:

I agree with the william tell overture thing, but camp granada is classic.

camp granada stands on its own merits, as does spike jones' covers of the william tell overture and dance of the hours. however, if you cannot separate the classic original from the later send ups, you deserve to die a swift and violent death.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 02:52

poverty goat: Feb 15, 2004

tool

# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:03

Dead Precedents: May 5, 2005; Precedents come and go, but death goes on forever.

spooky girlfriend posted:

I like Bach's organ fugues the best I think. Organ is more baller than harpsichord. It's the first instrument capable of rocking out.

Organ is baller, but harpsichord can only ever be passed by clavichord. Deal with it.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:08

Mumpy Puffinz: Aug 11, 2008; Nap Ghost

gggiiimmmppp posted:

tool

pretty good band. They even change the time signature sometime.
But then again so has Guns and Roses.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:16

Brekelefuw: Dec 16, 2003; I Like Trumpets

Motherfuckin' Carlo Gesualdo

http://youtu.be/JZAs9LjJAHU

# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:50

Robbie Fowler: May 31, 2011

i am.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 03:51

opus111: Jul 6, 2014

logical phalluses posted:

j.s. bach is the greatest musician who ever lived and probably better at the thing he did than anybody else in the history of the world has been. maybe shakespeare and euler are comparable. who do you think is better than bach? i will tell you why you're wrong.

Mostly agree although I'd say his operas put mozart just ahead.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 04:46

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

radiohead

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:09

Agrinja: Nov 30, 2013; Praise the Sun!; Total Clam

Bach is the man. But is there any love for Stravinsky? Prog before prog. Those rhythms.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:24

1gnoirents: Jun 28, 2014; hello

kreayshawn

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:30

Mumpy Puffinz: Aug 11, 2008; Nap Ghost

1gnoirents posted:

kreayshawn

How the gently caress are you a 2014 and have cancer?

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:33

rio: Mar 20, 2008

The three B's bitch. (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms bitch...I guess that should be changed from three to four)

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:45

Phobic Nest: Oct 2, 2013; You Are My Sunshine

The next Expendables movie will have a scene where your favorite '80s action stars get to play classical composers.

"I'll be Chopin," says Bruce Willis.

Sylvester Stallone says, "I'll be Mozart."

And Arnold Schwarzenegger says

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:46

KaiserSchnitzel: Feb 23, 2003; Hey baby I think we Havel lot in common

logical phalluses posted:

j.s. bach is the greatest musician who ever lived and probably better at the thing he did than anybody else in the history of the world has been. maybe shakespeare and euler are comparable. who do you think is better than bach? i will tell you why you're wrong.

Bach is merely mathematical music at its highest form circa early 1700s. You could write Bach with a calculator. He wrote the rules by which we now understand music theory, but he's got nothing on Beethoven.

The minute that the pianoforte was invented, Bach began to lose relevance.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:47

Seaniqua: Mar 12, 2004; "We'll see how the first year goes. But people better get us now, because we're going to keep getting better and better."

Agrinja posted:

Bach is the man. But is there any love for Stravinsky? Prog before prog. Those rhythms.

Rite of Spring is pry my fave piece of music ever but Beethoven is objectively the best composer, or maybe second only to Adam Levine of Maroon "Party of" 5

Edit: This is a fun thing to post in music nerd threads

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp3BlFZWJNA

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:49

ghlbtsk: Apr 19, 2005; these bath mats
are
GORGEOUS

Bach plays too many notes.
Just cut a few, then it will be perfect.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 05:57

FoolyCharged: Oct 11, 2012; Cheating at a raffle? I sentence you to 1 year in jail! No! Two years! Three! Four! Five years! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah!
Somebody call for an ant?

Psh, you bitches need more brass. Give me a good old Sousa march any day.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 06:21

You Are A Werewolf: Apr 26, 2010; Black Gold!

