Musical Composition - Bach's Method

[@electrikkingdom]

This lady is incredible.

[@jsv438]

As a musician (player, performer, teacher) I find with Bach in particular, that there is nothing like it in terms of the experience I have when practicing. Something noticeably changes in myself and my musical perception when playing or practicing (struggling lol) through let's say a piece from a Bach sonata. I reach a place within my Will as a musician that I don't experience with anything else. This really is the main reason I continue to practice from his work. It's very easy to be comfortable repeating this music the several hundred thousand times it takes me to get it down. I don't ever get brow-beaten from the repetition. On the contrary, I get more obsessed the more I play it--probably to perfect it more, but I get the melodic lines stuck in my mind and feel almost an addictive desire to keep playing them. My latest obsession has been working on the g-minor presto, Sonata1, playing it on mandolin. It's made me enjoy mandolin at least as much as I have with my main instrument of guitar for more than 40yrs! It's truly something magical that exists within Bach's work that I may never be able to put into words. It's no wonder his compositions have become virtually the staple for so many methods and counterpoint approaches to music. I may have this argument with fellow musicians, about the two and three part inventions, but I feel that the Well tempered Clavier to me may be possibly the greatest musical work of all time--maybe too his catalog of organ works is at least as profound for the player, but in composition, adaptability, and listening value I'm forever blown away by the Well tempered Clavier catalog. What the hell would music have ever been without his work? Wait!!! Don't tell me. I don't want to know... ~JSV

[@anahipalacios8635]

You made me cry. I was obsessed by the Well Tempered Clavier when I used to play piano as a kid. I stopped playing music 18 years ago and I thought I would never come back to it (because I was actually cheating for 12 years as a kid and played everything by ear because solfeggio was boring, that was stupid, i know). And last week, I don't know why nor why now, I sat at my roomate's clavier and started to play. The Well-Tempered Clavier just naturally came to my fingers just like 18 years before, and not just the first praeludium, surprisingly, but also a few other pieces, even some I don't think I ever played before. Anyway, I found the dusty dog-eared music book in my parents cellar and I just can't stop playing now. The same feelings, the same obsession and will to practice again and again and boy ! no other composer has never made me feel like that !

[@shaheenmalick5999]

I see where this presenter is coming from, the final sentence is really the most powerful message: we need this music now more than ever and we need to continue Bach's work.

[@hoon_sol]

Indeed; and pick up the thread of reason that his work was spun with.

[@AsNightAsMyWitness]

Arranging 4 voice fugue into separate parts played by different players, we can consciously grasp fragments of the dialogue while its entirety encircles us and subconsciously stimulates the senses' background. Great lecture

[@rickbosan1537]

Thank you Andy, excellent work, great graphics, especially the recap.Thanks for the thorough *harmonic and rhythmic analysis. December 12th 2023

[@rozalinapiano]

This analysis of music of Bach is completely removed from the integrative approaches he had to music, despite the complexity of all of the means of his compositional devices. That is how music of Bach had been routinely distorted from its primary purpose that Bach himself outlined very clearly - to serve as the vessel for expression of emotional feelings. Many Bach scholars forget about this because since childhood everyone had been required to withhold emotions in his music for rather irrelevant reason - to replicate his time’s dominant harpsichord and clavichord. And biological facts abut his using Pianofort had been hidden from most textbooks, fooling generations of musicians into mechanical approach to the music that is emotionally complex and satisfying as well as intellectually

[@lauraobligado-arteenaccion8567]

what is the name of this so interesting woman? I would like to see more videos with her lectures about music, thank you so much for posting.

[@TangodeCologne-dp1vg]

Bach's music is very simply explained: it's the holy divine geometry in music.

