Bach has never been one of my favorite composers. Although I do love that crazy organ piece and I use his Prelude in C Major from WTC to warm up everyday. But, otherwise, his music sounds so (you should excuse the expression) "prissy" to me. So controlled and rigid.

Well, after reading so many times about how Chopin worshiped him, I thought...what's good enough for Chopin is good enough for me.

So I purchased a book of his simple (ha?) pieces. It came with a CD so you can hear how each time is suppose to sound.

I started with the first one in the book "Menuet in D Minor, BWV. The notes were all over the page, up and down and sideways and inside out! Each hand going every which way! Very hard to follow after playing pieces that had solid chords in the LH and a nice melody line in the RH.

But, I was determined. One phrase at a time. So far, I've managed to play four measures fairly well. Takes a lot of time to get the fingering just right, very crucial for his compositions I think.

Anyhow, after two days, I find myself rather liking it. It's very different, but it has a certain charm. And I can now understand why so many composers, past and present, think of him as pure genius.

Well, just thought I'd share, in case anyone is a big Bach fan on this forum.

Kathleen

Ever heard of Glenn Gould? Ever heard his recordings of Bach's Goldberg Variations?

That'll set your brain on fire...

I love Bach in part because of the precision, and the sheer complexity of the music.

Yeah, I am pretty hooked up on him too. Is that the Anna Magdalena book you have? Lots of pretty little tunes in that.

I love bach, i am going through a book with all bach beginner pieces!!! i usually dont like classical but bach rocks!!! keeps ya on your toes!!! you look at a piece and say oh that looks easy enough, but you delve into it and realize you might be over your head!!!! and you really got to work at it!!! i love bach!!!!

You don't need Glenn Gould in order to appreciate Bach. In fact, that man managed to slaughter more pieces by the composer than any other pianist I've heard. Usually I'm happy to hear various interpretations of the different composers, but with that in mind please keep Bach clean, respect his scores, and do it without humming in the background. There is obviously an audience for what it is Gould did, and that in itself is good for them, but I've never understood why he is often considered the end-all when it comes to Bach interpretations.

The best way to understand Bach's music is to understand how and why it was written, and understanding how diverse and expressive he actually was in pretty much anything he wrote. Listen to and read about the Brandenburg concertos, look at his organ works, listen to the entire Well-Tempered Clavier, and know that after this you still have a long way to go before you've covered any ground at all. He was just so diverse and full of knowledge that it's very difficult not to respect his accomplishments in music. Some people just don't unlock enough of it.

I'm a tremendous Bach fan. I think playing and listening to Bach is the closest we'll ever come to knowing the workings of the mind of God. (Is that enough homage for you?) I can play three of the fugues and two of the preludes from WTC. (The fugues appeal to me more for some reason. I began a fourth fugue this morning. I spent 45 minutes untangling the fingering for the first bar and found great satisfaction in that, like assembling a puzzle. I find Bach very absorbing, challenging and satisfying. Playing Bach causes distortions in temporal physics. I call it the Bach effect. Playing Bach for ten minutes invariably takes about 45. My goal is to learn all the fugues in WTC I. If I ever manage that, there's always WTC II.

I'm far from knowlegable about it, but I like the way Angela Hewitt plays his music.

I know how you feel, Kathleen. I've never been a Bach fanatic myself. I've never disliked his music, per se, but I've always prefered other composers. Even Glen Gould failed to spark my imagination.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a friend's house when someone put on an unidentified Bach cd. I don't know what the music was, but it gave me chills. It was beautiful. (Normally, listening to Bach is like listening to a system of differential equations - Complex, interesting, often clever and sometimes even elegant - But on a regular day, I'll pass.) The feeling stayed with me, and I decided to give Bach another chance. I found a short piece in one of my old books and started playing it... And wow, I've have never played such an enchanting little Bach piece. I'm thinking of going back to my long-abandoned WTC now.

Funny how things change.

Which book is this, funburger? Sounds interesting!

