/lit/ - Literature

>>20523587
Yeah

>>20523587
Only with Mozart and Beethoven, nothing compares with Bach

>>20523587
Austrian literature? Yeah, Maria Rilke, Walther von der Vogelweide, Oswald von Wolkenstein, Stefan Zweig, Franz Kafka
Also in philosophy, Otto Weininger, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Edmund Husserl, Martin Buber, Paul Feyerabend, Kurt Gödel, Friedrich Hayeck, Sigmund Freud, Moritz Schlick

>>20523587
Only with Mozart and Beethoven, nothing compares with Bach

F Gardner

Only with Mozart, Beethoven and Bach; nothing compares with Coltrane.

>>20526242
>>20525133
why does practically every thread I open the last few days have duplicate comments like this???

>>20526264
I never thought Coltrane was an enjoyable composer, but Ill give him another shot.

Bach is infinitely better than the other two

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnMhEEttY2w

Only with Mozart and Beethoven, nothing compares with Bach

>>20526005
>mozart
shakespeare

>beethoven
thomas bernhard

>bach
borges

>>20523587
>This titanic dramatist could not really be understood by analogy with any other poet, and for this reason aesthetic judgement of him has remained completely without foundation. His dramas seem to be such a direct copy of the world, that we cannot find in them any artistic mediation in their representation of the idea and more especially we cannot critically demonstrate this mediation, while our great poets, admiring them as the products of a superhuman genius, regarded them as natural wonders and found in them a means to study the laws of their own creation.

>How far Shakespeare was superior to the actual poet, can be seen starkly enough in the uncommon truthfulness of every trait of his representations when the poet, as for example in the quarrel scene between Brutus and Cassius (in Julius Caesar), is directly treated as a silly creature; whereas we nowhere encounter the supposed ‘poet’ Shakespeare except in the essential nature of the characters themselves in his dramas. Shakespeare therefore remained incomparable until German genius produced in Beethoven someone who can only be explained by analogy with him. If we sum up the complex of Shakespeare’s characters, as they interreact with uncommon intensity into their total effect on our innermost feeling; and if we place beside this complex that of Beethoven’s motivic world with its irrepressible forcefulness and certainty, then we must be aware that these worlds are congruent in such a way that each is contained within the other even if they appear to inhabit different spheres.

>>20526944
>In order to understand this more easily, let us take the example of the Overture to Coriolanus, where Beethoven and Shakespeare are engaged with the same material. If we recall the impression that the figure of Coriolanus made on us in Shakespeare’s drama and, notwithstanding the complications of the plot, concentrate only on that which impressed us on account of its relationship to the main character, then we will see, emerging from all the confusion, the one defiant figure of Coriolanus in conflict with his innermost voice – speaking more loudly and urgently to his pride from his own mother. We will capture as the sole dramatic development the overpowering of his pride by that voice, the breaking of the defiance of a nature powerful beyond measure. Beethoven chooses for his drama only these two principal motifs which make us more clearly aware of the innermost nature of both those characters than by any expounding of concepts. If we now devoutly follow the movement developing from the unique opposition of these motifs and appertaining only to their musical character, and if we let the purely musical detail containing the gradations, interactions, withdrawals and intensifications of these motifs, have its effect on us, then we follow a drama containing in its own special expression everything which in the work of the playwright as performed commanded our interest as complex action and friction between the lesser characters. What there struck us as directly performed action, experienced almost at first hand, we here register as the central core of this action; for this action was there determined by characters working like natural forces just as here by the motifs of the musician working through these characters but identical in their innermost nature. Only in that sphere those and in this sphere these laws of expansion and movement apply.

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

>>20523587
Only with Mozart and Beethoven, nothing compares with Bach

F Gardner

>>20523587
Wieland, Goethe and Schiller of course

>>20523587
Musicians have one massive advantage over writers: they don't need the support structure of the language itself. If the English language goes away (or changes fundamentally) we lose Shakespeare. But to lose Bach we have to stop being human beings.

>>20525133
>>20526242
>>20526477
>>20526481
>>20528196
You need all three and it's more or less non-negotiable. Anyone else, we can survive without.

>>20528533
>But to lose Bach we have to stop being human beings.
*Europeans whose music functions according to the principles of the common practice period.

>>20528600
Naaa. The Japanese & Chinese took to Bach & Beethoven & Mozart like ducks to water.

>>20528646
Because they're forced to study the common practice period since childhood...

>>20526005
Why did you count Kafka for the Austrians, but then neglected to mention Hugo von Hofmannsthal?

>>20525133
Wagner is better than Bach

>>20528709
They're equal.

