/lit/ - Literature

>>16390812
So did life continue at the end of the ring(as many say), or did the leitmotif merely imply the redemption of all the Gods and existence itself?

>https://youtu.be/_5zNH6R1zsE?t=675

>>16390812
possibly. i'd certainly think that had i met him in real life.

>>16390897
Why do you say that? Would you believe it more if you could see the man and not his works?

>>16390851
That leitmotif is divine intervention, it makes more sense if it is the highest culmination of human experience, rather than a specific "redeeming" conception through death or going over into life, hence the previous usage in "Die Walkure" after Brunhilde saves the child of Sieglinde, Siegfried, "O highest of wonders! Noblest of maids!":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2tq8fFDVys

And now have a classic, musically lighter, to cleanse the taste buds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaO0432Gl18

>>16390812
>I hear this said a lot.
By who? Idiots? Wagner isn’t even in the top 20 — probably not even in the top 100. The correct answer to your question is, Isaac Newton probably was the most intelligent person to ever live.

>>16390978
>a scientist
>the most intelligent man that has ever lived

The most intelligent person to ever live is Sherlock Holmes

>>16391017
Yes.

>>16390812
Probably, yes

>>16391029
Are you sure it isn't at least, if we're going to have it in this realm, Leibniz?

>>16390978
>this is what sciencefags actually believe
>"Back in the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton owned shares in the South Sea Company, the hottest stock in England. Sensing that the market was getting out of hand, the great physicist muttered that he 'could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people.' Newton dumped his South Sea shares, pocketing a 100% profit totaling £7,000. But just months later, swept up in the wild enthusiasm of the market, Newton jumped back in at a much higher price — and lost £20,000 (or more than $3 million in [2002-2003's] money. For the rest of his life, he forbade anyone to speak the words 'South Sea' in his presence."
Ah, yes. Truly the greatest intellect to ever grace the earth!

>>16391092
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 'South Sea' REEEEEEEEEEEEARGHHHHHHHHHHRNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>16391024
Wrong. Lupin III has an IQ in the range of 300

>>16390812
he was not a man, he was a demi-god, half aryan half giant, but yes.

>>16391106
Kek I can hear the screech

>>16391017
Cretin fingers typed this post.
>>16391047
Leibniz, Marie Curie, Tesla, Galileo, Ramanujan, Bose and of course Einstein are also put forth as candidates. The common choice however is Newton, whose achievements were extremely prodigious. If we’re sticking to Germanics and/or the arts, Goethe and Beethoven were both likely more intelligent than Wagner.

>>16390978
>using an em dash on an imageboard
utter cringe

the answer is Euler

>>16391092
Everyone fucks up sometimes, anon, even highly intelligent people. You’d know this if you yourself were intelligent, which unfortunately you’re clearly not.

>>16390812
Depends how you define intelligence desu

>>16391124
>Marie Curie, Tesla, Ramanujan, Bose
>candidates for most intelligent person to ever live
>previously said "cretin fingers typed this post"
I would think it ridiculous to call Einstein in the top 10 most intelligent men to ever live, but Curie what drugs are you on, get a whiff of her radiation? Not only are all of your candidates the most stereotypical bunch for midwits to spout from what they've learnt on the subject, mostly popsci is the only thing that gives them the knowledge of who a figure is so they can then research them(as its obvious you don't arrive at any important figures on your own), but it shows that you lack all knowledge in any other fields, and furthermore that you yourself are the "cretin", you're not intelligent because you know a mathematical sum anon; stemnerds are in a constant psychosis of grandeur.

>>16391017
He was a theologician firstmost.

>>16391174
Perhaps, and that I admire, but there have been greater theologians.

>>16391172
Seethe, cope, dilate, etc., you absolutely cretinous butthurt faggot.

>>16391225
Get out of your ass hole before you suffocate from your own farts.

How could anybody think Curie was the most intelligent person to ever live? It shows not only just an immature conception of intelligent as most of your other examples, but downright a lack of knowledge on what intelligence even is, and a preference for those typical popsci figures which I explained.

how can someone who makes music be smart

>>16390812
Aristotle

>>16391292
That's a strong argument, but I could also say Plato, who practically laid every base for Aristotle and in many major ways excelled him. But Aristotle was definitely vaster-- it is very difficult who was more intelligent, Plato or Aristotle.

