/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13958255]

Is Bach the greatest genius among all the geniuses, including the geniuses of Literature and Philosophy?

I mean, this is a general question so it doesn't matter which board I'm posting this.

I mean, just listen to this:
https://youtu.be/_ioc6sdgugo

[Anonymous No.13958264]

yes
fugues are hard as fuck to compose and the guy massproduced nothing but great fugues (and other works)

writing literature does not compare

[Anonymous No.13958265]

>>13958255
He's the only thing I'm still passionate about in life

[Anonymous No.13958273]

It's either Bach or Bouguereau.

[Anonymous No.13958359]

eh, beethoven is better

[Anonymous No.13958376]

Mozart and Griffith mog him artistically. Several more mog him intellectually.

[Anonymous No.13958382]

>>13958273
>Bouguereau

eh i don't think he deserves the hate he sometimes gets, but you're crazy if you think he's one of the greatest geniuses of all time.

[Anonymous No.13958386]

>ranking artists

[Anonymous No.13958392]

>>13958255
Mozart destroys him in terms of talent, Bethoven in soulfulness.

[Anonymous No.13958396]

>>13958273
He's a competent technician but nothing more. Degas sharts all over him.

[Anonymous No.13958404]

the only thing to have made bach remotely palatable is glenn gould's contributions

[Anonymous No.13958424]

>>13958396
the light blue ribbon belt thing on the girl in the middle is absurdly beautiful placed right there

[Anonymous No.13958435]

>>13958396
you can hear the sound of the wood creaking beneath their feet

[Anonymous No.13958442]

>>13958255
how do you even compare musical and literary genius?

[Anonymous No.13958468]

>>13958376
>mog
Back to r/incels

[Anonymous No.13958480]

>>13958442
music is merely literature set to be intoned by instruments

[Anonymous No.13958515]

>>13958480
literature is merely music articulated with a particular language (thus lacking the universality of music)

[Anonymous No.13958559]

>>13958515
i disagree, all music is at root the humming and grunting of our ancestors, merely unwritten words, holding sway over fleshy apertures located within noggins, physical manifestations of symbols, hence, the Logos

[Anonymous No.13958570]

>>13958442
>imagine being this brainlet

[Anonymous No.13958573]

>>13958559
get your primitivist evolutionary psychology out of here

[Anonymous No.13958591]

>>13958480
then I guess that makes Thomas Pynchon the Arnold Schoenburg of literature

[Anonymous No.13958899]

>>13958265
based Cioran-poster

[Anonymous No.13959423]

>>13958273
Shit, disgusting diseased pale skin. Ever heard of a tan? baka

[Anonymous No.13959433]

>>13958255
Napoleon, of the moderns.

[Anonymous No.13959441]

>>13959423
If you don't prefer pale girls, you have a very low IQ.

[Anonymous No.13959444]

>>13959423
>preferring tanned
yikes

[Anonymous No.13959682]

Bach is categorically a genius, easily the greatest musical mind to ever live even. But lets be realistic, music is a rather limited discipline for the manifestation of genius. Music is essentially the art of permutation, this is even especially true of Bach’s music which is hailed for a sort of “mathematical perfection” meaning it can all stand quite independently of dynamics. This is a feat in and of itself, but it also necessarily makes Bach’s genius more calculable. Really the craft of music composition is primarily a matter of combining and permuting 12 distinct objects in a discreet representation of time. And whats more, at any given moment at least half of them will appear anomalous, this is particularly true of music before the 19th century.

I would naturally be inclined to think that an equal command of language would have to represent a greater potentiality of genius. Language on the face may seem like a permutive discipline as well, but whether it is or isnt, it certainly doesn’t have the same rigorous mathematical structure that is apparent in music. It is worth mentioning here that Leonard Bernstein has a lecture series in which he tries, rather desperately, to impress a conciet that music developed in a way more or less entirely analogous to language. But it is my personal impression that he spends a great deal of the series conceding that music has certain inbred qualities, like the relationship between the overtone series resultant degree of consonance, and level of understanding and enjoyment (for the commonalty). Thus for all the exhuberance of his theory, I feel the argument is an out and out failure.

Obviously the counterpart of Bach in Letters is Shakespeare. Whereas Bach dealt with the relationship of 12 items in discreet time, Shakespeare didnt merely have to consider 26 items but also the superstructures of words, phrases, colloquial, sentences, allusions that they created. This only has the slightest analogy in music. But not only did The Bard have to consider these seperate sets of language, he needed to have in mind their meanings, relationships and phoenetic qualities.

Tl;dr: Shakespeare is almost apparently a greater genius and the greatest genius cannot be a composer.