[ 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: 457 KB, 2560x1920, 1258f699817c796e8c24db940c8273c5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584610 No.5584610 [Reply] [Original]

Name people you consider to be indisputable artistic geniuses, people that leave no doubt about their otherworldly capacities.

I could think in only 6 names I really think are (without any doubt) real geniuses. My list:

Shakespeare
Beethoven
Mozart
Bach
Michelangelo
Tolstoy

>> No.5584632

Jimi Hendrix? I know you guys probably see guitar as pleb but the things he was doing were miles ahead of his contemporaries and he shaped the way that the instrument is viewed/played today.

>> No.5584646

William Blake

>> No.5584651

>>5584632
hendrix is hands down the greatest guitarist

>> No.5584681

>>5584610
You forgot Wagner. He completely changed opera and music in general and I would add Puccini(hugely influenced by Wagner), Verdi and especially Alban Berg in there as well. Also Gustav Mahler and Richard Strauss(both fantastic conductors incidentally). Wagner was actually a brilliant conductor as well.

I'll say for conductors just two for sure:
Wilhem Furtwangler
Carlos Kleiber

>> No.5584691

>>5584610
Gibson

>> No.5584702

Indisputable is such a comical idea, especially here. Enjoy the music, stop with the pedestals.

>> No.5584707

>>5584610
I should probably add Bruckner and Mascagni to that equation too.

>> No.5584712

>>5584681
>Carlos Kleiber
Erich you mean

>> No.5584721

>>5584610
Fuck me and I forgot of course Brahms! Brahms definitely should be there.

>> No.5584723

Scriabin and Bach

>> No.5584734

>>5584712
lmao no Carlos. His father was a genius too I'd say, but forgive Carlos is greater. There are certain things that Erich was better at(some Waltzes I do prefer the father in), but Carlos was music personified. I can't even decide between the two sometimes because both were such giants in their own ways. Totally different stylistically in terms of baton. Musically, Carlos could never get away from his shadow(in his mind) which was tragic because he could have done so much more.

>> No.5584743

>>5584712
I must say it is refreshing to see someone recognize that name though for once.

>> No.5584744

Goethe

>> No.5584751

>>5584610
>No mathematicians
>No Einstein
What, too mainstream?

>> No.5584756

>>5584751
>artistic geniuses
inb4 'MATH IS ART'.

>> No.5584757

Pyotr Tchaikovsky
John Donne
Doug Walker
Richard Wagner

>> No.5584762

>>5584610
Kolsti Nguyen

>> No.5584771

>>5584610
Oh I have to add Leopold Stokowski to that mix of conductor genius too. Good ole' Stoki. It's hard for me to take seriously conductors who never conducted opera, but whatever he was so revolutionary that I don't care.

Also add Stravinsky, Nijinsky and Nureyev there.

>> No.5584785

>>5584756
Okee my mistake. In that case I nominate MC Escher.

>> No.5584791

>>5584610

1. Chekhov
2. Keats
3. Bach
4. Milton
5. Shakespeare
6. Joan Miro
7. Kubrick
8. Whoever coded the Quake engine.

>> No.5584798

>>5584791
>Kubrick
Mah nigga

I'd have to nominate Georg Buchner in here too.

>> No.5584853
File: 169 KB, 1024x1050, 1024px-John_Carmack_GDC_2010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5584853

Not even joking

>> No.5584877

Homer
Dante
Bach
Shakespeare
Blake
Picasso

>> No.5584885

>>5584791
can you elaborate on Quake engine?

>> No.5584906

>>5584885

not him but it's smooth, you have just the right amount of agility to balance the power of dodging with the power of aimed shooting

>> No.5584923

>>5584885

I could. At length. But I won't until after I finish my thesis. Sorry anon :(

>> No.5585040

Nobody remembers Paganini.

>> No.5585046

Kurt Godel
Hemingway

>> No.5585051

>>5585040
muhh variations

>> No.5585060

>>5585046
Oh yeah can't forget Georg Cantor. You know someone has to be a mad genius when their name is fucking Georg Cantor, cantor/canter as in the latin root of the word "enchants"

>> No.5585066

kanye west

>> No.5585068

>>5584877
>Picasso

????

>> No.5585073

Marcel Proust
Mozart
Alexander Dumas
The Beatles
Kubrick

>> No.5585087
File: 58 KB, 363x494, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585087

>>5585073
>The Beatles

>> No.5585092

>>5585040
Paganini was a genius but he was more of a prolific player. Unfortunately, because of the time he was alive, we haven't heard his interpretations and thus can't really tell how great he was or not. Based on his compositions and what his contemporaries said about him though, I'd say he was genius.

>> No.5585093

>>5585073
-Kubrick
-the beatles
-Dumas (i think hes good but its not indisputable)

>> No.5585099

>>5585073
Yeah I'm also going to have to question The Beatles there.

>> No.5585105

>>5584744
i don't even like him that much but you can't deny that he was obscenely brilliant

>> No.5585116

>>5585073
>Dumas
Aye, swashbuckling adventure and many rich booties of genre fiction!

>> No.5585158

>no based heidegger

>> No.5585172

>>5584632
I don't think I have the historical knowledge to say if he's an artistic genius in the sense that OP is implying, but he is one of my personal artistic heroes. Beautiful music.

>> No.5585178

>>5585073
The Beatles and Dumas are extremely questionable. Popularity =/= genius.

>> No.5585183

>>5584610
1. Beethoven
2. Da Vinci
3. Euler
4. Michelangelo
5. Bach
Top 5

>> No.5585184

>>5584610
>Tolstoy
>otherworldly capacities

Tolstoy capacities were more worldly than any. That's what made him great.

>> No.5585226

Bob Marley

>> No.5585230

The Bible

>> No.5585235

>>5584610
Shakespeare
Dante
Sophocles
Homer
Ovid
Racine
Tolstoy
Dostoevsky
Proust
Joyce
Goethe
Nietzsche
Browne
Donne


Mozart
Beethoven
J.S. Bach
Vivaldi
Monteverdi
Purcell
Albinoni
Lassus
Gesualdo
F.J. Haydn
Chopin
Biber
Schubert

Michelangelo
El Greco
Pieter Bruegel
Bosch
Raphael
Jan van Eyck
Rembrandt
Rubens
Caravaggio
Panini
Bronzino
Canaletto
Turner
Ernst

>> No.5585358

>>5585235
>Bosch

Surrealism 400 years before it was cool.

>> No.5585362

>>5584610
Then you don't know shit about Liszt.

>> No.5585393

>>5584651
>>5584632
Hendrix was certainly innovative but he's by no means the best guitarist.

Source: Pretentious guitarist

>> No.5585401

>>5584610
Agreed OP

>> No.5585449

dante alighieri
beethoven
tolkien
malmsteen
tao lin

>> No.5585464

>>5585235
No Wagner. Wow.

>>5585362

Damn it I forgot Liszt!!! How can I remember Wagner not Liszt!

