/lit/ - Literature

>>5010927
Yes, I'm sure it's a complete accident that his plays are some of the most widely read literary works in the western world.

>>5010939
> implying Shakespeare is the one who wrote them

>>5010941
>implying you actually are the one who wrote that post

>>5010941
Holy shit here we go again

>>5010941
That's quite possibly the least interesting of all conspiracy theories.

We have more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than we do Napoleon Bonaparte.

>>5010957

>>5010957
>>5010979
There are also more atoms in your brain than there are atoms in the entire cosmos.

>>5010990
>>5010957
>>5010979
Also, a cow has two hearts, one bigger than the other

>>5010941
>implying it matters
They were clearly authored by the same man. The point is whoever that man was, he was the greatest genius our time.

>>5011010
Science says that bees can't fly, but the bees don't know this and they keep flying.

>>5011022
Newton was the greatest genius of our time, Shakespeare just wrote nice stories.

>>5011022
He was the greatest genious of the XXI century?

>>5011010
Did you know a cow has 4 stomachs yet the same number of liver and lungs? weird.

>>5011042
> Newton
> his view of physics is far from the quantic/relativistic realities
probably the most overrated human being, apart from maybe columbus

>>5011042
>17th century
>our time

>>5011064
It takes someone incredibly arrogant to look at Newton and his body of work and deem it all 'overrated'.

I am yet to read Shakespeare, hopefully it won't be so past this summer, in which I am planning to read his complete works.

I think most of you have read Shakespeare at some point, is he good or just praised because it is popular with today's taste? I know he is one of the first who started to use characters( unlike until him dominated by types) in his plays, but I also know that back in the day he wasn't so popular, and until 19C people seemed not to prefer him over numerous other playwrights.

I don't really care if he is one person or many. We aren't completely sure in history, most of it could be mere legends renamed to facts as someone concluded it be probable and coherent.

It was Bacon.

>>5011064
Newtonian mechanics have not been proven wrong. Only modified to fit our current understanding better.

The leap science made thanks to Newton is larger than the leap it did thanks to Einstein.

>>5011042
But newton wasn't one of the Renaissance men(one of many talents), he was only a Bible conspiracy nut who happened to develop few great theories for which we thank him until this day.

>>5011129
His plays are bad structurally. You would be better off with ancient Greek plays or classical French plays (like Racine).

But he has good poetry / soliloquies. He was a good psychologist / writer of characters. He is overhyped imo.

>>5011146
>>5011144
>>>/sci/
go ask em if he's an overrated piece of shit
link to thread

>>5011146
bullshit
he ripped off Kepler
He wasn't a "Bible conspiracy nut", he was an alchemist. As far as religion goes he was an arian heretic.

>>5011148
Reading the opinions of his contemporaries, of 17th century and 18th century playwrights is pretty useful, for being able to get him down from his clouds. Most of them saw his plays as boring drivel made for the common man, as to have as many beef as possible it it.

>>5011144
>Newtonian mechanics have not been proven wrong.

Can they be proven wrong?

>>5011144
>what about people who invented technology dating long before science, what was called natural philosophies back then, and which scientists to this day use.
>what about Descartes and invention of analytical method

>>5011156
The thing I hate most about his plays is that he mixes tragedy and comedy. It's poor taste. When you mix tragedy and comedy you turn art into a vaudeville that tries to please you in every way. I think "tragicomedy" has had a lot of influence on modern art. You can't read a tragedy that doesn't have some comic sections, and a lot of books blend the tragedic and comedic to such an extent that you can't tell the difference anymore, and that's what they call "absurdism".

Who are the better playwrights of his day and scene then? Wikipedia isn't giving any good examples of contemporaries for some reason.

>>5011160
Yes.
But if you were to do so, you'd also be disproving General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (nano<scale). So you'd need proof to overturn pretty much everything thought in the last 400 years about physics.

>>5011176
>Yes.

How? What evidence would prove "Newtonian mechanics" wrong?

