Why am i not seeing the Mozarts and Bethovens, the Spinonaz and

Wait about twenty years and you'll see.

>>481718
Because you're a retard

>>481718
>Why am i not seeing the Mozarts and Bethovens, the Spinonaz and Descartes, the Einstens and Newtons, The Hemingways and Goethes of today?
2 5 y e a r r u l e

>>481727
Too long.

>>481737
Ok. Who is the mozart of today?

>>481718

Because you aren't intelligent enough to identify raw talent.

>>481739
I don't know who but there sure is one and Mozart is shite anyway

>>481739
>Who is the mozart of today?
Wait twenty years and you'll see.

>>481750
Exposure. I am not a talent scout.

>>481739
>Ok. Who is the mozart of today?

Justin Beiber, guy sold out the square in 30 seconds

>>481739
Brian Ferneyhough

>>481718
>Spinonaz and Descartes
There are LOTS of contemporary philosophers. The most prominent figure in Anglo-American philosophy is Saul Kripke, while in Continental Europe we have people like Badiou, Sloterdijk and even Zizek.

>Einstens and Newtons
There are lots of physicists working in a variety of fields. The most significant one born after 1940 or so is probably Gerard 't Hooft.

>Hemingways and Goethes
Again, there are many prominent writers. My favorite is probably Javier Marias, though the biggest ones recently have included Michel Houellebecq and Karl Ove Knausgaard.

Basically, you're complaining about nothing.

File: drake future.png (494KB, 807x498px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 807x498px

>>481718
>Mozarts and Bethovens of today

>>481739
In all honesty Kanye West

>>481718
Because mass culture has killed everything worthy with its mediocrity and blandness.

>>481739
Yoko Shimomura

>>481963
This is the only serious response for music btw

>>481718
>Why am i not seeing the Mozarts and Bethovens,
look harder
>the Spinonaz and Descartes
Contemporary philosophy is stagnant, I suppose, not an expert. Perhaps some recent guys match their greatness but I've not a clue.
>the Einstens and Newtons
This kind of thing is exceedingly rare and requires the right knowledge. Perhaps we don't know enough to make the next game-changing theory, perhaps someone already has and we don't know enough to test it. Give it time
>The Hemingways and Goethes of today?
No excuse for this one, though I assume there are some geniuses out there who I haven't read.

>>481963
>>482129
>implying Ferneyhough will be considered the Mozart of our times.
not likely. Probably some meme cunt like John Cage, or even more likely
>>482084

>>482149
John Cage is dead, but I'd say Stockhausen is more significant.

>>482149
If you want a "respected composer" who's also popular, there's always Philip Glass.

>>481718
Because you don't seek anything out, just expect to be served science arts and culture in casual two minute slices of facebook newsfeed video and greentext memery without any thought or active endeavour on your behalf.

You are a lazy cunt that wants spoonfeeding.

>>482174
Brian Eno.

>>481718
Because there is so much more traffic in the intellectual networks now than there was even a hundred years ago. A tumbleweed is remarkable if it's the only thing that ever breezes through town, and a rolls royce isn't shit when it's stuck in rush hour traffic.

>>481718
>Why don't we have people equivalent to the greatest people of all time in every single field right now?
Nigga that's some retarded shit.

>>482629
Hemingway wasn't THAT great

>>482732
He was pretty good for a homosexual with transvestite tendencies.

File: Troubadours_berlin.jpg (189KB, 293x312px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 293x312px

>>481718
Because you're a pleb listening to street musicians

>>482734
I don't think he was either of those

File: creative-chairs-part-2-14-1.jpg (36KB, 605x455px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 605x455px

>>482105
People will try to relativize it, OP, but this.

>>482742
He was definitely homosexual, consult /lit/

File: Y2TZuNs.png (16KB, 582x291px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 582x291px

>>481718
Because most people -- in any era, are neither geniuses nor amazing artists. What, do you think those people were common? The whole fucking reason anyone cares about Einstein, or Newton, or Hemingway, or Goethe,or Spinoza (btw it's Spinoza, not Spinonaz or whatever gibberish you typed) or Beethoven (by the way, you forgot an e), is because most people in any given era AREN'T Einstein, or Newton, or Hemingway, or Goethe, or Beethoven. Exceptional talent is only exceptional if it's rare. If everyone's talented or intelligent, then no one is.

