# Is JS Bach the greatest composer of all time?



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

While JS Bach is not the 'favourite' composer of everybody, many still consider him the greatest composer of all time. I saw a reply on a thread saying something like "Music is not a competition, but if it was, JS Bach would win". Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so, what makes so great?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I have never heard of a suitable definition for objective greatness in music. From a subjective point of view, yes, but not miles ahead of Mahler and Brahms.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

As far as Western European Classical music goes, there is a case to be made for him.


----------



## Russell Chee (Dec 3, 2019)

Well there are of course subjective greatest composers for everybody, but the supposedly 'objective' case for Bach being the greatest was that he mastered the Fugue like no one else. I've never been a huge fan of Bach myself - but I'm only 14, so perhaps it'll come with age - but it's pretty clear that lots of the consensus-'greatest' works in music revolve around fugues. Mozart's Jupiter, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, Bach's greatest works, the Hammerklavier Fugue, the double Fugue in Mahler's 9th, etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

No such thing as greatest composer of all time IMO. Too many criteria and it varies too much over different eras.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Yes, yes, yes. There is no other composer that produced such a steady stream of stunningly great music, not even Mozart. As Julian Mincham writes at his Bach cantatas website (recommended):


> There are, it is true, rare occasions when a movement may seem to some to be somewhat less inspired than those around it. That is only to be expected in a canon of this range and scope. But it is impossible to escape the fact that Bach set his personal bar so high that the occasional 'below average' works are still better than those of most other composers. Bach seemed to be virtually incapable of writing a bar of bad music, something which has become increasingly noticed and appreciated in this third century after his death.


And that's just the cantatas. There are also the other choral works like the Passions, the Magnificat, and the masses; keyboard works; the collections of organ chorale preludes; the concerti and orchestral suites, and more. The sustained high quality in all is unparalleled. It's mind-boggling.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I always think questions like this are beside the point. Of course JSB was one of the Giants of classical music but when they was the greatest is imponderable.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

The only way one could sensibly attempt to answer this question would be if we all agreed on the criteria we were going to use, and that's obv.never going to happen. We can give personal answers of course (and mine would be "no") but they're bound to be strongly influenced by personal preference, so what would be the point?


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

I do love him, that's for sure, but over many years of listening I have become wary of labeling composers the "Greatest." While I think there are indeed Greats, Bach (and Vivaldi among them), my view is that there are an astounding array of those for which we should all be grateful. The notion that a select few are the Greatest has so usurped the Classical field that many composers of equal genius do not get the attention and airtime they deserve. I believe the notion of Greatness reveals more about the listening public and human psychology - the overwhelming need for same - than it does about the composers it confers that distinction on. I also suspect many of them would be embarrassed by the title...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> I do love him, that's for sure, but over many years of listening I have become wary of labeling composers the "Greatest." While I think there are indeed Greats, Bach (and Vivaldi among them), my view is that there are an astounding array of those for which we should all be grateful. The notion that a select few are the Greatest has so usurped the Classical field that many composers of equal genius do not get the attention and airtime they deserve. I believe the notion of Greatness reveals more about the listening public and human psychology - the overwhelming need for same - than it does about the composers it confers that distinction on. I also suspect many of them would be embarrassed by the title...


I would disagree. I think there is a sort of hierarchy of value among all the musical works that have been produced, and of *course* it's about the listening public. I just find the idea that "it's all essentially equal" to be idiotic, nothing personal.

PS...more often than not those of "equal genius" have been overlooked simply because they weren't really of equal genius.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Among the many composers whose technical skill and aesthetic imagination we recognize as extraordinary, Bach is one of a handful who stand out in both respects. I think that's a safe statement, but I can't presume to say more.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

IMO, no. One of a number of great composers? Probably!


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

consuono said:


> I would disagree. I think there is a sort of hierarchy of value among all the musical works that have been produced, and of *course* it's about the listening public. I just find the idea that "it's all essentially equal" to be idiotic, nothing personal.
> 
> PS...more often than not those of "equal genius" have been overlooked simply because they weren't really of equal genius.


Thanks for your post, consuono; please read mine carefully. I did not say that "it's all essentially equal", just that there are many "Greats." Your misreading might suggest some defensiveness re: the notion of exclusive Greatness. My concern is that the "hierarchy of value" you mention is not only highly subjective, socio-culturally determined and likely in service to human needs for hierarchies, but may be counter-productive to encouraging broader interest in the variety and extraordinary excellence of Classical music.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

Should this be a poll?

Or maybe a pole.


----------



## PierreN (Aug 4, 2013)

BenG said:


> Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so, what makes so great?


I consider J. S. Bach to have an edge over Hime, but to be fair to Hime I don't know him all that well.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> Thanks for your post, consuono; please read mine carefully. I did not say that "it's all essentially equal", just that there are many "Greats." Your misreading might suggest some defensiveness re: the notion of exclusive Greatness.


I'm not being defensive at all. I'm fairly confident that the "greats" have been/will be pretty obvious.


> My concern is that the "hierarchy of value" you mention is not only highly subjective, socio-culturally determined and likely in service to human needs for hierarchies, but may be counter-productive to encouraging broader interest in the variety and extraordinary excellence of Classical music.


But "it's all essentially equal" is the logical end point of that slippery slope. That "hierarchy" -- or at least the criteria for value -- has been determined by that socio-cultural need, so what agency is determining which ones have been unjustly neglected? Will we be any better off by saying that Joachim Raff's works, or Clara Schumann's, are "just as good as" those of Brahms? I think there's a reason other than some arbitrary "socio-cultural" pressure that Alkan and Czerny the composer aren't as well-known as Chopin and Liszt.

If it's good, it'll be apparent eventually.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Top two, at least.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

My "great composers talking about great composers" collection of quotes has the following results at the top of the list:

Mozart - 41 mentions, incl. 21 "Nr 1" votes, average position 1,83
Bach - 32 mentions, incl. 10 "Nr 1" votes, average position 2,59
Beethoven - 32 mentions, incl. 6 "Nr 1" votes, average position 3,06

These results have been very stable so far.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'll leave "greatest" to those who think they know how to determine it. Bach's my no. 1 composer.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

PierreN said:


> I consider J. S. Bach to have an edge over Hime, but to be fair to Hime I don't know him all that well.


Hime was a family of English and Irish music publishers from before 1790 - 1879, one of whom, Humphrey composed a song, "Bo-Peep, or Bridgport and the French." Haven't heard it, but it must be really good. :lol:


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Fabulin said:


> My "great composers talking about great composers" collection of quotes has the following results at the top of the list:
> 
> Mozart - 41 mentions, incl. 21 "Nr 1" votes, average position 1,83
> Bach - 32 mentions, incl. 10 "Nr 1" votes, average position 2,59
> ...


That's encouraging, because that's my top three right there.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Animal the Drummer said:


> That's encouraging, because that's my top three right there.


Same here..............


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I have never really felt comfortable applying the term, "greatest", to_ any_ composer, including my favorite.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Brahmsian Colors said:


> I have never really felt comfortable applying the term, "greatest", to_ any_ composer, including my favorite.


What about qualifying the term "greatest" as in: "greatest in _mastering_ the composition of masterpieces in basically all forms of music, whether it be for voice, for (drama, comedy) in opera, for small ensembles (quartet, trio, quintet, etc.), full orchestra as in symphonies, concertos and such, and religious forms.

Surely one who does _that_ has a claim on greatness as compared to others who never mastered those forms.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsian Colors said:


> I have never really felt comfortable applying the term, "greatest", to_ any_ composer, including my favorite.


Do you feel comfortable applying the term "great" to any composer? Is it all composers or just a few?


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> As far as Western European Classical music goes, there is a case to be made for him.


I agree with this. There would be technical and aesthetic considerations which could be used to 'measure' greatness, but finally it transposes into matters of taste. I remember that famous scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where the class was encouraged to rip the pages of J. Evans Pritchard on "Measuring Poetry"!!! "Rip, rip, rip boys....J. Evans Pritchard BEGONE"!!

Recently I've had an 'argument' with a sister about religion. Her position is that she doesn't believe in 'transcendent sky gods' and I replied that "Neither do I, but I hold great store in those who did such as JS Bach, Mozart, Donne and Milton" etc.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

poconoron said:


> What about qualifying the term "greatest" as in: "greatest in _mastering_ the composition of masterpieces in basically all forms of music, whether it be for voice, for (drama, comedy) in opera, for small ensembles (quartet, trio, quintet, etc.), full orchestra as in symphonies, concertos and such, and religious forms.


