Schubert editionhttps://youtu.be/xdegXGh6ntAThis thread is for the discussion of music in the Western (European) classical tradition, as well as classical instrument-playing.>How do I get into classical?This link has resources including audio courses, textbooks and selections of recordings to help you start to understand and appreciate classical music:https://rentry.org/classicalgenPrevious: >>129005417
>>129012155schizophrenia
Music didn't need to go past monophony sung in stone churches.
Why didnt anyone outside europe develop music past simplistic melodies
>>129012749the invention of diatonic staff notation enabled the development of polyphonic music.
>>129012749non-whites are beasts of the field.
>>129012749China was already doing 12 tone shit like Shoenburg 3,000 years ago. They already completed music
>>129013465you do know bait is supposed to be believable, right?
On a purely technical/theory/compositional level, the most skilled composer is Ravel. He often gets outsted from the "Top Composers" because he didn't nearly have as much output at Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. But there is so much more to Ravel's music than, I dunno Haydn's. Like Haydn wrote some 100 symphonies and I can't name a single one
Max Reger. What a giftless bastard.
>>129013465you are profoundly retarded.
Wagner is truth.
The 200 year old techniques are impossible to out date. The greatest works 1700-1900 were written as much for the year 3159 as they were for 2025 as they were for their respective year of composition. There were many temporary fads in the western music cannon, but haydn and Mozart were the first to put their aesthetic truly beyond what was merely popular at the time, and catapult their art into timelessness.The composers that we don’t remember today, they were just doing what was popular at the time. The composers we do remember are the ones who did what was right.The current fad of making ‘interesting’ ‘influential’ pieces will be largely forgotten within a century. It’s just a fad.
Beethoven invented classical from baroque but it wasn't till Chopin fucked the piano as if it were his mother that it really came into its own as an art form.
>>129014593>he doesn't know Haydn's London symphonies by heart
>>129009525No.
>>129014593Not even the drum roll or the one mit dem Paukenschlag?
4https://files.catbox.moe/fpno2v.flac
>The Third Symphony is Mahler’s hymn to the natural world and his longest work. It was largely composed in the summer of 1895 after an exhausting and troubling period that pitched him into feverish creative activity. Bruno Walter visited him at that time and as Mahler met him off the ferry Walter looked up at the spectacular alpine vistas around him only to be told: "No use looking up there, that’s all been composed by me."damn
Buxtehude.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hipaarJwkX8&list=OLAK5uy_mN6LctX4uBCPJLCQLVnuDlLKwqycBnWfc&index=1>>129015012What a complete moron.
>>129015012What a complete genius.
>The first String Quartet, Op. 7, is Schoenberg's hymn to modernity and the digital age. It was largely composed in 1897. Anonymous visited him at that time and as Schoenberg met him off the ferry Anonymous opened 4chan on his phone only to be told: "No use looking on there, that's all been composed by me."damnhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmDlGYj0y1Y
>>129015032>Schoenberg killed music and then also killed the internet by spamming it with 12 tone bots to fulfill the dead internet theory.Legend.
>>129015032an earth-shattering masterpiece
>>129015048>>Schoenberg killed music*the Darmstadt school
>>129015055>Key influences on the Darmstadt School were the works of WebernAnd Webern worshiped the ground Schoenberg walked on. All of this garbage was because of him.
On one occasion, a superior officer demanded to know if he was "this notorious Schoenberg, then"; Schoenberg replied: "Beg to report, sir, yes. Nobody wanted to be, someone had to be, so I let it be me".[12] According to Norman Lebrecht, this is a reference to Schoenberg's apparent "destiny" as the "Emancipator of Dissonance"
>brautigam's beethoven:(>schiff's beethoven:/>barenboim's beethoven:|>gilels' beethoven:)>kempff's beethoven:D>arrau's beethoven:O
Wagner decides what is good and evil.
>>129015063Not bad. Almost as good as the famous Picasso quote.
>>129015063>"Emancipator of Dissonance"That was Bartok. Schoenberg only succeeded in the emancipation of writing alienating fake music that can only be perceived as random notes.
Fagner was gay and died of AIDS.
>>12901506112-tone composition is just an attempt to limit the number of possible intervallic motives and to derive harmony and melodic content from the same pool (a common procedure in all post-tonal music). the twelve-tone system is best conceived as a formalization of the complex motivic-thematic writing of the second viennese school, which is always imbued by polyphonic concerns. This affords the composer the freedom to focus on particular melodic elements of the row, by stowing away parts of it in vertical harmonies. Freer manipulations are also common. All it was meant to do was to bring back compositions to a more organized formalism. That's it, really. At most total serialism/gruppenkomposition/etc. (the kinds of music that appeared after Schoenberg's death, and the ones which this general hates the most) are rooted in a grand misunderstanding of Webern, it has nothing to do with the neoclassical form and motivic development of Schoenberg's twelve-tone works.
>The Nocturnes are Chopin's hymn to rank sentimentalism and dishonest emotionality. It was composed during a turbulent, solitary period when Chopin spent all day watching anime locked in his room, daring only to come out after dusk to stealthily steal a plate of cold leftovers. Jan Lisiecki visited him at that time and as Chopin met him outside of his garish Tesla cybertruck Lisiecki opened up reddit on his phone only to be told: "No use looking on there, that's all been composed by me."damn
>>129015098fucking kek
>>129015061And Schoenberg worshiped Brahms, therefore Brahms ruined music.
>>129015094Wagner broke you like a styrofoam cup.
>>129015096>blah blah blah it was all about saving classical, they really loved it guys, yeah sure its totally unlistenable and completely killed classical, but please believe me12 tone was nothing but the first step towards total abstract mathematizing of composition in total divorce from actual sound perception, culminating in Xenekis.
>schnable's beethovenꉂ(˵˃ ᗜ ˂˵)
>>129015132unlistenable tbqh
>>129015123Fagner's anus was broken into two by multiple men who used him as their personal fucktoy, plus gave him AIDS which he died from.
>>129015115Brahms never had a touch of twelve tone in him, nice cope.
>>129015134False.
I refuse to listen to any cycle which can only be collected via disparate bootleg recordings, eg Richter's and Schnabel's Beethoven
>>129015136you seem upset. I will pray for you.
>>129015158Fagner was often upset when his nightly bedroom was only filled with three other men to pleasure, as in his words: "The German spirit can swallow much more physical hardship, and anything less than three is an indignity to our great nation". Many a homosexual cried at his funeral after he died of AIDS.
brahms was a worm next to wagner
>>129015179how's the weather in Tel Aviv?
Yeats:>Wagner's dramas are becoming to Germany what the Greek Tragedies were to Greece.
>>129015189ETERNAL HEILS TO THE JEWISH NATION.
>>129015190That's pretty undisputable, yeah. And today we have Michael Bay.
>>129015189sunny. I'm trans btw.
Schoenberghttps://youtu.be/rZlB2tRyvQw
I would never listen to any of Vagner’s repulsive operas, I only listen to Brahms and french composers.
>>129015341>t.
>>129015355>>>/pol/
>>129015369>>>/trash/
>>129015377Whoops meant to reply to >>129015355
>>129015383well played.
>>129014999Mahler 4 makes me so happy :3
>>129015065>ranking Brautigam last You can't be serious. It's the best cycle in every respect. Don't @me.
>>129015558>fortepianoyou must be 60+ years old
>>129015560>t. low IQ mongrelA piano is not a piano is not a piano.
I asked my kitty who's her favorite pianist and she replied,>ARRAUW!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUrz_GO9dLQ#rareLisztso true kitty
>>129015570>female posterNot reading!
>choral movements in symphonies aren't goo-- ACK!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOhpR5ExeIk&list=OLAK5uy_lZFCJJTHWpQCR7Yz2eX-w4jOe8q3dgOj4&index=5
>>129015560I'm a man of taste and distinction. The fortepiano doesn't always work, but it sounds crisp and rich in this particular recording.Harpsichord ftw tbqh
>>129015581They're one of the few elements that I usually enjoy in Mahler's symphonies.
>>129015591>Harpsichord ftw tbqhYou're worse than the other retard insulting the forte. The place is diseased when it comes to discussions on keyboard music. Bartok and harpsicords... Jesus.
now playingstart of Chopin: 2 Nocturnes, Op. 62https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zVSduobA8&list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM&index=2Chopin: Polonaise-Fantaisie, Op. 61https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ6frpWgCAU&list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM&index=4Chopin: Barcarolle, Op. 60https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1zz17lIcE&list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM&index=5start of Chopin: Sonata No. 3 in B Minor, Op. 58https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l17ycc4Hcs4&list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM&index=6start of Chopin: 3 Mazurkas, Op. 59https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjbPsoFsm4o&list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM&index=10https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lpgWC38LWZZWUi3t81BjEqoZl1AcSWzmM>Fourteen years after her victory at the XVI International Chopin Piano Competition, Yulianna Avdeeva documents her journey with the music of Frédéric Chopin. Voyage focuses on his late works, all composed while surrounded by nature, and Avdeeva has recorded them at the rustic Tippet Rise Art Center in Montana, against the serene backdrop of the Beartooth Mountains.
>>129015601>female performerNot listening!
>>129015600>>>/metal/
>>129015613>>>>/metal/>>>/metal/
>>129015600If a piece is composed for the piano, chances are it's not going to work very well on the harpsichord. I'm just saying I prefer the sound of the harpsichord.
https://desuarchive.org/mu/thread/127179272/#127180765
top 10 piano composersMorton FeldmanTōru TakemitsuPhilip GlassStockhausenMessiaenRavelDebussyProkofievScriabinBachwhy yes i am better than you
>>129015621Based, we enjoy varg's ambient guitar tunes here.
