Can literature compete as the universal legacy of Men with Music?

Can literature compete as the universal legacy of Men with Music?
How can we compare Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens, etc. with Bach, Beethoven or Wagner?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VsZQBiU9llo
clyp.it/3aoemkvv
youtube.com/watch?v=1CNBIJj1CFM
youtube.com/watch?v=BjIX9mwcyPE
youtube.com/watch?v=SB-P6lqP76k
youtube.com/watch?v=nkOiKy6sXfM
youtube.com/watch?v=W2xe07RFX0o
youtube.com/watch?v=KTM7E4-DN0o
youtube.com/watch?v=J-qoaioG2UA
youtube.com/watch?v=twGxmFNiMEo
youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls
youtube.com/watch?v=5A-Y6ULx3YI
clyp.it/yv2dl3ej
clyp.it/rzglsdou
plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/#MatLogFouMat
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

why not women in music

Yes, they can.

Western Art is a project in which each form developes on the other. Music without the awareness of Literature is nothing elevated over the the drum orgies of negroes. Literature without music is just a judaic egotistical ranting.
The West if it has amounted to any glory has been in exactly the musical nature of its Literature and the literary nature of its music.

>Bach, Beethoven, Wagner

We see you pushing your wagner agenda, pleb

Because in the last one thousand years there was literally one great female composer. In here defence, she was once GOAT, only being surpassed by Pérotin almost 100 years later

literature probably surpasses music in its use of words, but I think music is better at using sounds

The Ring Cycle is arguably the greatest work of art of the last 200 years. No other work could fusion so many forms of art in one.

Bach has more in common with a woodworker than he does with a writer.

>how can we compare writers with composers

apples and oranges, not to be compared

(I wonder why we associate "writer" and "composer", both of which occupy positions of prestige in our culture that, say, a successful businessman does not. It's as if artists-- writers, painters, composers-- are the subset of the entertainment industry that purport to provide "cultural enrichment" for the bourgeois)

> but I think music is better at using sounds
You can say that to my Nobel, fatty.

have you ever actually sat down and seen a full production of the ring cycle?

>drum orgies of negroes

pls tell more

Start with Lovecraft

fuck off with your nouveau riche smugness

You know a whole performance of The Ring Cycle takes 15 hours, right?

I love them both so much, why compare them? What common aspect are they expressing, and do we judge on how well it is mediated? Music is stronger, more direct, ineffable. But literature has so much depth, so much more. They're different!

No, it can't. Art forms don't "compete". I might accept your hierarchy of art forms in case you have a PhD in philosophy and a whole philosophical system with aesthetics, plus excellent theoretical knowledge of each medium. Otherwise your hierarchy is guaranteed to be based on your feefees and most banal thinking, and you can shove that back up your asshole.

Music is a pure art form, it has no real representative capacity (that's why tone poems tend to be awful). However, its means of communication is far different than that of literature, and for this reason the two are not directly comparable.

so?

>you have to have a magic piece of paper then I'll uncritically accept your opinion

/thread

>(I wonder why we associate "writer" and "composer", both of which occupy positions of prestige in our culture that, say, a successful businessman does not.
because artists (...great ones) are entirely unique and one of a kind: there are many professions where just about anyone can do it, or many different people do the same things. If you are talking about 'inventors', then yea, they are not celebrated on tv as much as pop singers, but they still get their millions of dollars

There haven't been that many great women composers (women musicians, as in performers, is another matter). Hildegard was the only one worth talking about up the 20th century, but even then, Seeger didn't compose much, and Gubaidulina, Ustvolskaya, Chin, Saariaho, Oliveros, Radigue, and Soper, who might all be considered among the most important women composers, are either recently deceased or still active, making it very difficult if not impossible to assess their impact and thus real importance and canonicity.

I see, you hate him because le Hitler's favorite composer, right?