>>16391124
>Marie Curie

>>16391172
>I would think it ridiculous to call Einstein in the top 10 most intelligent men to ever live
Why?

>>16391486
Well even for what he did, he wasn't *AS* intelligent as others said and he thought and said as much that he wasn't comparable to previous figures like Newton, contrary to what many people started to think. But given the general opinion of him, even then there are far more intelligent figures, Kant, Goethe, Heidegger, the Buddha, Newton, Aristotle.

>>16391260
>intelligence can only be measured by iq lol

>>16391244
More cretinous crap from the cretin. IQ scores for historical figures can be estimates only; rankings therefore are subjective and there’s no real way to tell whether the raw intelligence of one historical genius was superior to that of another. With that said, Curie was very well regarded in her time and very well remembered in this — two facts that will never, ever apply to you.
>>16391363
Given that she was leaps and bounds smarter than you, it’s extremely unlikely you have any capacity whatsoever to judge her.

>>16391260
>>16391554
Wagner memorised whole symphonies by Beethoven and could transcribe them at any moment, was translating large portions of the Iliad and Odyssey at the age of nine after teaching himself ancient Greek, as well as regularly btfo'd physicists, I think he'd get an extraordinarily high result on an iq test anyway.

>>16391092
>pinkwojaknewton.jpg
Someone please

>>16390978
>Smartness = success or how right they were.

The most intelligent person in the world could have been a delusion moron like L Ron Hubbard for all we know.

>>16390978
>scientist
kek, read weininger. scientists can never be considered among the best because their work is often more observatory than creative, and because their discoveries are usually made almost simultaneously with other scientists, meaning they were inevitable

>>16391092
>Intelligence =/= wisdom or critical thinking skills.

Read this.

>>16391172
Ok mighty smarty, who would you choose?

>>16391092
>>16391576

>>16391585
>their work is often more observatory than creative
Dumb fuck statement.

>>16391617
mad as fuck redditor

>>16391563
We're not going by a test that tries to estimate intelligence by quantity you brainlet, furthermore though there is a portion of that which is included, you saying "it can only be estimates for historical figures", is nothing more than a cope denying all blame for a stupid statement. It's the equivalent in the context that you use it, of saying "you can't say one historic figure is more intelligent than another because you don't have a gay empirical test to record it", but of course you only use that in your case of saying something stupid and not in mine. Overall you're a moron for thinking something being an estimate devoids the estimator of basic intelligence to estimate, and are an even greater retard for thinking it could be used to rhetorical ends in the context you used it in.

NO ONE WILL EVER THINK CURIE WAS A "GENIUS" OR IN THE TOP 1000 MOST INTELLIGENT PEOPLE TO EVER LIVE, THAT IS RIDICULOUS IN ALL CASES.

You're clearly a teenager please browse /lit/ long enough that you pick up a book.

>With that said, Curie was very well regarded in her time and very well remembered in this — two facts that will never, ever apply to you.
LMAO you're definitely a SEETHing teenager, or maybe a woman; I cannot tell a difference, and going to the efforts of using an em dash, as the other anon said, is SAD.

>>16391609
Lmao

>3 MILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, it was Vico, however Wagner is second.

>>16391668
I like you. But is it true that Vico wrote incredibly dry, or is his "New Science" really as brilliant as they say?

>>16391643
Wow, what a fucking poser you are. Your absolute seething idiotic anger is truly a joy to behold. Neck yourself immediately, cretin, before your utter stupidity has the chance to infect anyone else.

Hmmmm. Its a fairly hard question. If I had to pick someone I'd probably pick a mathemathician. Euler maybe. I think people here have an anti-recency bias though. I'm sure inventing calculus is something 10s of thousands of people alive would have been capable of had they lived in newtons time, but they obviously don't get that sort of recognition, so in terms of actual intelligence, I'd probably pick a modern mathemathician like grothendieck or turing. If i had to pick a philosopher I'd pick maybe someone like Kant. I am perhaps biased towards edifice-building, like what you see in algebraic geometry or german idealism, but I think this sort of thinking is a better representation of genius than singular insights are, no matter their brilliance. Insights are produced by luck, but if they are sustained for a long time they're more likely to be representative of something real etc.