>>5011170
>The thing I hate most about his plays is that he mixes tragedy and comedy. It's poor taste
Excuse me, I'm ignorant to all things Shakespeare related other than the plays and a few sonnets we had to read in high school, but wasn't the point of his mixing tragedy and comedy to show it could be done and it could be done well?

>>5011156
He was neglected by begging of 17C until 19C, then, with a change of taste, he was rediscovered as a genius. About his contemporaries thinking him bad, I think it is because they still had the instilled medieval way to portray humans as types, not characters, character being wavelike and varying rather then predominantly lazy, sluggish, flippant etc..

>>5011183
No. The man had to make a living. And it sold better this way. It's like a blockbuster; you gotta have fights, love and jokes. Think about Avengers. Shakespeare is 17th century Marvel.

>>5010927
I know everyone says this about every board, but I swear, the overall quality of the posts are way worse than they were when I first came.

>>5011197
>Think about Avengers. Shakespeare is 17th century Marvel.
this quote must go down in history as the most retarded one someone ever said about shakespeare

>>5011183
>wasn't the point of his mixing tragedy and comedy to show it could be done and it could be done well?

What would be the point of that? Just to make a point? Just to defy classical taste / tradition? The explanation that was given to me in school was that he would use the comedic parts to "relieve tension", but why the hell would you WANT to relieve tension in a tragedy? Read Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound; can you imagine if half-way through it switched too a pair of vultures doing a comedic sketch talking about how eager they are to feast on Prometheus' liver? It would be ridiculous, but that's exactly what Shakespeare does. Look at Macbeth - the king, the king who Shakespeare compares to Jesus Christ, is betrayed and murdered in brutal fashion, and then not long after you have a buffoon doing a little sketch at the castle gate. If I were a monarch and had saw that play I would have banned it, because that is a subtle attack on the monarchy imo. Think of Romeo & Juliet - the play starts off with a disgusting back-and-forth between two oafs. The message here is that the romance in the play is not that serious, because how can you have a serious romance play opening in such a way? Aristotle said that every line of a play should contribute to the whole; so how does that disgusting back-and-forth contribute the tragedy at the end of the play? The opening and ending of the play CONTRADICT one and other in tone. Some might say "contrast" but I say contradict.

>>5011212
>I would have banned it, because that is a subtle attack on the monarchy imo

You're really, really stupid.

>>5011170

Are you that one crazy catholic?

>>5011212
>Just to defy classical taste / tradition?
You seem to think this is uncommon among writers and the creative type.

>>5011203
In R&J, they start by a misunderstanding worthy of Commedia dell'arte, about raping virgins -- Mercutio walks in joking with Romeo about pussy and tits.

It really is the Marvel of the 17th century.
Romeo and Juliet is Spiderman.

>>5011219
It wasn't until edgy faggots begun the tradition of defying tradition.

>>5011199. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf

>>5011219
There was no tradition nor classical taste in 16th century England -- those fucks were retarded (in the etymological sense) as fuck and had barely hit renaissance while France and Italy were doing baroque. The Poetics had just been translated to English and Shakespeare never read it.

>>5011212

ah ha you are the crazy catholic, aren't you?

>>5011224
I hate this essay. I hate how Orwell attacks Tolstoy's psychology rather than his arguments. It's a very sinister tactic.

>>5011223
What is wrong with defying tradition? Do you think people really wanted to see the same thing done again and again century after century? You act like he was a rabble rouser just doing it to upset people. He did it because it was interesting and different. How the hell do you find fault in it when it worked?

>>5011228
Chaucer wrote about Dido and Cleopatra, etc.

>>5011230
please stop following me. I only post here once every couple of months and I have you on my back every time.

>>5011235
>What is wrong with defying tradition?

Look at postmodern art.

>>5011240
Wow Chaucer was such a renaissance man! Perhaps even a classicist; a contemporary of Racine and Molière! You're right, I agree! Dante wrote about Virgil, he must be a renaissance or a classical-loving writer!

>>5011199
I attribute this to people like >>5011197 and her /mu/ hoard of teenage ignorance and narcissism.

