[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 177 KB, 1200x1200, nico.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18620792 No.18620792 [Reply] [Original]

In the 19th century we had Dostoevsky, Balzac, Tolstoy, Flaubert, Turgenev, Maupassant, Chekov, Zola, Dickens, Dumas, Goethe, Hugo, Lermontov, Melville, Keats, Proust, Stendhal. In music there was Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn, Mahler, Bizet, Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Lizst, Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Bellini, Prokofiev, Puccini, Bruckner, Rossini. In the 21st century we have basically nothing. Any books that go over why culture is so dead? Finding the little nuggets of gold take effort. No people who are gonna try to tell me some retarded some shit some guy made on Ableton is equal to Beethoven

>> No.18620826
File: 1.19 MB, 570x1135, 1612051428036.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18620826

come and see

>> No.18620828

>>18620792
Classical music is still being made today, and it's at the quality and skill of the masters, but it's not popular and you don't listen to it. Also, for some retarded reason, you forgot Vivaldi, who shits all over trash like Wagner.
As for books, you're right, but as the nightmare clown world gets worse, books will be written in about ten to twenty years about this shitshow.

>> No.18620839

>>18620828
>who shits all over trash like Wagner.
Pleb. Your opinion can be discarded immediately
>and it's at the quality and skill of the masters
Some of it is not bad but it's not innovative and not even close to comparable to the masters.

>> No.18620880

>>18620839
What and where do you play orchestrally? I'm curious where you skew in skill if you genuinely think 1) Wagner is better than Vivaldi, and 2) the old Masters reinvented the wheel, as half the guys on your list didn't innovate shit.
Before you ask, I teach cello and do session work for a living.

>> No.18620889

>>18620792
There are some good writers, anon. What are you even talking about?

>> No.18620906

>>18620880
Everyone thinks Wagner is better than Vivaldi unless they have some personal emotional thing about against him. Do you read much music criticism throughout the years? When do you ever hear people say Vivaldi is the greatest composer of all time? People always say Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and Wagner. Those are the big four.

> the old Masters reinvented the wheel, as half the guys on your list didn't innovate shit.
If they didn't directly innovate they did something that makes them different from the rest. The new guys don't do anything noteworthy. Nothing worth putting in a history book.

>> No.18620912

>>18620889
Yeah literature is probably the only art form that still has some life in it. It's still not comparable to the greats obviously.

>> No.18620916
File: 112 KB, 1026x1028, The_Velvet_Underground___Lou_Reed_Doing_a_Gay_Voice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18620916

>>18620792
Threads like this betray that the OP simply doesn't keep up with contemporary art. In fact, I think this is just a variation on a copypasta. I just want to say that I love this Nico album and it's the only reason I clicked on this cringe thread.

>> No.18620924

>>18620916
Who said I don't keep up with contemporary art? I posted Nico.

>> No.18620941

>>18620906
I would like to see this "everyone" as I can sense it wouldn't be musicians making these claims, and Vivaldi, like Chopin, is more of a musician's musician, and I say this as someone that likes Wagner actually but recognizes superior musicianship. Very little of Wagner's ouevre is challenging, but much of Vivaldi's is, as was his love for the sort of blistering stacatto and spicatto, at least as a string player.

>> No.18620950

>>18620941
Everyone meaning literally everyone. Vivaldi is well known in all of music criticism to be a mid tier composer. He is never in the talk of the greatest composers. I'd like to know where you get your information? Is it just between you and your friends?

>> No.18620960

>>18620950
Where? Who? Show me. I said I was curious.

>> No.18620975

>>18620960
I'm going based on all the rankings by art critics I've read. Talkclassical has a lot of data on ranked composer lists which always has Wagner way above Vivaldi. BBC surveyed 170 contemporary composers and they didn't even list Vivaldi.

