Nature or nurture? This age-old debate continues to stimulate intense research today, not only in the social sciences, but also in many other disciplines such as musicology and history. In particular, in her article, “The Blasphemy of Talking Politics During the Year of Bach,” Susan McClary essentially lays out the nature versus nurture debate (although describing her argument as such may be overly simplistic) regarding JS Bach and to his works, arguing that Bach's music, if analyzed in its social context, does not necessarily guarantee the mystification, exaltation and almost divinization that scholars and musicians have traditionally attributed. However, while McClary certainly offers much-needed perspective and balance in the study of Bach and his works, his thesis fails to explain, or even acknowledge, factors that cannot simply be attributed simply to culture, environment or to Bach's education. no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay McClary is right that "once we understand each of the styles that Bach appropriated as an articulation of a set of social values, then we can begin to identify details in his famous stylistic synthesis that connect the his particular eclectic way of composition with its thorny social and professional relationships and even with its situation in relation to the broader political context” (McClary 15). or place, that he was 'divinely inspired,' that his music functions in accordance with perfect and universal order and truth,” McClary argues that scholars can do justice to Bach only by interpreting his works in light of the social context and musical in which he lived (McClary 14). Examining the Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 and Wachet auf, McClary shows how tonality, form, instrumentation, national styles, religious themes, and even gender constructs in these two pieces can be better understood in light of the unique intersection of musical styles, cultural identities, and religious discourses in Bach's time. Furthermore, by mentioning that Pietist employers were not always satisfied with Bach's works, McClary demonstrates that Bach understood and produced music in relation to the musical and religious debates of his time. The implications of McClary's argument are clear: once Bach's musical "genius" can be deconstructed and explained with the above arguments, Bach ceases to be revered as an absolute and unparalleled "great" and is instead relegated to the ordinary ranks of other classical artists. composers. Although McClary logically argues that Bach's music should not be valued to the extent that it cannot be questioned or analyzed contextually, in doing so, McClary risks swinging to the other extreme by explaining factors that may not be fully explained by contextual information alone . For example, referring to the way Bach positioned his music in opposition to the various musical traditions of his time, McClary summarizes: “To be so clashing with each of his spheres of influence required a certain type of personality. Bach's career was mapped onto the same force field of attractions and ambivalences as his style: never willing to fully commit to a single context and its ideology, he continued to shuttle between them, creating antagonisms with superiors and at the same time implementing possible means of.