/lit/ - Literature

>petty megalomaniac who needs to crush a neurotic groupie as soon as he started exercising slight autonomy
>eclipsed by nietzsche's fame a thousandfold within two decades of their deaths

>>21862684
>the delusion of this post

>>21862665
Who?

>>21863082
Sneedzsche.

>>21862665
Is this from a letter or just the Wagner movie script?

>>21862684
>>eclipsed by nietzsche's fame a thousandfold within two decades of their deaths
Lmao, no. The first half of the 20th century isn't r/nietzsche.

>>21862684
>NEETzsche more famous than WAGEner
Nah I'd say they're pretty evenly matched in terms of renown, N in the spheres of philosophy and W in music

>>21862665
Wagner is the incarnate of the devil himself. He is an incurable sickness that festers like cancer on thy body. His music had devoured plenty a souls, to which I recall the day I listened to faust and how the devil laughed behind me.

When I recall the day that I listened to The Pilgrim's Chorus/Finale of Tannhäuser, it sends chills down my spine. Just the prelude itself aroused my cock up to 90* perpendicular, I tore my clothes off and ran naked to the streets shouting "JUST FUCKING RAPE ME ALREADY GOD". This is what listening to Wagner for the first time did to me. Wagner was not just making ordinary music for ordinary people, he was sound-raping his listeners and fucking their brains out until they attained nirvana or musical pleasure.

W.

https://youtu.be/DCo2MIfP16Y

This is literally the best thing I've ever heard.

>>21862684
>fame

Ranking them according to fame (and what you said isn't even true, though Nietzsche is currently more famous among the American masses) is ultimate plebeian mindset. You are Rabble, and Nietzsche wouldn't want you reading his books.

Wagner is the greater genius, if only because he's the greatest artist in recorded history.

I have to admit I never understood Wagner. I find some of his music moving but then I forget it for years at a time. Also what the FUCK did he have against Mendelssohn? I understand he was an anti-semite but it's not like Mendelssohn was a completely shit composer or anything.

> We need to eradicate all traces of Jewishness in Western---and especially German---culture!!!!!!
> *Proceeds to write an entire opera praising a Jewish God*

>>21863197
No one listens to classical musical anymore<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>21863239
Nobody gives a damn about Mendel*sohn except redditors.

>>21863259
I first became interested in him when I learned the critical role he played in repopularizing Bach's music. I started listening to a lot of his work and I think he is very underrated.

>>21863258
Maybe not in your group of xanax-addicted rotten brained plebeian zoomer friends and your 55% white, 45% corn syrup universities where inclusive anal circle group rape (every dick must penetrate an anus of different color, sexual identity and able-bodiedness) are seen as high culture, whore.

>>21863239
Most of Wagner's seething over Mendelssohn was that he got famous early, not much more than that.

>>21862665
How would he know about Nietzsche masturbating?

>>21863239
In Judaism in Music, Some Explanations Concerning "Judaism in Music", On Conducting, On Poetry and Composition, On Opera Poetry and Composition in particular and On the Application of Music to the Drama he explains his criticisms, as well as praise, of Mendelssohn. His man criticism was of conflating Mendelssohn with the German masters upon a purely formal scheme. You can find all those essays in the following links:

https://ia600304.us.archive.org/19/items/CollectionOfRichardWagnerProseWorks/WagnerProseWorks.pdf
https://hugoribeiro.com.br/area-restrita/Wagner-On_Conducting.pdf

There's also a very enlightening record of Wagner's private thoughts on Mendelssohn here:

www.the-wagnerian.com/2014/10/a-visit-to-richard-wagner-and-special.html

>>21863288
You're mentally ill

Did he really write about Nietzsche masturbating and too much or am I remembering wrong?

>>21862665
>Nietzsche masturbates, you know. I told him, persuade his patient to stop masturbating, eat vegetables and take cold-water plunges
I didn't expect him to give brainlet "just go outside and don't think about it bro" takes. Meistersingers is one of my favorites operas

>>21863290

>>21863611

>>21863613

>>21863258
Even people who do listen to classical music mostly view Wagner as kitsch and representative of the decadence of the classical form

>>21863611
>>21863613
>>21863616
Kek, thanks anon, Wagnerchads stay winning.

