/lit/ - Literature

>>16297805
I don't know about the technical details of poetry and metre but Wagner was certainly very based and indeed redpilled.

>>16297821
>Wagner was certainly very based and indeed redpilled.
Ineed.

>"Property" has acquired an almost greater sacredness in our social conscience than religion: for offence against the latter there is lenience, for damage to the former no forgiveness. Since Property is deemed the base of all stability, the more's the pity that not all are owners, that in fact the greater proportion of Society comes disinherited into the world. Society is manifestly thus reduced by its own principle to such a perilous inquietude, that it is compelled to reckon all its laws for an impossible adjustment of this conflict; and protection of property—for which in its widest international sense the weaponed host is specially maintained—can truly mean no else than a defence of the possessors against the non-possessors. Many as are the earnest and sagacious brains that have applied themselves to this problem, its solution, such as that at last suggested of an equal division of all possessions, has not as yet been found amenable; and it seems as if the State's disposal of the apparently so simple idea [268] of Property had driven a beam into the body of mankind that dooms it to a lingering death of agony
>Clever though be the many thoughts expressed by mouth or pen about the invention of money and its enormous value as a civiliser, against such praises should be set the curse to which it has always been doomed in song and legend. If gold here figures as the demon strangling manhood's innocence, our greatest poet shews at last the goblin's game of paper money. The Nibelung's fateful ring become a pocket-book, might well complete the eerie picture of the spectral world-controller. By the advocates of our Progressive Civilisation this rulership is indeed regarded as a spiritual, nay, a moral power; for vanished Faith is now replaced by "Credit," that fiction of our mutual honesty kept upright by the most elaborate safeguards against loss and trickery. What comes to pass beneath the benedictions of this Credit we now are witnessing, and seem inclined to lay all blame upon the Jews.

already told you in last thread
>>16280918

>>16297899
Not me not never.

>>16297910
10 years, 40 years, 200 years how 'bout I'm doing none of 'em.

>Yet the beautiful Zurich-Frankfurt relationship wouldn't have been quite the same if Wagner had known how Schopenhauer the reader reacted to the copy of Der Ring des Nibelungen that Wagner had sent him in December 1854 "in veneration and gratitude," as the autograph dedication of the Houghton copy proclaims. Wagner's autobiography discloses a slightly embarrassing secret: Schopenhauer never did send a written reply. Like the good Schopenhauerian that he was, Wagner claimed in Mein Leben that he had "resigned himself" from the outset to the prospect of not receiving a reply. But in fact he did suffer from Schopenhauer's chilling silence; Cosima Wagner's diary records his grief and chagrin as late as March 1878-a generation after the fact.
>It is obvious from the start that it is Schopenhauer the famed stylist, the universally acknowledged master of German prose, who was wielding the pencil. Wagner's language was offensive to Schopenhauer-as it still is to many readers for precisely the same peculiarities that irritated Schopenhauer. And the sage of Frankfurt read the text most carefully. Of course, much of Schopenhauer's criticism loses its pungency in translation, but a few examples of his stylistic comments may give anglophone readers some idea of his objections.
>Schopenhauer was particularly annoyed, as his vigorous question marks and critical underlinings (sometimes accompanied by multiple exclamation marks) suggest, by Wagner's artificially archaic vocabulary. Nobody but an expert in things medieval would know today, any more than Schopenhauer did then, that a freislicher Streit is a "terrifying quarrel." Nor did infelicitous constructions, stylistic awkwardness, and illogical turns of phrase escape Schopenhauer's angry pencil. Some of these passages are mildly funny, like the one suggesting that Erda does not know--to judge by her syntax in Rheingold--whether she gave birth to her three daughters or whether they were created at the dawn of time. Another such stylistic aberration, which rated one of Schopenhauer's quizzically amused exclamation marks, eventually caught the dull eye of Wagner himself when he revised his text slightly: Wotan originally says about Wala in Walküre, "News I received from her; / but from me she received a child."

>What Schopenhauer found consistently exasperating about Wagner's style were his characteristic composite nouns, like Felssteine, Felsensaum, Felsspitze (rocks, rocky edge, rocky peak). "Ears!" Schopenhauer repeatedly penciled in the margin in his powerful hand, "he has no ears! the deaf musician." It is the sound of these and other such difficult words that go against Schopenhauer's grain. The implication is, clearly, that Wagner is a poet-composer who is at odds with the building materials of his trade, "the deaf musician." Schopenhauer summed up this criticism in large letters: "Language should be the serf of the master."