Using the above criteria, there would have to be exceptions for composers such as Wagner and Chopin. Overall, I'm not a big fan of the variety of genres qualification.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Beethoven’s symphonies place him above Bach. Not only are they collectively the greatest achievement in composition, but they are remarkably distinct in character from one another. Add in the concertos, piano sonatas, and chamber music, and Beethoven belongs at the top of the heap, followed by Bach, Mozart, and Brahms.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2020)

When I think about the 'greatest composer' I consider things such as tonal, chromatic and contrapuntal complexity, the ability to drive a musical narrative over a long destination without loss of ideas or direction which, at the same time, all appears perfectly logical. Also musicality, orchestration, intellectual heft and structure. Bach fulfills all these requirements for me, as does Beethoven. They're the two top dogs - for me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Beethoven's symphonies place him above Bach. Not only are they *collectively the greatest achievement in composition*, but they are remarkably distinct in character from one another. Add in the concertos, piano sonatas, and chamber music, and Beethoven belongs at the top of the heap, followed by Bach, Mozart, and Brahms.


I can certainly accept the fact that they are among the towering bodies of work in Western music (even if I personally think the string quartets are a greater harbinger of Beethoven's genius) but for me the title of "greatest achievement in composition" belongs to Bach's cantatas, bar none. The incredible breadth of the ouevre, diversity of compositional techniques and emotional spectrum gives me a collective examination of the human condition second only to Shakespeare. One could spend one's entire life listening only to them and still not discover all the treasures.

Even without the keyboard and organ music, large-scale choral works, violin and cello suites, concerti, AoF and Musical Offering; if Bach had only written the cantatas I would still exalt him above all others. He is not only my favorite composer but my favorite artist of all time. I think that nobody will ever match the sheer mastery of music-writing that Bach achieved - both as a towering intellectual and as someone who can touch the core of the human spirit with the sublimity of his craftsmanship. For this reason I find it hard to assert that he is not the greatest composer who ever lived.


----------



## ThaNotoriousNIC (Jun 29, 2020)

I have heard Bach being thrown around as the greatest composer for a while now. Often times, I have heard him dubbed with titles such as "The Master" a bunch of times as well. I believe some argue that there are things Bach did with theory within his music that was beyond his time and composers did not look at thoroughly again for hundreds of years, but I don't recall what examples people have pointed to for this claim. I am sure that there are other people more well versed in Bach in this forum that can support or rebut these claims and the status people throw around for Bach as the greatest of all time (GOAT). In my opinion, I would not be able to single out Bach as the GOAT of all composers. The genre has too much variation over centuries and musical styles/trends in that history. I think he is one of the best, but it is tough to compare a composer who wrote in a Baroque style to say the operas of Richard Wagner, which are from a completely different era and style of music, and then say that Bach is completely superior to Wagner. The argument for Bach as the GOAT might be that the technical elements of his repertoire are a foundation for generations of composers to come after him, whether that impact is from directly studying his works or through indirect exposure.

In my opinion, the GOAT title probably cannot be given to just a single composer; the genre has too much history and too many styles of music for a single composer to be the one composer to rule over the rest. For me, Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner represent in what my listening ears find as a very strong trifecta of composers whose work when taken together are my GOAT. I am sure other people have different opinions on that, but those three are my personal favorites (you may call it 1a, 1b, and 1c selections).


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Beethoven's symphonies place him above Bach. Not only are they collectively the greatest achievement in composition, but they are remarkably distinct in character from one another. ...


Nope, not to me. Bach's cantatas alone are collectively to me the greatest achievement in composition. It's just that they haven't been played to death in the way that Beethoven's symphonies have. And...they are at least as distinct in character AND there are over 200 that survive, with nary a clunker in the bunch. AND the bulk of some of the finest among them came within a three year period.
Not to mention Bach's keyboard music is richer than Beethoven's.

I do love Beethoven of course. He's just below Bach in my personal ranking. I don't think he was the "natural" that Bach and Mozart were, and he had to work very hard and overcome quite a bit. But he did it.


----------



## sstucky (Apr 4, 2020)

Yes, absolutely.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Russell Chee said:


> Well there are of course subjective greatest composers for everybody, but the supposedly 'objective' case for Bach being the greatest was that he mastered the Fugue like no one else. I've never been a huge fan of Bach myself - but I'm only 14, so perhaps it'll come with age - but it's pretty clear that lots of the consensus-'greatest' works in music revolve around fugues. Mozart's Jupiter, Beethoven's Grosse Fuge, Bach's greatest works, the Hammerklavier Fugue, the double Fugue in Mahler's 9th, etc.


Elsewhere I find that too many classical music fans talk like; "before Mozart and Haydn in 18th century counterpoint, there are only Bach and Handel and no one else." Whenever the word "counterpoint" comes up Bach tends to be the main subject of discussion. Some even seem to think fugues did not exist before Bach came along. (I think one of our members at TC, larold once claimed that Bach invented the fugue)
The fact is that there were other "counterpoint geeks" contemporary with Bach, and there are other things besides counterpoint that make Bach truly great:





But whenever those fans see a later composer utilizing counterpoint, they talk like "he must be influenced by Bach" or "everything contrapuntal after 1750 has to do with Bach." I mean, they're not entirely wrong, but I feel they take it too extreme sometimes. 
And I think there's a bit too much emphasis about how Mozart was a genius who could learn anything and how much he changed due to the "Bach experience" he had around 1782. (Heck I've seen articles that talk like Mozart was a typical melody-bass rococo composer before his encounter with Bach) I mean Mozart was enormously talented, but he also had great teachers in his childhood years, who gave him elite education in craftsmanship. People neglect the fact that Leopold Mozart was a "counterpoint geek" too. In fact this was the way many 18th century composers, especially the church composers, thought about music. Hence the reason why Chopin told Delacroix in 1849 that "in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint".





Pignus Futurae Gloriae double fugue from Leopold's Litaniae in C:
http://conquest.imslp.info/files/im...MLP169311-Litaniæ_de_Venerabili_C.pdf#page=42
"Leopold Mozart was a talented musician who well understood his craft as a composer....many of his church pieces, of which we find masses, litanies, offertories and many others in considerable number are among the best that he wrote." -Ernst Fritz Schmid
"As a church composer, Leopold stands at the height of his time." -Wolfgang Plath
"his liturgical works are of greater worth than his chamber pieces." -German musicologist Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart
"Of the manuscript compositions by Herr Mozart which have become known, numerous contrapuntal and other church pieces are especially noteworthy." https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin1335462994






"I have this moment received your first letter from Munich. Perhaps all will go well. Possibly you could get things working if you could find an opportunity of showing the Elector everything you can do, especially in fugues, canons and counterpoint compositions." -Leopold Mozart, in a letter to Wolfgang (September 28~29, 1777)


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

poconoron said:


> What about qualifying the term "greatest" as in: "greatest in _mastering_ the composition of masterpieces in basically all forms of music, whether it be for voice, for (drama, comedy) in opera, for small ensembles (quartet, trio, quintet, etc.), full orchestra as in symphonies, concertos and such, and religious forms.


As with all or any aspects of artistic or musical accomplishment, are the criteria for what constitutes greatness and masterpiece individually or universally determined? Where does one draw a line separating subjectivity from objectivity? Setting universally agreed upon standards can be awful tough to achieve.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

...........................


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

I have sympathy with those who say that 'greatest' is subjective. However, on a more meta, or perhaps pragmatic, level, have a look at what music has become over the very same time period that 'pluralism' and 'equality of taste' has become virtuous.

I wonder if that is just a coincidence? I'm amost certain there are other factors involved-consumer capitalism being the main one, but I highly doubt the devaluation of profundity and craft in music, and the elevation of instant gratification and mass-production, is driven only by economic factors.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Perhaps, and he is one of my absolute favorite composers, but overall I still prefer Beethoven over him. I think that one of the technical reasons for this is that Beethoven's music is rich in sudden dynamic contrasts and climaxes, what's very appealing to me, while Bach barely notated dynamics in his scores and usually didn't go beyond the range of piano and forte when he did.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

consuono said:


> Do you feel comfortable applying the term "great" to any composer? Is it all composers or just a few?


To be honest, I have virtually no interest in whether or not a composer is "great" or "the greatest". Musical enjoyment and reading biographies of particular composers are primary for me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I can certainly accept the fact that they are among the towering bodies of work in Western music (even if I personally think the string quartets are a greater harbinger of Beethoven's genius) but for me the title of "greatest achievement in composition" belongs to Bach's cantatas, bar none. The incredible breadth of the ouevre, diversity of compositional techniques and emotional spectrum gives me a collective examination of the human condition second only to Shakespeare. One could spend one's entire life listening only to them and still not discover all the treasures.
> 
> Even without the keyboard and organ music, large-scale choral works, violin and cello suites, concerti, AoF and Musical Offering; if Bach had only written the cantatas I would still exalt him above all others. He is not only my favorite composer but my favorite artist of all time. I think that nobody will ever match the sheer mastery of music-writing that Bach achieved - both as a towering intellectual and as someone who can touch the core of the human spirit with the sublimity of his craftsmanship. For this reason I find it hard to assert that he is not the greatest composer who ever lived.


You're going to be insulted by this comment because you're still young - but it's not meant as an insult. Your tastes and opinions will change over the years and gradually alter your outlook. That can be a wonderful thing too. It would be more usual if this DIDN'T happen.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Christabel said:


> You're going to be insulted by this comment because you're still young - but it's not meant as an insult. Your tastes and opinions will change over the years and gradually alter your outlook. That can be a wonderful thing too. It would be more usual if this DIDN'T happen.


