Nietzsche wrote:Yesterday—would you believe it?—I heard Bizet's masterpiece for the twentieth time. Once more I attended with the same gentle reverence; once again I did not run away. This triumph over my impatience surprises me. How such a work completes one! Through it one almost becomes a “masterpiece” oneself—And, as a matter of fact, each time I heard Carmen it seemed to me that I was more of a philosopher, a better philosopher than at other times: I became so forbearing, so happy, so Indian, so settled.…To sit for five hours: the first step to holiness!—May I be allowed to say that Bizet's orchestration is the only one that I can endure now? That other orchestration which is all the rage at present—the Wagnerian—is brutal, artificial and “unsophisticated” withal, hence its appeal to all the three senses of the modern soul at once.
The underlined part is one of two or three mistakes I've caught Nietzsche making so far. But it's so impossibly difficult to catch him making a mistake that I have to doubt whether I correctly understood his meaning. And it doesn't help that most of my "mistake candidates" are off-hand comments that he doesn't really elaborate on. They were not that important at the time, so he doesn't fully analyze them -- but they ARE important now, hence why I am interested in them.
Another "mistake" is that he says that he finds the theatre a vulgar artform compared to music -- an artform for the masses. And another one is the (very indirect) implication in Twilight of the Idols, I think, that architecture is an art. He doesn't actually SAY it, but it seems to be a given considering the positioning of the relevant passage in the book.
As for Baudrillard, there are self-contradictions and obvious stupidities every other page, so I am not really concerned when my views contradict his. On the subject of art more than half of what he says is obvious bullshit.