Synthetic Bach is the best Bach. Fauch, if you will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4gV4zqEVmQ

# ? Nov 17, 2014 07:04

rio: Mar 20, 2008

buzzsaw.gif posted:

Bach is merely mathematical music at its highest form circa early 1700s. You could write Bach with a calculator. He wrote the rules by which we now understand music theory, but he's got nothing on Beethoven.

The minute that the pianoforte was invented, Bach began to lose relevance.

Uh, no. It's absurd to say that a calculator or machine would write some of Bach's music. That's like saying that a computer can play jazz (which it can but can only be used for practice since it sounds like poo poo. You can program all of the "rules" for every musical period and it would sound like poo poo. Maybe it would spit out some decent rock or pop tunes, I don't know. Bach did not "write the rules" of music theory, come on man. He was the example of how rules could broken and justified among other things.

Also, Beethoven as well as most classical art music is not relevant now. People listen to awful loving music and because there are so many of them then it must be true, is that what you mean? Since the oh so memorable music that C.P.E Bach wrote for the pianoforte replaced his robo-dad's formulaic music, right? His own son wrapped fish in his father's music, not to be rediscovered until Mendelssohn rediscovered Bach's music and started to champion it because Mendelssohn recognized the genius of this composer that had simply fallen out of style by the dumb trend following public. "Relevance" only portrays the quality of music to the ears of the public. Beethoven's comprehension of music was partly formed by studying Bach. He said something like "Brook? More like an ocean" (Bach means brooke). When we hear Mozart's late music change and take on a different kind of musical heaviness like we see in the Requiem, it is partly because Mozart discovered Bach in that last third of his life.

And what the gently caress are you talking about early 1700's? Bach had barely even begun to compose in the early 1700's.

Bach is arguably the best composer we have ever had on the earth, and I am not talking about "relevance" or personal taste. People can like whatever they want to but it is a solid fact that he was one of the hugest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

Sorry for all that but Jesus Christ, saying that "Bach is merely mathematical music" is straight up incorrect. I don't know if you are a music student but be very careful about stating "facts" based on your opinion, because this isn't like saying "hahaha you think the Stones were better than the Beatles". It's music history and there is really only one way to treat it if you start spewing out that kind of nonsense.

rio fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 17, 2014

# ? Nov 17, 2014 08:09

Dead Precedents: May 5, 2005; Precedents come and go, but death goes on forever.

rio posted:

Uh, no. It's absurd to say that a calculator or machine would write some of Bach's music. That's like saying that a computer can play jazz (which it can but can only be used for practice since it sounds like poo poo. You can program all of the "rules" for every musical period and it would sound like poo poo. Maybe it would spit out some decent rock or pop tunes, I don't know. Bach did not "write the rules" of music theory, come on man. He was the example of how rules could broken and justified among other things.

Also, Beethoven as well as most classical art music is not relevant now. People listen to awful loving music and because there are so many of them then it must be true, is that what you mean? Since the oh so memorable music that C.P.E Bach wrote for the pianoforte replaced his robo-dad's formulaic music, right? His own son wrapped fish in his father's music, not to be rediscovered until Mendelssohn rediscovered Bach's music and started to champion it because Mendelssohn recognized the genius of this composer that had simply fallen out of style by the dumb trend following public. "Relevance" only portrays the quality of music to the ears of the public. Beethoven's comprehension of music was partly formed by studying Bach. He said something like "Brook? More like an ocean" (Bach means brooke). When we hear Mozart's late music change and take on a different kind of musical heaviness like we see in the Requiem, it is partly because Mozart discovered Bach in that last third of his life.

And what the gently caress are you talking about early 1700's? Bach had barely even begun to compose in the early 1700's.

Bach is arguably the best composer we have ever had on the earth, and I am not talking about "relevance" or personal taste. People can like whatever they want to but it is a solid fact that he was one of the hugest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

Sorry for all that but Jesus Christ, saying that "Bach is merely mathematical music" is straight up incorrect. I don't know if you are a music student but be very careful about stating "facts" based on your opinion, because this isn't like saying "hahaha you think the Stones were better than the Beatles". It's music history and there is really only one way to treat it if you start spewing out that kind of nonsense.

