/lit/ - Literature

>>17367661
someone might call you a fag

>>17367661
It will attract normies.

>>17367661
How did Wagner do it, unironically? His music seems to be on another dimension in terms of expressive range, it's super human. Have any books been written on this? Mahler tries and comes close but he somehow falls short of the heights to which Wagner attained.

>>17367669
Might?

>>17367661
Only if you're a woman.

>>17368297
>how did he achieve the subjective so subjectively better than anyone else subjectively achieved the subjective?

He ultimately did the same as pop music, focused on the emotional impact and sacrificed the intellectual.

>complex!
Not really, in sacrificing the intellectual he did things which are difficult to explain within the constraints of theory so explanations make it seem more complex than it actually is, all composers do this. Pop music does the same thing every day and analysis of some pop will make Wagner look simple by comparison.

>>17368356
dreadful bait

>>17368364
Not bait in the slightest, theorylet.

>>17368370
>muh theory
have sex incel

>>17368356
>Wagner isn't complex
>Wagner sacrificed the intellectual
Any time Wagner is mentioned you say this. You have absolutely zero understanding of music theory.

You literally think Nietzsche's music was more original than Wagner's. Either this is very persistent bate or you unironically believe this.

>>17368356
>sacrificed the intellectual
this doesn't mean anything

>>17368356
yeah dude, Mozart and Haydn are the real intellectuals *BRAP* and Beethoven doesn't focus on emotional impact

>wagner was a bad contrapunt-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhcTllJgIY

Classical music is gay.

>>17368406
>t. listens to lil yachty

>>17368406
how's middle school treating you?

>>17368393
It's amazing that it's the only completely contrapuntal piece of music he ever wrote, yet it's still remembered as one of the greatest works of counterpoint ever.

>>17368409
Your average meme rapper unironically produces more interesting music than your average piano nigger from the 19th century.
>>17368410
This appeal to maturity is a typical pseud cope.

>>17368457
>uh, yea, yuh, fuck da popo, muh dick, das wassup nigguh
wow...profound...

>>17368457
>this is a pianonigger
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8UDOmUcxCk
>https://youtu.be/c8UDOmUcxCk?t=753
>https://youtu.be/LBjDdKdq_tQ?t=1171

>>17368378
I never said that on 4chan before today, someone else may have and likely did, hard to imagine it being all that original of a thought. Also, I did not say Wagner was not complex, just that the complexity is exaggerated by how he colored outside of the lines.

I have no real opinion on Nietzsche's compositions, never caught my attention.

>>17368385
The ways in which he left established forms and theory were largely for emotional affect and he did not worry much about it making sense in any way. It makes the music difficult to analyze within the established forms and theory and makes it seem much more complex than it is, the intellectual impact is lost.

>>17368390
Who is talking about Mozart, Beethoven and Haydyn? They certainly did focus on emotional impact, but they largely did it in ways which ended with an analyzable result, they extended to forms and theory through the established forms and theory more than just they just ignored the theory.

It is funny, I never said anything bad about Wagner, I actually am quite fond of his music, I just offered some objective comments which anyone with a decent understanding of theory would agree with and yet you all sperg out.

>>17368520
>The ways in which he left established forms and theory were largely for emotional affect and he did not worry much about it making sense in any way. It makes the music difficult to analyze within the established forms and theory and makes it seem much more complex than it is, the intellectual impact is lost.
you are still not saying anything, just repeating yourself. you need to actually explain why his music is so apparently "simple".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ307sM0t-0

berygud

>>17368520
>I just offered some objective comments which anyone with a decent understanding of theory would agree with and yet you all sperg out.
Kek no. All you did was out yourself as a retard who doesn't know what they're talking about
>the complexity is exaggerated by how he colored outside of the lines.
Nice bro. Real in depth analysis.

>>17368528
I never said it was simple, music is not one or the other.

>>17368534
Doing my best to put things in terms the people itt will understand. Not that it matters, probably just being trolled anyways.

>>17368550
>Not that it matters, probably just being trolled anyways.
You made the bait too obvious here bro.

>>17368567
The Wagner fan club here and on /mu/ are among the easiest people to bait outside of /pol/, if my goal had been to bait I could have done it much simpler.