1. Bach
2. Stravinsky
3. Beethoven
4. Mozart
5. Debussy
6. Ligeti
7. Mahler
8. Wagner
9. Ravel
10. Monteverdi
11. Britten
12. Sibelius
13. Messiaen
14. Bartók
15. Shostakovich
16. Haydn
17. Saariaho
18. Brahms
19. Reich
20. Chopin
21. Vaughan Williams
22. Schoenberg
23. Gesualdo
24. Janáček
25. Schubert
26. Gershwin
27. Glass
28. Ives
29. Prokofiev
30. Lutoslawski
31. Cage
32. Tchaikovsky
33. Berg
34. Feldman
35. Varèse
36. Webern
37. Byrd
38. R.Strauss
39. Verdi
40. Elgar
41. Birtwistle
42. Knussen
43. Sondheim
44. Stockhausen
45. Satie
46. Tallis
47. Hildegard von Bingen
48. Boulez
49. Schumann
50. Rachmaninov

>> No.18620981
File: 60 KB, 768x1188, NICO XXXVIII.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18620981

IF ROMANTICISM IS YOUR STANDARD FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE ARTS, AND THE IDEA OF ROMANTICISTIC ART YOUR CONCEPTION OF OPTIMAL ART, YOU —AND OTHERS LIKE YOU— ARE A FACTOR IN THE CAUSE FOR THE DEGENERATION OF THE ARTS.

ROMANTICISM IS THE EPITOME OF KITSCHY SCHLOCK.

>> No.18620987

>>18620981
No it's your ugly goblin looking ass

>> No.18620992

>>18620987


OK, PLEBEIAN.

>> No.18620994

>>18620792
Most, if not all, classical music besides classical piano is overrated garbage.

And by overrated I mean it genuinely isn't better than a lot of pop music today.

Stop pretending to "feel" "deep intellectual" things when listening to arhythmic, non-narrative, chopped movement, boring string arrangements

>> No.18620996

You don't even play an instrument pleb

>> No.18621001

>>18620994
Why would you post this

>> No.18621006

>>18620992
>>18620996

This was for you

>> No.18621007

>>18621001


WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THIS THREAD?

>> No.18621018

>>18621007
Why do you do this shtick? It's not funny. No one has ever laughed. I don't think you laugh at it. I can't even think of why you would do it.

>> No.18621025

>>18620975
Ah yes, the infamous BBC list. I'm not surprised you resorted the IGN-tier list, which actually has a few modern composers, and hilariously outs Rachimanov below half that chaff. Anyways, the list is literally for plebs since it relies on "enjoyment" as one of the requisite, and not by musicians. There's a reason that you see more Vivaldi suites being performed today over something like Monteverdi. LMP and Boston played a shit-ton of Vivaldi even last year. Well, it's about what I expect frankly.

>> No.18621039

>>18621025
I mean it's list surveying actual composers. You're a musician but you can't compose. Vivaldi is the composer for people who don't listen to classical. It's the most popular for those 3 hour long youtube Vivaldi mix that the proletariat like to listen to when they want to feel sophisticated. There is a reason you won't find a serious art critic who ranks Vivaldi as one of the best composers.

>> No.18621066

>>18621039
>opinions on music based on the estimation of others
worthless bug man

>> No.18621072

>>18620792
>19th century
>Proust
>Mahler
>Prokofiev
>Puccini

>> No.18621080

>>18621039
Your lack of education is almost admirable. Bach feverishly studied the 9 major Vivaldi concertos and Vivaldi was considered the defacto teacher to Bach—by his own admission and style—over their correspondence. Bach famously copied and transcribed his work as a drilling method. You only have a limited opinion on the matter without any real understanding of the music itself or its history, and simply rely on lists made by people that rely on "approachability" as a factor for selection.

>> No.18621081

>>18621072
They all composed in the 19th century

>> No.18621083

>>18621001
Because it's true. Most "arrangements" have the cohesion of noise music - which is fine, don't get me wrong, I like a lot of noise. The problem is that people are treating it like music instead of what it is - a chaotic collage of attempts at melody. If I was introduced to classical music as noise, and if everyone spoke of it in that regard, I would not have such a vitriolic reaction to it's esteem. Instead, people discuss it as some sublime narrative which, at best, it can only superficially parody.

