Modern composers

[Haffner]

Having said that, I guess I should clarify the difference. The Étude sans tonalité, the Tristan prelude and the rest suggest tonalities that shift constantly and have no center; thus "indeterminate."  What Schoenberg, Berg and Webern practiced was music in which there are no tonal implications at all.

Well written, J. But you could possibly see Schoenberg, etc. as automatically having tonal implications simply by dint of their atonality.

[Haffner]

A scholar's will to moralize an anti-moral author has little bearing on Nietzsche's polemic against Wagner.


Cliche pop psychology sure is easier than in-depth analyses of Nietzche's anti-wagner writing.



The fact that Wagner and Nietzsche were once on good terms does not tell us much as to the reasons for their subsequent estrangement.

I have, long ago.  If you have too, how about telling us the relevance of idealistic philosophy to an author - Nietzsche - who hated idealism, and to a composer - Wagner -  who read Shopenhauer far more extensively than Hegel?

Surely there are more productive things one can do with one's limited time on this planet, than to allude for all eternity to Hegel's logic.

All you did was ask questions that my original post answered.  And I seriously doubt you really read the Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences, just by the fact that you couldn't see how applicable that thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis is. The Idea occurs whether you want to admit it or not, and existed way before Hegel came up with it. Hegel was just as guilty as Nietzsche for coming up with a lot of ideas the Greeks already thought of, then claiming them as your own. Your defensiveness in reaction to this post will tell us more about how sure you are in your reading.

As to Wagner, I must quote Tocannini's reference to R. Strauss: "as a composer, I take off my hat to him. As a man, I put it back on".

You mention pop philosophy, but your overly Romantic embracing of Nietzsche is the most cliched interpretation that exists. I've been there. i read alot of Nietzsche when I was unhappy, and his own (self-directed) Affirmations in the face of misery really helped my life.

And then I got older and happier. No one is saying the same is going to happen to you, that was just me. As Nietzsche wrote in Thus...: "this is my way, what is yours?"

Nietzsche wrote about will to power, and taking inner truths as the "only" because he was a sickly, horribly unhappy (read the Kaufmann and Hollingdale biographies), and nearly blind man with practically no friends. He wrote negative things about women because he couldn't keep one, and probably suspected one had basically murdered him.

Look, I should be kinder...Nietzsche's latter-day philosophy in particular could'nt have existed without their having already been a Wagner, or Speculative Idealism. The fact that he raged against those items specifically only exposes how much he was influenced by them. Remember the old Shakespeare quote "the lady doth protest too much?". Jung called it projection.

I honestly didn't mean to rile you up. But if you plan on seriously discussing the less Romantic aspects of Nietzsche's writings, pack a lunch.

[MN Dave]

Just think, all that money (supposedly) and intelligence and you're still a dick! 

[Haffner]

Your incapacity to grasp the books you mention does not mean others are as diffecient in understanding as you are...
(I see it is a habit of the lesser members of this  site to compensate for the ignorance displayed in their posts, with accusations of ignorance against educated people  )


If you had any credible theory as to how Hegelian logic is applicable to Nietzsche's polemic against Wagner, you would have said so;  Nor have you demonstrated your contention that a synthesis was obtained from the confrontation of Wagner's romanticism and of Nietzsche's classicism.  You need to get your act together, buddy, if you want to be taken seriously by serious people.


There you go again, trying to draw attention away from your impotance to demonstrate any of the points you have made, with generalisations that are superficial as well as irrelevent to the debate between Nietzsche and Wagner.

keep your hopes down, buddy.  There is nothing defensive or uncertain about any of my postings.  Merely bringing evidence to point out Newman's claim of an equivalence of Wagner and Nietzsche is an incompetent one.


You need to learn to read people's postings before you react to them.  Do you so much as know the meaning(s) of the word romantic?  And there is no way you can figure out who I embrace or not, from the mere fact that I have pointed out Wagner and Nietzsche were opposites.


Who cares.  This thread is not about you.  Nor does your claim Nietszche is a means to resolve emotional hangups make you a credible authority on that author.


I have, dimwit.  Nor are you going to impress knowledgeable people by making authority of Kaufmann's irresponsible and mendacious effort at transforming Nietzsche into the opposite of what Nietzsche was.


You can't write a coherent sentence but you pretend to know why Nietzsche did not like women?  What a joke.  Nor does your denigration of that great man has any relevance to the fact that he was misogynous, while Wagner believed in the salvation of Man through women.

Learn how to read is one thing you should do; an another thing you need to do is learn how not to draw attention away from your incompetence to argue a coherent line, with smear on educated people.


