Chopin vs. Bach

none wrote a symphony so theyre literal brainlets simply not worth discussing.

It’s hard to say. A lot of Bach’s music is an impersonal expression of ancestral beliefs. And because of this, it feels eternal. But Chopin’s focus was much more personal. It feels intimate and emotionally raw. Comparing them might be a disservice to both.

I disagree that Bach had way better orchestration because the standards of what can be done with orchestration weren’t created till the classical era. Not to mention that as a result Bach and his Baroque buddies don’t do as much from that orchestration perspective. Like, yeah he can have something like B Minor Mass that just sounds really busy. But it doesn’t like do anything texturally besides the busy feeling. It’s not Bach’s fault that instruments weren’t as high quality in his time and tempo/dynamics really weren’t established much either so you can never get the level of organic granular robustness of the symphonies of the classical era and beyond.

there were better romantics than chopin. there is only one bach.

> (coming from a classically trained concert pianist)

Judging by Gould and Lang Lang, those are usually idiots.

Attached: 1551937523091.jpg (1024x682, 175K)

>only one Bach

kkek

>beethoven lived 59 years
>chopin lived 39 years
holy fuck

how come they lived for so little and managed to make so much. im guessing internet and television really neuter the human soul.

oh fuck you lol

I find baroque era dates and boring, but even I can say that at least Purcell and Scarlatti were also around that time doing the harmonic fuckery for which people overrated Bach.

There's probably more Bachs than Josephs in classical music.

>Judging by Gould and Lang Lang, those are usually idiots.
because they like Bach

>t depressed atheist

No, because all classical performers have to do is read the notes and play them at the right time. Its not like jazz where they have to actually understand the music. I'm not surprised a concert pianist could underrate Bach so severely.

youtube.com/watch?v=E4Gqbb_idx8

Chopin is reddit tier kys

Schubert's is the disputed best ever

>all classical performers have to do is read the notes and play them at the right time.
based retard

interpreters are soulless robots, everyone knows this. improv, now thats a musician.

>everyone
no, only you
fuck off based retard

Attached: 2795415-9653374716-king..jpg (300x300, 13K)

classical interpreters are glorified cover players. orchestras too.

This. Like really this, you nailed it

See here’s how it goes.

Sheer improvisers are the worst as they are usually playing self indulgent crap which may have a couple good parts but not many.

Then there’s just classical interpreters. The music these guys work with is half assed from the likes of Bach and overrated modern classical guys. So the interpreter is forced to interpret stuff because the composers weren’t good enough.

But a true classical musician is GOAT as they aren’t he vehicle that brings the composer’s work into the physical realm exactly as intended which leads to less of the self induslgent bullshittery from the above two and more complete musical experiences.

Bach was technically superior. Chopin was emotionally superior.

Attached: Lennon McCartney.jpg (483x622, 65K)

Are you supposed to listen to all the nocturnes in one Op in one sitting?

Attached: chopin.jpg (1200x1618, 437K)

Imagine if you had an ego THIS bloated. I don't even think you're serious. I think this is bait.

I mean, I can't help but complete the listening if it's Arthur Rubinstein.

who has an open reel to reel machine literally for only listening to classical? got myself one with a bunch of tapes with classical, pretty dope experience.

cringe. cover player.

anybody who is a serious enthusiast will tell you bach is better

rofl

Good argument.

am I supposed to take you seriously

self indulgence is the heart of all good art

I don't take you seriously.

A lot of serious enthusiasts care more for non musical crap as well, in which case Bach just seems far more interesting. Chopin will always bring the better experience of just the music.

rofl

double rofl

then the feeling is mutual

Nah it’s antithetical to the very definition of art, which is something that needs to be observable by people besides the author to be considered art. Self indulgence as art is art as far away from art as possible because that strays the furthest from the intention of others observing the art form.

Good argument.

Rofl indeed that people think Bach is good cuz muh technical chord progressions.

