Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!elf
From: elf@utcsrgv.UUCP (Eugene Fiume)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Bach underrated?
Message-ID: <3027@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jan-84 12:13:28 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3027
Posted: Wed Jan  4 12:13:28 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jan-84 12:43:30 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 27

These "Bach is terribly underrated" statements strike me as being
a little facile.  Let's be objective.  We define a simple function U(C)
which measures the "underratedness" of composer C as the ratio of
her/his critically vs. popularly acclaimed compositions. Formally,
U(C): {Composers} -> [0,infinity] such that
U(C) = CriticallyAcclaimedCompositions(C) / PopularlyAcclaimedCompositions(C).
An underrated composer c would surely have a very large U(c).
Conversely for an overrated composer.  Choose the set of critics as you like.

If you like this (very simple-minded) measure, then I'm sure you're also
persuaded that Bach is by no means underrated.  In fact, in the total ordering
of all composers wrt U(C), Bach would lie very close to the middle, meaning
that he is very close to being the least underrated AND least overrated
composer.  This may be justification for saying Bach is one of the "finest"
composers that ever lived.

Since the problem of determining the finest composer reduces to that of
finding a mutually acceptable measure, the latter problem is ultimately
undecidable, since the former is.  But why do we all concentrate on
talking about the former?  Let's change that.  At least the act of discovering
new and wonderful measures, which is itself intrinsically absurd,
might tell us something useful about ourselves (but probably not much about
composers).

Eugene Fiume
U of Toronto
utzoo!utcsrgv!elf