The closest thing regarding form I can detect in a lot of classical is a common theme of "back and forth" - where there is a segment of fast paced music and then a slow pace segment. But that's so trite and unmoving that its embarrassing. And all of those mostly sound the same, it's just the same trick over and over. Aside from that the only thing substantiating form is a lot of musical prancing about. It's cheap and non-illustrative. It's unending surface area. There's no true drama, no true risk, no true intimacy. It's superficial repetition.

Let me restate though - none of this is true in regards to classical piano. Classical piano easily has some of the top 10 songs ever written. Good classical piano is truly timeless in ways that most songs of the 20th and 21st century will never be.

>> No.18621084

>>18621080
And? That doesn't change his place in the western canon.

>> No.18621091

I used to know a guy. Hadn’t really met him in a couple of years outside social settings. We used to be really close when we were younger and as time passed I recognized a silent rage within him that would burst at any moment. I remember once when I during a party told him that I had been cleaning my room (yes) and since I had been at his house, he really should do the same, since it made wonders for me. He stormed out in the next room proclaiming to our common friends that I was “projecting again”.

Anyhow, we met later again, and spoke about music. We really didn’t know what the other one had been listening to for the latest 2-3 years, but he was keen to make a point that he “listened to much more advanced music than me”. He also studied chemistry and said “everybody knows about the citric acid cycle and how it works”.

This comes to mind when reading this thread.

>> No.18621094

>>18621083
What do you think about opera?

>> No.18621104

>>18621084
Here you go, dude:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/18796.The_ACTUAL_100_Best_Novels_of_the_20th_Century
1984 is the best novel of the 20th century. This list was maintained by writers, critiques, and voracious readers. Any attempt to disagree will not change this, as it is the objective opinion.

>> No.18621106

>>18621081
Prokofiev was 9 in 1900; the others' work is concentrated equally around the turn of the century. Proust is known for the Recherche (20th century), not Pleasures and Days.

>> No.18621111

>>18621083
Cringe tone deaf retard

>> No.18621124

>>18620792
In [century that ended more than a century ago] we had [authors who have been incorporated into the canon]. In [the present century, which has hardly begun] we have nothing. What happened? Could it be that I am simply totally unaware of what is being produced all around me, because, as is usually the case, the enormous amount of slop being produced is promoted more intensely than works of true quality, which I am, in any case, too lazy to look for and too lazy to bother reading and understanding? What could be the problem here, guys?XKN8M

>> No.18621136

>>18621104
Not even similar. The list you would have to post would be the greatest novels as ranked by the best living writers. Again though. You literally cant find me one art critic who says Vivaldi is in the big three. Literally every single book written on music will not have Vivaldi in the big three. All the consensus from academics, composers, and musicians are against you although I'd love to see if you have any evidence against me.

>> No.18621141

>>18621106
>Sergei Prokofiev was inspired by hearing his mother practising the piano in the evenings, mostly works by Chopin and Beethoven, and wrote his first piano composition at the age of five, an "Indian Gallop", which was written down by his mother

>> No.18621144

>>18621124
I guarantee I know more about contemporary art than you but I'd love to see the names you would put in the 21st century western canon. Feel free to share.

>> No.18621162

>>18621144
The century has barely begun. Also, what makes you think that the nineteenth century was itself not a period of decline compared to prior eras? What you are complaining about began long ago.

>> No.18621164

>>18621094
That's kind of a different arena altogether.
I don't ever listen to it but I can see how people could get into it. Opera is like a musical. I can understand that.

A lot of it seems silly to me that is probably a taste thing and due to the fact that I've never given it an honest shot. I have for decades given classical music an honest shot over and over again and nothing ever comes to surface other than what I've described.