I don't know how old ACB is, but in my case appreciation of Bach came about the older I got. When I was younger it was mainly Beethoven, Chopin with also a big Mahler and R. Strauss phase thrown in there. I didn't even appreciate Mozart very much until I got older. At any rate ACB sounds to me like someone who actually is familiar with Bach's cantatas.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

https://www.talkclassical.com/66683-i-just-dont-get.html?highlight=
Related topic


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> I don't know how old ACB is, but in my case appreciation of Bach came about the older I got. When I was younger it was mainly Beethoven, Chopin with also a big Mahler and R. Strauss phase thrown in there. I didn't even appreciate Mozart very much until I got older. At any rate ACB sounds to me like someone who actually is familiar with Bach's cantatas.


If you are older then I can't understand you insisting that Bach is the greatest. One of the greats yes, but the older Iget and listen to Bach'spassions, Handel's oratorios, Beethoven's sonatas and quartets, Mozart's operas, etc, The less likely I am to say that one is greater than the other


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2020)

The only thing age has to do with appreciation is the amount of time available to have consumed music.

I've come across both the stupid and the patronising among the elderly here - I daresay I've patronised the young whippersnappers posting here once in a while.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> The only thing age has to do with appreciation is the amount of time available to have consumed music.
> 
> I've come across both the stupid and the patronising among the elderly here - I daresay I've patronised the young whippersnappers posting here once in a while.


 I've come across both the stupid and patronising here. But as we can all be guilty of it I don't judge too harshly. Just take a leaf out of Robbie Burns book


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> The only thing age has to do with appreciation is the amount of time available to have consumed music.
> 
> I've come across both the stupid and the patronising among the elderly here - I daresay I've patronised the young whippersnappers posting here once in a while.


Why wouldn't consumption increase appreciation? It wouldn't have to, but it could, couldnt it? Haven't most of us "grown into" certain works and composers? Or, in some cases, outgrown them?


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Why wouldn't consumption increase appreciation? It wouldn't have to, but it could, couldnt it? Haven't most of us "grown into" certain works and composers? Or, in some cases, outgrown them?


Yes, that's my point. What we regarded as "the greatest" in our youth often changes dramatically as we age. In my case Beethoven was always the greatest but Bach has slowly crept up to join him as number one. Many composers I revered in my earlier years - for example, Rameau and Mozart - I've largely lost interest in.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> Why wouldn't consumption increase appreciation? It wouldn't have to, but it could, couldnt it? Haven't most of us "grown into" certain works and composers? Or, in some cases, outgrown them?


Yes, that's what I meant by connecting age with time for increased consumption. I agree.

But what some others refer to, I suspect, is automatically increased wisdom. ("Once you've been around as long as I have, you'll understand why we of maturer years have an opinion that is bound to be wiser than your immaturer years can possibly allow"). See #40 and #43 for posts of a similar ilk - that is, where judgement is passed on 'the young' (and, by implication, 'the old').


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> That's what I meant by connecting age with time for increased consumption.
> 
> What some others refer to, I suspect, is automatically increased wisdom. ("Once you've been around as long as I have, you'll understand why we of maturer years have an opinion that is bound to be wiser than your immature years can possibly allow")


I think the only person who says, 'Once you've been around as long as I have. etc ....' is the fool, and you know there is no fool like an old fool. Or as they say up here, 'Knows all and knows nowt!'
. I must confess that the more years I put on the more I realise I don't know. To me the sign of maturity is to realise, as a very wise old man once told me when I was young, that the older we get the more we realise how much we don't know. Any older person who's got any sense will tell you the same.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

DavidA said:


> *To me the sign of maturity is to realise, as a very wise old man once told me when I was young, that the older we get the more we realise how much we don't know. Any older person who's got any sense will tell you the same.*


Well said. .


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> I think the only person who says, 'Once you've been around as long as I have. etc ....' is the fool, and you know there is no fool like an old fool. Or as they say up here, 'Knows all and knows nowt!'
> . I must confess that the more years I put on the more I realise I don't know. To me the sign of maturity is to realise, as a very wise old man once told me when I was young, that the older we get the more we realise how much we don't know. Any older person who's got any sense will tell you the same.


Ironically spoken as a bit of "wisdom" acquired with age. I find such things to be a little condescending, to be honest.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Ironically spoken as a bit of "wisdom" acquired with age. I find such things to be a little condescending, to be honest.


Isn't it condescending to tell someone who does not share your love of composer x that they are therefore somehow deficient or lacking?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Isn't it condescending to tell someone who does not share your love of composer x that they are therefore somehow deficient or lacking?


I don't think so. There are some people who can't design bridges. I don't think it's condescending to point out their deficiency in that area. Nor is it a mark of great compassion and wisdom to tell you you can design a bridge when you can't. If you can't at least give Bach the grudging respect of being a good craftsman, then yeah, your musical understanding is deficient or else you're myopic for some other reason.
At any rate I don't ever recall claiming that increased wisdom or intelligence was responsible for my changes in taste and appreciation. If getting older means adopting this gooey "it's all of equal value because now I'm wise enough to know there's no such thing as good-better-best" claptrap, then "I hope I die before I get old".


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> Ironically spoken as a bit of "wisdom" acquired with age. I find such things to be a little condescending, to be honest.


Why? Well I found out is the more I know the more I realise I don't. Facts. No need to get insecure about it


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> I don't think so. There are some people who can't design bridges. I don't think it's condescending to point out their deficiency in that area. Nor is it a mark of great compassion and wisdom to tell you you can design a bridge when you can't. If you can't at least give Bach the grudging respect of being a good craftsman, then yeah, your musical understanding is deficient or else you're myopic for some other reason.
> At any rate I don't ever recall claiming that increased wisdom or intelligence was responsible for my changes in taste and appreciation. If getting older means adopting this gooey "it's all of equal value because now I'm wise enough to know there's no such thing as good-better-best" claptrap, then "I hope I die before I get old".


So you can't see in yourself what you're claiming you see in others?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Why? Well I found out is the more I know the more I realise I don't. Facts. No need to get insecure about it


What insecurity? I realize there's a lot I don't know. It doesn't necessarily follow that I can't discern good art from bad and that therefore it's all good, bro!


> So you can't see in yourself what you're claiming you see in others?


I'm not the one playing junior-league Freud here.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> I don't think so. There are some people who can't design bridges. I don't think it's condescending to point out their deficiency in that area. Nor is it a mark of great compassion and wisdom to tell you you can design a bridge when you can't.


You claim that you are a better 'bridge builder' - a better judge of excellence in music composition - than those who prefer other composers to your x?



> If you can't at least give Bach the grudging respect of being a good craftsman, then yeah, your musical understanding is deficient or else you're myopic for some other reason.
> At any rate I don't ever recall claiming that increased wisdom or intelligence was responsible for my changes in taste and appreciation. If getting older means adopting this gooey "it's all of equal value because now I'm wise enough to know there's no such thing as good-better-best" claptrap, then "I hope I die before I get old".


Well, if you are asking me - I accept that Bach was an excellent composer notwithstanding the fact that I don't quite 'get' almost all his works...but that isn't really the subject of the thread.

I couldn't presume to pronounce on whether 'it's all equal'.

Why is it so necessary to elevate your opinion consuono?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> What insecurity? I realize there's a lot I don't know. It doesn't necessarily follow that I can't discern good art from bad and that therefore it's all good, bro!
> I'm not the one playing junior-league Freud here.


Just thought it was funny that you thought I was condescending to say a little I knew but it wasn't condescending for you to say you knew better than other people. And if you knew anything about Freud you will know I am not playing the junior Freud league! :lol:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Why is it so necessary to elevate your opinion consuono?


Why is it necessary to elevate yours by weighing in on a topic that you say is of no interest to you?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> ... And if you knew anything about Freud you will know I am not playing the junior Freud league! :lol:


I guess older=smarter after all. Darn it.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Why is it necessary to elevate yours by weighing in on a topic that you say is of no interest to you?


The thread is of interest to me because I remain a little baffled by Bach's popularity...but don't get me wrong - I respect such an opinion.

Where did I say it was not interesting?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> ... it wasn't condescending for you to say you knew better than other people.


My knowledge of Bach's music is most likely better than that of a lot of the critics on the forum...which isn't arrogance, just my interest.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> The thread is of interest to me because I remain a little baffled by Bach's popularity...but don't get me wrong - I respect such an opinion.
> 
> Where did I say it was not interesting?


Where did I say I was elevating my opinion? Anyway, if my opinion is wrong, debate it with something other than "you're an insecure poo poo head".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Just thought it was funny that you thought I was condescending to say a little I knew but it wasn't condescending for you to say you knew better than other people. And if you knew anything about Freud you will know I am not playing the junior Freud league! :lol:


By the way, you're right. "Condescending" isn't the word I was looking for. "Patronizing" is more like it.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

consuono said:


> I don't think so. There are some people who can't design bridges. I don't think it's condescending to point out their deficiency in that area....