[@hoon_sol]

What an absolutely amazing and profound explanation of the true principles of music, particularly the part early on where she explains that music is *NOT* about the perfect arithmetic intervals, but about slightly changing harmonic structures based on the very fact that the intervals are indeed slightly smaller or slightly bigger; this is in fact also why, much to the chagrin of people worldwide who refuse to accept the universality of the principles of music, 12-tone equal temperament is not just a convention that has been arbitrarily arrived at due to having certain advantages, but in fact it is the *IDEAL* tuning system for making music. As Keith Enevoldsen remarks: *_«The twelve-tone equal-tempered scale is the only equal-tempered scale that contains all seven of the basic consonant intervals to a good approximation - within one percent - and contains more consonant intervals than dissonant intervals.»_* These qualities make the 12-tone equal-tempered scale unique. However, this still neglects to further take into account the aforementioned principle of slightly imperfect intervals actually being indispensable for true music, because this is what allows for resonance, which is ultimately what allows for the slight movement of the harmony over time. Astonishingly, it is in fact with a 12-tone equal-tempered scale that you reach the ultimate balancing point between the harmonic series of perfect intervals with the anti-harmonic qualities of increasingly precise approximations of the golden ratio, something Richard Merrick writes at length about in his magnum opus, _Interference: A Grand Scientific Musical Theory_ (the entirety of which is dedicated to explaining thoroughly the principle the woman in the video elucidated). Here are a few excerpts from it, in case anyone is interested in delving deep into the scientific and universal principles behind true music, and ultimately behind reality itself: *_«In general, the interference equation can be used to measure resonant amplitudes for any musical interval under any temperament or octave division. This equation tells us that minimum resonance occurs at the fourth root of an octave (or square root of twelve) while maximum resonance occurs at the cube root of half an octave. Taken together, these results offer clear evidence that harmonic interference balances naturally around 12 as the most rational and harmonic number possible.»_* *_«We find here the most amazing thing. The arithmetic mean converges toward PI, or mathematical constant π ≈ 3.14159, located in the middle of the curve. We further find this point in the distribution curve to be equal to Unity (or 1) when the domain value X = 12. This is significant because twelve is the square root of 144, the value shared by both harmonic and Fibonacci series in a 12-step octave. Squaring each of the table values and dividing by twelve confirms that 12.02383 ≈ 12 is the point of balance between foreground and background._* *_The significance of twelve as a point of balance in the octave interference pattern is proven further by plugging it into the equation, confirming the curve height equal to Unity at the octave. But even more significant than this is the fact that plugging the square root of twelve into the equation results in the amplitude y = 5.0666. Care to guess what this number represents?_* *_It is none other than the y-axis amplitude for the golden ratio in an octave. Yes, the square root of twelve in the Gaussian interference pattern occurs precisely at Φ, right in the “cracks between the keys” of a major 3rd and minor 3rd in an octave. Just like the dense lattice region between a major 6th and minor 6th, the infinite golden ratio also provides an anti-harmonic proportion in the lower half of an octave. This occurs naturally at the square root of 12 (or fourth root of 144) in a 12-step octave._* *_No matter how you do the math, both harmonic and Fibonacci series reach a harmonic balance with one another at n=12 and an anti-harmonic dead zone at n=√12. Division of the octave by twelve (not eleven, nineteen or any other number) is revealed here as a completely natural pattern produced by linear harmonics that are curved in pitch space by Fibonacci proportions as they converge to Φ. Could Gioseffo Zarlino’s decision to divide the octave into twelve steps have involved some knowledge of this simple relation between harmonics and the Fibonacci series?»_* *_«As a surprising correspondence between music and math, this little trick reveals the Pythagorean comma accurate to 3 decimal places. More amazing still, if we recalculate using the un-rounded arithmetic mean 12.02383 found earlier in place of 12, we obtain a slightly better estimate for the Pythagorean comma good to 4 decimal places. This bizarre associative property in the interference equation using the anti-harmonic golden ratio location of n=√12 proves the golden ratio is a physical property in the natural harmonic series and not some kind of error or “evil” in nature as portrayed by the Church. Vibration needs room to resonate in space and the Pythagorean comma created by the golden ratio appears to be just the right amount of room needed.»_*

[@steven4217]

My mind literally exploded

[@TheMadisonHang]

Mozart String Quartets = Bach Fugues Voices applied to separate Stringed Instruments (Which can be thought of as emulating voices anyway) @6:00

[@Jdman5000]

Mr Peco surely you mean Haydn ?