>>21863288
What the fuck

>>21863611
>>21863613
>>21863616
What an asshole. The paternalistic attitude is even worse than the breach of trust.

lol, Wagner thinks stimulating your penis with fingers rather than a vagina destroys eyesight

>>21863065
Thus Spoke Zarathustra was the second most carried book in German WWI trenches after the Bible.

>>21863623
You clearly don't know what you're saying. How can Wagner be kitsch and decadent at the same time? How can he both both appeal to standard forms of conventional quality (much better description for Brahms' imitation of Beethoven) and be an unparalleled force for the avant garde in music history? Yet Wagner escapes the trappings of both; his music is just as well ordered and formally masterful as a Beethoven symphony, and never loses its strength in innovation.

>>21863623
Anachronistic interpretations because Wagner is le evil nazi german composer.

>>21863611
what book?

>>21863679
>The paternalistic attitude is even worse than the breach of trust.
Only because Wagner is a shitty father. As much as one can riff on Nietzsche, I can't help but think that those who absolutely loathe him are more despicable and hypocritical. Like walking proofs that Christ is dead.

>>21863244
You didn’t read much history it seems.

>>21863898
>How can Wagner be kitsch
The standard response would be that he tried to solve the problem of the exhaustion of classical form by diluting it and merely introducing extraneous elements. That is why it is decadent. I don't know why you object to a relationship between kitsch and decadence - decadence simply means decline, and phases of decline are often characterized by amateurish and merely imitative fusing of existing forms, which is a type of kitsch.

It's ironic he liked Schopenhauer so much because his Schopenhauer would be the first to dismiss his music theory as a contradiction of the spirit of music, which requires disinterested contemplation (theoria) of the will through the highest part of the intellect, which of course according to Kantian theory is explicitly and exclusively non-sensuous. The whole reason music is so profound for Schopenhauer is that it is a non-sensuous, non-imagistic, non-phantasiacal and thus "pure" expression of the will before pure contemplation.

How one regards the music alone is another thing but it's hard to escape the fact that it was prepared explicitly with Wagner's elaborate stagings in mind. He himself didn't treat it as modular and detachable from the sensuous aspects.

>>21863949
And Nietzsche is the evil anti-christ creator of Nazism. He martyred himself to usher in the anti-christian age.

>>21863611
It's not confirmed true or false but there's a good chance it's true. Excessive masturbation or mental states or something that correlate with excessive masturbation may lead to symptoms like early blindness.

>>21863288
Lol, based beyond belief.

>>21863244
Wagner's Christ is a pagan Gnostic one.

>>21864935
>Reality: "Many myths about masturbation, such as this one, come from back when people believed sex was only meant for procreation," says Shuey. Because masturbation isn't for procreation, it was considered problematic. "People also believed masturbation could lead to insanity, tuberculosis, hairy palms, and death," she says. "Obviously, none of these things are true."

>>21864791
I see that you're a fellow Ars Subtilior enjoyer / knower.
https://youtu.be/GbUwoUeCJFQ
https://youtu.be/0LO3BJwJRIg

Rienzi act 1 scene 1 could take place in today's europe if you replace the nobili with the globalist elite and their pet rapefugees.

https://youtu.be/VwgIIgffdpU
>Ist dies die Achtung vor der Kirche,
>die eurem Schutze anvertraut?

>Dies ist eu'r Handwerk, daran erkenn' ich euch!
>Als zarte Knaben würgt ihr unsre Brüder,
>und unsre Schwestern möchtet ihr entehren!
>Was bleibt zu den Verbrechen auch noch übrig?
>Das alte Rom, die Königin der Welt,
>macht ihr zur Räuberhöhle, schändet selbst
>die Kirche; Petri Stuhl muß flüchten
>zum fernen Avignon; kein Pilger wagt's,
>nach Rom zu ziehn zum frommen Völkerfeste,
>denn ihr belagert, Räubern gleich, die Wege.
>Verödet, arm, versiecht das stolze Rom,
>und was dem Ärmsten blieb, das raubt ihr ihm,
>brecht, Dieben gleich, in seine Läden ein,
>erschlagt die Männer, entehrt die Weiber: -
>blickt um euch denn, und seht, wo ihr dies treibt!
>Seht, jene Tempel, jene Säulen sagen euch:
>es ist das alte, freie, große Rom,
>das einst die Welt beherrschte, dessen Bürger
>Könige der Könige sich nannten!
>Verbrecher, sagt mir, gibt es noch Römer?

