> Bach is the greatest composer and perhaps the greatest artist in human history. Full stop.
He's aight. Obviously you enjoy his music and that's fine. But have you experienced all the art from all cultures through all human history to make such authorative statements on such subjective matters?
This is a riposte at the level of "Then name all composers. Nanananana." Obviously, the answer to your question is going to be "no," but really a great amount of music is available to us, and everything that came before the Renaissance was, crudely put, simple music. So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
IMO too, Bach is the greatest. There's really no-one who can so seamlessly merge content and form and achieve intellectually, musically and emotionally fulfilling results.
> So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
Unless they are an active scholar in pre-Baroque era music I'd question that. There are just too many cultural cues for common practice music (i.e., from Bach to Mahler) and too few for everything before. It's almost a certainty that the commenter will prefer the music with forms and harmony baked into them that hold the most cultural significance.
E.g., if an action filmscore has Berlioz-style brass and a big field drum, everyone is instantly on board. What about if you play the L'homme armé tune that Renaissance composers went gaga over?
Those composers would take that tune, stretched it out into really long held pitches, and then write entire sections of the mass around it with faster moving melodies. Was it just a trend like the vocoder? Did monks get psyched when they heard it embedded in the mass? I know a lot of those masses, but I honestly have no idea.
> This is a riposte at the level of "Then name all composers. Nanananana."
It isn't. It's pointing out silly fanboying of silly people.
> and everything that came before the Renaissance was, crudely put, simple music.
Does "simple" mean worse? Using your logic, then eminem or taylor swift are greater musicians than bach. After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music. But then again, there are dunces who think lord of the rings or harry potter are greater works than the bible, iliad, aeneid, hamlet, etc.
> So the commenter can be considered to be able to weigh Bach's merits against those of other artists'.
The commenter was not only weighing bach's merits against his contemporary musicians, he was weighing them against all ARTISTS - musicians, poets, dramatists, writers, etc. The commenter claimed bach was the greatest artists. full stop.
> Using your logic, then eminem or taylor swift are greater musicians than bach. After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music. But then again, there are dunces who think lord of the rings or harry potter are greater works than the bible, iliad, aeneid, hamlet, etc.
Before Renaissance with the exception of Hungary, where it died out due to the Turks, there was a lack of polyphony. There was also a serious lack in the ability for dynamic. Previously the concept of measure didn't exist. The very composer we are discussing here, also took part in research about the nature of keys and famously invented an intonation equally useful for all keys. There was quite a lot of research and innovation at that time.
> eminem or taylor swift
Modern music is often lacking in complexity compared to older music. It is popular, because to be able to process that complexity in real-time, which is a precursor to understanding and enjoying the music, early child-hood training of the ear is needed by exposure, which a majority of the population wasn't subject to.
Early digital music was innovative, since it was created by geeks educated in both computers and music, but these days are long gone. Modern music is quite simple and more some return to earlier monophonic music with modern instruments.
> After all, pre-digital era, music was, crudely put, simple music.
That's based on absolute lack of knowledge, and hoping that modifying a argument will result in one with the same truth and weight. It doesn't. Or it was plain trolling.
I understand that a comment such as mine would rankle. I acknowledge that art is subjective, that there's no accounting for taste, etc. And yet, I don't really believe that, deep down. If I did, I'm not entirely sure how I could speak meaningfully to the differences between great and no so great art. Is War and Peace really as good as any other novel? Would it be possible for any two people to meaningfully communicate about art, if it really all boils down to mere instinctual taste? I think there must be more, even if I can't quite prove it. But I will acknowledge that I can't point to some objective rubric that obtains across all art when I say what I say.
> I understand that a comment such as mine would rankle.
It doesn't rankle. It just makes you look childish and immature.
> If I did, I'm not entirely sure how...
God you bore me. I'm not interested in having a discussion on the philosophy of art here. Just say he's your favorite musician so far and be done with it. Just like whoever was your previous favorite musician before bach.
> God you bore me. I'm not interested in having a discussion on the philosophy of art here.
You are not, but he is and made his comment in this spirit.
> Just say he's your favorite musician so far and be done with it.
Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
When you say about a technical concept of your expertice, that X is the best way to do Y, it does not preclude, that there isn't a better way to be invented, or that exists elsewhere, that you just are not aware of. The same is true here.
I honestly can agree with lordleft. In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
> You are not, but he is and made his comment in this spirit.
He made the comment in the spirit of being a silly fanboy. Just like most respondents so far.
> Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
Agreed. That's my point.
> When you say about a technical concept of your expertice, that X is the best way to do Y, it does not preclude, that there isn't a better way to be invented, or that exists elsewhere, that you just are not aware of. The same is true here.