>> No.5585465 [DELETED] 

Yeezy

>> No.5585467

>>5585464
Wagner is bombastic and long

>> No.5585474

Kanye

>> No.5585476

Shakespeare
Faulkner
Homer
Dostoevsky
Dante
Joyce
Tolstoy
Donne
Whitman
Milton
Blake

>> No.5585477 [DELETED] 

>>5585474
>>5585066
Ayyy

My niggas

Z

>> No.5585479

>>5585465
>>5585474
I forgot to include him, shit

>> No.5585481 [DELETED] 

>>5585479
>being this much of a faggot

>> No.5585483

>>5585467

Actually his music extremely romantic and tender at times. Listen to the love duet from Tristan and Isolde. To say he's bombastic and long is such a stereotype and mostly said by people who don't understand him or listen to him. To not like him is one thing, but to deny his influence and genius is another. Puccini wouldn't have written what he wrote had it not been for Wagner and Berg was also influenced by him.

>> No.5585498

>>5585073
I know this has already received responses, but can someone mind telling me what exactly the Beatles did that people would consider them "geniuses"?

I know nothing about music or music theory. I'm legitimately curious

>> No.5585543

>>5585483
None of Wagner's music appeals to me except for Tristan und Isolde, maybe.
It is not a stereotype, for that is what he is. The Ring, seen as his magnum opus, is 16 hours long, overly dramatic (more than the Norse would like to perceive their gods), so disgusted with l'art pour l'art that it seeks to remove everything light and joyous in art, nationalistic, and so on.
Gotterdammerung is endlessly loud, and when it isn't being loud it's way too full of itself.
Wagner's artistic aim is problematic for many reasons, but I mostly dislike him simply because of his pomposity, both conceptually and musically.
I stop caring about classical music sometime mid-romanticism save for a few composers. Romanticism simply gets way too pompous and Modernism too retarded. So naming Puccini and Berg doesn't really affect me.

>> No.5585545

I'm gonna have to say Jim Morrison and les claypool. These two are pretty indisputable geniuses in my opinion

>> No.5585556

>>5585543
Oh well then!

>> No.5585557

>>5585545
>>5585545
Morrison is a genius but sometimes I feel ashamed to admit that I love (almost) all of his music, not for any real reason. Probably just because too many people think The Doors is Light My Fire or, worse, bad poetry

>> No.5585562

>>5585557
why do you still post idiot

>> No.5585567 [DELETED] 

Who /yeezy/ here?

>> No.5585568

>>5585545
>>5585557

You stupid idiots need to listen to more music

>> No.5585569

>>5585545
haha you fucking dork

>> No.5585580

>>5585568
What music do you like?

>> No.5585585

Since this thread is going on about relevance and innovation more than genius anyway,

Alan Moore did stuff with comics, a then literally retarded medium, that even european BD / manga hadn't gotten into outside of humor. (unwittingly set US mainstream comics stuck in the hole they are in today, though)

>> No.5585590

Ctrl-F
>pop singers and guitarboys
>no Debussy
>no Meshuggah

>> No.5585591

>>5585567
the greatest artist of our time

>> No.5585596

>>5585476
Joyce and Faulkner are shit

>> No.5585613

No doubts? Not a single fucking doubt?

Homer;
Dante;
Perotin;
Giotto;
Bach;
Beethoven;
Joyce.

>> No.5585615

>>5585596
That's not what your mum said last night.

>> No.5585617 [DELETED] 

>>5585591
The Michael Jackson of our generation

>> No.5585618
File: 13 KB, 57x59, tfwkek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585618

>>5585615
rekt

>> No.5585637

>>5585568
>>5585569
Alright then ill say this
Muddy waters and syd Barrett

>> No.5585650

>>5585596
I guess I could see how one can dislike Joyce, but how can you dislike Faulkner?

>> No.5585667

>>5585637
Muddy waters was a fucking genius.

>> No.5585678

>>5585613
Classical writers were not geniuses they were trained monkeys. Geniuses didnt exist before the industrial revolution

>> No.5585681

>>5585678
You're inferior and deserve to be castrated.

>> No.5585696

>>5585681
Prove me wrong fagit

>> No.5585714

Will Arnett.

>> No.5585718

>>5585543
Nietzsche, get the fuck out of here

>>5585678
Marx, get the fuck out of here

>> No.5585730

>>5584751
OP said "artistic geniuses" not "autistic geniuses".

>> No.5585742

>>5584785
>Escher

LOL

typical maths faggot who knows nothing about art and yet pretends to know all about everything because MUH NUMBER

escher is a faggot shitty second-rate asshole and nothing he ever did has any artistic importance whatsoever

>> No.5585766

>>5585498
IMO, they have a lot going for them, but I don't know I'd say they're on the same level as others that have been listed. Just sticking close to their genre, I can think of several others I would give more credence to, e.g. The Kinks, Frank Zappa, even The Beach Boys.

>>5584632
If you feel that way about Hendrix, I suggest you look into some earlier guitarists such as Elmore James.

>> No.5585773

>>5585766
Frank Zappa was a bumbling idiot

>> No.5585801

>>5585235
>muh realism
He was often expected to paint England in the fashion with which he had painted his native city. Canaletto's painting began to suffer from repetitiveness, losing its fluidity, and becoming mechanical to the point that the English art critic George Vertue suggested that the man painting under the name 'Canaletto' was an impostor.

>> No.5585815

>>5584610

Goya

>> No.5585823

>>5585158

mah dasein

>> No.5585824
File: 48 KB, 394x406, 9-TheDude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5585824

>>5585773

>> No.5585827

>>5585235
lol
just lol

>> No.5585834

Marx
Joyce
Tarkovsky
Beethoven
Hegel
Wittgenstein

>> No.5585842

Charles Eames
Alvar Aalto
Frank Lloyd Wright
Carlo Scarpa
Michelangelo
Pininfarina
Raymond Loewy
Marcel Duchamp

>> No.5585846

>>5585834
>Hegel
>Wittgenstein

Such art.

>> No.5585859

>>5584707
mascagni, u serious mate?

>> No.5585863

>>5584785

>I nominate MC Escher.

L O L

Leave this board and never come back.

>> No.5585886

>>5584785
Escher is cool but he's not a genius. Anyone with isometric paper and a pencil can do what he did.

>> No.5585976

>>5584610

Ezra Pound
HP Lovecraft
TS Eliot
Oswald Spengler
Dr. Ernst Bergmann
Savitri Devi
Jakob Wilhelm Hauer
Heidegger
Gottlob Frege
Alfred Ploetz

>> No.5585982

>>5585976

you forgot Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer

>> No.5585987

Who are these people?
Objectively, max Martin is a genius

>> No.5585992

>>5585766
Yeah Frank "Can't Even Sing and Play at the Same Time" Zappa is way better than The Beatles.

