/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19293325]

Who is the Bach of literature?

[Anonymous No.19293341]

Probably me

[Anonymous No.19293373]

>>19293325
Bach’s written music

[Anonymous No.19293406]

>>19293325
Milton

[Anonymous No.19293448]

>>19293325
He wrote some of the texts to his cantatas, so, Bach.

[Anonymous No.19293573]

>>19293341
this guy

[Anonymous No.19293598]

>>19293406
This. "...and justify the ways of God to men."

[Anonymous No.19294287]

>>19293373
>>19293448
Don't be boring.

[Anonymous No.19294464]

>>19293325
Dante?

[Anonymous No.19294480]

Goethe

[Anonymous No.19294531]

my dad has an asian friend who named his son Johann, for what reason I had no idea until I read the filename of OP and connected the dots; now there is a little 16 year old asian boy running around Pasadena being called Johann unironically by his family and peers. I've seen them about 3-4 times and he didn't smile once

[Anonymous No.19294647]

>>19293325
Shakespeare, and it's not even up for debate.

[Anonymous No.19294660]

>>19293406
Milton is more like Vivaldi

[Anonymous No.19294680]

>>19294480
He's the Haydn

>>19294464
Carl Orff

I could do this forever, it's surprisingly fun.

[Anonymous No.19294999]

>>19294287
Both answers are far less boring than the OP, tbqh.

[Anonymous No.19295024]

>>19293325
>>19294480
You know the answer, OP. Who wrote the Ode to Joy?

[Anonymous No.19295285]

So would the Wagner of literature be Evola?

[Anonymous No.19295349]

>>19294287
Dilate

[Anonymous No.19295722]

>>19295285
No it'd be Scriabin

[Anonymous No.19295727]

>>19295722
No it would not lmao

[Anonymous No.19295733]

>>19293341
I've read some papers saying that this anon here is literature's Bach

[Anonymous No.19296022]

>>19293325
samuel johnson

[Anonymous No.19296038]

>>19295285
No, Warner was popular. Probably Junger

[Anonymous No.19296266]

>>19294660
Vivaldi has little artistic value to compare with Milton, let alone the same religious nature.

[Anonymous No.19296277]

>>19294680
>Carl Orff
He's a second rate composer, the real Dante of music is Wagner.

>When I see you again, I shall tell you exactly what I then understood. Putting aside all irrelevant questions (to what end such music can or should serve?), and speaking from a purely aesthetic point of view, has Wagner ever written anything better? The supreme psychological perception and precision as regards what can be said, expressed, communicated here, the extreme of concision and directness of form, every nuance of feeling conveyed epigrammatically; a clarity of musical description that reminds us of a shield of consummate workmanship; and finally an extraordinary sublimity of feeling, something experienced in the very depths of music, that does Wagner the highest honour; a synthesis of conditions which to many people - even "higher minds" - will seem incompatible, of strict coherence, of "loftiness" in the most startling sense of the word, of a cognisance and a penetration of vision that cuts through the soul as with a knife, of sympathy with what is seen and shown forth. We get something comparable to it in Dante, but nowhere else. Has any painter ever depicted so sorrowful a look of love as Wagner does in the final accents of his Prelude?

[Anonymous No.19296293]

>>19296266
Vivaldi is one of the greatest composers. He was also a priest. I assume you haven't heard his religious music.

[Anonymous No.19296354]

>>19296293
I've heard his religious music, and it still is nothing like Milton. At least not more than any other composer of sacred music. Both Bach and Milton were Protestants, Vivaldi being a Catholic priest only does more to separate them.

Vivaldi is a great composer, but he is not Bach level, whereas Milton is.

[Anonymous No.19296382]

>>19293325
Lewis Carroll

[Anonymous No.19297007]

>>19295024
Ode to Joy? What does that have to do with Bach?

[Anonymous No.19297035]

Me, when I go like this:

NUH NUH NUH-NUHNUHNUHNUHNUH NUUUUUUH

[Anonymous No.19297060]

>>19293341
It's funny, I actually had the same answer. Me.

[Anonymous No.19297293]

>>19297035
This guy is the Schoenberg of literature

[Anonymous No.19297299]

>>19297293
I feel like Joyce would be the Schoenberg of literature

[Anonymous No.19297307]

>>19297293
>>19297299
You've no idea about Schoenberg.

[Anonymous No.19297421]

>>19293325
Martin Luther

[Anonymous No.19297544]

>>19293325
Anything autistic with way too many words

[Anonymous No.19297551]

>>19297307
When I heard Pierrot Lunaire for the first time, I thought "this sounds like it was written by a Jew". Then I saw that the composer's name was (((schoenberg))) and laughed.