No wonder Herr Hitler was such a fan.

>>21864987
>Obviously, none of these things are true.
How does "she" know? There are no rigorous studies because it's dismissed without any analysis despite almost all "myths" having some relationship to reality no matter how tenuous. She could have been honest and said "there's currently no evidence I know of suggesting this is true" but she's a propagandist not an honest person.

>>21864791
>The standard response would be that he tried to solve the problem of the exhaustion of classical form by diluting it and merely introducing extraneous elements.
This is utterly meaningless. The criticism of Wagner for ruining classical form is always vague and confused. What existing forms did Wagner amateurishly and merely imitatively fuse? That is, musical forms, since Wagner's music stands on its intrinsic musical merits just as much as any other composer's, and more so than any other operatic composer. The judgement of the music in conjunction with theatre has never taken precedence over its isolated judgement, or vice versa. Do you think there is anything intrinsically less musical in a music drama than in a tone poem? Or the programmatic nature of Beethoven's 6th? Certainly the same Schopenhauerian logic by which you reject Wagner would force you to reject his 6th symphony, and 9th. Wagner wrote extensively on Schopenhauer's aesthetics, taking as his starting point Schopenhauer's brief comparison of drama with music as a direct portrayal of the will. Resulting in an equivalency of music and drama rather than music as another composite within drama. There's really no contradiction for Wagner, it would be arrogant to think Wagner, but not you, had missed such a large oversight. And there is nothing less 'amateurish and merely imitative' than Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk. An absolutely new creation in the history of art, and displaying a mastery in every artform and their fusion.

>>21862684
Nietzsche's hands typed this

>>21865039
I don't think you understood the critique. Perhaps a study of Wagner's idol, Schopenhauer, and his philosophy and debt to the critical philosophy of Kant would clear up some of the main objections to Wagner's work? Schopenhauer apparently annotated a copy of The Ring sent to him by Wagner and was extremely critical of it, didn't like it at all.

It's funny that Wagner stood in the same relation to Schopenhauer as Nietzsche stood to him, and Schopenhauer also mogged him.

>There's really no contradiction for Wagner
Of course, and that's his prerogative. I'm only telling you what the tradition of music theory based on Wagner's hero Schopenhauer would say. I personally like Wagner plenty. Unlike you I haven't latched onto him as a father figure to the point of needing to fight his dead enemies and further denigrate people he wounded. Be a 21st century Wagnerite if you want, nobody is stopping you. I'm just telling you that 20th century music theory shits on Wagner plenty, and for reasons that are basically identical to (and in some cases derived from) the reasons that Schopenhauer had for shitting on him.

>>21862665
>cold water plunges
Lmao so this isn’t a new age thing. Wagner is just like those influencers who post their ice baths online.

>>21865253
You, again, clearly just don't know what you're talking about. Just be honest that you have an irrational hatred for Wagner. There's no other explanation for this level of disingenuousness wherever it is possible for you to criticise him. You criticise his music in the most demonstrably false way possible ('everyone thinks he is kitsch and blames him for formlessness'), then you pretend you weren't talking about his music, after which, when criticising his art on the whole, you resort to the banal claim that it contradicts Schopenhauer's aesthetics, you then pretend you were simply stating the 'main objections to Wagner's work' as an objective fact. I understood your critique, and I replied. You haven't responded. You seem to think simply stating Schopenhauerian orthodoxy and leaving it at that is an argument in itself, rather than what is to be argued over; that is, whether Wagner's additions to his system are logical. Just like now you simply state that Schopenhauer was critical of Wagner's Ring poem as if it has any relevancy. Something you might not know with your bias is that Schopenhauer DID praise Wagner's Ring, as well as criticise it:

>I admire how Wagner in his Nibelungen brings the dark, legendary figures humanly near to us. He is a poet, but no musician.
>but tell him that he should stop writing music. His genius is greater as a poet. I, Schopenhauer, remain faithful to Rossini and Mozart.