I think Tallis is just searching to expand her self delusion by thinking herself "patrician" and pretend now on another board, which is this, her great taste. I believe she didn't read more than few books and can only post few opinions about authors robbed from this or another place.

>>5011231
I didn't post it for the stuff on Tolstoy, but rather for the part where he talks about why Shakespeare is considered great.

>>5011245
>confusing modern and postmodern
BRÉKKEK KÉKKEK

>>5011022

What the fuck do you mean "our time"?

Shakespeare has been dead for many generations.

>>5010939
>I'm sure it's a complete accident that his plays are some of the most widely read literary works in the western world.

Much like Twilight is some of the most widely read books in the young teenage girl demographic!

I'm not disputing how great Shakespeare is but your arguement is a fallacy.

Aside from that his works have now been privileged enough to enter a self-perpetuating readership - he is popularly read as a sign of being cultured/for study --> more people read him either because they think it makes them cultured or because they wish to study his works --> he is more popularly read as a sign of being cultured/for study etc etc

>>5011245
Great argument there. There's some beautiful post-modern art. You're just too blind to see because you see a blue canvas as an example of such and judge every peace afterwards as synonymous with it. I've seen great art in contemporary NYC galleries you fucking hick. Why don't you got jerk off to an HD photograph?

>>5011250
How did I confuse them? Postmodern art is art when all traditions have broken down. Romantic and Modern art were the breaking down, but the result is Postmodernism.

>>5011212
Oh jesus christ I've seen your posts before.

>>5011240

I'm not following you, fuckhead. You're just so retarded you're easy to spot, and deserve the ridicule of it.

>>5011129

Uh, yes, Shakespeare is good... I don't think you need to worry yourself about whether he lives up to the hype.

>>5011256
> There's some beautiful post-modern art.

No there isn't. It's stylized ugliness at best.

>>5011257
postmodern is revisiting tradition

modern was destroying tradition

romantic was breaking tradition

aufklärung was exploring tradition

classicism was creating tradition

baroque was breaking tradition

renaissance was recreating tradition

middle-age was exploring tradition

all the rest was tradition

>>5011263
>postmodern is revisiting tradition
In what way?

>>5011259
I don't mind the ridicule, I think it's funny.

>>5011255
Yeah it's funny that he is read for the sake of "culture", when he was deemed by his contemporaries to be uncultured.

>>5011254
Maybe he means "modern" time.

>>5011261
You're an ignorant fool. Do you call this stylized ugliness? The artist took a taxidermy deer and made it beautiful. I guess you just call it edgy though, but it's not a traditional piece of taxidermy. People like you are killing the arts.

>>5011270
holy shit never had art history classes?

you shouldn't have listened to the fedoras telling you to study engineering

>>5011274
*since it's not

>>5011275
Explain how this work is revisiting tradition.

>>5011274
> Do you call this stylized ugliness?

Absolutely.

> The artist took a taxidermy deer and made it beautiful

It's gaudy. I would prefer a stuffed dear.

>>5011274
lol it's just ugliness it doesn't even have style

yo faggot it's a fucking deer with bubbles on it

it ain't no ancient greek tragedy

it ain't no raphaël

it ain't no caravaggio

but I tell you what

it ain't nothin but shit

>>5011283
>postmodernism is a single work by a single artist
kek

btw it revisits the lyrical aspect of painting in an abstract context, where the interiority of the artistic (romantic ideal) is expressed through the movement, the dripping of the canvas

#rekt

>>5011284
>>5011286
You're brainwashed idiots if you don't see the beauty in Nawa's work. I hope you feel superior to everyone else.

>>5011291
All real intellectuals end their thoughts with a "#rekt"

>>5011274
>People like you are killing the arts.

You mean someone with barely any interest in the arts and who casually holds the opinion that classical and renaissance art was more tasteful? What about all the hipsters in New York selling fashionable garbage for millions of dollars to decadent billionaires, aren't they the ones destroying the arts?

>>5011283
That sure isn't postmodernist paining.