>>16298038
Schopenhauer was quite harsh, but it is obvious that Wagner was a better musician than poet, but that did not stop him from uniting them.

>>16298053
Then he united good music to terrible poems.

>>16298056
>terrible poems
You haven't read them anon, and the poems were never intended to stand alone on themselves. Though the poem was written first, it was always written with the direct intention of it being with the music, and his exact kind of music.

Seriously who could think this was a "bad poem":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COhLnFwGaT0

As it stands in the music, there could be nothing greater for its respective intent. Or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIZ-d_76V-4

>>16298073
>Seriously who could think this was a "bad poem"?:
Schopenhauer, who, by the way, disparaged not only Wagner's style, but also Watgner's moral and narrative sensibility.

>>16298080
Goethe also wasn't a fan of Beethoven's music anon, it is better to not be so dependent on a philosopher in this case to have the final word of poetry in music.

>>16298080
Also your post was disingenuous, that specific work was from Tannhauser and we do not know Schopenhauer's opinion on it, though he did say that Wagner should stick to poetry than music, this may be the result of Schopenhauer finding some more value in such libretto's as Tannhauser.

>>16298091
Goethe did not comment on Beethoven's writings (there are none), so he was out of his field of expertise when he made that judgement. This was not the case for Schopenhauer, who was a master in writing composition and style (according to Wagner too, btw), and who was also an erudite who had spent a good chunk of his life studying poems.
>>16298115
It would be weird to claim that Tannhauser is a better poem than all the ones of the Cycle.

>>16298128
>Goethe did not comment on Beethoven's writings
Are you just going to pretend like that was my point? Goethe too understood music quite well, could appreciate Mozart quite well, and why would it be that he could not do the same for Schopenhauer, the new? And why is it that so many have championed Wagner both in his music and poetry? Including the likes of T.S. Eliot who used some of the lines from the ring for The Waste Land.

>It would be weird to claim that Tannhauser is a better poem than all the ones of the Cycle.
Well I suppose you should ask Schopenhauer that too shouldn't you.

>Goethe did not comment on Beethoven's writings
Are you just going to pretend like that was my point? Goethe too understood music quite well, could appreciate Mozart quite well, and why would it be that he could not do the same for Beethoven, the new? Both stand as the very greatest of geniuses of their respective fields. And why is it that so many have championed Wagner both in his music and poetry? Including the likes of T.S. Eliot who used some of the lines from the ring for The Waste Land.

>It would be weird to claim that Tannhauser is a better poem than all the ones of the Cycle.
Well I suppose you should ask Schopenhauer that too shouldn't you.

>>16298128
see>>16298157

>>16297805
The Völsunga Saga is a prose work. You're probably thinking of the Eddas, where metre is formed through alliteration at the beginning of each line.

>>16298178
Yes I think so, I think I got confused by the fact that Wagner took so much of the story from the Volsung's Saga however.

>>16298157
>Are you just going to pretend like that was my point? Goethe too understood music quite well, could appreciate Mozart quite well, and why would it be that he could not do the same for Beethoven, the new? Both stand as the very greatest of geniuses of their respective fields.
Yes, and my point was that since they're not part of the same field, Goethe's opinion on Beethoven was mostly irrelevant.

>And why is it that so many have championed Wagner both in his music and poetry? Including the likes of T.S. Eliot who used some of the lines from the ring for The Waste Land.
I would say that Wagner's prime own source of inspiration, Schopenhauer, is a more relevant case, in fact it's the most relevant one.

>>16298038
I've noticed a trend that many of these great philosophers and artists couldn't get along. First Beethoven said some unkind remarks about Goethe. Then Goethe, despite noticing Schopenhauer's genius, avoided him after their agreement; then Schopenhauer was unappreciative of Wagner, who in turn had that so many fights with Nietzsche. All in all, it's obvious how they are all great and worked more or less in concord, intellectually. I think we shouldn't put much regard on their personal relationships.

>>16298550
*after their disagreement

>HO HOOOOO
>HO HOOOOOO
>HO HAAAAIIII
wow..... So this is the power of German poetry....

>>16298550
(continue) I think we could even further the genealogy some more. Lou Salomé rejected Nietzsche for Freud, then Jung had his big divide with Freud. And then Thomas Mann was a big fan of Jung but Jung hardly even noticed him. This, my anons, is the power of German blood (and very based indeed).

