3 ms·

Agree on all counts, though if I'm being pedantic... > J.S. Bach also had less influence on popular music than the Beatles did, even in his own time, during wh

by rewgs 5y ago

Agree on all counts, though if I'm being pedantic... > J.S. Bach also had less influence on popular music than the Beatles did, even in his own time, during which he wasn't particularly popular. J.S. Bach is probably the single greatest influence on tonal, Western music, period, and thus an argument can be made that he had much more influence on pop music than The Beatles alone because without him, you don't have The Beatles. You can draw a straight line from him to literally everyone that came after him.

garyrob 5y ago
I don't think that's right. JS Bach was pretty much forgotten until he was rediscovered by Mendelssohn. The key event was in 1823 or 1824. "Felix's maternal grandmother, Bella Salomon, presented him with a gift that was to alter the course of his life: a copyist's manuscript score of J.S. Bach's St. Matthew Passion... The score seized Felix's imagination. Despite Bach's generally unfavorable reputation at this time (he was regarded as little more than a musical "mathematician," a reference to what would eventually be recognized as his extraordinary use of counterpoint and musical symmetry) and the numerous difficulties presented by the score (i.e., its complexity and the unfamiliarity of its language), Felix nevertheless conceived the idea of preparing the entire St. Matthew Passion for performance." And that started the process of JS Bach becoming known once again, eventually much more well-known than when he was alive. Bach was a genius, and probably the all-time greatest for counterpoint, but I think you're overstating his effect on the development of popular music. I'd actually assert that the Beatles ultimately owe more to John Dowland (a songwriter active in the late 1500's to early 1600's) than to Bach. I'm glad you agree about Miles though! :)

3 ms·

Agree on all counts, though if I'm being pedantic... > J.S. Bach also had less influence on popular music than the Beatles did, even in his own time, during wh

by rewgs 5y ago

garyrob 5y ago
I don't think that's right. JS Bach was pretty much forgotten until he was rediscovered by Mendelssohn. The key event was in 1823 or 1824. "Felix's maternal grandmother, Bella Salomon, presented him with a gift that was to alter the course of his life: a copyist's manuscript score of J.S. Bach's St. Matthew Passion... The score seized Felix's imagination. Despite Bach's generally unfavorable reputation at this time (he was regarded as little more than a musical "mathematician," a reference to what would eventually be recognized as his extraordinary use of counterpoint and musical symmetry) and the numerous difficulties presented by the score (i.e., its complexity and the unfamiliarity of its language), Felix nevertheless conceived the idea of preparing the entire St. Matthew Passion for performance." And that started the process of JS Bach becoming known once again, eventually much more well-known than when he was alive. Bach was a genius, and probably the all-time greatest for counterpoint, but I think you're overstating his effect on the development of popular music. I'd actually assert that the Beatles ultimately owe more to John Dowland (a songwriter active in the late 1500's to early 1600's) than to Bach. I'm glad you agree about Miles though! :)