>>5011299
There's always been fashionable junk. What's killing the arts is a wholesale rejection of any innovation. What's killing the arts is another generation who thinks everything before them is beautiful, and nothing great can come after. You're like the people who say there's no good music these days, when they truth is you don't look for it, or if you do see it you close yourself off to it.

>>5011291
>>postmodernism is a single work by a single artist
I never once suggested it was. However, if a certain philosophy of an art movement has such a sweeping power hold over the products of the movement, it should noticeable in all examples of the movement.

>in an abstract context
Which is still breaking from the tradition you claim it adheres to. You're argument for the work revisiting tradition has more to do with the creation of the work than the work itself.

>>5011297
>All real intellectuals end their thoughts with a "#rekt"
>caring about being a real intellectual
>not liking #rekt and #told
kid you outta u league

>>5011311
No, the abstraction dates from modernity, and had become a tradition, by the time of action painting.

#shownthedoor

>>5011307
> What's killing the arts is a wholesale rejection of any innovation. What's killing the arts is another generation who thinks everything before them is beautiful, and nothing great can come after.

It seems to me that for the past two hundred everybody has been clamouring to innovate and everybody has been saying that everything before them is irrelevant. Artists that take tradition seriously are the ones that are ignored as backwards or kitsch.

>You're like the people who say there's no good music these days, when they truth is you don't look for it, or if you do see it you close yourself off to it.

There isn't any good music these days. I've listened to the hippest of hipster indie bands and there's some style to what they do, but it's stylized ugliness again.

Why are you people upset that art doesn't have limits.

>>5011321
>>You're like the people who say there's no good music these days, when they truth is you don't look for it, or if you do see it you close yourself off to it.
>There isn't any good music these days. I've listened to the hippest of hipster indie bands and there's some style to what they do, but it's stylized ugliness again.


You sound as retarded as that crazy christian in the Shakespeare thread and thats a fucking big milestone.

>Ive serached hipster music and its all bad all music is bad.

>>5011326
post some good music mate, I would like to listen to it

>>5011320
>had become a tradition,
Not in the eyes of most artists of the time. Have you taken art history classes? Abstractism wasn't accepted enough to be called tradition until the 60s.

>>5011335
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4ArQQZG6U

>>5011335
>>5011335
I dont know what you even like you fucking retard.

>>5011337
>Abstractism wasn't accepted enough to be called tradition until the 60s.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA ARE YOU RETARDED POP ART WAS A REACTION AGAINST THE TRADITION OF ABSTRACTION AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY TO BE EXPOSED WHILE BEING FIGURATIVE OH GOD GET THE FUCK OUT

LEAVE
NOW

I'LL FUCKING SMACK YOUR FACE YOU DONT KNOW SHIT

ABSTRACTION WAS ALREADY A TRADITION BY THE 30S AND FIGURATION ONLY SURVIVED THROUGH SURREALISM HOLY SHIT DUMBASS CUNT

>>5011342
good music

>>5011335
Rather say what are the defining factors of music being good.

>>5011346
XDDDDDDDDD

>>5011346
>REACTION AGAINST THE TRADITION
Cultural/art reactions come about when the finality of acceptance has taken place.

We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the smaller art world, I'm talking of the whole of the larger world accepting the style.

>>5011346
u mad m9

>>5011351
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5kUPMEUfUM

>>5011363
Study some art history or just open your wikipedia, I'm so fucking done here.

>>5011321
The hippest of indie bands do suck. If you want to check out a great jazz guitarist, and one of the greatest of our age, check out Derek Trucks, a master of the slide guitar and a true innovator. Just dismiss him though, because he's not a traditional musician, right? Despite being a virtuoso, you'll dismiss him.
>>5011321
Picasso is one of the best examples of a man who had a great respect for tradition, and yet was an innovator. The fact the you view innovation as a bad thing in the arts is disgusting.

>>5011320
>>5011339
Of course this is great music. But you act like it's the only great music. By the way, if you're such a great fan of orchestral music, you'd be hip to everything great that's happened in even just the past century with orchestral music. There's was the melding of Jazz and Classical with composers like Gershwin, and there's was the huge leap in that field with the film music of Max Steiner and Dimitri Tiomkin.

