Started by Lethevich, September 28, 2008, 07:11:41 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2010, 02:57:23 AMAs it is, such remarks are continuing demonstration that you don't have a grasp on what a fact is.[/font]
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2010, 02:57:23 AM(unless we go on to say that, once Wagner had his go at advancing those harmonic ideas, he retrenched to arguably safer harmonic ground with his next opera)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2010, 05:32:40 AMOne excellent aspect of this discussion, though, is to remind us the extent to which the Romantics were about restless expansion and pushing the envelope. The Neo-Romantics would seem to have us believe that the Romantics were all about warm-&-fuzzy-dom.[/font]
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2010, 07:06:04 AMWagner was a genius. Liszt was not. That is as undeniable a fact as they come. I don't have to provide an explanation (even assuming such a thing was possible) because the truth inherent in this statement is self evident to anyone who has even the slighest stretch of artistic sensibility. You however conveniently chose to avoid denying those "facts", but you still want to object, ever so strongly, to the simple idea that I (I mind you) might have any specific knowledge or insight into so difficoult a subject. You want to accuse me of being dead wrong, always, without necessarily confirm or deny the truth inherent in my statements. You accuse me of having no grasp on what a fact is, and yet you are yourself prone of making statements of fact regarding my alleged ignorance. Pray tell, how do you know whether i am in fact wrong?
Quote from: Dax on April 07, 2010, 08:38:37 AMBlimey.So what do your friends call you? Benito?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2010, 08:07:30 AMModernists of course would have us believe the Romantics were about restless expansion and pushing the envelope in their direction.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2010, 07:06:04 AMLiszt was not [a genius]. That is as undeniable a fact as they come.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2010, 08:50:49 AMYou have this dollhouse you play in, where everything depends on this guy being a genius, and that guy or gal not being a genius; a dollhouse (parenthetically) in which a gal is genetically incapable of genius. If you like your little cartoony world, have at it. But it is idiocy on your part to imagine that the arts world at large confines itself to your fond little imaginings.[/font]
QuoteLiberalism is, in one word, weakness. It wants every day to be a birthday, Life to be a long party.The inexorable movement of Time, Destiny, History, the cruelty of accomplishment, sternness, heroism, sacrifice, superpersonal ideas, these are the enemy. Liberalism is an escape from hardness into softness, from masculinity into femininity, from History to herd-grazing, from reality into herbivorous dreams, from Destiny into Happiness. Nietzsche, in his last and greatest work, designated the 18th century as the century of feminism, and immediately mentioned Rousseau, the leader of the mass-escape from Reality. Feminism itself what is it but a means of feminizing man? If it makes women man-like, it does so only by transforming man first into a creature whose only concern is with his personal economics and his relation to society,i.e., a woman. Society is the element of woman, it is static and formal, its contests are purely personal, and are free from the possibility of heroism and violence. Conversation, not action; formality, not deeds. How different is the idea of rank used in connection with a social affair, from when it is applied on a battlefield! In the field, it is fate-laden; in the salon it is vain and pompous. A war is fought for control, social contests are inspired by feminine vanity and jealousy to show that one is better than someone else.
QuoteOne point not normally discussed with Liszt but not unfamiliar to late-19th-century composers was his consciousness of working in the shadow of composers he considered giants. In Liszt's case, the shadows were those of Beethoven and Wagner He professed to find consolation and inspiration in their works. However, it is also possible their greatness may have had an effect on his own ability to compose. While he blamed his inability to complete compositions on his busy social calendar as late as the early 1870s, by the late 1870s he began to express fears of failing creativity on his part.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 07, 2010, 10:05:12 AMTo the contrary. Those are not merely my own little imaginings, but are fundamental truths which were quite common knowledge in the past.
Quote from: Scarpia on April 07, 2010, 10:21:44 AMThese truths are evident to you alone?
Quote from: DavidW on April 07, 2010, 09:21:31 AMSlightly off topic
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 07, 2010, 11:24:03 AMIncorporating the anvil into the orchestra? Geeeeenius!
Quote from: jowcol on April 07, 2010, 12:35:11 PMI hate to split hares, but that is SUPER Genius. And, by following that line of thought, Verdi would be a SUPER Genius by association, since he wrote the Anvil Chorus.
Quote from: MN Dave on April 07, 2010, 12:37:27 PMWell, Verdi thought of it first so it turns your Coyote Super Genius theory to mush.
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 23 queries.