WTF Arnold Bax composed solo piano music and no one told me???https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9CD4zSguB8So Michael Tippett was not the only Englishman to compose in the form
did you listen to it yet?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNPsnCZQj0>uploader's name: Scriabin is my dog
>>129015624EwBach Bruckner Beethoven Messiaen Scarlatti Giacinto Scelsi Josquin Brahms Shostakovich Wagner
>>129015620No shit. However the issue is that Harpsichord lack dynamics and thus has no reason to ever be played. The reason every baroque keyboard piece is filled with such heavy trills and ornamentation is because thats the only way to add variety to pieces. And also, the Harpsicord sounds rather poor in general, with no real upside besides having more clarity than a modern piano. However the fortepiano also has better clarity, while actually having the ability to play with dynamics. We prefer piano renditions of harpsicord pieces here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iOt3MA1F48Also an interesting fact is that old Harpsicords used to sometimes have multiple manuals like an organ, which can make trying to play them on modern piano absolute nightmare tier difficulty.
>>129015659>Bruckner>Scelsi >Josquin>Shostakovich>WagnerBy far the worst of all the lists posted so far, fitting for a Fagner fanboy.
>>129015654better dead than red.
>>129015674>the Harpsicord sounds rather poor in generalLol cool opinion. Obviously I disagree.
>>129015624>Morton Feldman>Tōru Takemitsu>Philip Glass>StockhausenThank you retard.
>>129015680How will I ever recover from such a witty barb?
>>129015718Probably by spamming the thread with homoerotic copypastas, like you will do every day of your life until you also die of AIDS just like Fagner.
>>129015601Is that a robot on the cover?
>>129015721I know it doesn't look human, but that is a woman, so technically not a true human, but related to the human species as a distant relative.
What Stockhausen have you listened today, /classical/?
>>129015703We don't bother pretending like the harpsicord has anything above an acceptable sound here.
>>129015674>>129015720>>129015726>>129015732>>>/metal/
>>129015737You missed a bunch of posts again, madam. Second rate pattern recognition I'm afraid.
The piano is objectively a superior instrument for virtually everything but the (very rare) keyboard concerti. You cannot clarify the motivic polyphony of a Bach fugue on a harpsichord, nor can you accentuate the myriad thematic contrasts of a Scarlatti sonata on a harpsichord, whereas the dynamically flexible clavichord presents difficulties of intonation and a volume that is utterly unfit for public performances.
>>129015742>>>/metal/
>>129015746>>>>/metal/>>>/metal/
>>129015743>>129015728>>129015751>>129015721>>>/metal/
>>129015743>you cannot clarify the motivic polyphonyLow IQ mongrel, harpsicords and forte pianos have MORE clarity than modern pianos. The only reason the modern piano exists is because its louder for concert halls.
>>129015732Do you ever leave this place? It honestly seems like you shitpost on /mu/ literally (and I mean LITERALLY) 24/7.If you're wondering how I know it's you, your over-the-top aggression and fedora-tier verbosity give you away every time. You also tend to be rather repetitive.
>The first fugue was J.S. Bach's hymn to the fugue-fetishism and fictional God he didn't believe in but lusted after. It was largely composed in the summer of 1703 after a sexually exhausting and troubling period that pitched him into erectile dysfunction. His daddy visited him at that time and as Bach met him at the church, daddy looked up at the spectacular organ pipes that resembled heavenly cocks descending from the heavens around him only to be told: "No use looking up there, that’s all been composed by me."damn
Bach was the first modernist.
>>129015774>If you're wondering how I know it's you,Oh yeah, you've really got some great detective eye, as if your boogieman has been even trying to hide at all. Funniest part is that you still obviously fail to recognize most of the posts anyways as per your desperate bot replies while only find their mark less than 30% of the time.
>unresponsive and muddy in the lower registersEvery fortepiano ever
>>129015811You mean every modern piano? Are you retarded?
I cannot listen to anything other than harpsichord, only it can produce the plink plonk sounds I can dilate to.I am also a Feldman fan for the same reason.
>>129015789>>>/metal/
>>129015802Huh?Believe it or not, I say this out of genuine concern for your emotional well-being: DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH YOUR LIFE. Seriously, just give it a try. There are all kinds of things you can do other than making sad attempts to prove intellectual dominance over strangers on 4chan all day.
>>129015838>There are all kinds of things you can do other than making sad attempts to prove intellectual dominance over strangers on 4chan all day.Peak pottery. Poor Iass really is mindbroken. You ever thought about talking about music instead of screeching about whatever man is currently dominating your thoughts?
>>129015838>>>/metal/
>>129015852>you ever thought about talking about music?You ever have a short memory?
>>129015864>You ever have a short memory?ESL post, explains much of the rage.
this general is the closest to /a/'s dragon ball z general
>>129015870>>129015864>>129015861>>129015852>>>/metal/
>>129015872The saddest words are these: the sisterposter was right.
>>129015870Sorry, I forgot autism makes it difficult to detect sarcasm.I was just talking about music. You were involved in the conversation.
>>129015789I appreciate the effort but why you always gotta be so vulgar and raunchy
>>129015885>sarcasmDoesn't explain the lack English mastery, but I suppose this is just addition proof of that. Regardless, perhaps you may return to musical discussion instead of shitting up the thread with /soc/ nonsense because Mahler was insulted at some point?
>>129015901lack of*
>>129015901You forgot...*additional Dunning-Kruger: The Person strikes again lol
>>129015918When you create as many posts as I do, there will be many errors. However, I do not write fundamental ESL tier writings like "You ever have a short memory?" which are not simply skipping words, missing letters, or missing certain syntax out of haste and laziness, but instead is a phrase that could only be uttered from the brown lips of an ESL.
>>129015743compared to the harpsichord the piano allows for far more individualized articulation of the voices in a polyphonic composition, as well as imitation of an implied instrument's (consider for example the trio sonata preludes in the well-tempered clavier) articulation - all impossible on an harpsichord.
>>129015933>When you create as many posts as I do, there will be many errorsYes, if you're not very intelligent."You ever have a short memory?" in response to "you ever thought about talking about music" is classic bro-tier shit talk. I'm starting to think you're the one who's ESL.
>>129015949>an harpsichord.
>>129015962Dumb ESL doesn't even understand how gross his sentence was, in-fact he cannot even seem to comprehend that there was an issue with its structure at all, and believes the confusion lies with the coherence of it or relation to previous sentences. Just another moment of grand ESL ignorance for the never ending history logs.
This thread is so fucking bad holy shit
>>129015987You still don't understand what I'm saying, thus confirming my suspicion that you're ESL.>in-factNo hyphen necessary, genius
>>129015995feature, not a bug.
>>129015949>compared to the harpsichord the piano allows for far more individualized articulationFundamentally incorrect, the cross woven string pattern and higher sustain of the modern piano leads to far less articulation by nature of its design. Now the fortepiano on the other hand does not have the cross woven pattern, has less sustain, and has timbral distinctions across the registers. In comparison to modern Piano it has much more clarity, and compared to Harpsicord it can actually have dynamic distinction. >>129015995Some fag from /metal/ is so mindbroken by his bully over there than he shat up the entire thread just so he could have a meltie about his boogieman instead of talking about music. Many such cases on 4cuck.org
>>129016004I wonder what his favorite type of curry is.
>>129016004>no u don't get it>no u are ESLThe third world certainly isn't sending their best to speak my language. Well, actually, this probably is their best. Grim.
>>129015995>>129015995What do you want to see discussed? Got any questions? Need some recommendations, maybe recordings of a certain piece?
>>129016034>What do you want to see discussedHow many cocks Fagner could stuff in his mouth, and how painful his death from AIDS was.
>>129016020in-fact is probable addition of poo to sauce
>>129016034Let's talk about Wagner now.
>>129016040W
>>129015964e's just bri'ish innit
>In the best of all possible worlds, art would be unnecessary. Its offer of restorative, placative therapy would go begging a patient. The professional specialization involved in its making would be presumption. The generalities of its applicability would be an affront. The audience would be the artist and their life would be art.
In-fact should be hyphenated, all forms of portmanteau should either be joined together without space, or hyphenated to show their relation. This is a case where even natives would fail to understand, but an ESL truly could not comprehend it, because he can only memorize rules, and did not grow up on the language to know that "in fact (rather infact)" is a portmanteau.There are many fundamental issues with the English language, and it is this reason they fail to navigate it without bringing about the obvious reality that they are foreign to it. In the same way natives are probably even more prone to spelling errors than outsiders are, because the verbal and written forms are in such a disastrous discordance.
>>129016115Don't get so worked up about in-facts or in-fictions, you might get an infarction.
>>129016115>all forms of portmanteau should either be joined together without spaceLol dude just stop
Nagano!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZg3mezWrzM&list=OLAK5uy_mgWlU80QWHx1MfPVVaPOqL329AXf0Ws2o&index=1
>>129016129Not worked up, I just enjoy writing about my truths for fixing issues of a broken system, I am fundamentally correct in adding either a hyphen or no space. The hyphen is preferred because a lack of space is harder to read, we (as in we English peoples, not foreigners like yourself) are only scanning the outer edges of words, its why you can remove lettrs and things stll read fine. Infact draws more attention and stops the reader more than in-fact. >>129016140>Lol dudePosted immediately hidden and left unread.
>>129016034Post the worst classical piece you know of
>>129016156https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi0JwXruBig
>>129016155That letter-removal trick works in pretty much all western languages, you're not special gramps.
>>129016156https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KRj8GKGocs
>>129016163Correct. This does not change what I said however.
>>129016155It's not a portmanteau, you fucking idiot."In fact" = "in truth" = "actually"Stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
Anyone here a fan of Prokofiev's operas?
>>129016156https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9-TyvjQU8Q
French music sucks. There, I said it. You all know it's true.
>>129016171>>129016171>It's not a portmanteauIt is, if you were a native you would know that "in-fact" is spoken as one word, as "infact", similar to how basketball is not written "basket ball". Unfortunately you are brown and of a non-English heritage, so you have been forced to """learn""" my language like the begger mutt mongrel you are.
now playingstart of Prokofiev: Piano Sonata No. 5 in C Major, Op. 135https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B81hsoPqizQ&list=OLAK5uy_kMN-YMn6YvEXL3-5p3xQcVWLuI83IyC_Q&index=2start of Prokofiev: Piano Sonata No. 6 in A Major, Op. 82 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZfLS8xwfZg&list=OLAK5uy_kMN-YMn6YvEXL3-5p3xQcVWLuI83IyC_Q&index=5start of Prokofiev: Piano Sonata No. 7 in B-Flat Major, Op. 83https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEv8OTVJsC0&list=OLAK5uy_kMN-YMn6YvEXL3-5p3xQcVWLuI83IyC_Q&index=8https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kMN-YMn6YvEXL3-5p3xQcVWLuI83IyC_QDavid Jalbert's Prokofiev piano sonatas cycle easily ranks as one of my favorites. Highly recommended.
