👩🏼‍💻 iServalan: Bach

Showing posts with label Bach. Show all posts

What Would Bach Have Done in a Dub Studio? | iServalan | Continuum Approach

What Would Bach Have Done in a Dub Studio?

If anyone from the late Baroque period belongs in a dub studio, it’s Johann Sebastian Bach.

Not necessarily because of style — but because of belief.

If you want to hear why Bach belongs in a dub studio, listen to the opening of the First Cello Suite. (One of my personal favourites as a budding cellist)

One line.
No harmony stated — only implied.
Repetition doing the work.

But wait, listen harder to the lowest notes. What are they up to?

Bach trusted resonance.
He trusted memory.

Bach is 'all about the bass!'

And we already know that dub is too.
Feel the beat of the Prelude, deep rosonating bass notes pushing us to move, and oh such exquisite lingering!

Bach believed that music was a system through which truth could be revealed. Not emotional confession. Not spectacle. Structure and assured foundations.

Dub works the same way.

Dub strips music back to its skeletal roots, its foundational architecture. Bass becomes ground. Delay becomes memory. Reverberation is the inhabited space you can walk around. Nothing is accidental. Nothing is wasted.

Bach would hear that immediately, despite the centuries of time difference. He would feel the dub through his feet and his chest like a conversation with God.....or perhaps, the devil, who knows.

Forgive me, I was momentarily transported.

Bach's music is built from relationships — lines speaking to one another across time. Repetition isn’t redundancy; it’s examination. What happens if I return here slightly altered? What do you hear now?

This is why Bach feels inexhaustible. His music doesn’t perform emotion — it creates conditions in which emotion emerges naturally. Bach sucks you in. Those broken chords encompass the body and soul in an almost heavenly way, connecting you to the higher place....of bass.

In a dub studio, Bach wouldn’t fill the mix. He’d reduce it. One line at a time. Each return clarified. Each echo meaningful. He’d understand that silence isn’t absence — it’s preparation.

Bach’s sound is unmistakably “him” because it trusts continuity. It assumes the listener is capable. It doesn’t rush to convince.

Bach's dub producer (if he needed one) would recognise that instantly.

Not as classical reverence — but as someone who knows that depth comes from staying with an idea long enough for it to transform you.

Bach would leave the studio unchanged, probably humming the new dub version of the suites.

And everyone else would apprecitae him afterwards in new ways.

Who Would Win X Factor: Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt or Rachmaninov? | iServalan | Continuum Approach

Who Would Win X Factor: Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt or Rachmaninov?

It sounds like a parlour game.
But like most good parlour games, it reveals something uncomfortable about how we judge art.

If the five great composers were dropped—anachronistically—onto a modern televised talent show, who would take the crown?

Not who is the greatest composer.
Not whose music lasts the longest.

But who would win on the night.

Let’s imagine the judges.
The live audience.
The camera angles.
The sob story VT.
The voting app.

And—crucially—the opening piece.

🎼 Johann Sebastian Bach — The Genius Who Wouldn’t Play the Game

Bach would lose early.

Not because he lacks brilliance—but because he refuses the premise.

He doesn’t perform at you.
He performs through the music.

His chosen piece might be a Prelude and Fugue from The Well-Tempered Clavier—a work of architectural perfection, intellectual depth, and zero obvious “moment.” No swelling chorus. No cinematic pause. No obvious payoff.

The judges would call it worthy.
The audience would call it hard.

Bach wouldn’t explain himself in interviews.
He wouldn’t soften the edges.
He wouldn’t care.

And that, paradoxically, is why he is eternal—and why he’d be terrible television.

🎹 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart — The Natural Crowd-Pleaser

Mozart would sail through the early rounds.

He understands timing instinctively.
He writes tunes people can remember.
He has charm baked into the music itself.

Imagine him performing the Piano Sonata in A major, K.331, finishing with the Rondo alla Turca. The audience taps along. The judges smile. Someone says, “It just makes you feel happy.”

Mozart’s strength is accessibility—but that might also be his weakness. He’s so effortless that viewers may underestimate the genius.

He’d be adored.
He’d be meme-able.
But would he win?

Maybe not.

🌙 Frédéric Chopin — The Artist the Audience Falls in Love With

Chopin is a sleeper hit.

He wouldn’t dominate the room—but he’d dominate the emotional register.

Picture a Nocturne in E-flat major. The lights dim. The camera moves in. The audience goes quiet in that rare, real way—not because they’re told to, but because something fragile is happening.

Chopin doesn’t grandstand.
He confides.