I purchased a compilation published by Alfred called: "An Introduction to Bach." It was relatively inexpensive, around $13. It has about 15 of his easier pieces AND that CD.

Kathleen

househead, hello, it is book 1 called schirmer's library of musical classics. there are 16 songs then onto book 2. i have several schirmer's books and i really enjoy them!!! i got this on ebay--yes i am the ebay queen:) you can buy these in lots makes it cheaper, and gives ya lots of music:)

Cool - just went and ordered it - can't wait for it to arrive. I need some fresh material, my eyes and ears are sick of what I have at the moment.

I rented out the Glenn Gould tape, twice. The one with something like 32 short stories.... The first time I got through about 1/3 of it and said to myself: "What the heck is this?"

Many years later, after I had matured somewhat, I thought I'd give it another try. This time I sat through the whole thing, then said to myself: "What the heck was that?"

I do have to admit the scene where he was portrayed as a young boy, listening to the radio(probably Bach) and crying, was touching.

But after that, especially when he was all involved in the "North" thing, I'm sorry, that lost me, completely. Was he pulling our leg?

And, I don't like the way he plays the one piece by Bach that I know. The simple little Prelude in C from WTC. What was he trying to prove anyhow? Maybe because he was supposedly a genius (genius is in the eye of the beholder or, in this case, in the ear of the listener, IMHO), he didn't think he had to prove anything.

Yes, Naught, it is the Anna Magdalena's Notebook.

And I agree, Pianolina, that Bach's music is much deeper than the ear can take in at once. As you said, very complex, precise, melodic and deep.

While we're on the subject of Bach, could someone please give me a definition of a fugue that I can understand? I looked it up in the dictionary (not the blank mental state, obviously) and was more confused after I read the meaning than I was before. I do recall Chopin once referring to the fugue as the ultimate in creation or something like that. Wow, I'd like to know what it is and is it difficult to play? I'm certainly not going to attempt to play one until I finish up with my little book. Then, maybe, a big maybe, I might be somewhat prepared.

Kathleen

Heh... I've never listened to the interview CD. I just though the playing was amazing, that's all.

Of course, I am a big fan of Bach's organ works, as well, so perhaps I am not a good judge of what you would like!

Well here's the best I could do on the subject of Fugues

Thanks HH78. It's as I thought. Complicated. Something to mull over, definitely.

Kathleen

Kathleen, there's some Bach growing on me too!

So you are working in the Notebook for Anna Magdalena now? IIRC, you are more advanced than I am, so this advice might not be needed, but here it is. After working through some pieces there, if you're interested in trying a fugue or something from the WTC, I would recommend that you start with Inventions and Sinfonia. I played several pieces from the Notebook, and now I'm working on Inventions. There is so much hidden in Bach's scores, and I am learning so much from Inventions, it just blows my mind! (BTW Inventions are in 2 voices, Sinfonia are in 3.) Just learning how to work with those 2 voices, and how to understand the phrases there etc, is teaching me so much about music. When I work on Inventions, I feel like that music has direct relevence to every other style of music I might ever want to play (from the obvious classical, to jazz, pop and new age!)

Sorry, just my two yen.

Oh, on the subject of the definition of fugue, the Wiki entry is good, but it's almost too thorough. I always thought my music dictionary's definition was pretty good and easy to understand, so I'll put it in here if it's helpful to anyone.

fugue:[/b] "flight." A contrapuntal piece (i.e. uses counterpoint) in which two or more parts are built (layered) on a recurring subject (theme) that is introduced alone and followed by the answer (which is the subject as a different pitch.)

Kathleen, I also bought the "Introduction to Bach" Alfred book a few months ago, but my copy never came with a CD (darn it!). Like yourself, I started with the first song in it (Minuet in D minor) and it took me awhile, but it's a great tune. I can play it pretty fluently now, but the fingering was difficult. Anyway, I guess I want to warn you about the second one in the book - if you play the trills like they suggest, it takes it from being a second grade piece to a 4th grade one in my opinion. Because I've never heard the song played, I've probably got all the timing/trills wrong - have to confess it's not as nice as the D minor one but I'm determined. I can already play the Minuet in G and Gm ones on the next few pages, so I'm kind of getting it in my head I'd like to know all the tunes in the book. Seems like a reasonable ambition for someone who started again last December.