Maybe classical music meant something to the people of the time. Maybe there was some different historical factors in play that don't exist now that made it "something more" to the contemporary people of that time. But today it's obviously for try-hards pseuds who want to seem intelligent - maybe they honestly think other people are gleaning something immensely intellectual and they are trying to imitate what they think they see in them and they convince themselves they are achieving it... I don't know. It's noise at best, emperor's new clothes in practical application.

>> No.18621165

>>18621162
Want me to post the first 20 years of the 19th century?

>was itself not a period of decline compared to prior eras?
Never said it wasn't

>> No.18621176

>>18621136
Oh, so we're splitting hairs on arbitrary lists now because mine isn't exactly like yours, and yours is infallible? I'm sure if I looked up the same list delegated to writers the results would be equally as hilarious.
Not will you find anyone that puts Wagner at the top or in top 3 either, and that was my initial point, and I told you why I thought Vivaldi was better, and it was because he could compose a solo a few orders better than Wagner, much like how Chopin could write a better piano etude than basically anyone. What was your motivation? A list. This is what your taste stands on. No real argument, pedigree, or even understanding of music, just a list.

>> No.18621188

>>18621141
>2000s kids just don't understand
t. born in 1998

>> No.18621194

>>18621094
Last point on this: do you listen to NPR? You know when some of the anchors are discussing topics that have clear, determinative moral and historical affect - like hearing that the Taliban just suicide bombed a school for girls - yet their response is this subdued, thoughtful "Hmmm" like they've just encountered a truly puzzling humanistic problem that they need to think about and when they do find a resolution it will likely be life-affirming yet incredibly complex? That's how I picture the modern classical music listener. Borderline maliciously phony.

>> No.18621201

>>18621176
You don't think the opinions of the best living composers are more valid than random civilians?

>Not will you find anyone that puts Wagner at the top or in top 3 either,
Yes you will. Wagner is usually number 4.
>just a list.
You have to baiting. It's not a list. It's the consensus of academics, composer, and musicians. Do you not understand that? You have nothing but your own opinion.

>> No.18621235
File: 175 KB, 495x955, wagner2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621235

>>18621176
Here is actual data from real study of hundreds and hundreds of books on serious books on the history of classical music

>> No.18621246
File: 135 KB, 666x830, Igor_Stravinsky_as_drawn_by_Pablo_Picasso_31_Dec_1920_-_Gallica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621246

>>18620975
>2. Stravinsky
I love me some Iggy Stravo but that's a hot fucking take.

>> No.18621259

>>18621246
It's modern composers what do you expect. They're all influenced by Stravinsky. It's why Ligeti is number 6. Still it's relevant. I don't know anyone who would say Wagner is not commonly known to be fourth after the big three.

>> No.18621260

>>18621201
Show me the book that puts Wagner at the top. Forth isn't top 3.
Second, the lists aren't entirely without merit, but they're not accurate if any real sort of representation of skill, and that's your problem. Wagner is the essential simpleton chorale-core however, and basically responsible for all the Marvelsque-Williams soundtrack trash. All these lists are like this and I don't know why you don't recognize that. If you looked up best guitarist that ever lived—as ranked by other guitarists—it would be dumb shit like Hendrix, Clapton, and Hammet at the top.
Agree to disagree.

>> No.18621272

>>18621260
It's not agree to disagree. You are disagreeing with the consensus of academics, composers, and musicians. I can literally handwave you and just point to the data. Your opinion is worthless.

>Forth isn't top 3.
I never said top 3. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are top 3 not changing. Wagner is generally fourth. And Vivaldi is not even in the conversation.

>> No.18621287

>>18621272
So are you if you disagree with the Goodreads list. There's no getting away from that.