[@HumbleNewMusic]

There are sooo many angles to approach music or Bach... Approach it however you like or ready for... & enjoy... 🎶 🎶

[@tomlabooks3263]

There are more mindful and more mindless approaches. Why choose the mindless ones, when we can and should make the most of our God-given intelligence?

[@jsv438]

It took me the whole length of the presentation, but I THINK I'm getting some of what she's pointing out here. There's indeed a strong element in the Bach Fugue and I'd say Bach's melodic element in general, that speaks as a piece of art, or even as its own language, that reaches our consciousness as that, and not so much as a listening of music. We're "hearing" the sound but processing some creation that's reaching our minds almost in the way that mystery school, or esoteric, symbolism effects us. Where the material used for making the "symbol" was not the primary purpose of the creation, but the effect it's having on our conscious (or in these cases subconscious) mind is the true esoteric meaning or the true created art. Not the physical material used for making the vehicle that sends such a message to our minds. If I'm on to something here, or at least getting it in some way, then it would make a lot of sense to me as to why we find evidence of people's thought process and learning abilities showing measurable changes in outcome when listening to things like baroque music while studying, for instance, and reported effects of calming, healing, and even broadening artistic creativity in many people. The "messages" they're getting (or that we the listeners are receiving) is something esoteric that isn't present in a physical form from just examining ONE line of a particular instrument, or from focusing solely on the "music" of any particular melodic line in any of the thematic elements. It's like a hidden message talking to a part of our brains that isn't necessarily operating while we're functioning from our objective consciousness. Even though I'm displaying a poor effort here in order to share what I think I'm getting out of this--through the analysis action--I truly believe I was thinking this way in some fashion about Bach's music for a long time. I just didn't attempt to unpack it in all these elemental divisions the way I'm seeing some of it now. This was helpful. I really wish there was more to this presentation here. If anyone reading this has ever read or studied Rudolf Steiner, you know where I'm going with this, and he has in many ways written and lectured about receiving elements in the material form this way before. I'm going to dig into my references and see if he ever used Bach in particular to get the messages of some lectures across in the past. Very well done here! I liked this a lot. I'll try to see what effects have changed in my perception now when I'm practicing Bach. ~JSV

[@jimmyblimmy]

What is this a recording of? I wish there was more information about who these people are and when this was recorded.

[@rubenmolino386]

in synthesis ..everything works as a unit ..contrary to the classical sense of composition ..of magnifying the accompanied melodic line ..,, in this sense ..several voices ..it is not philosophically ..the classical I ..but , which is the WE ...we function to give a concrete image of thought ..he understood this perfectly ..webern

[@jtb_5]

Where is the full video of this series? I cannot seem to identify LPAC tv or the persons in this video.

[@bartnettle]

I would like to validate the formed understanding and consequential communication of a great Artist!.Over thinking it's dissection is to debase his devices with which he attracts attention thus communicates.

[@tejasnair3399]

rtyrty12 I think he’s trying to say that in the way they dissect this music these fools are debasing the compositional devices through which the composer attracts attention and communicates to the listener

[@jimmyolsenschannel6263]

Many interesting details here, but I really don't think they deal with the methods Bach used when he was composing, as promised in the headline. The video shows certain structures, but that's strictly speaking not the same issue. Bach was an extremely prolific composer, and incredibly he had a "steady job" besides and also a wife and some nine children as far as I recall. He must have used some pretty strict procedures and methods when he composed, and that was what I was hoping to learn about here. If anyone knows another thread that deals with that issue, please put a link here because I can't find them.

[@awakenwithoutcoffee]

you are correct sir! I consider Bach my teacher and master. For understanding how he composed you first need to play ALLOT of music and learn to hear it in it's relative relationship. Learn to play all the major and minor keys and learn transcription. Once you start to understand the language you can bring structure to it. It might be easier to start with later structure forms like Sonata before venturing in more complex work from Bach. Check out the musescore community for actual theories and methods!

[@MiguelBaptista1981]

The musical explanation part was very good. Yet, was there any rational correlation to Kepler's work and what was said before? If I'm missing something, I thank anyone that would elucidate me on this interesting subject.

[@Geopholus]

Well.... actually a pretty good presentation....

[@nikkeisimmer8795]

Advanced Fugue form. 😁 Bach was a master.