>>17368520
So you're saying Wagner is un-analysable in classical music theory so he just 'seems' complex and people just call him complex because they're going by that idea of him seeming to be complex?

Except, there are clearly analysable influences and effects that Wagner had on modern music. In every work of 20th century classical the developments Wagner made are present, and can be clearly articulated, as can be Beethoven's or Bach's.

Wagner’s music is so fucking boring. There’s no life to it at all it’s just slow.

The best artistic experiences are the ones which fill you with beauty, emotion, and wonder. People like Borges who want art to be “intellectual” rather than emotional are positively soulless.

>>17368697
too obvious. try harder

>>17368643
You are showing your lack of theory. Much of his work is not analyzable on the whole but most of it is analyzable taken out of the whole. If you analyze one of his pieces you either do the section of interest, remove the bits which do not work or just ignore those bits. You have to do this sort of thing with most composers at times, theory is called theory and not law for a reason.

I directly stated his influence and said that was his main contribution to music. He effectively showed the value of not following the constraints of form and theory in a way which was digestible to the masses. This is something many of the composers who truly pushed development lack, they often spend too much time on the intellectual side, like Schoenberg. He had the ability to use his ideas in a fashion which had emotional impact and would have wide appeal, but rarely did so, he preferred to showcase the ideas themselves, which has made him one of the most influential composers of modern times as far as influencing other composers goes, but his direct effect on the world is rather small.

>>17368370
>theory autist
Yeah Wagner isn't for you bro.

>>17368773
Please explain why that is. This should be good.

>>17368792
You need to have SEX to appreciate Wagner. Nothing personal, virgin

>>17367661
HOLY FUCKING BASED

>>17368824
Ok, you got nothing and know nothing. Could have just said so.

>>17368767
He's still using form you utter retard. Wagner did a-tonality decades and decades before Schoenberg.

Why tf do you separate emotion from form? Or ideas from emotion?

>Much of his work is not analyzable on the whole
It is literally all analysable, people break down every note of his works, every note of his so-called leitmotifs (because leitmotifs don't really exist), every original development he ever had. Or do you mean his dramas aren't analysable on the whole like a symphony is, because it works according to dramatic purpose? Literally learn to explain what you're trying to say better. His works are still analysable on the whole, but the reason it seems to you like they aren't, is because they go through so many different modes at once. Even if they somehow weren't "analysable on the whole," which is stupid, and obviously incorrect in the case of Wagner, the fact that he still has analysable parts like Mozart or Bach, such as the fugue here>>17368393 show that he indeed is working within form. He is just taking form forward, like Beethoven or any other major composer did before him.

Wagner's music directly led to 20th century classical music, or do you they were all just displacing "intellectuality" in music too? What does "intellect" in music mean, if not the complete brilliance and complexity of a work like Tristan und Isolde?

>>17368898
>He's still using form you utter retard
I never said nor implied he ignore form, I said he colored outside the lines which implies quite clearly the form is there.

the rest of your post is more of this bullshit and that is all any response in this thread has been so far, so I will take my leave now.

>>17368922
When he coloured outside the lines of (while still using) traditional form at that time, anon, he was creating new form. He's not just belching out un-intellectual (whatever that means, as you still haven't explained it) emotion.

You haven't explained once why his work is "not analysable on the whole," or how he "sacrificed the intellectual" which you comically compare with pop music. Why even bother just jumping into a thread to throw your diarrhea all over it?

>>17368478
Anyone know the mozart painting?

>>17368297
More has been written about him, it's often said, than about anyone else in history apart from Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte.

>>17369451
Don't they say Adolf Hitler instead of Napoleon now?

>>17369532
Yeah probably, it's a bit of an old saying

>>17368839
>just as Judaism is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.
Acute observation, but how did antisemites reconcile it? How can you live without a conscience? Is it not better to try and integrate your conscience into conscious experience, as opposed to try and permanently snuff it out from view?

>>17368356
Based af and unironically true, wagnertrannies seething

>>17370070
Wagner did kind of talk about this, and how even the faults, mistakes and evils of ourselves are wrongly or sometimes rightly reflected onto the jews, and the only saviour from it, from the jews as a problem, is through ourselves.

This was naturally later in life, in his essay "Know Thyself," the third work in a series called the Regeneration writings. It partially functions as a critique of modern-day Germany.