I literally said that I *might* accept your opinion if you have a PhD and that I also expect knowledge very much outside of the typical philosophy university course.
Your aggressiveness implies certain frustration(s). You should try to deal with that.

no not at all, actually i thought for a long time that i didn't like him because i wasn't mature for him yet (i'm only a tint bit over 18), but now that i like basically everything but him and shitty new age stuff i think he's just shit
WTF. 200 hundred years? even in music only that's ridiculously wrong. the fucking late quartets are less than 200 yo you fucking mongrel how can you dare to say such a stupid fucking thing. wagnerboos i swear

>ly i thought for a long time that i didn't like him because i wasn't mature for him yet (i'm only a tint bit over 18)
You aren't even mature enough for this boy, lad, look at the way you write, try Reddit.

Wagner's music is pompous as fuck. I'm not surprised you think he's great.

Can't you honestly like this? Only the very first minute.
youtube.com/watch?v=VsZQBiU9llo

Shit gives me goosebumps everytime.

ok big boy ;) (im right tho)

brb, off to invade poland

>(i'm only a tint bit over 18)

rate my song

clyp.it/3aoemkvv

Pretty good actually.

Listen to all these in their entirety and then report back your opinion. Can you promise me, if you promise me you Love Music, you will do that? Even if it takes a few days (no longer than 3 weeks, and each video in full shall be listened to, and then report back with your opinion: and then do the same in 2 years. And then do the same in another 2 years. And then do the same in another 2 years. And then do the same in another 2 years. Ok, deal?)

youtube.com/watch?v=1CNBIJj1CFM

youtube.com/watch?v=BjIX9mwcyPE

youtube.com/watch?v=SB-P6lqP76k

youtube.com/watch?v=nkOiKy6sXfM

youtube.com/watch?v=W2xe07RFX0o

youtube.com/watch?v=KTM7E4-DN0o

youtube.com/watch?v=J-qoaioG2UA

youtube.com/watch?v=twGxmFNiMEo

youtube.com/watch?v=lqk4bcnBqls

youtube.com/watch?v=5A-Y6ULx3YI

Are you performing or just composing? In fact I find amazing someone with such a great talent is on Veeky Forums. The composition is very good, and the performance is even better.

fuck me thats good

surely you're messing with me. i'm not even good. i just started piano six months ago so i can make compositions.

are you serious???

> i just started piano six months
I really hope you're only 11 so you still can be our new Chopin.

i'm 18.

honestly i expected to get shat on. /mu/ are a bunch of jealous cunts.

the song and recording was me. it took like four hours to get a recording that didn't have at least one mistake.

Surely you jest, I've been playing for years and couldn't imagine learning the piano to that degree, much less composing with just 6 months experience. Get off Veeky Forums and make yourself known, you have talent.

> /mu/ are a bunch of jealous cunts.
/mu/ is dying board that worship meme tier rap and K-Pop. If they don't like that's a good thing.

>get off Veeky Forums

nope. Veeky Forums is a comfy place.
since it looks like people actually appreciate my stuff here, here's my other one.

clyp.it/yv2dl3ej

and i need to find a violinist for this wip

clyp.it/rzglsdou

The first one is really great, but somehow sounded derivative, but that's ok after all you just started six months ago. Gonna listen the second.

this is a joke

Music requires a listener with ears and brain and the composition of music through developed instruments and processes, and the music is either affected by the air or software. It's not pure.

this, scene 1 of das rheingold is my favorite musical work by far, it's completely mesmerizing

this

it's not.

you are very good, you were born to play piano (didnt listen to your others yet besides that first one you posted: which sounds like something beethoven would have written (dont let it get to your head) so I guess I assume you were born to play other instruments and compose too), keep it up bruv

One can read music without any of those things. It is pure.

You have studied theory before you started playing piano? Because the first one you linked says opus 23 which was uploaded a month ago. That means assuming you wrote and recorded it in a single day and you have only been writing while you play piano that you have on average been composing more than one composition per week. If you only started learning theory when you started piano it would have taken weeks to get to anything beyond shit-tier understanding which would bump it up to two or three compositions a week to get to that number.

The legacy of man is warfare. Sounds edgy, I know, but even if we solve all other issues of human struggle mankind will still fight itself over whether music or literature is more of an apex art form.
As long as there is more than one person, there will be quarrels; so long as there are quarrels, there will be war

I don't know any theory, I think I should learn how to read music so I can't learn songs more easily.