Artistis I don't think are all to intelligent. I think they're more wise. I don't know what kind of definition of intelligence you want to use, but art is much more intuitive than any natural science or mathemathics is. You have an assemblage of impressions, that you put together into an image that captures something a lot of people are feeling. Synthesis vs analysis I guess you could say, art being the former, science being the latter, and the former being creativity, and the latter being intelligence, although, they of course, are not oppositions.

>>16391643
Is correct about curie though.

>>16391701
>Artistis I don't think are all to intelligent. I think they're more wise. I don't know what kind of definition of intelligence you want to use, but art is much more intuitive than any natural science or mathemathics is.
Of course, but they're not exactly like blind men, and within the whole rang of art and artistry it cannot be categorised in so simplistic a way. Goethe said with a dash of irony that had been writing poetry his entire life to make up for his dream of being a painter. He is capturing a description in poetry, something highly technical and taking time in practice and hard work, as well as genius to be any good in it. Hence the contrast with painting, but music is just as complex if not more so, where there needs to be an extraordinarily vast knowledge of the subject to do anything successful in it, and constant working. Even if one were working as a "blindman" as it were some highly introspective artists do, like a state of possession, there still needs to be that intelligence and genius and general capability of the figure, their entire genetic being, to do anything good. A very average intelligenced person no matter how inspired or intuitve he was, could create something as good as the genius who was struck by intuition; a Goethe.

>>16391017
>Isaac Newton was a scientist.
Jesus Christ, read a fucking book.

>>16391738
I mean, of course, I'm not saying artists are stupid. If you are at the top of your field, you are probably much more intelligent than average. I'm just saying, I think a field like math is more purely intelligence loaded, because your recognition is going to depend less on the historical context you find youself in. If schoenberg went to middle age europe and began playing 12 tone rows he'd probably be executed (based) as a wierdo, and we wouldn't hear more of him. However, if euler went to ancient greece, and presented his ideas, he'd probably still be recognized as one of the greatest mathemathicians to ever live, and he'd probably accelerate technological progress in europe by a few hundred years in the process.

>>16390812
It was actually satie
>“My only nourishment consists of food that is white: eggs, sugar, shredded bones, the fat of dead animals, veal, salt, coconuts, chicken cooked in white water, moldy fruit, rice, turnips, sausages in camphor, pastry, cheese (white varieties), cotton salad, and certain kinds of fish (without their skin). I boil my wine and drink it cold mixed with the juice of the Fuchsia. I have a good appetite, but never talk when eating for fear of strangling myself.”
>“I breathe with care (a little at a time). I very rarely dance. When walking, I clasp my sides, and look steadily behind me.”
>“I sleep with only one eye closed, very profoundly. My bed is round, with a hole to put my head through. Once every hour a servant takes my temperature and gives me another.”

>>16391819
That is incredibly silly anon, yes both the highest and the lowest man feels the need to recognise something in that which we call art, and to create such artistry himself. However the basic farm man is just as likely to count whatever low number he needs as his daughter is to take up painting. Your post doesn't seem to have much of a point, though I don't mean to be rude.

>>16391883
Was it autism?

>>16391966
I think my point is perfectly clear, maybe you don't get it.

>>16391511
>Heidegger more intelligent than einstein

Einstein contribituion is incomparable to anyone bar newton, Imagine comparing a man that unlocked QM and "The laws of matter" to pseud that said the obvious simple things in hard to understand terminology.

>>16390812
>I hear this said a lot.
i've also heard he's the person with the most words written about him
i told the wagnerite who told me that i doubted it, but he was adamant

>>16392146
>a man that unlocked QM
You mean Plank

>>16391124
I've heard people sail Euler, knowing almost nothing about math I just take this on faith based on how many things he seems to have invented. Gauss also is mentioned sometimes

also von Neumann

>>16390905
definitely. i'm an impressionable person.

>>16390851
The gods died and humans survived.

>>16390812
>hated jews
Yeah, I'm thinking he was.

>>16391092
> Ee Bought?

>>16390851
Eternal return.

>>16391134
>Everyone fucks up

Wagner didn't. Everything he's said or done resulted in the production of masterpieces.

>>16391092
/biz/ seems to have a long and noble ancestry

>>16390812
The most intelligent person ever to live was William James Sidis, and he was a fucking loser.