No. Not at all. Frank Zappa literally had no natural talent. He learned as much as he could, but he wasn't a composer and never wrote a significant piece of music.

You're also wrong about The Kinks and The Beach Boys.

>> No.5586007

>>5584681
Indeed without a doubt, Wagner.
Wouldn't necessarily agree with the rest, though.

>> No.5586017

>>5585992
as if Bobby Brown Goes Down isn't the greatest composition of the 20th century

really though I love Zappa but he was basically a musical reactionary. most of his work is incomprehensible without the cultural context. which doesn't mean he's not a genius but I think does mean he didn't care whether or not he was, he just wanted to make fun of people and make fun music

>> No.5586039

>>5586017
Frank "No Weed Allowed on the Tour Bus and No Melody Allowed in the Music" Zappa seemed like a real fun guy, yep.

>> No.5586059

>>5586007
>>5585976

These are correct.

>> No.5586060

>>5585235
>Ernst
>not Dali

finally someone with taste for surrealism

>> No.5586061

D. W. Griffith, Ingmar Bergman, and Andrei Tarkovsky

>> No.5586067

>>5586061

Dreyer is greater than all of them.

>> No.5586069

>>5586061
also not sure it counts because he didn't really make art, but Carl Jung

>>5586067
I considered also listing him and Fritz Lang

>> No.5586082

>>5586069

>also not sure it counts because he didn't really make art, but Carl Jung

yeah he did. his red book.

but he shouldn't be included itt regardless.

>> No.5586083

Wagner
Mozart
Bach
Handel
Dante
Shakespeare
Goethe
Dickens
Cervantes
Swift
Dostoevsky
Heine
Bernini
Rembrandt
Duchamp
John Ford

>> No.5586087

Wystan Hugh Auden

>> No.5586089

all 4 ninja turtles

>> No.5586091

Jane Austen

This is a dumb thread idea, though.

>> No.5586092

Mozzart
Bach
Ozzy
Wolfe
Dostoyevsky
Dante
Matos

>> No.5586108

>ctrl-s kafka
>no results
Dear m00t, please shut down /lit/, it has become no better than s4s

>> No.5586115

>>5586083
Duchamp?
Fucking really?

>> No.5586116

>>5585543
>and Modernism too retarded

You got away with this way too easy.

>> No.5586134

>>5586108

You post like you're either underage or you just started reading.

Probably both. But it's definitely one of them.

>> No.5586137

>>5586069
Murnau>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fritz Lang

>> No.5586322

drunk

>> No.5586323

>Leibniz not in one list
Are you enjoying your computers you ungrateful fucks?

>> No.5586332

>>5586323
Artistic geniuses

Leibniz is awesome tho

>> No.5586356

>>5585498
If you ask this kind of question on /mu/ you'll get a lot of people focusing on their more mindless, early pop stuff.
When you have an hour spare, though, I'd recommend watching this documentary by composer Howard Goodall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbcHG7lL_T4

There's a little bit of bias and presumption, but it does go in to nice detail about the structure of their music and what made it different, even if you do want to argue that others did similar things.

>> No.5586379

Jesus

>> No.5586383

>>5584707
>Mascagni

One hit wonder.

>> No.5586388

>>5586323
>artist

I mean come on

>> No.5586389

William Langland
Goethe
Nietzsche
Milton
Chaucer
Beethoven
Blake
Conrad
Schubert
Plato
T.S Eliot
Lou Reed

>> No.5586403

>>5586389

>Lou Reed

Talonless hacks need not apply.

>> No.5586429

>>5584610
Hitler

>> No.5586433

>ctrl+f wallace
>no results
Impressive.

>> No.5586443

>>5586433

thought you were talking about wallace stevens for a second but you're probably just being another loser maymay

>> No.5586463

>>5584610

Itt: muh opinion

>> No.5586465

>>5586403
Hahaha, might as well have put the name of a dog in there next to the others. Fucking idiot, why not include Leonard Cohen while you're at it? He's right there with Beethoven.

>> No.5586466
File: 70 KB, 500x590, tTMS4ru.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586466

>>5586443
Wallace Carothers destroys both of them for the importance of his artistic vision and influence.

>> No.5586474

>>5586466
>that cupped buttock

Gentleman, I must inquire: why is a cupped buttock so superior to an uncupped one?

>> No.5586501

>>5586463

>Itt: muh opinion

fucking obviously you simple simon ass motherfucker

>> No.5586533

>>5585886
yeah, anybody could

but they didn't

that's the difference

>> No.5586544

>>5585183
I would say Bach is a greater genius than Beethoven. If you compare the complexity and innovation in Bach's work to that of his contemporaries, it's so astounding that he was literally ahead of his time.

>> No.5586572

>>5586466
I want to lick her asshole

>> No.5586797

>>5585585
>Since this thread is going on about relevance and innovation more than genius anyway,

this.

Anons are confusing things here. One thing is to make something new, invent some new sort of artistic style (Picasso, for example). Quite another thing is to create something that is not only a perpetual pleasure for several generations, both with critics and public, but also so supreme a creation that nobody can quite explain how a human being could have done it. That’s very rare, extremely rare.
We need to use a little more this quote of Schopenhauer as guide and measurement rule:

>“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.”

>>5585184

I think that what OP tried to say with “otherworldly” is not a form of art that portraits things outside of human nature or that create some sort of private worlds. Otherworldly here is something extraordinary, something so beautiful, masterful, detailed, organized, expressive, impacting (you get the picture) – something so great that it almost seems that no human being alone would be capable of doing it.

>> No.5586804
File: 40 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586804

>>5584610
Nietzsche
DFW
Pynchon
The Beatles
Chuck Palahniuk
Pink Floyd
Shakespeare

>> No.5586825
File: 151 KB, 800x800, 1412825603078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586825

Homer
Ovid
Virgil
Socrates
Wagner
Tarkovsky
Kurosawa

>> No.5586833 [DELETED] 

>>5586059
>Martin Heidegger; philosopher
Oswald Spengler; historian/philosopher of history
>Ernst Bergmann; philosopher
>Savitri Devi; no
>Jakob Hauer; Indologist and religious studies writer
>Heidegger; philosopher
Frege; mathematician, logician and philosopher
Alfred Ploetz; physician, biologist, eugenicist

>artistic geniuses

Your fedora is showing. Back to /pol/ with you, you special snowflake...

>> No.5586842
File: 63 KB, 500x500, 1370042235_milesdavis-complete-bitches-brew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586842

Miles Davis

>> No.5586843

>>5586059
>Martin Heidegger; philosopher
>Oswald Spengler; historian/philosopher of history
>Ernst Bergmann; philosopher
>Savitri Devi; no
>Jakob Hauer; Indologist and religious studies writer
>Heidegger; philosopher
>Frege; mathematician, logician and philosopher
>Alfred Ploetz; physician, biologist, eugenicist

>artistic geniuses

These are 100% incorrect.
Your fedora is showing. Back to /pol/ with you, you special snowflake...