I know i said earlier that i started learning piano "so I can make compositions". I don't really know why I entertain up typing out like that, but it's a 3/4 truth. I have been messing around with writing songs on the computer for about a little over a year, I just use the opus numbers to keep track of chronology and because it kind of makes them seem legit. The op. 21 was the first "real" song that I wrote on the piano and could play. Still, I started learning the piano specifically because I resented the fact that the only "recordings" I hadn't of my songs were dumb fake ones made on a computer.

Op. 19 was when I began learning. Now I'm at Op. 28. Basically ten songs in six months. Not that tall an order, even considering classes and such.

anyone who is not simply and complexly happy the great geniuses of both forms gave forth their masterpieces instead of trying to say what is better, is wrong

Video games>music>literature>film

Painting>Animation>Sculpture>videogames=literature(non-fiction)>music>literature(fiction)>film>let's plays>>>>>>>>>>>>>photography

All art requires an audience, a creator, and a medium, that's just how art works.

name?

Are your classes for piano or for theory? I would highly recommend learning jazz theory in tandem with classical. If you are taking lessons in classical theory I would suggest learning jazz theory on your own, otherwise doing both on your own works. Even if you don't like jazz once you understand that the two traditions of theory are really two different ways of understanding the same thing you realise that both are useful regardless of which you like.
I can't really recommend much in the way of more rudimentary classical theory because I learned most of that from teachers rather than for books. One book I can't recommend enough though is Shoenberg's Fundamentals of Musical Composition. I had been learning theory for years before I read this book and it was a revelation. For jazz either Jazzology or Levine's Jazz Music Theory Book are decent introductions. The bonus to jazz is that as a music based almost entirely around performance there are some truly amazing youtube stuff for it where the classical stuff is usually very basic and often mediocre. Your piano playing is extremely promising by the way.

you sure that this isn't schubert?

jk this is retrograde trash with no direction
just rambling pastiche

You can read music without a brain?
Then no art is pure.

>You can read music without a brain?
You need that, and you need processes but you don't need anything else. It's as pure as mathematics and logic. A purely mental act. That sounds pretty pure to me.

>Then no art is pure.
Then nothing is pure that has anything to do with humans. You might have to define what you mean by pure.

Music isn't pure because it's dependent on the physical world, math and logic weren't created, they're instrisic to the universe, and music was created by humans and is affected by the universe, meaning they're affected by math and logic, so maybe you could argue music is applied math but not anything more.

Who is the Veeky Forums equivalent of Scriabin?

VIDEOGAMES LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>Music isn't pure because it's dependent on the physical world
>meaning they're affected by math and logic
Not if you do it in your head. Also the physical universe doesn't comprise math and logic, the physical universe is comprised of physical things.

>math and logic weren't created
That's its own issue that has gone back thousands of years and isn't settled. I highly doubt that you, some random user on the internet has solved one of the great questions of philosophy. Even if you are right I don't see how that's any more pure than music. You still haven't defined pure at all even though I asked you to in the last post. We are clearly working from different definitions.

>Not if you do it in your head. Also the physical universe doesn't comprise math and logic, the physical universe is comprised of physical things.
You actually got me to laugh out loud.
>That's its own issue that has gone back thousands of years and isn't settled. I highly doubt that you, some random user on the internet has solved one of the great questions of philosophy.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me.

You're right, they should be ranked higher desu

>I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me
Seriously go look it up. The debate is real and has been real for a very long time. You still haven't defined pure as you are using it.

I don't think you know anything about that debate, considering you didn't bring up any of its arguments. You seem to think math is a social construct, that physical things aren't controlled by math, based on what you said, and what you do in your head is seperate from the physical world.

A piece of literature dies when the language it's written in is no longer in use or can't be translated.
Capitalism is killing the culture by removing Latin and Greek from the public school common trunk. When we can no longer hear as our own voice the Greek and Roman poets and philosophers the West will be dead.