>>21862665
Based of him and cringe of Nietzsche. Masturbation is a waste of time and the most powerful energy.

>>21863872
And how did that go for them?

>>21863611
>going blind meme was generally considered a fact a mere 150 years ago
we're all a bunch of fucking apes, that rumor only started in the first place because some ancient surgeons noticed that cerebrospinal fluid looks similar to cum and thought they were the same

We know Wagner's stance on masturbation but what was his stance on being catfished by a gay man who tricks you into wearing a blindfold and getting sucked on the penis?

>>21863201
cringe post but I agree with you that Wagner is one of the few artists to actually have sex with your mind. A. G. Cook also does this

>>21863623
they drank the koolaid

>>21865253
you're the equivalent of the retards on here saying academia no longer takes poets like Milton, Spenser etc seriously and how we need to read Ezra Pound or something.
Modern critics know very little about literature or classical music, since they can't even comprehend pop music.

>>21864791
>his music theory as a contradiction of the spirit of music, which requires disinterested contemplation (theoria) of the will through the highest part of the intellect, which of course according to Kantian theory is explicitly and exclusively non-sensuous. The whole reason music is so profound for Schopenhauer is that it is a non-sensuous, non-imagistic, non-phantasiacal and thus "pure" expression of the will before pure contemplation
lmao this is pure made-up nonsense, how some people (thankfully few) still take philosophers like Schopenhauer seriously boggles the mind.

>>21865253
>and Schopenhauer also mogged him
lmao Schopenhauer was an angry and pathetic little man, he didn't mog anyone.

>>21864983
Holy cope. You sound like a Satanist. Actually watch Parsifal, you faggot LARPer.

>>21864751
What would a good father do?
Encourage him to masturbating because it feels good momentarily?
That's how you end up with a son who chops his dick off and shoots a bunch of children in a school.

>>21864791
>The whole reason music is so profound for Schopenhauer is that it is a non-sensuous
Wow is Schopenhauer really that fucking stupid? I never realized he was such a brainlet.
The spirit of music is rhythm which, like all human cultural expressions, is based on a substrate of naturally emergent biological phenomena, namely in this case the involuntarily and joyous convulsions of orgasm. To say music is non-sensuous is perhaps the dumbest possible statement a person could make.

>I also masturbate

Holy fuck, I am just like Neitzsche

>>21866870
God, kill yourself retard.

>>21867015
Not an argument.
I accept your admission of defeat.

>>21867020
Your scientism argument is NOT a valid one, you midwit. No wonder you haven’t inspired any writer, philosopher or musician, unlike Schop. Now you can seethe.

>>21866870
Try listening to Beethoven's Grosse Fugue and you'll begin to understand what the German mind is capable of.

>>21863197
Wagner is one of the 'big four' (with Bach, Beethoven and Mozart). Nietzsche's thought does not even yield a coherent system

>>21863258
People will be listening to Wagner, Bach and Beethoven long after you and all of the musicians you listen to are dead

>>21864776
Cringe and bluepilled
>>21864983
Based and redpilled

>>21863288
>>21863611
>>21867099
Dubs confirm Friedrich NEETzsche has been eternally BTFO by RiCHAD Wagner

ITT: lots of seething brainlets proving they got filtered by the divine Wagner

>>21862665
>too bound up in his wretched headaches and vomits, blind as a bat. I wrote to his physician to tell him to curb his masturbating. Nietzsche masturbates, you know.

>>21864751
still seething after all these years nietzsche

>>21865253
Why are you so sophistic? You criticised Wagner in the most demonstrably false way possible ('most people think he is kitsch and formless'), then pretended you weren't talking about his music in a later post; in that same post, in which you were now criticising his art on the whole, you described the orthodox Schopenhauerian position, and now you pretend you were simply stating 'the main objections to Wagner's work' as an objective fact. In the same way you mention in this post Schopenhauer's criticism of the Ring poem, as if it has any relevance, so you can hide behind it without it being your own criticism. When I show how you are wrong in any of these things in which you obviously don't know what you are talking about, you call me a fawning Wagnerite. Just be honest that YOU hate Wagner and stop resorting to ad homs whenever the validity of your criticisms are called into question.