Modern artists are no better or worse than they were in any era; it's just that most shitty artists of the past were forgotten. As for modern thinkers... well, if anything, people now are smarter on average -- or, rather, much better educated.

I'll bet you're some "born in the wrong generation" kid who's only vaguely familiar with any of those people you listed. That would explain why you can't even spell their names.

>>481718
Because they are people like Justin beiber , Kanye West and kid Rock.

>>481718
Death Grips are all of those

>>481739
Viper

>Hemingway of today

He's called Cormac McCarthy

>>482908
He's more like Faulkner, who is better than Hemingway anyway

>>481718
How can you expect to identify those people with such low energy?

>>481718
Beethoven's fault

he took music out of the hands of the aristocracy and put it into the hands of the populous.

the populous in turn moved to other genres (rock, country, rap, folk, jazz, etc).

In relation to this subject I'm curious how the Spinozas, Platos, the Aristotles the Descartes, and the other humanities figures became the greats that they are today.
Was it in retrospect?
By the number of people that reference the work?
By their standing in society?

I think it's funny because these sorts of works become the unquestionable academic standard so to speak, but rarely do I hear anyone actually talking about these authors/philosophers in comparison with their contemporaries.

>>483008
Beethoven didn't do that, c[r]apitalism did

>>481718
>who is Lurie
>who is Tao
>who is Witten

Because
1. you're too much of a retard to seek out the information yourself and has to be spoonfed news by the popsci media, which butchers the actual things being done so that dumbasses like you can digest them.
2. shit's gotten muh harder since the times of those schmucks. Large leaps in progress were done by large groups or many people building upon previous works.

>>483026
Beethoven popularized the model that capitalists and modern theaters use today

thanks Beethoven, you ruined music forever

>>482914
His prose is more minimalistic than purple, unless you've only read Blood Meridian.

>>483063
Or unless you've read Suttree, which has similarly detailed prose. Blood Meridian is his best book, too

>>481739
Kendrick Lamar is the voice of this generation.

>>483076
Admittedly I haven't read Suttree, but I'd hardly call the Border Trilogy or the Road purple in prose. I guess his style has changed over time. Generally, it's stark with bursts of elaborate prose here and there.

>>481963
>>482129
>>482149
>Just googled
Sounds like the equivalent of post modern art to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtGijG6dMY

File: rdj-34.jpg (19KB, 450x282px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 450x282px

>>481739
>Ok. Who is the mozart of today?

You know people fuckin hated Moby Dick when it was published right? Melville died poor and the book only became considered Godlike afterwards. Hindsight is 20/20 youll only know who the greats of your generation were by the time youre an old man

Because we are moving away in sciences away from "great single inventors" and towards general progress of groups and collectives.

What singular individual created the cell phone? Computer? Playstation 4? Internet? There aren't Einsteins/Teslas/Newtons now because science is done in labs by groups and engineering done by companies.

>>481718
>Why am i not seeing the Mozarts and Bethovens, the Spinonaz and Descartes, the Einstens and Newtons, The Hemingways and Goethes of today?
cuz u aint lookin bruv

>>483038
>artistic bourgeoisie

die tвh

>>481718
I hope you understand that with the fast pace of society (especially compared to times before the industrial revolution) and the changes made by post-modernist artists, it might be impossible to have another "Bach" or "Mozart".
People will probably look back at some meme music like Queen, the Beatles, or Michael Jackson.
Also, the popularity of Mozart does not mean there were equally good composers in his time.
There was C. P. E. Bach for example. Next to that, simply because the music is well known, it does not mean that the music is good. One example would be that Canon in D major by Johann Pachelbel. Sure, it's a nice bass line, which actually already existed before him. He just made a canon out of it with some violins playing on top. Nobody cares about Pachelbel otherwise.