>>129016182Should "apple tree" be hyphenated or concatenated?
>>129016182>It is, if you were a native you would know that "in-fact" is spoken as one word, as "infact"... are you trolling?So, you think "in truth" spoken as "intruth." You're literally retarded.
>>129016115>>129016155>>129016182why are you trying to lie to the ESLs here, anon? it's wrong. in fact, it's disgraceful. please stop.also can we get back to classical discussion pls
>>129016193I prefer hyphenation always, otherwise you end up with a grotesque system like the Germans or Finish and their multi-paragraph words that are unreadable. >>129016194In-truth is more likely to be spoken separately, but should conform to the hyphen anyways because of their relations. However, separation is more tolerable in this instance based on actual spoken language. >>129016197>no capitalizationPosted immediately hidden and left unread.
Depending on my mood, the final movement of Mahler's 3rd either puts me to sleep or imbues me with spiritual ecstasy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sZckM6ip3E&list=OLAK5uy_nViWBq_Kgf_BfDpTu2qrsrwTrv082FydA&index=6Thoughts?
Strauss:>Tristan does not, as you believe, represent the "dazzling resurrection" of romanticism, but the end of all romanticism, as it brings into focus the longing of the entire 19th century, longing which is finally released in the Tag- und Nachtsgeprach and in Isolde's Liebestod. . . Tristan is the ultimate conclusion of Schiller and Goethe and the highest fulfilment of a development of the theatre stretching over 2,000 years.
>>129016207>In-truth is more likely to be spoken separately, but should conform to the hyphen anyways because of their relationsIt is essentially the same thing. And no, there is no hyphen in this case either.Inactuality, every time you double down, you just make yourself look dumber.
>>129016235>InactualityIncorrect.
>>129016235>InactualityInside.
top-tier Prokofiev piano sonata setsS: Dinara Klinton, David JalbertA: Natalie Trull, Matti Raekallio, Yefim BronfmanB: Anne-Marie McDermott, Bernd Glemser, Boris Berman, Alexander MelnikovC: Barbara Nissman, Vladimir Ovchinnikov, Frederic Chiu, Peter Donohoesubject to revision as always. thoughts?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwk6uFfkJuU&list=OLAK5uy_mGv25MxSJ11k156eN6a6qaZkxK9jxXeZo&index=6
>>129016235>InactualityInto.
>>129016264does Ovchinnikov deserve to be ranked higher? perhapshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnFAq14L6eM&list=OLAK5uy_kl1H3GHfCyPZWn1lKltUty1Fl1K7l6Xv8&index=23
In-actuality we are more prone to speak "inside" as "in side", yet their relations have granted unto them concatenation (although we would prefer hyphenation). In-fact is in-truth more deserving of a hyphen or concatenation than many other words with an "in" prefix, based on actual spoken language of natives.
>>129016252>incorrect... which means the inverse of correct, not "in correctness."Does this shed any light on the matter, or are you going to continue trying to convince everyone that "in fact" is a portmanteau?
>>129016283Find me one example of an English language publication using a hyphen for "in fact." One.You really need to get on meds, dude.
Just came across this blog, a guide of the writer's favorite classical recordings (i'm sure people are familiar with the Penguin Guide)https://thepenguinsgirlfriendsguide.wordpress.com/about/>Having slogged through several editions of the Penguin Guide to Classical Music and come out of them more confused about which performance is the best than before I read them, and not being much of a fan of Gramophone’s Britain-centric reviews of virtually everything, I’ve decided to start my own guide. Since I am just one person and older than most young bloggers, I’m not going to start at the beginning of the alphabet just yet but, rather, will post my reviews of the performances I prefer to all others as I feel like it. Sooner or later I’ll get every composer I like in here. Either that or I’ll die trying, but at least what I post here will be valid and hopefully steer you in the right direction.I'm pretty set on all of the essentials and basics, but if I were still new to this whole classical thing, I'm sure it'd be an invaluable resource. They also have another blog for reviews and other blogposts related to (classical) music and recordingshttps://artmusiclounge.wordpress.com/home/Seems like they have some good content, once I figure out how to browse the damn site lol. Sample:https://artmusiclounge.wordpress.com/2024/10/14/the-greatest-bach-violin-sonatas-partitas/https://artmusiclounge.wordpress.com/2024/10/15/the-music-of-frederick-naftel/https://artmusiclounge.wordpress.com/2024/10/22/alisa-weilersteins-exceptional-brahms/Basically a lot of stuff about contemporary composers, musicians, and recordings + their thoughts on all-time best recordings + just random reviews on recordings and music they really like, and I'm sure there's posts about their thoughts on music in general but I've stuck to the more review stuff so far. Anyway, hope someone here enjoys these and finds them enlightening.
got stomach bug and didnt sleep at all, everything is loud and pianful right now, is there any music that helps this or should I abstain
>>129016290>>129016290>... which means the inverse of correct,Just as into means the inverse of to! See, the problem with ESL is that they cannot comprehend that English is broken language (just as all others are), and its rules are merely DESCRIPTIVE of how the natives speak it, NOT prescriptive.>>129016298We here find the act of following our own ideas of what is correct more profound than to continue wrong-doing simply because it was "always that way".
>>129016307er, not *just* contemporary composers, like I said many of the reviews are on recordings by contemporary musicians on baroque/classical/romantic/modern music, but there's plenty on contemporary composers as well from what I can see.
>>129016316Wagner.
>>129016320>Just as into means the inverse of to!No. It doesn't.>wrong-doingLmao wrongdoing is one word. It's called a lexical compound.
>>129016338>No. It doesn't.I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand that was the entire point of why I said it. Please do ask some other brown member of your family to help you out if you are feeling confused, or continue your wrong-doing as you please I suppose.
I love having to share the internet with giga-autists.
>>129016353>giga-autists.We love those here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHH1j_dEqps&list=OLAK5uy_lQU94FjxiLQ3qwZl6B2UfRSr-gsJJAn0Y
>>129016349>I'm sorry that you are too stupid to understand that was the entire point of why I said itYou said it because you didn't understand my point.By your utterly retarded rationale, "incorrect" is essentially the same as saying "in-correct," which would (in your retarded mind) mean "a state of being correct." "Into" is a lexicalized word that has nothing to do with inversion, and therefore would not serve to highlight why "in fact" requires no hyphen.
>>129016316I have a hard time tolerating piano and vocal pieces when my tinnitus is acting up.
>>129016383>>By your utterly retarded rationale, "incorrect" is essentially the same as saying "in-correct,"Incorrect. The meaning of incorrect only has meaning when applied as a descriptive formation to how English is spoken, the relation of inside, into, incorrect, inaccuracy, and so on is to highlight that there is no proper rule for it. We understand incorrect does not mean to be "in correct" just as we understand "in fact" does not mean to be the opposite of fact, these are things that can only be comprehended by the native peoples of England, not for the brown masses making a shallow mockery of our language by pretending there is any sort prescriptive rules we are following that might make his transition to white-hood more smooth.
now playingstart of Beethoven: Violin Concerto in D Major, Op. 61https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omeNegOcMLE&list=OLAK5uy_ldYKiAYuGu07hDDoYf7HGcSFOo-CAdyLA&index=2start of Sibelius: Violin Concerto in D Minor, Op. 47https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oby9ncgZ-Dc&list=OLAK5uy_ldYKiAYuGu07hDDoYf7HGcSFOo-CAdyLA&index=4https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_ldYKiAYuGu07hDDoYf7HGcSFOo-CAdyLA
>>129015190Go ahead and ask a German today what happens in the Ring Cycle. I'm sure they would know more about Greek mythology still
>>129016417>We understand incorrect does not mean to be "in correct" just as we understand "in fact" does not mean to be the opposite of factLol I'm glad you finally accept the fact that "in fact" does not need a hyphen - and that, in fact, it would make absolutely no sense given the meaning of "in fact."
>>129016450In-fact does in-actuality need a hyphen or concatenation, because it is spoken in the same manner as inside, into, incorrect, inaccuracy, and so on. The hyphen is chosen by me because "infact" is in-truth, distracting - because it is unfamiliar to us - and thus becomes an annoyance larger than a hyphen (which is better as a descriptive form anyways). Either infact or in-fact, pick one.
>>129016473>it is spoken in the same manner as insideMaybe in your Head Canon. In the real world, it is not spoken that way because that would make no sense.Btw you still haven't provided a single example from a publication or novel or poem or any other piece of literature that uses a hyphen for in-fact. It's almost like there aren't any.
>>129016497>it is not spoken that way because that would make no sense.It is in-fact the very opposite, saying "in fact" as if they are separate words is what makes no sense.You say a man is "in truth" a woman, how on earth could a man be "in truth"? Is he standing in a realm of truth? Or when he visits this place of truth he is revealed to be a woman?We have a man that is "in correct" a woman: perhaps now you can see how stupid these sentence structures really are.In-fact does not actually mean "in fact", it means an entirely new meaning through the compounding of the words. You are too ESL (and frankly much too stupid) to understand how written languages work, SPEECH came before WRITING, our writing is a descriptive idea of our speech, which tries to wrangle the strange nuances and exceptions that form the rule-less basis of language. >a single example from a publication or noveWe here find the act of following our own ideas of what is correct more profound than to continue wrong-doing simply because it was "always that way".
>>129012261Newfag here. Is this list still relevant? Or is there a newer version of this?
>>129016564I'd also like to see some charts where specific recordings are recommended
>>129016564Looks fine, but we would suggest skipping Mussorgsky on account of his lack of quality.
>>129016564
>>129016564don't agree with all the recording choices (i'd substitute Bruno Walter for the Mozart symphonies for example) but it looks perfectly fine as a starting point.>>129016574>>>/metal/
>>129016586>>>/metal/Jesus, a B.M.W. fanboy onto of a Mussorgsky fan? You really do have the worst taste imaginable lol.
