Years ago, someone here wrote something to the effect that Bach was no
genius. Oh no, Bach was just a skilled craftsman.

That statement has been stuck in my craw ever since, so allow me to finally
unstick it. Perhaps whoever wrote the email will respond, but even if they
don't, I'll feel better :-)

So, Bach isn't a genius? Is it the word "genius" you don't like - in general
- or do you really find him unqualified to enter the "hall of geniuses"?

If the latter, then please do tell: Who exactly qualifies?

Beethoven?

Wagner?

Mozart?

Einstein?

Archimedes?

Newton?

DaVinci?

Liszt?

Purcell?

Couperin?

Darwin?

Shakespeare?

Tesla?

Maxwell?


We need to know, because clearly the composer of:

Erbarme dich
St. John & St. Matthew Passions
Kunst der Fuge
Goldbergs
WTC
B-minor Mass
BWV 54 (look it up!)
Solo violin & cello works
Some organ noodlings
and a few other things

is no genius. Barely an artist at all, eh? Just a skilled crafter of pretty
dots on the page. Bach himself said anyone could do as well if they worked
as hard. Who are we to disagree?

Thanks for setting me straight. I can now reorganize my mental map.

p.s., I thank Joseph Spencer for one of my favourite quotes:

Those of us who study Bach know that he is unique, in that you can study his
music from almost any parameter you can dream up, and Bach's music will be
perfectly, miraculously organized, original, ingenious and creative within
the definitions of that paradigm. It's as if he thought of everything in all
ways simultaneously, all the time.








::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::