When did you find out that you were doomed to be a Salieri rather than a Mozart?

>something that would automatically bring you into the western cannon.
This statement is problematic, and bespeaks a serious and fundamental issue with how you imagine things to be that might not be that way. I'm not tryna burst any bubbles or disillusion any believers, but just explore this line of thinking. Try and describe how one would do this, like even in an optimal, utopic abstract sense.

I know a great work of philosophy when I see it, but I just can't write any good philosophy myself. I mean I'm working hard and trying to persevere in this "obsessional" state, as another user said. He's probably right though. It's eating me alive. It's definitely an irrational impulse, I don't think I can describe it to you distinctly. I just want write great philosophy, that's it. Something inspired. I've lost some inspiration lately, hence the retarded thread. I should go back to work though. Fuck.

But Marlowe is garbage compared to Shskespeare

>When did you find out that you were doomed to be a Salieri rather than a Mozart?

Do you know how hard it is to write anything of literary quality, let alone lasting greatness?

Salieri managed to live and live well off his art; you should be so lucky!

Yeah

I'm tired of this thread already. Let it die.

Then how come I quite unironically and literally listen to nothing but Mozart, but would never dream of doing the same with a lesser composer?

Well, for one the entire Salieri thing is completely fictional.

For another, would you rather be Salieri or working as an accountant or some shit?

Also geniuses aren't known for living pleasant lives.

What's the point? Is your goal in life that a couple hundred years from now some guy posting on a chinese cartoon forum will listen to nothing but your music?

That's what I don't get about the argument. Great, a hundred years from now a bunch of whiney little tards I don't even identify with as being human are going to love my stuff. Won't that be great?

Yes, that is ascension

Then get on it.

I was not touched by God, that much is clear.

as an aside, does anyone else think this movie really doesn't hold up? I watched it a week ago or so, and it's alright and everything....but I really don't think it came close to being the best movie of the year.

Fun fact: Jeffery Jones, the guy who played Emperor Joseph II, and the principle in ferri's buellers day off? He got arrested in 2002 for kiddy diddling.

>Salieri

don't flatter yourself senpai

The 80s were a low point for cinema, look at the other Best Picture winners of that decade. Amadeus was the best of the Best Picture winners in the 80s. The only other film that comes close is The Last Emperor.

Where Salieri failed was that he wanted the glory/fame that came with talent, instead of doing it for the sake of the art itself. You can tell when people are writing books/making films/creating songs just for the fame. And then they, like Salieri, wonder why they just don't "got it" like people like Mozart do.

Some people are born with the right brain set-up, some are born into the right family in the right country at the right time, and some have both. But there is nothing as propelling for talent as raw practice.

Haha, I'd be all right. Most of us will never even come close to being a Salieri, let alone a Mozart.

i always sorta waited, thinking there'd be a point in my life where things just click into place and i lift off like a rocket.

now i think i'm a smart guy. i think there's a certain cutoff perhaps, but in general, geniuses are just people who are somewhat smart, somewhat creative, have a somewhat unique perspective ... and most importantly the circumstances and upbringing that enables them to live to their full potential.

my upbringing was garbage. not good, not bad, mostly bland, somewhat sheltered. i never learned the value of hard work, never learned to take responsibility, basic things like that, i was raised to be inoffensive and mediocre and i've failed to become even that. at 25 i'm unemployed and on the dole and i struggle with basic shit like cleaning my god damn room, not that it matters much since noone visits ever anyways.

i still hope for the day where i suddenly see the light and find some unlikely untapped source of endless energy that'll catapult me into a life of passion, fulfillment, dedicated work, a healthy social life etc but in all likelihood what's gonna happen is i'll stay on the dole till the dole office gets on my case to much and my savings runs out, and i'll get the next min wage job, rinse repeat, kill self once i hit my mid thirties

i don't need to be a mozart, but i long to be a (william) stoner, i feel a deep sympathy toward that character, but i have no dedication or work ethic, i'm hollow

>tfw I'm a genius
feels good man

If you were a Mozart you'd know at the age of 4, retard.

