tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post7969705284850873739..comments2023-11-03T09:05:31.265-04:00Comments on Soho the Dog: Fame, it's not your brain, it's just the flame that burns your changeMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10936327293692397100noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post-88315591318193905542009-05-02T20:08:00.000-04:002009-05-02T20:08:00.000-04:00I've always prefered Bux to JSB - more honest to g...I've always prefered Bux to JSB - more honest to goodness emotional - really - and not over extended and over blown and tiresome.Rubinologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08741409018724098717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post-11597238627427457552007-07-11T12:54:00.000-04:002007-07-11T12:54:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.MICHAEL MONROEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16392848296427560715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post-12553971239676552692007-07-11T12:53:00.000-04:002007-07-11T12:53:00.000-04:00Hello Matthew --You/we are not alone. Benjamin Bri...Hello Matthew --<BR/><BR/>You/we are not alone. Benjamin Britten in a letter to Peter Pears circa 1940 averred that Buxtehude was "better than Bach!"<BR/><BR/>Exhibit A. There's this chaconne-like cantata BuxWV 92 "Quemadmodum desiderat cervus" -- the Psalm "As the hart desireth the waterbrook" auf Lateinsich -- that has a two-bar basso ostinato that's repeated 64 times. Above it, in continuous variation alternating with two violins and bc, is a syncopated, melismatic vocal line (for tenor) that, I swear, positively swings. It's practically Top 40 material.<BR/><BR/>As I say, all you need is four performers. For your next party ...<BR/><BR/><BR/>rbEar Trumpethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08875585330510727543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post-65501384913214406152007-07-11T12:08:00.000-04:002007-07-11T12:08:00.000-04:00Something that I love about Buxtehude vis a vis J....Something that I love about Buxtehude vis a vis J.S. Bach is that Buxtehude focuses more on melody than on harmony; the clashes are kind of rugged and unconsidered (Yes, I see that in your fugue example that the leaps are based on triads-although they wouldn't have been thought of as triads at the time, because triads didn't exist as a concept until Rameau or so-, but the progression doesn't have the qualities that we'd think of in "functional/tonal" harmony- this is what you said about ambiguity and more- IMO it's harmonically ambiguous because melody signaling harmony wasn't important to Buxtehude). Bux's music has many of the attractive features of the baroque, dense counterpoint of Bach, without harmony ruling melody and rhythm by fiat, as it would for much music of the 17th through 20th centuries (which I must say I find tiresome; too much of that and I must escape to the more interesting inter-relations of musical elements of the 8th-16th and 20th and 21st centuries).<BR/><BR/>The downside of Buxtehude's music for me vis a vis Bach is the fact that the the harmony being imbedded in each melodic element and ruling from on high in Bach allows him a much more dramatic use of dissonance (and interestingly the ability to add more independent voices), such as in the Fantasia from the Fantastia and Fugue in g minor.<BR/><BR/>Something important to remember about this is that Buxtehude would fail the counterpoint exam because our 18th Century counterpoint rules are based on ideas that came after him, or even Bach. It's worthwhile to note that Buxtehude's fugue doesn't sound crazy in affect; it breaks certain grammatical conventions, but Bach's g minor Fantasia does create an impression of 'Good lord- how far will this go?!' Saying that Buxtehude is more harmonically adventurous than Bach is a bit of a non sequitur; like saying what the -? Chaucer (or Shakespeare) don't spell anything correctly! And speak in fragments! Etcetera!<BR/><BR/>Also, in a way Bach, although we see him as the summation of the Baroque, took the baroque elements of music and came to a different conclusion than everyone else; his music is much more dense, difficult, nuanced (not in the simple affekt mode here like Monteverdi or Handel- or in the rocco!), and at times downright scary than Handel, Scarlatti, even Monteverdi!<BR/><BR/>And! I don't know if Bux really was that innovatory in musical elements when you compare him to Orlando di Lasso, Cipriano de Rore, or Carlo Gesualdo, whose musical grammar is in a way similar to Buxtehude's.<BR/><BR/>Our view of Bach as conservative and the schoolmaster of tonal harmony, I feel, doesn't have anything to do with what he did, but rather with what musical academics were thinking in the 19th century. Mendelssohn made the academics aware of him, thus enabling them to write tonal harmony textbooks with him as the focus? Of course bach fits the rules most of the time when we base the rules on his music!<BR/><BR/>I feel that your mixing and matching of composers with time periods has a pretty simple answer; no, they probably would not have been as well known, because they might not have made the same connections that bought their music and buttered their bread. My primary example when I think about this is the ars subtilior; this style contains some fantastic music- just amazingly human and full of rich and nuanced feelings, and represents a totally different direction than the Burgundian School, which failed due to a lack of political and financial support, rather than (as has <I>so</I> unjustly been said) because it was a 'dead end' or even because it 'wasn't good music.' - we find comments like this even in Grout, or in the Willi Apel Notation book... Furthmore, the Burgundians succeeded because that was were the money and power were!northumbrian_monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03659090846273202978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32354680.post-41750846231016802622007-07-11T11:10:00.000-04:002007-07-11T11:10:00.000-04:00Matthew --I'm with you all the way until the Churc...Matthew --<BR/><BR/>I'm with you all the way until the Churchill analogy. From a world history point of view it has become increasingly plausible that Churchill's most important -- and most disastrous -- contribution was made in the post WWI era, and specifically with his role in re-drawing the borders of a good part of the fromer Ottoman empire, and distributing thrones to a collection of Hashemite monarchies indepted to western interests. The effects of this have been disastrous.Daniel Wolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093101325234464791noreply@blogger.com