And I'm going to post some of the music of Derek Trucks. Of course you'll dismiss it, but I'm going to post it. Because the man is an innovator of the slide guitar, and a virtuoso in multiple styles on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pseWJoAXMWQ

>>5011369
I've taken art history classes. Again, we're talking about two different things.

>>5011372
>gershwin
more like gerswine

>>5011372
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a__k0g-1uM8

Actually here's a better quality recording of him on that tune.

>>5011378
You're a real smart guy you know? Your arguments have no substance, and you're a shrill, self-aggrandizing oaf. I hope you're proud of yourself.

>>5011372
>jazz
>mudblood shit like Gershwin
>film music
pic related

>>5011346
You know you are on a /lit/ board? Acting like a nigger won't get worthwhile discussion unlike in /mu/. I advice you to read some books, but I forgot, you won't gather the needed attention spam to do that, and then you will go back to shitposting again, only fortunately back to /mu/ rather here.

>>5011248 It really is a hoard. Along with the decline in quality, I've noticed the rate of posts is much more than it used to be.

>>5010941
>implying the sonnets don't constantly talk about finances and business in terms that a middle-class businessman like shakspere would be far more familiar with than any of the noblemen that are the subject of conspiracy theories
>implying the sonnets aren't the ideological key to his body of work

>>5011384
>you
>my dick is in your hands

>>5011387
Nice one Nazi. You're literally a fucking idiot. You know nothing about music, and think because you listen to classical music you're some type of connoisseur.

>>5011388
You do realize that in the end, getting schooled by a pretentious and entitled faggot is the same thing as getting schooled by someone fine and humble? You're still getting schooled.

>>5011396
>I studied counterpoint and harmony
>conducted my own works
>studied history of music
lol nope nice try tho

>>5011389
Only more reasons to get back reading, and if there are any questions, I suppose they are all can be found in the warosu archive.

>>5011409
Care to bring any evidence to bolster those claims?

>>5011424
I guess. What kind, though?

>>5011387
By the way, here's some of that "mudblood shit" you so vehemently oppose. It's, in my opinion, the greatest piece of composed music of the 20th century, and on the level of any of the great works by Sibelius or Beethoven.
>>5011409
Do you know how many hundreds of thousands of people have done the same? I've done the same, and you're a fool for dismissing anything I've just mentioned. What do you think of when you think of the sound of Eygpt? You think of a Steiner theme, not anything resembling what it actually was. Do me a favor, pal. Without looking it up, simply tell me (without looking it up) what key this piece is in that I'm going to post. Which you should actually listen to if you have ANY appreciation for harmony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFA0FYQo0Gg

>>5011425
Any kind you see fit.

>>5011178
Newtonian physics are best used as an approximation for large objects moving at relatively slow speeds. It breaks down at a quantum scale or speeds approaching that of light.

>>5011431
>>5011431
Idk, I have pictures of me conducting, I can write some shit and send it to you, or write an essay on music (something in particular); that would be pretty cool, but I'd give it to you in like a few hours.

>>5011415
I just finished reading up three books, one about intellectual property, one about theory of law (and its relation to morals, and its relation to politics) and one about Administrative law. Three months, from 7 to 20 on most days, for like three months.

Goddamn applying for law school is hard for a stupid fuck like me. Hope to catch up on my backlog now starting with McCarthy NCFOM & Nathaniel Fick's One Bullet Away.

>>5011436
Here's an easier test, you charlatan. Tell me what key signature the first track of the piece I posted is in.

>>5011444
I only have relative ear, not absolute one, and I'm not going to wiki it to answer to you.

>>5011448
You're a fraud. But at least you're listening to the piece. There's a great section of atonal harmony midway through, though the whole work is a masterpiece. Listen to it through and you may learn to appreciate something.

>>5011454
>I'm a fraud
Why? Because I don't share relativist and populist opinions of the masses on music, and I don't listen to anything past 1791?

>>5011462
This piece of music was hardly a populist work. You're a fraud because if you had truly studied music as you claimed, you would know the key signature within the first four bars. That, or you were simply a poor student of music.