Cool lad. Whatcha up to

I get what you mean, user. I've followed the golden thread and unraveled a line of thought that has brought me to the point of breakthrough and ecstasy, but when I try to write it or explain it, there's just too much. Yet, I'll see ideas or expressions in art that connect, and it's like puzzle pieces being left in many different rooms of a mansion that I just don't have big enough arms to carry and put together for people. It's just the baggage of language that makes for our difficulties, I suspect. Future technologies will allow us to communicate more efficiently, I hope, and we will finally be able to put it all together. Keep the faith, fellow cripple of the embodied spirit...

>I've followed the golden thread and unraveled a line of thought that has brought me to the point of breakthrough and ecstasy
faggot

go read wittgenstein, he had literally the same problems as you

/thread

If you ask 10 people who is Shakespeare, they will give shitty remarks and maybe, maybe you find someone who is well-versed enough to start a discussion.
But if you ask 10 people who is Marlowe not all will recognize, but the ones that do surely will have much to talk about.

Between being recognized by a bunch of plebs or have few passionate people discussing my works, I'd get the latter easily.

(excuse my english, non-english speaker)

He was not at all a mediocrity, in fact he was one of the leading composers of his day. Please consider the fact that the movie you likely got this misconception from has been dubbed one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever along with Braveheart.

Yeah, he wasn't as good as Mozart, but none ever was or ever will be. If you compare yourself with the greatest there ever was of course you will come out short.

Also, I'd like to add Mozart was born into a family where his father (an accomplished musician himself) had the wealth and opportunity to teach his children music in a very rigorous way that would be considered child abuse today from the ripe age of 3. This, combined with Mozart's "natural talent" paved his way to the history books. His sister got the same treatment, but she didn't have "it".

You can compare it with the Jacksons in modern times. That whole family got abused and terrorized by their father to develop their musical ability much in the same way as Mozart, yet Michael Jackson was the only one who achieved stardom.

Both Mozart and Michael Jackson suffered immensely under their own genius and training, and you can argue whether it was worth it or not.

You need discipline, not inspiration. Inspiration is unreliable and fleeting, discipline is forever.

>be 13
>quit piano after two lessons

mid twenties now - will i ever be able to appreciate classical music?

Have you even watched Amadeus??

>I just want write great philosophy, that's it. Something inspired.

If this is truly how you think, your primary desire is to "write great philosophy", for the prestige of it, rather than engage deeply in a specific issue or subject and accept whatever pops out of your own grappling, then that is a problem and I feel you are better off removing yourself from the vagueness of your delusion.

>Yet, I'll see ideas or expressions in art that connect

What specific forms of art? This is important, because I have much to discuss on the matter.

>Wagner's complete work of art is just outside of my grasp

Why are you concerned about anime for this purpose? Vidya is right now the most total medium ripe for creating gesamtkunstwerks, and capable of subsuming every other medium and then some, save for the presence of live actors.

You won't achieve anything without hard work. I know this sounds really trite but while we all have inherent strengths and weaknesses but your strength will go completely to waste if you don't do something with them by practicing and applying them. You don't expect any great painter to just paint technically brilliant just from their personal genius and inspiration. The same goes for writing, cooking, music, photography, dance, shitposting. Don't just look at these glorified geniuses thinking this is how one becomes an artist. You're not shit out into the world a master of you technique.

>implying
I have a natural drawing ability and color sense

>mid twenties now - will i ever be able to appreciate classical music?

It's entirely possible, I went from having no understanding of classical at 20, to being able fully comprehend the structure of symphonies a few years later. My current project is to explain exactly how this is possible and how to go about achieving this and what specific effects this has on your mental processing, in more substantial detail than anyone else has so far. If you want to be serious about this, I'd be quite happy if you were willing to become one of my guinea pigs.