We are talking about art. Not an objective "technical concept". Not only that, it's nearly impossible to say X is the greatest author/writer/etc, X is the greatest painter, X is the greatest musician, X is the great film director, etc. If we can't even decide within a particular art form, who is the greatest, it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP. That's my point. Not to mention that it's is nearly impossible to have consumed and understood all art, even within a genre. And we haven't even addressed the subjective nature of art.
> In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
>> Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
> Agreed. That's my point.
You do? You agree, that "X is the greatest Y" is just a valid statement as "X is my favourite Y" and conveys different information? Wasn't my observation, but then the discussion is finished. Actually the former is a better statement on a discussion website, since it allows discussion, while the latter is basically a useless statement, that you can't even object to.
> We are talking about art.
So what. You can still discuss this. Also music is also a science and Bach did some important work in this direction. There are different tastes, but whether a given artist caters to a taste the best, is something you can discuss objectively. Also composing is a craftsmanship, and you can still discuss the craftsmanship even if you don't agree with the final work.
> X is the greatest author/writer/etc, X is the greatest painter, X is the greatest musician, X is the great film director, etc. If we can't even decide within a particular art form, who is the greatest, it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP.
"hearsathought" is the greatest discusser! There I just did it. Doesn't seem to be impossible to me.
> it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP.
Why? lordleft didn't even claim to talk for all humans.
>> In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
> Who cares? It just proves my point.
How so? I don't get your point than, because to me it proves the opposite.
> Who cares?
A lot of people found it useful to spark a discussion and it is currently the first comment.
> He made the comment in the spirit of being a silly fanboy. Just like most respondents so far.
>> Saying someone is your favorite X and someone is the greatest X are different things, you can think of someone as the greatest X and not like them (unlikely but possible).
> Agreed. That's my point.
You do? You agree, that "X is the greatest Y" is just a valid statement as "X is my favourite Y" and conveys different information? Wasn't my observation, but then the discussion is finished. Actually the former is a better statement on a discussion website, since it allows discussion, while the latter is basically a useless statement, that you can't even object to.
> We are talking about art.
So what. You can still discuss this. Also music is also a science and Bach did some important work in this direction. There are different tastes, but whether a given artist caters to a taste the best, is something you can discuss objectively. Also composing is a craftsmanship, and you can still discuss the craftsmanship even if you don't agree with the final work.
> X is the greatest author/writer/etc, X is the greatest painter, X is the greatest musician, X is the great film director, etc. If we can't even decide within a particular art form, who is the greatest, it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP.
"hearsathought" is the greatest discusser! There I just did it. Doesn't seem to be impossible to me.
> it even more laughable to say X is the greatest artist FULL STOP.
Why? lordleft didn't even claim to talk for all humans.
>> In addition he [Bach] is also (jokingly) called the fifth evangelist, at least in Germany. Not sure, if this remark is known elsewhere.
> Who cares? It just proves my point.
How so? I don't get your point then, because to me it proves the opposite.
> Who cares?
A lot of people found it useful enough to spark a discussion and it is currently the first comment.
> He made the comment in the spirit of being a silly fanboy. Just like most respondents so far.
Nah, that's just your opinion. If you don't agree, it would have been more useful to give a contradicting argument, than to dismiss the statement as inexpressible a priori.
A large and immense catalog does not greatness make. I consider Mussorgsky's Pictures At an Exhibition to be one of the greatest compositions ever, and yet Mussorgsky was probably not the most prolific composer.
Thank you and upvote to the OP for posting this. I love Bach and place him on a pedestal of my own.
Personally I lack the physiological or cultural understanding of the significance of Tuvan Throat Singing [1] and why "Kongurei" (Konggurei / 60 Horses) is often described as the most beautiful and heartbreaking song in the Tuvan Throat Singing (Khoomei) repertoire.
I also get that the Javanese gamelan orchestral masterpiece "Ketawang Puspawarna" [2] is widely cited as the candidate for the "most important, beautiful, and pivotal" global composition. So much so, that NASA included it on the Voyager spacecraft Golden Record in 1977 (side 2 track 2, together with 3 compositions of J.S. Bach). But I probably lack the aesthetic fabric to fully comprehend or appreciate its significance.
I am not even the biggest Bach fan but it is hard to think of a more towering figure in any artistic medium.
I suspect you don't understand music enough to understand the immensity of Bach's work and influence.
Maybe if Picasso had been born 200 years earlier he could have influenced painting in the same way.
The fact you don't give a counter example kind of shows your hand that you don't know much about this subject beyond your surface level understanding of critical theory.
He's aight. Obviously you enjoy his music and that's fine. But have you experienced all the art from all cultures through all human history to make such authorative statements on such subjective matters?