Organ Sample - Gefells

Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 9:28 pm

Ha...purists be damned.

Without the hpf, I was getting usable signal as low as 10 Hz. I like my speakers a little too much for that!

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:17 am

Cucco wrote:

Okay...so here's a better clip.

Thank you. I liked this one much more. I suppose the slower and softer piece is a better match to the live acoustics. Here the music comes through clear and beautiful.

L

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 3:15 pm

Heard the mp3...fantastic!! Great music and great recording.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:05 pm

I like dat mudder duggin' sound.

DAt's da "romantic" Bach sound, right?

Nice recording and nice set-up.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:25 pm

Thanks Plush!

I know you were being sarcastic bout the romantic Bach, but in many respects, I have to admit, I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy kissing....you know what I mean.)

Most say that Bach was the father of classical music, I say Bach was the father of Romantic music.

Of course, this organ is obviously a little big for Bach, but it certainly ain't bad.

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:29 pm

Cucco wrote:

I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy kissing....you know what I mean.)

Most say that Bach was the father of classical music, I say Bach was the father of Romantic music. .

couldn't disagree more.... bach is baroque... although he gave impetus to guys like mozart where classical clomes to fruition... the father of romanticism is beethoven.... the thicker/darker textures he used as well as the extensions of harmony that bach and mozart would never have dreamed of using gave rise to chopin and the like.... beethoven was transitional in this....

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:12 pm

dementedchord wrote:

Cucco wrote:

I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy kissing....you know what I mean.)

Most say that Bach was the father of classical music, I say Bach was the father of Romantic music. .

couldn't disagree more.... bach is baroque... although he gave impetus to guys like mozart where classical clomes to fruition... the father of romanticism is beethoven.... the thicker/darker textures he used as well as the extensions of harmony that bach and mozart would never have dreamed of using gave rise to chopin and the like.... beethoven was transitional in this....

I think you misunderstand my point.

First, while I appreciate the history lesson, I have in fact taught music history and theory in front of college class rooms. I am fully aware of the history of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

The reason that I say that Bach was very romantic is:

1 - Much of his music resembled (in form) the tone poems made famous by Strauss and Liszt. (In fact, the Classical era was so set on the use of forms, most popular being Sonata-Allegro form and Bach was quite good at avoiding the overuse of one particular form).

2 - Bach's capability to build harmonies was far beyond that rather simple harmonies evident in the classical era. (Listen to "Sheep May Safely Graze" Mozart would never write such harmonies. Mahler would though!)

3 - True the orchestra's tone, depth and complexity was enhanced by Beethoven but it was Brahms who brought us the modern orchestra. Through no fault of Bach's, he didn't have the capability of working with that kind of orchestra. Writing music that complex would not have been possible......unless of course he were to do it on the organ. Ahhhhh - that's where Bach's magic lies - the organ. The sounds which Bach created on the organ were of that dense, complex and powerful nature thought to be created by Beethoven and Brahms.

4 - Don't forget, Bach was an amazing melodist. Much classical music is so rooted in form and structure (chordal) that the melodies were almost afterthoughts. (No one can really claim that Mozart and Haydn were great melodists - Mass aside! In fact, most of their melodies are very similar - as if they plagiarized from themselves (not saying Mozart's melodies are similar to Haydn's that's perposterous. I'm saying Mozart's melodies were similar to other Mozart melodies.)) The romantic era is famous for its melodists - Brahms, Wagner, Puccini, Mahler, Liszt, etc.

Each era of music seems to waffle back and forth between essentially classical or romantic -

Baroque was a "romantic" era - full of beautiful melodies, loosely organized form, improvization

Classical...well it's classical. It's heavily rooted in form and harmony.

Romantic - well, duh, it's romantic. Again, heavy emphasis on melody and relatively free form (not chaotic, just not as regimented as classical)

Neo-classical/20th Century - very heavily rooted in form. Especially when you take into consideration tone rows, etc.

Jazz/Rock - Until recently, very romantic in nature - again free form, heavy emphasis on melody

Pop - Classical - heavy emphasis on form, less melodic content and more harmony (or in our current case - beats).

Does that help to clarify?

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:18 pm

Cucco wrote:

2 - Bach's capability to build harmonies was far beyond that rather simple harmonies evident in the classical era. (Listen to "Sheep May Safely Graze" Mozart would never write such harmonies. Mahler would though!)

Absolutely agree!
Ever sing Bach's b minor mass?
Chromatic's up the wazoo!!

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:02 pm

Cucco wrote:
"I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy kissing....you know what I mean.) "

again i dont agree... and granted only a simpleton would limit any deffinition to the "mushy stuff" in fact any inclusion points out rather plebian monodementional thought... romanticism is about holding to an ideal... and adventure... perhaps in the end we get the girl but not because we sought to woo... but because we percivier... and as an era and style that's not bach....

"I think you misunderstand my point."

perhaps... and you mine...