Even when you project your ignorance unto others? 

Once again, if you had read my post before making your latest display of insult-packed ignorance you would know I have contrasted Nietzsche's... classicism to Wagner's romanticism

My lunches get packed for me, foolish boy.

How could I have been so stupid. Thanks so much for setting me straight about these points. I feel like a complete idiot. Please accept my apology, really.

[uffeviking]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I read the heading of this subject as Modern composers. I know Nietzsche composed, but not enough to be classified as a composer. As to Wagner, has he ever been classified as modern?

If any of you want to discuss the relationship between Wagner and Nietzsche, either start a separate thread, or better yet, go to a forum dealing with such a subject.

You want a modern composer? How about Peter Eötvös? His Le Balcon is fascinating, but then it is an opera and should be in the Opera and Vocal section. See you there!

uffeviking

[karlhenning]

You want a modern composer?

I'll check my availability 

[Henk]

How could I have been so stupid. Thanks so much for setting me straight about these points. I feel like a complete idiot. Please accept my apology, really.

Good to hear this, Andy

[uffeviking]

I had you in mind, but I could not find your work available at amazon or any other CD producers. Would love to see your Three Things That Begin with 'C' published! 


This post is in reply to Karl Hennings's.

[Henk]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I read the heading of this subject as Modern composers. I know Nietzsche composed, but not enough to be classified as a composer. As to Wagner, has he ever been classified as modern?

If any of you want to discuss the relationship between Wagner and Nietzsche, either start a separate thread, or better yet, go to a forum dealing with such a subject.

You want a modern composer? How about Peter Eötvös? His Le Balcon is fascinating, but then it is an opera and should be in the Opera and Vocal section. See you there!

uffeviking

Thanks for that recommendation. The problem with listening to opera is that I think I have to follow the story, but perhaps concentrating only on the music is already enough?

[uffeviking]

perhaps concentrating only on the music is already enough?

Not always! A familiarity with the action and meaning is preferred but not always available, or even practical in everyday life. You can listen to the opera once you have seen it and know what it's all about and your boss and/or wife won't mind, but running a DVD on your office PC or dominating your wife's soap operas? Bad idea! 

[The new erato]

It would not seem inappropriate to discuss definitions of modernity in any thread devoted to the modern.
A pretty widespread opinion out there is that the breakdown of tonality begins with the opening bars of Tristan.  And if that opinion is sound then musical modernity derives from Wagner.

In that case I'll propose that musical modernism are about a lot of other stuff than the breakdown of tonality. Its also about attitude.

[jochanaan]

Well written, J. But you could possibly see Schoenberg, etc. as automatically having tonal implications simply by dint of their atonality.

I suppose you could--but it seems about as likely as to relieve one's hunger by fasting.

If there are tonal implications in Schoenberg and the others, they were deliberately allowed.  Berg, in particular, showed a kind of "tonal nostalgia;" he was the most Romantic of the three.  Webern, on the other hand, seems to have no "tonal nostalgia" at all once he embraced atonality and serialism.  In some ways, he was the most radical of the whole school.

[greg]

Your incapacity to grasp the books you mention does not mean others are as diffecient in understanding as you are...
(I see it is a habit of the lesser members of this  site to compensate for the ignorance displayed in their posts, with accusations of ignorance against educated people  )


If you had any credible theory as to how Hegelian logic is applicable to Nietzsche's polemic against Wagner, you would have said so;  Nor have you demonstrated your contention that a synthesis was obtained from the confrontation of Wagner's romanticism and of Nietzsche's classicism.  You need to get your act together, buddy, if you want to be taken seriously by serious people.


There you go again, trying to draw attention away from your impotance to demonstrate any of the points you have made, with generalisations that are superficial as well as irrelevent to the debate between Nietzsche and Wagner.

keep your hopes down, buddy.  There is nothing defensive or uncertain about any of my postings.  Merely bringing evidence to point out Newman's claim of an equivalence of Wagner and Nietzsche is an incompetent one.


You need to learn to read people's postings before you react to them.  Do you so much as know the meaning(s) of the word romantic?  And there is no way you can figure out who I embrace or not, from the mere fact that I have pointed out Wagner and Nietzsche were opposites.


Who cares.  This thread is not about you.  Nor does your claim Nietszche is a means to resolve emotional hangups make you a credible authority on that author.


I have, dimwit.  Nor are you going to impress knowledgeable people by making authority of Kaufmann's irresponsible and mendacious effort at transforming Nietzsche into the opposite of what Nietzsche was.


