Discussion:
Why is Bach the best?
(too old to reply)
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-10 07:53:07 UTC
Permalink
This assumes, first of all, that Bach is indeed the best, and that you
aren't a subject of today's dictatorship of relativism, that you still
recognize that there are indeed valid orders of rank and objective
criteria of beauty. In this thread, bromides such as "That's your
opinion" or "You're entitled to your opinion" are not permitted.

State your case. A possible outline:

I. Thesis: Bach is the best composer because he most fully satisifies
all of the objective criteria of beauty. Note that this statement
implicitly rejects the relativism inherent in such bromides as "Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder." The eye (ear) of every beholder could
conclude that Bach is the worst, yet he would still be the best....

II. The Objective Criteria of Beauty

a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
.....

III. How Bach Most Satifies These Criteria

a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----

III. Conclusion: Clearly, Bach is the best.


Comparison with other great composers will obviously be in order in
establishing that Bach is the best.
inotmark
2006-09-10 16:24:26 UTC
Permalink
1) beauty cannot be defined in a context free manner, your rejection of
that obvious fact notwithstanding.

2) what does beauty have to do with being the best?
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
This assumes, first of all, that Bach is indeed the best, and that you
aren't a subject of today's dictatorship of relativism, that you still
recognize that there are indeed valid orders of rank and objective
criteria of beauty. In this thread, bromides such as "That's your
opinion" or "You're entitled to your opinion" are not permitted.
I. Thesis: Bach is the best composer because he most fully satisifies
all of the objective criteria of beauty. Note that this statement
implicitly rejects the relativism inherent in such bromides as "Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder." The eye (ear) of every beholder could
conclude that Bach is the worst, yet he would still be the best....
II. The Objective Criteria of Beauty
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
.....
III. How Bach Most Satifies These Criteria
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
III. Conclusion: Clearly, Bach is the best.
Comparison with other great composers will obviously be in order in
establishing that Bach is the best.
j***@yahoo.com
2006-09-11 21:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by inotmark
1) beauty cannot be defined in a context free manner, your rejection of
that obvious fact notwithstanding.
2) what does beauty have to do with being the best?
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
This assumes, first of all, that Bach is indeed the best, and that you
aren't a subject of today's dictatorship of relativism, that you still
recognize that there are indeed valid orders of rank and objective
criteria of beauty. In this thread, bromides such as "That's your
opinion" or "You're entitled to your opinion" are not permitted.
I. Thesis: Bach is the best composer because he most fully satisifies
all of the objective criteria of beauty. Note that this statement
implicitly rejects the relativism inherent in such bromides as "Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder." The eye (ear) of every beholder could
conclude that Bach is the worst, yet he would still be the best....
II. The Objective Criteria of Beauty
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
.....
III. How Bach Most Satifies These Criteria
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
III. Conclusion: Clearly, Bach is the best.
Comparison with other great composers will obviously be in order in
establishing that Bach is the best.
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.

Jimmy Boy
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-11 23:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.
Jimmy Boy
I should have clarified that this project is for one thoroughly
knowledgable of music theory. However, one need not know a bit of music
theory to be able to correctly judge that Bach is infinitely superior
to, for example, 50 Cent.
Rebekah Lodge
2006-09-12 02:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.
I should have clarified that this project is for one thoroughly
knowledgable of music theory. However, one need not know a bit of music
theory to be able to correctly judge that Bach is infinitely superior
to, for example, 50 Cent.
Wow, that must mean that Bach is worth, like, all the money in the world.
Woohoo! We're all filthy stinkin' rich! The Cristal's on me, bitches!
j***@yahoo.com
2006-09-12 14:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.
Jimmy Boy
I should have clarified that this project is for one thoroughly
knowledgable of music theory. However, one need not know a bit of music
theory to be able to correctly judge that Bach is infinitely superior
to, for example, 50 Cent.
Yours is an apple and oranges comparison. How would you compare Bach
to Beethoven?

It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have to
make subjective evaluations.