[@Faus4us]

I came here to study this man's method and answer one question. What went on his head? This is an awesome opportunity.

[@adamrafferty]

Hmm, her statement that Bach did not think in terms of “chordal structures” in the beginning of the video was off IMHO. I myself have studied harmony, counterpoint, and written chorales and fugues (ok nowhere near the JS level, but at least I have gone through the creative process.) Harmony for Bach was based on melody lines and also harmonies. Look at any Bach chorale to see this. On music paper, both the horizontal and vertical must be accounted for and she seems to write off the vertical aspect in Her opening statement. One must study Harmony (chordal structures and proper voice leading) and also study counterpoint (how to write melody lines against each other) Each of these is based on a simple premise: writing good sounding stuff around a melody line, or “cantus firmus.” Look at any Bach Chorale. It is first and foremost a MELODY usually in the top voice…the accompaniment is harmonically based, but dressed up with non harmonic tones so that one perceives a contrapuntal effect. Fugues do sort of the opposite - they take a subject and counter subject as the primary unit, and bring them through several processes. This is a framework that is then often “filled in” with other voices so as to simulate harmony. So, he tries to make harmony sound more contrapuntal and on the other hand tries to make counterpoint sound more harmonic. Well he does more than try 😀 LOL! All the observation and theorizing about this is imaginary unless one has actually gotten some dirt under one’s fingernails WRITING these. Observation alone is not enough because you don’t live the processs from the found up. I hope I don’t sound arrogant, but through DOING IT one gets a sense of knowing that goes past mere theorizing.

[@Wolfgang1782]

I found this demonstration subjective and convoluted. At no point in her monologue did she find it appropriate to open up a point to her colleagues. Mozart was exposed to Bach and set a few of his fugues to strings... so what? By no means do I think his method of composition was forever changed. He wasn’t a fugal composer. Your essay was so narrow-mindedly prepared and under-exemplified that I was just left with a ton of questions. I don’t even understand what your entire point was.

[@tejasnair3399]

Wolfgang1782 I agree with you she was trash, but as I’m sure u know he composed a number of fugues, mostly written after his study of Bach and Handel in the early 1780’s. You can very clearly see the influence of Bach in these fugues (more often fugatos).

[@mattferrara1970]

At no point..nothin’. Shut up, they didn’t say jack and that was their damn choice you imbecile.

[@cryhav0k2112]

@@tejasnair3399 Seeing a woman light up about music like that is one of the most attractive things ever. Also, keep in mind Bach was not as known in parts of the world then like he is today. It is highly likely he bypassed Bach in his teen years, as he was overwhelmingly busy. So many dimensions you have to consider!

[@cryhav0k2112]

@@tejasnair3399 For example, producers today study Dre, RZA, and Nujabes. But who did they study? It is likely Mozart studied the big guns just before his time Haydn, Salieri, Bocherrini, CPE. We can't project our 2021-all access-to-all-music mentality onto music back then. Anyway, hope this doesn't come off pretentious. Just trying to open the convo a bit

[@winterdesert1]

"We're going to be looking at Ba...HCQUE"

[@waynepayne864]

She unironically seems fun at parties

[@waynepayne864]

Wait a minute what is larouch pac oh god i have made a big mistake

[@declandougan7243]

@@waynepayne864It’s a cult lol

[@mattferrara1970]

This girl is a genius

[@hottopic50]

it looks like shes repeating things she heard in the past tbh..

[@trz5rtzrtz45zfghfghrt4]

this shows you didnt get it

[@andradas9688]

@@hottopic50 she is repeating and distorting it even further. A complete set of ignorant remarks.

[@avibenso]

One women puts on hold 3 guys for 30 min, first time in history?

[@domicioneto849]

Actually, it happens every day in different countries, cultures e etc. Inside home.

[@mznxbcv12345]

she doesnt know what she's talking about lol

[@andradas9688]

90% of what she said is false.

[@andradas9688]

@@mznxbcv12345 agree 100%!! The KEPLER analogy is ludicrous!! It shows the DAMAGE that music schools have done!!

[@makytondr8607]

The inverted subject actually appears 3 times, for good measure..

[@sodajinx9938]

Any idea who that presenter is?

