/lit/ - Literature

>>13667144
Some will say Shakespeare, but he isn't prosaically high concept enough imho. I'd say Joyce.

>>13667144
Honoré de Balzac

Henry Darger

>>13667144
Me.

>an autistic hermit genius that composed a shit ton of music
When you put it that way, Fernando Pessoa.

>>13667144
>an autistic hermit
no, and no

>>13667189
This. Bach was known as a man about town. He sired many children and was actually a highly antagonistic person. He was basically a chad.

>>13667171
>autistic
dude fathered over 20 children and single-handedly fought off a gang with a rapier. he also almost got fired for secretly bringing girls into his church's organ loft. bach was a chad. beethoven on the other hand was an autistic hermit incel.

>>13667151
i think this is a good answer

>>13667144
Another way of asking this would be: unequivocally the best of all time

>>13667144
It's obviously Kant and anyone ITT who thinks otherwise is a brainlet

>>13667144
Milton

>>13667151
You really do not know much about music.

Bach lines up with poetry, it would be someone who primarily worked within strict established forms and did so better then the rest. He really extolled the virtues of coloring within the lines and when he went out of the lines he did not just go off and do it, he said (musically), here is what I am going to do, and now I will show you how to do it.

>>13667284
I'm just saying you don't have the mathematical perfection of Bach in Shakespeare. But actually, language is too arbitrary to have the mathematical perfection of Bach. Music is a much purer and more immanent medium than language.

>>13667144
>hermit
dude was a megachad in his day

>>13667298
I was pointing out that Joyce is not at all the lit parallel, not arguing for Shakespeare.

Notice, I said no names, I was not saying it is Shakespeare.

The mathematical perfection of Bach and most music is just claptrap to sell to people that do not know music. The overtone theory does not even apply here, Bach was all about the tempered 12 tone scale which does not follow the harmonic series, what he did can not be done within the harmonic series unless you drastically increase the number of notes in the octave to the point it is not longer practical to play anything of the complexity of even his simpler works.

Music that is mathematically pure does not sound good to most people, most instruments and almost all voices do not follow the harmonic series perfectly and some are far off, rhythm is played with swing and shuffle, we bend notes out of perfection and as mentioned, our scale does not follow the harmonic series. Music that is actually as mathematical as people claim Bach to be is almost universally hated. There is a mathematical aspect to Bach and most music, but it is much smaller than some make it out to be.

Joyce is not even remotely similar.

>>13667364
>Bach was all about the tempered 12 tone scale which does not follow the harmonic series

Its literally the most practical application of equal tuning so that any any note can be the gravitational center of the music and have the most important members of the series closely approximated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9CPoe5LnM

>>13667364
Also choirs tune justly because of the primordial presentation of the overtone series.

it's totally shakespeare

>>13667381
Exactly, practical, not mathematically pure.

>>13667423
I think you're suffering from anoxia

>>13667446
You do not know the theory behind any of this and so resort to insult to make up for ignorance.

>>13667485
>N-n-no U

No U

>>13667507
Ok, explain the theory than, prove me wrong.

Bach in surface level imo. He is like the lil b of classical. I prefer handel. He used math to compose