He made Nietzsche have a meltdown. I say he's pretty fucking smart.

>>16394067
So this is how midwits cope

>>16391172
you and most people here literally suffer from grandoise delusions why do you talk like you are addressing a crowd

>>16390812
only the smartest person ever could write tristan und isolde, so yes.

>>16394067
wow he is literally me

>>16394077
1) here's your (you)
2) that's an excerpt from "The Outsiders" by Grady M. Towers, a well-known member of the community of high IQ societies, who himself had a minimum IQ of 160. The article is about the ties between IQ and mental illness. You ought to give it a read.

>>16394067
>brainlets in this thread don't realize that the key to reality is hidden in the history of Boston

>>16394002
Kekked.

>>16394078
Because I must make a point.

Tristan und Isolde or Parsifal, which is better?

>>16391583
what does smartness equal then?

>>16394286
Not him, but I think he's saying intelligence doesn't itself necessitate the proper use of it. But I think intelligence is a more complex thing than quantifiable iq tests, myself.

>>16391585
This post is more observatory than creative. I deem you a brainlet.

>MARIE CURIE IS ONE OF THE TOP 5 SMARTEST PERSONS TO HAVE EVER LIVED! STOP LAUGHING CHUD NOOOOOO STOP LAUGHING AT ME

>>16390812
Heh. Yeah right, kid. You think Da Vinci couldn't punk dat boi? Or Archimedes? Euler? Newton? Bach? Wagner better wag dat tail between his legs. Yeats could crush him. Shakespeare rolled over in his sleep once and crushed him. Aristotle felt a sneeze coming on and Wagner's symphonies blew across the room.

>>16394675
But Wagner's main and lifelong musical form wasn't the symphonie.

>>16390812
What books will help me understand Wagner more? Especially the ring cycle. I enjoy him but I feel like I'm only enjoying him on the surface level.

>>16394769
Well having an understanding of the entire Western literary and musical tradition is pretty important. As he builds upon them entirely and you will often find the same story's of Aeschylus or Shakespeare in his works, but it is important primarily for his aiming of unifying word and music, "A Pilgrimage to Beethoven" covers his very early aim for it and is a very entertaining short story by Wagner. Even musically alone you need to understand how the leitomotif isn't entirely different from prior motif-use, and even apart from all that, there's no point listening to Wagner's music if you don't know Beethoven's, Mozart's and Bach's.

As for any books, try his own works. I recommend firstly his late "Regeneration Writings":

>Religion and Art
>"What Boots this Knowledge?"
>Know Thyself
>Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau's
>Hero-dom and Christendom(end of Regeneration Writings and his last published essay)
Then
>A Pilgrimage to Beethoven
>Judaism in Music
>What is German?
>Modern
>On Poetry and Composition
Are all good and help explain his ideas. Any of his prose works post-1860 are great. But the English translation is not the best.

As for a work to start with, I recommend Tannhauser, Lohengrin or Die Meistersinger(put the ring away for now), and it would be good to take a look Rienzi and Dutchman, Wagner's two most popular early Operas, to understand his development too. Most of what you need to understand Wagner you will have to think about yourself once you have amassed the basic knowledge to do so, which this post goes over.

There's a book here, it gets a lot wrong and arrogantly asserts whatever it thinks it should say, even at times blatantly wrong, but have a read of the first 6 or so pages of chapter 6 "Opera as Greek Drama" and it will be immensely helpful in situating Wagner in the literary history of drama, something Wagner talks about in his own writings.

Well having an understanding of the entire Western literary and musical tradition is pretty important. As he builds upon them entirely and you will often find the same story's of Aeschylus or Shakespeare in his works, but it is important primarily for his aiming of unifying word and music, "A Pilgrimage to Beethoven" covers his very early aim for it and is a very entertaining short story by Wagner. Even musically alone you need to understand how the leitomotif isn't entirely different from prior motif-use, and even apart from all that, there's no point listening to Wagner's music if you don't know Beethoven's, Mozart's and Bach's.