>>17368520
>I did not say Wagner was not complex
earlier in the thread
>>complex
>Not really

>>17368457
You don't understand art, read Aristotle, Kant and Adorno you insufferable pseud.

>>17367661
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk0-pSaXlz4

>>17368297
Read Wagner and Philosophy by Brian Magee. He was intense about everything he encountered, and from a young age was convinced of his destiny as a prominent man in German culture.

>>17368898
>He's still using form you utter retard. Wagner did a-tonality decades and decades before Schoenberg
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOLY SHIT stop posting

>>17367661
yes, youll get a bunch of normie women sentimentalizing over "vibes"

Only if it overwhelms the law. What is the purpose of the judge if the audience is too far swayed by the emotional affect?

It's sad because wagner's conception of art was fulfilled in what is the least artistic, i.e. television, commercials, shitty films, they are all "total works" which trigger certain reactions more masterfully than wagner ever did in any of his works.
I'm not saying that this garbage is art, but in a sense his greatest art predicted the downfall of art

>>17368898
>Wagner did a-tonality decades and decades before Schoenberg.
people who think that atonality is synonymous with chromaticism shouldn't have the arrogance to make massive posts pretending to discuss the nature of art and aspects of music

>>17370247
the shit you read on lit

the way music is used in most soundtracks and ads is exactly the opposite of what wagner requested and is more in line with earlier operetta tradition.

>>17370247
That's because opera was always shit. Literally just the old version of movies for rich faggots, and worse even. I do not consider opera music and Wagner can suck my dick. If you can't enjoy a piece of music without libretto or watching it, it is simply not music. The only good thing Wagner ever did was inspiring actual composers.

>>17370266
>implying the other anon was any better

>>17370294
true

>>17370276
>and is more in line with earlier operetta tradition.
lol no, the average mcdonalds commercial is more masterful than a shitty operetta was. the latter was pure, stupid and cringe entertainement, the former is not entertainement at all, it's an overwhelming attack on the senses, it induces absolutely no relaxation on its consumers.

>>17368898
>Wagner did a-tonality decades and decades before Schoenberg.
And Gesualdo (pbuh) did it 300 years before Wagner.

>>17370399
KILL YOURSELF JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF U DON'T KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT HOLY SHIT
SEE
>>17370266

>>17370405
Dilate

>>17370430
Learn culture faggot

>>17370247
This is a definite misunderstanding of the Gessamtkunstwerk idea, and film even with its potential stands far below. As the other anon pointed out the nature of the music is of such importance, only a real artistic genius could productively work with Gessamtkunstwerk, which no director has been; not to mention film is of an entirely different century being completely foreign to every inch of the idea, only similar superficially or in the effect of Wagner's idea on cinema (in a technical way). And even ignoring that, just judging the artistic merit or potential of cinema, it would only limit the artwork in being far below those traditional forms. In fact it would make it thoroughly incapable of being great art, that is if it was designed with cinema in mind and it's not just filmed, because you hear that stupid argument a lot, "but how is film inferior to the other arts? I could just film Shakespeare or a da Vinci painting bro."

There is much to be said about theatre and drama as an art, but to put it in modern terminology, there is something primordial in the stage and communal aspect which make it of the highest importance. Film can have none of it.

>>17368898
>Wagner did a-tonality
No, he didn't.
>>17370399
>And Gesualdo (pbuh) did it
No, he didn't. Look up the fucking definition of atonality you utter brainlets.

>>17370446
You took what I said to the letter which I explicitly told you not to. I am simply saying there is a certain ironic fulfillment of some of his ideas in the worst aspects of culture today. No need to be fucking autistic

>>17370486
>which trigger certain reactions more masterfully than wagner ever did in any of his works.
What did you mean by this? It's of a completely different nature, and merely appeals sensually to some twitches of a reaction, wherein nothing more can be sort. The artwork is more than propaganda, as I said in the post you're replying to, Wagner did exert a massive technical influence on cinema, but the question of a real artistic influence can only be surmised by the artwork itself in modernity and history, which depends upon the particular film, yet does not change that no film can ever achieve the same heights.

I wish to be autistic.

>>17370233
/thread

>>17370247
>they are all "total works" which trigger certain reactions more masterfully than wagner ever did in any of his works
Put a nailgun to your forehead.