[@rozalinapiano]

Kepler may have been engaged into mathematical values of suns, but Bach had not been involved into these mathematical concepts. Mozart studied with the son of J.S.Bach during childhood.

[@opticalmixing23]

Bach wrote music for noone, he was writing music for the glory of God

[@ili626]

Didn’t LaRouch run for president a bunch of times?

[@cjandersen]

I still don't quite get it. And I really want to.

[@hoon_sol]

It's essentially an absolutely amazing and profound explanation of the true principles of music, particularly the part early on where she explains that music is *NOT* about the perfect arithmetic intervals, but about slightly changing harmonic structures based on the very fact that the intervals are indeed slightly smaller or slightly bigger; this is in fact also why, much to the chagrin of people worldwide who refuse to accept the universality of the principles of music, 12-tone equal temperament is not just a convention that has been arbitrarily arrived at due to having certain advantages, but in fact it is the *IDEAL* tuning system for making music. As Keith Enevoldsen remarks: *_«The twelve-tone equal-tempered scale is the only equal-tempered scale that contains all seven of the basic consonant intervals to a good approximation - within one percent - and contains more consonant intervals than dissonant intervals.»_* These qualities make the 12-tone equal-tempered scale unique. However, this still neglects to further take into account the aforementioned principle of slightly imperfect intervals actually being indispensable for true music, because this is what allows for resonance, which is ultimately what allows for the slight movement of the harmony over time. Astonishingly, it is in fact with a 12-tone equal-tempered scale that you reach the ultimate balancing point between the harmonic series of perfect intervals with the anti-harmonic qualities of increasingly precise approximations of the golden ratio, something Richard Merrick writes at length about in his magnum opus, _Interference: A Grand Scientific Musical Theory_ (the entirety of which is dedicated to explaining thoroughly the principle the woman in the video elucidated). Here are a few excerpts from it, in case you're interested in delving deep into the scientific and universal principles behind true music, and ultimately behind reality itself: *_«In general, the interference equation can be used to measure resonant amplitudes for any musical interval under any temperament or octave division. This equation tells us that minimum resonance occurs at the fourth root of an octave (or square root of twelve) while maximum resonance occurs at the cube root of half an octave. Taken together, these results offer clear evidence that harmonic interference balances naturally around 12 as the most rational and harmonic number possible.»_* *_«We find here the most amazing thing. The arithmetic mean converges toward PI, or mathematical constant π ≈ 3.14159, located in the middle of the curve. We further find this point in the distribution curve to be equal to Unity (or 1) when the domain value X = 12. This is significant because twelve is the square root of 144, the value shared by both harmonic and Fibonacci series in a 12-step octave. Squaring each of the table values and dividing by twelve confirms that 12.02383 ≈ 12 is the point of balance between foreground and background._* *_The significance of twelve as a point of balance in the octave interference pattern is proven further by plugging it into the equation, confirming the curve height equal to Unity at the octave. But even more significant than this is the fact that plugging the square root of twelve into the equation results in the amplitude y = 5.0666. Care to guess what this number represents?_* *_It is none other than the y-axis amplitude for the golden ratio in an octave. Yes, the square root of twelve in the Gaussian interference pattern occurs precisely at Φ, right in the “cracks between the keys” of a major 3rd and minor 3rd in an octave. Just like the dense lattice region between a major 6th and minor 6th, the infinite golden ratio also provides an anti-harmonic proportion in the lower half of an octave. This occurs naturally at the square root of 12 (or fourth root of 144) in a 12-step octave._* *_No matter how you do the math, both harmonic and Fibonacci series reach a harmonic balance with one another at n=12 and an anti-harmonic dead zone at n=√12. Division of the octave by twelve (not eleven, nineteen or any other number) is revealed here as a completely natural pattern produced by linear harmonics that are curved in pitch space by Fibonacci proportions as they converge to Φ. Could Gioseffo Zarlino’s decision to divide the octave into twelve steps have involved some knowledge of this simple relation between harmonics and the Fibonacci series?»_* *_«As a surprising correspondence between music and math, this little trick reveals the Pythagorean comma accurate to 3 decimal places. More amazing still, if we recalculate using the un-rounded arithmetic mean 12.02383 found earlier in place of 12, we obtain a slightly better estimate for the Pythagorean comma good to 4 decimal places. This bizarre associative property in the interference equation using the anti-harmonic golden ratio location of n=√12 proves the golden ratio is a physical property in the natural harmonic series and not some kind of error or “evil” in nature as portrayed by the Church. Vibration needs room to resonate in space and the Pythagorean comma created by the golden ratio appears to be just the right amount of room needed.»_*