As for any books, try his own works. I recommend firstly his late "Regeneration Writings":

>Religion and Art
>"What Boots this Knowledge?"
>Know Thyself
>Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau's
>Hero-dom and Christendom(end of Regeneration Writings and his last published essay)
Then
>A Pilgrimage to Beethoven
>Judaism in Music
>What is German?
>Modern
>On Poetry and Composition
Are all good and help explain his ideas. Any of his prose works post-1860 are great. But the English translation is not the best.

As for a work to start with, I recommend Tannhauser, Lohengrin or Die Meistersinger(put the ring away for now), and it would be good to take a look Rienzi and Dutchman, Wagner's two most popular early Operas, to understand his development too. Most of what you need to understand Wagner you will have to think about yourself once you have amassed the basic knowledge to do so, which this post goes over.

There's a book here, it gets a lot wrong and arrogantly asserts whatever it thinks it should say, even at times blatantly wrong, but have a read of the first 6 or so pages of chapter 6 "Opera as Greek Drama" and it will be immensely helpful in situating Wagner in the literary history of drama, something Wagner talks about in his own writings:

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Wagner_and_Philosophy/9lNTlRjx8QgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

>>16394769
Well having an understanding of the entire Western literary and musical tradition is pretty important. As he builds upon them entirely and you will often find the same story's of Aeschylus or Shakespeare in his works, but it is important primarily for his aiming of unifying word and music, "A Pilgrimage to Beethoven" covers his very early aim for it and is a very entertaining short story by Wagner. Even musically alone you need to understand how the leitomotif isn't entirely different from prior motif-use, and even apart from all that, there's no point listening to Wagner's music if you don't know Beethoven's, Mozart's and Bach's.

As for any books, try his own works. I recommend firstly his late "Regeneration Writings":

>Religion and Art
>"What Boots this Knowledge?"
>Know Thyself
>Introduction to a work of Count Gobineau's
>Hero-dom and Christendom(end of Regeneration Writings and his last published essay)
Then
>A Pilgrimage to Beethoven
>Judaism in Music
>What is German?
>Modern
>On Poetry and Composition
Are all good and help explain his ideas. Any of his prose works post-1860 are great. But the English translation is not the best.

As for a work to start with, I recommend Tannhauser, Lohengrin or Die Meistersinger(put the ring away for now), and it would be good to take a look Rienzi and Dutchman, Wagner's two most popular early Operas, to understand his development too. Most of what you need to understand Wagner you will have to think about yourself once you have amassed the basic knowledge to do so, and seen some of his Dramas, which this post goes over.

There's a book here, it gets a lot wrong and arrogantly asserts whatever it thinks it should say, even at times blatantly wrong, but have a read of the first 6 or so pages of chapter 6 "Opera as Greek Drama" and it will be immensely helpful in situating Wagner in the literary history of drama, something Wagner talks about in his own writings:

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Wagner_and_Philosophy/9lNTlRjx8QgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

>>16394369
Sperg—Shitposter, sing of the sperg of the 4chan incel,
ranting, raving, casting aspersions on womenkind,
fixing the blame on natural selection,
spewing venom, the cognitively dissonant,
who cannot think, do not read, but litter the
catalog with bilious rhetoric—
feasts for the mods and janitors—
no depth discernible, no will apparent,
just hatred edging them to their sad little ends.

>>16394891
Thanks for showing a picture of yourself.

>>16391172

Aristotle, Newton, Mozart, Shakepeare are the standout candidates. One for philosophy/logic, mathematics/science, music, and literature

>>16390812
Aristotle, Leibniz, and Bach

>>16392092
Mean.

>>16394952
Plato, Newton, and Ludwig

>>16395019
>Ludwig
That's not his last name anon.

>>16395019
Guenon (pbuh), Guenon (pbuh), and Guenon (pbuh)

>>16395045
>Guenon best philosopher, scientist and artist
I highly doubt it.

>>16395053
Yes.

>>16390812
That would be Spinoza (pbuh)

>>16394935
Musil is most "intelligent" lit writer.

>>16391172
Very based

>>16390812
Either Von Neumann or Socrates was the smartest.

>>16394883
Magee is based desu. His book on Schopenhauer is also pretty good.

>>16395097
I dunno he always seems to have a slightly off the truth in everything he says. But I'll check out that Schopenhauer book.

>>16391092
Also, he was a fucking piece of shit as the president of the Royal Society.

