[LAU] Re: Re: That must suck. For me it's about beauty -- musicisjustone path

[david]

Chuck Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 03:56:41PM +0200, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:
>> We certainly owe to Bach what we consider musical now.
> 
> Not really.  As much as I admire Bach's work (he's definitely one of my
> favorite classical composers), even the wikipedia article on Bach states
> that "he introduced no new forms" of music.  Everything he did had been
> done before by others.

What Bach is generally credited with is perfecting the existing forms of 
music. He did it so well that the generation following him turned to 
other forms and styles of music - they could not compete with his 
achievement.

> Ever hear of William Byrd?  Byrd was an English composer that lived and
> died before Bach was born, and yet when I first heard his music, I was
> amazed at the similarities between their music.

Yes, I played many of Byrd's pieces. There are similarities, but he 
didn't get to JS Bach's level of accomplishment.

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community