non-narrative music

I don't really see what's "non-narrative" about Bach, if the term narrative can be applied to music (I assume you mean in the beginning-middle-end plot arc sense of the word).

And in that sense of the word, it understates things a bit to suggest that non-narrative music "went out of fashion" in the West. I mean I guess you could say that certain droning and modal musics were non-narrative, but narrativity was always an essential part of Western formal/composed music.

non-narrative music is Captain Beefheart. If he's telling a story, you have to be insane to follow it. Zeep fop zollus in a mile high street. Seek hands shallow meet. Electric fork nut billow spark. Mellow zebra bow wow, bow wow. Terminal nursery fragrent hippo. Meow. Meow. Hello, hello.

Yeah, but those are lyrics.

yeah I'm kinda wtfing at Bach being non-narrative. but then, my favorite works of his and the ones I have the most experience with are his fugues, so I may be coming at this from the wrong angle.

Yeah, but those are lyrics.

But isn't "narrative" the act of narrating?

Did you read the first post?

no

this is a shitty explanation, but it's the best analogy i've come up with: you know how when you open a track in a sound editor/analyzer it looks like a mountainous waveform of some kind? and how you can hit the play button and follow a little line as it traverses the length of the track (somethinglike this)? my concept of narrative vs non-narrative music is how much the essence of your experience of the songs depends on you "riding along" with the little line vs. appreciating/getting lost in the track as a whole. these murkily phrased thoughts would also encompass "beginning-middle-end plot arc" setup/climax elements as well.

bach's obsession with counterpoint and fugue seems pretty non-narrative my any definition though, in that a lot of his pieces are playing out mathematical necessities, rather than choosing out a path along some more "open" fieled of play.

does that make any sense at all?

x-post

oops, that should be "non-narrative by any definition"

I don't think that's really an accurate explanation of how Bach works, because Bach tends to move through harmonies in a very logical progression that is as narrative as anything that Mozart or Beethoven did after, except that it's more, um, baroque.

plus he was a religious weirdo and we can't have that.

perhaps you are confusing "narrative" with "lyrical melodic style"

hurting – yeah, that's a vast understatement, and my knowledge of classical-style formal composed music is not the best, but my disinterest in that tradition's output aside from some people like bach, who i hear as subverting narrativity in favor of other things like fugue, seems at least somewhat interesting to me, at least in the context of trying to figure out why i like some kinds of music (bach, techno) and dislike others.

x-post

wait never mind I missed yr point

in stoopid terms: it is possible for me to "zone out" to bach/baroque music (but still appreciate a lot of the complexities in what's going on) but not to beethoven or mozart. for those guy's stuff to hit me i have to be very attentively following along in the micro-moment, it can't "wash over" me the way bach or techno can.

Saying Bach subverted narrativity in favor of fugue is kind of like saying Shakespeare subverted narrativity in favor of meter. But I think Curits is right, you mean the fact that he often doesn't emphasize a distinct, clear, *hummable* melody, and I guess I see how that makes it something you can kind of get lost in rather than *follow*, much like various trance-y forms of techno/house music.

Phish likes the fugue. How do you think they compare to Bach? About the same?

Seems like you're talking about dynamic vs. static, maybe? Dynamics lends a feeling of a dramatic arc which leads to narrative?

another half-baked explanation of why i think bach's appeal is "non-narrative": even though, even when hearing on of his pieces for the first time, you know damn well where the piece is gonna go and how it's gonna get there, it doesn't matter in the slightest: every moment is still worth listening to and most of the time absolutely amazing. this is distinctly different to how i relate to beet/moz style compositions; their appeal has at least a little bit to do with surprise and curiosity about how it'll turn out. to employ a lame cliche, bach, to me, is sort of like architecture/other static visual art in that if it doesn't matter to your appreciation where you are in the piece then the corollary is that you are appreciating the piece as a whole, in maybe the same way that a building or a picture might appeal to you. i guess it's that in story-telling or emotional evoking ability, his style reminds me more of something static (pictures, architecture) rather that dynamic (lit, other western music), and this is mostly for the better.

x-post – yes! dynamic vs static is key i think!

even when hearing on of his pieces for the first time, you know damn well where the piece is gonna go and how it's gonna get there

Really? I find Bach to be full of harmonic surprises.

I mean Bach's the king of ending minor and starting major (and vice versa), ending in different keys, using unusual passing chords, etc.

your probably right about that; my ears aren't classically trained. but i feel that most of that stuff is at the "fine grain" level and that most of what i've said holds at a coarser-grained scale.

Bach's music is just as "narrative" as the classical music that would come after. It's only easier to zone out to because it's more texturally complex and you need to be more trained/listen more intently to follow the "narrative."