>>16394053
Buy high sell low

>>16391124
>Marie Curie

>>16395104
He was mostly a historian of philosophy and an authority on Schopenhauer, so I can't talk about his knowledge of music. After the war he worked hard to rekindle the interest of the anglo world in Schopenhauer and Wagner. Imagine trying to talk about S. with arrogant analytics or trying to explain to fresh off the war anglos that W. is much more than anti-semitism.

>>16390812
His music sucks

Chris Langan is

>>16394235
The pure music and the climaxes are more exciting in Tristan. It is more musically creative. The plot and the dialogue becomes dull though comparatively. Tristan has better moments, but Parsifal is the better opera.

>>16394935
I would not include Mozart as one of the great geniuses merely because his creativity mainly employed traditional forms. Beethoven, Wagner or Scriabin (even though he technically did mainly employ traditional forms) seem like better candidates for music simply because of their sheer originality

>>16395227
Yeah, I can appreciate him doing that. I'll definitely look into that Schopenhauer book and see how it is.

>>16395373
I can see what you mean with Mozart, though he did die younger, he was obviously one of the musical greats and highly original not just in the style of the times but also for the times, again as I said less so than a Beethoven or Bach but still original and did have an influence in going over to the Romantic period. Furthermore the influence that he did not culturally have, he privately did. Some of his late works are equally on par with that of a Beethoven's in regards to ingenuity.

And wouldn't Bach be a better choice than Scriabin? I mean Bach did have an enormous influence in his time and after.

>>16390812
As far as music goes, I am partial to Scriabin. His 3rd, 4th and 5th symphonies, his 5th sonata, and various other piano works of his and are almost unbelievable creations. I think he easily surpasses Wagner as far as music goes, however Wagner's music dramas may indicate more intelligence given synthesis. Although, Scriabin was working on the week-long end of the world through music when he died which is definetly higher in the order of synthesis.

>>16395399
Scriabin is pure ingenuity. I've listened to his symphonies probably hundreds of times and am always in awe.

>>16395403
based scriabin listener. the 4th sonata is my favorite. the first movement is as refined as piano writing gets, and the finale is one of the most satisfying. apparently he wrote it in only a couple of days too.

>>16395399
Bach was an outdated traditionalist even in his time.

>>16395413
Apparently he used to get sick or a headache shortly before writing his pieces. And of course he thought he was God. Fascinating person.

>>16395410
I love Scriabin as much as the next guy, but do you mean to tell me he was really better than Bach? Come on man.

>>16395403
>I think he easily surpasses Wagner as far as music goes
Don't you think that's an exaggeration? Nobody other than Beethoven was more influential than Wagner in the Romantic period.

>>16395426
If you like scriabin you should also check obukhov, feinberg, roslavets, mosolov

>>16395416
>Bach
>outdated
We must listen to all composers as men of their times but this is ridiculous, the reason Bach is heralded universally except by retards like Berlioz, as one of the greats or artistic geniuses of music is because his counterpoint holds equal ability or place to any of the other great tonal composers.

Anyone know the work of a 20th century Eastern European composer, who had a piece called "The Sirens", I forget his name, but I do know that he was part German.

>>16395433
If we are talking about sheer originality, which is the able not only to recognize and replicate patterns, but create said patterns, and which is in many ways what people are referencing when they talk of the most intelligent people, the absolute geniuses, then Scriabin far surpasses a musical traditionalist like Bach and at least surpasses the 'pure music' of Wagner, which is to say removed from the total dramatical context.

>>16395443
I heard Stalin once said he loved Beethoven, but rarely listened to him because it made him soft. I haven't listened to Scriabin in years because it makes me reminisce about better days and inevitably becomes too painful.

>>16395452
That is a statement of fact, not opinion. Bach was considered an outdated music traditionalist by his contemporaries. He, like Mozart, does not deserve to be called the greatest, because sheer originality combined with said technical prowess is a higher order of genius.

>>16395462
I dunno anon, this seems to me to be almost infantil-ey mistaking what true ingenuity and creative genius is for the more brash and colourful. It merely seems to me that there's a reason why Scriabin isn't heralded on the level of the typical greats. But I would be very interested to hear what you have to say about how Scriabin is more musically original than Wagner, if you could.