Most people could design a bridge, although I doubt many of the bridges would work. If classical music was anywhere near as objective or functional as designing bridges, this wouldn't be a discussion.



consuono said:


> What insecurity? I realize there's a lot I don't know. It doesn't necessarily follow that I can't discern good art from bad and that therefore it's all good, bro!...


Who has measured the, "Goodness"?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Where did I say I was elevating my opinion? Anyway, if my opinion is wrong, debate it with something other than "you're an insecure poo poo head".


Your various posts suggest that you think Bach is objectively superior. Do you think that or not?

I was trying to clarify but you didn't respond.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> If classical music was anywhere near as objective or functional as designing bridges, this wouldn't be a discussion.


In a way though it is. There are objective criteria for determining a well-constructed fugue from a poorly made one, for example.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

BenG said:


> While JS Bach is not the 'favourite' composer of everybody, many still consider him the greatest composer of all time. I saw a reply on a thread saying something like "Music is not a competition, but if it was, JS Bach would win". Do you consider hime to be the 'greatest composer' and if so, what makes so great?


For solo instrument yes, except for the piano which did not exist in his time.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Your various posts suggest that you think Bach is objectively superior. Do you think that or not?


Your various posts suggest that you really haven't listened to very much Bach. Have you or haven't you? Are you just irritated that there are people enthusiastic about a composer you don't find too interesting or even dislike? I've had my say about John Cage, for example. If there's a Cage thread that pops up tomorrow, I won't feel compelled to give that opinion again, though I find admiring his work "baffling". To each his own.

As for "objective", let's imagine that a guy who started piano lessons four months ago decides to give playing Beethoven's Op. 106 a shot. Is it only my subjective opinion if I find the mass of "wrong notes" to be subpar? What right do I have to judge? What are "wrong notes" anyway? Not everything is subjective.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Your various posts suggest that you really haven't listened to very much Bach. Have you or haven't you?


Lots.



> Are you just irritated that there are people enthusiastic about a composer you don't find too interesting or even dislike?


Where did I show irritation? I am asking questions on a forum. I keep asking you questions but you don't often respond with an answer.



> I've had my say about John Cage, for example. If there's a Cage thread that pops up tomorrow, I won't feel compelled to give that opinion again, though I find admiring his work "baffling". To each his own.


Ok, I'll stop asking you.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Lots.


Your Bachian frame of reference would suggest otherwise. I've never seen much in the way of concrete criticism in any of your posts referencing any particular works. Just the vague "I don't get it...it's baffling..."



> Where did I show irritation? I am asking questions on a forum. I keep asking you questions but you don't often respond with an answer.


What questions? How Bach's music is "objectively superior"? Analyze just fugue 22 from WTC II. The materials are there for anyone that's genuinely interested in what sets Bach's music apart if they truly are genuinely interested in that, rather than in trying to put others on the spot on some forum.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Your Bachian frame of reference would suggest otherwise.


Ok, you are okay to continue I assume.

What is a Bachian frame of reference?



> What questions? How Bach's music is "objectively superior"? Analyze just fugue 22 from WTC II. The materials are there for anyone that's genuinely interested in what sets Bach's music apart if they're genuinely interested in that, rather than in trying to put others on the spot on some forum.


When di I 'put you on the spot'?

I'll have a look at that fugue.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> Your Bachian frame of reference would suggest otherwise. I've never seen much in the way of concrete criticism in any of your posts referencing any particular works. Just the vague "I don't get it...it's baffling..."


I don't tend to do such criticism unless asked.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> I guess older=smarter after all. Darn it.


Being smart does not include mentioning Freud!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> My knowledge of Bach's music is most likely better than that of a lot of the critics on the forum...which isn't arrogance, just my interest.


When you actually do know a lot you don't actually need to say it. People only say things like that because of their insecurity


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> By the way, you're right. "Condescending" isn't the word I was looking for. "Patronizing" is more like it.


When you say someone who says they don't know a lot is 'patronising' it seems to reveal a lot about yourself not them. As do others of your posts. But never mind. I love Bach's music but I'm not going to tell other people they should 'get it'.


----------



## Beethoven14 (Feb 14, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> I have never heard of a *suitable definition for objective greatness in music*. From a subjective point of view, yes, but not miles ahead of Mahler and Brahms.


From Samuel Johnson's _Preface to Shakespeare_ (1765):

"To works, however, of which the excellence is not absolute and definite, but gradual and comparative; to works not raised upon principles demonstrative and scientifick, but appealing wholly to observation and experience, no other test can be applied than length of duration and continuance of esteem. What mankind have long possessed they have often examined and compared, and if they persist to value the possession, it is because frequent comparisons have confirmed opinion in its favour. As among the works of nature no man can properly call a river deep or a mountain high, without the knowledge of many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be stiled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind. Demonstration immediately displays its power, and has nothing to hope or fear from the flux of years; but works tentative and experimental must be estimated by their proportion to the general and collective ability of man, as it is discovered in a long succession of endeavours. Of the first building that was raised, it might be with certainty determined that it was round or square, but whether it was spacious or lofty must have been referred to time. The Pythagorean scale of numbers was at once discovered to be perfect; but the poems of Homer we yet know not to transcend the common limits of human intelligence, but by remarking, that nation after nation, and century after century, has been able to do little more than transpose his incidents, new name his characters, and paraphrase his sentiments.The reverence due to writings that have long subsisted arises therefore not from any credulous confidence in the superior wisdom of past ages, or gloomy persuasion of the degeneracy of mankind, but is the consequence of acknowledged and indubitable positions, that what has been longest known has been most considered, and what is most considered is best understood."


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> In a way though it is. There are objective criteria for determining a well-constructed fugue from a poorly made one, for example.


Sure but in what way is a "fugue" better than a "fantasy"? De gustibus non est disputandum.



consuono said:


> What questions? How Bach's music is "objectively superior"? Analyze just fugue 22 from WTC II. The materials are there for anyone that's genuinely interested in what sets Bach's music apart if they truly are genuinely interested in that, rather than in trying to put others on the spot on some forum.


Analysis of music is not "music". Just because you studied some counter-point and know how to write fugue does not give you the authority on deciding which composer is "objectively superior". Your analysis could be a bad one, or your interpretation of your analysis could also be wrong. Music is not about mechanical manipulations. You have to demonstrate in a concrete way to convince others.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Sure but in what way is a "fugue" better than a "fantasy"? De gustibus non est disputandum.


It isn't; but there could be a fugue that's constructed better than a fantasy.



> Analysis of music is not "music". Just because you studied some counter-point and know how to write fugue does not give you the authority on deciding which composer is "objectively superior". Your analysis could be a bad one, or your interpretation of your analysis could also be wrong. Music is not about mechanical manipulations. You have to demonstrate in a concrete way to convince others.


No but analysis is how we come to deepen our appreciation, and it doesn't really require a conservatory education. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just giving my opinion and the reasons that I hold that opinion. If someone absolutely despises Bach it's no skin off my nose, and Bach's music remains what it is. Given the general philosophical orientation these days, I suspect what really rankles is that I say "Bach is best", when there isn't supposed to be a "best".


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> When you say someone who says they don't know a lot is 'patronising' it seems to reveal a lot about yourself not them. As do others of your posts. But never mind. I love Bach's music but I'm not going to tell other people they should 'get it'.


No, "patronizing" would be "that's OK cupcake, Taylor Swift is Just As Good".


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2020)

Beethoven14 said:


> From Samuel Johnson's _Preface to Shakespeare_ (1765):
> 
> "To works, however, of which the excellence is not absolute and definite, but gradual and comparative; to works not raised upon principles demonstrative and scientifick, but appealing wholly to observation and experience, no other test can be applied than length of duration and continuance of esteem. What mankind have long possessed they have often examined and compared, and if they persist to value the possession, it is because frequent comparisons have confirmed opinion in its favour. As among the works of nature no man can properly call a river deep or a mountain high, without the knowledge of many mountains and many rivers; so in the productions of genius, nothing can be stiled excellent till it has been compared with other works of the same kind. Demonstration immediately displays its power, and has nothing to hope or fear from the flux of years; but works tentative and experimental must be estimated by their proportion to the general and collective ability of man, as it is discovered in a long succession of endeavours. Of the first building that was raised, it might be with certainty determined that it was round or square, but whether it was spacious or lofty must have been referred to time. The Pythagorean scale of numbers was at once discovered to be perfect; but the poems of Homer we yet know not to transcend the common limits of human intelligence, but by remarking, that nation after nation, and century after century, has been able to do little more than transpose his incidents, new name his characters, and paraphrase his sentiments.The reverence due to writings that have long subsisted arises therefore not from any credulous confidence in the superior wisdom of past ages, or gloomy persuasion of the degeneracy of mankind, but is the consequence of acknowledged and indubitable positions, that what has been longest known has been most considered, and what is most considered is best understood."