>>129016605>>>/metal/
>>129016608Boring post.
>>129016612>>>/metal/
>>129016614Boring post.
>>129016542>You say a man is "in truth" a woman, how on earth could a man be "in truth"?Holy shit, man. You really are special.Correct is an adjective meaning "in accordance with fact or truth", so saying "in correct" as in "actually" would make no sense. Truth is a noun - and saying "in truth" is equivalent to saying "as a matter of truth."Why are you like this? Seriously, is it actual mental retardation, mental illness, or a bit of both? You may choose only one.
>>129016574Can you fuck off already
>>129016443Wagner overestimated the future.
>>129016621don't know what you expect from a tourist who discovered classical music roughly three seconds ago and thinks it makes him an aristocrat of the soul
>>129016631>>>/metal.
>>129016635He's easily the most mentally fucked person on this board.I'd honestly love to know what mental illness/handicap he's suffering from.
>>129016564The only recording I wholeheartedly approve of is Suzuki's Mass in B Minor. The rest do not deserve a top spot imo.
>>129016663Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky, Kleiber's Figaro, and Klemperer's Mahler 2 are surely among the most recommendable for those works.
>>129016621>Truth is a nounExactly the issue, again, you cannot even seem to follow what I am saying even when I so politely gave you everything you needed to understandIf you are "in a home" this makes sense, but how can you be "in a truth"? How can you be "in truth"? You cannot "be in" a "truth" because it is not a physical place or noun that one can "be in". TRUTHFULLY you would say "the man is truthfully a woman", because in-fact or in-actuality that is what all these compound words are closer in meaning to. Perhaps an alternative might even be "the man when revealed by truth, is a woman", that is a sentence structure that follows reason.Again, if you just say 'We have a man that is "in correct" a woman', it would be enough to understand I am factually "in truth".
>>129016680You can continue posturing like the mental patient you are, but it's really not helping your case.When you say "in hindsight", you're not saying you're literally inside hindsight - but surely you don't use a hyphen for that... or are you even dumber than I think you are? The metaphorical aspect of this is totally irrelevant.
>>129016564>GouldNo
>>129016678I'm not sure about Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky because I haven't heard it, but I agree about the other 2. I was saying THE top spot.
>>129016723>>129016723>in hindsight", you're not saying you're literally inside hindsightCorrect, because it is a compound word just like inside, into, incorrect, inaccuracy, infact, intruth, and so on that all ought to be concatenated or hyphenated. In-hind-sight we must all recognize that this discussion has only led you to a state of confusion, because you are unable in your melanated mind to understand that the silly rules and regularities of the world are in-fact not well put-together. It is only when you realize that something can be wrong, that you may grasp the changes needed to correct it. But for yourself, convention trumps truth, many such cases for normalfags.
>>129016774>In-hind-sightLmao ok there's no way you're not trolling
>>129016307> In our age of dumbed-down audiences, it’s always difficult to find audiences who are not trained in listening to classical music to follow the thread of works as complex as these; it’s like asking viewers who attend movies based on comic strip characters to follow the subtleties and complexities of such cinematic classics as Metropolis, Citizen Kane or The Third Man, and heaven knows that those films aren’t one-fifth as complex and subtle as this music. This guy will fit right in...>>129016316Chopin nocturnes. >>129016564Great list, only note that it's arranged alphabetically rather then chronologically or in some other manner which would make more sense. > Gergiev / Kirov Orchestra - Rite of SpringReally? Is it any good?
Villiers de l'Isle-Adam:>He is the very man of whom we have dreamed; he is a genius such as appears upon the earth once every thousand years.
>>129015558>fortepiano
>>129016854Beloved and respected as the superior to the modern piano.
>>129015654total garbage. I would rather listen to my daughter's death cries than this.
>>129016861oh shut the fuck up no one believes this. stop joking for one second.
>>129016907And yet the truth remains >>129016009.
>>129016917I am seriously not reading any of that and feel insulted tou think I would: I not only have fucking EARS and so have heard the sound of the fortepiano already, I also interact with people in real life and know for a fact everyone hates it. There is nothing you could possibly write to change both of these facts and I am nothing going to waste my time on these schizoprenic-tier notions any further.
>>129016917>boogieman Please justify the spelling here. I need another good laugh before I bounce.Oh, and when I say "bounce," I don't mean I'm literally going to bounce. It means "leave."
Wagner raped the boogieman.
Take the fortepill, then the pedalpill. Modern pianos are only good for their ability to project further into larger concert halls, for actual sound the fortepiano is of a greater nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDl-v_sD2uM>>129016931>I am seriously not readingYou read and were stumped by your own ignorance, many such cases.
>>129016941We enjoy showcases of the failure of this written language in its ability to express why ie would be wrong over ey.
>>129016982Well, you could always look it up. Maybe that's part of your problem. Do you rely solely on your Head Canon?But please spend the next 2 hours trying to justify your mistake, Mr. boogie woogie man.
>>129017008>look it upAka you have no idea, which is fair, since there is no sonic reason for either.
>>129017020The word bogeyman, used to describe a monster in English, may have derived from Middle English bugge or bogge, which means 'frightening specter', 'terror', or 'scarecrow'. It relates to boggart, bugbear (from bug, meaning 'goblin' or 'scarecrow', and bear) an imaginary demon in the form of a bear that ate small children. It was also used to mean a general object of dread. The word bugaboo, with a similar pair of meanings, may have arisen as an alteration of bugbear. Bogeyman itself is known from the 15th century, though bogeyman stories are likely to be much older.English variants of the word include as bogyman, bogy, or bogey, and boogeyman.
>>129017044Nothing in this has answered your own quest of knowledge for why the choice for ie, y, or ey. All are sonically correct forms, nothing more than convention for one over the other. Indeed, there are variants there that are of far worse concern, such as bogy vs boogy.
>>129017044"Boogieman" is not a variant in any language, probably due to the fact that the word "boogie" relates to music.I really thought you'd try saying you made the mistake intentionally due to the board's primary subject. Missed opportunity.
>>129017057>what's wrong with "comp-you-ter"?>that's how it sounds!The autism is off the fucking charts with this one.
>>129017109You replied to yourself by accident. I shall link mine to avoid further confusion. >>129017057>"boogie" relates to music.Indeed, and yet booggieman was invented long before Africans were dancing on cotton fields. So what is your next reasoning?>>129017119>>what's wrong with "comp-you-ter"?>>that's how it sounds!We prefer this over the incoherence of the regular state of written language AFFARES.
>>129017143>indeed, and yet [bogeyman, boogeyman, etc] was invented long before Africans were dancing on cotton fieldsThat doesn't mean there can't be a variant that was created afterwards, dummy.You try so hard to seem intelligent, and yet you've done nothing but embarrass yourself throughout every thread you've ever polluted. You get btfo, day in and day out, as if you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself. Instead of admitting to a mistake - even the slightest, most trivial mistake - you will spend hours doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it. See: "in-fact." This is truly psychotic behavior.Here's a tip: knowledge and wisdom don't come from winning arguments or lecturing people on things you know very little about. They come from being humble enough to ask questions and knowing when to admit you're wrong. Perhaps you wouldn't come across like such a knuckle-dragging retard anymore if you took this advice to the bank.Btw you might wanna look up the meaning of "took this advice to the bank"
>>129017218A very long essay that amounted to very little of actual discussion or ideas, and by very little we mean nothing at all beyond. Perhaps we could return back to the subject at hand?
>>129017227See, that's the thing. You make discussion very difficult in any thread you infect with your cancerous, fedora-tier posturing. You offer nothing of substance. All you do is repeat the same bullshit every day, often in the form of verbose, vapid screeds that contain a bunch of factoids that anyone could easily copy-paste from Wikipedia or chatgpt - it's that, combined with a flurry of totally mindless shit-flinging at people whose tastes you don't sympathize with.I know why you spend so much time on here. It's not a mystery to me or anyone else who frequents this board. You spend your entire life here because no one can stand being around you in real life. It's genuinely sad, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for you.
>>129017288A short essay this time, although still lacking any sort of sub-stance anyone would wish to actually read. You were doing so fine not just a moment ago in your quest to prove the validation of ey over ie, what happened? Did you find nothing that would prove either and became emotional over this lack of finding? Frustration is indeed often the misalignment of our expectations with reality.
>sub-stance
Why has the quality of instruments over the years gone to shit? Can't they just copy stratevarious violins 1:1 from the original blueprints?
>>129017323>You were doing so fine not just a moment ago in your quest to prove the validation of ey over ie, what happened? If you weren't such a moron, you'd know that the following amounted to perfectly reasonable grounds:>boogieman is not a variant in any language >"boogie" relates to music, so adding "boogieman" this to the list of variants now wouldn't be appropriate.And again, this is what I'm talking about. Why can't you just say, "whatever, I misspelled the word, no biggie" - or something along those lines. I'll tell you why: it's because 1. You're clearly suffering from some kind of mental illness, I'm guessing autism, 2. Your ego is pathologically gargantuan, and 3. Because of #2, you think admitting to being wrong is a sign of weakness.It's not too late to change your ways, son (although in reality, it probably is).
>>129017371I refuse to believe the difference in sound between a Strat and today's top-tier violins even comes close to justifying the price of the former.
>>129017396>>"boogie" relates to music, so adding "boogieman" this to the list of variants now wouldn't be appropriate.Which was already rebuttaled by the fact booggieman is far older of a word than boogie was, the choice of ie vs ey was determined far before any such relation to music. And as I mentioned, of all variants to worry about, the ie to ey should be of least concern while you have bogy vs boogy, which are pronounced in entirely different manners.
>>129017370Stradivarius violins cannot be reproduced because they were made during the "little ice age." Because of the lower temperatures trees grew slower, which meant that their wood was denser. This difference in density is the cause of the unique sound of a Stradivarius. In fact, Any violin produced during the time period has that unique sound, but other violin makers were second or third rate so no one bothered to preserve their instruments.
