Is music superior to literature as an art form?

You can say the same thing about people whose sole consumption of literature is pop american history and scifi books. If you don't actively try to connect with an art form, no matter what it is, you're not going to get much out of it. Sit down with a nice pair of headphones and listen to Schubert's 9th and you'll be spitting those speghettios all over the meme lit sitting in front of you.

>puts random words together

Music has a quasi-scientific system behind it. It's purely aesthetic and deals with nature on a closer level whereas literature deals with Humanity much closer, is what I would say.

>hurr durr the Bronze Age is just a taxonomic classification and therefore useless!

Music is my boyfriend

No, music is just a craft that just manipulates emotion rather than an art.

No, because music is abstract it's the furtherest medium away from dealing with nature. It does not originate from nature and nor does it reference nature unless you play pretend.

This.

It also doesn't help that music seems to be the only artform where idiocy stands on top. You have to be a talented intellectual to write a half-way good movie, paint a half-way good picture, or shoot a half-wat good movie, but with music it seems like the most celebrated of it is always created by mouthbreathing teenage stoners, women, and blacks

>the most celebrated film isnt made by drooling retards
u ever seen the imdb top 100?

When I say nature I mean the natural world. On the physical level you take metal and build a flute, blow into it and make a note, etc. Then you make a symphony. This is what I mean. We manipulate the physical world and we make complex sounds. It's the same idea as architecture. Do you know anything about music? Music theory? What the overtone series is? Equal temperament? Harmonic development over the centuries? As a systematic feat Western music is truly a wonder. A symphony is a magnificent design.
>B-but abstraction
Music is firmly rooted in the natural world that can be quantified, quite easily, you philistine.

>Thinks modern music is art
Kek

The masterpieces of literature of our times will become irrelevant before the masterpieces of music will.

Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc, are played on the radio thousands of times a day around the world, every day 365 days a year. People still buy tickets to see these masters' pieces performed at orchestras....these are works that were composed centuries ago. Can the same be said about literature? Will "Ulysses", "Infinite Jest", "Crime and Punishment" even be familiar to people in a couple hundred years? They will still be studied, sure, but they won't be as relevant. The themes of Shakespeare will likely always be relevant, but the language, culture, context all change over time, and all that will date it, make it less accessible and more frustrating to schoolchildren of the future.

Mozart, however, is timeless. Music requires no footnotes, no dictionary, no background knowledge, no further reading... it is pure direct path to the soul, and so will be heard forever, as long as there is a means.

Even dogshit like Transformers takes incredible amount of skill and effort from many professionals. You can't just take a few hundred college dropouts, throw 500 million bucks at them, and get anything close to it

I recognise that pasta

Can you elaborate? I just want others to see whatever half baked "rationale" you come up. For laughs, of course. Define art while you're at it.

>Transformers
Shia, go 2 bed.

Who exactly assigned "timelessness" as a the benchmark of importance? I don't give a shit what people a couple hundred years now will read.
Also, people still read the greeks. I'm not hearing any homeric music played anyway. The oldest 'music' we have are antique latin church hymns

The only difference is that it makes no comment on the material world, whereas literature and visual art do. It's cool noises for the sake of cool noises, and only achieves the term 'art' because it was enjoyed by the same patrons as the actual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture, and the three main liberal arts)

Yes I know about music theory. Form for its own sake is pointless, regardless of how complicated you can make it.

damn annie is cute in that picture

but she looks like a straight up chihuahua most of the time

and love is just chemicals in the brain, man! fucck i'm enlightened. time for a sip

No. It's not "for the sake of cool noises". It's for the sake of developing a cultural style to be enjoyed by the people. It's for the sake of advancing a system rooted in the manipulation and mastery of aspects of physical forces.

Explain to me how architecture "makes a comment" on the material world and give a single example.

Feel free to tell me your benchmarks of importance then

Music just speaks to us on a more fundamental level...it brings the old man on his deathbed to tears... it makes the babe in its cradle cry out in joyous laughter. Requires no cultural context, there is no ambiguity in interpretation. Music is just a more direct path to the soul and thus is superior

So is giving a baby sweets or hitting it in it's fucking face. Immediate response != superiority. Literature is superior precisely because it's inaccessible to unwashed masses.

>It's for the sake of developing a cultural style to be enjoyed by the people. It's for the sake of advancing a system rooted in the manipulation and mastery of aspects of physical forces.

To what end? It's own sake.

>Explain to me how architecture "makes a comment" on the material world and give a single example.