>music has to be made, first of all, thinking on the listener
holy shit how can you have it so wrong.

thank you fren

Attached: 1543781619061.png (657x527, 27K)

I never said it has to be made like that. Just that it should be for the sake of making good art. Art never has an never will be a strictly personal one man experience.

stop it stop it my sides cant take any more

>Just that it should be for the sake of making good art.
and you keep being super wrong. that must be some sort of skill of yours.
nobody creates in that faggy retarded pompous mindset, get a load of own yourself.
>Art never has an never will be a strictly personal one man experience.
it has been always the case with good art. read more.

Lennon = Chopin
McCartney = Bach

Ringo = Petzold

Am I being tricked, or is this board actually debating whether a lightweight like Chopin is better than Bach?

Hey guys, whose better, Shakespeare or Kafka?

Self indulgent improvisers, goofballs like early AnCo, and shitters like modern classical musicians are definitely that pompous. They care more about themselves than others.

I can’t think of a single example do this shit being good in art. Yea Forums‘s top book is Infinite Jest which can be a dense read but like most thing DFW, a big part of his themes are about trying to get people together. Da Vinci painted the most iconic Mona Lisa the way he did so others would like it. Even Beethoven’s 9th is written to bring people together in the end in a joyous victorious moment rather than the misery he himself was feeling at the time.

Contrary to what you think, not every one was a bitter loner like you and thought ayyy imma make this masterpiece just for myself to get myself off.

>Am I being tricked, or is this board actually debating whether a lightweight like Chopin is better than Bach?
theyre roleplaying into cultural relativity.

What makes Chopin lightweight and Bach otherwise? And make this argument without making it based on either complexity or influence.

George = George Harrison (of the Beatles)

Attached: images.jpg (224x225, 10K)

Chopin's not as good as Bach but it's not really fair to call him a lightweight
I mean especially for a Polish guy, it's impressive that he could learn to do as complex a task as playing the piano in the first place

People dickride like how complex and cool something like the WTC books are. But if you isolate most of the melodies in there, they really don’t sound that great. Bach couldn’t into expressive rhythms outside the very occasional triplet. Somethings just sounds like straightforward quarter notes or eighth notes.

Chopin’s ouvre is him playing up and down several scales quickly
Thank u, next

ooh, do Tchaikovsky

now youre confusing supposed intent with internal creativity process.

all that dumb corny ass "bring people together" shit is rationalization, it happens after the very act of creation. the very act is visceral, and motivated by things like lust, envy, competitiveness.

also all those guys you mentioned are the pinaccle of self absorved faggots. beethoven literally hated humanity, he wasnt this good soul you paint lmao really get over your dumb interpretations, they are ridiculous and very naive to put it nicely.

BOOM BOOM
glockenspiel
BOOM

Bro, there are literally lines in multiple WTCs, Cello suites, and Brandenburgs where Bach does just this. Except Bach’s version will always be more rhthmically straightforward without an ounce of dynamics or textural play making a difference.

Bro the final movement is literally called Ode To Joy with the stuff recited, are you fucking retarded?

This is not an ago old debate.

Bach annihilates Chopin in every respect. Both are quintessential keyboard composers, but Bach is also quintessential in many other Genres. Chopin is not.

Chopin is much easier to digest, so plebs tend to know about him and appreciate him. Bach isn't as easy to digest - as he tends to work with polyphony rather than homophony.

>coming from a classically trained concert pianist
I'm guessing you don't give solo recitals? or haven't played any Bach fugues?

Bach is about Polyphony - many melodies interweaving to create a texture and to create harmony. It is no about the individual melody, it is about the harmony and the interaction of many melodies. Even then, The melodies in WTC are still superb.

This has never been a debate. They’re composers from entirely different genres and time periods that tried to accomplish entirely different things with their music. If you prefer baroque music, you’d like Bach, if you prefer romanticism you’d like Chopin. Stupid question.

Idk Bach

How the fuck is this an age old debate. It doesn't even make sense to compare these two, it's apples and oranges

Yea Forums - Music

*firetruck sounds*