# Bach vs Shakespeare.



## Ritwik Ghosh (May 14, 2014)

Which is greater and why?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Bach wasn't greater than Shakespeare when it came to writing plays.

Shakespeare wasn't greater than Bach when it came to writing music.

Why would you try and compare these two? Makes no sense.


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

^^^Yes, it's akin to -

Liston vs Ravel or Leonard vs Monroe (Marilyn) or Marciano vs Hawking (Stephen)


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Pistols at dawn? A rap battle? What are we talking about here?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Why would you try and compare these two? Makes no sense.


Yes, just like Shakespeare put it himself:

_Shall I compare thee to a summer day?
How can I compare guy to a day,
LOL, totally different stuff. _


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Couac Addict said:


> Pistols at dawn? A rap battle? What are we talking about here?


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

Everyone avoiding the question by saying you cannot compare a writer and a musician because they are too dissimilar. =/ They are both people.

Shakespeare made some great _English_ writings, but other languages have their own 'Shakespeare's'. While I know that the Western classical tradition is by no means universal, it is a far wider reaching entity than English poetry and plays. 
I also think that to do what Bach did is considerably more difficult and impressive than what Shakespeare did. Personally, I consider some people to have made writings that are more important and/or better or at least equally written to Shakespeare. A few names that spring to mind (for fictional writing) would be Dickens, R. Burns and Keats. I could not name a single musician who had similar importance as Bach, nor make any list of musicians as skilled.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Matsps said:


> Everyone avoiding the question by saying you cannot compare a writer and a musician because they are too dissimilar. =/ They are both people.
> 
> Shakespeare made some great _English_ writings, but other languages have their own 'Shakespeare's'. While I know that the Western classical tradition is by no means universal, it is a far wider reaching entity than English poetry and plays.
> I also think that to do what Bach did is considerably more difficult and impressive than what Shakespeare did. Personally, I consider some people to have made writings that are more important and/or better or at least equally written to Shakespeare. A few names that spring to mind (for fictional writing) would be Dickens, R. Burns and Keats. I could not name a single musician who had similar importance as Bach, nor make any list of musicians as skilled.


Burns and Keats are poets, not writers of fiction. Neither wrote very much either; they both died young. 
Dickens is vital and prolific. I admire his novels, but his reputation is not as high as it was.

I esteem Dickens, Burns & Keats, but they can't be considered on a par with Shakespeare, who is revered all over the world. Like Bach, Shakespeare was prolific & inventive. Shakespeare has had a huge effect on the English language with so many of his quotations and coined words finding a place in modern English. I don't know enough to say how Bach affected the composers who came after.

I don't think literature and music should be compared directly. But the status and reputation of both Shakespeare and Bach stand on a par, and people all over the world know & appreciate their creative works.


----------



## Matsps (Jan 13, 2014)

> Burns and Keats are poets, not writers of fiction.


I thought literature as a whole could be divided into factual writing and fictional writing and that poetry should surely come under the latter heading?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

JS Bach was a tall chappy so beats W Shakespeare who was of average height.
Will beats Jo on the facial hair stakes but then gets beaten in the longevity ones by 13 years.

More importantly, Bach is by far the most performed and recorded composer in history and though Will's work is known worldwide I'd suspect that he may not be the most performed playwright in history.

They are both great and I declare it a draw to save any fighting :angel:


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Matsps said:


> I thought literature as a whole could be divided into factual writing and fictional writing and that poetry should surely come under the latter heading?


The distinction is poetry vs. prose, not fiction vs. non-fiction. You can have fiction and non-fiction in prose, and I'm sure the same applies to poetry.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

It's difficult - after all, you are comparing fugues with sonnets!


----------



## Wicked_one (Aug 18, 2010)

Talking about composer vs. poet, but not about Bach or Shakespeare, I always found a connection (maybe it's just me, though) between a Romantic Polish composer and a Romantic Romanian poet. 

I'm talking about Chopin (the composer) and Mihai Eminescu (the poet). 

I always thought about it but I never said it out loud or written it down. I think this is because I don't have the "words" to describe what I feel when I hear Chopin's music or read Eminescu's poems. One thing I know is that there's something similar. 

They both have that feeling of melancholy, sometimes despair, love, happy days, cloudy days, life, death... but then again, isn't that Romanticism? May be, but I never had this feeling when I listened to Liszt, for example, or some other prolific Romantic composer and comparing it with Eminescu. And when I read Eminescu, I "have" Chopin's music in my ears, in that mind image.. and vice versa, Eminescu's words when I listen to Chopin.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I listen to Bach; I don't read Shakespeare. Bach's my winner.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Matsps said:


> I thought literature as a whole could be divided into factual writing and fictional writing and that poetry should surely come under the latter heading?


Not really. Some poetry is 'confessional', i.e. about the poet's own life. So not fiction. Some epic poems can in one aspect be considered as fiction. But when people say 'writer of fiction' they mean prose fiction; it's just established usage. Poetry is about imagery and structure mainly. The divisions of poetry - drama - prose fiction - prose non-fiction (essays etc) are the ones generally adhered to. Shakespeare is usually considered primarily as a dramatist but he crosses the lines because his plays are poetic & he also wrote sonnets & longer poems like 'The Rape of Lucrece'.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

Both Bach and Shakespeare were huge, each in his own area. Comparing their hugeness is just not for mortals, like most of us...


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

shangoyal said:


> It's difficult - after all, you are comparing fugues with sonnets!


Ladies and Gents...we have a winner!


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

where's the poll? I'll take the challenge: Shakespeare, judged by his work, he had the better sense of humour. Bach was too pious for me.


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

Shakespeare provided life coaching, Bach didn't:

The man that hath no music in himself, 
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music.
*(The Merchant of Venice, 5.1.91-7)*


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

deggial said:


> where's the poll? I'll take the challenge: Shakespeare, judged by his work, he had the better sense of humour. Bach was too pious for me.


In his lifetime, Shakespeare was known as a good beer companion and a very nice man all round.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> I listen to Bach; I don't read Shakespeare. Bach's my winner.


Shame on you for not reading Shakespeare but if you did Bach'd still win and you'd be able to say that without prejudice.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

RudyKens said:


> Shame on you for not reading Shakespeare but if you did Bach'd still win and you'd be able to say that without prejudice.


Yes, he'd win because Bulldog loves music best; shame on me for not listening to more Bach, but if I did, Shakespeare would still win, because I have loved Shakespeare so long that he's in my bones. Opinions as to who is 'The greatest' are, alas, subject to subjectivity.


----------

