Bach: Genius or Not?

[Gabriel]

I don't understand how anyone familiar with Bach's music could think that it was not influenced by the music before him or his environment.  After all, he didn't live an isolated life in an Alaskan igloo.

An Alaskan igloo where he traveled for meeting Buxtehude.

I also don't see how there is any contradiction between the idea that Bach was influenced by his contemporaries and environment, and that he is a "genius," whatever that means.  People use the word "genius" to describe such disparate peoples and skills that the word has little definite meaning to my ears.

There is no contradiction at all. The point of discussion is whether he was influenced by others or if he just created his music out of a vacuum. (And yes, "genius" is quite a vague expression).

[Bulldog]

An Alaskan igloo where he traveled for meeting Buxtehude.

That igloo also housed an organ and harpsichord.

[karlhenning]

And a lute.

[Bulldog]

And a lute.

Okay, as long as there isn't a flute.

[karlhenning]

Possibly a bass recorder made from a polar bear's thigh-bone.

[Dr. Dread]

Bach = Genius

Why?

Because I said so.

End of thread.

[karlhenning]

If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.

[Dr. Dread]

If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.

[Frumaster]

If everything that you say aligns with what is right, what a happy guy you will be.

The argument surrounding 'genius' is either related directly to religious beliefs, or is at least similar in nature to the argument surrounding religion.  All I can say is, if there was/is a God, Bach was a closer to Him than most.  If not, maybe nature just allows for freaks every so often.  Bach, however, cannot be fully explained explained by: 'just like you and me', 'in the right place at the right time', or 'a product of his environment'.  Sorry if my views are dehumanizing or abstract, but I've run out of options.

[knight66]

Although I don't altogether disagree with your post; I really am at a loss as to that your first sentence means.

Mike

[Haffner]

Not at all, but Bach's sacred music had a pretty clear purpose, no matter how many secular motifs it contained.  Maybe he brought a little fun to church music...but it still reflects strong Lutheran faith.

Hmmm. Interesting. Do you feel that Beethoven's Missa Solemnis reflected Beethoven's faith? Just curious.

[jochanaan]

This is mostly another "nature vs. nurture" argument.  But I have a little too much respect for the other Baroque composers to say they "didn't even come close" to Bach's achievement.  Like Mozart after him, JSB basically did what the others did (except opera); he just did it better.

And anyone who says that none of the other Bachs came close to JSB's achievements obviously hasn't heard Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach's music.

[Dr. Dread]

This is mostly another "nature vs. nurture" argument.  But I have a little too much respect for the other Baroque composers to say they "didn't even come close" to Bach's achievement.  Like Mozart after him, JSB basically did what the others did (except opera); he just did it better.

And anyone who says that none of the other Bachs came close to JSB's achievements obviously hasn't heard Carl Phillip Emanuel Bach's music.

You're back! I noticed! 

[jochanaan]

Thanks!  Maybe not for long--I've got a lot of other stuff going--but I may drop in with a thud once in a while.