I don't mean to be snarky, it's very early in the morning where I am. I just don't like being accused of ignorance from someone who didn't even know that this major element of philosophy existed, and they because of that ignorance they don't realise the burden of proof is upon then, and that goes on to display that ignorance by misinterpreting my position (of which I haven't even given yet) in ways which show they are unfamiliar with subject

plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/#MatLogFouMat

This is a pretty good grounding.

Yeah, how many actual murderers did Tolstoy get out of jail?

I'm already aware of the philosophical problem. You said the physical world isn't comprised of math or logic but physical things. Tell me what comprises those physical things, what controls them?

ok i will thx

>I'm already aware of the philosophical problem
>math and logic weren't created, they're instrisic to the universe
Well you either so strongly believe that you have an answer to the problem that you don't even feel the need to acknowledged the existence of it and that you can assert aposition as fact and ridicule people who hold different opinions or acknowledge the existence of the debate, or you aren't aware of it. When I mentioned the existence of it you said
>I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me.
If you knew it existed why would you think someone is trolling for mere acknowledging that it exists after you asserted your position as truth with no argument in a contentious field?

>You said the physical world isn't comprised of math or logic but physical things.
Here we are running into semantic problems that need to be clarified because I'm not claiming what I think you think I am claiming. Even the reasonably hardcore modern mathematical Platonists like Gödel do not think that mathematical objects exist in space time, nor do mathematical concepts. This is what I mean when I said that the physical universe doesn't comprise of math. This is not a controversial position and is by far the most common regardless of your position on the ontology of mathematics.

>Tell me what comprises those physical things, what controls them?
You are the one making claims about the ontology of mathematics, not me. You need to argue why your position is correct. Right now you are just assuming it is and making fun of me because I am aware that the debate is hardly settled. I have made no claims on the matter and therefore have no argument to make and frankly I have no desire to until you have defined what you mean by pure (which I have asked you to do multiple times). Then and only then can I even see if me taking a position on it is even relevant to the debate of whether or not music is as pure as maths and logic.
I literally have nothing to do until you clarify your position.

ICan't you find out for youself after all the tips on the thread (her name was actually mentioned in fact). Hildegard von Bingen.

Philosophers also debate whether we exist. Do you also question your existence?

There is actually a clear structure to it.

>Are your classes for piano or for theory?

nah dude i'm in mechanical engineering.

>shoenberg

no.

i'll check out the jazz.

I'll see if the school library has any of the books you recommended.

>I would suggest learning jazz theory
>One book I can't recommend enough though is Shoenberg's
>For jazz either Jazzology or Levine's Jazz Music
dont listen to this serpent

Not him but why don't you like Shoenberg? Dislike dissonance?
What are your thoughts on Stravisnky?

>Music isn't pure because it's dependent on the physical world, math and logic weren't created, they're instrisic to the universe
But is the concepts of music the same as math and logic? In that: abstractly: Different thicknesses and lengths of strings, 'fretted' different positions, vibrations in tubes...etc... the concept of particles carrying the vibrations of a struck string: isnt the pattern, proportions, harmonic relations between these sizes and distances, tautnesses, forces, exist abstractly in 'The Totality Of What Is Pure Math'?

Shoenberg has some good music but you dont want to learn from or copy him

Violoncellist here. Music can't compete with literature.
Stay in /mu/, faggot

How can I get a piano for not that much money?

Electric pianos are cheaps

is the sound at least close to being the same?

I don't hate Wagner but he's not in the same league as Bach and Beethoven, not even close.

You will not hear difference until you learn to play piano

No, because all of that is determined by math and logic. Physics is determined by math and logic, but not vice versa. To be pure, it must be independent from math and logic, otherwise it's just derivative of something and that's impure.

As engineer, it is always fun to see math faggots that think that they are gods when they only work for us

not him but
>As an advertiser, it is always fun to see painting faggots that think that they are gods when they only work for us

> he's not in the same league as Bach and Beethoven
Yeah, nobody is, but he''s the one that comes closer.

OK, that was stupid, dude.
You should use guys who make paint and painters

not at all you ape. Schubert, Shostakovich, Gibbons, Mahler, Schumann, Vivaldi, Palestrina, Mozart are all much closer