And you're not a great person, a great musician, or a tragic example we all wish to be because you listen to nothing past 1791. You're simply a dishonest musician, a pseudo-intellectual, and willfully ignorant.

Take off your trip.

>>5011466
>You're a fraud because if you had truly studied music as you claimed, you would know the key signature within the first four bars.
You just proved yourself to be totally uneducated on a musical level. Go read about absolute ear, I think wikipedia will be helping you there.

>And you're not a great person, a great musician, or a tragic example we all wish to be because you listen to nothing past 1791
My personal taste indeed must be such things.

>You're simply a dishonest musician, a pseudo-intellectual, and willfully ignorant.
Are you that mad because I don't like your jazz and I prefer better music not written for the common man?

>>5011480
Charles Mingus didn't write for the common man. You should realize that if you study music, you become familiar with key signatures. Yes, those with relative pitch cannot pick out the absolute pitch of individual notes, but unless they severely neglected their studies, they should be able to ascertain a key signature. Again, you're a fraud. Evidenced further by your referral to Wikipedia, instead of the standard Harvard Dictionary of music.

The fact that you reject Jazz speaks volumes about your taste, and your understanding of music. I guess you're against the concerto as well? Too flashy for you?

>>5011480
You couldnt even answer his question yet you represent yourself as a person who is educated in music.

lol.

also filtered

>>5011499
>Yes, those with relative pitch cannot pick out the absolute pitch of individual notes, but unless they severely neglected their studies, they should be able to ascertain a key signature
If you provide with a reference pitch you fucking dumbass, did you even ever tune an instrument?

>Evidenced further by your referral to Wikipedia, instead of the standard Harvard Dictionary of music.
Are you retarded or just trolling?

>I guess you're against the concerto as well? Too flashy for you?
I don't listen to romantic music, so I don't mind Classical and baroque concerti.

>>5011499
>Charles mingus didnt write for the common man.
Why do you say this kind of dumb shit that has no relevance to his art? He could write for fucking ants and it could still be everyones art, granted he releases it.

>>5011505
I was asked to guess the pitch of the piece without a reference pitch, which is biologically impossible for 99% of the population, and which cannot be gained through practice.

>>5011462
>I don't listen to anything past 1791

>listening to anything after the Reformation

LOL!

>>5011514
>Are you retarded or just trolling?

>If you provide with a reference pitch you fucking dumbass, did you even ever tune an instrument?

Where did you study music? At a night school? The Harvard Dictionary of Music is the standard reference work in all universities and among all musicians above, and even in the amateur level.
>>5011522
Knowing a key signature has nothing do with a reference pitch. There are literally Nashville country studio musicians who would be able to tell me the key signature of that piece. And it's called a key signature, not "the pitch of a piece". Again, you're a fraud.

>>5011519
Is has no bearing on his art, and wasn't meant as a judgement on any art, but Charles Mingus was a proud man who took his art very seriously, and did not consider his music as for a musically uneducated man. I was more reflecting the frame of mind Charles Mingus wrote the music in than my opinion of who his music is for.

>>5011546
*even at

*It has

>>5011499
>Not liking jazz is indicator of anything.
No, Jazz is shitty noodling.

That said tripping in anon imageboard, pretending to be music scholar who cant name a fucking key and continuing to defend your fake persona (which everyone forgets after the thread) is fucking sad and narcisstic as fuck

>>5011546
>The Harvard Dictionary of Music is the standard reference work in all universities and among all musicians above, and even in the amateur level.
Again, I repeat, and you might want to read the post again, are you retarded or a troll?

>Knowing a key signature has nothing do with a reference pitch
Are you dumb? I don't think you know anything about music.

>"the pitch of a piece"
I often used this term, literally translated from French, in here.

>>5011522
You were asked a fucking key lmfao #rekt. >>5011426
>What is

>>5011546
>There are literally Nashville country studio musicians
Whoa there. While they aren't necessarily known for participating in "high art" musical pieces, a good deal of Nashville studio musicians know their shit when it comes to musicianship. My uncle's a studio musician in the town and studied at Berkelee.