>> No.5586848

>>5585730
top shrek

>> No.5586853

>>5586115

Yes, really.
>>5585842

>> No.5586867

>>5586797
Elegantly and necessarily said.

>> No.5586870

>>5585393
i bet you think technical ability matters

>> No.5586875 [DELETED] 

Ye

>>5586848
Kek

>> No.5586893

>>5586875
>Liu Ye

Pleb.

>> No.5586898

>>5586870
I bet you think it doesn't.
Go back to /mu/, you fucking troglodyte.

>> No.5586905 [DELETED] 

>>5586893
Yeezy, you dumb faggot.

>> No.5586906

>>5586870
I bet you think capitalization and punctuation don't matter when trying to make an argument.

>> No.5586914

>>5586905
Apologies. Those are some handsome shoes.

>> No.5586920
File: 218 KB, 1024x755, Joseph.Conrad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586920

Joseph Conrad

>> No.5586923 [DELETED] 

>>5586914
>implying that im not rocking the air yeezys right now

>> No.5586935

>>5584877
>implying Homer was a person

>> No.5586940

>>5586920
That's Georg Cantor.

>> No.5586946

>>5585590
as much as I liked Meshuggah back in the day, I can't say they are genious

but, without a doubt my list would be:
-Dostoyevsky
-Tolstoy
-Balzac
-Bach
-Beethoven
-Schoenberg

>> No.5586952

>>5585773
and the most prolific, original, unique and cerebral of all rock composers until this day

nobody in rock history loved music more than Zappa

>> No.5586966

>ctrl+f beatles
>9 results

thats it, good bye /lit/, now I can see you for what your really are

>> No.5586984
File: 85 KB, 820x547, 212665_e9df3ab1dc3c0858b1acabd3a5e06fb2_large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5586984

>>5584610
Marcel proust, see-in search of lost time

Antonio Vivaldi

Confucius

>> No.5586993

>>5585068
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGbBjc2blQ0

link related

>> No.5587005

>>5585590
>Meshuggah

HAHAHA get the hell out. Babies first ub3r teknikul met4l band.

>> No.5587006

>>5586946
>schoenberg

Absolutely horrid.

Its just discord.

Edgy/10

>> No.5587033
File: 3.27 MB, 704x528, thatstrue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587033

>>5584877
>Dante

mah fuckin nigger

>> No.5587055

>>5584632
Jimi Hendrix was a great player but saying that what he was doing was "miles ahead of contemporaries" is knowing nothing about music. What The Velvet Underground, Can, White Noise, Red Krayola, Pärson Sound, Amon Duul II, Robert Wyatt and many others were doing was ahead of its time. Hendrix's sound besides his particular playing style was nothing revolutionary, average even.

>> No.5587058

John Ford

>> No.5587063

>>5584853
no, but you are wrong
did you even play Rage?

>> No.5587074

Don't want to hijack the thread buuut... "ahead of his/her time". That phrase bugs a bit. Was Bosch really ahead of his time? Einstein? Black Sabbath? Etc, etc. Or were they precisely of their time aka that's exactly when it woulda, coulda, shoulda happened and thus the phrase is bunk. (?)

Captcha; sorry arkica

>> No.5587092

>>5587074
Ahead of their time only applies if they were rediscovered later because their time couldn't handle them.

>> No.5587095

>>5585992
>>5585992
I'm not, though. The Beach Boys basically sparked how artists use studios not just to record music but to actually make the musical product what it is. I'm not really a fan of their music, but what they did for the medium is undeniable. And The Kinks had way more going on in their music and very well could have risen to the level of popularity as The Beatles if they weren't banned from the U.S. during their most important years. And if that's truly your opinion of Zappa, I won't even dignify it with a response. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

>> No.5587099

>>5584610
tolstoy, indisputable genius? haha

>control+f, no pushkin
olrite you plebs calling tolstoy and dostoyevsky geniuses

>> No.5587103

>>5585992
>>5587095
For the record, never said any of those artists were "better" than the Beatles, only that display more "artistic genius".

>> No.5587117

>>5584646
shit poet shit painter

>> No.5587119

>>5586825
>wagner
kek
he is literally king of the neckbeards
>>5586544
beethoven was a better sight reader

>> No.5587121

>>5585590
debussy, saint saens, fauré and ravel are all boring and unemotional shit

>> No.5587123

>>5585637
>syd
they made better music without him

>> No.5587124

>>5585590
>Meshuggah
>artistic genius

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHA

>> No.5587133

>>5584610
Probably the most boring, safest list of "geniuses" ever put together. "The only TRUE geniuses are Shakespeare and Mozart! hurrrrrr"

Well fucking duh they're geniuses. Why don't you actually display some knowledge of the world beyond the fucking Western canon that every elementary school kid learns.

>> No.5587140

James Ferraro

>> No.5587145

>>5586544
Beethoven had no contemporaries because he singlehandedly ushered in an entire new era of music and personified it. Bach was the height of baroque his period, but Beethoven was the beginning and the height of the romantic movement. To compare the two is impossible because of the difference in their time, but Beethoven in my opinion had a greater impact on the musical world. Nevertheless, they were both geniuses.

>beethoven was a better sight reader

Don't do that. That is such a ridiculous thing to say and has no bearing at all on what's going on. Better to say that Beethoven composed his greatest works without needing to hear them externally because the music was so well ingrained in his mind and he knew what every note would sound like. It's not even that he knew what every note would sound like, he knew what every note from every instrument in the orchestra would sound like TOGETHER and the colors and textures they would make when played at the same time. That is remarkable.

>> No.5587148

>>5587145
Clarification: Beethoven did have contemporaries later but in the beginning his work was original.

>>5587119
Read about sight-reading in my last post.

>> No.5587156

>>5584791
tchekov is damn right

>> No.5587209

>>5585073
>the Beatles

>> No.5587227

> no Victor Hugo
> no Antonin Dvorak

wat

>> No.5587233

Alan Turing
Shakespeare
W.B. Yeats
Cervantes
Brian Wilson
Chuck Berry
Orson Welles
Dziga Vertov
Bach

>> No.5587234

oh cool I don't even have to get past the first page to find the dumbest thread on /lit/

>> No.5587236
File: 39 KB, 605x328, look a pleb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587236

>>5587227
>pretends to be an admirer of Dvořák
>can't be bothered at all to use a háček

>> No.5587237

>>5587234
oh cool i don't even have to open the thread to find the most useless post in it

>> No.5587241

>>5587236
Sorry; the effort escaped me. And I'm no 'pretend' admirer, I love his work.. his violin writing is exquisite (I play the violin).

>> No.5587247

>>5587233
>chuck berry

really negro?

>> No.5587248
File: 13 KB, 188x256, solipsism-all-about-me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587248

>>5584610
Myself, minus the artistic part.

>> No.5587249

>>5587121
>ravel & debussy
>unemotional shit
>unemotional
>un-emotional

now thats one stupid fellow right there

>> No.5587258

>>5587241
How long? You play in an orchestra?