Jimmy Boy
John Briggs
2006-09-12 17:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Yours is an apple and oranges comparison. How would you compare Bach
to Beethoven?
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have
to make subjective evaluations.
I'm sure he's quite capable of making subjective evaluations :-)
--
John Briggs
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-13 00:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have to
make subjective evaluations.
This evaluation is thoroughly soaked in scientism, which is an
essential part of today's dictatorship of relativism. Under the
catechesis of scientism, that which is not conducive to measurement,
calculation, quantification is deemed to be merely subjective and
therefore less real. Yet, just as the love that we feel for our wives,
for example, is immeasurable, so is the greatness of Bach's music. In
short, it's a question not of quantity, as scientism would have us
believe, but of quality.
John Briggs
2006-09-13 17:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have
to make subjective evaluations.
This evaluation is thoroughly soaked in scientism, which is an
essential part of today's dictatorship of relativism.
Would that be an absolute dictatorship?
--
John Briggs
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-13 21:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Would that be an absolute dictatorship?
--
John Briggs
Excellent. Good to see that someone gets the intentional irony of the
phrase.
j***@yahoo.com
2006-09-13 19:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have to
make subjective evaluations.
This evaluation is thoroughly soaked in scientism, which is an
essential part of today's dictatorship of relativism. Under the
catechesis of scientism, that which is not conducive to measurement,
calculation, quantification is deemed to be merely subjective and
therefore less real. Yet, just as the love that we feel for our wives,
for example, is immeasurable, so is the greatness of Bach's music. In
short, it's a question not of quantity, as scientism would have us
believe, but of quality.
You are correct. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It is
based on objectivity.

However, Aaron Copeland tried to answer your question. Is his book
"What to Listen for in Music", he had a section where he tried to
understand Bach's greatness. It has a list similar to the one you
seek.

Jimmy Boy
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-13 21:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You are correct. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It is
based on objectivity.
However, Aaron Copeland tried to answer your question. Is his book
"What to Listen for in Music", he had a section where he tried to
understand Bach's greatness. It has a list similar to the one you
seek.
Jimmy Boy
Jimmy Boy, when one speaks of scientism, one is not speaking of the
science. Science knows its limitations; scientism does not.

Also, while science may be theoretically based on objectivity, the idea
that it's purely objective is simply naive - a fact recognized by many
scientists.

Thanks for the Copland recommendation.
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-13 21:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You are correct. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It is
based on objectivity.
However, Aaron Copeland tried to answer your question. Is his book
"What to Listen for in Music", he had a section where he tried to
understand Bach's greatness. It has a list similar to the one you
seek.
Jimmy Boy
Jimmy Boy, when one speaks of scientism, one is not speaking of the
science. Science knows its limitations; scientism does not.
Also, while science may be theoretically based on objectivity, the idea
that it's purely objective is simply naive - a fact recognized by many
scientists.
Thanks for the Copland recommendation.
That is, "...one is not speaking of science."
j***@yahoo.com
2006-09-13 22:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You are correct. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. It is
based on objectivity.
However, Aaron Copeland tried to answer your question. Is his book
"What to Listen for in Music", he had a section where he tried to
understand Bach's greatness. It has a list similar to the one you
seek.
Jimmy Boy
Jimmy Boy, when one speaks of scientism, one is not speaking of the
science. Science knows its limitations; scientism does not.
This is my point entirely. You can't apply an objective method to
certain areas like musical composition.
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Also, while science may be theoretically based on objectivity, the idea
that it's purely objective is simply naive - a fact recognized by many
scientists.
The method is based on pure objectivity. It is the one who applies the
method that introduces subjectivity. It is a natural consequence of
have to have an unobjective observer in order to have observations!
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Thanks for the Copland recommendation.
I think you will enjoy what he wrote about Bach.

