Why is literature superior to music in the sense of intellectual and emotional stimulation...

Why is literature superior to music in the sense of intellectual and emotional stimulation? Is literature even the most patrician of the arts?

Other urls found in this thread:

vimeo.com/9383843
youtube.com/watch?v=e99eAilOb6Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Music is vastly superior in the latter though.

maybe if you're an idiot then ye sure

>Why is literature superior to music in the sense of intellectual and emotional stimulation?

It isn't, although potentially for 'intellectual' stimulation depending on what you mean by that. The problem is: when a book puts a piece of information in your head, you fool yourself thinking you're being stimulated, but you're only being manipulated and gobbling up information like a chicken gobbles up seeds. Nothing comes close to music in intellectual and emotional stimulation, because music isn't an indirect image and representation like all other arts are.

literature is better at expressing ideas, including explanations and descriptions of complex emotions
music is better at immersing and letting you actually feel those emotions and ideas

You don't have even half the brain Nietzsche and Schopenhauer had and they considered music to be the superior artform. Literature is a strong second place, I have never been really into the visual arts, I used to draw a lot as a kid but since I started playing instruments I never went back. Sadly I only know guitar now, I didnt practice keyboards and flute enough, and will always feel bad about not learning piano or cello, the superior instruments.

Only poetry is superior to music. Novels are low tier on the scale of art.

>poetry is superior to music
Wrong

yeah, im sure thats why music accompanies every ad, movie, propaganda video and so on

God you are so retarded

Literature is an abstract form of stimulation and can stimulate only what already is there. You just confirm shit you knew, reinforce stuff you already managed. Music, on the other hand, is pure and concrete sensory and intellectual stimulation, it opens neural pathways either you want it or not, even without you knowing about it. Its literally brain gym in ways literature will never be.

>guitar
Tru pleb. Even hobos can play the guitar.

t. Clarinet masterrace.

>Wrong
Wrong

What I like about guitar is exactly that it is extreamly easy to play and it can be used in so many ways thanks to modern effects. It is also a really physical instrument.
Drums can also be great if the drummer has some sort of artistic sensibility and its not just a schmuck playing the same patterns all the time.

i think you're right about music being sensory and literature being cognitive/abstract, but i think music and literature both use an already established language of associations and moods.

>who is william blake

Music is more cognitive than literature and any other kind of activity if you are a composer and also know how to play instruments. It literally makes you use all the different parts of the brain at the same time.

Guitar playing no matter how many effects you put on top of it, is a cliche at this point. Its been exhausted on its expressive possibilities, i have yet to see a contemporary guitarist saying something new or worth listening.

im saying music is both sensory and cognitive, its a complete experience and can open up novel neural pathways in ways no other artform can, and way better than literature. things that are on par with musics ability to reshape things inside the head are humor (not read but actually being part of it), trauma and dancing.

>Its been exhausted on its expressive possibilities
Isnt this the case for every other instrument? After synths and samplers and everything new in music production all physical instruments have become dated.
I don't really care about guitar itself, any sound only becomes relevant when combined with other ones, and guitar pretty much works in everything.

/thread

guitar has no dynamic range.

>literatur is from mind, music is from heart durr
>WTF GENIUS POST
dude

what are you even trying to say and how is it relevant to what I said.

Quick everyone post the nine arts in order of superiority.

It's absolutely not. Literature is by nature vainly imitative.

>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is, indeed as the Ideas are, the multiplied phenomenon of which constitutes the world of individual things. Therefore music is by no means like the other arts, namely a copy of the Ideas, but a copy of the will itself, the objectivity of which are the Ideas. For this reason the effect of music is so very much more powerful and penetrating than is that of the other arts, for these others speak only of the shadow, but music of the essence.

Schopenhauer

music > literature > kino > paintings n shit

there are not 9 arts btw

>Why is literature superior to music in the sense of intellectual and emotional stimulation?
because you don’t know anything about music and only listen to garbage

The piano isn't that hard to learn unless you're trying to play Liszt or something.
Qwads confirm.

Filmmaking (actually well done films with focused and centralized intention) because it incorporates hundreds of different technical and artistic mediums to make. That being said, I think good literature serves as the absolute foundation for decent filmmaking, and its impossible to make a piece of cinema containing complex thematic ideas without a well-developed literary intelligence. You need to read a fuckload of liturature if you want to be a successful director, actor, cinematographer, or screenwriter.

Music cannot be reinterpreted. Music is what it is. Art and Literature has and will always be subjected to relativization.

By Art I meant paintings.

I think the ranking of different art forms is a waste of time.

Plebe doesn’t know classical guitar repertoire

Are we talking about consumption or creation of music and literature here?

None of the comments here give any context and I think they are different conversations

OP here

We're talking about consumption

Except plebshit that has lyrics.

>classical guitar
Yikes

I think you guys are idealizing music because it defies analysis in a way that lets people just assert things like,

>>Music is as immediate an objectification and copy of the whole will as the world itself is

or from Nietzche,
>the musical art often speaks in sounds more penetrating than the words of poetry, and takes hold of the most hidden crevices of the heart
which, by the way, to 's point, is apparently just a 14 year old saying that some songs are nice.

We can't get away with these generalizations and anecdotes and hand waving in English because the media of the art and of its criticism are the same. Having higher standards for analysis, though, does not mean that the arts function any differently.

Some books can lead you to an emotional trance, too.

How do you define "intellectual stimulation"?

Shut the fuck up Squidward

Real men play the Kora.

Music is like drugs and literature like a lucid medicine.

Film > Theatre > Music > Painting > Architecture > Fashion > Sculpting > Gluing macaronis to a paper plate > (powergap) > Literature

gtfo you weeb

>implying fashion is an art

the worst opinion ever expressed.

vimeo.com/9383843
youtube.com/watch?v=e99eAilOb6Q

fashion really makes you think

Why does literature have to be superior to music or vice versa.

Why not just appreciate both for their differences and enjoy both without limiting yourself to any one medium. Art is subjective, just enjoy what you like without restriction, simple as.

>Art is subjective

how can art be subjective if certain opinions are wrong?

>opera is plebshit

fpbp

>Film > all

other than this you are wrong about everything. Theater is for insufferable faggots.

Music is the only art form enjoyed for its aesthetic qualities alone - unlike literature, sculpture, painting, etc, it doesn’t represent anything.

>it doesn’t represent anything.
It represents the emotional state or intent of the person who created the music

I have been to theater once. It wasn't good. That's why I put theatre as the second best.

I don't think I could say with confidence that any of the arts are objectively superior to one another, but if I had to consider their merits, film could be a feasible choice, because it incorporates all of the other dimensions of art into one single unity, and all of those can be expressed within a film. This is if we're just talking of the expression of art.

i unironically believe interactive media holds the greatest potential for intellectual and emotional stimulation