>>19297299
>both overrated hacks who are praised for writing incoherent garbage
yep pretty much

[Anonymous No.19297599]

>>19297551
Well if that's how you ridiculously and ahistorically reduce art then sure, Joyce and Schoenberg are the same. In truth, their philosophies, form, and aesthetics are very different.

[Anonymous No.19298555]

>>19297544
>too many words
Literally wut?

[Anonymous No.19298681]

>>19293325
I wouldn't call Chesterton the Bach of Literature although I thought of Bach while reading The Man who was Thursday for the simple reason that until the conclusion there is no pause, no 'rest,' which to me is a major facet of Bach's music, at least in general. A beautiful, breathless relentlessness
>in b4 What about the Masses, the T&F et al

[Anonymous No.19298689]

>>19293325
Kant may be.

[Anonymous No.19298690]

>>19298681
Bach invented endless melody?

[Anonymous No.19298723]

>>19298690
I don't know if he invented it (he's Vivaldi's contemporary, another composer of consistently beautiful, relentless music) but no one else came to mind the way he did when reading Thursday
I didn't even realize that most fiction allows you to breathe, or rest, until encountering this specific book by Chesterton (a too good parody of surreal, anarchic fiction)

[Anonymous No.19298739]

Me

[Anonymous No.19298753]

>>19295722
Wagner of literature is Scriabin? Whata does that mean?

[Anonymous No.19299756]

>>19296354
Vivaldi is better than Bach.

https://youtu.be/Z39KxbbtCC0

[Anonymous No.19299789]

>>19293325
Tolstoy

[Anonymous No.19299919]

>>19299756
lol imagine thinking this

[Anonymous No.19300114]

>>19299789
this desu

Tolsoty is the closest thing we have to music; in terms of the feeling that J S Bach was aiming for. Their approaches are of course different aesthetically but for me at least they reach the same part of my ass..i mean being.

[Anonymous No.19300172]

>>19299919
I don't need to imagine

[Anonymous No.19300327]

>>19296266
Yeah, it fits Milton well.

[Anonymous No.19300357]

>>19297299
>>19297551
Frank Zappa is the James Joyce of Music

[Anonymous No.19300358]

Pope

[Anonymous No.19300687]

For me, it's >>19293341.

[Anonymous No.19300699]

>>19294680
>Haydn
He's classical, Goethe should be compared to a romanticism artist.

[Anonymous No.19301637]

>>19299756
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB-iPukTPw4

[Anonymous No.19301664]

>>19293325
Homer

[Anonymous No.19302184]

>>19293325
Rameau

[Anonymous No.19302838]

>>19300114
>in terms of the feeling that J S Bach was aiming for
How could you possibly know what 'feelings' JS Bach was 'aiming for'? There's very little information about music from that period.

[Anonymous No.19302906]

>>19302838
>There's very little information about music from that period.
What idiot told you this?

[Anonymous No.19303119]

>>19302838
well, maybe you're right
i just feel the same thing when i expose my senses to both of them
i am a simple man

[Anonymous No.19303142]

>>19300699
He's a giant standing astride the gap between the classical and romantic. He's Beethoven.

[Anonymous No.19303179]

>>19299789
Bach was an artist. Tolstoy was a moralist who got famous.

[Anonymous No.19303181]

>>19293341
/thread loved your symposium on tripfags

[Anonymous No.19303193]

>>19294680
Who are:
Rossini
Vierne
Mozart
Debussy
Tchaikovsky
Stravinsky

[Anonymous No.19303198]

>>19300357
I COULD JAM ON NORA'S ASS
HER SPHINCTER WAS SCREAMIN'
HER GAS WAS MAD
SHE WAS SQUEAKIN' THE SAME OLD SONG
IN THE AFTERNOON AND SOMETIMES I WOULD
INHALE IT ALL NIGHT LONG

[Anonymous No.19303259]

>>19302906
Experts on early music?

[Anonymous No.19303282]

>>19303259
Are you asking if there are experts on Baroque music? Yes, but early music usually means BC.

[Anonymous No.19303287]

>>19303259
Baroque isn't early music, and experts know pretty much everything about Baroque music that composers in the day did other than a few lost pieces.

[Anonymous No.19303298]

>>19293406
This.

Both are incredibly hard to get on first read/listen, but after many hours of forcing yourself to like them, there comes a moment where they click.

[Anonymous No.19303386]

>>19303287
>Baroque isn't early music
Yes it is.
>A term once applied to music of the Baroque and earlier periods, but now commonly used to denote any music for which a historically appropriate style of performance must be reconstructed on the basis of surviving scores, treatises, instruments and other contemporary evidence.
>and experts know pretty much everything about Baroque music that composers in the day did other than a few lost pieces.
No they don't. They can't even decide on dynamics and articulation. How the hell would you even know what Bach wanted to say with a piece like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI1LxmQzyMA
Face it, baroque music is an enigma. We will never know what they truly meant with the majority of these pieces because composers didn't start explaining everything to the public and writing it down until the late 18th century, especially not until Beethoven and the romantics.