Is this a long way round of saying 'has stood the test of time'?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> No, "patronizing" would be "that's OK cupcake, Taylor Swift is Just As Good".


And of course when people start using phrases like this you know they've lost the argument. It just tells us about you and the fact that you are feeling very insecure in yourself. I've got no problem that you know a lot about Bach but there's no need to tell us all about it because that should come out in your posts. But I found out in life however much I know about something there's always somebody else who knows a lot more


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> And of course when people start using phrases like this you know they've lost the argument. It just tells us about you and the fact that you are feeling very insecure in yourself. I've got no problem that you know a lot about Bach but there's no need to tell us all about it because that should come out in your posts. But I found out in life however much I know about something there's always somebody else who knows a lot more


What insecurity? Maybe you're the one who's projecting. I don't claim to be a Bach scholar, but I get the general feeling that I know a bit more about his music than the usual Bach naysayer on this forum.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> What insecurity? Maybe you're the one who's projecting. I don't claim to be a Bach scholar, but I get the general feeling that I know a bit more about his music than the usual Bach naysayer on this forum.


Sorry mate I'm not using the term 'cupcake' and saying 'a Taylor Swift is just as good' to hide my insecurities! :lol:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate I'm not using the term 'cupcake' and saying 'a Taylor Swift is just as good' to hide my insecurities! :lol:


What, you're saying Taylor Swift is inferior? What gives you the right? You know you've lost the argument when you have to play amateur psychologist to ascribe imaginary maladies...aka the old ad hominem trick.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> What, you're saying Taylor Swift is inferior? What gives you the right? You know you've lost the argument when you have to play amateur psychologist to ascribe imaginary maladies...


My dear old pal I'm not saying anything. You are! You are the one who is covering up for your own insecurities. For goodness sake, just forget about it and get back to thinking that you are a very knowledgeable person. It doesn't matter to me. If it makes you feel better that is fine! :lol:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DavidA said:


> My dear old pal I'm not saying anything. You are! You are the one who is covering up for your own insecurities. For goodness sake, just forget about it and get back to thinking that you are a very knowledgeable person. It doesn't matter to me. If it makes you feel better that is fine! :lol:


Show your own security by making an argument instead of personal attacks. Old pal.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I appreciate that one likes what one likes, and that taste is a highly subjective matter. Still, I am not sure that I recognize a world view in which Taylor Swift is seen as a peer of J. S. Bach.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> Show your own security by making an argument instead of personal attacks. Old pal.


Please take your own advice and get back to talking about JSB.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

consuono said:


> Why is it necessary to elevate yours by weighing in on a topic that you say is of no interest to you?


This thread is of no interest to me, either , but the answer to the topic question is: yes.

For the rest:

Be free.
Pick you own 'greatest composer'. Which is probably the one you like the most.
It may well be Paul Simon, Hildegard von Bingen, Burt Bacharach, Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf, Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwustle-gerspurten-mitzweimache-luber-hundsfut-gumberaber-schönendanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm, or Jean Mouton.

Hot summer greetings from an addicted J.S. Bach worshipper!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

consuono said:


> No but analysis is how we come to deepen our appreciation, and it doesn't really require a conservatory education. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just giving my opinion and the reasons that I hold that opinion. If someone absolutely despises Bach it's no skin off my nose, and Bach's music remains what it is. Given the general philosophical orientation these days, I suspect what really rankles is that I say "Bach is best", when there isn't supposed to be a "best".


If all you can do is to say "Bach is the best" is your opinion and your reason is that you have analyzed pieces of Bach, then you are doing no better than a Taylor Swift's fan claiming that "TS is the best" and that they have analyzed songs of Taylor Swift.

Yes a fugue can be more complicated or more "well constructed" according to the rules of counterpoint than a TS song, but why should one care about complexity and rules of counterpoints? Is your definition of "best" the most complicated or crafty?

Is John Milton "objectively better" than Li Bo or Rumi because of the immense complexity and "well constructedness" of the paradise lost?

Of course, you can use words like "best" or "objective" to your heart's content, but you are not doing a great job showing anything "best" or "objective" about Bach's music, or that your opinion is anything different from a TS fanboy claiming that "Taylor Swift is the best", except that you are conforming to the stereotypical banality that everyone knows, such as "Beethoven is the best", "Mozart is the best", "Shakespeare is the best", "Goethe is the best", "Homer is the best", "Dante is the best", "Plato is the best", "Descarte is the best", "Kant is the best", "Michelangelo is the best", "Rembrandt is the best", "Picasso is the best", "Orson Wells is the best", "Hitchcock is the best", "Kurosawa is the best", "Tarkovsky is the best"...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I have some sympathy for consuonos opinion on Bach, especially when appraising his technique. 
For me, what sets him apart within the contrapuntal style is not only the logical inevitability and expressivity of the linear writing, but the merger of such with powerful and in his case, subservient vertical consequences of such an approach.

The reason for this imv is Bach's preference for the dominance of the linear over the vertical. The impetus and logic of multiple, simultaneous melody is very often allowed to 'play out', or run its course without too much consideration of the momentary vertical dissonances that ensue. These moments of dissonance are therefore fleeting but if one isolates them on the manuscript they are quite eyebrow and ear raising in their daring. In context, they infuse his music with impetus by allowing inevitability for line whilst creating a vertical richness that is much more free and expressively supple and transcends the text book artifice for me.

It is these very moments I believe that helps to give Bach's work an expressive edge over many composers, especially his contemporaries and the combination of melody and harmony in such a way elevates his expressive reach to some of the greatest heights. The perfect marriage of art and artifice.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mikeh375 said:


> I have some sympathy for consuonos opinion on Bach, especially when appraising his technique.
> For me, what sets him apart within the contrapuntal style is not only the logical inevitability and expressivity of the linear writing, but the merger of such with powerful, yet in his case, subservient vertical consequences of such an approach.
> 
> The reason for this imv is Bach's preference for the dominance of the linear over the vertical. The impetus and logic of multiple, simultaneous melody is very often allowed to 'play out', or run its course without too much consideration of momentary vertical dissonance. These moments of dissonance are therefore fleeting but if one isolates them on the manuscript they are quite eyebrow and ear raising in their daring. In context, they infuse his music with impetus by allowing inevitability for line whilst creating a vertical richness that is much more free and supple and transcends artifice.
> ...


I think it is true that the 'harmony' of contrapuntal lines is indeed fleeting - it doesn't have enough time to establish as a held chord does - so the dissonance is not perceived in the same way; it's more like many passing notes occuring all at once.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

So many thumbs in braces. I love this thread.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

consuono said:


> It isn't; but there could be a fugue that's constructed better than a fantasy.
> 
> No but analysis is how we come to deepen our appreciation, and it doesn't really require a conservatory education. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm just giving my opinion and the reasons that I hold that opinion. If someone absolutely despises Bach it's no skin off my nose, and Bach's music remains what it is. *Given the general philosophical orientation these days, I suspect what really rankles is that I say "Bach is best", when there isn't supposed to be a "best".*


It doesn't rankle at all, at least not with me. What it does strike me as being is defying logical analysis in that we cannot possibly say that 'Bach is best' when he didn't explore some of the mediums that other composers did. I'm one who believes he is right up there with the other giants of classical music - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - but to say who is the 'best' strikes me as illogical when Bach never explored the string quartet or symphony like Beethoven or the opera with the genius of Mozart. So please stop saying your little question 'rankles' with others - we just find it somewhat illogical when talking about composers.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mikeh375 said:


> I have some sympathy for consuonos opinion on Bach, especially when appraising his technique.
> For me, what sets him apart within the contrapuntal style is not only the logical inevitability and expressivity of the linear writing, but the merger of such with powerful and in his case, subservient vertical consequences of such an approach.
> 
> The reason for this imv is Bach's preference for the dominance of the linear over the vertical. The impetus and logic of multiple, simultaneous melody is very often allowed to 'play out', or run its course without too much consideration of the momentary vertical dissonances that ensue. These moments of dissonance are therefore fleeting but if one isolates them on the manuscript they are quite eyebrow and ear raising in their daring. In context, they infuse his music with impetus by allowing inevitability for line whilst creating a vertical richness that is much more free and expressively supple and transcends the text book artifice.
> ...


The criteria where Bach falls short of later composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven for me is in variety in forms, textures, rhythms and intensity. I feel with Bach it's always polyphonic and "ON", while with those others the variety can achieve much greater drama and emotion.

BTW, I just sampled a few of your preludes and fugues. I liked the Fugue in B the most, the sonorities are more up my alley.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The criteria where Bach falls short of later composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven for me is in variety in forms, textures, rhythms and intensity. I feel with Bach it's always polyphonic and "ON", while with those others the variety can achieve much greater drama and emotion.
> 
> BTW, I just sampled a few of your preludes and fugues. I liked the Fugue in B the most, the sonorities are more up my alley.


That's reasonable Phil, even me, a PapaBach nut, can only take him for about 3 hours or so... His polyphony is always ON as you say, but it is glorious in controlled listening (and playing) conditions.