>> No.5587259

>>5587237
you like reading top 100 lists and getting mad about them, don't you?

>> No.5587264

>>5587259
You like posting in threads only to say how mad you are they exist because they're 'dumb' don't you?

>> No.5587265

>>5587227
>Antonin Dvorak
my nigga

>> No.5587276

Homer
Dante
Shakespeare
Austen
Hemingway
McCarthy
Da Vinci
Van Gogh
Duchamp
Hirst
Bach
Beethoven
Debussy
Armstrong
Reich

>> No.5587280

>>5587258
I've been playing for 10 years. I play in the local orchestra but it's pretty bad

>> No.5587284

>>5587280
lol what city? What chair are you? 1st or 2nd violins?

>> No.5587295

>>5587264
Not really, I just find it pointless to bicker about "indisputable all time greats of otherworldly capacity" or whatever hyperbole bullshit like this and it clogs up an otherwise enjoyable board.

Also this thread is mostly off-topic uneducated arguments about music. Everyone knows Aphex Twin is the greatest musical genius of all time, followed distantly by THE BEATLES.

>> No.5587298

>>5587284
Seriously, you won't even have heard of the city! For what it's worth, Carlisle (England). I play in the seconds, 4th chair. I might give first a try next season, depending on what we're playing. There aren't any auditions or anything lol

>> No.5587299

>>5587295
>Aphex Twin

Oh ok.

>> No.5587309

>>5587298
Still cool though. It's good that you love music and play like that; who cares if it's a local orchestra.

>> No.5587318

>>5587309
Thanks. It's a lot of fun, especially as there isn't too much pressure for perfection.

>> No.5587322

>>5587299
don't question RDJ's immaculate genius m8

>> No.5587328

>>5587318
Yeah that's true and, ideally, everyone is there because they love music and want to play. That's always a nice atmosphere. Hopefully your conductor isn't a douche.

>> No.5587333

>>5587328
I think the conductor tries to make us go too fast; we started at full speed which stressed everyone out. He is a student though so he can't be expected to be perfect. Nice guy too, and really musical.

>> No.5587339

>>5587333
He's probably of the opinion, which is pretty true usually, that the more rehearsals move along, the slower it gets. This is usually the case especially in opera. I hope that is the case because I personally can't stand Mendelssohnian style conductors where they think faster is better. For Mozart this is possible, but for most other music it just sounds strange. If he is a student that would explain a lot though. Hey at least he's a nice guy.

>> No.5587347

Im going to keep it to just theatre since Im most familiar with it.

Shakespeare
Aristophanes
Brecht
Stanislavski

There are other but those are the ones I think are indisputable. Someone will probably greentext Brecht though.

>> No.5587351

>>5587339
Apparently he did a slow rehearsal last week, but I wasn't there. This time it was back to normal, which was a mistake for the 3rd movement of the Rachmaninoff (2nd piano concerto). The firsts were struggling a bit, and I was sight-reading, shamefully.

>> No.5587353

>>5587099
>tolstoy, indisputable genius? haha

Have you ever tried to write at least a short-story? If you one day tried to write anything you would notice how great is Tolstoy’s genius. No other writer ever saw as many things and in such detail as him. He was capable of perceiving every little expression on the face, every thought; he captured every gesture and action of other living things and stored in his brain for when the time to write would come.

Furthermore, the work of many realistic writers look like blurry mirrors compared to the creations of Tolstoy. He seems to be the most sensitive, perceptive and true of all realistic writers. He seemed to be perpetually devoid of skin, always in raw-flesh (at least his mind was like that: both his five senses as his conscience – his brain was as sensible as the tender eyes and soft antennae of the snail) so that even a breath, a look, a frown, an intonation of speech, a facial wrinkle and so many other little things reach him with a disproportionately strong force.

He submerge himself in human life: in the cities and the country, the offices and the fields, the war-zone and the mossy woods with scent of rotten leaves; he visited the slums of the poor and the rich resorts of high-society, and all the time his unparalleled sensibility was capturing every small movement that happened around him. Every molecule of existence was absorbed by the palate of his conscience.

And like I said before: have you ever tried to write a short-story and find yourself with difficulties? Imagine trying to write something as War and Peace, as Anna Karenina?

And the short-stories of Tolstoy? Aren’t they the greatest of all time?

I’m sorry, but there isn’t more suitable and just tittle for Tolstoy as the one of genius.

>> No.5587357

>>5587133

Probably because I think that genius is extremely rare, and that the word is used today with too loosely. There are indeed only a few individuals who really deserve to be called geniuses.

>> No.5587360

>>5587351
>Sight-reading

Terrible! lol. I'm sure he'll figure it out. He just has to trust the orchestra. Well if all else fails, look to the concertmaster! Hopefully you have a good one; a shitty concertmaster is far worse than a shitty conductor(but then again I've never heard the Met orchestra sound so bad as when fucking Placido conducted them).

>> No.5587365

>>5587353
Realism a shit.

>> No.5587382

>>5587360
It's probably a matter of getting used to each other; he hasn't been conducting us for long so we'll probably sort it out. The leader is new too! I think she's okay, but I haven't heard much of her playing. She seems to be holding the firsts together, just about, which is something of an achievement!

>>5587353
>tittle
dude

>> No.5587387

>>5587382
Oh shit so the leader is new also. Yeah it'll be fine just give it time. The fact she's holding it together is a good sign though!

>> No.5587407

>>5587387
Yeah, it's an interesting predicament but hopefully we'll cope by the time the concert comes.
It can't be as bad as the time we started playing the Radetzky March at a concert and I realised I hadn't got the music with me. Fortunately it was easy to remember...

>> No.5587409

>>5587382
>>tittle

title

My bad. I did not reviewed the post and English is not my first language.

>> No.5587414

>>5584610
>Mozart
mozart is a clown

>> No.5587421

>>5587407
lmao. Yeah it definitely is easy.

>>5587414

*tips fedora

>> No.5587425

Can somebody explain the appeal of Shakespeare? His characters are shallow and single-minded, his dialogue is pretentious, and his narratives are predictable and bombastic.

>> No.5587430

>>5586906
I bet you think capitalisation is spelt with a 'z'.

>> No.5587432

>>5587425

read this pasta:

Who is your favourite author?
>William Shakespeare

Which of their works have you read?
>I have read almost all of his plays and most of his sonnets; from the poems “Venus and Adonis”, and “The Rape of Lucrece” I have just read some small strophes and verses.