>>17370716
Read Adorno you retarded gif posting faggot

>>17370731
>unironically reading a commie kike

>>17370731
Beneath the paving stones, Adorno.
gigamanletatbeach.png

>>17370276
It definitely isn't like opera, because opera in its tradition exists primarily by its music (with all the interrelation of drama, preceding Wagner), which was of a merited artistic kind in the best. The worst were overly commercialised and simplified if you do mean that, but they still functioned within traditional music.

While music used in soundtracks and ads just lay over an emotion to be received, usually in the most commercialised way, and with almost no baseline of artistry. The music is usually decided on afterwards, rather than a medium like opera literally existing for the music (again, ignoring any questions about the place of drama and story, as it comes through musically).

>>17370352
That pure entertainment arrives at an artistic value which goes over your head, but quickly flashing lights and pans seemingly do entertain it. What you see as masterful is something that should get old the second time, while those operettas in their best form contain a skilful and aesthetic worth beyond innumerable times of viewing.

>>17370731
Adorno's take on Wagner was retarded. He just made a good observation on his technical influence.

Too many of you retards to reply to but I'll just quote an actual musicologist instead of poorly paraphrasing his works,as I'll sit back and watch antisemites and philistines sperg

Even the technical media are relentlessly forced into uniformity. Television aims at a synthesis of radio and film, and is held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out into the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk – the fusion of all the arts in one work

>>17370731
Adorno can suck my balls, nailgun pronto.

>>17370794
>but its consequences will be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically,
I can understand this.

>that by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out into the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk – the fusion of all the arts in one work
I do not understand this. How is he even connecting this with Wagner beyond "le all tha things put together make BIG"?

>>17370794
>okay all you guys are calling me a dumb faggot so imma quote and even dumber and bigger faggot to try and get my dumb faggot point across

>>17370875
Maybe you should read the essay. A lot of it is explaining how aspects of art transformed under late capitalism,in other words, he explains what aspects of art continued under late capitalism and which aspects of art were banished under the culture industry. The very dumbed down version is that the culture industry kept everything having to do with producing "effect" on the consumer but discarded all of what it deemed useless to produce mere effect(the "difficult" parts of a work of art)
Here's another quote in regards to what I just said :
No Palestrina could be more of a purist in eliminating every unprepared and unresolved discord than the jazz arranger in suppressing any development which does not conform to the jargon. When jazzing up Mozart he changes him not only when he is too serious or too difficult but when he harmonises the melody in a different way, perhaps more simply, than is customary now. No medieval builder can have scrutinised the subjects for church windows and sculptures more suspiciously than the studio hierarchy scrutinises a work by Balzac or Hugo before finally approving it. No medieval theologian could have determined the degree of the torment to be suffered by the damned in accordance with the order of divine love more meticulously than the producers of shoddy epics calculate the torture to be undergone by the hero or the exact point to which the leading lady’s hemline shall be raised

is this hampus

>>17371041
Okay, but how is any of this Wagnerian other than a mere technical influence from a highly influential thinker and figure of the 19th century?

Does he think Wagner was just trying to create capitalized "effect," when practically every paragraph of his writings is directly against that, from a very early age rejecting the commercialisation of opera and its effects under people like Meyerbeer? I'm not trying to be aggressive, but I honestly just don't see how this is "Wagnerian."

Also what essay is it? Adorno?

>>17370731
>reading Adorno on musicology
>reading Adorno on anything
Ngmi.

>>17370731
>bunker cuck recommending literature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN1WLF8T_Oc

Why was Wagner like this?

>>17371084
I think you're getting too caught up in his comparison to wagner and i understand why but I think while reading the essay you'll understand the purpose of the comparison as an illustration of a trend he observes in the evolution of art, not a literal absolute statement. It's important to remember that for Adorno, the nature of a work of art is revealed by how it evolves throughout time. There are hints of this all over his works, including the introduction to Dialectic of enlightenment (one of the chapters of this book is the essay I have quoted) but I think he makes this explicit in aesthetic theory, which I've not read.
The essay is by Adorno and Horkheimer, called , The Culture Industry : enlightenment as mass deception

>>17371106
>>17371132
Nice :)

>>17371172
That's all very well interesting, I appreciate the quotes and I plan to read Adorno and the Frankfurt school at some stage, but how exactly is it that related to Wagner? Did you mean to dance away from Wagner here, either because it truly isn't that related to him, or because the topic truly is related to Wagner and you are just preparing me to understanding it properly, like a preliminary?