P.S I played with the first 2 part invention last week, and I'm just not ready for it yet. More minuets and preludes first. My current ultimate goal is play Invention#12 at tempo. Unfortunately, it is considered one of the three hardest inventions.

dfvanden: Great news that you have started again. I also restarted in Decemeber after a 15 year hiatus. I can't tell you how angry I am at myself for letting so much time go by, just because I got a little frustrated...I acted like a little kid. What a jerk I was (am, whatever).

Bach is a great place to start, I think. Thanks for the tip about the trills. After playing several Chopin pieces, I'm quite familiar with trills and they are devils in disguise. And yes, I do so agree...fingering is 3/4's of the battle, at least with the first piece.

I'm really new to Bach and have the feeling I have lots to learn in order to go any further than beyond the Intro book I have.

Keep playing,

Kathleen

Thank you so much, ShiroKuro: What wonderful advice. And your definition of a fugue is certainly more clear.

What a wealth of information you are. I have often wondered what Inventions and Sinfonia meant. Would you recommend I finish the Intro Book I have in order to gain some experience in the way Bach writes? Or, do you think I could handle a two part (Invention) after playing perhaps 4 or 5 of his easier (one voice) pieces?

I've never even seen the music for an Invention or Sinfonia (unless they're in the book I have and I just don't recognize them for what they are).

I must admit his music can grow on you...how great is that!

Thanks again, Kathleen

I have always liked Bach's melodies, and I like that his music is simple, clean, and logical. It's different than the music of a lot of composers, and though some of Bach sounds (and feels!) more like warm ups than music, much of Bach really is fun to play and cool to hear.

With my other instrument I learned that Bach's music is so simple that it has to be absolutely note perfect. Imagine a wrong note during "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desire"--it's not very pretty, trust me. :rolleyes: What you really have to do (besides hit the right notes, which is no easy task) is read through the music and gain an understanding of the string of logic throughout the piece; otherwise you won't be able to play it in a appropriate way.


My current little Bach story...

I just started the piano a month ago. After my third lesson my teacher was planning on being away for a month and a half, so she gave me the Bach Invention #8 to work on while she was gone. She said just to do hands alone since it's a difficult piece.

Loving a challenge, I decided that I would learn the whole piece, hands together... by the next week (when I had my first lesson with a new teacher who wasn't going away)! I also made the reckless decision to learn the other five pieces she gave me to work on! After a week of four hour a day practice sessions, I did manage to complete and memorize all of the pieces she gave me--except the Bach! I did get a chunk of it done, and I got the rest of it pretty well the next week. This week I've been doing only hands alone so that I can really get the two voices in the Invention more distinct.

You should know, though, Kathleen, that my new teacher said that I was too well suited for Bach and threw some Chopin at me! (Edited to explain... While you felt suited to Chopin's music and decided to try Bach, my teacher thought I was too suited for Bach so decided to give me some Chopin. Make sense?)

Good luck with Bach; I think you'll find that his music is very rewarding to complete.

C.P. not to be an arse but are you out of your freaking mind??? You are to well suited for bach after only 1 month of playing!!! then you should be famous by now!!! we should see your name in the lights in las vegas..man we have been looking for someone like you!!! seriously i think you are out of your mind, to study bach really study it, it takes more than a month, bach says to JUST run through his excercises for a year BEFORE you delve into the music!!! because the excercises prepare you for his music. you must be a mastermind to be better suited than bach!!! here is what chopin said about bach

Bach is like an astronomer who, with the help of ciphers, finds the most wonderful stars.
CHOPIN (1810-1849)

check out this page that famous musicians as mozart mendolsohn said about bach http://www2.nau.edu/~tas3/bachquotes.html

no offense, but you must be out of your tree to think you are to well suited for bach!!! GET A NEW TEACHER!!!