And see, now you change your position to '20th century music theory shits on Wagner plenty'. It wouldn't be music theory if it did shit on Wagner, because it's either a very subjective and ideological criticism, which for the most part is excluded from music theory, or it's technically wrong. There is Stravinsky, whose criticisms were illogical, and there is Adorno, who criticised Stravinsky worse than he ever did Wagner. But in neither of these cases are they music theorists proper, a la Dahlhaus. The only real music theorist who criticised Wagner was Schenker, and he stole half of his theory from Wagner and his criticisms have been easily disproved in basic harmonic analyses of scenes from Wagner. Schopenhauer, by the way, DID praise the Ring poem:

>I admire how Wagner in his Nibelungen brings the dark, legendary figures humanly near to us. He is a poet, but no musician.
>but tell him that he should stop writing music. His genius is greater as a poet. I, Schopenhauer, remain faithful to Rossini and Mozart.

>>21865253
>20th century music theory shits on Wagner plenty
Half the 20th century was musicians copying Wagner wholesale. You'd be hard pressed to find examples of pieces that don't have traces of Wagner than those that do.

>>21862684
>eclipsed by nietzsche's fame a thousandfold within two decades of their deaths

...

>>21863239
In Judaism in Music, Some Explanations Concerning "Judaism in Music", On Conducting, On Poetry and Composition, On Opera Poetry and Composition in particular and On the Application of Music to the Drama he explains his criticisms, as well as praise, of Mendelssohn. His man criticism was of conflating Mendelssohn with the German masters upon a purely formal scheme. You can find all those essays in the following links:

https://ia600304.us.archive.org/19/items/CollectionOfRichardWagnerProseWorks/WagnerProseWorks.pdf
https://hugoribeiro.com.br/area-restrita/Wagner-On_Conducting.pdf

There's also a very enlightening record of Wagner's private thoughts on Mendelssohn here:

www.the-wagnerian.com/2014/10/a-visit-to-richard-wagner-and-special.html

>>21863197
does N stand for Nigger?

>>21863611
>In assessing Nietzsche's condition I have long been reminded of identical or very similar experiences with young men of great intellectual ability. Seeing them laid low by similar symptoms, I discovered all too certainly that these were the effects of masturbation. Ever since I observed Nietzsche closely, guided by such experiences, all his traits of temperaments and characteristic habits have transformed my fear into a conviction.

>>21867173
kek

>>21867125
>>21867099
Wagner intelligentsia ladies and gentlemen.

>>21867097
>>21863623
>>21863288
Fucking retards this >>21863258 faggot right here is using AI-Chat.

>>21867092
I thought the big five are Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, and Brahms.

>>21867842
>Brahms
He's an ant next to Wagner or Haydn. His popular appeal mostly comes from supplying the common repertoire with works of competent craftmanship.

From a letter by Mahler to his wife in 1904:
>All I can say of him [Brahms] is that he's a rather puny little dwarf with a narrow chest. Good Lord, if a breath from the lungs of Richard Wagner whistled about his ears he would scarce be able to keep his feet. But I don't mean to hurt his feelings.

From Nietzsche's The Case of Wagner:
>What does Johannes Brahms matter?… It was his good fortune to be misunderstood by Germany; he was taken to be an antagonist of Wagner—people required an antagonist!—But he did not write necessary music, above all he wrote too much music!—When one is not rich one should at least have enough pride to be poor! [...] He is much too little of a personality, too little of a central figure.… The “impersonal,” those who are not self-centred, love him for this. He is especially the musician of a species of dissatisfied women. Fifty steps further on, and we find the female Wagnerite—just as we find Wagner himself fifty paces ahead of Brahms.

>>21867842
You don't need to be a wagnerite to know Wagner should be in with them. And of course Brahms is the outlier, as he is not a true genius

>>21867221
Where did you find a source on those quotes? Is that the whole thing? I'd love to see a transcript of his complete annotations.