>>16298246
>Yes, and my point was that since they're not part of the same field, Goethe's opinion on Beethoven was mostly irrelevant.
Are you going to actually just ignore what I say and repeat yourself? Wagner's writing was always intended to eventually be put to music. This is something very particular in which you have to imagine. Great men are not a unilateral force you fool, irrespective of Goethe not composing, he knew a lot about music, do you think everything he says on the subject is null and not worthy because this genius did not primarily focus on music? Similar to how Schopenhauer did not primarily focus on literature? You have such an arrogantly childish conception. How many great figures have disagreed over very important things? Often men who had at one point respected the other. How do you explain virtually every musician of Wagner's age agreeing that he was brilliant, and the greatest since Beethoven? That includes, Brahms, Verdi, Liszt and so on. But I suppose in the case of music Schopenhauer wouldn't be out of his range to you would he?

>Schopenhauer is Wagner's prime source of inspiration
Do you have any idea how reductive this is? Yes spiritually Schopenhauer was highly important to Wagner, but to think Schopenhauer was say more important than say Shakespeare, or Aeschylus or even the New Testament, to Wagner, is ridiculous.

Schopenhauer was not a poet, he was a thinker, though no doubt he was very capable in such an area, there have always been great poets who dislike other great poets, or great musicians other great musicians, or great poets disliking great musicians, or great kings disliking great poets, and so on. But I suppose in your extraordinarily naive frame of the world Tolstoy should like Shakespeare since they were both great writers as capable in their field as possible. Tolstoy's opinion SHOULD matter to you here on Tolstoy by fact of nothing to do with personality or any other complexity, but that he operates greatly in the same field as him. If anything you read from here, I hope your view of great men does not stay so simplistic.

>>16298641
>Tolstoy's opinion SHOULD matter to you here on *Shakespeare*

>>16298560
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC6f8FbnVMQ

>tfw no traditional Ring performance

Does anyone know which opera this music is from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX_gSNQafZw&feature=youtu.be&t=44

>>16298641
Not the same anon, but with respect to your point on Wagner, idk what your sources are on those musicians agreeing that Wagner was the greatest since Beethoven. Brahms enjoyed Wagnerian operas, but that's not to say that he thought he was the greatest since Beethoven. If anything, late in his life, he thought Bruckner was the greatest symphonist since Beethoven. Verdi could appreciate Wagner, but again, I know of no sources that verify that he thought Wagner was the greatest since Beethoven. Liszt was Wagner's father-in-law, and most musicians would agree that it is Liszt, and not necessarily Wagner, who was gifted with revolutionary musical insights and that Wagner just adopted many of his innovations in his own work. Wagner recognised this, so much so that he even discouraged Liszt from writing a Paradiso movement to end his Dante Symphony, bc in truth, he wanted to be the one to do it, but never got to it bc he died just before he intended to tackle the symphonic form after his uninspired attempts as a teenager. Moreover, while it is true that many musicians at first were deeply impressed by Wagner, many came to shun it quickly once they reached maturity. I think of Tchaikovsky, Faure, Saint-Saens, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, most if not all the Brahmsians barring Richard Strauss and Mahler, who were also Wagnerians, Prokofiev etc.

>>16298687
when they start talking it's parsifal

>>16298687
Sounds like a paraphrase of the Dresden Amen. I think it's from Parsifal.

>>16298687
>>16298723
>>16298719

Yeah, it's the finale of Parsifal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Kob7KEXFs

>>16298712
Brahms publicly was against the direction of artists like Wagner, Berlioz and Liszt, but privately(as we can see in his letters) he practically says to the effect that he's the greatest musician alive. Tchaikovsky as far as I know never went "back" on Wagner, as he was always publicly championing his achievements, though in a thoughtful sort of way, but lamented the fact more privately that Wagner had exerted his musical genius which he said could have produce immortal symphonies on the level of Beethoven, in opera instead. He found Wagner, as many do, to be long winded. Verdi said Wagner was brilliant but still went down unnecessary paths, a similar critique to Tchaikovsky's. And as for Liszt, I've never heard someone say Liszt was "better". Undoubtedly Wagner was the greater, though Liszt was no doubt very close in his own way. There's a reason Brahms didn't really like Liszt's work even after hearing him play it himself but always admired Wagner.

And no one can deny, furthermore, even after all those names that everyone after Wagner was influenced by him some way or another. Or musicians anyhow.