[@cryhav0k2112]

So annoying when someone brings forth a cohesive theory and people with only nominal understanding shoot it down with, "Hey, it's however you want to see it, man, just enjoy it!". Yea man, we are trying to enjoy it more.

[@trz5rtzrtz45zfghfghrt4]

So annoying when there's always this spineless someone who cant accept appropriate criticism, labeling it as dumb and pessimist. Yea man, enjoy your own opinion and tolerate that of others.

[@FranzKaernBiederstedt]

What she says around 20:40 is simply false. She says the theme is compressed to just for notes, we alledgedly hear just the four notes of the head of the theme and our mind adds the rest of the theme to the whole of it. But actually the theme is always complete, it's just the entrances of the theme following each other in shorter distances, what is called "Engführung" or a stretto. Our mind doesn't have to add the "missing" notes of the theme, they are actually being played. My problem with the whole lecture is that she is presenting an analysis of this fugue that has already been analyzed multiple times for decades as if she was presenting some revolutionary thoughts, but she's not.

[@ajames283]

Grandiloquence

[@johnchapman3300]

Bloody humanists. They cry when they listen to the Mass because it is so mathematically perfect.

[@mandiocatostada3859]

lol

[@davidcblock]

What is she talking about??

[@johnchapman3300]

... in one minute flat, this woman (1) completely missed the point of Bach's purpose - to say that we are not one species of mere animals, we are human beings with a spirit. (2) She basically said there is no such thing as a disrupter - only participators in a constant line of inevitable evolutionary behaviour. What absolute, utter, crap. This is what happens when academics hang around eachother and pat eachother on the back, far, far, far too, much.

[@asdu4412]

I don't know if I'd call these "academics". The guy introducing is Lyndon LaRouche. If you don't know him, look him up. Some piece of work lol

[@henrykwieniawski7233]

This is a very nice lecture, but I’m not a fan of how Bach’s genius here is presented as omnipotent or unachievable. He learned composition through the study of basso continuo/partimento with his brother. He then took this knowledge and later expanded upon it.

[@niallpadden]

Dear Wolfgang1782, Utterly subjective and so sorry you needed this platform to express your displeasure. Have you thought perhaps of putting your own subjective analysis and interpretation of the works being discussed forward for peer review? FYI: The content of the video was edited.

[@AaronGlenn88]

what? bach was a practical man. This is all intellectual hogwash. "There is nothing remarkable about it. One just has to hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself." -Js Bach. The instrument is designed with 12 tones. These 12 tones span over 88 keys on the keyboard. When you use the rules of conterpoint, you can only create with the the motives available. It isn't chaos, nor is it statistical probability. Its simply that the used the 12 tones within the structure it was designed for. I know this because I play bach. He quote was not facitious. It was Him, letting us in on a secret. He was primarily an improviser. Therefore the notes he chose were the notes his hands ergonomically could reach, and patterns he could accomplish within a convention. Ya'll over analyze lol

[@friedrichschapper839]

Indeed, besides the obvious genius, there is lots of simple craftsmanship and skill involved, harmonic and melodic tools being applied. Major and minor scales and chords, diatonic harmony, secondary dominants, modulation. All this is relatively simple stuff, easy to explain. It's not astrophysics and not rocket-science...So yes, it does seem a bit over the top to actual musicians who use these tools on a daily basis.

[@someguy5261]

Lmao. You play someone else's music so you understand what it's like to craft some of the greatest polyphonic harmony the world knows. Very silly. And I agree with you, it's overintellectualized. There's no great mystery; Bach really enjoyed his work in music performance and composition.

[@johnchapman3300]

I am 4 minutes into it, and I dont think I can take any mroe of this pompous nonsense. is it any wonder that people dont go to concerts any more?