>>21867994
Those were recorded statements from him, not from his annotations which I've never found a full list of. The only website which has some of them excludes anything complementary, such as his praise for Wotan's resignation, for comedic effect.

>>21867228
>Half the 20th century was musicians copying Wagner wholesale.
Yeah, kitsch composers like movie composers. He has had tremendous influence on pop culture for sure, since pop music relies on utilitarian appropriation of classical form, which is effectively what Wagner was doing. He made some great music, don't get me wrong, but he didn't advance the form. This is hardly his fault, however, as the form was exhausted by his day, as frequently noted by him and his contemporaries. Wagner's solution was one of many failed solutions at the time that led to kitschification and popification. The other classic example being impressionism, which is, again, a pollution of the pure intellectual form of classical music with sensuous material. It has long been thought - via Plato, and this way of thinking was revived in the late 18th century by the romantics - that mere mimesis is not art. The romantics developed very sophisticated theories of art that specifically aim at transcending or sublating mimesis. So impressionism is definitely a low form, for the same reason its twin, realism, is, even if both can be interesting. I'd put Wagner above both but he still falls short of a solution to the classic paradox of classical music, i.e., that its perfection contradicts its internal premise that musical expression can never be perfected, only advanced.

I would definitely prefer to listen to Wagner than, say, Schoenberg, despite the fact that Schoenberg was trying to break out of the form. But he was wrong for the right reasons, whereas Wagner was still at least (residually) right for the wrong reasons, if that makes sense. Schoenberg made crap music.

>>21867221
I don't feel like forensically deconstructing your forensic deconstruction of my post, which was in good faith. I've only told you what is basically true: modern music theorists, Schopenhauer, and I all basically agree that Wagner failed to transcend or solve the difficulties of late classical music. Nietzsche didn't even really think he was doing that, because Nietzsche didn't share Schopenhauer's aesthetic theories of music.

Like I said, I'm not obsessed with Wagner being shit in the way you are obsessed with him being great, so you have an advantage (sort of?) in having more motivation to carry out endless debates over nothing. All the main points have been stated and your post doesn't contradict them. I'll respond to the one part that says something:
>DID praise the Ring poem
For a Wagner devotee you should really go READ that article on Schopenhauer's annotation of the Ring, instead of assuming it's wrong or irrelevant because you love Wagner like a father, or this is some kind of meme ultra-Wagnerite character you're playing, whichever. The literature makes it pretty clear that Schopenhauer's well-known "poet but not a musician" line was filtered through friends, whereas the annotations are unequivocal. Also, the Mozart/Rossini line proves all the points I've made here.

>>21868052
Well where the fuck did they get them? I'm sure those documents are locked up in some archive accessible only to his literary executors, like his extensively annotated copy of the Oupnekhat.

>>21868093
I also note he thought Wagner's language and poetry were awkward, apparently, and that the plot of the Ring also fell short of the completeness or verisimilitude (in Aristotle's sense of eikos, again not in a merely mimetic-realist sense) necessary for poetry and art in general. So he didn't even think he was that great a poet, according to the annotations in his own hand. Maybe he was more diplomatic in speaking, or maybe he changed his mind, who knows.

Of course, you're free to disagree with Schopenhauer. It's just funny that he mogged Wagner and broke his heart the same way Wagner mogged Nietzsche and broke his heart. Not in entirely the same way I suppose, since Schopenhauer just gave his honest opinion while Wagner went around accusing a young bachelor of the 19th century shame equivalent of being a tranny, while being in a position of power and trust over him.

>>21862665
Nietzsche was a coomer confirmed.

>>21868093
>Yeah, kitsch composers like movie composers. He has had tremendous influence on pop culture for sure, since pop music relies on utilitarian appropriation of classical form, which is effectively what Wagner was doing.
Do you not know who Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wolf, Strauss, Mahler, Debussy, Sibelius, Scriabin, Reger, Schoenberg, Berg, Stravinsky pre-1914, etc., in short almost the entire generation of composers after Wagner, are? Or, among conductors, Bulow, Richter, Strauss and Mahler also, Mottl, Weingartner, Siedl, Nikisch, Furtwangler, etc., in short almost the entire generation of conductors after Wagner, are?

