Two recently found works of J.S. Bach presented in Leipzig [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
Bach is impressive, no doubt, but to each their own perhaps. I acknowledge that I have not received the appropriate training to fully appreciate the complexity in his works, so I wish I could hear what you do. To my ear, (and this isn't a novel opinion in the slightest), I think the Baroque era was more limited in expression due to the inherent limitations in the instruments and consequent styles at the time. Within those constraints, calling Bach an absolute titan of composition would be an understatement. But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
Brahms said of it: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."
https://inv.nadeko.net/playlist?list=PLor_18TcpRrxQmne5_SKRy... (YouTube proxy)
Absolutely
> renditions of Bach's partitas and sonatas.
Don't think so. Her recordings of his violin concerts on the other hand are able to clearly show his genius due to the more complex orchestration and interplay between the different instruments.
Other pieces I love are the 3rd and 5th Brandenburg concertos, as well as “Wachet Auf”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgXL_wrSPF0
No shade if he still doesn’t click with you. I’m just particularly ardent on the subject of Bach and baroque music!
Then, they burnt to ashes in 1945. The only extant copies were caught in the bombing of Dresden. We tend to think of "lost works" as something that happened in Antiquity. Nope.
Media is very fragile.
This is also one aspect why they absolutely hated the Jews. The Jewish culture emphasizes education and Christian were forbidden to take interests in the middle ages. So the Jews became the wealthy educated elite. They were the substrate for the German culture. So in some sense that hatred against the Jews was hatred against the educated and "the establishment".
Also the cities and cultures a lot of famous people, like philosophers and also later statesmen, essentially the countries elite, came from is now destroyed and doesn't belong to Germany any more.
I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
> I don't think it ever came back, intellectually, from the Holocaust.
I also find that sad, but honestly why would they? There weren't exactly welcomed throughout the history in Europe. While there were phases when they were, the opportunity to have your own state with people just like you certainly sounds convincing. In addition a lot of people simply couldn't, since they were dead or for some deported/"emigrated".
As for my home country, Germany, while we retained the cultures of the rich capital owners, we lost the cultures of the poor philosophers and smart statesmen. I think this is a deep hidden reason, why we suck now-a-days. Another culture, that wasn't as rich for philosophers and state men, but instead for entrepreneurs and competitive societies, didn't lost their landscape, but instead was destroyed by 40 years of socialism.
I think we should stop blaming the social and political landscape on idioticity, but instead recognize it as the successful work of 60 years of dictatorial indoctrination it is.
"Take interests"? If by that you mean in education, then this is false.
If you look at the centers of learning in the Middle Ages and who was contributing the most, these were Christians and it was the Church. The first universities-as-universities were founded then. Scholasticism was intellectually very rigorous and supplied the philosophical foundations for the modern sciences. This was an incredible period.
And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration. Those who were were often disproportionately merchants, of course, and because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews (the Church forbade Catholics from issuing loans with compound interest to anyone, hence why the Medicis, Fuggers, etc. didn't make their fortunes through interest), they were more likely to engage in money lending of that kind.
No.
> because Jews were permitted to issue loans with interest to non-Jews
Exactly, what I was saying, so you did get it.
> And not all Jews were rich, either. This is an exaggeration.
I did not say that. What I stated was that the rich educated were disproportionally (secular) Jews.
Not a great response.
> What I stated was that the rich educated were disproportionally (secular) Jews.
That came later, in the 19th century with the so-called emancipation of the Jews. Before that, "secular Jews" were not really a thing.
>> If you ment ... > No I didn't.
What more is there to say?
> That came later, in the 19th century with the so-called emancipation of the Jews. Before that, "secular Jews" were not really a thing.
Yes, I was talking about the German culture from late 19th to 20th century, which was what the Nazis found and were eager to destroy. This did have roots in the middle ages, which I mentioned.
A few rich people are enough to hate a whole group. White men are also not all rich, yet they are displayed as the privileged which need to be disadvantaged by some today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EKanXXMkz8
Amazing musicality, but the cellist never made it big cause she was a woman
Karl Richter’s version is my personal favorite but there’s lots of different recordings. IMO Bach’s St Matthew Passion is the best piece of musical art, maybe art in general too idk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWoI8vmE8bI
This piece is still deeply moving despite centuries of tastes changing. This is only barely scratching the surface of Bach. As a musician, when I listen to other great musicians speak, they all speak about Bach as the best. Of course that's subjective, and there are no 'wrong' answers on who is your favorite, but when the feeling is so nearly unanimous amount people who are often, frankly, contrarian and counter culture it says something.