Music is no longer an art, but a consumer good. You listen to it in the store, in the car, on TV, in the club. You download it in bulk online or buy it on CD's with 12 songs per piece. There is simply too much music published and those who are _actually_ good are ignored because only those with some knowledge of music history and theory appreciate what those artists do.
There are some really good organ composers today, who are remarkably good at improvising. There's this guy in Maastricht, Netherlands, Called Marcel Verheggen, who improvises music on the organ that is nothing like standard organ music. I can not find any recordings, but it is certainly worth a visit.

I think names like Beethoven and Mozart are simply well known due to mass media and are now bait for ignorant concert goers who want to experience some classical music. If a concert hall would put on a rather unknown name up, there wouldn't be as many people visiting, even though the music might be just as good. I personally would much rather go to a performance of music by Josquin des Prez than Beethoven.
It's also a matter of taste of course.

"Classical Music" does not sell that much anymore, even "Modern Classical"

>>483645
Most performers rely on (government) funding to continue giving concerts of historical music, and even modern composers hardly get full halls.

OP, do YOU try to discover good composers? Are you going to concerts of unknown artists?
Or are you just sitting at home downloading that new Tame Impala album to listen to on your way to work?

>>483628
that was already true by late 19th century, einstein was a theoretician anyway

someone already mentioned t'hooft, then there's obviously higgs, guth, dyson and very blatantly hawking, he's even almost as much of an meme as einstein

>>483012
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

>>483628
It's actually quite rediculous we attribute inventions like the 'light bulb' to a guy like Thomas Edison. He just combined inventions and ideas made by people before him.
Same could actually go for composers. Sure, they have some inventing skills for melodies, but they are based on systems developed by people before them. Bach reached an all-time high in counterpoint compositions. Mozart and Beethoven simply worked within the framework of harmony which the baroque composers created (which in itself is actually a different way of looking at counterpoint), I believe it was Rameau.
Of course, those composers DID actually write the music on their own, thus we praise them specifically.
On the other hand, they often borrowed themes and melodies from eachother. Bach for example took works by Vivaldi, Weiss, Castello, Böhm, Buxtehude, and reworked them.

File: 12289534_10153756777445842_2582800242302417134_n.jpg (29KB, 663x579px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 663x579px

>>481718
see
>>481750

Let's face it, OP. You don't give a shit about music, philosophy, or science, and you wouldn't know any of these people if they weren't household names.

>>481759
this.
Mozart sucks. Name any shitty popstar and they can be the Mozart of today

classical music is garbage like, 95% of the time. boring as fuck.

>>483956
this, Bakh and Chaikovtzky have nothing on Jay Z

>Hemingways
>implaying its not overrated shit
Go be fat somewhere else.

File: jay-z-theblueprint.jpg (52KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 540x540px

>>483967
its true.

File: Ennio_Morricone_Cannes_2007.jpg (2MB, 1371x2067px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1371x2067px

>>481739
pic related

>Hemingway
lol

File: 3441-04e_plg_rgb_crossed.jpg (836KB, 4006x5060px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 4006x5060px

>>483983
>2 or 3 good compositions

pls

>>481739
Kanye West or Jay Z or Sean Combs.

Because scientists of today have lost the path of science that Physics became philosophy and Maths became Imagination, talking about bosons and strings and shit...instead of observing what's really happening and translating it to Science
>Comming from a scientist

File: basil.jpg (4KB, 205x272px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 205x272px

>>483983
>>483998

>>483998
>>483983
>>484017
>meme themes

Actually yeah... unfortunately, they all are either not famous enough or have small or unfamous bodies of work.

In this context, I'd say a contemporary Mozart is either Zimmer of Williams.

>>484013
>>Comming from a scientist

I don't believe you. Have you ever read Principia?
It's about as dry as anything modern.
At least BRA - KET looks funky and newton's notation is dull compared to Leibniz's

>>483673
people like Frank Zappa kind of disprove your point. Rock music carries some serious weight, even if critics behave like amateurs.

Because we're not living in times like the past. People on /his/ literally believe that life is exactly the same as it has always been. Never in the history of humanity have people been so disconnected and withdrawn from real life. We live in an overpopulated dystopian capitalist bleak world lacking in any of the freedom, struggle or importance which was found in ancient times.