>> No.18621319
File: 29 KB, 262x262, cormac mccarthy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621319

>>18620792
Geoffrey Hill, Krasznahorkai, Lobo Antunes, McCarthy >Dostoevsky, Balzac, Turgenev, Maupassant, Chekov, Zola, Dickens, Dumas, Hugo, Lermontov, Melville, Stendhal
And I would argue that John Fosse, Pynchon, Handke, Sebald, Bolaño, Vargas Llosa etc. are as good as Turgenev, Maupassant etc. and way better than overrated mediocrities like Balzac. Not to mention poets like Adunis and Bonnefoy.
Also,
Penderecki, Ligeti, Rautavaara > Haydn, Bizet, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Bellini, Prokofiev, Puccini, Rossini
And, while were at it, Kiefer, Richter, Barceló, Veličković > Fragonard, Boucher, Le Brun, and pretty much any 18th century artist with few exceptions (such as Chardin)


The problem is that culture now faces strong competition from other, faster ways of satisfying yourself. I firmly believe that my statements above are correct (and even if they weren't, they are definitely not outrageous or other-worldly, but the opinions of someone who reads carefully), yet most people do not notice the truth of it because they would rather look at Instagram or Twitter.
Back in the day, Puccini and Johann Strauss were among the top celebrities in Europe, up there with the Queen of England and the Pope. Now, Lobo Antunes is a better artist than both (and if you disagree you are an idiot) but he's nearly unknown. The problem is not him, it's the people who simply do not care, and won't bother to make the effort of reading his (rather difficult) books.
High culture is not dead, but people have thrown it inside the coffin anyway. It does not like screaming, so there's little chance anyone is going to notice.

>> No.18621322

>>18621287
You just baiting now

>> No.18621331

>>18621322
It's literally the truth. You appeal to authority and consensus but refuse to accept it in other cases. Why would I take your opinion over other readers, writers, and book scholars?

>> No.18621335
File: 859 KB, 1236x747, Screenshot 2021-07-08 at 00-09-17 come and see reaction - YouTube.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621335

>>18620826
>come and see

>> No.18621345
File: 175 KB, 486x955, literture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18621345

>>18621331
The goodreads list wasn't a serious study. Here is the actual data

>> No.18621358

>>18620839
Imagine like wagner, and even thinking its better vivaldi, and calling literally anybody else a pleb. Holy shit please turn 18 you stupid fucking child

>> No.18621361

>>18621358

>>18621235
Suck my cock bitch I have consensus on my side

>> No.18621362

>>18621091
we're discussing art not your random ass friend

>> No.18621395

>>18621361
>I have concensus
>a literal murray excerpt
Jesus christ. I was correct, you are a subhuman

>> No.18621402

Pretty much everyone in this thread is a dick lel

>> No.18621418

>>18621395
The data isn't bad. He posts the lists of the books he takes it from. Do you have anything to counter the data?

>> No.18621424

Non-musicians who claim the superiority of the German masters over any other music are pseuds 100% of the time. If you disagree, please explain to me the difference between a sonata, sonata form, and a concerto (no googling) or wear your pseudery proudly.

>> No.18621427

Stupid ass elitist post, OP. You should stick your head out of your ass and realize that classical work of art is a project of time.

>> No.18621428

>>18621345
It was 100% serious data. Here's the list:
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/18796.The_ACTUAL_100_Best_Novels_of_the_20th_Century
I trust it over any argument contrary and you can't disprove it. It's an authority and a consensus. Don't have an opinion or form your own ideas based on things you can describe; just parrot lists.

>> No.18621439

>>18621235
What is this data from? Pull up the page address, now.

>> No.18621445

>>18621428
Yeah where does he get the data from?

>> No.18621452

>>18621424
Literally me, I just go with the ones that give me the best feels and they're mostly German. I like some Russian composers as much as the Germans though

>> No.18621453

>>18621439
It's somewhere on Jstor

>> No.18621464

>>18621453
Pull it up. Let's see it.

>> No.18621466

>>18621464
Can't find it

>> No.18621468

>>18621424
A fine Italian enjoyer right here, and you can bet the pussy soaks when he walks into a room

>> No.18621477

>>18621418
Oh? Where is the book list?

>> No.18621479

>>18621477
You want me to read the entire book again

>> No.18621491

>>18621479
I'll read the book. Now what book is it that categorically rates the masters?

