# Could another composer be better than bach?



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

Bach is the best Baroque composer. Sure the other lot are great and their music has a purpose whatever it may be. Bach takes music to a profound, deeply spiritual level and provides a gravitas in our lives that is found only in his music, in particular his vocal works. So my question is this: 

Had there lived a composer with the same musical ingenuity as Bach had - the same 'IQ' and fertile imagination. Would their musical style mimic that of Bach's? Could another 'style' of music come about that we would have considered greater than Bach's? Would such music be contrapuntal in nature - what would it sound like? Does Bach's music represent only a fraction of what 'could be'?

Is there better music to be heard from the Baroque era? Or will any such music converge on Bach's style? How do we define 'better' music? When I listen to a Bach concerto, I think 'I wish he would have extended this particular musical idea. The middle of some of his 2 and 4 harpsichord concertos are highly contrapuntal and his ideas begin to increase in complexity - taking him right up to the apotheosis of his genius. Then he almost swiftly brings the section to a close to and repeats. Sometimes I feel like he hasn't quite exhausted the idea but I go back and reply that particular part many times over because it is truly astonishing. 

Of course there is a huge subjectivity to this question. 

This is an interesting discussion and I hope to hear some informative replies from those more an advanced music background. I am merely a novice in this respect but a dedicated listener nonetheless. 

Happy listening!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

COULD there be a greater composer than Bach? Certainly. HAS there been a greater composer than Bach? None of which I am aware.


----------



## Vivaldi (Aug 26, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> COULD there be a greater composer than Bach? Certainly. HAS there been a greater composer than Bach? None of which I am aware.


In a sense this question has no meaning. It's like asking 'what was before the big bang'. Why do you think there could have been a better composer than Bach? After all Bach did take the Baroque style to its greatest extent so to say that there could have been better is very interesting


----------



## Notung (Jun 12, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> In a sense this question has no meaning. It's like asking 'what was before the big bang'. Why do you think there could have been a better composer than Bach? After all Bach did take the Baroque style to its greatest extent so to say that there could have been better is very interesting


In a universe of infinitesimal infinities, ANYTHING is possible. Of course there is always the possibility of somebody outdoing Bach. Baroque COULD have been taken further, it just wasn't. (Not to say that Bach isn't the most perfect composer, anyway)


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Well, suppose we discover a library full of manuscripts by a hitherto unknown composer. How can we tell whether he's greater than Bach or not?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

One just cannot get enough of his music. It warrants repeated visits. There's just a consistency with his pieces that make his the very greatest of the greats.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't know -- Ralph Vaughan-Williams is better than Bach at large orchestral sonorities. Beethoven is better than Bach at angry defiant jabs. Jongen is better than Bach at writing Jongen.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Bach schmock! So the guy could write several tunes at once -- the equivalent of Tuvan throat-singing at best, or if not at that level, at least as diverting as a performing seal. Of course, the novelty wears off quickly... :lol:


----------



## chrisco97 (May 22, 2013)

In my opinion, that is completely subjective. At the current moment I would tell you Beethoven is better than Bach, but that is because I like him better. I will admit I am becoming more and more fond of Bach's music, but he still does not compare to Beethoven for me. However Bach probably had a greater importance in music. I think it is all in how you hear and receive the music.

Once again, that is my opinion and nobody has to agree with me.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Vivaldi said:


> In a sense this question has no meaning. It's like asking 'what was before the big bang'. Why do you think there could have been a better composer than Bach? After all Bach did take the Baroque style to its greatest extent so to say that there could have been better is very interesting


It's all in the grammar you see.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Guillaume Dufay. 

QEFD. (Sorry guys, but I think I might even be serious.)


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2013)

Vivaldi said:


> Bach is the best Baroque composer. Sure the other lot are great and their music has a purpose whatever it may be. Bach takes music to a profound, deeply spiritual level and provides a gravitas in our lives that is found only in his music, in particular his vocal works. So my question is this:
> 
> Had there lived a composer with the same musical ingenuity as Bach had - the same 'IQ' and fertile imagination. Would their musical style mimic that of Bach's? Could another 'style' of music come about that we would have considered greater than Bach's? Would such music be contrapuntal in nature - what would it sound like? Does Bach's music represent only a fraction of what 'could be'?
> 
> Is there better music to be heard from the Baroque era? Or will any such music converge on Bach's style?


Your question does just relate to Baroque, doesn't it? You don't claim that he is the best of all composers of all periods, do you?