Any Gothic cathedral evokes the light of God and is the arrangement of the material world in order so it is elevated (literally and figuratively). Architecture is teleological, creating idealised space in accordance with the beliefs of the people who design it, for allowing man to realise his true purpose or potential. It exists in both time and space. Music is ephemeral and its effects are short-lived and has no real effect on the direction of mankind, even if it is supposed to evoke some higher reality. Higher realities are permanent so music is inadequate.

Uh... this response makes no sense. Either you're 14, trolling, or retarded. Either way good bye

All art is craft that manipulates the human condition.

I take shits with more artistic merit than The Fault in Our Stars.

...

"no"

Good argument bruh

You understand Western art music emerged from The Catholic Mass right? Don't take one style of architecture that and compare it to all music. I don't understand how you cannot apply your same reasoning to music when it does the same thing only through sound. The point of music in the past was to make an idealised space by creating something pleasurable. I'm not arguing music's superiority, I'm not that user. All things are ephemeral. Everything exists in time. I can stand in awe at the beauty of some cathedral but will that same feeling be with me in the exact same way for 20 years? No. It can have an effect on me, sure. But so can any artform or any experience at all for that matter. Jumping back to literature; it exists "ephemerally" as well. It is just letters on a page, exactly like music. You must engage it and a true appreciation requires an understanding of tge craft and it's history. Your viewpoint is limited as you are unable to think music is apart of God's will, or something. Do you not know what the eras of classical music represented? They were in accordance with every corresponding cultural movements of the time and aimed to produce the same effects but through sound. Good grief.

is this /oursong/?
youtube.com/watch?v=_5KO5SvzQB4

This exact post was posted two days ago

Looks like y' took the bait homie.

“Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy”
Ludwig van Beethoven

>It can be appreciated by a 6 year old

Its universality makes it more profound, not less. There are Tolstoy stories that can be appreciated by a smart 12 year old, the stories are deeply philosophical even if the 12 year old cannot articulate why.

"there is no greatness where there is no goodness, simplicity, and truth"

Kill yourself piece of shit. You make this retarded thread every two days and sometimes even more than one thread. Do you think we don't notice it? Go back to /mu/ retarded insecure loser full of shit.

>Raskolnikov
>Cryptic

I didn't know annle-posting also existed in Veeky Forums

man, the MomCU is cancer

Most people (like 99.99% lf humanity) is only able to appreciate the surface level of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, which is basically like reading for the plot.

To truly understand their genius you need years of ear training and lots of disciplined study harmony, melody and counterpoint.

Also Finnegan's Wake is closer to contemporary music, which requires even more dedication, ear training and study.

tl;dr: FUCK OFF

painting is the most basal artform

So good to see this again, though it needs the bloomsneer to really work.

does annie write at all?

I'd have to say no, nobody other than autistic harsh noise musicians make any songs that are as intricate, long and worthwhile to experience than even the most simple books, like The Stranger.

no. but then st vincent contributes about as much to contemporary music as rupi kaur does to literature.

Yes. She writes lyrics and music.

All these newfags responding seriously to age old pasta

Lmao plebs

The works of the fucking chipmunks contain more artistic merit than Infinite Jest or The Fault in Our fucking Stars.

what piece of literature best describes her hair?

Listen to Bach

There are very very interesting thoughts by Schopenhauer about this. In "The World as Will and Representation".

> Thus all these arts objectify the
will indirectly only by means of the Ideas; and since our world is
[333] nothing but the manifestation of the Ideas in multiplicity, though
their entrance into the principium individuationis (the form of
the knowledge possible for the individual as such), music also,
since it passes over the Ideas, is entirely independent of the
phenomenal world, ignores it altogether, could to a certain extent
exist if there was no world at all, which cannot be said of the other
arts. Music is as direct an objectification and copy of the whole
will as the world itself, nay, even as the Ideas, whose multiplied
manifestation constitutes the world of individual things. Music
is thus by no means like the other arts, the copy of the Ideas,
but the copy of the will itself, whose objectivity the Ideas are.
This is why the effect of music is so much more powerful and
penetrating than that of the other arts, for they speak only of
shadows, but it speaks of the thing itself. Since, however, it is the
same will which objectifies itself both in the Ideas and in music,
though in quite different ways, there must be, not indeed a direct
likeness, but yet a parallel, an analogy, between music and the
Ideas whose manifestation in multiplicity and incompleteness is
the visible world. The establishing of this analogy will facilitate,
as an illustration, the understanding of this exposition, which is
so difficult on account of the obscurity of the subject.

fucked it up @format

Music is more accessible to people because anyone can listen to music. Literature is more exclusive, since only intelligent people can understand it.

...