>>17371203
I really can't put it another way then : Adorno claims that aspects of wagner's artistic vision are fulfilled in aspects of the culture industry which are most antithetical to art,notably in cinema and television.
He isn't saying that TV producers are trying to fulfill wagner's vision, or that Wagner is in accordance with television, rather it's that, if there is a "legacy" of wagner that has transcended into our society, it is in cinema and television.

Analogously, one can say that the legacy of bach during the 19th century found it's footing in the works of schumann and Beethoven. The tragedy is that wagner's legacy didn't find its footing in art(apart from the viennese school) but in what amounts, for Adorno, to trash.

>>17370716
>Don't worry, Gillian, I'm taking out this thread. It is obviously infested with SNATCHERS.

>>17370731
Unreadable Commie gobbledygook

Bump.

>>17368940
>When he coloured outside the lines of (while still using) traditional form at that time, anon, he was creating new form.
other anon here, it doesn't work like that in music theory. Wagner wasn't bad because he wasn't complex, he actually was really talented. Why can't people understand that in Gesamtkunstwerk you need to sacrifice complexity in its complementary parts (music, literature, etc)?

>>17368297
He combined several artforms, partially "dumbing them down" and created Gesamtkunstwerk.

>>17370794
sauce?

>>17371273
>Adorno claims that aspects of wagner's artistic vision are fulfilled in aspects of the culture industry which are most antithetical to art, notably in cinema and television.
Did Adorno ask what other factors have led to the decline in art and culture during the 20th century? Does he outright disagree with the Spenglerian assessment that cultures will inevitably decline in a fatalistic manner at some point, even so close to greats? Did Adorno think these were the only, or major influences which Wagner exerted in the 20th century? Roger Scruton claims that "Modern high culture is as much a set of footnotes to Wagner as Western philosophy is, in Whitehead’s judgement, footnotes to Plato."

Wagner influenced so many figures like Joyce or Eliot, it just seems to me like Adorno is (or as you yourself said) making a criticism on Wagner by his historical 'result' as it were, but only this extreme specificity. Unless I am horribly mistaken on the topic, either Adorno doesn't think Wagner is so bad and to blame so much for this, or he absolutely does.

>>17372513
>it doesn't work like that
>you just don't understand theory!
You're sounding like a marxist here. No explanation, just the preponderance of that word 'Theory!'

>Why can't people understand that in Gesamtkunstwerk you need to sacrifice complexity in its complementary parts (music, literature, etc)?
Except he isn't really sacrificing any part of music, or any part of literature to it.

>>17372704
>Did Adorno ask what other factors have led to the decline in art and culture during the 20th century?
what do you mean by "other"? "other" than what factor?
Regardless,yes, He spent his entire career writing on the decline of high bourgeois culture, and wrote books filled with both the symptoms of the downfall and what he thought were the causes. As for his relation to Spengler, I'm not sure, I know in Minima Moralia he references him once and it was in agreement with one of his claims.
>Unless I am horribly mistaken on the topic, either Adorno doesn't think Wagner is so bad and to blame so much for this, or he absolutely does.
where in any of my Adorno quotations does he criticize Wagner, where does Adorno say "wagner is bad", literally who are you quoting? I have no idea what you're responding to.
Also, "influencing" artists is only one aspect of how an artist's work develops throughout history. This is a complex topic and simplifying it down to "Adorno likey Wagner" or "Adorno don't likey wagner" is pretty idiotic and goes against the purpose of philosophy and though.

>>17372860
*philosophy and thought.

>>17372860
I reread your post and it seems you think that Adorno is blaming Wagner's art on the decline of high bourgeois culture.
I don't even know how to respond to that, you aren't misinformed you just have poor reading comprehension, read his books.

>>17372860
Firstly, I still have no idea what parts in Wagner Adorno thinks were used negatively, or had a negative effect in his opinion. Just vague statements.