[@LesterBrunt]

This is low quality.

[@johnchapman3300]

The first 30 seconds tell me the tone of these people on this panel want to use this panel to convert their opinions into historical facts.

[@austinclark7586]

I saw the far right wing organization "Larouche PAC" on the screen in the background and immediately stopped. I already know a minute in that they are going to make sweeping universal claims about art and how "today's society is not a sophisticated as yesterday's." or liken common people or pop music to something that is dumbing down the masses. I'm done with this elitist bullshit in classical music. This is Classical music's struggle to stay relevant, Classical musicians and educators need to stop aligning ourselves with these charlatans that know nothing about the history of this music, and live in a world where we realize that art and culture are varied and that there is no objective truth in pleasing patterns that differ from culture to culture.

[@trz5rtzrtz45zfghfghrt4]

This is such an overly grandiloquent and insubstantial single big speechbubble, i guess Bach would've fallen asleep himself after 5 measures listening to her.

[@leopardSKINZ]

Re the opening monologue: if he was wearing a Bandana and talking about Jimi Hendrix, he'd be laughed at and called a hippy in his own community. Isn't this just being pompous and elitist??

[@tejasnair3399]

leopardSKINZ boooo

[@98diegoruiz]

iugh how pretencious, I hope that way of thinking is over

[@MiguelBaptista1981]

@@jcudal32 How better way to demonstrate pretentiousness than to reply exactly in that same fashion? I shouldn't be teaching you this, and I'm almost sure if life hasn't taught you by now, it's quite a fetch to presume you would learn from a random youtube comment after you gagged all your high and mighty self-proclaimed fake intellectual superiority, but even so, I will go ahead; Here's the thing, jack, just because someone disagrees with the value of a point, with the point itself, or in this precise case, the lack thereof of such point to be made, doesn't mean that person isn't able to "handle or understand" what you thought was the bee's knees. And, most times than not, the people that raise questions are the ones that are "getting it", or at least, trying to understand a point (of which there was none made in this video), and the one's that are too insensitive to the smell of their own farts, usually, are the ones that think they understood a subject because they heard a series of very exquisite words, and yet, couldn't convey in a simple, easy to understand sentence, the likes of which true intelligent people are capable of conveying, any overarching point that was made. Specially after that lofty introduction mentioning Keppler.

[@johnchapman3300]

...and Bach was about 'human communication.' Jesus Christ! 'F' Grade fail. Bach was about communication between God and human.

[@jsbrules]

this is very disappointing and frankly incoherent, don’t bother listening. the speaker doesn’t seem to understand music history at all; Bach’s methods were similar to his contemporaries and had nothing to do with “Kuza” (whoever that is) or Kepler. Also, a lot of music then WAS composed starting with a melody above a figured bass. And her fugue “analysis” is ponderous and unenlightening. i’m (seriously!) a big fan of pretentious overly intellectual analysis of fugues but this explanation goes nowhere

[@andradas9688]

the amount of nonsense from the lady is outstanding!! YES, mathematics is everywhere, but that does not mean KEPLER has ANYTHING to do with music harmony, music experience, etc, etc. It is OUTRAGEOUS to have someone distorting history so shamelessly. BACH did not START anything. Music is a continuum. Counterpoint was not invented by JSBACH. Thinking music in terms of independent voices was not invented by JSBACH either. It was a process. There is no BACH if there is no Machaut. There is no Machaut if there are not early medieval composers. BACH did not invent the FUGUE technique. It is mediocre and IGNORANT to think that Bach is the beginning of anything.

[@untonsured]

Sounds out of tune

[@andrewharrison8975]

Yes, the tuning does sound ‘off’; especially the the violins.

[@FranzKaernBiederstedt]

I absolutely hate the recording of Bach's fugue with this aweful, utterly unmusical string quartet. It's a lesson about how to butcher music.

[@enriqueernesto738]

To me it sounds like a midi file played by string-samples, slightly out of tune

[@ajames283]

It's a midi file. It's just neutral straight notes. You can do a lot worse than that....

[@jimmyblimmy]

why does this string quartet sound horribly out of tune?