>>5011212
>Aristotle said
Ahahah, oh bastard Jesus, do you even live? I mean, in present time?

>>5011573
>implying Aristotle isn't immortal

topkek

>>5011557
Not the guy you arguing with.

You are getting your shit pushed in tallis
>lel you stupid or something, what a letard.
At the least take your time and construct some arguments

>>5011560
A key is made of a set of pitches, and all set of pitches are equal and relative in an equal temperament, hence the impossibility for a relative ear to tell between C minor and C# minor if the listener was informed of the pitch of the first, here C minor, to realize the semitone distance between the keys. Baroque recorded in 380Hz would sound like fucking Bb minor or something between that and C minor for someone with absolute pitch, it would sound wack as fuck, and a person with relative pitch would find no difference. You are following someone that knows nothing, attacking me by asking me to do something impossible, passing it as easy. Then again, it is 4chan, and not much more should be expected from lowly people like whomever I'm arguing with.

>>5011228
Baroque Italy was shit Italy
At least compared to England in that time

>>5011586
Forgot a period between C# minor and if, thus it sounds a little weird.

>>5011562
Oh, I agree with you. That was meant to attack his sense of the high and mighty. I love Nashville musicians. My point was musicians he has no respect for know plenty more than him.
>>5011555
I can understand why you may think that about Jazz, but I don't agree. Take a listen to Charles Mingus's Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. I honestly think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>5011557
You're worthless to even respond to.
>>5011586
A studied musician can tell a key signature fairly capably, whether or not he has absolute pitch. It IS something that is learned, and in study you learn to recognize key signatures. If you actually did study music, I can only conclude that you did not attend many of your ear training courses. You should know this. You've honestly made a fool of yourself. If it was so difficult for you you could have tooled around on a keyboard for a minute or two while listening to the song to figure it out. Even Billy Joel can do it, why can't you?

>>5011586
If I may add more; baroque music recorded on a harpsichord playing meantone or Well would have the property of every key sounding different, thus even a relative ear could tell between these, whereas our contemporary and modern one (I do believe it dates from the romantic era; excessive modulation meant that enharmonic keys could be reached in a single pieces, which would actually not be 'enharmonic') is equal, and thus all keys sound the same, only their difference in pitch (that is, whether or not the pitch is higher or lower) can let, for someone informed of a first given pitch, find out the second through their difference. Let me reword it: if you were given a sound, and told that it was A440, then started playing a few notes, you could tell, for example, that the first note following the A was a major third over it, and thus was a C#. You'd go on like this, and this is how you pass exams containing melodic dictation; your teacher will always provide the first pitch, most likely the tonic of the key the melody's in. In case of atonal melodies, the teacher will provide with the middle C. That is why I could not answer to his question.

>>5010990
the sad thing is, i know people who would believe this

>>5011612
I've listened to most of Mingus work from 50s to 60s (arguably his career highlight) and he is one of the few jazz artists I enjoy.

The Black Saint... has got nice aggressive touch to it without going noodling and losing a focus.

>>5011620
It's a pretty interesting subject, temperaments, although it belongs more on /mu/ or /sci/.

>mfw plebs playing the Well-tempered keyboard in equal temperament

>>5011612
>It IS something that is learned, and in study you learn to recognize key signatures.
Blatant lies, absolute pitch, that you cannot learn. You have learned how to do melodic dictations, and were always provided with a reference pitch.

>>5011629
>/mu/
Do you really think they're even capable of any of the discussion in this thread?

>>5011634
Yes, far better than this, in classical threads of yesteryear. We don't have retards like >>5011612
in classical threads.

>>5011620
I understand how key signatures are figured out, and I've studied melodic dictation. If you see the post above yours, I recommended fiddling with a keyboard for the reference pitch you needed. A capable musician does not need a reference pitch to accurately ascertain the key signature of a piece.
>>5011628
I'm glad to hear. He's my favorite composer of the 20th century. Possibly of all time.
>>5011633
So are you seriously telling me if you heard a pop song while walking down the street that was in C Major, you could not recognize it?