I'm just checking before members wander too far off into the long grass of Mozart v Beethoven v Bach (again!)


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Yes, Bach is the most popular pick for "greatest composer" here on TC, but it is really _sooo subjective_-I don't see the point in carrying on this conversation!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Yes, Bach is the most popular pick for "greatest composer" here on TC, but it is really _sooo subjective_...


Actually Beethoven carries the day quite often. Of course, that is only due to the degeneracy of the times.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2013)

chrisco97 said:


> Beethoven is better than Bach





KenOC said:


> Actually Beethoven carries the day quite often. Of course, that is only due to the degeneracy of the times.


Come on guys - I know ArtMusic would have us all allow all and any definitions of anything and everything, but until Vivaldi gets back and confirms we're not just talking Baroque, keep LvB out of it....

...or is he Baroque and I didn't know?


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Actually Beethoven carries the day quite often. Of course, that is only due to the degeneracy of the times.


True, but my statistic came from the "TC's 50 Greatest Composers" monumental thread and polling method, which died many months ago. As of that time, Bach was a clear first, with Mozart coming next and then Beethoven. Whoever was next (who was probably Schubert or somebody) was far behind those three.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

If Mozart had lived to Bach's age.........hmm................


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Personally, I prefer Telemann's music to Bach's.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

In terms of 12 tone equal tempered music? Maybe, maybe not, but you run the risk of talking about all art objectively. I think some of Bach's sons did a great job at surpassing their father in a couple of areas, after all wasn't CPE Bach considered the father to the greats like Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven?


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

If someone is composing something right now that makes the Brandenburg Concertos seem like a first-year recital of Three Blind Mice, would it gain recognition? Is the demand for new works great enough for it to rise to the top? After all, we are favouring some rather old music. Would it have to find a film score or video game to gain an audience?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Can't someone just be different to another composer rather than better in many circumstances? After all JS Bach didn't write in every genre, certainly didn't do operas.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

'Could' there be? Surely. Is there? Certainly not.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

In terms of tonal counterpoint, probably not. In other terms: yes. Better as whole?, I think it's meaningless to compare composers of different eras and styles.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

While I might (and that's a definite maybe) just give the edge to Bach, Händel is ungodly, and I do mean _ungodly_ close to being his equal.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I don't think he's the greatest to ever live. Thats a silly viewpoint to have (and is basically saying that highly contrapuntal, common practice tonal, German-style music using Baroque European instrumentation is the most superior idiom, and thats just stupid)

There's no such thing as a greatest composer, and there doesn't need to be one.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I don't think he's the greatest to ever live. Thats a silly viewpoint to have (and is basically saying that highly contrapuntal, common practice tonal, German-style music using Baroque European instrumentation is the most superior idiom, and thats just stupid)
> 
> There's no such thing as a greatest composer, and there doesn't need to be one.


I don't think saying Bach is the greatest composer is the same thing as saying the style he composed in is inherently the most superior idiom of music. You are trying to put a tight descriptive category around his music, which I don't think can actually be accurately described in such a way. In other words I don't think the reason so many people love Bach's music can really be explained by describing the style of music he composed. So your 'that's just stupid' argument (which doesn't go to any lengths to explain or back up why you think its stupid) is a straw man.

I'm not saying that I think one can accurately assess a "greatest" composer in music, just that I don't agree with your line of reasoning or the way in which you phrased it, which is essentially inferring anyone who disagrees with you is stupid. I think a more effective way of making an argument is to back up your points with substantial reasoning and leave out the insults.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Could there have been a better composer than Bach? Yes, totally, how can we deny the possibility.

Is there a better composer than Bach known to us? Unlikely.

Can there be a better composer than Bach henceforth? Now this is the real atom bomb. Because if you say no, egos will be hurt. People will vehemently say that there might come a master who will be better than Bach, whose music will be cherished than Bach's. But I suspect that the answer to this question is no. If there is a master, where is he? In what musical world is he learning his chops? Who is he performing or composing for? Surely the world is now so open that we might have known. We would have become aware of this master by now, I guess. But I don't think there is one. I think that roughly, as you go back in time until the Baroque, the density of very good composers will keep increasing. Music just was a more involved activity then. I mean the composition of music, not the production. Even in the 60s, we had some rock bands who were partly composers, and partly arrangers or producers of music. The music of the Beatles, for example, works because of how good the studio could be for them. Once the indie, garage aesthetic of music became the norm, classical music became a narrow minority. So, if we do not have the cultural backbone, the whole environment for it, it is unlikely that a master of music like Bach will come and give us good, new music. What we might get are simulations of galactic life, scientific explanations of why we like music, huge soundboxes and sky-high speakers belting out sound at ear-splitting volumes, or even solemn new performances of "avant-garde" music which require so much attention to listen that even your eyes might pop out. But alas!