>>20528762
I'll accept that

Schubert > Beethoven

>>20528709
I’ve never heard such rubbish. Wagner is abrasive, boring and obnoxious. His best work makes you think of sniveling Hebrew merchants. Hardly fit to hold a candle to even the beginning C major fugue. Eat a bag of insect dicks, you illiterate pleab. You’re the Mao Tze-dong of opinions, stupid and wrong.

>>20528868
You sound autisic

>>20523587
There's a whole thread on /mu/ right now trashing Bach's shitty music by the way.

>art music thread on lit
>schoolboy chorus of "muh bach" pseuds has become so rote as to be indistinguishable from AI
>one contrarian fuck name drops Wagner, as if taking the music of Wagner piece by piece and out of context doesn't invalidate the composer's entire raison d'être

I'm waiting for the day when I see some retard here front about seeing a Bach symphony performed.

>>20528902
I see neither harmony, history or validity are your bag. Simply writing a symphony neither validates nor invalidates a composer. I’ll drop a mass and a few concertos and this argument will not progress in your favor. It will progress to harmony and then improvisation. Wagner hasn’t and won’t ever win, especially against Bach. I’ll rest here.

This
>>20528762
is way more annoying than this
>>20528709
because the first comment is just funny, but the second one gives the impression the person actually believes it.

Wagner was a fine fellow, in his way. But you would lose him under Bach's little finger.

>>20528927

You're missing the point completely.
If you're going to try and argue from the point of history, Bach's place in it is very trumped up by the Third Viennese school.
Couperin was arguably just as influential if not more so, within the same idiom.

I'm not saying this because I don't like Bach. On the contrary, I don't want him to be reduced to a name drop.

This
>>20528762
is way more annoying than this
>>20528709
because the earlier comment is just funny, but the reply gives the impression the person actually believes it.

Wagner was a fine fellow, in his way. But you would lose him under Bach's little finger.

>>20528786
Hard to say how good Schubert would have been if he had lived as long as Beethoven. But all we have is what we have. And no, he isn't.

>>20528949
You have very cute and sexy hands? Can we see your tits now?

>>20528950
Always fun to see dilettante's talk about Wagner. Because to anyone who knows their shit he's almost as unparalleled as Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, but his reputation is not equivalent. So they just assume he's not actually very important and post embarrassing opinions like this.

>>20529025
I agree Wagner is up there but this isn't a good argument because Murray's book is simply on popularity in textbooks and you could easily make the case Wagner is higher because being well known for reasons other than just music.

>>20526490
What's the appeal of Borges? The stories are lame and the prose is utilitarian. The endless library one is pretty good, but the rest I've read is mediocre at best. Seems like the guy from Lolita - which is an incredible book, but his short stories are boring.

>>20523587
Anon those are musicians

>>20529025
wagner is a pretty fair pick for fourth place, but his music alone is not comparable with the big 3. definitely some of the best music written though, but not unparalleled.

>>20523587
not if youre an angloid

>>20530187
How does one become the fourth most accomplished composer ever without having unparalleled music?

>>20529025
"Wagner has beautiful moments, but awful quarters of an hour."
That chart is a joke btw
>Handel above Debussy
>Monteverdi so low (below CHOPIN lmao)
>Palestrina nowhere to be seen

>>20530378
Yes Handel is better than Debussy.

>>20530378
i think berlioz so high is the most egregious offender myself, but yeah it could be better
at least he's below liszt who did literally every he did better

>>20530393
Without a doubt.

>>20530401
i have doubts
it depends on the metric you're using but debussy is certainly a very great, very influential composer. i think there's a thing where people think he's just some dreamy cheesy guy and it's all clare de lune but he's a really weird and unique guy who wrote very interesting, beautiful and unique music that really paved the way for a lot of what came after
handel is a great baroque composer who composed fucking great music but i could see someone liking one over the other based on their area of interest and i couldn't really place one over the other on some farcical "objective" scale

>>20530378
>le Rossini meme quote
Just write dilettante on your forehead.

>>20530393
Not even close to Debussy's influence

>>20530458
An artist's work doesn't become any more or less pleasing just because others later took from him.

>>20530458
Yes Debussy was one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, but Handel is second only to Bach in Baroque forms. His creativity is overflowing in every work and his influence is undefinable. Because he, among the other greats, represents an elemental feature of classical music. Which we perceive only distilled in others. This I would take any day against the technical innovations of Debussy.

I like Debussy, but I cannot go without Handel.

>>20530378
The chart is how often a name comes in biographical dictionaries and those sort of things. It's as close to objective as you can get. If your guy name isn't being listed often it's for a reason.