>>129017427>>129017371
>>129017371No one in modern times can hear the difference anyways, just yesterday someone linked me some unlistenable muddy slop on modern piano that was instantly fixed by playing it on the original intended instrument the fortepiano. They can't even tell.
>>129017427>their wood was denserThen compress the wood to make it denser. Or just find some other old dense wood
>>129017457>just find some other old dense woodWhoose going to tell him?
>>129017418>booggieman is far older of a word than boogie was1. No it's not because it's not even a word2. Booggie ≠ boogie
>>129017418Btw it's "rebutted" not "rebuttled"I think you need to just log off for the day, bud.
Modern composers mog composers of old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMWVW4xtwIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VB5Ye3XLM
>>129017474Now you have just given up! If was a short effort, but we appreciate what you gave compared to the time-wasting essays. >>129017482We prefer "rebuttled" here, for we have a word "rebuttal" and the natural past tense would be "rebutalled" which sounds not quite right when spoken out, "rebuttled" or perhaps "rebutteled" is closer. Although some might indeed pronounce it as "rebuttALed", I think it would be slurred into "ttle" instead.
>>129017506go back to >>>/metal/, boogieman
>>129017517I would prefer to stay away from your home board, thank you very much.
starting to think leonin and perotin were hacks, they probably sucked each other off in the Notre dam choir room. im throwing on some machaut instead
>>129017506Lol I can't force you to spell things correctly or use proper terminology, so you're free to continue being retarded.
>>129017542>they probably sucked each other offThat wasn't invented until Fagner crafted his first homoerotic drama and immediately contracted AIDS.
>>129017542starting to think leonin and perotin were hacks, they probably sucked each other off in the Notre dam choir room.
>>129017554>spell things correctlyAccording to whom? According to the rules of the English language not only am I correct, but even the word "language" is a complete butchery that cannot be read as it is spoken, nor is it written as it is spoken. The only sense of "correct" in the broken form of this written disease is based on conventions and nothing more. We ought to invent a proper modern language that is prescriptive instead of descriptive, but most people are like yourself and too stupid to admit our written forms are a bunch of incoherent nonsense.
>>129015624You put this list haphazardly together, I hate Chopin but he should be first on that list, as well as Liszt, Scarlatti, Chabrier, and Satie, and as much as I'm embarrassed to admit it, Scott Joplin
>>129017590>You put this list haphazardly together,Its a troll list.
>>129017589>according to the rules of the English language not only am I correctSource me up, brah. And no, your Head Canon does not count.>The only sense of "correct" in the broken form of this written disease is based on conventions and nothing moreYer rite who kares a bout rools or kunvenchuns, we shood all juss doo whatwewanna doodoo liek a buncha sub-hu-mans
>>129017601And not a good one either, a troll list should include better B-tier/second rate piano composers like Clementi or Hummel
>>129017632Quirky Chopinchugus is pure, unbridled ass.
>>129017618>Source me upYou need to source to tell you that ie and y are pronounced the exact same in the context of boogie vs boogy? Do you not know that y is replaced by ie in plural form?>Yer rite who kares a bout rools or kunvenchuns, we shood all juss doo whatwewanna doodoo liek a buncha sub-hu-mansCorrect. We prefer to live according to our own wills, not the tyranny of the majority, and certainly not because so and so or such and such said so.
>>129017632Oh well, at least hes just trolling, what about the poor sods putting Bartok on their lists in an unironic fashion? now that is truly embarrassing stuff. Nothing but the finest ears on /classical/.
>>129017658>You need to source to tell you that ie and y are pronounced the exact same in the context of boogie vs boogy?So, "werd" is also a correct way to spell "word.">Do you not know that y is replaced by ie in plural form?Irrelevant >We prefer to live according to our own willsOnly those of us who are dumb enough to believe in free will.
>>129017700>So, "werd" is also a correct way to spell "word."Correct. >IrrelevantIncorrect. >Only those of us who are dumb enough to believe in free will.No one said "free will", you imagined what was never there.
>>129017717>correct No>incorrect Then explain how it's relevant.>No one said "free will", you imagined what was never thereBy stating that we have our "own wills" to live by, you are stating we have free will. This is very basic stuff, Mr Dunning-Kruger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIY23Ui8d0U
>>129017808>NoYou ask a question, receive an answer, and reply back to the answer with "No", what were you expecting exactly?>Then explain how it's relevant.Explain how the common rules of the written form are relevant to discussion? I believe its more-so you who must explain how it is not relevant.>By stating that we have our "own wills" to live by, you are stating we have free willIncorrect, we have our own wills that are predetermined for us. It is what decides your path in the Asch experiments, of which I am sure of your choice in such matters.
>>129017834Nice hair on this Iass, mine is better thoughever.
>>129017845>You ask a question, receive an answer, and reply back to the answer with "No", what were you expecting exactly?Oh I dunno, perhaps some logic to back up your claim.>Explain how the common rules of the written form are relevant to discussion?Boogie is neither singular nor plural, moron. Your point was irrelevant.>we have our own wills that are predetermined for usThen they're not "our wills", you unbelievably stupid motherfucker. If your will is your own, it means you're free to make the choices you make. You see, every thought, action and event is predicated on an unfathomably complex sequence of events that lead up to them - events that we have no control over - therefore, it would be inaccurate to say we follow our own will. We simply act according to the limits of the system we exist within
>>129017834https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw8xXYkE5fI
>>129017906>Oh I dunno, perhaps some logic to back up your claim.You asked a yes or no question, and wanted something else to it? No, it is apparent that in reality you were just asking a rhetorical question and turned upset at the defiance you received instead.>Boogie is neither singular nor pluralIntentional misunderstanding, the point was that the rule uses each as interchangeable forms to pronounce the same thing. And you can confirm this through sounding it out yourself. >Then they're not "our wills"They are, the absence of choice is not the absence of ownership.
>>129017673I still don't get his piano works and never will, which is disappointing cause his Orchestral works and Chamber works are amazing. The same people that like his solo piano are the same that rave about Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgsky.
>>129017945>You asked a yes or no question, and wanted something else to it?So, ya still got nothing in the way of logic for me. Got it.>the point was that the rule uses each as interchangeable forms to pronounce the same thingAnd I'm telling you, the point was stupid and irrelevant for the reason I provided. "I" sometimes sounds like "e". Doesn't mean they're always interchangeable.>They are, the absence of choice is not the absence of ownershipWhat is it you think *you* own? And what does it even mean to "own" actions? If your actions are your own, then you are freely making them - no 2 ways about it.As usual, you're talking out of your asshole.
>>129018016>I still don't get his piano works and never willI mean I understand his sonata, its literally exactly what you would imagine he would write. There is nothing else besides that and some miniature folk tunes. The idea that deserves a placement in a top ten keyboard composers could only come from the mind of someone who cares very little about keyboards at all.
>>129018019>Got it.You did indeed ask a yes/no question, and you did indeed receive an answer as per your own request. >Doesn't mean they're always interchangeable.In the case of y ending a word, it is indeed always interchangeable, or at least almost always (due to the horrid form of this written language, in which words are not even spelt as they sound or sound as they are spelt, there are always exceptions).>If your actions are your own, then you are freely making themIncorrect. The absence of choice is not the absence of ownership. We did not choose our wills, but they are ours. Just as we did not choose our height, but it is our own.
>>129018091>You did indeed ask a yes/no question, and you did indeed receive an answer as per your own requestI guess I'll ask the other question again: so, still nothing in the way of logic for me?>In the case of y ending a word, it is indeed always interchangeableExactlie lol>The absence of choice is not the absence of ownershipThe personal self doesn't even exist - it's nothing but a mental construct. Again, this is very basic stuff.Spend less time bickering over shit you don't understand on 4chan, and more time actually reading about the subjects you're interested in.
>>129018181>in the way of logic for me?Logic of which and of what matter?>Exactlie lolCorrect.>The personal self doesn't even existIncorrect. Unless you wish to say nothing exists at all, and nothing can be verified, nothing defined, and there being mostly nothing at all. Which you do not believe, else you would not refer to me as "you" and yourself as yourself.
>>129018220>Logic of which and of what matter?Follow the thread. It's not that difficult, I promise.Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word.">Unless you wish to say nothing exists at allNothingness can only exist in theory, but it's true that no *thing* exists. Everything we perceive with the senses is illusory - and since nothing that's relative or prone to fluctuation can serve as a foundation for itself, the quantum stuff can't be base reality either. Reality is not material.>else you would not refer to me as "you" and yourself as yourselfNot true. Using these terms is simply a practical way to communicate - it may betray the metaphysical statements I've made, but it would be rather difficult to organize society and function if we didn't use this kind of terminology.
>>129018342>Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word."Because that is how it is sounded. >Everything we perceive with the senses is illusoryI'm not sure why you are so off topic, perhaps return to matters at hand: about your personal self. >it may betray the metaphysical statements I've madeIn other words: you do not actually follow or believe in your silly statements. If you did, you would follow them - or at least attempt to do so in some manner. Philosophy without belief is ultimately no different than music abstracted from our perception of sound - nonsense. So too you end up in a delirious state announcing your own lack of existence to all while yelling "I, do not exist", and in the same way Webern makes noises that could not be called music while announcing his next opus. ..>In spite of isolated attempts of certain contemporaries to dispense with the division into bars or interrupt and change it at every step, we nevertheless see that, in general, contemporary music, which is mostly intended for performance by large groups, never-the-less does not dare to entrust to them the unmeasured material of sounds. But this is just the point: measured sonorous material alone does not give a composition the right to be called musical poetry, (in the same way as the measure of words does not make poetry).