(it's very nice of you to mention my efforts, thankyou, glad you got something out of what you heard. The P+F in B is the most dissonant one I'd say. That too took its cue from Bach's approach as did all the others, despite the disparate language).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I think it is true that the 'harmony' of contrapuntal lines is indeed fleeting - it doesn't have enough time to establish as a held chord does - so the dissonance is not perceived in the same way; it's more like many passing notes occuring all at once.


Perhaps Jan. To my ears, those dissonances are wonderful and represent a freedom in expression that is so rich.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mikeh375 said:


> Perhaps Jan. To my ears, those dissonances are wonderful and represent a freedom in expression that is so rich.


I'm curious Mike - do you find Bach's Double Violin Concerto 'less' impressive than the works generally referred to as exemplifying Bach's genius (ie WTC, Goldberg, A of F, Bm Mass and Passions)?

I have mentioned before how much I do enjoy the said Concerto.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

janxharris said:


> I'm curious Mike - do you find Bach's Double Violin Concerto 'less' impressive than the works generally referred to as exemplifying Bach's genius (ie WTC, Goldberg, A of F, Bm Mass and Passions)?
> 
> I have mentioned before how much I do enjoy the said Concerto.


Not at all. The work has as much to admire for me, as anything else of his does and I find much refined beauty in it. (it's a nice performance you've linked). I don't care much for lists of 'best, or greatest' tbh.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mikeh375 said:


> Not at all. The work has as much to admire for me, as anything else of his does and I find much refined beauty in it. (it's a nice performance you've linked). I don't care much for lists of 'best, or greatest' tbh.


I was looking for a version that gave more gravity to the opening movement which I think suits the piece.

Extraordinarily good music imo.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

DavidA said:


> It doesn't rankle at all, at least not with me. What it does strike me as being is defying logical analysis in that we cannot possibly say that 'Bach is best' when he didn't explore some of the mediums that other composers did.


There's no "we". There's you with the wrong answer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> The criteria where Bach falls short of later composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven for me is in variety in forms, textures, rhythms and intensity. I feel with Bach it's always polyphonic and "ON", while with those others the variety can achieve much greater drama and emotion.
> BTW, I just sampled a few of your preludes and fugues. I liked the Fugue in B the most, the sonorities are more up my alley.


Although Bach's craftsmanship is supreme, I think that people tend to overlook the "outwardly-Dionysian" qualities (I'm not sure if this is the right term) and the emancipation from the Doctrine of Affections that came with the rise of classicism, which peaked with Beethoven's use of dynamics. 
Ex. Dissonant strettos of et vitam venturi: 





27:40 ~ 28:00





0:20 ~ 0:35





But also a similar argument can be made how the classicists would not have conceived anything like Wagner's Tristan. 
I still see the best parts of different periods (idioms) as apples and oranges. There are still profound and nostalgic elements of Bach that are not found in later music.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> The criteria where Bach falls short of later composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven for me is in variety in forms, textures, rhythms and intensity. I feel with Bach it's always polyphonic and "ON", while with those others the variety can achieve much greater drama and emotion. ....


I'd say Bach excels Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven in intensity...and rhythms?? As far as forms are concerned, no, Bach didn't compose a symphony (not yet current) or opera. With Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven you probably actually have more monotony of form with the ever-present sonata form or rondos.
Plus all the composers mentioned wrote richly polyphonic music, though not necessarily strictly in fugue form.



UniversalTuringMachine said:


> ...
> Of course, you can use words like "best" or "objective" to your heart's content, but you are not doing a great job showing anything "best" or "objective" about Bach's music, or that your opinion is anything different from a TS fanboy claiming that "Taylor Swift is the best", except that you are conforming to the stereotypical banality that everyone knows, such as "Beethoven is the best", "Mozart is the best", "Shakespeare is the best", "Goethe is the best", "Homer is the best", "Dante is the best", "Plato is the best", "Descarte is the best", "Kant is the best", "Michelangelo is the best", "Rembrandt is the best", "Picasso is the best", "Orson Wells is the best", "Hitchcock is the best", "Kurosawa is the best", "Tarkovsky is the best"...


Do you think Bach is "better" than Taylor Swift? Do you think there is any such thing as "bad, good, better, best" at all in any of the arts, or is it all totally subjective so that Hank Williams can in no way be called inferior to Mozart? Of course Ed Wood Jr is "just as good as" Orson Welles in Subjectivityland. :lol:


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

DavidA said:


> It doesn't rankle at all, at least not with me. What it does strike me as being is defying logical analysis in that we cannot possibly say that 'Bach is best' when he didn't explore some of the mediums that other composers did. I'm one who believes he is right up there with the other giants of classical music - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart - but to say who is the 'best' strikes me as illogical when Bach never explored the string quartet or symphony like Beethoven or the opera with the genius of Mozart. So please stop saying your little question 'rankles' with others - we just find it somewhat illogical when talking about composers.


Extrapolating your argument also means that Mozart isn't a better composer than Schönberg, since he did not explore the serialism.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

premont said:


> Extrapolating your argument also means that Mozart isn't a better composer than Schönberg, since he did not explore the serialism.


I think their argument ultimately is that there is no such thing as a "better composer" since such values are strictly subjective. And then when you point out that that sort of thing is just a reflection of postmodern dogma, then postmodernism doesn't exist. Of course water probably doesn't exist to a fish, either.

Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Mozart and Schoenberg also never explored composing 32-bar songs for voice, lead electric guitar, rhythm electric guitar, electric bass and drums. Roll over, Beethoven, and tell Tchaikovsky the news.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

premont said:


> Extrapolating your argument also means that Mozart isn't a better composer than Schönberg, since he did not explore the serialism.


You could say that. But at least I can listen to Mozart without wincing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

premont said:


> Extrapolating your argument also means that Mozart isn't a better composer than Schönberg, since he did not explore the serialism.


"Strict Serial Technique in Classical Music" by Hans Keller is an interesting read regarding this topic. ( It's only 12 pages. You can read it online for free if you register)

Here's an excerpt from the article:
"we note that K 428 in E♭ is another quartet of which the youthful Schoenberg had acquired an intimate, inside knowledge. The canonic opening of the first movement's development section (Ex. 3), which exposes the twelve notes within the narrowest space, is a mature example of strict serialism: an anti- (tri-) tonal row of three notes and its mirror forms (BS, I, R, RI) revolves both horizontally and vertically underneath the rotations of its own segmental subordinate row, which is a series in extremest miniature consisting of two notes at the interval of a minor second.








This is purest Schoenberg. In a forthcoming Mozart symposium, I am in fact trying to demonstrate that the passacaglia from the chamber-musical Pierrot lunaire is actually if unconsciously modelled on this development. At the same time, the latter's technique looks far into Schoenberg's own future, down to the (pan)tonal serial technique of the Ode to Napoleon. Beside unifying the anti-harmonic passage as such, that is to say, Mozart's strict serial method has to conduct it back into its wider, harmonic context, whence the series continue to rotate down to the perfect C minor cadence, every note of which remains serially determined."


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Thanks for the suggestion, Hammeredklavier


----------



## ClassicalMaestro (Dec 10, 2017)

I listen to Bach more than any other composer.


----------



## OperasAndPassions (Aug 14, 2020)

He is my personal favorite composer, but I can't measure if he is the best. I guess no one can do such thing, in any art form.
But, to both my "heart" and "mind", he surely is the top guy.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I'd say Bach excels Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven in intensity...and rhythms?? As far as forms are concerned, no, Bach didn't compose a symphony (not yet current) or opera. With Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven you probably actually have more monotony of form with the ever-present sonata form or rondos.


There's is a lot of intensity in Bach, but it's usually an expression of "divine transcendence" rather than "controlled violence". There's a quality of being "subdued" and a certain lack of contrast and "dynamic change of feeling" within each movement (due to the baroque "doctrine of affections"), but this does not mean Bach lacked in sense or skills as a composer. It's only because of the time he lived in.
_"I was obliged to be industrious. Whoever is equally industrious will succeed equally well."_ -J.S. Bach.

Sebastian wrote "Soli Deo gloria" on his scores, whereas his second son Emanuel wrote "CPE Bachs Empfindungen". Mozart wrote on the dedication page of his Haydn quartets that they were his "six children". See how the way to think about music changed.
Then came Beethoven (who explored aggressive use of dynamics with rhythm in works such as the serioso quartet), and then the Romantics, notably Wagner, who explored wild emotions such as love, anxiety, grief, with freer forms.

See how "feelings" change within a movement, in the classicist idiom:
*[ 2:30 ]*




*[ 10:30 ]*


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

JSP is certainly one of the great masters of music and is university recognises as that. He certainly wrote one of the greatest works ever written in the St Matthew Passion. Weather of course he was the greatest composer is just a matter of opinion


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I can not live without his music, but I still would not say that he is the greatest. Being the greatest has no meaning for JS Bach himself.


