[ 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: 28 KB, 694x202, billy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5320079 No.5320079[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Compare writers to composers. I'll start:
>Stravinsky and T.S. Elliot
Both played with the Romantic (and Impressionist) forms preceding them. They used dissonance and cacophony tastefully. They are the epochs of Modernist music and poetry. In their later years they got super Christian.

Others
>John Cage and Samuel Beckett
>Goethe and Beethoven
>Joyce and Mahler
>Cervantes and Bach
>Dante and Mozart
>Eugene O'Neil and Schoenberg maybe?
>William S. Burroughs and Frank Zappa

Who is the Louis Armstrong of literature? Or the Charlie Parker?

>> No.5320087

Also Fitzgerald and Porter, but I don't think that gives Scott enough credit nor imply he got half his ideas from Joyce.

>> No.5320103

>>5320079
Schoenberg and Gass

>> No.5320115

>>5320103
How so? I haven't read him.

>> No.5320116

>>5320079
>Who is the Louis Armstrong of literature? Or the Charlie Parker?

Probably African American authors from the period, such as those of the Harlem Renaissance.

>> No.5320124

Why do you say Mahler and Joyce? I'm curious.

>> No.5320131

>>5320115
Middle C takes a significant amount of influence from atonal music. No chapter is more important than any other.

>> No.5320138

>>5320079
I really irrationally hate T.S. Elliot

>John Cage and Samuel Beckett
Should be John Ashberry since he started writing his postmodern poetry after seeing Cage's chance music.

>Cervantes and Bach
>Dante and Mozart
How do you figure?

>William S. Burroughs and Frank Zappa
No, probably Pynchon, Boroughs would be some avant punk or some crap

>> No.5320148

Haydn and Balzac
Schubert and Stendhal
Monteverdi and Montaigne
Chopin and Proust
Berlioz and Baudelaire
Wagner and Joyce
Schoenberg and Faulkner

>> No.5320151

>>5320148
>Wagner and Joyce
Joyce is actually good though

>> No.5320153

>>5320151
You picked the wrong one, and they're nothing alike anyway

>> No.5320157

>>5320151
It seems like everyone who knows something about classical doesn't like Wagner at all, why is that?

>> No.5320158

>>5320148
Faulkner and Schoenberg?
Faulkner sticks to a key, and only switches as the character's demand it. Schoenberg doesn't give a fuck.

>> No.5320164

>>5320151
There is actually no figure in literature comparable to the world-shattering influence Wagner had on music, he probably influenced literature more than most writers of the time anyway.

You're right though Joyce was a much more talented writer than Wagner a composer. Tbh Ulysses and T&I just have some similarities, which is why I picked the two

>> No.5320165

>>5320116
Langston Hughes? Jean Toomer?
>>5320124
Don't take what I'm about to say to heart, I only just started into Mahler.
Mahler seems to expand on the romantic and classical traditions rather than outright oppose them. I get this feeling when I think of Joyce as a Modernist. I'm thinking of Mahler in comparison to Stravinsky and Schoenberg, and of Joyce in comparison to Elliot and Pound.
>>5320138
>Should be John Ashberry since he started writing his postmodern poetry after seeing Cage's chance music.
I didn't know that. Thanks.
>How do you figure?
I was passaging through Don Quixote a week ago and got the same sensation of flourish and themes as a Bach piece. Granted I was pretty high.
The Comedy is as mathematical as it is aesthetic, just like Mozart.

>> No.5320168

>>5320158
I was thinking of his atonal stuff and 12tone system compared to how Faulkner doesn't really care about sentences. Or grammar. Or logic or continuity.

So a comparison of harmony and grammar, sort of

idk this is hard

>> No.5320177

>>5320168
I can see that. Faulkner seems very orderd to me, he may hate grammar, but his style remains the same as long as the POV does. Schoenberg feels very chaotic. Though, I suppose my view may be a little surface level.

>> No.5320178

>>5320164
Most of Wagner's ideas existed well before him, and if you want world-shattering influence on literature, even from someone of that time, why not Tolstoy?

>> No.5320182

Zappa is nothing like Burroughs. He's more related to Thomas Pynchon for sure.

>> No.5320215

>>5320178
I don't think anyone truly brought out the subconscious, and subsequent turn-over of society, culture, even religion, in quite the way Wagner did, before him. He completely predicted Nietzsche and Freud, and he actually got across this notion of a wild, untamable mass of impulse and emotion through fucking with the structure of classical harmonic resolution to the point where it became a musical accompaniment to the drama and poetry of the opera and created this totality of art, which in the better moments gives the illusion of eternity or timelessness, pure ID washing away all our conceits and ideas and frameworks of understanding or believing.

>> No.5320220

>>5320215
Really, it just makes me go to sleep

>> No.5320236

Erik Satie - Baudelaire

>> No.5320557

>>5320157
"Wagner has good moments, but awful quarters of an hour." - Rossini

>> No.5320570

>>5320557
Celebes you don't understand Wagner, he doesn;t have 'awful quarters of hours' you don't understand his entire art.

Im too out of it to explain it you but when i see you sober on here ill try to get it across

In the meantime try to find the book Aspects of Wagner and really, really listen to Tristan und Isolde, even do drugs or alcohol if you need to. I promise its the most beautiful experience I've ever had from music apart the nearly alien perfection of Mozart's beauty. Just please give it a chance and understand you can't look at it only in terms of classical music theory its more than that

>> No.5320615

>>5320570
I'll give it a shot but generally I don't like classical music that is loud and pompous, and I disagree with Wagner's aesthetic views anyway.

Nothing wrong with listening to Tristan another time though. I like that one.