He’d win votes not through spectacle, but intimacy. The audience wouldn’t cheer wildly—they’d defend him online. They’d feel protective.

He’s the one people argue for after the show.

🌌 Sergei Rachmaninoff — The Late-Game Dark Horse

Rachmaninov wouldn’t win the early rounds.

Too long.
Too brooding.
Too emotionally complex.

But if he reached the final and played something like the Prelude in C-sharp minor or a movement from the Second Piano Concerto, something would shift.

This is big emotion—but not cheap emotion.
Melancholy, nostalgia, restraint.

He might not win the public vote…
…but years later, people would still be listening.

Which raises the real question.

🔥 Franz Liszt — The Obvious Winner (And the Reason We Distrust the Format)

Liszt was born for this.

He understands the stage.
He understands the crowd.
He understands anticipation.

Liszt would choose something like a Hungarian Rhapsody—flash, drama, danger, hair flying, hands blurring. He knowswhere the camera is. He times the applause. He lets the silence hang just long enough.

This is not shallow artistry—it’s strategic artistry.

Liszt was the original rock star.
People fainted.
Merch existed.
Hysteria followed.

He would win, decisively.

And that should make us uneasy.

Liszt would win X Factor.
Bach would build the foundations beneath it.
Mozart would charm the room.
Chopin would break your heart quietly.
Rachmaninov would stay with you for decades.

And maybe that’s the point.

The best art isn’t always the best performance.
And the loudest applause is rarely the final judgement.

iPhone Magsafe Tough Case

Baseball ¾ Sleeve T-Shirt

£28.30

Why Hip-Hop Understands Bach Better Than Rock Ever Did | iServalan™| Continuum Approach

This essay accompanies an audio episode from iServalan and forms part of a wider approach to learning music through listening, movement, and attention.

Today, I'm Wondering,

If Hip-Hop Understands Bach Better Than Rock Ever Did

Counterpoint, Sampling, the Grid, and Music Built to Hold a Room

Bach is often described as a composer of melodies.

He wasn’t.

He was an architect.

His music is built from systems: interlocking lines, bass-led harmony, repetition under pressure. Voices operate independently but remain bound to a shared structure. Nothing is accidental. Everything is relational.

Hip-hop understands this instinctively.

Someone like Kendrick Lamar knows this too. His work isn’t built on endless novelty, but on carefully managed repetition, variation, and return. Themes recur. Motifs evolve. The architecture holds while meaning deepens.

Bach worked the same way. He didn’t abandon material once it appeared — he tested it, turned it, placed it under pressure until it revealed something new.

MF DOOM understood structure the way Bach did — masks, constraints, recurring motifs, and rules that sharpened invention rather than limiting it.

At its core, hip-hop is architectural music. It respects the grid. It understands the loop not as limitation, but as foundation. Repetition is not laziness — it is hypnosis. Variation happens inside constraint, not outside it.

This is Bach thinking.

In Bach’s fugues and dance forms, tension comes from timing, placement, and expectation. In hip-hop, tension is created the same way — through flow, syncopation, drop-ins and drop-outs. The bass doesn’t decorate. It leads. Rhythm is not accompaniment; it is structure.

Performance culture makes the connection clearer.

Hip-hop was built for rooms. For bodies. For spaces where sound had to hold attention, command presence, and survive repetition. MCs understand pacing the way Baroque performers did — when to push, when to hold back, when to let silence work.

Think of someone like Kendrick Lamar, Rakim, or MF DOOM: control, architecture, restraint. Virtuosity not as speed, but as placement.

Bach would have recognised this immediately.

Not the surface sound — the thinking.
The discipline.
The respect for form as power.

Much of rock, by contrast, misunderstood rebellion as freedom from structure. The rejection of rules became the point. But without constraint, music often collapses into gesture without architecture. Loudness replaces tension. Expression floats free of form.

Hip-hop never made that mistake.

It understands that systems are not cages — they are engines. That creativity sharpens when pressure is applied. That repetition creates meaning through accumulation.

Sampling functions like counterpoint. Independent voices coexist, comment, collide. Past and present speak simultaneously. Bach did this with chorales. Hip-hop does it with records.

Which is why Bach survives remixing, looping, re-contextualising — while much of rock does not.

Systems endure.
Structures travel.
Architecture outlives fashion.

And Bach, quietly, has always been closer to the beat than people think.

This essay accompanies an audio episode from iServalan and forms part of a wider approach to learning music through listening, movement, and attention.

SPREAKER

APPLE PODCASTS

SPOTIFY

AMAZON MUSIC / AUDIBLE