[Anonymous No.19303387]

Leibniz

[Anonymous No.19303464]

But seriously, if there were someone in literature comparable to Bach he would have to check most of the following boxes:
>prolific
>consistent high quality output
>hidden meanings and codes/puzzles
>didactic works
>religious, preferably protestant
>family man
>normal life
>style considered antiquated for his time
>not quite world famous in life, but not the misunderstood genius stereotype either
>rediscovered by future generations
>universally praised thereafter

[Anonymous No.19303470]

>>19303386
>>A term once applied to music of the Baroque and earlier periods, but now commonly used to denote any music for which a historically appropriate style of performance must be reconstructed on the basis of surviving scores, treatises, instruments and other contemporary evidence.
No one says Euripides' stasimon chorus is a 'Baroque' work, while everyone still calls Bach a Baroque composer. Who said this? And we hardly have to 'reconstruct' most of Bach, unless you mean not knowing whether something was composed for the clavichord or harpsichord (lmao).

>They can't even decide on dynamics and articulation.
Just like with tons of pieces from any era. There's obviously a lot more details missing from Baroque era music than anything later, but they're nothing which would particularly inhibit the appreciation or understanding of the music, let alone enough to declare the whole period an 'enigma'.

>How the hell would you even know what Bach wanted to say with a piece like this?
Do you have retardation? It's music, what do you think an 'explanation' of it even is? Besides, Bach literally wrote down the meaning of the WTC: "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study" and we can easily see what type of learning he had in mind by looking at the pieces, such as its variations in difficulty. You obviously don't know much about classical since you treat fugues quite literally as an enigma.

"Sebastian Bach, as a rule, does not indicate tempo at all, which in a truly musical sense is perhaps best. He may have said to himself: whoever does not understand my themes and figures, and does not feel their character and expression, will not be much the wiser for an Italian indication of tempo."

[Anonymous No.19303471]

Bob Dylan

[Anonymous No.19303556]

>>19303464
And thus we must go with Leibniz.

>prolific
Leibniz wrote extensively on a variety of topics, such as law, mathematics, engineering, philosophy, theology and metaphysics.
>consistent high quality output
Check.
>hidden meanings and codes/puzzles
Leibniz took interest in cryptography and tried to invent a universal ideographic language, pic rel
>didactic works
He wrote about mathematics, his notation for Calculus operations is still used in textbooks today. He also invented a calculator.
>religious, preferably protestant
Check.
>family man
Check.
>normal life
Check.
>style considered antiquated for his time
While mechanistic philosophy was fashionable, Leibniz looked to Aristotelian logic and substance philosophy and Scholastics
>not quite world famous in life, but not the misunderstood genius stereotype either
Not sure.
>rediscovered by future generations
Leibniz was mocked by Voltaire and buried by Enlightenment philosophers, but later German Idealists viewed him as a predecessor. Schopenhauer wrote his essay The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason starting from Leibniz's elaboration of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
>universally praised thereafter
His philosophical work has its place in the history of philosophy and he is universally considered the co-inventor of Calculus together with Newton.

[Anonymous No.19303636]

>>19303556
>co-inventor

[Anonymous No.19304079]

>>19293325
Petzold

[Anonymous No.19304084]

>>19303470
cringe hylic

[Anonymous No.19304147]

>>19303179
>was a moralist
?
did you read only Confessions?

[Anonymous No.19304152]

>>19303556
Leibniz wadun an ardis doe

[Anonymous No.19304356]

>>19304152
This actually is the damning point of fact: a philosopher's midway between a scientist and what is now called a sociologist: what Bach and Leibniz do is fundamentally different; though Bach may parody other musical styles, poke fun at them, even berate them at the dinner table with his many not quite as musically competent sons (two of whom were -and are- legitimately great) his primary business was not critical, whereas Leibniz's was. Ultimately the two do not compare in any adequate way.

[Anonymous No.19304403]

>>19303556
I don't mean to ignore you because I really appreciate this post. But a fundamental difference between art and philosophy is that whereas Philosophy bows to science Art does not. Also, whereas Leibniz's fundamental adversaries were other philosophers, Bach's was music itself simply because music is palpable (it can heard) whereas wisdom is not. Leibniz fecundity *can* however be adequately compared with Plato's and Aristotle's before, Hegel's and Bentham's later; or Marx's and Freud's for cross disciplinary purposes.

