Why is Bach Better than Vivaldi?

Question

okay, so here's the thing.

Personally, I'm Vivaldian. Many believe that Vivaldi got lucky with the four seasons. In fact, most that find Bach 2 be a better composer, have rarely listened to any vivaldi pieces (besides the four seasons). I personally believe that they both where outstanding composers. Many say that all of vivaldi's music sounds the same. Vivaldi did re-use his compositions at times, BUT, so did bach. most people are not aware of this, but it is true. Bach not only copied his own compositions at times, but he even stole vivaldi works and made them his own. Vivaldi never used music from other composers (not saying that bach is less of a composer by doing this). Either way, Both composers have much more origional work that copied work. Without Vivaldi, there would be no bach. Bach was HIGHLY influenced by Vivaldi. Also, Bach was German, and vivaldi Italian. There music is both quite different (yet you here vivaldi's influence in many bach pieces). I am not saying that Vivaldi is a better composer. I am merely saying that he deserves recognition. No vivaldi= no Bach. U say that all vivaldi's work sounds the same? You could say the same with bach and his compositions honestly. Give me a decent reason why bach is better than vivaldi. I honestly feel like the only one who believes that vivaldi is just as sublime as bach. Both are unique composers that had profound feeling and emotion in their music. Vivaldi did on the violin what bach did on the harpsichord (piano). Explain to me, why bach is superior to vivaldi, and why vivaldi isn't just as great?

Answer 1

He isn't: the whole comparative notion of better/best is fatuous, whether applied to Bach, Vivaldi or anyone else. It is entertained by the amateur dilettante as a pastime, and is endemic on the 'Net, but it has no value outside of those rather paltry realms.



In the real world of the early 1710s, Bach would have unhesitatingly placed himself as subordinate as a craftsman to Vivaldi. That may not sit comfortably with Bachists in a similar manner to any readjustment to Wagner's position in the world is anathema to Wagnerites, but Bach himself saw, reportedly, his relation to Vivaldi as that of one who had "learned to think musically" from the Italian master. Likewise, he did not transcribe ten Vivaldi concertos to while otherwise empty hours away, but because he set himself the task of learning and completely assimilating the Italian master's control of content, organisation and linear development within the concerto form, an undertaking he only embarked upon because he had decided he could find the solution to his needs from *nowhere else*.



Flip the coin: where are the ten comparable 'whatever'-by-Bach transcriptions by Vivaldi? They don't exist. It's questionable to what degree Bach existed to Vivaldi at all.



These are matters of history, the protagonists would all be very happy with relating the facts as they are, it's just the 'fans' (ugh!) who get in the way.



Bach knew exactly what he owed Vivaldi and paid his tributes due handsomely, fulsomely and without hesitation. That's not where the problem lies. It's a 'now' thing, sadly, rather than a 'then' one. The rest is flimflam.



Given the notion that Bach himself estmated he 'learned to think musically' from Vivaldi then any claim that 'without Vivaldi there would be no Bach' could at face value at least have more legs than a centipede without too much effort or forcing of facts...



All the best,

Answer 2

Bach can write an entire concerto movement around one or two motifs.

That is considerably more difficult than writing in the ritornello form.

I know because I have tried both.



As one respondent said, Bach excels as a contrapuntalist.



As for Vivaldi being a significant influence on Bach, I don't see where you get that.

Except for his concerto transcriptions, I don't know of any composition in which Bach shows Vivaldi's influence, except, of course, in the Italian Concerto.



For further information on my opinion of Bach, click here:

https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20110321140941AA099h2

Answer 3

Comparing the Mass in B Minor to a Vivaldi concerto is like comparing Mahler to Hans Rott. Can't be done.

Answer 4

i do not know why . but i indeedly like to listen to vivald music but i seldom listen to bach , ffff

Answer 5

Bach is not better than Vivaldi. Who ever said that? Hit parades of the artists are always idiotic. They are both great. Vivaldi music was almost completely lost and was discovered by chance only at the beginning of XX century while Bach music was discovered at the beginning of XIX century and a process of "mythisation" started through the whole century. The century of nationalisms. Unfortunately myth are always hard to scratch

Answer 6

Bach can be played on the piano whereas Vivaldi can't. there's my reason

Answer 7

Bach is superior because he was the better contrapuntal writer. Many great composers were able to write works of great emotion and power; none could write for multiple voices the way Bach could, with every voice being its own melody; and no one else could write a fugue that was both technically (harmonically) flawless and emotionally powerful. Bach just somehow always knew the perfect harmonic sequence for his works. He mastered music writing for many genres--choral, orchestral, organ, harpsichord/piano, instrumental, and all of those combined in a cantata.



His musical writing was so complex, yet so emotionally powerful, that communist atheists behind the Iron Curtain said there was no natural explanation for Bach--that Bach was the greatest evidence for the existence of God. Go listen to the St. Matthew Passion. Listen to the complexity, and feel the emotional power as Bach intentionally evokes the heartbeat of Jesus in the opening number. Listen to the 300+ chorales that Bach wrote.



This isn't to take anything away from Vivaldi, who was a wonderful composer, and has rightfully earned his place as one of the three great masters of the Baroque era. But there's a reason music professors almost universally select Bach as the greatest composer of all time.

Answer 8

Vivaldi gets all the recognition he deserves. Bach did not steal Vivaldi's works, although he did adapt a couple of pieces for the organ and some influence shows in his sacred works. Bach was not "highly" influenced by Vivaldi. Yes there was influence, but not to the extent that you suggest. Bach would have been well known based on a small percentage of his oeuvre. If you want a reason why Bach is better, just do a side by side comparison of their masterworks. Bach wrote far more, whereas Vivaldi has far less variety in his compositions and many sound very similar. Bach's compositions are far more individual. It is about the quality and quantity of the masterpieces really. The "no Vivaldi, no Bach" notion is ridiculous.

Answer 9

I don't think one is better than the other. I think it's just as you said: most people who like Bach better have rarely listened to anything by Vivaldi besides the Four Seasons. They listen to all this stuff by Bach and only one piece by Vivaldi. They practically know nothing by Vivaldi so they turn to Bach and after a while, they start to believe that Bach is the greater composer/musician.

Answer 10

just that bachis a lot more famous and is well known than vivaldi they are both great composers but bach may have more pieces that people prefer