>>16395491
Then I'm sure Jazz should triumph over any Scriabin because of how "original", in a purely inhuman way, it is. Along with every stupid professor of musical composition with a following of teenagers he has indoctrinated to believe his music is actually super genius because of some complex musical structure or theory but sounds like utter garbage and inane drivel.

>That is a statement of fact, not opinion.
It would be fact if your point is that he was considered as such, but it is opinion when you yourself are saying that his using of an older style and being considered outdated, is reflective of an inner quality of value. Why do you think everyone except for morons like Berlioz have thought of Bach as one of the greatest? Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and Wagner all studied him and considered him an equal.

>>16395511
He is able to write nearly atonal music that 'makes sense'. He basically created atonality in prototype. His music is more complex than Wagner's. He is working on a higher form of total artwork, that principally of philosophy and the totality of existence. That's not an exaggeration. His 4th symphony is absolutely unbelievable. Show me any work of Wagner that can surpass it.

>>16395540
Scriabin is not inhuman music though. It is concentrated on the explication of divine feeling.

>>16395552
>He is able to write nearly atonal music that 'makes sense'. He basically created atonality in prototype.
Wtf, all of this applies to Wagner and especially his Tristan und Isolde, now I'm confused.

>>16395562
I completely agree with this, but the point was that with Bach music had reached a certain level on which he could be regarded as a musical equal to the other greats in his own specific time period and form, and that there is much more in music than how fast you can change the current landscape.

>>16395403
Scriabin is probably the weirdest and most interesting composer. I went through a phase where I listened to nothing but him for quite a while and studied a lot of his music. His mature harmonic style is so distinctive and forward and yet in matters of form and part writing he is quite conservative, at least when compared to composers of the same era. A cursory listening of his work would convince you that he is dissonant, but he actually isn't really dissonant at all when you look under the surface. He's about as dissonant as Mozart is, but he's just shaping the material according to symmetrical scales (centered around the tritone) and their transpositions as opposed to key signatures and the traditional method of common practice harmony, which is what gives him that characteristic sound that no one can satisfactorily imitate. That's why his music sounds at once so exotic and yet so consonant and classically proportioned. And then on top of this you have all the theosophy and synesthesia business and how that ties into the music. He is an endlessly fascinating and underrated composer and by far one of the most innovative. So much better and more imaginative than Rachmaninoff who just seems so insipid after listening to Scriabin.

>>16395596
>So much better and more imaginative than Rachmaninoff who just seems so insipid after listening to Scriabin.
Perfectly said.

>>16395596
He's definetly interesting but there's been mountains of bizzare composers in the 20th century
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gtIEzBp_UA

Most intelligent people of all time:
Marx
Engles
Lenin
Stalin
Mao

>Most intelligent people of all time:
Marx
Engles
Lenin
Stalin
Mao

>Scriabin was also affected by synesthesia: a rare neurological condition linking musical notes with colours. To his mind, for example, C was red, G was orange, D was yellow, A was green, E was pale blue, F sharp was bright blue, A flat was purple, and E flat metallic grey-blue. In his fifth, and final, symphony, The Poem of Fire (1910), Scriabin devised a clavier à lumières (keyboard with lights), which controlled ‘coloured light in the form of beams, clouds and other shapes’. Latter-day musicians affected by synesthesia include the violinist Itzhak Perlman and the pianist Hélène Grimaud.

Preddy interesting.