It just seems to me like you're being rather disingenuous. You refuse to make clear Adorno's beliefs about Wagner, even though you first made a post to trigger "antisemites" which mentions a negative effect Wagner had, then I ask how exactly it's related to Wagner in the first place, if the use of the word "Wagnerian" is just in the place of a technical influence from Wagner. I ask for an extrapolation of how it's Wagnerian in the first place, you respond generally explaining Adorno's conception of modern culture, I reply asking how it still relates to Wagner. You then say I'm getting too caught up in his comparison with Wagner, and though Adorno is interesting, Wagner is literally the whole point of the conversation so I'm trying to understand what Adorno thinks of him and his effects on modern culture. I then ask if you're telling me this to better explain Adorno's understanding of Wagner, but then you just give this deflated reply which we'd already been over.

You then say "where did Adorno criticize Wagner?" But it seems like quite a criticism to say the historical effect of the artwork is instrumental in determining its value for Adorno, but the only effect you've mentioned Wagner had, the whole point of the conversation, is cheap effect and sensuality for consumerist society. He literally says that the complete destruction of culture, is "fulfilling" Wagner's ideal. You even say that this is what Adorno holds to be Wagner's legacy in our society-- Apparently nothing else for him. How is this not all, a serious criticism and rejection of Wagner? Unless you actually say something more about Adorno's opinion of Wagner, and don't just leave me empty handed. I don't expect Adorno to just say "Wagner bad/Wagner good," but you're refusing to say anything else.

I can only gather you just made a post to shitpost about one of your favourite philosophers, Adorno, but didn't really care about the topic you were pretending to care about. That's fine, I'm happy to talk about Adorno, but you have to understand we've had two separate intentions with this conversation up till now.

>>17372725
Colouring form isn't expanding it, it's exactly what you said in the first place, colouring. If for example I write a symphony that has the same form as any Classical one, but I put an electric guitar playing what a first violin would, I wouldn't be expanding the form, just adding a gimmick, which isn't necessarily bad.

>Except he isn't really sacrificing any part of music, or any part of literature to it.
The fact that this music doesn't "work" alone but only being accompanied by its programmatic story. Same thing with his text, it isn't as rich as it would be if it was created with the goal of standing in its own. Which isn't "bad", it just is.

this thread sucks

>>17373038
Colouring was not my word, it was the stupid terminology of the other anon in the first place.

I'm saying what the anon miss-sees as "colouring," is in fact a broadening and recreating of theory. Ask any person with a basic understanding of music theory, Wagner was instrumental to it, not because he introduced a Wagner-tuba however.

>The fact that this music doesn't "work" alone but only being accompanied by its programmatic story. Same thing with his text, it isn't as rich as it would be if it was created with the goal of standing in its own. Which isn't "bad", it just is.
The program/absolute music distinction falls away in cases like Wagner, and many others of similar merit. Especially when that dichotomy is set up upon the belief that one is better than the other. Wagner wasn't a tone-painter, he's not describing an image, he's getting into the very heart of the feeling. And it was funnily enough Wagner who created the distinction, on an intellectual level, yet it was taken up and misconstrued by Hanslick-tier retards. I have never met someone who knew much at all about music who still abided by that split.

Yeah man, Bach was totally worrying about the split between program and absolute music. As if it isn't just a Romantic pretention set up as any other era's defining separations are.

>>17372990
>even though you first made a post to trigger "antisemites" which mentions a negative effect Wagner had,
I'm going to stop reading there. This statement isn't true. It's just not, go back and read what I posted and this not what Adorno says.
You can't expect me to take your entire post seriously enough to read it when what you say is just verifiably inaccurate from the onset.

>>17373241
Alright, difference of technicality, you said you'll sit back and watch "antisemites" sperg out, it seems obvious to me that you made the post assuming that the Wagner anons in this thread must be antisemites, therefore they're going to sperg out when a negative thing is said about him. It is not much of an important difference, given my point in referring to this original post of yours.

If you reply once more with some "le this is unacceptable, I simply cannot reply!" then I can only assume you're literally to retarded to understand the statements of Adorno that you're posting yourself.

>>17373241
Alright, difference of technicality, you said you'll sit back and watch "antisemites" sperg out, it seems obvious to me that you made the post assuming that the Wagner anons in this thread must be antisemites, therefore they're going to sperg out when a negative thing is said about him. It is not much of an important difference, given my point in referring to this original post of yours.