>> No.18621495

>>18621479
>The data isn't bad. He posts the lists of the books he takes it from.
What is the book list and where is the data compiled. It's listed, so you should be able to quickly cross-reference

>> No.18621506

>>18621495
It's a 800 page book. I don't remember where he lists the book

>> No.18621518

>>18621506
Oh, who wrote it and what's the name of the book?

>> No.18621529

First to post an excerpt of their playing wins the argument. If you don't play an instrument, your opinion should be discarded.

>> No.18621536

>>18620906
The big four? Its the big three you fucking idiot, and if it was four, it wouldn't inlcude wagner of all people. 4chan wagnerians are the fucking worst.

>> No.18621542

>>18620924
This is a very funny post

>> No.18621565

Notice how I have an analysis of 200 of most popular books on classical music and everyone else has literally nothing. No art critics they can name. No books. No rankings by academics. They have nothing. No counter evidence.

>> No.18621591

>>18621039
art critic? are you retarded? someone post a list of top authors by contemporary writers so we can have some on topic discussion.

>> No.18621641

>>18621272
This is retarded because you are waving a vague and arbitrary list made by the magic triumvirate of the academic, composer, and musician. Imagine a list of best literature composed by the same people. Bring up someone specific with substance who knows their shit. Think of Joyce's favorite writers, Flaubert favorite works, and the influences of Keats and there you will find conclusive evidence of the best writers.

>> No.18621659

>>18621345
wtf is Rousseau doing after homer? funny list thankie

>> No.18621663

>>18621641
I mean you at least acknowledge that the list of rankings from the best academics are valuable in some way? More valuable than a random person. The consensus from the 200 best books on classical music are more valuable than what some random fucking anon thinks. I agree with what you say though. I should make a list like that.

>> No.18621664

>>18621418
Data on art? Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.18621670

>>18621659
He is only on there because of his political works. He couldn't gather data while differing between Rousseau's political works and fiction. It's a problem but it's not an objective ranking so it doesn't really matter. It's just a guide.

>> No.18621675

>>18621641
Those writers disagree with each other though. Joyce and kafka loved Dostoevsky, Nabokov thought he was a joke

>> No.18621678

>>18621664
You can gather a list of rankings from the best academics, composers, or musicians or gather who is brought up the most in all the books on classical music to make a list. Obviously you can't make objective judgements with this but it's a good enough standard to base off of.

>> No.18621731

>>18621675
Well this displays that ranking artists one after another is a horrible way to approach art, especially considering the length of the literary tradition. Each book has an unsaid theoritical statement about the art of writing. Nabokov doesn't take dostoevsky as a joke, but as a writer misrepresenting his craft. Look into Nabokov's lectures on literature. Nabokov took literature seriously.

>> No.18621741

>>18621731
I'm honestly not interested in the literary opinions of someone who just dismisses writers like that instead of recognizing that they're just doing something different

>> No.18621752

>>18621663
The list is meaningless and retarded because these filing people don't rate themselves, and typically eachother, and that's why the magic list doesn't exist. The best you're gonna' get is something flimsy like, "Oh so-and-so is great, and so-and-so isn't," which further complicates things as how do you factor in the negative opinions and other qualitative data? We strive for some consensus, but not numerical lists, which is a retarded habit brought forward by zoomers.

>> No.18621768

>>18621752
Why can't you get a numerical list from consensus?

>> No.18621774

>>18621452
If you wanted movies, you were essentially raised on German opera. The sound is super popular, but it's literally in the vein of melodrama.

>> No.18621780

>>18620792
Swear to god, we ain't even 1/5th into the century, canonisation hasn't even had a chance to really happen but
>muh contemporary arts suck

And also
>Finding the little nuggets of gold take effort
You really think that most of 19th century literature/culture wasn't shitty drivel aswell? Your arrogance is honestly baffeling to an absurd degree.

>> No.18621789

>>18621780
Do you want me to post the first 20 years of the 19th century? Also pretty much all of the best artists of the 19th century were world famous.