>"Something else! I want a very beautiful and exceptional cover - for my chaise-longue - which I shall call "Judith"! - Listen! try and find one of those silk fabrics called "Lampas" or - whatever? Yellow satin background - the palest possible - with a floral pattern - roses; not too large a design, it is not intended for curtains; it is used, rather, for small pieces of furniture. If there is nothing in yellow, then very light blue. [Footnote: same white background, which will be easier to find.] I shall need six metres! - All this for mornings well spent on Parsifal. This is an Arabian name. The old troubadours no longer understood what it meant. "Parsi fal" means: "parsi"- think of the fire-loving Parsees - "pure"; "fal" means "mad" in a higher sense, in other words a man without erudition, but one of genius ... "
>"But now to more serious matters: first of all, the two chests which have not arrived. Well! They will arrive, and I shall immerse myself in your generous soul. Cancel the pink satin entirely: there would be too much of it, and it would be good for nothing. Can I expect the two remnants that I mentioned in my last letter? - The brocade can be reserved: I'm inclined to order 30 metres, but perhaps the colours can be changed to flatter my taste even better; in other words: the fawn striped material would be silver-grey, and the blue my pink, very pale and delicate... For the rest do not think ill of me! I am old enough to indulge in childish pursuits! - I have three years of Parsifal ahead of me, and nothing must tear me away from the peaceful tranquillity of creative seclusion..."
>"The little bottle of rose-water was completely ruined by cold water; and in my clumsiness I dropped the larger bottle as I was trying to arrange it with the alcohol: it broke, and its contents went all over the carpet; what really surprised me was how little effect the smell had, since I would have expected it to give me 1000 headaches! - Send me some more of it. - And don't forget the Rimmel Bengali rose-powders. - But- above all - be so kind as to let me know immediately and in a word if you have found the lilac satin (Ophelia!) since my decision to buy it depends upon your answer. Dearly beloved! I have finished the 1st act; you shall have a sample of it as soon as I have dealt with a whole host of other matters which I have neglected of late ... Cosima continues as ever before filled with feelings of admiration and gratitude towards you on account of the Japanese dress and all the other things you have chosen for her. Would to God that our traditional quarrels on the subject of poor Parsifal might be over and done with! Believe me, they are not worth the effort..."

It's obviously a lie that Wagner was a cross-dresser, but he sure loved his silks.

Bump..

https://youtu.be/4ZB2UtOkheQ

>>16396510
I remember making the exact same posts anon, "look at how they massacred my boy", but you have to accept the sad state of Wagner performances and move on with your life. It will be difficult, but for you and your loved ones you have to.

Bump.

>>16395458
Not Debussy then?

>>16396885
No, not that French clown.

Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg is Wagner's greatest Opera and retroactively made Tristan und Isolde a cheap knockoff.

>>16396938

>>16397023
I can't think back to a single piece of Debussy and go "yeah that was a masterpiece".

>>16395491
We get it faggot you like Scriabin. Doesn't change the fact he's considered a minor figure in musical history.

Bump.

>>16390851
>https://youtu.be/_5zNH6R1zsE?t=675
That's literally the greatest piece of classical music.

>>16390851
>https://youtu.be/_5zNH6R1zsE?t=675
That's literally the greatest piece of classical music. It's so beautiful bros.

>>16390897
Same, he tickled my balls.

>>16391260
It takes years and years of training to write good 'classical' music, because you are writing dozens of parts which must be played concurrently. Not to mention hundreds of years of musical theory and artistic achievement to understand and respond to in your own work.
Look into the great composers, allot were considered child proteges. Allot at the top of their field were.
T. someone who knows jack shit about music

>>16397923
Favourite Wagner Drama? Favourite leitmotif?

>>16390812
>He knew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0eFv9tqZHQ

>>16397936
What's the stream?

>>16391883
Autism.

>>16395666
Was it just for notes or did he associate it with the keys as well? That's circle of fifths except B Db Bb and F are skipped

>>16398122
I get the feeling just notes, but maybe keys.

>>16395399
>Furthermore the influence that he did not culturally have, he privately did.
wut?

>>16398948
As in, the complexity of much of his works were for a long time known only to him, until there became a solid image of his oeuvre and achievements after his death, and to a degree much after his death. And as I said before, at times approximated the same groundbreaking developments of Beethoven into the Romantic period.

HEI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HEI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HEI HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIeE2A03Z0

>>16390812
>>>/mu/

>>16399270
>Wagner
>not /lit/erature related
Let me guess, you read the wiki?

>>16399237
>the original instruments were pinched by Americans during the war

>>16390851
The age of gods ended and the age of man begins.

>>16399564
Don't forget the specially made bells for Parsifal were melted down for ammo during WW2 also.

You can find a few old recordings of them somewhere online.

>>16399720
What's so special about man?

>>16394002
>telegram for you, sir
>its from Baron Bogdanoff

>>16399730
You used to identify as one

>>16399745
Are you implying I'm a ghost?

>>16394318
coping redditard strikes again

>>16390812
>>16390897
>>16391124
this is a literature forum and yet you morons don't realise that it's shakespeare
>>16390978
>putting spaces around an em dash

>>16400089
>Shakespeare
>more intelligent than Homer