EVERYTHING you are saying are literal memes. Did you get your music education from 4chan? Or are you just making things up as you go along? Not even the most basic education in classical music could let you miss all of Wagner's influence except on Hollywood. Kill yourself pseud.

>>21868109
Here are the citations.
>Max Goldstein, "Schopenhauers Randbemerkungen zum Nibelungenring," Deutsches Montagsblatt (1882)
>Hermann Ritter, "Schopenhauers Randbemerkungen
zum 'Ring des Nibelungen,'" Neue Musikzeitung (1904).
>Karl S. Guthke, "'Er hat keine Ohren! Der taube Musikant': Schopenhauers Randbemerkung zu Wagners 'Ring': eine Kuriosität in den Archiven der Harvard-University entdeckt," Schweizer Monatshefte (1997).

You can just go to the archive and look at it yourself. Maybe it's already digitized?

>>21868161
Sure. What does any of that have to do with anything I said? You have a real inability to follow a conversation. Again, I'm sorry this minor piece of music history trivia upsets you so much. I just prefer real classical music to 20th century derivative composers and pop/media composers (not least because there is a disturbing amount of cross-talk between the two), and while I grant Wagner's influence over a lot of people I don't particularly care for - much of which is negative influence, in that they were reacting AGAINST Wagner, as precisely the decadent leftovers or the ungraceful death of exhausted romanticism - it doesn't particularly change my argument. The impressionists I cited also had enormous influence. So what?

It changes nothing about the central point, which is that it's widely thought by people who really care about classical music that Wagner is one of the main causes of the desuetude of modern classical music. Of course the 20th century is substantially downstream of his failures and his covering up of those failures with kitsch. That's the essence of the 20th century, in music as in so many other areas of culture, failing and then burying the failure in arguments from utilitarianism or pop culture that would not have satisfied, e.g., Schopenhauer or Beethoven.

Wagner is a perfectly alright musician. Nothing wrong with liking him. Just saying, Schopenhauer, his hero, would have disliked him and did dislike him.

>>21868093
>I don't feel like forensically deconstructing your forensic deconstruction of my post, which was in good faith.
In other words 'I will continue to twist historical fact and only reply to what you say if it is possible to frame it negatively'. Telling that you only replied to ONE thing, and it is the one thing where what you say is half-undeniable: Schopenhauer did criticise Wagner. Everyone knows this, no one denied this, while you wish to deny the very obvious praise he did have. I've already read the article, and I've read more excerpts from Schopenhauer's annotations than is in it. Whether for comedic effect or resentment of Wagner, the bias in that article is undeniable. Why does he exclude Schopenhauer's remark 'How true!' to 'Alles ist nach seiner Art: an ihr wirst du nichts ändern' in Siegfried? Why does he assume Schopenhauer's quoting of Faust is not complementary to what the Ring elicited in him? Why does he engage in mental gymnastics to twist Schopenhauer's 'Suttee' into a commentary about Hindu philosophy being out of place in the Ring rather than a serious response to the themes of the drama? Why does the 'literature', the unfounded opinion of an academic writer a hundred years later, make clear the record of Schopenhauer's statement was not faithful? On what basis can he claim that they lied? Furthermore Schopenhauer's criticism of the language makes sense, for the same reason it makes sense for the literary avant garde, Baudelaire, Mallarme, Nietzsche, Hauptmann etc., to appreciate it.

>>21868109
The article was in Harvard Magazine, so maybe their archives?

>>21868256
What praise? The article YOU are citing in this post is the one that says the advice was filtered through friends who softened it. There are reports that Wagner read the Goldstein article and was very upset by it. You get on my case for not responding to your insane feminine babbling about your musical daddy figure being "attacked" (through mild trivia that his aesthetic philosophy is incompatible with Schopenhauer's aesthetic philosophy, and that I and others agree with this), but you don't even read the things you cite except to skim them lightly for evidence supporting your case. Which is, what, that Schopenhauer also said "Nifty!" at some point? Who would disagree with that..?