>> No.18621798

>>18621768
You certainly can, it's just not accurate of anything qualitative, and another convoluted popularity contest.

>> No.18621807

>>18621798
I don't care but it still has value.

>> No.18621808

>>18621774
Film score sounds like Wagner a bit to me but not Handel or Bach really. They put all sorts of music in films though, pretty much everything from medieval monophonic chants to 20th century experimental stuff, those Germans are just very popular with the masses alongside a few others like Vivaldi and Chopin

>> No.18621809

>>18621335
That's what happens when you spread cinema gold to normies. Still a good movie and always will be.

>> No.18621811

>>18621789
>Do you want me to post the first 20 years of the 19th century?
Please do. Then, in 200 years we'll meet again and discuss the first 20 years of this century.
>Also pretty much all of the best artists of the 19th century were world famous.
Hur dur then things were like that - but now they're like that. Adapt, motherfucker.

>> No.18621816

>>18621807
To you? Sure. To me? None.

>> No.18621836

>>18621809
I blame the countless pretentious movie essay channels who sniff their own farts for a living.

>> No.18621838

>>18621811
Sure the first 20 years of 19th century made Beethoven's 5th and 9th. Don't know if you heard of those
>Adapt, motherfucker.
Adapt to what? Emptiness

>> No.18621848

>>18621816
Yes but if you want to say something like the consensus says Vivaldi is better than Wagner I can go actually you're wrong the consensus says Wagner is better.

>> No.18621907

>>18621565
Because we listen to music and form our own opinions, sperg. There is nothing as pointless as trying to rate great artists against one another. Do you even know what metrics are being considered? Fucking pseuds

>> No.18621908

>>18621848
Why do you keep just making up stuff in your head?
I never said that. I said Wagner was shit compared to Vivaldi because Vivaldi was a musician's musician with a focus on virtuosity, and specific technical things I enjoy as a string player and Wagner is comparatively dull. When you disagreed, I immediately asked if and where you played, because I knew you weren't a string player, but I figured maybe a timpani player or some shit would love Wagner more. I didn't make the argument that Vivaldi was more popular—but in quartets, Wagner is always a bore. You then started talking about a retarded list in a mysterious 800-page book like I should change my opinion on the matter, but I won't.

>> No.18621920

>>18621908
So then why have you been arguing? Why wouldn't you just say. I don't disagree with Wagner's popularity I just prefer Vivaldi. We could have stopped this three posts in

>> No.18621959

>>18621920
I said all this stuff. I started saying it here: >>18620880
>>18620941
What the fuck man?

>> No.18621967

>>18621908
I guess he contention here is 'musician's musician'. Do we have a poll of musicians or something

>> No.18621983

>>18621967
I'll kill you if you start talking about polls or numeric ratings. I'll find you, and I'll kill you. We already have one numberical.list autist.

>> No.18621987

>>18621959
So you were just referring to him in terms of you playing him a musician? The way you wrote it made it seem like you meant in general how people viewed the two composers.

>> No.18621989

>>18620792
Proust only wrote a few articles for magazines in the 19th century. His magnum opus was first released in 1922.

>> No.18621995

>>18621989
Still counts

>> No.18622008

>>18621983
How else would you know if Vivaldi is a musician's musician? Maybe some musicians prefer Wagner

>> No.18622009

>>18621987
I liked the parts he wrote for specific instruments and Wagner couldn't write a solo to save his life. You're the one that's talking about how things must be objectively rated like a sped. I've been arguing against the whole notion, steam was coming out of my ears when you just kept saying, "Well, he's better because of some list," like give me a break. I don't give a fuck about the list, and you didn't really have an opinion about WHY he was better which is infuriating.

>> No.18622029

>>18622009
Our own opinions are irrelevant in any discussion the only thing that matters to me is consensus and getting as close as to objectivity as we can.