Layin' some god drat music knowledge up in this ~~bach~~ bitch

# ? Nov 17, 2014 08:15

Alan Smithee: Jan 4, 2005; A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms.

Enthusiasms, enthusiasms...

Arnold Schwarzenegger will be bach

# ? Nov 17, 2014 08:27

Twinty Zuleps: May 10, 2008; by R. Guyovich; Lipstick Apathy

haljordan posted:

bach's cathedral in civ2 makes all your unhappy jagoff citizens happy so i agree OP

that was shakespeare's theater you sack of poo poo

and while we're recommending bands EELS is really good

yes it's capitalized like that it was a cool idea for 1996

i mean i know thats a low bar because that was the year of ska on mtv but still go check out blinking lights and other revelations its sad gruff music by a guy whose entire family died out from under him and actually has something to complain about

# ? Nov 17, 2014 08:27

TEAYCHES: Jun 23, 2002

rio posted:

Uh, no. It's absurd to say that a calculator or machine would write some of Bach's music. That's like saying that a computer can play jazz (which it can but can only be used for practice since it sounds like poo poo. You can program all of the "rules" for every musical period and it would sound like poo poo. Maybe it would spit out some decent rock or pop tunes, I don't know. Bach did not "write the rules" of music theory, come on man. He was the example of how rules could broken and justified among other things.

Also, Beethoven as well as most classical art music is not relevant now. People listen to awful loving music and because there are so many of them then it must be true, is that what you mean? Since the oh so memorable music that C.P.E Bach wrote for the pianoforte replaced his robo-dad's formulaic music, right? His own son wrapped fish in his father's music, not to be rediscovered until Mendelssohn rediscovered Bach's music and started to champion it because Mendelssohn recognized the genius of this composer that had simply fallen out of style by the dumb trend following public. "Relevance" only portrays the quality of music to the ears of the public. Beethoven's comprehension of music was partly formed by studying Bach. He said something like "Brook? More like an ocean" (Bach means brooke). When we hear Mozart's late music change and take on a different kind of musical heaviness like we see in the Requiem, it is partly because Mozart discovered Bach in that last third of his life.

And what the gently caress are you talking about early 1700's? Bach had barely even begun to compose in the early 1700's.

Bach is arguably the best composer we have ever had on the earth, and I am not talking about "relevance" or personal taste. People can like whatever they want to but it is a solid fact that he was one of the hugest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

Sorry for all that but Jesus Christ, saying that "Bach is merely mathematical music" is straight up incorrect. I don't know if you are a music student but be very careful about stating "facts" based on your opinion, because this isn't like saying "hahaha you think the Stones were better than the Beatles". It's music history and there is really only one way to treat it if you start spewing out that kind of nonsense.

same

# ? Nov 17, 2014 08:29

Vincent Van Goatse: Nov 8, 2006; Enjoy every sandwich.; Smellrose

rio posted:

Uh, no. It's absurd to say that a calculator or machine would write some of Bach's music. That's like saying that a computer can play jazz (which it can but can only be used for practice since it sounds like poo poo. You can program all of the "rules" for every musical period and it would sound like poo poo. Maybe it would spit out some decent rock or pop tunes, I don't know. Bach did not "write the rules" of music theory, come on man. He was the example of how rules could broken and justified among other things.

Also, Beethoven as well as most classical art music is not relevant now. People listen to awful loving music and because there are so many of them then it must be true, is that what you mean? Since the oh so memorable music that C.P.E Bach wrote for the pianoforte replaced his robo-dad's formulaic music, right? His own son wrapped fish in his father's music, not to be rediscovered until Mendelssohn rediscovered Bach's music and started to champion it because Mendelssohn recognized the genius of this composer that had simply fallen out of style by the dumb trend following public. "Relevance" only portrays the quality of music to the ears of the public. Beethoven's comprehension of music was partly formed by studying Bach. He said something like "Brook? More like an ocean" (Bach means brooke). When we hear Mozart's late music change and take on a different kind of musical heaviness like we see in the Requiem, it is partly because Mozart discovered Bach in that last third of his life.