I had a friend that said if Mozart/Bach/et al had access to modern music production equipment, they'd all write psytrance. But it is just another example of "take great talent from long ago and put them in modern day" comparisons.
But also, I think there are two camps of fans of "classical music" (by which I mean music in the styles: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, etc). There are those who listen to the music, and those who play it.
For the most part, those who only listen to music often prefer Romantic and Impressionist styles. From the moody and dramatic to the gentle and contemplative, these styles are very approachable to the untrained ear.
But those who play an instrument (or sing in a choir) spend lots of time practicing and rehearsing and interpreting the music as it's written on the page. This extra time makes all of the little nuances of Baroque music truly come to life. The classic example is Bach's Crab Canon, which is a fine little piece of music... but once you realize that the whole thing is a palindrome, and you can actively appreciate how the same parts work in a forward and backward context, it becomes really interesting and pleasant.
So if Bach doesn't do it for you, and you play an instrument, try diving into playing it yourself.
Interesting interpretation of "he was orphaned at 10 and left with nothing and had to go and live with his brother".
(Who gets married and dies 3 months later?)
It's all in his music - the manic passion of trying to master a craft against that background, a burning faith in a better future, against constant reminders of the horrors of the present.
It's not just four part counterpoint. There's a lot more going on.
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse. His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society. However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
This interpretation is not particularly historically accurate. Let's investigate:
> He was a nepo baby with a big purse.
Musicians of the baroque era weren't particularly wealthy or notable. Musical fame wouldn't come until the Classical era. And yes, music was his family trade, but that's how most trades went in that time. His parents both died before he turned ten, so he was mostly raised by his older brother. By all accounts they were not wealthy. So I think the term "nepo baby" is misleading, and "and "with a big purse" is simply incorrect.
> His brothers, his family, all musicians of note for prominent figures of society.
This is highly overexaggerated. JS Bach had two brothers who survived childhood, and neither was particularly "prominent." Most of his "notable family" were his children, especially CPE Bach.
> However, his leaning on his long history of music within the family helped polish his work as structured which helped sell it.
Bach's career was one of slow and steady growth. It doesn't appear that he leaned on his connections or family name much.
Bach did get some widespread acclaim by the end of his life, but mostly as an organist, not as a composer. His compositions were mostly discarded and ignored for a whole century until Felix Mendelssohn revived interest in his compositions. The cello suites, for example, were lost for nearly two hundred years, and only re-discovered in the 1920's.
I most enjoy playing music as a social affair rather than in isolation though. That may have a fair amount to do with my impression of composers from each era (Baroque is fine in a group, Classical can be unforgiving, Romantic is a lot of fun, etc.).
Looking at many of the responses here though (which have been wonderful), there are quite a few pieces from Bach that I was not aware of, or had forgotten about. He really was incredible.
The whole question though is like what is the best David Bowie album to start with multiplied by 100.
The catalog is just so immense, the sounds are just so varied that one person's favorite might completely be wrong for someone else.
I think the most relatable after thinking about it more is Stephanie Jones playing lute music on classical guitar.
Like BWV 1006a on guitar is the closest thing I can think of to modern pop music and Stephanie's virtuosity is just ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyySAFA2En8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsxP-YjDWlQ (arioso from the cantata 156, here for oboe)
which I think stands up just fine against pretty much any other classical piece baroque or not.
Personally I have a very big soft spot for his organ works, as I play (badly) some organ myself, and among those I don't see the trio sonatas recommended nearly often enough (here is a live recital of all of them, which is super impressive)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK9irE8LMAU
among those I probably enjoy the most the vivace of BWV 530. Other favorite pieces are the passacaglia and fugue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVoFLM_BDgs the toccata adagio and fugue in C major https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klh9GiWMc9U (the adagio especially is super nice), but there's so many. Among organists I often come back to Helmut Walcha, and am always amazed at how he was able to learn everything just by listening, him being blind.
Put on a good set of headphones and go sit in the corner.
Also obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah392lnFHxM&list=RDAh392lnFH...
The thing I appericiate most about bach is:
you can play it fast.
you can play it slow.
you can play it with an ensemble of random instruments.
you can play a single voicing all by itself.
all of it screams "musical". which, if you do play say, Tuba, or one of the larger instruments, is a godsend, as most of your lines in other pieces will bore you to death.
That melody will repeat itself again and again, if you listen closely. It will harmonize with itself as more voices are added. It will be modulated into different keys and durations.