>> No.18622042

>>18621741
Nabokov didn't dismiss him. He wrote a lecture on dostoevsky particularly that shows how much he was willing to understand the author. He had a favorite pastime of saying wacko shit about authors to piss people off. He often stepped back from his original position though

>> No.18622069

>>18622029
Then why the fuck do you discuss music? There are as many opinions on this as there are musicians

>> No.18622107

>>18622069
Not really hence the concept of the big three. Most people lists are generally close enough

>> No.18622123

>>18622042
Then I retract the statement, I just get annoyed by people who are dismissive of art. Of course I'm a hypocrite anyway though..

>> No.18622134

>>18622029
Your opinion, yes. You are not a musician, composer, or critic. I submitted raw objective data when I said Wagner couldn't solo better than a literal bluesman nigger who can barely hold his guitar and Vivaldi was a instrumentalist king. Good day to you, sir.

>> No.18622241

>>18622107
The big three is turn of the century German propaganda, people who list Mozart, Bach and Beethoven as "best ever" only do so because they've been told so. Can you tell me, in your own words, what it is about their music that puts them above the likes of Vivaldi, Gabrieli, Mussorgsky, Berlioz?

>> No.18622249

>>18622134
Bet you couldn't improvise your way out of a wet paper bag

>> No.18622250

>>18622241
I can't but the best academics, composers, and musicians who are way smarter than you will ever be can

>> No.18622259

>>18622250
>appeal to authority
What are your thoughts on this?
>appeal to authority
Literal bug man

>> No.18622263

>>18622259
Reddit

>> No.18622269

>>18620792
Ever listened to Swans?

>> No.18622270

>>18622263
Floundering. Pathetic. Go listen to some music

>> No.18622275

>>18622270
I will listen to Wagner

>> No.18622279

>>18622275
I hope you enjoy it and have a wonderful evening. Faggot.

>> No.18622281

>>18622279
Thanks you too.

>> No.18622295

>>18620792
You should read Haruki Murakami. Better than any of the authors you mentioned

>> No.18622471

Look up Paul Kingsnorth

>> No.18622600

>>18621319
Based

>> No.18622739

>>18621319
>Lobo Antunes
awesome, he's portuguese, no translations for me! might read.

Also, yeah, art ain't dead or worse than before, it's just not the top of culture anymore. It's fine, we can all be rebel art pirates for a while.

>> No.18622775
File: 281 KB, 1000x1000, 87666.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18622775

whitearmor is the modern day chopin

>> No.18623267

>>18621319
Is Geoffrey Hill really good, was tempted to read him next?

>> No.18623366

>>18622295
>big sad
>drink some whisky
>girlfriend missing
>a cat
>muh favorite jazz record
>Boku
>sex
>cute girls

Uishikawa is my favorite character of all time btw

>> No.18623374

>>18620981
Jew

>> No.18623459

>>18623374


SUBHUMAN.

>> No.18623467

>>18620941
>but much of Vivaldi's is
I prefer Vivaldi to Wagner but he's the most basic bitch composer going, every normie who finds out I like classical music gushes over Vivaldi and knows pretty much no other big name. He's one of the most accessible composers out there.

>> No.18623473

>>18623459
Why does you neck look like it's about to snap under the weight of your thick skull?

>> No.18623476

>>18620975
>no Scriabin
Into the trash it goes.

>> No.18623482

>>18621838
>Sure the first 20 years of 19th century made Beethoven's 5th and 9th
wow two very overrated symphonies, how amazing!

>> No.18623483

>>18623473


?

YOU CAN STOP POSTING NOW.

>> No.18624321

>>18622775
based take

>> No.18624402

>>18623267
Yes, but he's also a very difficult poet.
Harold Bloom called him a genius, no less.
Don't expect to understand it in your first reading, though. He's as hard as Eliot, Crane or Dylan Thomas. Maybe harder, actually, given that he's recent, so you don't have as many analyses of his poems freely available.
It's worth the effort, though. Believe me.

>> No.18624857

>>18622279
>>18622281
Now kiss

>> No.18624883

>>18620792
Ilya Beshevli is as good as Liszt. I'm as good as Rilke but will never be published - there are people out there.