Here is a link about Bach's compositional method of motivic saturation.
I think you might find it interesting:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/inv.html

Jimmy Boy
Thomas Wood
2006-09-13 00:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.
Jimmy Boy
I should have clarified that this project is for one thoroughly
knowledgable of music theory. However, one need not know a bit of music
theory to be able to correctly judge that Bach is infinitely superior
to, for example, 50 Cent.
Yours is an apple and oranges comparison. How would you compare Bach
to Beethoven?
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have to
make subjective evaluations.
And thus I pronounce: Bach is the best he's the best for me.

Tom Wood
Thomas Wood
2006-09-13 00:26:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
Post by j***@yahoo.com
You need to understand the technical aspects of composing before being
able to judge a composer. It is not just a matter of writing beautiful
or even correct music.
Jimmy Boy
I should have clarified that this project is for one thoroughly
knowledgable of music theory. However, one need not know a bit of music
theory to be able to correctly judge that Bach is infinitely superior
to, for example, 50 Cent.
Yours is an apple and oranges comparison. How would you compare Bach
to Beethoven?
It is not something that is easily quantified. In the end you have to
make subjective evaluations.
And thus I pronounce: Bach is the best he's the best for me.
Let's try this again: Bach is the best because he's the best for me.
Jackson K. Eskew
2006-09-13 00:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
Bach is the best because he's the best for me.
No. Bach would remain the best even if he were the worst for you.
Andrew Schulman
2006-09-13 02:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Wood
And thus I pronounce: Bach is the best he's the best for me.
I prefer this wording than the second, more passionate!

Andrew
p***@prep.synonet.com
2006-09-15 15:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.com
Yours is an apple and oranges comparison. How would you compare
Bach to Beethoven?
He did so him self; "Nacht bach, ist meer" I think it goes...
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
Sybrand Bakker
2006-09-15 17:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@prep.synonet.com
He did so him self; "Nacht bach, ist meer" I think it goes...
IIRC it is 'Nicht Bach, sondern Meer soll er heissen'

Sybrand Bakker

anti-spam maatregel
om te antwoorden verwijder '-verwijderdit' uit mijn e-mail adres
leclair
2006-09-13 16:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
This assumes, first of all, that Bach is indeed the best, and that you
aren't a subject of today's dictatorship of relativism, that you still
recognize that there are indeed valid orders of rank and objective
criteria of beauty. In this thread, bromides such as "That's your
opinion" or "You're entitled to your opinion" are not permitted.
I. Thesis: Bach is the best composer because he most fully satisifies
all of the objective criteria of beauty. Note that this statement
implicitly rejects the relativism inherent in such bromides as "Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder." The eye (ear) of every beholder could
conclude that Bach is the worst, yet he would still be the best....
II. The Objective Criteria of Beauty
a. -----The cantatas are the highest form of musical composition and only JSB could unify the various musical strands running through them and present qualities such as intellect and beauty which are unified.
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
.....
III. How Bach Most Satifies These Criteria
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
III. Conclusion: Clearly, Bach is the best.
Comparison with other great composers will obviously be in order in
establishing that Bach is the best.
e***@earthlink.net
2007-07-07 21:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jackson K. Eskew
This assumes, first of all, that Bach is indeed the best, and that you
aren't a subject of today's dictatorship of relativism, that you still
recognize that there are indeed valid orders of rank and objective
criteria of beauty. In this thread, bromides such as "That's your
opinion" or "You're entitled to your opinion" are not permitted.
I. Thesis: Bach is the best composer because he most fully satisifies
all of the objective criteria of beauty. Note that this statement
implicitly rejects the relativism inherent in such bromides as "Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder." The eye (ear) of every beholder could
conclude that Bach is the worst, yet he would still be the best....
II. The Objective Criteria of Beauty
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
.....
III. How Bach Most Satifies These Criteria
a. -----
b. -----
c. -----
d. -----
III. Conclusion: Clearly, Bach is the best.
Comparison with other great composers will obviously be in order in
establishing that Bach is the best.
This is such a subjective issue - I think Bach is the best composer
because of his self consistency coupled with incredible good taste.

Gene

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...