Why do you love them so?
>His language is the most inventive, beautiful and awe-inspiring in the world. Hi is, by far, the greatest poet of all time. I have read almost all of the English poets, and of the poets of my native language (Portuguese), as well as Spanish poets. I have read the Italians (Leopardi, Dante), the French (I’m a Rimbaud fan), the Germans (Goethe, Heine, Schiller, Hölderin), the Greeks (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Sappho, Anacreon, Alcman, Pindar), the Latin (Virgil, Horace, Lucretius, Ovid), the Russians…hell, I have even read the Japanese (Ono no Komachi, Basho, Hitomaro, the folk songs of the kojiki and Man’yoshu), the Chinese (Li Bai and Du Fu) and the Indian (Kalidasa, Tagore, the ancient epics), always searching for the same metaphorical feast and imagistic orgy of Shakespeare’s work, but in vain: nobody has ever done the same with words. Nabokov is right when he says that “The verbal poetical texture of Shakespeare is the greatest the world has known, and is immensely superior to the structure of his plays as plays” and Stephe Booth: “Shakespeare is our most underrated poet. It should not be necessary to say that, but it is. We generally acknowledge Shakespeare’s poetic superiority to other candidates for greatest poet in English, but doing that is comparable to saying that King Kong is bigger than other monkeys. The difference between Shakespeare’s abilities with language and those even of Milton, Chaucer, or Ben Jonson is immense.”. This guys is the greatest master of language of all human history.

Whom would you recommend them to?
>Anybody with even remote poetical/language interests. Also romantic comedies fans and drama fans.

>> No.5587455

>>5587432
That doesn't explain anything. I get it, they think he's the best, but what are the precise reasons? This reminds me of the attempts that Kanye West fans make to justify their glorification of him.

>> No.5587460

>>5586465
Fucking this.

His ability to combine music with lyrics is unparalleled, although he probably also created one of the worst, cheesiest etc. albums ever made (e.g. Mistrial). Got to love that.

>> No.5587464
File: 1.14 MB, 2303x1654, StockhausenKH-Foto-WDR1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587464

Stockhausen without a doubt.

>> No.5587465

>>5587455

>what are the precise reasons?

Really? Do you not get literature yet?

>> No.5587479

>>5587465
Wow, that's a /mu/-tier response right there.

>2deep4me

>> No.5587481

>>5587464
>unremarkable serialist tinkering with old radar equipment and magnetic tape
Nah.

>> No.5587483

>>5587479

What exactly would a precise metric for literary quality be?

>> No.5587484

>>5585183
>Euler

Euler's proof were notoriously ugly. If you want to add mathematicians as artists then Hilbert, Poincaré, Grothendieck, Ramanujan, Cauchy, Erdos and Riemann are much better candidates.

Also
>no Boltzmann
>no Landau
>no Dirac
>no Newton and Leibniz


And finally, I know I'll get flak for this, but fuck the hivemind: if you're including Tolstoy as an "artistic genius with otherwordly talent" there's no reason not to include Goethe and Hugo.

>> No.5587495

>>5587483
I don't want a measurement of his skill. Just specify which aspects of his writing you deem superior to other writers, and then provide a few examples if you're feeling generous. I'm not trying to say he isn't great, I just can't see the huge appeal for myself.

>> No.5587499

>>5587484
>Euler's proof were notoriously ugly
How so? I've only encountered the proof for his infinite prime theorem, it's so simple yet so genius

>> No.5587501

>>5585650
Nabokov did. But he also disliked Balzac, so that's what it's at.

>> No.5587502

>>5587481

>What is Mantra

>> No.5587506

>>5585846
The Tractatus is a work of art you fucking dingus

>> No.5587508

>>5587455

The thing is: he was the greatest poet of all time. He created the most sublime and varied number of metaphors and similes, not only about a simple subject, but a whole world of them. The verses that make the fame of a smaller poet or the fame of one of his poems are found in real avalanches in Shakespeare.

The most important thing in his work is not any particular philosophy or wisdom (for he usually repeated the common-sense of several generations of thinkers, and did not invented anything new), not the plots and stories (generally borrowed from other sources and mingled together) and not even the characters, although they are indeed sublimely varied (although they speak a very artificial language, what might disturb a great numbers of readers that are used to realism): the greatest characteristic of his work is the poetry. Nobody ever created anything comparable. He’s language is the most beautiful and inventive of all time, of all languages. Anyone who really enjoys poetry is simply awe-stricken by what Shakespeare could do. And it was not a thing of one moment or one particular work, no: like a perpetually awaken volcano he was constantly, incessantly gushing verbal beauty, a web of words that would dazzle even the gods.

So, if you look for “muh wisdom”, and “muh original thought”, Shakespeare will not do much for you. Go read mathematical, physics and chemistry treatises. But if you enjoy poetry and the beauty of the words than Shakespeare is by far the best brain there ever was.

>> No.5587513

>>5585742
>>5585863
Not that guy, but I don't get this reaction.

I seem to recall how the art academy gave Escher shit about not being "passionate" enough from the very start. Is that what this is all about? Is this the same shit as when people on here claim Borges is just a creepy nerd and not a real artist just because he's so cold?

>> No.5587518

>>5587499
>his infinite prime theorem

That's Euclide. Indeed one of the most elegant mathematical proofs ever, but that was more than two millenias before Euler's birth.


Euler did produce a shitton of result, but he was undisciplined (even by the standards of his century), often tinkering disgracefully instead of trying to see the bigger picture.

That's not to say he's not a great mathematician, but as far as aesthetic (or maths as art, if you prefer) are concerned, he doesn't quite compare to most of the others in mentioned. Hardy would also deserve a mention, if nothing else for his work with Ramanujan (the latter didn't really exist as a mathematician without the former, so it's more accurate to associate the two).

>> No.5587521

>>5587508
Okay, this actually makes it a bit clearer to me. I'm usually more interested in realism, and was never much of a poetry fan.

>> No.5587541

>>5585650
Great writers are both human and poetic in their works. Personally I don't get the latter from Faulkner's work, but I see how others might.

>>5587501
Nabokov disliked Cervantes, Faulkner, Hemingway, Dostoevsky, Mann... But he also heavily emphasized developing one's own personal view.

>>5587521
Realism and poetry aren't mutually exclusive..

>> No.5587544
File: 55 KB, 300x321, 255uypl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587544

>>5587121
>Ravel
>unemotional

>> No.5587545

>>5587521

The problem is not with you and neither with Shakespeare. You guys were simply not made for each other.

But you had a good point: what’s so special about Shakespeare’s plots? What’s so special about his characters?

Indeed, they are nothing especial, and a lot of times are soap-opera level. What really makes the difference is the poetry, the language. Shakespeare is the greatest poet of all time and his works the place were verbal beauty can be found at its best and in greater quantity and variety than anywhere else in recorded literature.

>> No.5587554

>>5587541
>Realism and poetry aren't mutually exclusive..

I agree, and I enjoy some poetic depictions of reality, like Thomas Hardy for example. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that Shakespeare's work seems a tad superficial and lacking in substance. Not once did I find myself becoming interested in a character or storyline in the texts that I read.

