>inb4 h-historically illiterate!
(You) are the one who's enjoying the art. I am the one who puts it in its historical context.
Anyone who appreciates Shakespeare or Michelangelo, as I said, doesn't spend his time obsessively appreciating their art. They know the place of said art, and they move on to exploring new venues. Anyone who sits and listens to Bach, claiming the music is somehow better than our contemporaries, simply has no idea why Bach is considered a genius. To be clear, I'm referring to you retards who like the music because "it's good", not because "it was good for its time". Bach was a genius, but his music doesn't hold up to modern standards, yet you retards disregard modern composers because "Bach still beats them". This is where your IQ reminds me of a used toilet. Hans Zimmer's discography is better than Bach. Gladiator's soundtrack is bett
er than Allegro. Interstellar's soundtrack is better than Mozart's Rondo Alla Turca. Hell, fucking Ceddin Deden is better than Rondo Alla Turca (ironically).
Bach's music is good. There is nothing you can add or take away because it is perfect. All this said, there is only one reason his work remains on a pedestal to this day. It is because they are ideal for new artists to master their skill. Bach developed "classical music" (which was modern music in his time) and as long as classical instruments remain relevant (forever), so will he. This is why his work is relevant, not because his music is exceptional. And his era is why he is a genius. His music is good when you know this. The melodies are not special.
You're not arguing in good faith if you believe contemporary composers can't best Bach. You are selling civilization short, or making a political statement. Here's another perspective. Composers of the past were not idealizing the past themselves. They were trailblazing. Additionally, Bach made music for the church and Mozart made music for plays. Similarly, modern composers make music for movies.