my disclaimer: if somehow i have misinterpreted what you said please let me know as i will just crawl into a hole for being an arse. but to well suited for bach--hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I probably didn't explain that clearly. What he was saying was that I was well suited for Bach (he says I play and think logically), so he needed to give me some different types of music to widen me up a little, musically. He wanted to diversify the types of music I was playing; in the opposite way that Kathleen (Chopin lover) had just decided to try Bach, my teacher moved me from the Bach piece I was working on to Chopin piece. Both of us are trying out music we are not as comfortable with. I'm obviously still playing and studying Bach... I'm not an idiot, as much as you would apparently like to think so.

And my teacher is excellent. You can insult me as much as you would like, but you really shouldn't insult my teacher. That's just crass.

C.P. aha. i get it now. so you play bach well, because of your thinking and she is widening your horizons. i got it. i said if i misinterpreted to let me know. the way you wrote it here was that you were too well suited for bach--another words to good for bach. i was laughing my buns off. sorry. but it was fun while it lasted. thank-you for clarifying!!!

No one is too good for Bach--I adore Bach! I feel so bad you thought I meant that! Oh my goodness, I feel bad just thinking about it. I'm not like that at all! I promise!

No hard feelings, eh?

C.P. no hard feelings. i guess i read into things to much. i was hoping you werent saying that!!! i really screwed that one up. i am soooo sorry i miscontrued that!!

A month after I started learning to play the piano I was trying to figure out which notes were on which lines.

I was a long, long way from playing anything hands together.

I'm overly ambitious. hahaha

I've also played the harp for ten or eleven years (the instruments are really similar to play in a lot of ways), and when I was little I would sometimes play my sister's piano music, so I wasn't starting completely from scratch. And then there's the fact that I've become slightly addicted to the piano and was putting in four hours a day at that point.

Very appropriate statement funburger

i live for Bach.. he'll never let you go now.

How very interesting, but not surprising.

I have often wondered by Chopin so worshipped Bach because his (Chopin's) music is so radically different from Bach's. At least that is what I thought a few years ago.

But as I have started again on the piano, picking up the C Major Prelude by Bach again, playing a few more pieces by Chopin (just learning a couple of his mazurakas right now), I have noticed that there is a definite logic going on. Years ago, I was too ignorant to recognize it for what is was.

Although many think of Chopin as being a great Romantic composer, nothing could be further from the truth. He took what was great about Bach and Mozart and, in his own ingenious way, created music that combined all three ages...Baroque, Classic and Romantic.

In beginning to study Bach (maybe then, Mozart), I will gain greater skills, understanding and appreciation for Chopin's works. I love them now, but I want to know WHY.

Kathleen

Apple, i hope not he has got a hold on me

Kathleen, from what i have read, his dad and his first teacher made him play bach. he did love bach to, but it was first his dad then his teacher who pushed bach on him. thats just what i have read so if i find out otherwise i will let you know, but i have read it in several different places so.....i believe it to be true. i also believe bachs music is what made him(chopin) such a great player and thats why he too loved bach(just what i think). i also learned that his father got him another teacher to teach him the theorhetical side of music so he could learn to compose on his own, as he(chopin) would get up in the middle of the night and try to compose on the piano in his room. just a few tidbits i picked up doing a little research

I agree with you, Kathleen. I've read that Chopin hated the "Romantic" label, too.

Kathleen, back on page one you asked some questions, so let me share how I would answer those questions (someone else might have different answers.)

Re the fugue definition, I was just lucky that my music dictionary has a good one for that term! Here's what it says for

invention[/b] a short, contrapuntal piece.

If you ask me, they could have said more about that! :rolleyes:

And here's what it says for

sinfonia[/b] 1. a symphony. 2. a small orchestra. 3. an overture to an opera, cantata or suite.

