[PotatoPancakes]

Bach's most approachable music might be his cello suites.

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.

[sbrother]

I think that's true about Bach's instrumental music, but his big sacred works like his Passions and the Mass in B minor are as "romantic" as the Baroque period gets. Like OP, I think of these works as basically the pinnacle of human artistic achievement. They somehow have all the nuance and complexity you're referring to -- while also telling a deeply emotional story, and just being heart-wrenchingly beautiful even if you don't know the story.

[spectralista]

I think Bach's lute music is the most approachable because it sounds the most modern like guitar music. Even though the baroque lute is an alien instrument visually to the average person today, the sound is closer to what people have grown up on.

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

[leephillips]

She is amazing. Brings out the lines with such clarity.

[hodgehog11]

Funnily enough, I actually play the cello and have enjoyed playing some of his cello suites in the past. Yes, I certainly admire the famous Suite I and it has an incredible mood to it.

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.

[reactordev]

I cut my teeth on Bach on Cello when I was 7. By the time I was in high school I could play all the instruments. I still don’t consider Bach to be the genius everyone says he was. 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. Now, Jean-Babtiste Lully was a character…

[PotatoPancakes]

If you don't like it, that's fine, I won't argue over taste. But your other descriptions of Bach's life deserve to be fact-checked.

> 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.

[Aidevah]

>He was a nepo baby with a big purse.

Interesting interpretation of "he was orphaned at 10 and left with nothing and had to go and live with his brother".