>> No.5587557

Joseph Conrad

>> No.5587558

>>5586825
Finally, Virgil gets a say.
As much as it's a /lit/ may may to say it's Homeric fanfic propaganda, the Aeneid is so consciously different to its predecessors, and so perfect in its construction it's a mighty shame it's overlooked.
Eliot was right, it was the apotheosis of Latin literature. Virgil may not be as entertaining as Ovid or Catullus, but he was indisputably the greatest poet of his language.

>> No.5587569
File: 20 KB, 320x287, 1411155696501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587569

>>5587121

I can't believe this shit

>> No.5587571

>>5587117
What the fuck do you know you sickening philistine

>> No.5587579

>>5587432
This pasta is way overrated and way overposted. It was good the first three times, but now that it has become obvious to everyone that it doesn't make any case, and simply states appreciation of Shakespeare and "muh metaphors" as definitive arguments, we should skip to a more on-point pasta. Or better yet, dispense with pastas altogether, as they are good for recs, humor and greentext stories, but not fit for live argumentation.

Notice that the only appearance of reasoning here is cicular: the writer assumes variety and quantity of metaphors is the most distinctive quality of poetry (nevermind that metaphor is one of the most commonly used tropes not only in all literary genres but also in advertising, propaganda and casual conversation), then states that Shakespeare outshines everyone in this respect (that is pretty much the only part of the case that remotely stand on its feet) and then goes to conclude that Shakespeare must be the best poet and wordsmith ever, in all languages (iirc the guy who wrote this pasta can read four languages at most, and read the majortiy of what he listed in English).

No quotes of analysis of texts, of course, are provided (last time I saw an overly enthustiastic Shakespeare fan try to analyze one of the Bard's poem, he ended up listing two metaphors in it, then claiming that they were "great" and that "a second-rate poet couldn't have thought of them"-rythm and sonority weren't mentioned as relevant).

So there we are, with this earnestly written, heart-outpouring pasta that we can only use as memepost in rate threads. I can't help finding that a bit sad. Some worship is perhaps necessary to literary love, but expression of worship must be pondered wisely. For not everyone, here or everywhere else, adores the same god.

>> No.5587588

>>5587541
>Nabokov disliked Dostoyevsky
Boy you sure have misinterpreted his words harshly.

>> No.5587596

>>5587545
>what’s so special about Shakespeare’s plots? What’s so special about his characters?

I understand that it's not consistent over his thirty-seven plays, but if you think that the plots and characters in The Tempest, King Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet are soap-opera level, you've quite some rereading to do.

The argument that Shakespeare= meh playwright+Azatoth-tier poet is overblown and simplistic in my opinion. How poetry serves discourse, how discourse is elevated by poetry, that's what is great in Shakespeare, as with most great playwrights. Some parts of him are language feasts, some parts are plot-driven, but mostly it's very interesting although often corny plays with incredible language that sometimes get overboard.

>> No.5587600

>>5587518
>confusing Euclid and Euler
Oh Jesus can we just pretend this didn't happen

>> No.5587609

>>5584632
>>5584651
dear god you plebs are cringe-inducing

>> No.5587616

>>5587588
Oh he didn't? Please interpret this then:

Dostoevsky is not a great writer, but a rather mediocre one-with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between."

Nah you're right dawg, V Nabs was hella lauditory to Dos-

A good third [of readers] do not know the difference between real literature and pseudo-literature, and to such readers Dostoevsky may seem more important and more artistic than such trash as our American historical novels

>> No.5587617

>>5587545
Well, Shakespeare's primary artistic talent is certainly his language, but I think you aren't giving enough credit to his characters. The poetry in Macbeth/Hamlet is supreme, no doubt, but they're as worshiped and widespread as they are because they are the complete package.

>>5587554
>>5587579
"Of course, no matter how keenly, how admirably, a story, a piece of music, a picture is discussed and analyzed, there will be minds that remain blank and spines that remain unkindled... so what? There is no rational answer to "so what." We can take the story apart, we can find out how the bits fit, how one part of the pattern responds to the other; but you have to have in you some cell, some gene, some germ that will vibrate in answer to sensations that you can neither define, nor dismiss." - Nabokov

>>5587588
He may not outright hate Dostoevsky, but he regards him as 'mediocre,' 'an inferior artist,' and fans of his do not know real literature. At that level of renown, I'd call that 'disliked.'

>> No.5587623

>>5587600
It's okay, I used to do it all the time, and most schools are piss-poor when it comes to teaching history of mathematics.

>> No.5587631

>Mozart
>Da Vinci
>Dante
>Coleridge
>Shakespeare
>Beethoven
>Plato
>Descartes
>Homer (if the Iliad/Odyssey were his own writing, though it seems unlikely)
>Tennyson

>> No.5587658

>>5587631
>tfw you will never, EVER read Kubla Khan in its complete form

>> No.5587666

>>5587617
That's no retort here, unless you want to argue that I don't have the "cell" for Shakespeare poetry because I didn't like a Shakespeare pasta on 4chan (that I used to like, actually).

Nabokov's quote would be on point-if the comment I answered to wasn't little more than "Shakespeare is great and it's so obvious I'm not going to quote a single verse from him."

Because here is the bottom line in this argument: if you're so hell-bent that Shakespeare deserves the admiration of everyone, at least try to make us admire Shakespeare. And that begin with giving the man credit for what he wrote, not hiding him under oversugared praise.

How about:

<<Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee:—
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight? or art thou but
A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain?
I see thee yet, in form as palpable
As this which now I draw.
Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going;
And such an instrument I was to use.
Mine eyes are made the fools o' the other senses,
Or else worth all the rest: I see thee still;
And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood,
Which was not so before.—There's no such thing:
It is the bloody business which informs
Thus to mine eyes.—Now o'er the one half-world
Nature seems dead, and wicked dreams abuse
The curtain'd sleep; now witchcraft celebrates
Pale Hecate's offerings; and wither'd murder,
Alarum'd by his sentinel, the wolf,
Whose howl's his watch, thus with his stealthy pace,
With Tarquin's ravishing strides, towards his design
Moves like a ghost.—Thou sure and firm-set earth,
Hear not my steps, which way they walk, for fear
Thy very stones prate of my whereabout,
And take the present horror from the time,
Which now suits with it.—Whiles I threat, he lives;
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives.>>

This is a great part that must be enjoyed in full length, as it is as a whle relevant both to the plot (Duncan's murder), the themes (decision, the paradoxical and not so impervious divide between thought and action, the strength of dreams, words and images over wills and physical bodies) and the language (vocabulary of witchcraft, night and suspicion applied to every detail and in every instance of life, poetic horror brimming from all corners) of the whole play. The consistent binding of those three element is what make the play so disturbing, and thus so compelling: by those is created an atmosphere of nightmare, as if the play was more moral horror story than typical tragedy.

>> No.5587672
File: 107 KB, 480x638, P0E3dGc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587672

ITT: Dead privileged white men. Dropped.

>> No.5587683

Guys. Montaigne. Y'all niggas forgettin' about Montaigne.