This. I think one of the greatest wisdoms that our age has seemed to forgotten is that you really have to dedicate yourself, no matter what you do. Let's take music, even if you have the most amazing natural talent you STILL have sit there for 12 hours every day to hone your craft, and this discipline can only be learnt by forcing yourself. This is why you never see more of that child prodigy you saw 10 years ago, they floated on their natural talent and got superseded by the less naturally talented who had to work harder for their ability, thus learning the discipline of practice.

You really have to structure your life around honing your craft, whatever it is if you wanna be a "someone", let alone one of the "greats".

This doesn't apply to just music either, but pretty much anything people consider art or entertainment. Even the most mediocre stand-up comedian you can think of have dedicated their life to honing their craft, going to 6-7 clubs a night to perform, to cram as much experience they can under their belt. The shitty mainstream writer that people only buy the books of in airports probably sat there all day writing and writing, honing his craft as well.

Today sadly, the mainstream thought is that you are born with enough talent or the right personality for whatever you shtick is, splash a bit of luck in there and boom, there you go. Everyone thinks you can just stumble into success, all it takes is that lucky youtube video to catapult me into fame, or maybe if i get enough instagram followers, or something.

I've rambled long enough.

Mozart began studying music seriously when he was barely a toddler. He might have had natural talent, even though he came from a family of musicians, but he also worked his tits off his entire life at it.

most people appreciate classical music without realising it; in movies or as a backdrop to commercials etc. i played some classical to my friends when they were tripping and they loved it.

i think most people are just intimidated by it. like a lot of modern art, you go to the museum and it's like what and people feel like they're dumb but really, maybe it resonates with you, maybe it doesnt, sometimes you lack an understanding of background / context but in general, just unclench your asshole and start with something light/neoclassical, see if you like it. i love to listen to philip glass when i work on stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=Wkof3nPK--Y

also, concerts. i usually dont like concerts / festivals because i have the assburgers and the whole setting triggers me the fuck out but classical concerts are something else. a good orchestra, in a venue with good acoustics, that's something else bruh

Not that user, but I totally agree. Acting on film is a stale replication of stage performances, which are unsurmountable because of how alive the theatre is. Its a shame vidyagames came about as film became a business instead of an art because we could have had our French New Wave of game development.

>Where Salieri failed was that he wanted the glory/fame that came with talent, instead of doing it for the sake of the art itself.
This. If you do it for fame, you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, but at the same time, if nobody cares about you're work, you're doing it wrong too.

Not necessarily, as long as you are happy with what you do that should be enough. Recognition on top of that is just greedy, considering how hard it is to be happy with what you produce in the first place.

That's actually wrong.

Yeah, keep telling yourself. Get comfortable in the total failure.

>most people appreciate classical music without realising it; in movies or as a backdrop to commercials etc.

No, my thesis is that the complete opposite is the case. Most people simply will not be able to understand classical music proper, which is heavily dependent on the ability to perceive particular structural elements. I don't even believe that most people are capable of perceiving tonal music, and will find any piece based around keeping track of a tonic to be incomprehensible, which is something that surprised me isn't more acknowledged.

> i love to listen to philip glass when i work on stuff
>youtube.com/watch?v=Wkof3nPK--Y

Philip Glass is tonal in only the most base sense. The stuff you've posted is minimalist in precisely all the ways which allows plebs who don't understand classical music to think they do. Most movie music is like this.

I doubt that you'd be inclined to listen to this.

youtube.com/watch?v=XAgdd2VqLVc

>Vidya is right now the most total medium ripe for creating gesamtkunstwerks
vidya is shit and will ever be a real art form
get your head out of /v/'s ass

I'd be happy for you to explain why it is not capable of this.

Actually, you are the one who will fail with that attitude. If you don't want to do something great simply and PURELY for the greatness of it, but rather for the glory of it you will never have the motivation to actually achieve the great thing you want to do.

Fame and glory is simply not a great enough motivator to achieve true greatness, only the pure desire to actually do the thing you want to do for your own sake will keep you motivated.

Your goals are superficial, thus your art will be superficial.