>>129018426>Because that is how it is soundedLol ok, here's the problem with that: if I were to post something unprompted like, "I use werds as my weapons," people might be confused. They'd be like, "what kind of weapon is that? I've never heard of a werd. Do you mean "words?" - either that, or they'd just (rightly) make fun of me for misspelling a word that most first graders can spell.>I'm not sure why you are so off topicI'm not sure why you're failing to grasp something so simple."Everything" includes human bodies, dumdum. My point is, if human bodies are illusions, then it would make no sense to say that you, the person, own your actions.>you do not actually follow or believe in your silly statementsI explained why I use these terms - and my explanation was perfectly reasonable. If you can't accept or understand it, that's you're problem.Your point about Webern is retarded and irrelevant.
been writing classical music with suno. its hard coming up with great prompts but I believe I can change the classical music game once I come across the god prompt
>>129018578>people might be confusedIndeed, it is for that reason I chose in-fact over infact. >"Everything"Too grand a topic, to wide an angle, we have no need for such far sprung topics as of now. >I explained why I use these termsYou certainly did, because you do not actually believe in them. For instance: a person who does no believe in gender roles and finds the sexual distinctions of language to be oppressive does what? Well, they change the form of how they speak, from "he and she" to "xim and xer", silly as we may all find it, we can at least identify some sort of belief. In your case however, it is clear to anyone that you care nothing of the sort, because in actuality it is nothing but a fun sort of edgy belief that really you care nothing for. >Your point about Webern is retarded and irrelevant.Incorrect, it is preciously the silliness of abstraction away from human perceptions and actions that results in both of your silly behaviors, the sort in which an onlooker can only find comedy or irritation in. That abstraction is the purest of causes towards the cultural decline of our western nations.
>>129018713>Indeed, it is for that reason I chose in-fact over infactIn which case, it's a profoundly stupid reason, since no one but you (and I suppose other retards) put a hyphen between those words.>Too grand a topic, to wide an angle, we have no need for such far sprung topics as of nowAnon ffs, are you seriously this stupid, or are you just being argumentative? I'm giving you a chance to save some face here. If you accept the fact that everything we perceive with the senses is illusory, then you must accept the fact that you do not own anything, including your actions.>You certainly did, because you do not actually believe in themI believe in their usefulness, not that the objects they signify exist in the absolute sense. >Incorrect, it is preciously the silliness of abstraction away from human perceptions and actions that results in both of your silly behaviorsHuh? Abstraction is *precisely* (which is the correct way to spell the word) what you're caught up in, not me. The concept of a human being is an abstraction. It is an idea or construct, nothing more.
>>129018855> it's a profoundly stupid reason,>since no one but youWe prefer to live according to our own wills, not the tyranny of the majority, and certainly not because so and so or such and such said so.>If you accept the fact that everything we perceive with the senses is illusory, then you must accept the fact that you do not own anything, including your actions.Complete non-sequitur, regardless, save it for after we deal with your personal self.>Huh?Yes, we are indeed confused to when a person yells to us "I, do not exist!" and "You, do not exist!". We ought to wonder if neither he nor ourselves exist, then who is talking and to to what/whom? Atoms to atoms? Then why is he suggesting there is an I or himself to begin with? What does he even mean by exist or not exist? We may only laugh, for he has forgotten that without belief in his own words, they mean nothing.
Can't wait for the holiday season to finally be over and this general going back to normal. Past two weeks we had:- Identity politics - Bullshit quotes- Alternative interpretations of English languageBut hopefully the situation will improve next week.
>>129018913We also discussed the amount of schlongs that Fagner has pleasured in his life and the verified AIDS he died from.
>>129018902>We prefer to live according to our own willsWe've been over this.>Complete non-sequitur, regardless, save it for after we deal with your personal selfHow is it a non-sequitur? You think it's a non-sequitur because you're too dumb to understand the connection.>Yes, we are indeed confused to when a person yells to us "I, do not exist!" and "You, do not exist!"We exist as human beings (or individuals) only in the sense that we *perceive* ourselves as relatively discrete entities. However, I never said "I do not exist." This, of course, raises the question, who (or what) is the "I"? - and the answer to this question is just something you have to experience yourself, perhaps through deep states of meditation.>Atoms to atoms?Those don't really exist either. >What does he even mean by exist or not exist?Existence is the experience, itself, not the things that are being experienced. One might say consciousness exists, but that's not entirely accurate - existence *is* consciousness.
>>129018922Wagner lives in your head. Your alarm is made up of the loudest Wagnerian baritone Gottlob Frick. You hum like Wagnerian sopranos in your showers and bathtimes. You have started sexually exploring yourself completely and without limits. Your dreams are filled with you taking swanboat rides.
>>129018973>We've been over this.Indeed we have, you are the one who has initiated this cycle of repetition upon being upset on the answer of your yes/no question. >We exist as human beings>Those don't really exist either.So humans exist, but atoms do not, and so what are humans made of? If its the latest of pop-science please spare me the details, I'm asking in relation to philosophy, are we made of stuffs, or no? If we are stuffs (or energies, or of some quality or quantity) in some sort, then you have merely cycled us around to the conversations of stuffs to stuffs, and made no headway. >One might say consciousness existsAnd so now we have gone from "nothing exists", to there being human beings that exist and consciousness that exists. I did say you didn't believe your original statement for good reason!
>>129019033Fagner had gay sex with Brahms and after his marriage proposal was rejected he swore his life mission to seek retribution on Brahms for denying his Dionysian spirit, unfortunately Brahms gave him AIDS and Fagner passed away while in the middle of his favorite position: tied, prone, and begging for more.
>>129019033Where shoud I start with Wagner? Is listening to the Ring cycle right off the bat okay?
>>129019041>Indeed we have, you are the one who has initiated this cycle of repetition upon being upset on the answer of your yes/no questionYou're getting very confused now. This wasn't related to the yes/no question. >So humans exist, but atoms do not, and so what are humans made of?Humans exist *only* according to our perception, as do atoms - and for lack of a better way to put it, they're both made of consciousness. If it weren't for the variety of feelings that result from our information processing, the information would not exist.>and so now we have gone from "nothing exists"See: above. And I said it's not entirely accurate to say consciousness exists. Why do you insist on putting words in people's mouths? You do this every time, especially when you're floundering.
>>129019083It's a lot to swallow as a first step into Wagner but equally Das Rheingold and Die Walküre especially are two of his best works which really manifest his vision with particular fullness and intensity. I would space out the operas over maybe a week or so however and try not to binge since there's a lot of absorb. Alternatively start with a more digestible single work. Tannhäuser if you're going chronologically, but my first Wagner experience was Tristian und Isolde and I loved it immediately.
>>129019083The Ring Cycle is the perfect intro imo. And if you're wondering about recordings, it really doesn't get any better than the Solti.
>>129019124>This wasn't related to the yes/no question.It was, your asking for "Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word."" was a reset back to the very beginning of the conversation. >Humans exist *only* according to our perceptionIn other words: you believe humans exist. Of course now you can no longer admit so, yet just said "We exist as human beings" and now have said "humans exist". After my last sentence you will say it is taken out of context, which I will state that "humans exist" and "humans exist (according to how humans(myself, who is a human) perceive things)" is functionally of no real difference. >Why do you insist on putting words in people's mouthsI directly quoted you. You have just receded from your previous ridiculous statements.
Ordered complete Ralph Vaughn Williams symphonies and they sent me this instead. Is that a win or an L?
>>129019214It's a good HIP recording if you like that.
>>129019205>It was, your asking for "Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word."" was a reset back to the very beginning of the conversationI was referring to the problem of the notion that we follow our own wills.>In other words: you believe humans existIn the same way I believe the color blue exists. In other words, it exists according to our perception, but it's not absolutely real. Do you understand the distinction here? One could also say unicorns exist. >"humans exist" and "humans exist (according to how humans(myself, who is a human) perceive things)" is functionally of no real differenceThe problem is your idea that what I really am is human. I reject this notion... because it's false.You have an opportunity to learn some valuable lessons here. Try to humble yourself, read what I'm posting carefully, and don't launch a flurry of straw men in a desperate attempt to create the illusion that you're winning the argument.
>>129019292>I was referring to the problem of the notion that we follow our own wills.Which was posted again because we were merely retracing the steps back again over again, as you wished to. >I believe the color blue exists.> In other words, it exists according to our perceptionThere is no functional difference in what you just wrote. If someone knowing nothing of anything, no philosophy, no science, nothing at all of an intellectual sort: he would call something blue "blue", and so too would you call the same blue "blue". >The problem is your idea that what I really am is human. I reject this notion... because it's false.I have seen the Face of the Absolute, and his name is Adam Kalmbach. HEIL.
>>129019332>Which was posted again because we were merely retracing the steps back again over againYes, because your skull is too thick.>There is no functional difference in what you just wroteOne might take "blue exists" to mean "blue is absolutely real" (i.e. blue is something that is permanent, unchanging, and exists outside of our perception), therefore it's important to make the qualification, especially in this context.>I have seen the Face of the Absolute, and his name is Adam KalmbachGet some new material.
>>129019214I love that recording, I consider that a W
>>129019332>>129019383>The contest of last reply
>>129019383>Yes, because your skull is too thick.I would say the person who wished to run around in circles out of frustration was probably the thick-headed one. I would have preferred a continuation, rather than post-African repetitions.>One might take "blue exists" to mean "blue is absolutely real"A pointless distinction. >Get some new material.We love bringing up the past here, the reuse of old material and insider jokes are of the only good kind of laughs. The sort of things that you have with people that you have known for too long.
>>129019392We here on 4cuck.org love that.
Wanting new material is just wanting context-less jokes, such examples are things like knock knock jokes, which can be funny, but never as entertaining on repetition. Context jokes are the opposite, where they are probably not actually that funny at all, but their relation to the social group and situations are what power it, the ability to reform old thoughts and feelings from the past.
>>129019417>I would say the person who wished to run around in circles out of frustration was probably the thick-headed oneI don't wish to do this, hence why I didn't reiterate why your notion is flawed.>A pointless distinctionBecause you say so? >We love bringing up the past here, the reuse of old material and insider jokes are of the only good kind of laughs*You* love it because you lack depth and creativity.Don't worry, your daily humiliation ritual is almost over.
the vagner meme
>>129019469>I don't wish to do this, hence why I didn't reiterate why your notion is flawed.You say so, and yet initiated the exact opposite of what your words say. For your quote: "Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word."" is itself a literal call to return right back to square one. You would have already known why I believed "werd" was correct, but you asked anyways because you WANTED to repeat everything again. >Because you say so?Because you don't say so?>*You* love it because you lack depth and creativity.Incorrect, see >>129019463. We prefer context relations over meaningless knickknack jokes. Its why "are rodential janitor" is a joke, the layers of inside in-group knowledge for it to make any sense is why it is funny, by itself it is the least funny thing imaginable.