>> No.5587701

>>5585068
You can find the whole history of the twnetieth century art in Picasso. Like or dislike, he was someone with no only a rigorous classical training (his father was a drawing teacher), but also a deep consciousness of what could be done and how to do it, as well as an ability to expand brilliantly on others' works.

>> No.5587839

>ctrl+f
>no Henry James

>> No.5587855

>>5587666
Whoa whoa, clearly we have a misunderstanding. I didn't mean to insinuate you're lacking some sort of 'artistic sense' required to enjoy Shakespeare or your taste was flawed. I meant at the bottom-line getting pleasure from art just can't be learned, either it tickles your spine or not. It's more a response to the guy asking for Shakespeare to be explained, but I quote your post because I agree on
>For not everyone, here or everywhere else, adores the same god.

>> No.5587859

In Film: Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Eisenstein, Herzog

>> No.5587867
File: 59 KB, 517x391, sjff_01_img0237.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587867

D.W. Griffith

>> No.5587881

>>5587145
Even Beethoven calls Bach's music, "divine."

I would say Bach had the greater impact because he and his students created more musical inventions that are still being used today (circle of 5ths for example).

also Bach is the most performed composer on the planet TODAY.

But no doubt Bach, Beethoven and Mozart too were the thee biggest geniuses of classical music influence. There are many others but I think these three had the biggest impact.

>> No.5587894

>>5587121
Seems like you dislike Impressionism as a whole.

>> No.5587899

>>5587859
>In Film: Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Herzog
i lol'd

/lit/ trying to talk music is so hilarious. even worse than /mu/

>> No.5587908

>>5587859
Eisenstein was a true innovator. Tarkovsky, Kubrick and Herzog are descent, but not genius.

>> No.5587912
File: 175 KB, 700x1167, 1410977249151.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5587912

>>5587658
It was to be the next Mariner

>> No.5587917

>>5587908
*decent

>> No.5587928

Some artistic geniuses from the world of cinema:

Tarkovsky
Bunuel
Rohmer
Fellini
Bergman
Mizoguchi
Visconti

>> No.5587932

>>5584610
>Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach but no Schubert

Weak

>> No.5587934

>>5587928
What's your favourite Rohmer film?

>> No.5587936

>>5587353

this

>> No.5587940

>>5587934
The green ray

>> No.5587943

>>5587928
good list

>> No.5587958

>>5584885
Not him, but John Carmack (the guy he was thinking of) is the main man of game development, especially 3D graphics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carmack#Technologies

It's a shame id don't really make good games any more because they're legendary.

>> No.5587988

>>5587092
Like Stirner?

>> No.5588016

>>5587545
The thing I dislike most about Shakespeare, and it's a very minor gripe, is how he names his characters. Characters in a play set in Denmark should not have Roman*, Greek and Renaissance Italian names.

* this I can forgive, because some Scandinavians have names like Magnus, but seeing Laertes bugs me

>> No.5588031

>>5587928
+ Sirk, Ford, Murnau, Vlacil, Renoir, Tarr, Bresson, Rossellini,

>> No.5588037

Sophocles
Shakespeare
Mozart
Michaelangelo

>> No.5588251

Comte de Lautréamont
Rimbaud

>> No.5588324

Harry Houdini. He was a shit magician, good escape artist but nothing extraordinary really. Yet he is remembered as the greatest of all time and got to his fame through genius marketing etc etc

>> No.5588344

>>5588031
Bresson est mon negre.

Antonioni is also great

>> No.5588359

>>5584610
Is there something wrong if I think out there aren't artistic genuises?

>> No.5588393

>>5588359
yes

>> No.5588396

>>5588359
A lot.

>> No.5588420

>>5588359
Nah.

>> No.5588510

How do into classical music?

>> No.5588519

>>5588510
listen to it and read about it

>> No.5588536

>>5588510

Start with Mozart. Easiest to get into. Watch 'Amadeus' the movie too; it will give you some really great snippets of his music and then you can buy the soundtrack to listen to the pieces. The pieces you'll hear will doubtfully be the full ones(it will probably just be movements of the full pieces) but still it'll be a good introduction. From there you can find the full piece of whatever you want and listen to it. The movie itself is also very very good. It isn't fully historically accurate of course, but it's still very good.

>> No.5588546

>>5588510
Also I don't know what you like. Do you like soft lyric music or huge bombastic soul shattering shit? Most symphonies will contain both of these things however.

>> No.5588554

>>5588546
Thanks. Soft, mostly. I like what I've heard of Chopin.

>> No.5588562

>>5585498
In short, no. Nothing they've written compares to beethoven, bach, or mozart at all, nor Monteverdi, Handel, or Schubert.
Theoretically speaking, though, they were beyond their contemporaries and to a huge extent. Compare an chord chart of their songs to any pop musician of that era and you'll get nothing as impressive. They're so full of non-diatonic chords (chords that don't actually match the key of te song), jazz chords (chords built in more than the triad), and just strange jumps of chords it's surprising when on considers how accessible they are.
They also have the ability to write in modes so naturally (essentially keys that follow different patterns than major/minor), which puts them at melodic advantage, simply because of greater variety.
Geniuses though? I don't think there are any pop musicians who can be called geniuses.

>> No.5588568

>>5588554
Oh yeah Chopin is great for you then. I highly recommend Mozart and that movie Amadeus. It'll be a nice introduction to his music including instrumental and opera as well.

>> No.5588597

>>5587414
Mozart is the greatest composer of all time, bar none.

>> No.5588613

>>5587425
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

>> No.5588625

>>5587932
He's just a step below. Had he lived longer, it'd be a different story.

>> No.5588630

>>5588510
I was trying real hard, and then I listened to the grosse fugue by beethoven and got addicted. Listen to it at full volume with headphones on.

>> No.5588653

>>5588625
Mozart barely lived at all. Had he lived to be 80 we might not even be talking about Beethoven because Mozart would have ushered in the Romantic Movement. Schubert should absolutely be included in the greatest composers list, but for me personally he was not as great as Mozart. I will say though that Schubert wrote some of the most gorgeous lieder out there. Better than almost anyone.

>>5588630
lol it is a good piece but that's not exactly what he's looking for. If it works to get him addicted then great, but it's a difficult piece to access. He's looking for lighter things at the moment. Go for it if you want though.

>> No.5588685

>>5587432
stop reposting this crappy post, we all know it's you every time

>> No.5588712

>>5587425
posts like these are so unanswerable because they just say things that are the opposite of true

if i walked up to you and starting arguing with you that the sky was dark brown you wouldn't even argue with me because i would be so wrong there wouldn't be a starting place for an argument

>> No.5588875

Björk
Matthew Barney
Richard Serra
Marcel Duchamp
Unica Zürn
Max Ernst

>> No.5589098

>>5584771
You're talking shit, fuck off.

>> No.5589111

>>5585235
You are a pleb trying to disguise the fact you are a pleb.

ITT plebs