In a way, you can kind of think of Bach as the first electronic musician, in the sense that his works consist of "discrete tracks" that get layered on to each other. I'm sure there are youtube videos out there that demonstrate this visually.
(not me, but...)
Bach - Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor, BWV 582
> But one wonders what he could have made without those constraints.
Bach-Busoni - Chaconne from Partita No. 2 in D minor, BWV 1004
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?
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.
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.
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.
Not OP, but I think no.
> 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.
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.
It has nothing to do with subjective taste. The immensity of Bach's work is almost inhuman.
That still wouldn't capture Bach's influence on western music though.
The combination of the immensity, originality and influence is just mind boggling.
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.
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.
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.
Who cares? It just proves my point.
> 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.
Nah, that's just your opinion.
> 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.
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.
[1] Tuvan Throat Singing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx8hrhBZJ98
[2] Ketawang Puspawarna, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irt2AsxYYnI
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.
Aquarium was my sons childhood theme song
(Said as a huge fan of his work. I spent a year playing essentially nothing but one of his fugues.)
This didn't really get noticed in his own day, as they were busy dumbing things down into the classical period, but he was hugely influencial through rediscovery.
Except for Italian humanists rediscovering Greek and Roman writings, I'm having a hard time thinking of an earlier instance of a chiefly posthumous legacy.
By a ridiculous stroke of luck I got to perform that piece as soloist once. Unforgettable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmsNH8t25ck - This guy is like 95 and still shredding on youtube
Truth is, they were ALL Justin Bieber. It’s all pop music of the time.
https://youtu.be/_1xJoVzoIQg?list=RD_1xJoVzoIQg
Also they were not all justin beiber. Bach was a working church musician when mozart was out touring europe getting drunk and shitting on women. Only one of them was in it for the fame. In fact you could say that mozart and liszt were 2 of the first "pop stars" because that archetype didn't exist before them. There was basically no "beatlesmania" over bach. He had a steady job, but he didn't die wealthy or famous.
Because I was rather appalled by that language, but maybe lack background context.
https://www.thepiano.sg/piano/read/mozart-and-his-infamous-l...
Gute Nacht (good night)
Scheiss ins Bett dass es kracht (shit into the bed so that it bangs)
Reck den Arsch zum Mund (stretch your ass towards your mouth)
und sei recht kugelrund (and be spherically round))
And Mozart wrote a canon from it
"Buona Nox - bist a rechter Ox" (and the end of the text is what I wrote above)
Bach died 6 years before Mozart was born.
He was just decomposing instead of composing.
(Old sixth grade camp joke)
Mozart was the quintessential "Dark Forest" composer, hiding musical sentience in plain sight of light classical period textures.
Here he is with 2 measures of a simple major key "Justin Bieber" clarinet sequence interleaved with 2 measures from the strings that keep modulating to minor keys:
https://youtu.be/xdVo0MsJMOc?t=1074
Keep listening to the section marked "Tutti" in the score for a re-orchestration and reharmonization of that same clarinet sequence, but now in a surprisingly lush, chromatic style similar to Wagner or Brahms. It quickly disappears, too.
Similarly, Bach's own output is encoded inside Mozart's. E.g., the coda of the Rondo in A Minor doubles as a two-part invention, complete with invertible counterpoint between left- and right-hand.
He also built a nifty hash table that could be used to efficiently generate and stream music over the internet. (Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to patent and sell it to Yahoo for 6 billion dollars.)
Bach's complexity, incidentally, is seldom "for its own sake" - the pieces all fit together beautifully and without extraneous movement. Contrast that with some lesser works by later composers like Liszt, where you often get the sense that a given passage could be reduced or removed without harming the work.
My latest favorite: Oh God, Hear My Sighs: https://soundcloud.com/nick66/oh-god-hear-my-sighs-bach
Just to add to that-- the complexity of Bach is something like going half-way around the circle of fifths in the middle of a long fugue in G#-minor. And he does this not just for kicks, but because this is one in a 24-part polemic to push other composers/musicians to use his favored equal temperament tuning system. "Using my system, you too can visit foreign keys with confidence and ease! Never sound out of tune again!" That's the whole point of Book II of his Well-Tempered Clavier.[1]
Similarly, Mozart's complexity was taking a social issue-- like egalitarianism-- and sneaking it into an opera by quickly composing 3 dances of different classes (and meters!) to be performed concurrently on the stage. Apparently he cued the on-stage musicians for each dance when he conducted the premiere of Don Giovanni.