And I think that definition is completely irrelevent to Bach's collection! In Bach's works, the Inventions have 2 voices, and the Sinfonia have 3, so I always just think of those terms as referring to the number of voices.

Regarding when you might start working on Inventions... you don't have a teacher, is that right? (If you have a teacher, that perosn could certainly tell you.) Regarding how much you should play before starting Inventions, I don't think you need to finish that Intro book, 4 or 5 pieces is probably just about right. Just for comparison, there are 15 Inventions, and my teacher told me that she thought I should play about 7 of them, and then I could go on to the Sinfonia.

Another way to think about it is: you should start Inventions when they don't feel overwhelming. I tried working on Invention 1 about a year ago, and I just couldn't make heads or tails of it, so I put it away. When I started it this year (a few months back) I was able to work through Invention 1 in about a month (although I didn't work on it long enough to get a very fast tempo.) Also, I have 2 recordings of Inventions and Sinfonia, and I compare the two to see what the possibilities are, so I'm not playing "blind."

Find the music, and play through #1 HS and HT and see how that feels to you. If you're brain turns inside out, then you're not ready! :p See if you can find the voices, see where one hand echos or inverts the other hand's part etc. If you can follow what's going on, IMO you might as well start now.

I work with a teacher, so I use the Henle edition urtext, but if you're working on your own, a text with more info would probably be better. Was it Palmer that everyone thinks is really good? If you decide to buy something, you might start a separate thread here with a title something like "please recommend a good edition of Bach's Inventions" and you'll probably get a lot of really good info.

BTW, if your book doesn't list titles, the first Invention is BWV 772. If you have that, then it's Invention 1.

Frank, I never heard that Chopin hated the "Romantic" label, how funny! Just like some pianists today how hate being called "new age."

You know what they say, the more things change...

He was a romantic by temperament (whether he realized it or not) and an intellectual realist. He thought the "romantics" were emotionally sloppy, sentimental and lacking in sincerity. For example, he was outraged that George Sand, the protocommunist and champion of the poor could callously fire her old family servants at the whim of her son.

Thanks, Frycek. I agree with you: Chopin was probably THE quintessential romantic! Haha... Amazing how difficult it is to see ourselves objectively. On the other hand, I am a great hater of labels. People will do their best to limit others by labeling and pigeonholing them, and it's little wonder that someone as brilliant as Chopin would have chafed at this.

If you look at Chopin's music, his ornamentation is always done judiciously and in good taste. Compared to the "romantic" composers of his day, that just clubbed people over the head with their fancy ornamentation, I'm sure Chopin was appalled at the prospect of being lumped in with them.

Yikes! Frank, if Chopin were alive, he would be having one of his fits and would probably throw a chair at you.

He detested that label. And, in truth, he wasn't. Not really. Even though his music does sound romantic in the sense that it is "emotional." But then what composers' music isn't?

What separated him from the true romantics (Liszt, Schumann, Beriloz) was the fact that he did NOT strive for that emotionalism, as other did. His music is about as pure as music can get. NOTHING in it is superficial or created to impress or overwhelm the listener.

Perhaps it is best to remember that Chopin was all about "control." He looked within the deep well of his being and used classical forms and processes to "tame," (if you will) that inspiration that sprung up from memories of childhood and homeland. But, above all, he was an intellectual composer. NEVER, did he lose his head to his heart.

Kathleen

Right. That's exactly what I was driving at, Kathleen!

But his stormy temperament? Oh yes! Romantic! See? Haha

I will agree that, yes, his temperament was mercurial. But he often managed to control it with either sarcasm or periods of long silence.

As a perfectionist, he "lost it" when dealing with ignorant people or students who were not prepared for their lessons.

Although his acquaintances numbered in the hundreds (everyone who was anyone at that time), he had no real friends. Perhaps Delacroix came as near as possible. Even George Sand, who lived with him for 9 years, readily admitted that she couldn't get close to him.

He was, without a doubt, the only composer who was a true enigma.