All these things are just a lazy scraping on the surface. There is no reason anymore to pay attention to the intricate construction of music, because you can just plug a guitar and a synth and flood the audience with "walls of sound" which is a sonic experience, but not music. I guess this has come from the objectification of music as sonic experience, but music is more, it is an idealism, a glimpse into the impossible, that is its charm, and it could be much more than that. And to achieve that really takes a lifetime of gruelling training. Are we ready to do that?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Oh jeeze, did we really need Bach fan-wanking thread? 

Or better yet, did we need a Bach fan-wanking thread that pretends to be some pseudo-philisophical question where the premise assumes that everyone's feelings about Bach are unanimous?

Next time, stop trying to be subtle and just make a thread explicitly dedicated to people gushing their heart out about their love for Bach, I may even participate. But the way it is now just comes off as pretentious and snobby.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

violadude said:


> Oh jeeze, did we really need Bach fan-wanking thread?
> 
> Or better yet, did we need a Bach fan-wanking thread that pretends to be some pseudo-philisophical question where the premise assumes that everyone's feelings about Bach are unanimous?
> 
> Next time, stop trying to be subtle and just make a thread explicitly dedicated to people gushing their heart out about their love for Bach, I may even participate. But the way it is now just comes off as pretentious and snobby.


VD, this post is beautiful <3


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

violadude said:


> Oh jeeze, did we really need Bach fan-wanking thread?
> 
> Or better yet, did we need a Bach fan-wanking thread that pretends to be some pseudo-philisophical question where the premise assumes that everyone's feelings about Bach are unanimous?
> 
> Next time, stop trying to be subtle and just make a thread explicitly dedicated to people gushing their heart out about their love for Bach, I may even participate. But the way it is now just comes off as pretentious and snobby.


You are free to start whatever thread you want to. Nobody is stopping you, and you might have the pleasure of being called pretentious.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> VD, this post is beautiful <3


Aww  Glad you liked it!  :tiphat:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

shangoyal said:


> You are free to start whatever thread you want to. Nobody is stopping you, and you might have the pleasure of being called pretentious.


Well, I don't really think I need to make a thread about Bach. If I feel the need to praise Bach I could probably find a context to do that within a pre-existing thread or just go to the Bach page in the composer guestbooks. I'm just saying that if some sort of Bach appreciation thread were to be made in the main section of the forum, I would probably participate.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

starry said:


> Can't someone just be different to another composer rather than better in many circumstances? After all JS Bach didn't write in every genre, certainly didn't do operas.


He had 20 kids...probably didn't have the energy to write an opera.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> If there is a master, where is he? In what musical world is he learning his chops? Who is he performing or composing for? Surely the world is now so open that we might have known. We would have become aware of this master by now, I guess.


Even Bach must have been a child or a teen before he came to attention. The next Bach is just not yet discovered, or not yet born, potentially.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Even Bach must have been a child or a teen before he came to attention. The next Bach is just not yet discovered, or not yet born, potentially.


What you are saying is just "potentiality", which is OK, I would agree, but the more important question is the more answerable one - is it likely?

In other words, actually, I think there will not be another Bach because the human race does not _need one_.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Wagner wrote better operas than Bach.


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> What you are saying is just "potentiality", which is OK, I would agree, but the more important question is the more answerable one - is it likely?
> 
> In other words, actually, I think there will not be another Bach because the human race does not _need one_.


Likely? No, because composers of such stature by definition are infrequent.

I don't see that probability has anything to do with need.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the question was limited to the Baroque era when I announced that Guillaume Dufay was all that stuff more than Bach.

Within the Baroque era, I suggest... _Zelenka_. Had that dude worked in Germany....

(Edit: He did work in Germany, just without getting Bach's posthumous press. Bad luck.)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Wagner wrote better operas than Bach.


Couchie, I think we've found something that we agree on!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Then again Andrew Lloyd-Webber wrote better operas than Bach.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

quack said:


> Then again Andrew Lloyd-Webber wrote better operas than Bach.


