Hi, Hermann; we crossed swords before at Naim's. 

Of course Bach is quite different from Beethoven. Beethoven's counterpoint, by the way, being quite a different technique ââ'¬â€œ more imitative stuff, less real counterpoint, a Beethoven Fugue is often a fugato followed by a toccata like continuation ââ'¬â€œ see opus 110, for instance, the great string quartet fugue, and perhaps foremost, the Waldstein.

But I think I understand what Tones is saying. Both composers are very structural, and there is an unrelentless logic about the way the music goes on. Even when there are big contrasts (the sonata form, or a double or even triple fugue) the logic is forceful and both composers manage to unite what would seem to be polar opposites.

So I quite agree with Tones, even if you are right about enormous differences in compositional techniques.

A small word concerning the myth that Bach worked backwards and summed up all previous knowledge (the Old Testament ââ'¬â€œ the WTC ââ'¬â€œ and New Testament ââ'¬â€œ the Beethoven sonatas ââ'¬â€œ of Hans von Bülow [was it him who said that? Or Busoni?]).

At the beginning of his career, Bach was a very progressive composer. He abandoned the old cantata structure (exemplified by Actus tragicus and Christ lag in Todesbanden, for instance) and embraced the da capo arias. Also, his fugue writing becomes more modern as time goes by: less voices, more expression, more modulations (the big E minor organ fugue, the 'scissors' one, for instance is incredibly modern ââ'¬â€œ it is almost classical in its form). This is very obvious when you compare the first and second book of the WTC, the 2nd being much more modern harmonically.

Even his Mass exemplifies this quite well: the two Kyries are very backward looking, but the Christe is almost rococo. That is because, as you know, the Mass is composed of pieces composed in different times of Bach life.

And the Goldbergs ââ'¬â€œ often said to capture all kinds of keyboard writing Bach had used previously ââ'¬â€œ are really an answer to the 30 sonatas of Scarlatti, issued at Leipzig the year before Bach composed the Goldbergs. I think he just stated that: 1) He could also write light music; 2) But much more learned; 3) Much more difficult to play; 4) And all bounded together by the same underlying harmony. Which only means: I'm better than you, and beat you in every ground. In that sense, they are not backward looking (of course, he used counterpoint, but the overall sense of the Goldbergs is high spirited music, to compete with the new and simpler style).

At the end of his life he joined a Society which promoted counterpoint. He then began a series of very complicated works (the Musical Offering, for instance, where many canons are presented as riddles). That happened because he loved counterpoint, surely, but also because he was severely rebuffed by younger composers, who thought his style to be complicated, fussy, and 'turgid'. Bach was defended by a friend, but there was no denying that he couldn't bring himself to let go of his beloved counterpoint and he took refuge with the neo-palestrinians. That is probably the origin of The Art of Fugue (which many musicologists think was to be presented at the Mizler society at Bach's 65th birthday ââ'¬â€œ alas, he couldn't finish it).

Bottom line. I'm not disputing the fact that Beethoven was a revolutionary and Bach was a revisionist.  But it always nags me when I read that Bach is the summation of everything before him. That is simply not true (Buxtehude was never equaled by Bach in his own ground; neither did Frescobaldi, and Bach's polyphony is radically different from Palestrina's [but consider the E major fugue of WTC II]).

He was a man of his time ââ'¬â€œ a time of very fast change. He tried, perhaps feebly, to go with the times and failed. He therefore took shelter in the past. That, I think, is the true story.

P.S.: How did this post got to be so long? Ah, but your posts at Naim's are also long.

So Welcome Hermann, may we continue to gently cross (s)words here as well.