Depends. I remember Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu said if he was the only person on the planet he wouldn't make a film because nobody would watch it. But then I think Inarritu is an oscar-bait hack. Meanwhile, Terrence Malick has made incredible films and doesn't even show up to award ceremonies. He had to be persuaded to sit through the 6-hour cut of The Thin Red Line to decide on what will be edited out. I remember someone said he makes films only for himself and that he doesn't care if anyone ever sees his work. I don't think he's that far on the extreme (Lynch seems to care less about who sees his films) but instead has found a great balance.

It's not so bad.
If you cannot be Hitler, at least you can tutor up the next one. What counts is victory at last.

Never, because I realized long ago that all that should matter to me is what happens when I'm alive. Having your music played across the ages is nice, but you're still dead. It's a romantic notion of immortality but those who are immortal in this sense often had the worst lives -- Dante, Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven, it really goes on and on. They consumed their lives for immortality in death, and those few got it. What you don't realize is that many nearly good or equal talents also worked towards this end and their books have been out of print for hundreds of years, never to even be rediscovered once a year or decade or even century. They're dead. But so are their Mozart peers.

I'm fine being happy with my legacy among the living. Immortality? Who cares? Only those who have been conned with the Nietzschean hymns of romantic yesteryear. Sometimes the Overman isn't the immortal Mozart, nor the Salieri, but their chimneysweepers who go home to a happy family and a warm home.

>But then I think Inarritu is an oscar-bait hack
FUCKING THANK YOU!

Most real geniuses didn't consider themselves geniuses either.

Only weirdo sub-par jackoffs like Kanye go around calling themselves geniuses

Him and Dali. Coincidentally, Kanye seems to be making the same descent into mediocrity and self-destruction that Dali eventually did.

>Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu said if he was the only person on the planet he wouldn't make a film because nobody would watch it.

That's a cute thing to say but....really? Come on dude.

>Terrence Malick has made incredible films and doesn't even show up to award ceremonies

Yeah, but just because he doesn't accept awards doesn't mean his films aren't popular. People have been eagerly watching his shit since the 70s. He's hardly a nobody.

>I remember someone said he makes films only for himself and that he doesn't care if anyone ever sees his work

Uh huh. Easy to say when people are already watching it.

Dali has lasting appeal among normies though, and can arguably be called a lasting name in art. Ask any retard on the street about the painting "With them droopy clocks and shit" and they know the painting you're talking about.

Lubezki's cinematography was WASTED on The Revenant's banal story.

I think it would be easier to be disciplined if you knew what you want and where to specialize in. Literature is for me a hobby. I work as an engineer and I don't believe I could make true progress in the science of engineering. Perhaps if I was a biologist I might have had a shot at it. Like the previous poster I wish some passion would flame up in my heart, but so far I haven't found anything that truly, completely, interests me.

>Aww yeah! Dat drippy clock nigga! I know dat shit!

kek

would this be transferable to other topics? "How to rewire your brain to truly embrace literature whole"

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was saying: I think Inarritu's "only person on the planet" point is dull and I wasn't saying Malick's films don't achieve popularity but that he doesn't seem to care about receiving recognition/acclaim.

>doesn't seem to care about receiving recognition/acclaim

That's easy to say, when you already have it, though.

this

"ok so like, you people who like my work are BENEATH ME, even though I was groveling to you when I was in my 20s and maybe 30s while I building up an immortal reel so that I could direct better and better projects and become famous enough so that I can pretend I hate being famous"

in reality 90% of these people are really just pretending for the persona. the other 10% are psychologically damaged

Yeah, but it's also easy to say about all the artists I know who don't receive recognition and yet are still passionate about their work. You only hear about people who are ambivalent to their fame because, well, they're famous. All the people who do what they love whether or not they get acclaim just keep on truckin.

>would this be transferable to other topics?

Absolutely. My theory is highly relevant to appreciation of literature, and poetry in particular. I conjecture that the ability to understand the high level structure of Art music and the ability to intuitively appreciate the form and imaginative meaning of poetry and advanced prose stem from the development of the same mental ability, which is a significant aspect of my framework. This is something that I only discovered within the previous year, and which was the impetus for pursuing this work more seriously.

