AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Unlike how we study every other historical figure in... um... history? o_O
I don't get your point. How is this discussion different than one about Rembrandt or Da Vinci?
Can you say that Da Vinci was unequivocally greatest artist who ever lived? Or was it Michelangelo? How can you prove it? Was Michelangelo only great because of Da Vinci?

That's the point. All things in this regard is up for debate.

They were all significant. You can't say that only 1 of them (like Bach) was unequivocally the most important or significant and the others were not as important.
 
Last edited:
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Can you say that Da Vinci was unequivocally greatest artist who ever lived? Or was it Michelangelo? How can you prove it? Was Michelangelo only great because of Da Vinci?

That's the point. All things in this regard is up for debate.

They were all significant. You can't say that only 1 of them (like Bach) was unequivocally the most important or significant and the others were not as important.
Unequivocally, no, but JSB lived and died before either of them. now, to deny they learned form what he did is a bit short sighted. Mozart did study the works of JSB.

http://www.sfchoral.org/site/the-j-s-bach-connection-2/

Beethoven was well arare of JSB's teachings as well.

http://www.mtsnys.org/2006mtg/abstracts/bach.html

Not to disparage either of those two later great composers but, let's be real here, JSB took both of 'em to school.
 
H

herbu

Audioholic Samurai
I agree with everybody... I think. There is no "right" answer to who was the "best" in any form of artistic endeavor. We can say the influence of one artist is apparent in the work of another, but I don't think that leads to the conclusion that one was "better".

Perhaps we could change the question to: "Who was the most influential?". That may be a question more easily answered. But as in all things with a subjective element, "best" is a matter of opinion.

The single exception, of course, is "which political party is the best?". That one's easy to answer. :)

(Just kidding)
 
ski2xblack

ski2xblack

Audioholic Samurai
For some reason, I'm visualizing TLS doing an episode of Comedy Central's Drunken History, relaying stories of Bach's contribution to music. I might actually pay to see that. (What a lovely turn of events, from the rather inauspicious beginning of the thread, to this. Bach ftw!)
 
moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
Mark, I too am a lover of JS Bach, and your passion is laudable. In all of the movies and television shows and videos I have seen, the most moving musical performance I remember is Yo Yo Ma's recital of the Suite No 1 for Cello in an episode of The West Wing. After first hearing it, I acquired every one of Ma's performances of Bach I could find, and I still remember the episode vividly to this day. No other composer's music could have had similar impact, IMO.

On the other hand, if Beethoven wrote nothing else except the 32 piano sonatas we'd still be having a debate, just based on that one body of work. And, as you, know, Beethoven produced a lot of other work that's pure genius. You may dismiss the debate, but, frankly, I don't stand in awe of any of Bach's music the way I do those 32 works. As a massive body of work Bach may be the pinnacle, but the piano sonatas are, what a friend of mine used to call, my desert island music. (The music I would take with me to be marooned on a desert island, if I could have no other.) It wouldn't be Bach. Preference is always debatable.
What version do you recommend for the 32 sonatas?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I agree with that recommendation for Brendel,, but a lot of critics disagree. The gold standard is considered Wilhelm Kempff, but unfortunately the recording is a little brittle. Also it dates before noise reduction, so there is a little tape hiss.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
What version do you recommend for the 32 sonatas?
To really get to know Bach's genius, you have to explore his sacred music. That enormous opus displays his creative genius better then anything else. This last year I have followed John Eliot Gardiner's pilgrimage of 56 CDs of his surviving cantatas for the liturgical year. Tomorrow, I get back to Christmas 1999, when Sir John's pilgrimage started.

On Tuesday, I watched a superb and spirited performance of Bach's Christmas Oratorio on Medici TV conducted by Philippe Herreweghe and the Collegium Vocale Gent.

Absolutely Magnificent!
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I agree with that recommendation for Brendel,, but a lot of critics disagree. The gold standard is considered Wilhelm Kempff, but unfortunately the recording is a little brittle. Also it dates before noise reduction, so there is a little tape hiss.
Brendel always has critics, but if you like energy in your music (especially Mozart), he's the go-to guy.

I'm surprised you think Kempff is the gold standard, because he has been criticized by many as "boring", just as O'Conor has.
 
KEW

KEW

Audioholic Overlord
(What a lovely turn of events, from the rather inauspicious beginning of the thread, to this. Bach ftw!)
Any way we can rename this thread "Bach vs the world!" and delete those early OT posts?:D
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Why do you prefer the 2nd one you listed?
It is purely preference, but in general I like interpretations of classical music that attempt to follow the intent of the composer as closely as possible. Many pianists try to put too much of their own style into the performance, and I just don't like that. O'Conor is one of several that try to let, ahem, the Beethoven shine through. Of those, Jack Renner of Telarc did his usual awesome job of recording the O'Conor performances, which is another strength of that choice.
 
moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
It is purely preference, but in general I like interpretations of classical music that attempt to follow the intent of the composer as closely as possible. Many pianists try to put too much of their own style into the performance, and I just don't like that. O'Conor is one of several that try to let, ahem, the Beethoven shine through. Of those, Jack Renner of Telarc did his usual awesome job of recording the O'Conor performances, which is another strength of that choice.
Nice! I ended up getting the first one you listed as it was at a better price. I love piano but am not too familiar with the popular works - I figure I will like the more popular one just as well. Thanks :)
 
Klipschhead302

Klipschhead302

Senior Audioholic
The lowest frequencies in acoustic music are about 40Hz, and even a grand piano doesn't have much below 30Hz in sub-harmonics. Sub-30Hz sound is generally the realm of action movies and subharmonic synthesizers, but you said you did all music listening, so I'm not sure if one of these home theater super subs Shady is pointing you to is the right answer. Two of these JBL monsters will probably get you complaint calls from Argentina.
I used to run a haunted house in the early 90's with monster 15" subs like these, I can only imagine how these sound! Sweet.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I used to run a haunted house in the early 90's with monster 15" subs like these, I can only imagine how these sound! Sweet.
Remember, the recommendation I made for the JBL subs was aimed at a person with rather unusual listening preferences for this forum - he likes rock and roll reproduced very loudly, and he wants complete reliability while he's doing it. For anyone else ShadyJ's recommendations are pretty good.
 
Klipschhead302

Klipschhead302

Senior Audioholic
Remember, the recommendation I made for the JBL subs was aimed at a person with rather unusual listening preferences for this forum - he likes rock and roll reproduced very loudly, and he wants complete reliability while he's doing it. For anyone else ShadyJ's recommendations are pretty good.
I've gotten that impression. :)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top