Kathleen

Man... How cool it would have been to have been able to meet him and hang around with him, though. There's no doubt in my mind that he was truly a genius and a prodigy. Of all of the great composers, I find Chopin to be the most fascinating, and in his music, there is such a lush elegance... I can't even find words for it...

Amen to that!

Kathleen

Kathleen, so glad Bach is growing on you. I didn't think I liked Bach when I was a kid (though I loved playing certain individual pieces, like the Musette in D). The older I get, the more I love him. I like the keyboard pieces, but LOVE listening to the "bigger" things like the B Minor Mass, orchestral suites, etc. The more I listen, the more I am awed by his genius.

Finally got Bach kathleen
Congrats - and join the club

As a gift - here is the ultimate link that made me recognize the true genius of Bach
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/wtc.html

But sorry i reject sth

As you reject chopin being called romantic - i reject that Bach is being called "logical - complex - interesting - clever" only

Of course he has all that
but his music was emotional number one - and don't forget that

His music for me just touches a part of my heart not touched by any other composer - it is a new "complex" feeling if you might say

Bassio - the number one Bach fan in these forums .. umm, probably after apple

I am trying to play the first little (2 page) menuet in my book. It looks so simple, until you try to play it. There's no chords, just single notes. The RH runs up while the LH runs down or visa versa. Once in a while they land on the same note --different staffs. I work on the fingering more than I actually play the piece.

It's hard. Maybe not hard, just so different from what I'm used to playing. And I say this after just completing the Db prelude by Chopin and almost done with Rach's variation on a theme by Paginni.

I agree there is a very strong emotion there, but it's not covered with roses and songbirds. Just a simple elegance. Bassio, I know of what you speak by saying a certain composer touches your heart like none other. While I love the music of so many composers, Chopin is the who speaks to my heart. Thanks for the site.

Waterfall: I don't think I ever heard any of his big works. But I just returned from the library with all kinds of stuff...even a CD called "Bach for Dummies."

I am determined to proceed with learning the whole book...although it might take me a while.

I belong to two learning groups: The Chopin group is learning his Nocturne in Fm 55/1 and then I belong to the Debussy group and we're going to tackle Clair de lune.

I'm glad I'm retired; otherwise, I'd had to quit by job to find the time for everything "important" like piano and music.

Kathleen

Kathleen--Bach is hard. I get a little irritated when people refer to anything by Bach as "easy." If you're going to play something by Bach correctly, and you're going to play it well, then you're going to have to work at it (at least most of us will!).

"Bach for Dummies" should have "Air on the G String" from one of the orchestral suites. It's just about my favorite piece of music ever written. Enjoy!

Air on a G String? See thread below:

http://well-temperedforum.groupee.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9030004433/m/5450002634

Bach is not simple C.P. I am learning pipe organ (1 year now) and playing a 5 or 6 voice fugue (4 in hands, 1-2 in feet) is not easy. Yes wrong notes stand out a lot which makes it even harder. I never really liked Bach keyboard music until I started organ. (surprisingly, I am a professional flutist and love bach flute music). I always added pedal and stuff to cover up the fact I didn't want to hold the long notes, etc. After playing organ for a month (mostly orgelbuchlein) I was able to go to the piano and play bach and other baroque like I have never been able to before;)

Anyways I like the organ works better than the "piano" works

Frycek:

That link...so funny. Did Bach really have 22 kids? I read that he had many, but not that many.

All from the same woman/wife/whatever? Why is it the man gets all the credit for having all those kids. That poor woman....ggggeeeezzzeeee!

Kathleen

As I remember it was actually 17 and by two wives.

What exercises are you talking about?

That's about 8.5 per woman.

Wonder how those .5 kids turned out?

Probably couldn't reach the pedals on the piano. :p

Poor ladies, at any rate. Imagine being pregnant for 8.5 years running.

Kathleen

"Poor ladies, at any rate. Imagine being pregnant for 8.5 years running. "


Pregnancy probably beat menstration in the era before modern feminine conveniences.

I think I'd prefer the latter as opposed to the former. :p

Kathleen