as much of a lover of Bach's non-vocal works as I am, I'd like to point out that most definitions of music involve at least 3 components:
  
         rhythm
         melody
         harmony

one might also timbre if you were in the right mood. Bach, like more or less everyone who is a part of the "western tradition", did some incredible things with harmony, and had some modest accomplishments in the melodic area (*), but did essentially nothing with rhythm.

It is entirely possible to fully respect the incredible work of western composers while also acknowledging that "music" begins and ends in places far outside anywhere that they (or any other single musical culture) have ever explored.


(*) contrast western notions of melody with that found in carnatic music, for example. one could argue that this is a matter of listener interpretation rather than compositional form, but since in practice these two are tightly bound together, it doesn't make a lot of difference when it comes to actual music.