Yes in English poetry. Milton on par with Beethoven, Pope on par with Mozart, and Keats far surpassing overrated Bach.

>>20530649
I mean Beethoven is overrated. They have similar names. Haha.

>>20530652
i can't imagine how much of a soulless contrarian pleb you would have to be to think that beethoven is overrated

>>20530669
I'm not him and this isn't my unique hot take but rather one I've acquired from others.

Beethoven's music is superlative. But the cult around his personality (imagined or not) has had a very centralizing effect on music, as well as contributing to the culture which values composers and conductors above all else and demands eternal innovation. To use a bit of a simplifying metaphor, he did to art music of his day (and we still very much feel the effects today) what someone like Ed Sheeran did to "folk" music.

It's beyond my purview to judge those things as qualitatively good or bad, but I think there is a negative as well as positive side to Beethoven's effect on music.

>>20531260
>imagine comparing Beethoven's contributions to music to Ed Sheeran's twists on folk music
Peek zoom-zoom midwit. Should have at least said Dylan (then you'd at least be a pseud).

>>20532039
Bob Dylan not overrated at all.
Beethoven very overrated.

>>20532061
All that post does is confirm your midwit status and underscore that you're too stupid to understand how to make an analogy without sounding like a retard.

>>20523587
im a pleb who likes the early to mid 20th century stuff more

>>20531260
Of course, the subtle difference (see if you can catch it) is that Beethoven's music is entertaining to listen to (the only metric of art evaluation) while Ed Sheeran is profoundly not.

>>20526477
One of my favorite pieces

>>20532184
>"you're too stupid"

Ah yes truly the level of discourse I except of the next generation of literati.

>>20532411
Millions disagree. You are just too much of a big fat snob to enjoy him.

>>20532411
To let yourself enjoy him I mean.

>>20530669
You literally said Bach was overrated.

>>20531260
Congratulations you know nothing about music theory. If you did you would know that Beethoven excels in practically everything, and wasn't just writing 'emotional' music for pleasure.

>>20528709
pfffffffffffffffffffffffft

For me it’s chopin. I’ve studied Bach and chopin’s piano and I like chopins more but Bach is definitely more of a genius

>>20533157
Would like to add that I think this is the pinnacle of piano
https://youtu.be/yJf2oi9pQ4g

>>20533017
Where in my post did I say he was writing emotional music for pleasure. Go put words in someone else's mouth.

>>20534065
What else could you mean when you seem to deny Beethoven's status for all the reasons in which he deserves it?

>>20526272
Coltrane's genius doesn't lie in his composing

>Only with Mozart, Beethoven, Back and Coltrane. No composers compare with Duke Ellington

>>20528533
>>But to lose Bach we have to stop being human beings.
Wrong Asian "people" love Back

>>20534295
I'm not doing any of those things. With as little offensive as possible, you come off incredibly fake.

>>20530359
you make parrallels of him to the top 3.

>>20529025
The sources undoubtedly "gave more space to Beethoven" because of all of the fascinating and irresistible melodrama that surrounded B's life, from his youth to his death, of which there was no remote equivalent in Mozart's life.

>>20529025
Do you have any other charts from Human Accomplishments? Is there one for writers? Philosophers? Other artists?

>>20533157
>>20533164
Scriabin > Chopin

>>20534399
You can make parallels between the top 3, doesn't mean unparalleled also isn't an accurate description of them.

>>20532957
pop is the main thing I listen to outside of classical, I can use my fucking ears and tell that shit sucks. You're projecting your inability to experience art without intellectualizing what category its in or something.

>>20534381
well I mean, I never found his soloing melodically compelling either. Whats a really outstanding album of his.

>>20534490
mozart is the one who got a famous movie about him though. Beethoven just went deaf or some shit.

>>20535139
An Amadeus-esque Beethoven movie is almost certainly just around the corner. Nostalgia for romanticism seems really trendy right now.

>>20535887
doubtful.

>>20535887
Its not in the same league as Amadeus imo but Immortal Beloved with Gary Oldman as L.V.B. was pretty good.

>>20535128
>experience art without intellectualizing what category its in
What is that supposed to mean?


Having different expectations for different genres? How infra dig of me.

Do you guys think any English lang neoclassical writers compare with Mozart or even Haydn?

>>20535132
Hes got some of my favourite solos on kind of blue, fi you want one of his own albums I suggest my favourite things

>>20538127
Certainly not. Mozart and Haydn are too great. The only connection is that the same features of the age produced the form of their music and the style of their poetry.

>>20526246
How do we stop him bros?

>>20539037
Haydn is not that good either.