----------



## Presence (Jul 18, 2020)

Hmmm... Oh how sumptuous it is to hate the other for their inferior tastes! Hmmm... How exquisite is their judgement for comparing a pop star to baroque composer! I wonder, really, how the acquisition of wisdom is possible for such people, whom make such absurd comparisons? Are such comparisons ever sound… sensible, or just deprived of any logic, cohesion, or even an ounce of fairness, whatsoever? Are such comparisons an object of a correct method in acquiring knowledge of Bach? Is there a purpose to such extreme oppositions of musical ability? 

Is wisdom ever possible for such group of people--or is it rather unmitigated disdain, uninterrupted and blinded hatred, the greatest approximate cause, the motivator of such judgments? Only good sense can shelter us from acknowledging such absurdities. Good sense is needed and a mental capacity against self-aggrandization and self-importance of oneself in sacrifice for another's under-development in musical discernment; only an awareness of suspending judgement on things that are obviously impossible to achieve which only brings unproductive arrogance for the classist, such as matters of taste. You will not be able to convince a pop enthusiast to understand classical music for their eternal lapsing judgement. Or vice-versa. Let them be. The art of a classist is not to be so narrow, snobbish and intentionally cruel, even if you are a Bach enthusiast. 


Stable rationalities underlying taste are impossible to achieve. Kant attempted it. He failed. It is still possible to love Taylor Swift and Bach all in the same day! There are no contradictions in that! And if you don’t, then, all the well, too. However! You will not be able to reconcile them! Ultimately, these sorts of judgements speak volumes of latent immaturities and severely lacking spiritual deficiencies. The shrinkage of a pop star to dust and the humiliating attitude for those whose tastes in music are so underdeveloped is truly unnecessary, and eventually just insignificant compared to the quality of the pleasure sought from Bach. Please be more mature. Let people be people, and you, you.

As for Bach the composer, he is a modern day quantum physicist attempting to describe the dynamic workings of the Godhead himself.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

The dumps of leftism also came from the same nationality where JS Bach was born. Do not modernists attack classical music? not denigrating classical on the basis of lack of technical challenges and being boring? Simply truth. Modernist, post-modernist in the leftist strain are my antagonists, too many of them. Do not try to sell illegal opiums under the cover of the past glories. I only target people who judge music primarily on technical terms without giving attention to spontaineous enjoyments. Lord Russell himself criticized people who said Shakespeare as snobbish as being coldly analytical. I am in the same way while targeting the leftists.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I refuse to pity the left. Sorry, but I may persist. They trade their foundamentally human conscience for the complicated plots of modernist politicization. They bring the boredom of politicization into every aspects of life, always try to be innovative by attacking the others and the older heritages. Without Renaissance when people tried to recover the classical Greco-roman cultures, no better music than voodoo chants could have been created in Europe. It was the wisdom of classicism of being in harmony with the antiquity that gave birth to the brightest innovations in human history. Why is it wrong to persist in classicism, how can I show the clear thread of morale if I try to negotiate with countless modernists all the time? If you do not attack classical music, you can attack my personality, it is ok, I take no offence at all. All my point is to persist in classicism.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

I apologize to anyone who takes offence of my past tirades. It is how I tried to show the spiritual stoutness of classicism. I never meant to offend anyone, but I may persist in vocally defensive of classical aesthetics. :tiphat:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ariasexta said:


> I apologize to anyone who takes offence of my past tirades. It is how I tried to show the spiritual stoutness of classicism. I never meant to offend anyone, but I may persist in vocally defensive of classical aesthetics. :tiphat:


I couldn't understand your posts Ariasexta.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Here is Bertrand Russels quotes on Shakepeare and music:

_Children are made to learn bits of Shakespeare by heart, with the result that ever after they associate him with pedantic boredom. If they could meet him in the flesh, full of jollity and ale, they would be astonished, and if they had never heard of him before they might be led by his jollity and ale, the would be astonished, and if they had never heard of him before they might be led by his jollity to see what he had written. But if at school they had been innoculated against him, they will never be able to anjoy him. The same sort thing applies to music lessons. Human being have certain capacities of spontaneous enjoyments, but moralists and pedants possess themself of the apparatus of these enjoyments, and having extracted what they consider the poison of pleasure they leave them dreary and dismal and devoid of everything that gives them value. Shakespeare did not write with a view to boring school children; he wrote with a view to delight his audiences. If he does not give you delight, you had better ignore him. 
_

Music is obviously also fallen prey to the same sort of boredom associated with technical pedantry, while in literature people criticized affected pedantry since Don Quixote, and Montaigne, but in music, nobody tries to stop affectedness after the classical era. In 20th century music making has been naked to the modernist invasion without any protective drapery. Everybody goes whoahu whuahu for all kinds irregularities, like paintings, but note that painting are served mostly as financial tools for investment, the artistic values is not quite important nowaday. Music would only go corrupt along with the new types of financial product as their side-product if it tries to corroborate with the modernist taste.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

"Is JS Bach the greatest composer of all time?"

Yes.

V

[End of thread. You're welcome.]


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Ariasexta said:


> I refuse to pity the left. Sorry, but I may persist. They trade their foundamentally human conscience for the complicated plots of modernist politicization. They bring the boredom of politicization into every aspects of life, always try to be innovative by attacking the others and the older heritages. Without Renaissance when people tried to recover the classical Greco-roman cultures, no better music than voodoo chants could have been created in Europe. It was the wisdom of classicism of being in harmony with the antiquity that gave birth to the brightest innovations in human history. Why is it wrong to persist in classicism, how can I show the clear thread of morale if I try to negotiate with countless modernists all the time? If you do not attack classical music, you can attack my personality, it is ok, I take no offence at all. All my point is to persist in classicism.


Can't someone can be a Classicist in a more modern idiom like Rihm and others? Does modernity necessarily align with the Left?


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Presence said:


> Hmmm... Oh how sumptuous it is to hate the other for their inferior tastes! Hmmm... How exquisite is their judgement for comparing a pop star to baroque composer! I wonder, really, how the acquisition of wisdom is possible for such people, whom make such absurd comparisons? Are such comparisons ever sound… sensible, or just deprived of any logic, cohesion, or even an ounce of fairness, whatsoever? Are such comparisons an object of a correct method in acquiring knowledge of Bach? Is there a purpose to such extreme oppositions of musical ability?
> 
> Is wisdom ever possible for such group of people--or is it rather unmitigated disdain, uninterrupted and blinded hatred, the greatest approximate cause, the motivator of such judgments? Only good sense can shelter us from acknowledging such absurdities. Good sense is needed and a mental capacity against self-aggrandization and self-importance of oneself in sacrifice for another's under-development in musical discernment; only an awareness of suspending judgement on things that are obviously impossible to achieve which only brings unproductive arrogance for the classist, such as matters of taste. You will not be able to convince a pop enthusiast to understand classical music for their eternal lapsing judgement. Or vice-versa. Let them be. The art of a classist is not to be so narrow, snobbish and intentionally cruel, even if you are a Bach enthusiast.
> 
> Stable rationalities underlying taste are impossible to achieve. Kant attempted it. He failed. It is still possible to love Taylor Swift and Bach all in the same day! There are no contradictions in that! And if you don't, then, all the well, too. However! You will not be able to reconcile them! Ultimately, these sorts of judgements speak volumes of latent immaturities and severely lacking spiritual deficiencies. The shrinkage of a pop star to dust and the humiliating attitude for those whose tastes in music are so underdeveloped is truly unnecessary, and eventually just insignificant compared to the quality of the pleasure sought from Bach. Please be more mature. Let people be people, and you, you.


I'm not sure if this is anything but a portentously worded and grandiloquent expression of the innate moral superiority of a subjectivist view on art as, cue the irony, this view is less pretentious. The irony is, perhaps, furthered by the fact that this necessarily implies an objectivist stance on morality.

The comedic effect of using sentences like "ltimately, these sorts of judgements speak volumes of latent immaturities and severely lacking spiritual deficiencies" in rallying against people one finds elitist is perhaps not as the author intended.



Presence said:


> As for Bach the composer, he is a modern day quantum physicist attempting to describe the dynamic workings of the Godhead himself.


As someone who holds a degree in physics, I can assure you this makes no sense.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Presence said:


> Hmmm... Oh how sumptuous it is to hate the other for their inferior tastes! Hmmm... How exquisite is their judgement for comparing a pop star to baroque composer! I wonder, really, how the acquisition of wisdom is possible for such people, whom make such absurd comparisons? Are such comparisons ever sound… sensible, or just deprived of any logic, cohesion, or even an ounce of fairness, whatsoever? Are such comparisons an object of a correct method in acquiring knowledge of Bach? Is there a purpose to such extreme oppositions of musical ability?


Wait a second. Why is the comparison "absurd"? How can you make such a value judgement? If music is just music and everything is subjective, then there really is no dividing line between genres, so...