And....they're successful, because they died and nobody cared about their work but....they liked it?

I can imagine to hate being famous. Ideal would be to be respected by your peers, while being unknown to the masses. Being famous must be like a golden prison.

i posted glass because it's accessible. nothing wrong with glass. it's classical either way, you just have a very specific definition.

the beethoven piece reminds me of some more amelodic aphex twin stuff. i can see how one might appreciate it, if you appreciate following the music, rather than drifting away, carried by it, having to figure it out like an engaging riddle. ofc i do have a hard time getting into it, hearing it for the first time and in a setting like this. which isnt so surprising since it appears you posted the most hardcore example of a pretty specific type of classic you could find

> A massive double fugue, it was universally condemned by contemporary critics. A reviewer writing for Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in 1826 described the fugue as "incomprehensible, like Chinese" and "a confusion of Babel".[1]
are you saying those people didnt appreciate tonality?

it's simply more complex and inaccessible than classical music usually is. i also doubt you have it as figured out as you'd like since

> critics fail to agree on its character.[42] Robert Kahn says "it presents a titanic struggle overcome.".[43] Daniel Chua, on the contrary, writes, "The work speaks of failure, the very opposite of the triumphant synthesis associated with Beethovenian recapitulations."[44] Stephen Husarik, in his essay "Musical direction and the wedge in Beethoven's high comedy, Grosse Fuge op. 133", contends that in the fugue, Beethoven is actually writing a parody of Baroque formalism. "The B Fuga of op.133 stumbles forward in what is probably the most relentless and humorous assertion of modal rhythms since 12th century Notre Dame organum."[45] Robert Kahn disagrees: "...the comparison to comic music is surprising. There is nothing comic about the Grosse Fuge..."[46]

i still think appreciation of classical, or any music really, is universal, since it's based on something intrinsically human, a structure, like math; complexity is just a sliding scale, there's no specific point where it goes from pleb to überman tier

when it's more complex, it'll require some effort or dedication, but it still follows that same basic principle ... you fucking pseud

"people will find it incomprehensible", it's incomprehensible -- likely by design and on purpose. because it's unexpected. like reading finnegans wake going in expecting dubliners.

you do realise that kind of elitism drives people away from classic, and hence from getting balls deep into classic, to the point where they're acquainted enough with the core concepts that they might appreciate a piece like this, which the most esteemed critics back then even had some trouble appreciating.

But I think with Malick it's just because he isn't interested. It's not a power thing. He didn't grovel in his early career, in fact he was a philosophy major at Harvard and taught at MIT before he decided to make films. And even then he stopped making films for two decades after Days of Heaven, which received a TON of love, and went to Europe to be an apprentice baker (although the details of his life are unclear, since he is immensely private).

>you do realise that kind of elitism drives people away from classic, and hence from getting balls deep into classic, to the point where they're acquainted enough with the core concepts that they might appreciate a piece like this, which the most esteemed critics back then even had some trouble appreciating.

it's cognitive dissonance present in all areas of art right now. Appealing to the masses is considered low brow and not "art" even though Shakespeare was art AND appealed to the masses. But then these same retards cry that we live in an era of "anti-intellectualism" because nobody will read their postmodern Joshua Cohen books about a magical jewish scrotum story that takes place over a hundred years in a magical realist academic "tour de force" way yada yada yada

It's amusing and sad. Tons of academic composers loathe Shostakovich because he wasn't exploring post-tonal systems like his peers, but then give some normie Shostakovich's First Symphony and they generally eat it up

Not him, but I am an amateur musician. Bear with me.
Out of the many hours of music I've recorded over the years there are a few minutes that I personally think are some of the best music ever made. I'm not saying it's objectively the best music of course, in fact 99% of the planet would hate it, but I made it for me, not for them. TO ME, nothing sounds as good as what I made myself due to it adhering 100% with my own taste.