>>5011640
>yesteryear
We're in the now. Go to /mu/ right now, skim the catalog, and tell me that they're able to do this.

>>5011645
There's no time like the present huh

>>5011645
It's gone to shit. Classical threads are rare and slow, our elitism was replaced by champions of the common man, newtrips and general barnyard-promoting anons.

>>5011643
>So are you seriously telling me if you heard a pop song while walking down the street that was in C Major, you could not recognize it?
I absolutely couldn't, like 99% of the population. If you have absolute pitch, I'm glad for you.

>>5011677
You seriously must have a tin ear then. I know plenty of people with relative pitch who can do just that. Didn't you take at least one ear training course in your life? Can you even recognize changes?

It would be nice to look at some classical threads. I'm going to go practice Bach's prelude now, a man I know you must admire.

>>5011708
>I know plenty of people with relative pitch who can do just that.
You don't, and you are either confusing things or talking shit for its own sake, for it is the very nature of relative pitch to being only able to tell [it]between[/it] pitches and not of pitches themselves alone.

Bach is autistic shit.

>>5011677
/mu/ classical threads have always been a festering hole of shitflinging idiots posturing about their supposed elitism with only the occasional useful post

>>5011717
>Throwing smoke and mirrors in the argument by draggin the words special meaning to the case instead of the layman term (as was the context it was used first here)

trying to cover up that shitty fake knowledge huh

>>5011719
That is the opinion of the pleb, of the masses unable to engage in interesting discussion about classical music and instead complaining about elitism. Elitism is a necessary evil.

>>5011721
What the fuck are you talking about? I used most simple words I could think of.

>>5011717
I'm tired of the back and forth "yes" and "no". I'll say now you're wrong and expect your rebuttal of you're not.

Fine, Bach is autistic shit, whatever. I'll be practicing The prelude in C Major while you get worked up about "plebs" and the necessary evil of elitism.
>>5011721
It's not a case of that. I'm fine using the correct terms. But the man is simply incorrect that key signatures cannot be learned to be recognized by someone without absolute pitch.

Have a good one folks.

>>5011170
Ok now you're just parroting Aristotle.

You realize he's been proven to be objectively wrong about everything he wrote?

>>5011759
>You realize he's been proven to be objectively wrong about everything he wrote?

I laughed IRL I couldn't hold it

>>5011767
XDDDD
D D
D D
D D
DXXXXX

>>5011767
Thanks I try to improve the board with my jokes/truth some times

>>5011089
Agreed. Reminds me of a friend who said PhDs are overrated.

>>5011148
Couldn't agree more. Our generation just thinks he's so amazing because they can't understand him

And all this shit started because of a shitpost without any meaning. On /lit/. The *cough*most cl-*cough*clever board of 4chan.

Titus Andronicus is a lot more complicated than people give it credit for.

>>5011064
>> his view of physics is far from the quantic/relativistic realities
yeah the retard didn't even know about the photoelectric effect, uh newton did you even pay attention they teach you that in school u moron

>>5011880
Nobady is talking the subject in the OP though

this is just easy place to talk

>>5011880
That's the nature of conversation.

>>5011129
Don't 'read his complete works', man. At least not to begin with. Find a good film version or performance of one of his better plays and start from there. This shit is meant to be performed, and while you can 'perform' it in your head once you've got a feel for how the language and structure works in his plays it's much easier to get in through actually seeing it acted. Even if it's just the DiCaprio Romeo + Juliet or something.

>>5011197

You are so stupid it hurts.

>>5011944

Okay I read the rest of this thread, glad to see he got absolutely rekt on the topic of music. If he comes back I'll do the same with Shakespeare. The stupidity of this guy is really astounding, imagine being ignorant enough to dismiss Shakespeare and any music written beyond the 18th century! And to actually be proud of that stupidity is just wow...

>>5010941
>anti-stratfordians

>>5011936

Don't listen to this guy, the plays are best read, like any other play.

>>5011935
No.