[Anonymous No.19304411]

>>19293325
Plato

[Anonymous No.19304427]

>>19304356
agreed

and also afaik Bach's sons did not believe in his art at all and actually might have dissuaded people from funding his work

[Anonymous No.19304441]

>>19304427
You can tell Bach's sons are his sons but their programs are radically different. Wish I knew more about his life so that I could comment adequately but I don't. Of his son's fwiw I like Carl (C. P. E.) best.

[Anonymous No.19304692]

>>19304356
>shilling sociology this hard
fuckin glowie

[Anonymous No.19304699]

>>19303198
Told ya

[Anonymous No.19305184]

>>19297307
What do you mean by that?

[Anonymous No.19306169]

>>19305184
It's clear.

[Anonymous No.19306172]

>>19293325
ayn rand

[Anonymous No.19306173]

>>19304692
(You)

[Anonymous No.19306197]

>>19293325
The four other Evangelists.

[Anonymous No.19307046]

>>19297299
More like Perec

[Anonymous No.19307721]

Homer

[Anonymous No.19308915]

>>19304403
>philosophy bows to science whereas art does not
What in the world did you have in mind when you wrote this

[Anonymous No.19309846]

>>19308915
Wisdom must attempt to account for knowledge (having failed, in terms of use, to direct it) whereas the senses remain the senses, and roll their merry way

[Anonymous No.19309866]

>>19293325
Rabelais

[Anonymous No.19309885]

>>19309866
Nice, but more Mozart maybe?

[Anonymous No.19309922]

>>19293373
I´ve spent a couple of hours today writing down bachs´ prelude in c. The stuff that reveals itself ifront of you while you´re doing it (mind you im just learning musical notation), is astonishing. To quote Keith Jarrett - "bach is like listening to the music of pure thought". It´s like mandalas are forming in your minds eye.

[Anonymous No.19310085]

>>19309922
With the right mindset, Bach's music can be a quasi mystical experience. I say with the right mindset, because there are many levels of listening, many listening intentionalities. Different people hear the same music and listen to quite different things, different intetional or phenomenological objetcs if you will. But don't take this as some kind of relativistic subjectivism. Everyone's referent is the same, same raw sensible data, but some people's listening experience is deeper than others. You could say their intentional object has a higher resolution. Shallow people hear shallow things, even if angels were playing. Heaven has many mansions.

[Anonymous No.19310384]

>>19310085
ermm.. well lets just say that´s not really what i was going for. Prayer might be mystical. Transcribing bach (in this case) by ear, I would more closely relate to reimagining or reconstructing a superbly built architechture, or reproducing the rooms of a beatiful temple or church. It´s indeed very complex and awe-inspiring. It´s educational and thought provoking.

On the point of "shallow people", my assesment is that few people are unaffected by a beatiful church, but that some would rather not step foot there.

[Anonymous No.19310396]

Consolidated and perfected the medieval and Renaissance traditions while creating the framework for everything that would come after and checks most if not all of these boxes >>19303464
You know who the fuck it is, quit playing coy.

[Anonymous No.19310419]

>>19310396
>You know who the fuck it is, quit playing coy.
I agree with this anon. Cervantes is the obvious choice.

[Anonymous No.19310420]

>>19310396
Artistically speaking, Shakespeare is the Beethoven of literature.

[Anonymous No.19310421]

>>19310384
>a superbly built architecture
What Goethe in fact called fabulous architecture: frozen music.

[Anonymous No.19310453]

>>19293406
>both devout christian works that in their formal structure contain an implicit critique of religion as given in the medieval worldview
>both became unsurpassable within their field, completely changing the medium afterwards
correct

[Anonymous No.19310460]

>>19310396
Shouldn't the Bach of literature be characterised by orderliness and elegance? Maybe Dante with his terza rima.

This sounds more accurate to me:
>>19310420

[Anonymous No.19310544]

>>19297544
We aren't talking about Mozart.

[Anonymous No.19311301]

>>19294480
This

[Anonymous No.19311331]

>>19296354
Protestants are heretics. Disgusting people.

[Anonymous No.19311337]

>>19299756
They're different. Why does everything have to be a better than contest. Is music sports?

[Anonymous No.19311343]

>>19299756
This is a great piece.

[Anonymous No.19311347]

>>19303464
Where to start with Bach?

[Anonymous No.19311388]

>>19311347
Brandenburg Concertos (Trevor Pinnock..) Cello Suites (Ma), Goldberg Variations (Gould early, Gould late) would be a fun start

[Anonymous No.19311403]

>>19311347
An old Pablo Casals recording of the Cello suites

[Anonymous No.19311428]

>>19311347
Book 1 of The Well-Tempered Clavier

[Anonymous No.19311505]

>>19311347
Bach has wonderful Christmas and Easter oratorios, anon, which you should check out very over the coming holidays