>> No.5320648

>>5320079
>>5320138
I figured Burroughs would be Chet Baker

>> No.5320651

I would compare Wagner to Tolkien. Both worked on epic proportions and drew heavily of myth and folklore in their work.

>> No.5320654

>>5320157
Because Wagner makes their preferred composer sound like a man puking.

If there is a God, He spoke to us through Wagner's music.

Behold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgx8AxG3fe4

>> No.5320679

>>5320079
Mozart is Shakespeare.

>> No.5320689
File: 70 KB, 560x375, 09_shakeaverdi_lg[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5320689

>>5320679
No, Verdi is.

>> No.5320713

>>5320679
other people wrote his music and he just took credit for it?

>> No.5320721

>>5320713
There are people who believe this. e.g. http://rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

>> No.5321112

>>5320157
Wagner's body of opera is better than his other work.

>> No.5321309

>Joyce and Mahler
not even close
Mahler's dronefest hackery doesn't even compare to the worst of Joyces' output (exiles)

>> No.5321314

>>5321112
DAILY REMINDER
italian opera > german opera
verdi> puccini > mozart > wagner

>> No.5321325

oh i thought of the perfect one
rachmaninoff and nabokov
>both late into the russian romantic scene
>both amazing
>both moved to the US to escape the commies
>both have a mesmerising lyrical quality and beautiful melodic structure, but sometimes dark passages (see prelude c sharp minor; lolita)

>> No.5321331

>>5320557
YES perfect

>> No.5321334

>>5320654
this fantasy mythos opera stuff is so cringey it's like the tipping m'lady of the 19th century

>> No.5321339

>>5321334
can someone please make a picture of wagner in a fedora

>> No.5321432
File: 201 KB, 470x689, 9 kharo ring.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5321432

Verlaine and Velvet Underground/New York Dolls
>feelings of alienation, isolation
>rebelliousness, both societal and religious

Nabokov and Saint-Saëns
>playful but serious when it needs to be
>at other times mysterious and strikingly beautiful

Coleridge and Pink Floyd
>cautionary tales of peering behind the veil
>use of albatross as symbolism
>heavy dream/psychedelic imagery

good idea for a thread op. I will post more when I think of them

>> No.5321458

>>5321325
That's pretty good even though they tended towards opposite temperaments

>>5321334
Wagner's music is frequently so good that you can overlook his plots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9buBU4WFc

But Parsifal in particular is hard to swallow because of its uncertain relationship to Christianity, plus the unhealthy fixation on blood and wounds.

>> No.5321463

>>5320177
Schoenberg is anything but chaotic. 12 tone is so meticulously assembled it actually functions better as a set of equations than an organic piece of music. It's all built off of a singular tone sequence and the matrix derived from that sequence when started from different points.

12 tone isn't difficult to compose at all once you get the math down, what's difficult is making something musical out of it.

>> No.5321484

Anytime I listen to a piece of classical (or romantic or whatever) music, I feel like I'm reading the 867th page of a 10,000 page book. In other words, I feel like I'm lacking context. I don't know what the different types of compositions are for, I don't know how to approach a composer, etc.

This is going to sound very modern, but I want to be honest: I don't know how to consume this music. Pop music is made for easy consumption with its basic formats (albums, EPs) and short history. Anyone else been in a position like this and become "enlightened"? If it helps, of the music I've heard, I tend to prefer the Russians (Prokofiev, Mussorgsky, Shostakovich).

>> No.5321487

>>5321484
piano concertos and operas are the 'end boss' for lack of a better word

>> No.5321490

Wagner - Thomas Mann
Herman Melville - Benjamin Britten
Ezra Pound - Ravel
Jorges Luis Borges - Debussy

>> No.5321496

>>5321484
i'd just listen to random famous pieces from each composer, find the ones you enjoy the most, and then explore that composer in more detail
>>5321490
kek borges couldn't be further from debussy

>> No.5321500

>>5321484
Start with fairly easy to digest stuff, (Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Nepomuk Hummel) and then move to Sacred Choral comp (Palastrina, Tomas Luis de Victoria, Gesualdo, Bach has some good choral stuff). 20th century music requires a very particular mindset to embrace. Most of all don't worry too much about "getting it". It's all about the expansion and understanding of musical form and harmonic structure.

>> No.5321503

>>5321490
b-but Ravel is good

>> No.5321504

>>5321500
not all 20th century is difficult to consume https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT_ZhhQeudY

>> No.5321505
File: 24 KB, 479x720, 1408218368997.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5321505

>Wagner and Nietzsche

>> No.5321550

I would put Bach and Shakespeare together due to volume and variety and breadth of emotion - Mozart's music perhaps isn't varied enough for Shakespeare, I'd perhaps put Mozart and Schiller together.

> Tchaikovsky and Pushkin
> Scriabin and Chekhov
> Janacek and Kundera
> Shostakovich and Dostoyevsky
> Grieg and Ibsen
> Maupassant and Satie

Extremely difficult exercise though: I could not find anyone for the early 20th century Romantics: Mahler, Strauss etc

>> No.5321562

>>5321505
stop posting that fedora shit with nietzsche
hes arguably the least fedora tipper out of all the important philosophers

>> No.5321590

>>5321550
grieg and ibsen is perfect
and not just because they're both norwegian
strauss - proust?

>> No.5321597

>>5320148
>Haydn and Balzac
What? Haydn would be Boileau or Quinault.
>Chopin and Proust
What? non-sense.

>>5320079
>>Cervantes and Bach
Absolute non-sense. For me Bach is typically Racine
>>Dante and Mozart
Explain please.

>> No.5321697

Cervantes - Prokofiev