How sumptuous it is not to have to follow one's dearly-held spoonfed inanities to their logical conclusions. By the way, I never said I hate anybody. Nor did I say that appreciating Bach's music makes me a better, wiser person (although I do think that great music can and probably should have that effect). I do think though that "not getting" Bach indicates a fundamental *musical* blind spot, whether the one who has it is another famous composer/conductor or a "normal civilian".

As for the rest, BachIsBest said it...best above:


BachIsBest said:


> I'm not sure if this is anything but a portentously worded and grandiloquent expression of the innate moral superiority of a subjectivist view on art as, cue the irony, this view is less pretentious. The irony is, perhaps, furthered by the fact that this necessarily implies an objectivist stance on morality.
> 
> The comedic effect of using sentences like "ltimately, these sorts of judgements speak volumes of latent immaturities and severely lacking spiritual deficiencies" in rallying against people one finds elitist is perhaps not as the author intended.



Bingo. "I'm a better, wiser person because I'm not like some icky 'objectivist'..." :lol:


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Can't someone can be a Classicist in a more modern idiom like Rihm and others? Does modernity necessarily align with the Left?


Neoclassicism is the answer, but all prominent ideologists of this school have been heavily attacked by the left, and most of them do not deal directly with music. Like Oscar Wilde, Georg Hegel; most of romantic composers can be considered as neoclassicist as well, like Piotr Tchaikovsky and Johannes Brahms, theoretically I do not have problems with them. In the sustenance of classicism staying neutral is still insufficient, aggressive attitudes are also necessary, music is not always the forefront in this avant-guard movement, there must be a philosophical backup in a bulk of literature which shows incompromising resolution and dedication to the set direction, such philosophical rhetorics is to be recollected from neoclassicist philosophers. It also needs artists like Gustav Leonhardt who could be* whole-heartedly* dedicated to the field not like Harnoncourt and Herreweghe which time to time forayed into romantic fields.

Argument with the left will be futile, verbal debates with the left is doomed to fail. Utmost dedication and stoutness in spirit is only the answer, furthermore, we have Oscar Wilde and Georg W F Hegel and Edmund Burke to recollect our philosophical backup, although we do not have such classicists recently. In short, the problem is that we do not have many dedicated minds to the field at the moment, once we lost dedicated people, we lost all the classical beauties.

Modern age is an age of general conflicts, the quotes of Charles Dickens in the beginning of A Tale of Two Cities still applies. It was the best of times, was the worst of times. While we can enjoy music through the best media but we also have the worst antagonists. Isnt it that classicists and conservativists always feel like the weaker part since the end of WW2? It is the propaganda at work, we must not argue with propagandas, but introspectively we consolidate our resolution and heritage. In classicist mind, everything unites into one idea, music is an indispensable part of this idea, also the most vulnerable cultural part, we aim to sustain and uphold many many other forms of art and heritage along with music. The left divide and destroy, we classicists unite and uphold.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

The thread that keeps on giving.


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

It always amazes me how many pieces Bach composed, how many of them (all) are almost perfectly constructed in harmony, counterpoint and melody. I have no idea how someone could have the responsibility of a large family, while still writing 1000+ pieces of genius.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> I do think though that "not getting" Bach indicates a fundamental *musical* blind spot, whether the one who has it is another famous composer/conductor or a "normal civilian".


No one is under an obligation to 'get' any composer. We might also ponder if a composer has what it takes to engage all and sundry.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> No one is under an obligation to 'get' any composer.


No, and nobody's under any obligation to learn about painting or sculpture or to get Shakespeare or even to learn how to read. So what. It's not exactly a mark of virtue not to "get" any of the above either. I don't get ballet or British composers after Purcell. I recognize that as a shortcoming in my own ability to appreciate, not that ballet and British composers were under an obligation to accommodate my thickness, or that of every other potential audience member. If someone pointed out that I'm lacking in critical skills or knowledge in appreciating dance and overall musical quality, I'd probably have to agree.


> We might also ponder if a composer has what it takes to engage all and sundry.


 We might also ponder which composers have come closest to achieving that, and why.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> No, and nobody's under any obligation to learn about painting or sculpture or to get Shakespeare or even to learn how to read. So what. It's not exactly a mark of virtue not to "get" any of the above either.


Why are you conflating learning with 'getting'? There would be no chance to 'get' something we did not initially learn about.



> We might also ponder which composers have come closest to achieving that, and why.


Bach, Mozart and Beethoven have clearly done so. As for why - it's difficult to say.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> No, and nobody's under any obligation to learn about painting or sculpture or to get Shakespeare or even to learn how to read. So what. It's not exactly a mark of virtue not to "get" any of the above either. I don't get ballet or British composers after Purcell. I recognize that as a shortcoming in my own ability to appreciate, not that ballet and British composers were under an obligation to accommodate my thickness, or that of every other potential audience member. If someone pointed out that I'm lacking in critical skills or knowledge in appreciating dance and overall musical quality, I'd probably have to agree.


One should acknowledge the achievements of those such as you mention even if one doesn't quite get them. That's enough isn't it?

It's difficult say with certainty that you have 'shortcomings' in the example you gave.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

janxharris said:


> Why are you conflating learning with 'getting'? There would be no chance to 'get' something we did not initially learn about.


I didn't "get" algebra until I learned it. There's a lot of music I didn't "get" until I learned about it. I don't see it necessarily as a "well it didn't grab me immediately so...meh" sort of thing. There's honestly not many composers that any of us can't "get". What you're doing is conflating "get" with "like" or "approve".


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

consuono said:


> I didn't "get" algebra until I learned it. There's a lot of music I didn't "get" until I learned about it. I don't see it necessarily as a "well it didn't grab me immediately so...meh" sort of thing. There's honestly not many composers that any of us can't "get". What you're doing is conflating "get" with "like" or "approve".


I braodly agree. Not sure about your last sentence.


----------



## Terrapin (Apr 15, 2011)

There is no universal scoring system that objectively places Bach above all others. Subjectively speaking, the answer is "No, not even the 20th greatest of all time." Nothing against him - I just don't like Baroque.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

He is my current favorite.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Terrapin said:


> Subjectively speaking, the answer is "No, not even the 20th greatest of all time." Nothing against him - I just don't like Baroque.


Interesting. I also simply don't like baroque - and yet Bach is my #1 composer. Vivaldi is next from the baroque masters, and would not make my top 100 composers.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Art Rock said:


> Interesting. I also simply don't like baroque - and yet Bach is my #1 composer. Vivaldi is next from the baroque masters, and would not make my top 100 composers.


I guess you just can't Handel the rest of the Baroque masters.

But seriously, have you heard the _Messiah_?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

BachIsBest said:


> I guess you just can't Handel the rest of the Baroque masters.
> 
> But seriously, have you heard the _Messiah_?


Of course, and far more often than I care for. Can't stand it.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Of course, and far more often than I care for. Can't stand it.


I'm with Art Rock. Very different music than Bach, aside from being written in the same period. The Messiah strikes me as music to meet ultra-refined upper class taste of the time.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> I'm with Art Rock. Very different music than Bach, aside from being written in the same period. The Messiah strikes me as music to meet ultra-refined upper class taste of the time.


Refined upper class taste? Come off it!


----------



## Eclectic Al (Apr 23, 2020)

Art Rock said:


> Interesting. I also simply don't like baroque - and yet Bach is my #1 composer. Vivaldi is next from the baroque masters, and would not make my top 100 composers.


I'm a bit similar. I don't mind a bit of Vivaldi or Handel (particularly Opus 6), but I rarely reach for them, whereas Bach is very much in my group of most listened to composers (- not sure I have a number 1). Those three are all very different from each other. Sometimes people say that all baroque (or indeed all early classical music) sounds the same to them - I find that baffling.

Perhaps I should give Telemann more of a chance. Has anyone got a suggestion for his best non-vocal compositions and top performances?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Perhaps I should give Telemann more of a chance. Has anyone got a suggestion for his best non-vocal compositions and top performances?


These are the pieces that first sparked my interest in Telemann a long long time ago:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I think another composer from that era who's worth a listen is Silvius Leopold Weiss, a friend of Bach's who composed mainly for the lute. Here's his 34th lute suite played on a gazillion-string guitar, which I think sounds fine:


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"Sheep May Safely Graze" BWV 208 - Johannes Sebastian Bach, Arr. Egon Petri - Pianist Lucas Porter


----------



## StDior (May 28, 2015)

Eclectic Al said:


> Perhaps I should give Telemann more of a chance. Has anyone got a suggestion for his best non-vocal compositions and top performances?


I could recommend these Telemann pieces and performances:

Concerto for Traverso and Recorder in E minor, TWV 52:e1





Quartet in E minor TWV 43:e4 (Paris quartets No.12 or Nouveaux quatuors No.6)









Quartet in G major, TWV 43:G2 ( Tafelmusic Production I, No.2)





Viola da gamba Sonata, TWV 41:e5 (Essercizii musici, No.17)





Interestingly I like the last movements the most at all of these pieces, except for at the Tafelmusic quartet, so definitely go upto the end.

Returning to the thread's topic: Yes, Bach is the greatest, imho.


----------