"First, while I appreciate the history lesson, I have in fact taught music history and theory in front of college class rooms. I am fully aware of the history of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart."

come on jer an apeal to authority is a weak argument and not worthy of you... especially when you set yourself up as same...

The reason that I say that Bach was very romantic is:

"1 - Much of his music resembled (in form) the tone poems made famous by Strauss and Liszt. (In fact, the Classical era was so set on the use of forms, most popular being Sonata-Allegro form and Bach was quite good at avoiding the overuse of one particular form). "

but not the bulk of it... and that he toyed at some level with ideas later brought to fruition by others doesnt make his inventing it credible presage as it might be...most of his music takes the form of fugue and invention... the emphasis is on developing counterpoint... and given the state of the orchestra and even the organs he had access to this makes sense...

"2 - Bach's capability to build harmonies was far beyond that rather simple harmonies evident in the classical era. (Listen to "Sheep May Safely Graze" Mozart would never write such harmonies. Mahler would though!) "

again as the exception perhaps but not the rule... even given the Bmin mass as someone else pointed out... which if memory serves was rather late in his carreer and points to where he and music in general was heading... much in the same way beethovens 9th gives a glimps of things to come...

"3 - True the orchestra's tone, depth and complexity was enhanced by Beethoven but it was Brahms who brought us the modern orchestra. Through no fault of Bach's, he didn't have the capability of working with that kind of orchestra. Writing music that complex would not have been possible......unless of course he were to do it on the organ. Ahhhhh - that's where Bach's magic lies - the organ. The sounds which Bach created on the organ were of that dense, complex and powerful nature thought to be created by Beethoven and Brahms."

agreed for the most part... the quibble here for me would be in not so much the nature of his writing but the nature of the organ at this time... good ol' john never heard his work on instruments such as you've regaled us with here... and argument could be made that he never created it for instruments he didn't have... in the same way he never dreamn't of i suspect what walter/wendy carlos did with/to them...

"4 - Don't forget, Bach was an amazing melodist. Much classical music is so rooted in form and structure (chordal) that the melodies were almost afterthoughts. (No one can really claim that Mozart and Haydn were great melodists - Mass aside! In fact, most of their melodies are very similar - as if they plagiarized from themselves (not saying Mozart's melodies are similar to Haydn's that's perposterous. I'm saying Mozart's melodies were similar to other Mozart melodies.)) The romantic era is famous for its melodists - Brahms, Wagner, Puccini, Mahler, Liszt, etc."

granted he was a melodist... but that doesn't make him a romantic... anymore than being so inclined doesn't make Brahms et.al. baroque...

Each era of music seems to waffle back and forth between essentially classical or romantic -

"Baroque was a "romantic" era - full of beautiful melodies, loosely organized form, improvization "

but that's not the romantic period (era) anymore than the melodies/organization/improvisation of say new york in the 50's-60's... and i assure you that i hold for instance monk/bud powell/ bill evans in the highest reguard.. to the point of romanticising it...

"Classical...well it's classical. It's heavily rooted in form and harmony.

Romantic - well, duh, it's romantic. Again, heavy emphasis on melody and relatively free form (not chaotic, just not as regimented as classical) "

i think you'll need a bit more than that to base all this on...

"Neo-classical/20th Century - very heavily rooted in form. Especially when you take into consideration tone rows, etc.

Jazz/Rock - Until recently, very romantic in nature - again free form, heavy emphasis on melody

Pop - Classical - heavy emphasis on form, less melodic content and more harmony (or in our current case - beats). "

irrelevent to the discussion....

"Does that help to clarify?"

perhaps a bit.... thnx for the discussion dude... i appreciate ya...

Thumbs Up

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:05 pm

Can't wait until we're back on topic! Confused

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 11:32 pm

ok.. but it was his topic to take off wasn't it??

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:40 am

Back to it. I also find the second WAV example glorious. There is so much LF in there, that I can hear the drivers in my Beyer 990's rubbing against their constraints. Maybe I need new drivers. Sad

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:28 am

Thanks David! It sure is deep and powerful isn't it? Do you think it's too much?

DC - I understand where you're coming from - you're speaking almost entirely from an era standpoint, whereas I'm speaking from a philosophical stand point. We can agree to disagree, but I don't want to bicker back and forth in this topic. I'd be willing to further discuss in the Pro Sound Chat forum if you'd like.

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 12:34 pm

I too find some Bach to be somewhat 'Romantic', in a Bach kind of way. But some is less so. It seems that 'new' styles of music, Rococo or what have you, often seem to be a reaction to that which has gone before. Sometimes a further development and sometimes a completely different turn.

The .wav sample had me riveted. I was wondering if that crescendo was ever going to stop. What a thrill!

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 5:35 am

I can see a connection between Bach and Liszt, in achieving peak
ecstatic moments in their music.

This topic sponsored by: