That’s debatable. Mozart was good too. But my real OG is Camille Saint-Saens. You want dark and moody? Light and fluffy? Dazzles and sparkles? He’s your man.
I think from a technical perspective, this is basically still true about Bach. It's not to say he has the most enjoyable music to listen to, but rather his music is built in a way that shows he was basically metagaming his music harder than anyone else ever has.
Why do you say metagaming? Did he really advance the art so far? I think he was just incredibly good at producing music within his specific parameters.
(Said as a huge fan of his work. I spent a year playing essentially nothing but one of his fugues.)
This didn't really get noticed in his own day, as they were busy dumbing things down into the classical period, but he was hugely influencial through rediscovery.
Except for Italian humanists rediscovering Greek and Roman writings, I'm having a hard time thinking of an earlier instance of a chiefly posthumous legacy.
Nah Bach shits on Mozart. Mozart make extremely catchy music like Justin Beiber. I seriously do love mozart, but he merely wrote music. Bach weaved math into his music more than anyone before or after. His music sounds dense and more multi dimensional than mozart or saint saens. It really doesn't sound like he was trying to write beautiful music ( even though it is ) , it sounds like he was solving an equation and just writing out the answers as a harmonic sequence
> Mozart make extremely catchy music like Justin Beiber.
Mozart was the quintessential "Dark Forest" composer, hiding musical sentience in plain sight of light classical period textures.
Here he is with 2 measures of a simple major key "Justin Bieber" clarinet sequence interleaved with 2 measures from the strings that keep modulating to minor keys:
Keep listening to the section marked "Tutti" in the score for a re-orchestration and reharmonization of that same clarinet sequence, but now in a surprisingly lush, chromatic style similar to Wagner or Brahms. It quickly disappears, too.
Similarly, Bach's own output is encoded inside Mozart's. E.g., the coda of the Rondo in A Minor doubles as a two-part invention, complete with invertible counterpoint between left- and right-hand.
He also built a nifty hash table that could be used to efficiently generate and stream music over the internet. (Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to patent and sell it to Yahoo for 6 billion dollars.)
Also they were not all justin beiber. Bach was a working church musician when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women. Only one of them was in it for the fame. In fact you could say that mozart and liszt were 2 of the first "pop stars" because that archetype didn't exist before them. There was basically no "beatlesmania" over bach. He had a steady job, but he didn't die wealthy or famous.
Is that because there is some more depth to the joke, that Mozart did this for real "when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women" - "shit on women"? So Bach metaphorically shits on Mozart for being the greater composer who was in it for the music and now gets more fame?
Because I was rather appalled by that language, but maybe lack background context.
Mozart loved wild parties and had a feces obsession. He also was born 6 years after Bach died so no, Bach didn't shit on Mozart, only the Academics do. The only shits Bach cared for was getting paid and making good music. Mozart on the other hand was "paraded across europe" but as a child. By the time he was an adult, he had a job. By the time America decided it had had enough of the British, Mozart left for Vienna.
Hm. Not convinced that this qualifies for a poop obsession. Rather sounds like using language for a shock effect(on 2 occasions), but thanks for the link.
I'm sorry, I just can't listen to Bach piano pieces unless Glenn Gould is making strange sounds in the background that the sound engineer can't remove.
