Can any composer equal Bach?

In particular, the Große Fugue [0] and the Op. 106 Hammerklavier sonata [1] (ironically so nicknamed, because at Op. 101, Beethoven directed that all sonatas from that time on be named Große Sonate für das Hammerklavier, and the nickname only stuck to this) show a profoundly advanced sense of counterpoint and structure. In addition to applying all of the classical transformations to motifs (including augmentation, diminution, cancrizans, canons and sequences), he even performs note for note reversals in time. (A temporal cancrizan, if you will.) [Edit: it would be a crime to fail to mention the late string quartets, which show prescience of modernism and are considered to be the pinnacle of chamber music. Many of you will at least be familiar with the Op. 131 c# minor quartet, which Wagner called the "saddest music ever penned" and whose 6th movement was used in the Band of Brothers episode "Why We Fight".]

Similarly, Brahms' masterful applications of form and counterpoint put most other composers to shame. Rather than be as enormously prolific as Bach, the quality of his output is more consistently excellent. (No doubt partially due to his penchant for burning the manuscripts which he felt were subpar.)

I think it's a little unfair to put Bach on this pedestal. There's plenty of music by any composer mentioned to relax to or feel stimulated by. Additionally, Bach's musical temperaments are somewhat limited by his media and styles. He is the master of his craft, but his craft has limited scope.

Yes, Bach has his own, unique, immovable place. But Beethoven, Brahms, and many other composers have immutable, unchallenged championships in their own arenas.

[P.S. Please mark this with a [2014] tag to denote when it was published.]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fe_Fuge

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_Sonata_No._29_(Beethoven...

What an absolutely silly remark. There were things Einstein was good at, and things he was not. This silly popular image of Einstein as the genius among geniuses is just that: silly and popular. And this appeal to his supposed authority (more like piggybacking off his popular reputation) is just tawdry.

"“writing about music is like dancing about architecture”."

Nothing but obscurantism. If Bach is the quintessential or the best classical composer, then in principle it is possible to explain exactly why, even if you personally may be unable to.

"Living from 1685 to 1750, he had no choice but to write music to the glory of God"

Yes, because, as the sophisticated writers at the BBC insinuate, a composer of Bach's greatness could only have written "to the glory of God" if forced to do so in some way. "Such were the times" they think to themselves. Had he the choice, had he been freed from the backwardness of his culture, surely he would have been outwardly as sophisticated as us!

"Bach’s music was made through faith, but it transcends faith. He humanises the Lutheran theology of his time and makes it approachable. [...] This earthy element to Bach’s epic spirituality is “a wonderful paradox"

A very odd thing to say, and somewhat nonsensical. Transcends faith? And besides, didn't God become Man in the figure of Jesus? Isn't that at the very heart of Christianity? If there is paradox, then it is the paradox of the Incarnation. He may have given a new voice to this mystery, but he did not invent the mystery.

"“So there’s Bach, drenched in grief, sleeping with groupies in the organ loft; a duelling, fighting, hard-drinking rock star with a work ethic that makes Obama look like a bum"

??? If there's anyone hitting the sauce, it's this James Rhodes guy. James, if you're playing is as bad as your vacuous blather, I am gravely afraid for my ears.