You can't write a coherent sentence but you pretend to know why Nietzsche did not like women?  What a joke.  Nor does your denigration of that great man has any relevance to the fact that he was misogynous, while Wagner believed in the salvation of Man through women.

Learn how to read is one thing you should do; an another thing you need to do is learn how not to draw attention away from your incompetence to argue a coherent line, with smear on educated people.


Even when you project your ignorance unto others? 

Once again, if you had read my post before making your latest display of insult-packed ignorance you would know I have contrasted Nietzsche's... classicism to Wagner's romanticism

My lunches get packed for me, foolish boy.

Remind me to never talk to you.

[karlhenning]

A pretty widespread opinion out there is that the breakdown of tonality begins with the opening bars of Tristan.  And if that opinion is sound then musical modernity derives from Wagner.

It did, once on a time.  "Modern" is a time-dependent variable.

It is many, many decades since Wagner was "modern."

[jochanaan]

It would not seem inappropriate to discuss definitions of modernity in any thread devoted to the modern.
A pretty widespread opinion out there is that the breakdown of tonality begins with the opening bars of Tristan.  And if that opinion is sound then musical modernity derives from Wagner.

See my previous reply #79 (on page 4, as the thread comes up for me) for an alternate viewpoint.

[Fëanor]

Your incapacity to grasp the books you mention does not mean others are as diffecient in understanding as you are...
(I see it is a habit of the lesser members of this  site to compensate for the ignorance displayed in their posts, with accusations of ignorance against educated people  )
...

Gads!    Now there's a big wad of hauteur, eh?

There members here who know more about this, that, the other, or many topics.  Also, some might be more rational, charming, and/or richer.  But I would never be so crass as to refer to "lesser" or "greater" members.

Of those who consider themselves the "greater" members, I would ask that you do one or more of the following:

• Stifle your arrogance
• Go somewhere else
• Sodomize yourself with a splintery broom handle.

[MN Dave]

• Sodomize yourself with a splintery broom handle.

LOL

[Haffner]

Since I've been so designated by an authority, let me announce now my pride in being one of GMG's lesser members!

Woo-HOOO! Get down n' funky! Bust a dilly on dat supa-funk-TASM! Yipppeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[ChamberNut]

Your incapacity to grasp the books you mention does not mean others are as diffecient in understanding as you are...
(I see it is a habit of the lesser members of this  site to compensate for the ignorance displayed in their posts, with accusations of ignorance against educated people  )


If you had any credible theory as to how Hegelian logic is applicable to Nietzsche's polemic against Wagner, you would have said so;  Nor have you demonstrated your contention that a synthesis was obtained from the confrontation of Wagner's romanticism and of Nietzsche's classicism.  You need to get your act together, buddy, if you want to be taken seriously by serious people.


There you go again, trying to draw attention away from your impotance to demonstrate any of the points you have made, with generalisations that are superficial as well as irrelevent to the debate between Nietzsche and Wagner.

keep your hopes down, buddy.  There is nothing defensive or uncertain about any of my postings.  Merely bringing evidence to point out Newman's claim of an equivalence of Wagner and Nietzsche is an incompetent one.


You need to learn to read people's postings before you react to them.  Do you so much as know the meaning(s) of the word romantic?  And there is no way you can figure out who I embrace or not, from the mere fact that I have pointed out Wagner and Nietzsche were opposites.


Who cares.  This thread is not about you.  Nor does your claim Nietszche is a means to resolve emotional hangups make you a credible authority on that author.


I have, dimwit.  Nor are you going to impress knowledgeable people by making authority of Kaufmann's irresponsible and mendacious effort at transforming Nietzsche into the opposite of what Nietzsche was.


You can't write a coherent sentence but you pretend to know why Nietzsche did not like women?  What a joke.  Nor does your denigration of that great man has any relevance to the fact that he was misogynous, while Wagner believed in the salvation of Man through women.

Learn how to read is one thing you should do; an another thing you need to do is learn how not to draw attention away from your incompetence to argue a coherent line, with smear on educated people.


Even when you project your ignorance unto others? 

Once again, if you had read my post before making your latest display of insult-packed ignorance you would know I have contrasted Nietzsche's... classicism to Wagner's romanticism

My lunches get packed for me, foolish boy.

5  Over/Under?:  Number of GMGers who exercised their "Report to Moderator" function on this one.   

[bwv 1080]

 have to say Sarkosian confirms all my suspicions about Nietzsche only having value to insecure adolescents.  When is the last time you saw a pretentious buffoon quoting David Hume?