NEW>>129019522>>129019522>>129019522
>>129019531>Explain how "werd" is a correct way to spell "word."" is itself a literal call to return right back to square one. I wanted to know if you were actually claiming that "werd" was an acceptable way to spell "word" because of the phonetics. This argument is halfway acceptable for the word "boogey(ie)man", but suggesting it applies to any word is honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.>Because you don't say so?I already explained myself. It's your turn. That's how this works.>we prefer context relations over meaningless knickknack jokes. Its why "are rodential janitor" is a jokeWho's "we?" Anyway, the "joke" in question is relevant to whether or not it's funny - and I'd bet my life that no one has ever laughed at your Jute Gyte jokes (or 99% of your other "jokes", for that matter).
>>129019614>I wanted to know if you were actually claiming that "werd" was an acceptable way to spell "word" because of the phoneticsSomething I had already said was the case when I had told you that ie and ey were the same sonically. Either you wanted to repeat, or you were an idiot. I would say yes to both, but the latter is tougher to swallow than the former, so I suggest just admitting to that. >I already explained myself.Incorrect, you merely said "'its important to make the qualification", and I replied "a pointless distinction", both are of equal merit.>Who's "we?" Myself and the official /mu/ council (including the IRC) have found all of my Jute Gyte jokes of extreme quality and hilarity. In-fact they only become more funny as they cross pollinate (or perhaps pollute) other areas of the board. We admit that we only write them for ourselves, and laugh at our own jokes immensely and endlessly.
>>129019688>something I had already said was the case when I had told you that ie and ey were the same sonicallyLol but that's not the same. There are words in which both ie and ey are widely (and correctly) used. "Werd" is just a different word than "word".>Incorrect, you merely said "'its important to make the qualificationThen you didn't read my entire response.I see you've gone full "bratty adolescent" now. It's always the same routine with you.
>>129019755>but that's not the sameIt is, in fact in the very beginning right here >>129017020 I had already stated as much, and again the next post afterwards >>129017143 I replied to "comp-you-ter" confirming that I did mean exactly that, and then there was here >>129017658 in which I said "Correct." to you saying "Yer rite who kares a bout rools or kunvenchuns"Face reality, either you are an idiot, or just wanted to repeat the conversation, what is it? I provide you with three concrete proofs that I had already announced my thoughts on the matter, and very likely I did so twice as many as that at least if I actually went through the entire chain. Idiot, or willing and forced post-African repetition: there is no other reason.>Then you didn't read my entire response.I did indeed, feel free to quote and explain otherwise. >I see you've gone full "bratty adolescent" nowYou mean like how you spend multiple posts writing up angry little letters of ad hom babble? Or how you add your hollier-than-thou sentences to each post at the bottom of each post, despite being the main driver of the total catatrophic shitfest of this thread? In case you haven't noticed, you're half the thread, LMAO!
>>129019813>I replied to "comp-you-ter" confirming that I did mean exactly thatI honestly assumed you were shitposting because I didn't think anyone could be that retarded and/or insane.>feel free to quote and explain otherwise"One might take "blue exists" to mean "blue is absolutely real" (i.e. blue is something that is permanent, unchanging, and exists outside of our perception), therefore it's important to make the qualification, especially in this context."But you already knew this is what I said. You're just being a bratty child who's mad he didn't get the upper hand... again.>You mean like how you spend multiple posts writing up angry little letters of ad hom babble?A whole 2 posts expressing frustration about how you're a cancerous force on this board? Something everyone who's had the displeasure of interacting with you would agree with btw.And I meant what I said about you needing to humble yourself and learn something. That's not brattiness - that's just good advice.
>>129019881>I honestly assumed you were shitpostingNo you did not, you continued replying seriously to someone who directly in your face stated it was for sonic reasons probably 6+ times in a row. Rather, its just easier for your mind to think "well I just wasn't taking it seriously!" than admit to being an idiot, or to admit that you repeated the conversation on purpose (which you did). In finality for this point, you are a rather cowardly person. >"One might take "blue exists" to mean "blue is absolutely real" (i.e. blue is something that is permanent, unchanging, and exists outside of our perception), therefore it's important to make the qualification, especially in this context."You state there is a distinction: ""One might take "blue exists" to mean "blue is absolutely real" (i.e. blue is something that is permanent, unchanging, and exists outside of our perception)"Then state: " it's important to make the qualification"And never stated any actual reason for why it would be important to make the distinction, to which I replied with a statement of equal merit saying "a pointless distinction". >A whole 2 postsTwo essay*, of which I wrote a total of... zero essays. Afterwards you then left whiny female sentences at the bottom of each of your posts despite being probably the very worst poster in this thread, far exceeding even myself. And even now continue it, the pottery and irony are lost on yourself I suppose!
>>129019939>No you did not, you continued replying seriously to someone who directly in your face stated it was for sonic reasons probably 6+ times in a rowSaying "boogieman" is an acceptable way to spell a word that refers to a supernatural creature is a little different, especially considering how there are about 7 different variants of the word.>And never stated any actual reason for why it would be important to make the distinctionIt's important because ONE MIGHT TAKE "BLUE EXISTS" TO MEAN "BLUE IS ABSOLUTELY REAL" - in case you're actually confused about the why blue doesn't exist in the absolute sense, blue cannot be Real because it's merely how we process certain wavelengths of light.>afterwards you then left whiny female sentences at the bottom of each of your postsI didn't tho. I just expressed frustration over your incredible idiocy and dishonesty a few times.
>>129019997>Saying "boogieman" is an acceptable way to spell a word that refers to a supernatural creature is a little differentNot at all, and you even went out of your way to confirm if it was applied to different sonic situations such as "comp-you-ter" and ""Yer rite who kares a bout rools or kunvenchuns", which means you fully well acknowledged the fact that I meant to apply it in all manners. You could have in-fact not have made those comparisons if you were not aware of the fact the argument was of a sonic nature. The past reveals the truth of your lies and excuses. >ONE MIGHT TAKE "BLUE EXISTS" TO MEAN "BLUE IS ABSOLUTELY REAL"A pointless distinction. >I didn't tho. Zased dementia patient can't even remember her own last post.
>>129020044>you fully well acknowledged the fact that I meant to apply it in all mannersFalse. My posts were meant to mock you and illuminate the absurdity of the argument that I honestly assumed you were tirelessly putting forth due to your gargantuan ego and inability to admit being wrong.>A pointless distinctionA baseless claim.
>>129020091>the absurdity of the argumentIn other-words: you admit you understood the nature of the argument, and formall accept that yes I did tell you the same thing 6+ times in a row, and that yes, you did intentionally repeat the conversation. >A baseless claim.As was yours, still. After-all, there is functionally no difference between you and someone of zero education upon seeing blue. A distinction you have made, that serves no purpose.
>>129020133>other-wordsNo hyphen necessary, champ. It's no different from saying "other *insert any other noun*"Anyway, I never claimed to not understand the argument that phonetics should be considered when spelling words. I was just trying to understand how far you were willing to take the notion, and whether you were actually being serious.>After-all, there is functionally no difference between you and someone of zero education upon seeing blue.After all, there absolutely is, because someone with 0 education wouldn't know what to call it. So, not only is the color, itself, illusory, the words we use to describe it take the illusion even further.
>>129012488>>Music didn't need to go past monopsony sung in stone churchesfrom the top please, but observe the tempo marking
>>129020213>I was just trying to understand how far you were willing to take the notionWhich you had already done and taken to the limits with "Yer rite who kares a bout rools or kunvenchuns", when are you going to simply admit you re-started the conversation on purpose? I'll answer: never, because you would rather die than admit your evil bullie boogieman has you dead to rights. In the same manner you would never admit - but clear to all - that you actually love these stupid off topic spam conversations. In-fact, you even intentionally provoke and initiate them. This is at least our third time together like this, and no matter how much you bemaon or cry about your evil bullie "You offer nothing of substance" Oh the humanity! Or "instead of admitting to a mistake - even the slightest, most trivial mistake - you will spend hours doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it." despite the above proving you are of a far worse quality for such a thing than I could ever dream of. You keep coming back for more. Maybe now the angle will be "of course I do, because I get to own my bullie!", and yet previous concerns were with thread quality and on-topic discussion, of which you clearly have little regard for, and its also clear that literally no one else is reading any of this besides ourselves, of which no one would care to dedicate the time you have done so thus far all by yourself locked with me... unless you actively liked talking to me. >someone with 0 education wouldn't know what to call itIncorrect, language existed before education. And no, we do not need to hear "there was education before schooling" or "a parent teaching a child to walk and talk is schooling", we understand what education means in this context: one related to the formal institutions or at least formal textbook reading.
>>129020384Lol'd
>>129020213>despite the above proving you are of a far worse quality for such a thing than I could ever dream of. I've literally been banned for saying your name - this is how cancerous you are. And it's not just "le mod clique." Anons regularly talk shit on you. If you go on /metal/ and ask people about you, you will see nothing but trash talk about how you're one of the worst autists to ever infect the board. Trust me, no one thinks you're superior to anyone on this site.>incorrect, language existed before educationLol and to think this is only the 2nd or 3rd dumbest thing you've said thus far. Learning what to call colors is a form of education. Furthermore, the notion that the experience of blue is definitely the same for everyone not only can't be confirmed, it's demonstrably false - see: color blindness. It's rare, but some people can't perceive blue.
>>129020408Wrong post, Iass. You meant to reply to >>129020332, just for all the zero people currently reading. >I've literally been banned for saying your nameWho? Are you implying that you are a /metal/ regular? Curious! Perhaps I might direct you back to your home general >>>/metal/?>Learning what to call colors is a form of educatioI had already asked you to refrain from such notions such as "there was education before schooling" or "a parent teaching a child to walk and talk is schooling", because as I said "we understand what education means in this context: one related to the formal institutions or at least formal textbook reading.". Apparently per-emptively counter-arguing positions is pointless when you simply ignore and and post exactly what I said you would anyways.
