He describes classical music as offering nothing more than an aesthetic sensation, the result of aesthetic posturing, "the conception and estimation of art in terms of the unalloyed state of feeling and the growing barbarization of the very state to the point where it becomes the sheer bubbling and boiling of feeling abandoned to itself." For Heidegger classical music is pure metaphysics, an indulgence of bourgeois culture, because it is devoid of an ontological grounding and the ties of people to the earth. At best it's a harmless divertissement and nothing more; the total works of Beethoven nothing but a harmless divertissement!
His estimation of music as a high art seems very unfair, and likely the product of Heidegger's unfamiliarity with classical music as a discipline, but nonetheless I cannot account for such a negative evaluation.
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
THIS IS MEDIEVAL MUSIC:
THIS IS RENAISSANCE MUSIC:
THIS IS MANNERISTIC MUSIC:
THIS IS BAROQUE MUSIC:
THIS IS ROCCOCO MUSIC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jio1HP94R8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGfaoiHL6i4
THIS IS ILLUSTRISTIC MUSIC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-TrAvp_xs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbf1LVE4UKM
THIS IS ROMANTICISTIC MUSIC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4ImL0Rblk8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=891JUSQplzU
THIS IS MODERNISTIC MUSIC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAnXTHUU4ks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2Hz53wzuA
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS «CLASSICAL MUSIC».
>MANNERISTIC
Not a real word.
«MANNERISTIC»: PERTAINING TO MANNERISM.
YOUR IGNORANCE OF A WORD DOES NOT MAKE THAT WORD «NOT REAL».
Not a real word.
this is off topic moronic posting
says the moron in a IQfy thread on IQfy. which fricking book is the discussing, exactly?
The problem with classical music is that is very easy to navigate it into technical wankery with no soul and no essence, im a musical grug but man I can go through Tristan und Isolde, it has nice parts, or the stabat mater of Pergolesie that is grief of the most profoud nature, Vivaldi's agressive pieces or Bach's serene soothing tunes, but cant tolerate Mozart, Beethoven, shostakovich and the like, they bore me to death and you can see that the people who enjoy their opus always chant the same mantra "but the technical complexity", personally I despise that is just a vulgar display of skill for the mere sake of it, ti show of good chops you have, the bragging rights exists I get it I just dont think is worth wasting your time with that.
No offence anon but you're a pleb. It sounds like you've listened to about 10 pieces of classical music. Mozart and Beethoven are admired BECAUSE of their super-plenitude of soul. In them technical complexity is always perfectly united with the expression of soul. There is never an innovation that was not done with the aim of a greater expression of soul. There is never superficial skill.
>there is never superficial skill
What a fricking midwit
There is never superficial skill in either Mozart or Beethoven, yes, do you lack basic reading comprehension? You've probably not listened to more than 10 pieces of classical music yet you think you can criticise Beethoven and Mozart, you have no right to call anyone a midwit. Deriding Beethoven and Mozart as all technical complexity is laughably moronic to anyone with even the most entry level knowledge in classical music. But that knowledge aside, you have no musical feeling. People may not be able to explain the enormous addition to the expressive potential of music by these giants, but they can still feel its effect, yet you cannot. Now, are you really insensitive to the effects of art, or are you just pretending to have heard things you have not?
Man if this is the kind of music that "moves your soul" you must be some shallow person, elevator music supreme is what it is, I dont feel anything because there is nothing to feel, do you also burst into tears when looking a perfectly designed machine? Where every piece moves as it should and its fuction is flawlessly excuted? I doubt it.
>Now, are you really insensitive to the effects of art?
There is a lot of art that carries very little emotional weight, romaticism has been always despised for doing the opposite yet I find it more genuine, you know "art" does not equal guaranteed emotions, to take a more vulgar approach in music technical death metal is the biggest example, you cant possibly be a human being with a beating heart and listen to that SHIT and call it art, or say it carries emotions is just wankery, is just standing there screaming "I am a fricking boss at guitar/drums/bass" what makes you think classical music does not suffer from the same? Because you like it and its sacred to you? To say that Im insensitive to art is very bold and I doubt you can prove it beyond debating me on 4chins.
What an enormous idiot, just mind-blowing. Yes, I can say, with perfect confidence, that you lack artistic sensitivity. You lack artistic culture, you lack any education in the realm of art one can imagine. Just stop talking about music, with every new metaphor and description you say something even more stupid and distanced from any knowledge of the subject. There's nothing mechanical about Beethoven's compositions, that's nowhere near the reason anyone praises it, yet you think it is for some absurd, confused reason. Your sole aesthetic criteria is 'me like' or 'me not like' for whatever passing sounds you hear, and in trying to give that some objective merit you've created this concoction of every foolish idea that enters into your head.
Don't (you) me with your attempts at breaking down my post and providing a coherent argument again, your attempts at intellectual consistency are laughable, your knowledge non-existent. You will only continue to embarrass yourself and find nothing but scorn and derision in return.
Well this is one fine autistic fit of rage if I have ever seen one, kek.
>least lunatic IQfysic enjoyer
agree with you on mozart but its weird AF to say beethoven or shostakovich have no sovl
Filtered by the subtleties of classical period music.
Because it forgets being instead of disclosing truth like a good yodeler can
>he describes classical music
Where does he use that phrase?
He doesn’t, OP made it up
It's from Will to Power as Art. You may not want to admit it, but here Heidegger was completely out of his element.
>he is out of his element because... Because I say so!
Look, the point is that we need a big silence, so we can have a new beginning.
So what music would he like?
It's always weird to find a high-achiever has no appreciation for music. It's like knowing someone for years and then suddenly discovering he's only got one leg.
I was reading George Patton's autobiography the other day and suddenly came across this admission (see pic attached). He says two sane and sensible things:
— it's seems a bit silly to waste time and men teaching horses to do fancy steps in the middle of a war
— on the other hand, it's good to preserve skills, even if they seem a bit redundant
and then something ABSOLUTELY BONKERS:
— training horses to do fancy steps > painting and music
Painting, I have some sympathy with. We can live without painting. But we can't live without music. Oh well, I guess no-one's perfect.
how is some bullshit general's opinion on art bothering you?
I’ve known many before. It’s like they’re alien to me.
>expecting a nazi to be truthful and not serve some political interest
Why would you?
Didn't mean to announce a sage, and I didn't sage. Sorry
Where does he say this? Classical music is pretty much the peak of artistic expression.
Please understand that German philosophy and poetry is nothing more than idealizing the Greeks
And Greeks (and ancients in general) made terrible, primitive music. That explains it.
We actually don’t know that for a fact. We have like five spurious pieces of music which survive and the notation is so ancient we aren’t even sure we are reading it properly.