>>484043
it's a meme

File: fgsfds.jpg (69KB, 416x352px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 416x352px

>>484046
>muh bleak world

tell that to Jack of Stokes-On-Kent-Shit, the dung gatherer serf

>>481739
If we're sticking to orchestral
It's John Williams
Other genres its Zappa or Sufjan

>>484055
>serfs had it so hard waahhh
The average person today literally works 2 times longer than serfs did. (probably harder too, I mean farming isn't that difficult and ancient farms were little more than veggie patches).

>Mozarts and Bethovens
Beyoncé

>Spinonaz and Descartes
Jayden Smith

>Einstens and Newtons
Black Science Man

>Hemingways and Goethes
John Green


You keep living in the past, no wonder you can't see the future.

>>481718

NIKLIKKLIKKLIK.

YOU FLAUNT THOSE SPACE RINGS ROUND YOUR HEAD YOU CUNT!

I AM HE WHO LET HIS LADY FRIEND SLEEP ON THE DOG BED!

I COMMIT ONE THOUSAND SLAMS OF JUSTICE!

>>484057
Oh sorry Koji Kondo is also a good contender
Williams is more like Beethoven
But Dudamel would disagree with me

Because modern western world is dying. And that's great.

>>481718
They are only made famous by history

>>484066
>le noble serf savage

fuck off, don't be such a dunce, just because there was this narrative of super horrible medieval life decades ago doesn't mean you now need to tell people life was fun and flowers back then.

And I seriously doubt you ever lifted a shovel, hoe or a pitchfork in your life.

Seeing as how you're very probably from the 1st world, you're literally living in the best possible time imaginable up until now.

>>484087
>doesn't mean you now need to tell people life was fun and flowers back then.
I am not saying this at all.
>And I seriously doubt you ever lifted a shovel, hoe or a pitchfork in your life.
It's not hard.
>you're literally living in the best possible time imaginable up until now.
Only because welfare exists. But I would trade welfare and McDonalds for a nice small plot of land in Medieval Europe teeming with wildlife and trees. Still, the modern man works longer hours than serfs did.

File: 1447368149270.jpg (31KB, 599x347px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 599x347px

>>481718
the closest thing i can remember to the great musicians of past eras was zappa and that was literally in the last century

in terms of filosophy and humanities there's nothing to add since like someone said in this board todays "filosophers" are cunts living on ivory towers parroting ancient quotes from ancient people without any actual critical thinking - pretty much just mindless zombies spewing what they've learn in their universities.

in terms of ciency you have the wheelchair meme cientist and giorgio tsoukalos... and i have no clue how literature is going since i can't remember the last time i read a book from this millenium also i'm only a functional analphabet so i can't read or write

File: 1447046098477.jpg (64KB, 900x437px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 900x437px

>>481762
yeah that's not going to happen... probably never again if humanity keeps falling this hard.

but in the past culture was produced for the elite who could afford to pay for the artists to create things they would enjoy - needless to say aristocrats, nobles and similar idle shits didn't work or had very light managing jobs so they could afford to waste countless hours refining their tastes and learning about anyting they wanted.

that changed when the elites started getting infiltrated by more brutish nouveaux riches that couldn't care any less about faggy music or culture
then the music business became a musical industry and started working for the majority since those are more profitable - and by doing that they had to lower the bar so the rabble could enjoy music without having to learn about music or how music works and that's how you get pop music to pretty much assimilate all other non-niche genres and simply bloat the market with garbage 4 plebz

>>481718
Have you never heard of Bono?

>>484104
>It's not hard, just a patch of vegetables, etc.

Laddie, you should go out once, maybe in the heat of the summer and help a nearby farmer work the land for 5 hours or so. Preferably without an aircon'd tractor.

Do you even realise how much food a person consumes in one year?
Now take into account the fact that a medieval family would (besides having to feed themselves, give 10% to the church, work feudal lands and give tax in produce to the feudal lord) also have to produce food for their livestock (even cows needed food processing in terms of making hay for the winter).

Now of course, back in those days, they didn't have tractors, the plough technology was shitty, crop rotation was unadvanced, there were no pesticides, the tools weren't stainless steel.

And that's just the work for food, you also had countless menial tasks concerned with the upkeep of the farm, your clothes and whatnot.