>>129020435>Who? Are you implying that you are a /metal/ regular?I'm not a regular. I think we both know the answer to the other question.Perhaps if you weren't so extraordinarily autistic and repetitive, you'd be able to disguise yourself a bit more easily.>b b but words mean whatever I say they mean!!!>did I mention they're spelled however I say they're spelled, too?Education: the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction. Your pre-emptive arguments are always nothing more than sad attempts to backtrack after you realize you've been cornered.
>>129020483>I'm not a regular.Sure you aren't, you certainly become one whenever I was around. Even followed me from NBBMN, but of course you would never want anything to do with your evil bad bullie who is of no worthiness to any conversation, the final bad autist of them all... Curious!>b b but words mean whatever I say they mean!!!Incorrect. Words have meanings in relation to the context and conversations they are placed into, in this case "someone of zero education" would not imply "a person who somehow escaped his parents at childbirth, was raised by wolves, and could not even speak.". For what do we call African tribes if not UNEDUCATED, yet, they can still speak, and walk, and pretend to be humans. What do we call even people who simply lack a degree? UNEDUCATED. The UNEDUCATED masses. So yes, my pre-emptive arguments were correct and made entirely to prevent this exact pointless semantical path that you have set us on. In your usual fashion you will not simply admit that the above paragraph is true, but rather fasten a worthless exercise in reading the dictionary to power a semantics argument that has already been addressed through the usage of the word uneducated between native peoples.
>>129020550>followed meGenuinely delusional. It honestly seems like you're inescapable on this board.>For what do we call African tribes if not UNEDUCATEDIn this context, it's pretty much universally accepted to mean "not FORMALLY educated." Being able to identify various colors requires a system in which to frame the identifications - and teaching/learning this system would be a form of education by definition.
>>129020622>Genuinely delusional.Whatever you say Iass, I literally only post in one place at a time on /mu/, escaping me is as easy and going to literally any other thread. >In this context, it's pretty much universally accepted to mean "not FORMALLY educated."That is always its context in regular native speech, again, no one would ever state "he is uneducated" to mean "a person who somehow escaped his parents at childbirth, was raised by wolves, and could not even speak". This is not even ESL, this is just being intentional obtuse for the sake of pettiness. Just say yes, its all you have to do Iass, there is no need to drag this conversation through semantic mud because you cannot "lose" another point.
>>129020671>that is always its context in regular native speechNo it's not, hence why people sometimes say "I have no formal education" or "he's not formally educated in whatever."But there's a difference between saying "he is uneducated" and "there is functionally no difference between you and someone of zero education upon seeing blue." Do I need to explain the difference to you, or do you wanna be a grown-up and just concede the point?
>>129020671>drag this conversation through semantic mudBtw this is pure projection.You are the one who gets caught up in semantics because of your tenuous relationship with words.
>>129020714>"I have no formal education"Ie in regards to trades school vs university, why would anyone need to clarify a distinction between "I literally cannot speak a language (how am I even saying this?)" and "I was not educated in a formal education". You have stooped to being a literally joke of a character, all in the name to never let a single point go. Just pure laughs. What was it you said of me again? Oh yeah "instead of admitting to a mistake - even the slightest, most trivial mistake - you will spend hours doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it.""HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>129020751>in regards to trades school vs universityWut>why would anyone need to clarify a distinction between "I literally cannot speak a language (how am I even saying this?)" and "I was not educated in a formal education"What I'm saying doesn't just apply to the education related to the written word, dumbass. I'm saying the statement, "I am uneducated" does not always mean "I am not formally educated"... because it doesn't. This is not semantics - it's a fact.
>>129020799>"I am uneducated" does not always mean "I am not formally educated"In any native English speech, it literally does. We add "formally" because to say "uneducated" with no nothing else in conjuntion is an INSULT, but no one has ever, or will ever, interpret not having education to mean "I cannot even speak". In-fact, even if you were to say "I am not educated in speech" it would only mean you had not received FORMAL EDUCATION on speech, because the alternative is so deranged and stupid that it could not even need to be spoken. Maybe you are just an inconceivable brown ESL that truly has no mind for my language, you should quit while behind, mongrel.
>>129020799>because to say "uneducated" with no nothing else in conjuntion is an INSULTOk, I think you're starting to understand my point. We're almost there.Remember when I said the following?>But there's a difference between saying "he is uneducated" and "there is functionally no difference between you and someone of zero education upon seeing blue."Well, you're actually answering the question you failed to answer earlier. You're highlighting the difference between saying "someone with zero education" and saying someone is uneducated. Do you understand it now?
>>129020931I could say "he has zero education" and not a single person on planet earth would believe that to mean the person could not speak. You were entertaining before, and unlike yourself I am perfectly fine admitting I enjoy these chats (after-all, who would bother with this if they didn't), but your semantical last ditch efforts are of the least interesting quality about you, they are in-fact very boring and tedious in nature and I garner nothing of any interest at all. I will not leave right away, but I am on the verge to. You only have me for another hour and half, but at this rate I shall be gone long before then.
>>129020972>I could say "he has zero education" and not a single person on planet earth would believe that to mean the person could not speakDepends on the context.If you're referring to the most basic knowledge, such as being able to identify colors, then you'd certainly be wrong. Do you even remember what started this? It was in relation to blue not being absolutely real and your (unfounded) assertion that the distinction between absolute reality and perception wasn't relevant. Your argument? "bcUz theRe ain't no Diffrence bEtween sumwun who has zero education seein bloo and someone with edge-u-kay-shun" - which still makes sense btw.>but your semantical last ditch efforts are of the least interesting quality about you Let me explain how this always unfolds so that you may, perhaps, by some miracle, change your ways.>you make a bunch of broad, unfounded assertions>I (or other anons) push back on them using evidence and/or reason >you put on an autistic display of mental gymnastics, including twisting the meaning of words to suit your arguments, attacking one straw man after another, and using various schizophrenic tactics designed to confuse your opponent>eventually, this fails miserably, at which point you accuse your opponents of engaging in semantical fuckery or whateverIf there's one thing you excel at, it's projection.
>>129021056*still makes NO sense
>>129021056>Depends on the context.It does not, there are essentially zero situations in which you would need to clarify that someone speaks no language. You are an absurd person who has driven himself into becoming a parody all so you never have to let go of a single point. "instead of admitting to a mistake - even the slightest, most trivial mistake - you will spend hours doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on it."It is often said that our most venomous insults directed at others are actually our deepest misgivings about ourselves. We use these insecurities as our attacks because we believe them to hurt others as they hurt ourselves.
>>129021123>It does not, there are essentially zero situations in which you would need to clarify that someone speaks no languageWe were literally in the situation about an hour ago, dummy. You brought up a hypothetical situation in which there is no difference between someone with ZERO education seeing blue and someone who's educated seeing blue. I corrected you. Deal with it.But my intention was certainly not to get into this semantical bickering session with you. The point I was making was that "blue" is a concept, not something that exists outside of perception. Why was this relevant? Because we were talking about "will" as it relates to individuals, and I was trying to impress upon you that, if nothing we perceive with the senses is absolutely real, then we do not own our actions in the strictest sense. You do not have free will, nor do you own your actions, because you (THE PERSON, THE BODY) do not really exist in the absolute sense - you are a C O N S T R U C T.>we use these insecurities as our attacks because we believe them to hurt others as they hurt ourselves You certainly do.
>>129021213>We were literally in the situation about an hour ago,Incorrect. I made no mention of someone without speech. >You brought up a hypothetical situation in which there is no difference between someone with ZERO education seeing blue and someone who's educated seeing blueYes, zero education, not zero speech. Out of the 7 billion people on the planet, how many cannot speak for any reason beyond profound mental retardation? (in which case you would state he has mental illness, not that he lack education) Is there even 10? 1? the answer is so inconceivably small that there would be no functional use case for anyone to mention it at all. But of course, you do not care, because you are just arguing pointless semantics with no regard for actual human conversation. >my intention was certainly not to get into this semantical bickering session with you.Let us not pretend there was any other intention, if there is one thing I dislike more than semantical nothings, it is people not even willing to admit they are semantic prattlers. It is not like this is the first time you have done this to us, and it will not be your last. Just as you reset the conversation previously to cycle it back around for a repetition on purpose, you also intentionally dragged us through the semantical mud on purpose.
>>129021287>I made no mention of someone without speechYou didn't have to. Saying someone with zero education implies it, especially in the context. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?>Out of the 7 billion people on the planet, how many cannot speak for any reason beyond profound mental retardation?Again, context matters. We were talking about metaphysics, not the general state of education around the globe.>if there is one thing I dislike more than semantical nothings, it is people not even willing to admit they are semantic prattlersThen you're either pathologically unaware of yourself or you hate yourself? One of the two.See: >>129021056You end up bickering about semantics so often, not because everyone else is pedantic and nitpicky with words, but because you are a fucking word terrorist. This is the problem with "living according to your own will" when it comes to language - not only will you struggle to understand what people are saying, PEOPLE WON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT (i.e. things get lost in translation).But I refuse to believe you're actually this crazy. You're legit crazy, for sure, but I think most of the semantical nonsense is just intellectual dishonesty on your part.
>>129021420>implies itAnd there it is, the semantical man commits to his favorite trick, the implication game. Well anyways, I did say you were already becoming a bore, and with this I must bid farewell, I would much rather spend my time doing "literally anything else" than play in the semantical and implication mud with you for my last 30 minutes. And no, not everyone is this way, norseposter is rather quite fine at discussing things without semantical drudgery, then again, hes whyte (as whyte as those Mongolians can be), and you are from some brown ESL place I have no respect for.
ah, the old days of arguing past the bump limit, havent seen one of these in quite a while, and it usually involves me!
>>129021508>And there it is, the semantical man commits to his favorite trick, the implication gameDude, I was being generous. "Zero education" actually means ZERO (0, none, nada) education - which includes any and all forms of education.You'll read this and be forced to accept the fact that you were btfo yet again. Enjoy the rest of your super important shitposting, you absolute tumor of a creature.
i love watching two retards argue about nothing for 5 hours straight on 4chan!