Now isn't this enough, you think? After years and years of practice I've finally made something I think sounds great, I have realized my vision and brought something into the world. This in and of itself is orgasmic enough.

If that Inarritu guy really would just stop making movies just because someone wouldn't be there to suck his dick for it, maybe he just likes blowjobs instead of creating art.

>everyone successful went to Harvard
Why do I even live

I'd say so, yeah. It all depends on the individual, though. Some people want to create work that resonates with others, some use their craft as a vessel for personal discovery, others just like doing something well. The value of fame is probably inflated in our culture, especially with how bent on luck it has become with "going viral."

Not the user you're replying to, but do you have a link to where I can listen to your stuff, man?

>If that Inarritu guy really would just stop making movies just because someone wouldn't be there to suck his dick for it, maybe he just likes blowjobs instead of creating art.

Well said!

Cognitive bias, my friend. We don't notice all the successful people who didn't go to Harvard.

That's because there aren't you fucking moron

I mean we don't remember the fact that a successful someone didn't go to Harvard but do remember when people do.

>since it appears you posted the most hardcore example of a pretty specific type of classic you could find

Yes, that was my intention. There are many more accessible Beethoven pieces that I'd still claim are incomprehensible to to the layman, but I wanted to make sure you were at least aware of the more difficult variety of pieces that do exist, as Philip glass movie music is far from most of what was written in the tradition, which does have to be actively followed, rather than "drifting away, [being] carried by it".

>are you saying those people didn't appreciate tonality?
No, as keeping track of the tonal nature of Beethoven's fugue is understandably more difficult than it was for most music at the time. I wouldn't expect anyone to comprehend it on first listening. What I'm saying is that, even for what would be considered more relatively accessible music like his 5th and 6th symphonies, a significant number of people have not developed the mental processing ability needed to experience them as intended, which I believe is a significant barrier to their appreciation that should be acknowledged, rather than brushed aside.

>I still think appreciation of classical, or any music really, is universal
And I don't, not because I'm elitist, but because I have personally experienced otherwise.

>there's no specific point where it goes from pleb to überman tier
And my experience is the opposite, I've found there are very specific aspects of music where you can go from complete incomprehension to being able to easily and readily understand them by effectively flipping a switch that enables this.

I saw this documentary the other day about how they made this hugely complex game that followed the rules of nature in making molecules and shit, even though they didn't tell the players that's what it was.

Anyway, the game caught on in smart people crowds, and they ultimately found that less than 10% of the players came from ivy league schools.

can you stop making big posts?

Just say something like:
>I'm a dumb shit.

It carries basically the same message, trust us.

yeah I dealt with this shit on a much less grand scale
>captain of swim team
>pretty shitty tho, finally have hit puberty enough by senior year to actually build muscle and endurance
>swim distance, doing bretty good tbqh
>15 year old punk who is 6'4" and has shitty form routinely hits close to my times in the 500
>one day punk beats me
>I try my hardest at practice to keep improving
>plateau.jpg
>he overtakes me as fastest 500 swimmer

I identify so much with Salieri

neither of you are swimmers anymore.

How's it applicable?

Not user, but it seems like it's the same or at least similar dynamics on a micro scale.

it's applicable because I had been swimming for years, working as hard as I could to be great at the sport, only to be beaten by a runny-nosed fifteen year old blessed with physical prowess when I wasn't. Developed talent vs natural talent essentially

Not really applicable, because you're talking about a couple of high school idiots, neither of whom are serious swimmers.

If this was the Olympics, and you had one guy swimming since he was 5, and some punk rock guy who started swimming 4 years ago and comes in and rules, well ok then.

You are talking about two people who were professional musicians, ya know? Not two fag choir singers in high school.

>Developed talent vs natural talent essentially

Mozart started his rigorous training as a musician before he could even speak. If Mozart's father did that today he would've been jailed for child abuse.

This natural talent thing really, really needs to die. I blame shows like American Idol and bullshit movies like Amadeus for this myth.

You need a hug.

best character