It's all just immaterial to the larger point. I don't care whether the balance sheet of Schopenhauer's "Nifty!" to "Ugh, not nifty at all!" comments comes up in your favor. This kind of gossip only matters to you as a life and death matter. I just thought it was funny that Schopenhauer slammed Wagner and apparently Wagner likely learned about it.

The larger issue is that Wagner is generally agreed to be kitsch (high kitsch, but kitsch) in the fundamental points of his aesthetic philosophy, and in some ways behind how horrible the 20th century was for classical form. You frantically and sweatily googling wikipedia's Wagner article for his "Influenced" list, full of composers I already cited and discussed, won't change that.

>>21868214
No anon it is not widely thought by people who really care about classical music that 20th century classical music is garbage or commercialistic. And, I might add for the millionth time, you have never provided an argument for Wagner being kitsch or 'failing' in anything. Nor did you respond to any criticism of these statements. You're a stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, try and tell any music professor your criticisms of Impressionism, or that there were no formal advancements during late Romanticism, and he will give you a whipping.

>What does any of that have to do with anything I said?
You VERY clearly corrected the anon about Wagner's influence on composers. You literally thought Wagner's most important influence was on Hollywood soundtracks.

>>21868153
I listened to lecture series about nietzsches philosophy and his personal life.

The lecturer didn't say it. But it was glaringly obvious how much nietzsche was a sickly virgin effected his philosophy. His only two real friends pretty much abandoned him when they hooked up. He glorified the arts of writing and art and dested hero worship because he himself could never live up to be a war scarred general. He could just write his gay little thoughts in books, while he was bed ridden with the constant flu.

>>21868283
>The larger issue is that Wagner is generally agreed to be kitsch
The only people who say this are followers of Duchamp. Like everything else you say, it is a truly pathetic lie for the simple reason that you want your horrible opinions on art taken more seriously.

>>21868326
I gave you a basic overview of the reasons why romantic aesthetic theory, Schopenhauer, and moderns influenced by this tradition, disliked Schopenhauer in my first posts. Perhaps refer to them and actually read them, instead of crying like a woman for 3000 characters and writing me diary entries about how much you hate me every time I disagree with you? Man up and learn to handle disagreement.

>You literally thought Wagner's most important influence was on Hollywood soundtracks.
Exclusively? No. As I explained above, the problem with Wagner is that he is kitsch, and so are many of the lesser composers you googled a list of, and this late 19th century kitsch tradition basically melts into pop classical goop, whose lowest form is movie soundtracks, by the mid 20th.

You want to skip all the work of writing me ten paragraphs that say nothing again, and just send a video of yourself crying this time? What do these minor he said she said quibbles (you're the "she") matter compared to the basic fact that Wagner is kitsch?

>>21868350
Yes, truly I am the one here to proselytize and force the... already majority, common opinion about Wagner, anonymously on 4chan. I am the evangelist, not the guy who has been spamming Wagner threads and quotes for a year on 4chan, and who melts down when someone else, who also moderately likes Wagner, mildly disagrees that Wagner is the greatest human who ever lived.

At least I'm giving you that music theory education you never got by forcing you to google things.

>>21868354
>disliked Schopenhauer
Wagner*

>>21868354
>I gave you a basic overview of the reasons why romantic aesthetic theory, Schopenhauer, and moderns influenced by this tradition, disliked Schopenhauer [Wagner?] in my first posts.
No, you criticised Wagner with your own amateurish opinions that you cannot defend. Then you stated the cliche that Schopenhauer's aesthetics contradict Wagner's, without explaining how, because you don't know anything about Wagner's aesthetics. So naturally you think describing babby's first Schopenhauer stands as an argument. But now you're (purposefully) confusing Schopenhauer's criticism of the Ring poem with Wagner's aesthetics. And then these mysterious 'moderns', 'most people', 'music theorists' you have not been able to give an example for once. Not even once, while I have given multiple in the rebuttal to this claim.

Also lmao'ing at you thinking a small list of the biggest composers and conductors after Wagner requires googling. Really showing your own knowledge level.

>>21862665
>eat vegetables
I thought Nietzsche only ate vegetables, like copious amounts of vegetables and nothing else