If you reply once more with some "le this is unacceptable, I simply cannot reply!" then I can only assume you're literally to retarded to understand the statements of Adorno that you're posting yourself. Besides, you greatly misunderstood me when you said I was trying to limit Adorno's opinion of Wagner to "pro/against," and yet I still attempted to make a reply.

>>17373286
Holy shit you're stupid.
i was claiming that your premise, that Adorno criticized wagner, is false. I'm sorry to say that this is incorrect, and i won't waste my time reading your rebuttal to this claim, since it does not exist.
When you engage in thought, nuances, and as you say, "technicalities", make the world of difference. So let me reiterate, though this may annoy that, that Adorno, in my post, is not criticizing wagner as an artist, he is simply stating that TV producers have Satanically fulfilled one of wagner's dreams of the total work of art, in the way he explains, in great detail, throughout an essay you have refused, and i am willing to bet, will forever refuse, to read. A little hint that should be evidence enough that this is not a criticism of wagner but rather a criticism of the culture industry is that he sees this fulfillment, to use HIS TERM in the quotation above, as "derisive". You see, if you actually paid attention to technicalities, you would have noticed this very important detail and you wouldn't have wasted your time responding to claims that don't exist.

>>17373328
>>17373302

>>17373328
When did I refuse to read it? I literally said I will read it. You continue to make up these blatant lies.

You say that the nature of the work of art is revealed through its "evolution through time," and you also claim that Adorno believes this to be Wagner's only legacy in our society, as you put it trash, except for the Viennese school which you shew to the side. Adorno also uses the word "fulfilling," of course he recognises a difference between the originality in consumerist culture and Wagnerian dramas, but "fulfilling" is a very different thing from a mere technical influence. And every time I posited that, it being a mere technical influence, your refused to respond. I asked repeatedly then, is there something in Wagner that Adorno dislikes, regardless of its effect in history, what does he think about the art itself. And yet you are unable to say anything than "it's neither good or bad bro, hurr durr he just influenced modern bad culture."

Everything else you use is meaningless technicalities and picking and choosing. You completely ignore any further questioning about Adorno's opinion of Wagner, apparently you know absolutely nothing about what Adorno thought about Wagner as an artist himself. You are completely disingenuous.

>>17373328
>i was claiming that your premise, that Adorno criticized wagner, is false. I'm sorry to say that this is incorrect, and i won't waste my time reading your rebuttal to this claim, since it does not exist.
Also, when did I say Adorno criticized Wagner? I'm asking for you to clarify whether it was a criticism of Wagner or not, you literally refuse to say yes or no. So it must in part be a criticism, but you refuse to answer this as well. And you can't even read a whole post, it's pathetic and as said thoroughly disingenuous, that you cannot even act in good faith.

>>17367661
Yes, it's the same reason why anime and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>17367661
Besides music, art is really gay and unecessary.

>>17373081
Wagnerfag's threads are always dogshit

>>17373124
>I'm saying what the anon miss-sees as "colouring," is in fact a broadening and recreating of theory.
we were talking about form, not theory. don't move the goalposts. he was obviously an innovator and an influence, but that isn't what we are arguing.
>Especially when that dichotomy is set up upon the belief that one is better than the other.
never said anything about "better". Abstract music tends to place form in a more important place, and generally gets complex because of it. program music doesn't need musical form per se since its form is the text.
and finally, when I said that the parts of his Gesamtkunstwerk weren't good by themselves, I'd like to specifically point at not music, his strongest aspect, but literature (libretti). His stories aren't as good as his music, and maybe they would be better if they weren't meant to accompany music.

>>17373584
You're on /lit/

>>17373641
They used to be the best of threads, because usually only educated anons were big Wagnerians, but then they kept getting shilled and the retards who disliked Wagner in the first place grew more aggravated and now we have this dump.

I hope they stop being posted so we can have good, smaller, Wagner threads again.

>>17373886
This describes every major figure or topic that gets discussed on just about every board on this site.

>Mine is a highly susceptible, intense, voracious yet uncommonly sensitive and fastidious sensuality, which must somehow or other be flattered if my mind is to accomplish the agonizing labor of calling a non-existent world into being.
-Wagner to Franz Liszt, 1854

Imagine not being a genius.