@Bo - I hope you're willing to apply that same logic to the next Wildcard match-up.

Is that Buddha v Jesus? I am voting for Buddha without question.

Bach, no doubts here (sorry, Descartes)

Shakespeare. IMPACT.

@teacon I got my knowledge on the issue of language from (1) researchers of Middle Eastern linguistics (I trust them, why should they lie about?) I happen to be acquainted with and (through them and by own search enquiries in the relevant databases) (2) linguistic literature and (3) primary sources (amongst which the bible, where this is mentioned many times). To get a glimpse on this, you could also refer to Wikipedia, which is a good point for starters, but ofc shall be doubted.

You are right, in that koine was important, too, and the whole language issue doesn't matter on hellenisation. If the comparisons suits you, Aramic was the Swahili of the Middle East, Koine the English counterpart.

@tyran I would say more people are affected by Bach than by Shakespeare. In particular through his influence on protestant sacral music that also spilled into catholic music. In any case, I can't see Shakespeare's impact being larger than Bachs, enlighten me about the issue.

Shakespeare is taught in high schools to this day. If someone named 5 Shakespeare plays chances are I could know they were his. If someone named 5 things composed by Bach I probably wouldn't know them. If someone read a few well known lines of Shakespeare I might know what play they were from but if someone played something composed by Bach I honestly wouldn't know it was Bach. Shakespeare created entire words and added so much to the English language. As you put it Bach affected religious music. Not everyone is religious and older catholic and protestant church music is much less likely to come into contact with the average teenager or even young adult that say 3 or 4 Shakespeare plays and various sonnets. Shakespeare has a much larger and more pronounced impact on our modern day society and lives than Bach. Elevator music is hardly comparable to something taught in classrooms across the country and many other English speaking nations.

Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was a fraud. He didn't write anything, being only marginally literate (if at all). And those who do not know Bach speak only to their own musical ignorance/starvation.

Shakespeare has crossed cultural lines *despite* being Anglo-centric. Music (without lyrics) should have a much easier time crossing those lines. One could argue that Shakespeare greatly contributed to English becoming a dominant language in the world.

Shakespeare

"Shakespeare was a fraud. He didn't write anything, being only marginally literate (if at all)"

You are an idiot.

"Elevator music"

...

Tolstoy, for the sake of this thread, shut da hell up

Sorry Tolstoy, that was unkind of me to say and I don't know if it's true. You have a lot of extremely stupid beliefs, and have been foolish in your choice of epistemology, showing little influence from any experience in the real world, but you may for all I know have some types of wisdom that you do not make manifest on webdip, and anyway, I shouldn't have stooped to a personal insult.

lol at elevator music, what the fuck is that bullshiT

Hey Tolstoy, what's your opinion on the phantom time hypothesis?

"I shouldn't have stooped to a personal insult."

I accept and sincerely appreciate your apology, semck. I have always viewed you as a man of class and decency, even though we usually don't see eye to eye (and you think I'm a nutjob).

In my defense, I would point out that the Oxford Theory of Shakespearean Authorship is far from the craziest thing I've ever referenced on this forum, and has been supported by many prominent and respected historians and performers of the Shakespeare plays.

"Hey Tolstoy, what's your opinion on the phantom time hypothesis?"

Truth be told, I've never heard of it before. After reading the wikipedia article on the subject, I would say it sounds rather far-fetched.

Why do you ask, ghug?

@tyran maybe this is your perception. I'm not sure whether you have travelled the world a little, I did. I have met people everywhere knowing about Bach, I didn't so about Shakespeare (albeit the margin is very slim here I admit). The reason why you wouldn't recognise many Bach melodies is simply because it is rare to have the composer's name playing along the tunes, whereas for books or quotes it is quite usual to have the author's name included (this is not an actual "recognition").

To your second argument: Shakespeare is well known because English became one of the dominant languages, not the other way around. The truth is that Shakespeare gained traction outside the English world only after Britain got her empire. In Japan eg. only after the American occupation because it was introduced to high school teaching by the occupant. This is not true with Bach, who was well known and receiving offers from all over Europe during his lifetime and responsible for many jingles still used today.

I was curious, Tolstoy. As you and semck have been discussing, you often have some far-fetched ideas, and as it is far-fetched, I was hoping you might have some knowledge on the subject. The logical hoops it has to jump through to be at all believable to anyone must be fascinating, and I was hoping to hear more about them.

For X3n0n, world traveller:

Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree
I travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for Shakespeare

Some of them want to vote Bach
Some of them want to listen to Bach
All of them want to abuse you
Some of them are just Baching mad

Oh, I have sung the lyrics by Eurythmics wrong! Contrary change of the lyrics..! ;-)

And I'll be takin' care of business, every day
Takin' care of business, any way...
I'll be takin' care of business, it's all right
Takin' care of business and working overtime, work out.

That's Bach, right?

Shakespeare

Fuck all you boring bleach ass white people

Bach

Bach, the German, wasn't bleach ass white?

And Othello was all about bleach ass white people?