I don't know if I'd go that far...I'd rather have an unwritten imagined opera by Bach than a "rock opera" from Webber. Positive value tends to trump negative value.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Yes true, the _Coffee Cantata_ is clearly an comic opera despite what those musicologists say and is way funnier than Rienzi.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

No one will ever be as good as Bach in the way that Bach was good. 
Nevertheless, there are many composers who may be regarded as better than Bach, though that is personal opinion. There is one J. S. Bach as we know him.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

violadude said:


> Oh jeeze, did we really need Bach fan-wanking thread?
> 
> Or better yet, did we need a Bach fan-wanking thread that pretends to be some pseudo-philisophical question where the premise assumes that everyone's feelings about Bach are unanimous?
> 
> Next time, stop trying to be subtle and just make a thread explicitly dedicated to people gushing their heart out about their love for Bach, I may even participate. But the way it is now just comes off as pretentious and snobby.


The thread is in Composer Guestbooks, and is called Johann Sebastian Bach. Let me link you to it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> If someone is composing something right now that makes the Brandenburg Concertos seem like a first-year recital of Three Blind Mice, would it gain recognition? Is the demand for new works great enough for it to rise to the top? After all, we are favouring some rather old music. Would it have to find a film score or video game to gain an audience?


The Brandeburg concerti were played but once or a few times, the owner then, like many of the time, storing the scores in their library, which eventually got packed up in trunks. They later "unknown" and were found in trunks in storage -- they could have easily have been lost, like so much else by Bach, Haydn, and so many others of the period.

Then of course Bach languished for nearly eighty years, a musician's musician, an academics' delight, and a pianists' exercise canon, but no public or regular performances until Mendelssohn resurrected Bach in Concert.

Just so no one thinks this stuff has been in and stayed in circulation from the day the ink was dry.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

quack said:


> Then again Andrew Lloyd-Webber wrote better operas than Bach.


He hasn't written an opera yet -- are you daft, quack?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Wagner wrote better operas than Bach.


Not so clever, and so very very safe. Tsk Tsk.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> He had 20 kids...probably didn't have the energy to write an opera.


Sigh. There is no mystery why J.S. Bach never wrote an opera... the mores of the reformation had no truck with opera.

The slightest bit of the most readily accessible reading via Wiki could have informed you of that... you seem to know how many children he fathered, so I guess you know what you want to know.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Of course. He had at least an equal in Jean-Philippe Rameau, and other equally great composers, some would say greater, have come along since.

IF you are hung up on anyone else sounding "like Bach" or practicing counterpoint which sounds "like Bach" then you will miss those many brilliant composers whose music is great, whose deployment of counterpoint is "equal" etc.

It seems when someone makes this sort of question / reference, it is as if they assume their hero's music was the only way to write. If the hero is Mozart, and nothing else sounds like Mozart and further, what is expected to compare "as great as" is music very much like Mozart, their evaluation of the greatness of that composer might be apt, but they will be deaf and blind when it comes to finding the other brilliant composers.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

> Had there lived a composer with the same musical ingenuity as Bach had - the same 'IQ' and fertile imagination. Would their musical style mimic that of Bach's?


It could, but it probably wouldn't, and it doesn't matter. In my opinion, you can't consider a composer "great" merely because of their style, but because of the internal logic they managed to create and perfect in order to germinate their music.

Mozart's chromaticism and character, Beethoven's bombasticism and emotional amplification, and Bach's intensely intricate counterpoint do not _ultimately_ matter to me, and should not _ultimately_ matter to anyone else. What matters is the internal logic that allowed them to use these new tools to bring their music to such heights. Any idiot can train for ten years and become as skilled with counterpoint as Bach was, but that will not make them Bach.

Style is a superficial means to an end, in my opinion. HOWEVER, we should not forget that style can hinder expression if it's insufficient.

For instance, it's fine to say of a dancer, "Oh, how beautiful and well toned her body is", but you would (hopefully) be more concerned with how elegantly she uses her body to express her internal logic. It's fine to look at Bach's counterpoint and say "Oh, how beautifully and impossibly complex and intricate it is", but similarly, the concern should be with why that counterpoint was written there, and how perfectly it works itself out, and works in context with the content around it.

If a Bach-equivalent was born in 1976 and was just now writing the equivalent to the first book of the Well-Tempered Clavier, it would most likely be written in a contemporary post-minimalist or neo-romantic style, but the equivalent musical integrity would be equal to that of the WTC of 1722. As long as inaccessibility or insufficiency of style wasn't a permanent impedance on appreciation of the work, it would undoubtedly be held in a similarly high regard.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's internal logic can be surpassed, and probably will be surpassed, however I doubt that will happen for hundreds, if not thousands of years.


----------