>One evening in September of that year, Wagner read the finished poem of "Tristan" to an audience including his wife, Minna, his current muse, Mathilde, and his future mistress (and later wife), Cosima von Bülow.

>>16298941
holy based...

>>16298941
what a chad

>>16298941
>Pay attention, Nietzsche
>Oh, and Bulow.....fetch me a glass of wine.

>>16298839
Brahms' only attempt at publicly denouncing 'The Music of the Future' was a flop as the manifesto was leaked before it was ready and only served to make him look like a dunce and he never engaged in public musical politics afterwards again and regretted ever contributing to it. That would be his champions, Hanslick and von Buelow, as you know. When Brahms calls himself the best of the Wagnerians, he's just being typically Brahms. This is not to say that he wasn't a fan of Wagner, bc he was, but also a typically Brahmsian jab at Wagnerians, who are typically too musically illiterate to appreciate the true genius of Wagner and instead focus on what he believed to be extra-musical bombastic waffle, as he believed most if not all of Wagner's writings to be dangerous.

I agree with you that Tchaikovsky was not so much against Wagner as he was against Wagnerism:

'Wagner was a great symphonist, but not a composer of opera. Instead of devoting his life to the musical illustration of German mythological characters in the form of opera, had this extraordinary man written symphonies, we should, perhaps, possess masterpieces of that order, worthy rivals to the immortal ones of Beethoven' (Wagner and his Music, 1891).

'Now, what is Wagnerism? What are the dogmas, which one must profess to be a Wagnerite? One must deny absolutely all that is not of Wagner [..] I will not profess the religion he has founded' (ibid).

But to say that he never went back on Wagner is innacurate, bc he didn't have anything good to say when he saw Der Ring Das Nibelungen at Bayreuth in 1876:

'Yesterday was the performance of Das Rheingold; as a theatre production this thing captivated my interest thanks to the astonishing staging; but as music it's an incredible chaos, through which there occasionally flash some extraordinarily beautiful and striking details (Letter 490 to Modest).

' Perhaps the Nibelungen is a very great work, but what I do know for sure is that never before has there been anything as boring and tedious as this spun-out yarn. An accumulation of the most complicated and refined harmonies, the colourlessness of everything that is sung on the stage, endlessly long dialogues, the pitch darkness in the theatre, the absence of anything interesting and poetic in the plot — all this exhausts one's nerves to the utmost degree. So this is what Wagner's opera reform is striving after? (ibid, 491).

I am not of the business of calling one composer greater than the other. I said that Liszt is typically credited with innovative genius, and not necessarily Wagner. Brahms' criticisms of Liszt had more to do with the seemingly fraudulent and inauthentic bombast of his most famous compositions married with a flurry of 'redundant' notes, which, if you listen to Brahms, is something he avoided in his own music. I understand his point, but think he should have paid more attention to the structural ingenuity of the B minor Sonata, bc it is very much up his alley.

>>16298839
>>16299065

Though, naturally, I do agree with your assessment that after Wagner, it was impossible to escape his influence. You were either actively following in his footsteps or deliberately trying to subvert his gestures.

>>16298712
This is the first I've heard of Brahms thinking Bruckner was even good, let alone that good.

>>16299189

At the end of his life, Brahms seemed to have a change of heart with respect to a few musicians it seems. He was even responsible for suggesting that Richard von Perger conduct what would be the final live Te Deum that Bruckner would ever hear in his life and was visibly upset, frustrated and inconsolable when he tried to attend Bruckner's funeral but arrived to late and so left. At 4:30 that day, he went out of his way to join Bruckner's funeral procession.

Whereas he had been of the opinion that Mahler was a genius conductor but a mediocre composer, when Mahler showed him the score of his 2nd symphony during his last visit to Brahms at Bad Ischl, Brahms proclaimed:

'It is not at all clear to me why Richard Strauß is hailed as the revolutionary in music : I consider that Mahler is the king of these revolutionaries.'

And considered the Scherzo in particular a work of genius (something which Brahms rarely said about anyone, even those he admired).

>>16299337
too.*

Though ofc, coming from Brahms, it is not all to clear to what extent he was being 100% genuine with that comment.

>>16299348
too*
baka

>>16297805
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZhJohN-ta8&list=RDMMlZhJohN-ta8&start_radio=1
bros...

>>16299337
Interesting to note, thanks.