I mention the latter because Bach's favored textures were thick and busy, and Mozart's tended toward light and effervescent. There's a tendency to confuse texture with deeper musical complexity, and that can lead people to overlook Mozart's contributions and/or give Bach credit for the wrong things.
1: Lazy theory-- Bach wrote Book I so the keyboardist could tune first using equal temperament, then choose any key and sound in tune. But most collections of pieces (e.g., dance suites) were all in the same key anyway, so this wasn't much of a practical advantage. However, if he modulated to various keys in a single piece, then those keys would sound poor in just intonation. Then the musician would be forced to use equal temperament to play the piece! Unfortunately, not all of the fugues in Book II are as harmonically adventuresome as the G#-minor fugue, so a lazy theory it remains.
Now don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy many of his compositions for what they are. The thing about music and many other arts is that it is a fools errand to attempt to give them a total ordering; there are things to enjoy about wildly differing styles of music that I think people do a disservice to themselves being restrictive.
For example, some don’t like classical music because they say it’s not danceable. Well, duh it’s mostly not, but that’s not the point of it. It about enjoying the melodies and harmony and structure.
So one can compare art on specific axes, but to say such and such is the greatest composer is kind of meaningless to me.
The chaconne from the 2nd partita in D minor [BWV 1004] I find very powerful; very different from the Brandburg Concertos, which I tend to fancy less.
I mean, of course in the thousand of pieces he wrote, there are pieces that you won't like, and "greatest composer" is an impossible and absurd proposition.
Well, you surely also are a Sonata No.1 [BWV 1001] enjoyer, aren't you ? I find the four movement to be exceptionnally good, and they cover a lot of ground.
Are there any composers from other cultures that come close to doing what Bach (and Mozart, Beethoven, Stravinsky, etc) did? Like, I want to hear the Japanese equivalent of the Brandenburg Concertos or Mass in B Minor, all guns blazing. Don't tell me "well, it's the space between the notes that matter..." just overwhelm me with genius that is self-evident the second the music starts. I have a few theories, but haven't really researched it.
To his contemporaries, he was a member of a specific national "culture", and influenced by the greats of other European (and non-European) cultures of the time.
You could make the argument of how elaborate is a piece of art but in the case of individuals like that they are so far off from the median person in their culture that it'd be quite hard to see their achievement as coming from their culture instead of their own cognitive abilities. The societies they grew into either fought them or allowed them to strive but that's about it.
Europe was a civilization in a perpetual state of war with power rarely concentrated, so even concentrated wealth was local and therefor still distributed amongst different kingdoms and nobles.
This means more opportunity and support: One village/patron/noble/king doesn’t like your style? Go travel and find someone else to sponsor you.
I don’t think this was possible elsewhere. East Asia for example—thanks in part to Confucianism—had China dwarfing most of the region, with a stifling top down meritocracy.
And today, China and the United States have incredible sway over the globe I imagine things are stalled.
Also these are not really competing, but more like morphing into another. During the Antique there was trade with India and China, subsahara parts of Africa. The Arabian mathematics was preserved in Greek literature. This was then rediscovered and translated into Latin, which kick-started European philosophy and sciences.
The same is true for religion. Christianity is the mix of Jewry and Greek philosophy. The Greek were heavy influenced from the Egypt culture. The Jews took their knowledge from the Arab peoples in their regions and also part from Egypt. This Monotheism came from earlier Polytheism and earlier natural religions.
Where are the great classical artists in even the rest of Europe? The great classical composers of the 18th century were all German and all made their careers in Vienna, Austria in the 1700s. This was where you wanted to be. Its like the musical equivalent of silicon valley in the 2000s. Vienna was among the wealthiest cities in the world. Habsburg nobility had an unusual fascination with funding arts and culture. Spurs competition to push the art to its limit, in hopes of attracting the wealthiest backers. Budding industrial revolution make the production of complicated musical instruments more viable.
I think the mobility at that time is underestimated, it was very common to relocate to a place where the innovation happens and the other great minds were. It was more common to tour through Europe as part of the Education, than it is now. Sure a journey would take a week instead of a few hours, but you also don't relocate every day.
A system for buying arrangements of the Well-Tempered Clavier for any combination of instruments:
welltemperedconsort.com
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnuq9PXbywA&list=RDNnuq9PXby...
This is like listening to the outtakes and demos of a band instead of the actual albums. Pointless when it takes a lifetime to get through the actual catalog.
Nothing happens for about the first seven minutes, then there's an intro in German until about 11 minutes, and then another not much happens until 15 minutes. But then...!
... an unskippable ad. /s