There is a reason a big barrier on the complexification of society was the amount of non farmers who had time to do other shit that a farmer could support.

And I'm not even gonna go into the fact of how you're a coddled brat who apparently takes modern technology for granted.

>>484135
Outside physical labor isn't depressing, as long as you're not starving, especially when its intensity follows the seasons naturally. It's not like working in a steel factory or a mine.
Why do so many people think "doing little" means you "have it good"? Having little to do is the worst thing.

>>484153
a very, very large majority of the 1st world works in the tertiary sector laddieboy.

And if you're so bored at your deskjob, bring a book to work. Possibly one that delves into the intricacies of medieval farm work.

>>484159
Actually I was reading one recently, on the development of rural industries.
Farm work mustn't have been that time-consuming given that the peasantry would often take up a second job.

>a very, very large majority of the 1st world works in the tertiary sector laddieboy.
Why do you say that? Is it about me mentioning the mines?
That wasn't my point, I meant to say the worst of the worst in terms of working conditions was the industrial revolution era, which is probably where our idea of manual labor being so terrible comes from.

>>484135
>maybe in the heat of the summer and help a nearby farmer work the land for 5 hours or so.
I live in Australia and have done exactly this.
>Do you even realise how much food a person consumes in one year?
People in the past didn't eat much. This is due to a diet lacking in sugars, fats and oils.
>Now take into account the fact that a medieval family would (besides having to feed themselves, give 10% to the church, work feudal lands and give tax in produce to the feudal lord) also have to produce food for their livestock (even cows needed food processing in terms of making hay for the winter).
Ok, but also take into account that the amount you made was very little and the amount you had to give is very very little and you will realize that serfs didn't have it so bad. They took 4-6 months off in a year.
>Now of course, back in those days, they didn't have tractors, the plough technology was shitty, crop rotation was unadvanced, there were no pesticides, the tools weren't stainless steel.
Not a big deal as you're working with so small a patch of land.
>And that's just the work for food, you also had countless menial tasks concerned with the upkeep of the farm, your clothes and whatnot.
Upkeep was small and you had months to tend to big jobs as well as making simple clothes with nothing more than a loom, needle and thread.
>And I'm not even gonna go into the fact of how you're a coddled brat who apparently takes modern technology for granted.
I take alot for granted but that's the beauty of life and the human condition.

>>484135
>Do you even realise how much food a person consumes in one year?
You'd be so surprised at the amount of food my parents can pull from a small kitchen garden.

>>481718
>Mozart of today
If you want a boring ass overrated predictable musical group there's always led zeppelin for you

You're not paying attention to the underground, kiddo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co3qMdkucM0

If you are looking for the greatest minds of today, you will find most of them among pure mathematicians.

>>481718
They need to die first anon. Then they become great.

>>481739
Kanyee

>>481759
>>483941
FPTMIU

The only guy I consider a true genius polymath that is still living is Mencius Moldbug and I am his greatest fanboy.

For music?

Nujabes.

>>481739
H e n d r i x

>>481718
20 years back theres frank zappa

>>481718
Chester Bennington

>>485076
>a reactionary software engineer
Jesus, why have I never heard of this guy?

Got any good intro articles from him?

File: elon.jpg (241KB, 3221x2415px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 3221x2415px

> Einsteins and Newtons of today

>>484153
Because these simpletons have been taught to worship technology. He's giving a knee jerk argument.

>>481739
Michael Gira

>>481718
Because there's too many of them. The world did not become less great, on the contrary, it is now so filled with wonderful talent and brilliance that we can't truly appreciate greatness anymore. We are used to it.

>>481718
Because you're not involving yourself in haut culture, advanced philosophy, cutting edge physics, or avant garde literature.

Duh.

To be honest you'll see more biologists than physicists from today's era or the 20th century in 100 years. Especially Franklin (compounded with the fact that she's a she) and Watson & Cricks.

Bell Labs will also be a legendary name. Like, on par with East India Co. Too bad Ritchie probably won't see much fame even though C basically made computers viable for everyday life.

>>485482
And I'm not saying that biologists > physicists or some dumb shit like that.
We've just made more leaps and bounds with it than physics in the past few years. It's still in its dark days.

>>485288
this