Was Bach the John Williams of his time?

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Discuss!

[Gurkensalat 337]

No, because he did not score movies. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Heck, he didn't even play the guitar!

[Bespin 8,480]

Which Bach?

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

PDQ Bach.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Yes. He took all the boring stuff before him and perfected it, made it sound interesting. The difference is Bach to me just sounds 'Baroque,' while Williams had a lot of diverse influences like The Planets, Hanson's 2nd, jazz music. Bach's influences nobody cares about.

[Fabulin 3,510]

16 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

Yes. He took all the boring stuff before him and perfected it, made it sound interesting. The difference is Bach to me just sounds 'Baroque', while Williams had a lot of diverse influences like The Planets, Hanson's 2nd, jazz music. Bach's influences nobody cares about.

This is the little joke of history, isn't it? 90% of influences in the music of great composers are ignored because they come from lesser works, even if the moments in those lesser works were effective as well.

 

What helps to conceal these long and diverse stylistic roots is quite paradoxically that the composers were scared of trying to improve on the really famous works. Meanwhile Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, or Williams - were quite Luke Skywalker about it.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

I always called what they do 'music appreciation' at the very core of its meaning. I've noticed a lot of indie composers go the same route, composing in the style of--the big difference between them and avant-garde composers is their overendulgence in the sentiment of classics. I have a hard time imagining someone more in love with Beethoven for instance the structure and breakdown is exactly the same as his 3rd:

 

 

[Bayesian 1,359]

Wet blanket chiming in! I don’t really get the appeal of these types of questions, which are excessively moot. If they try hard enough, people are going to find ways to argue every step on the gradient between 100% yes and 100% no. Which is another way of me saying, why bother with this exercise?

 

Maybe it’d help to give some parameters. Was Bach the JW of his time based on personality? Productivity? How much money he made? How lauded he was while alive? How many things he wrote? Technical competency? Give us a boundary!

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

It's obvious how the beginning of the Brahms starts as if struggling to give his original voice some merit, but within minutes Beethoven takes completely over. Haha. Some sort of musical necessity or 'appreciation.' It's an instinct that seems to take over moments in Williams' scores as well.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

When I really think of that concept of greatest 'music appreciation', Uematsu comes to mind the very utmost. But Williams is there too in emotional expression: 

 

I had said once I think film score composers are closer in mannerism to Romantic composers, ie. emotions, where as I think Uematsu is closer to Classical composers, ie. perfect simplicity.

 

Tchaikovsky, Williams, Brahms, and Dvorak are also sometimes in the second category however. It depends on how simple yet effective the music is, the latter category of composers feel just more thematic and natural to me.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

4 hours ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

The difference is Bach to me just sounds 'Baroque,'

Nope.

His cantatas have a very ' romantic' sensibility.

His organ works range from spiritual to virtuosic improvisation.

His preludes have memorable melodies.

Only his strict fugues

can be labeled unmistakably " baroque".

Incredible variety in his work.

 

There is Bach and all the rest.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Nah. Not 'Romantic,' nor necessarily superior. Just a brilliant and enlightened composer of Baroque music. Perhaps the only real one.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Then you need to listen to more baroque composers.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

That's something a Baroque composer would say 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

No, it's something someone who's not only heard of Bach would say.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

The classical period is the onebi can't  stand.

I don't like a single composer from that era .

And Beethoven doesn't count ; he's more Romantic than classical.

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

1 minute ago, bruce marshall said:

The classical period is the onebi can't  stand.

I don't like a single composer from that era .

And Beethoven doesn't count ; he's more Romantic than classical.

 

 

They don't like you either.

[bruce marshall 1,315]

Bunch of bewigged poofters!

 

😝

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

8 hours ago, Bayesian said:

Which is another way of me saying, why bother with this exercise?

 

Spot on!

 

This thread is merely a parody of another thread, and is not meant to make much sense at all.

 

 

[Score 770]

Well, instead of comparing Williams to Bach, I would compare him to Tchaikovsky. However,

 

Tchaikovsky : Brahms = Williams : Morricone

 

and therefore,

 

Tchaikovsky = Williams x Brahms / Morricone . 

 

So, we cannot really say that Tchaikovsky was the John Williams of his time. I would rather say, Tchaikovsky was the John Williams times Brahms divided by Morricone, of his time. I hope this makes sense. 

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

That's deep, man!

[Score 770]

I know, it was a pleasure to share with you this major breakthrough in musicology! 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Please, tell us more!

[Biodome 714]

2 hours ago, Score said:

Tchaikovsky = Williams x Brahms / Morricone . 

 

So, we cannot really say that Tchaikovsky was the John Williams of his time. I would rather say, Tchaikovsky was the John Williams times Brahms divided by Morricone, of his time. I hope this makes sense. 

 

Note that this is only true for Morricone, where {Morricone∈ℝ∣Morricone≠0}

[Score 770]

56 minutes ago, Biodome said:

Note that this is only true for Morricone, where {Morricone∈ℝ∣Morricone≠0}

 

Not exactly; it is enough to assume that Morricone is not zero (but this is obviously true!), but he does need to be real (he can be complex - and indeed, some of his music is really complex). 

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

I was about to write that, but you beat me to it.

[Holko 9,499]

12 minutes ago, Score said:

he can be complex - and indeed, some of his music is really complex

So is he or his music partly imaginary?

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

Only the music he's currently writing.

[Marian Schedenig 8,174]

Morricone's works certainly are uncountable.

[Jurassic Shark 12,030]

At least the number is finite.

[publicist 4,643]

It's exponential.

[TSMefford 1,509]

No.

 

 

Bach was the John Williams of his time.

[publicist 4,643]

Bill Ross has spoken.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

3 hours ago, TSMefford said:

No.

 

 

Bach was the John Williams of his time.

 

W. F. Bach was John Williams the guitarist of his time. I'd agree with this. 

[bruce marshall 1,315]

Barbara Bach is the Leya Sedoux of our time.