And what the gently caress are you talking about early 1700's? Bach had barely even begun to compose in the early 1700's.

Bach is arguably the best composer we have ever had on the earth, and I am not talking about "relevance" or personal taste. People can like whatever they want to but it is a solid fact that he was one of the hugest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

Sorry for all that but Jesus Christ, saying that "Bach is merely mathematical music" is straight up incorrect. I don't know if you are a music student but be very careful about stating "facts" based on your opinion, because this isn't like saying "hahaha you think the Stones were better than the Beatles". It's music history and there is really only one way to treat it if you start spewing out that kind of nonsense.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 09:28

Khazar-khum: Oct 22, 2008; Cat Army
2nd Battalion

In their own time, Bach & Couperin were considered virtual equals.

Loves me some early music, especially 17 C.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 09:43

opus111: Jul 6, 2014

rio posted:

Uh, no. It's absurd to say that a calculator or machine would write some of Bach's music. That's like saying that a computer can play jazz (which it can but can only be used for practice since it sounds like poo poo. You can program all of the "rules" for every musical period and it would sound like poo poo. Maybe it would spit out some decent rock or pop tunes, I don't know. Bach did not "write the rules" of music theory, come on man. He was the example of how rules could broken and justified among other things.

Also, Beethoven as well as most classical art music is not relevant now. People listen to awful loving music and because there are so many of them then it must be true, is that what you mean? Since the oh so memorable music that C.P.E Bach wrote for the pianoforte replaced his robo-dad's formulaic music, right? His own son wrapped fish in his father's music, not to be rediscovered until Mendelssohn rediscovered Bach's music and started to champion it because Mendelssohn recognized the genius of this composer that had simply fallen out of style by the dumb trend following public. "Relevance" only portrays the quality of music to the ears of the public. Beethoven's comprehension of music was partly formed by studying Bach. He said something like "Brook? More like an ocean" (Bach means brooke). When we hear Mozart's late music change and take on a different kind of musical heaviness like we see in the Requiem, it is partly because Mozart discovered Bach in that last third of his life.

And what the gently caress are you talking about early 1700's? Bach had barely even begun to compose in the early 1700's.

Bach is arguably the best composer we have ever had on the earth, and I am not talking about "relevance" or personal taste. People can like whatever they want to but it is a solid fact that he was one of the hugest composers of all time, if not the greatest.

Sorry for all that but Jesus Christ, saying that "Bach is merely mathematical music" is straight up incorrect. I don't know if you are a music student but be very careful about stating "facts" based on your opinion, because this isn't like saying "hahaha you think the Stones were better than the Beatles". It's music history and there is really only one way to treat it if you start spewing out that kind of nonsense.

loving word, my man. People comparing Bach to maths is surface-level stuff they think sounds smart but is way wrong. there's as much emotion in bach as in Debussy. Bach, like most people in those days, had a fuggen tragic life and he put that in his music.

Also Beethoven's late masterpieces, the breadth and vision they had being so difficult for us to comprehend now, were all fleshed out as beethoven retreated entirely into old modes of music and bach.

He also had WTC1+2 mastered bt the time he was like 10, lol.

Bach is music, objectively.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 10:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 23:24

opus111: Jul 6, 2014

there is a bit in invention 1, a beginner piece that a lot of children can play convincingly, that is so clever and obtuse that when its revealed people are genuinely shocked. it's all about bach making one note sound entirely different depending on which voice you bring out. he's tricking your brain with it. he took the piss with his talent. it's ridiculous.

# ? Nov 17, 2014 10:10

The Something Awful Forums > Archives > General Bullshit > nobody's better than bach

«‹›2 »