Classical music was literally the pop of its time. The only reason it is remembered and documented so well is because it was the music listened to by the upperclass and the wealthy. Musically, it isn't any "better" than anything else. Its notoriety comes from its relation to economic class and stature.Anyone who, in the current era, continues to impart classical music as any "better" than other types of music is propagating music as defined by class rather than something that should be defined by unity.For the record I am not a historian and I don't actually know if this is true or not but it sounded smart in my head.
if it was the pop of its time, it would have been favored by mass audiences, but it wasnt
>>129651689That makes the rest of what I said even worse. Nowadays there is virtually no music gated by class thanks to heightened communication of media. If classical wasn't the pop of it's time then it truly was just a "genre" of music for the wealthy
>>129651587>For the record I am not a historian and I don't actually know if this is true or not but it sounded smart in my head.Thank you for being honest. If only all retards would follow your example.
>>129651587>Classical music was literally the pop of its time.>>129651773>Actually I guess it wasn't Thank you for your insight my dear frogposter
>>129651587The pop of the time were tavern and folk songs of whatever region. Those still existed. If composers drew on folk, they only elevated it to some epic level. Like Liszt did with his native Hungarian folk.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuoJYYGCQhc
>>129651848You're welcome>>129651849This is so overtly theatrical, does anyone actually listen to this casually? I imagine I'd take the original Hungarian Folk tune over this any day as something to just listen to on an average day
>>129651893There's music for all occasions. It's all good. The world is a big place to have them all. Besides, where would most of the movie scores be without the territory these dudes charted out first? Sometimes you want theatrics. But not all classical was theatrical either. Guys like Debussy and Satie were kind of setting the stage for a lot of chill jazz piano...and experimented with melodies that didn't sound traditionally classical at all. imho.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGyBRbbHpno
>>129651960This is much nicer. Do you know any more in that vein that might sound similar to this?https://youtu.be/NSlH6RdMcRY
>>129651982More Satie, I guess. lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLFVGwGQcB0
There was lots of ballroom sloppa, but so were there works composed to praise God or push the limits of music at the time.
Classical music for the most part is shit and I'm done pretending to enjoy it.Symphonies are cringe, and it's just the composer trying to be as deep and "serious" as possible.Opera might legit be the worst form of music of all time.Solo piano music is terrible as well, mainly because the piano is an objectively trash instrument.The only type of classical that has some legitimacy is chamber music or string quartets. It doesn't try to be anything beyond music in its purest form.
>>129652045I see. I've heard this one before, very good. I guess for me this is the only type of classical that transcends the period, the rest I can do without
>>129651587No Patrick, classical music was not literally the pop of its time.
>>129652113I was hesitant to keep that sentence in my post since I figured it couldn't possibly be 100% true but I think it's a good statement to rile up some discontented posters into replying
>>129652113Classical music is tribal savage music brought over from the Middle East by Anatolian Neolithic Farmers, the rhythm was derived from their savage degenerate pagan war dances they did before mercilessly sacrificing their gods to some Baalish demon. The noble Corded Wareians had music more similar to East African chants.
>>129652139*sacrificing their children.
>>129652110Yeah, I figured you've heard it. It's one of the goat piano tunes at this point. Like I said, Debussy is similar. I wouldn't call it pop though. They were experimental in their time and probably influenced later jazz. I know everyone has heard this too:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIwMIzCqd84
>>129652139Actually, it's been discovered that rock music is actually the white man's music. Indo European graves have discovered "rock band" burials, where they would have drums, lyres and flutes. So basically, there were ancient musicians that used the rock band formula of just a few guys jamming out. Needing to get 80 people in a room to make a symphony is beyond cringe. You only need 4 or 5 people to make music, max.
>>129651689They were too poor to listen to it
>>129652155>. You only need 4 or 5 people to make music, max.You can do it with less or with a lot more and don't call me Max
>>129652173You could make music with a lot more but at a certain point it stops being feasible. Like, do you really need your composition to have 30 violins? What is that doing that 25 violins can't accomplish? Or even 20? Or 10?A good music composition just needs rhythm, bass and a few elements of treble. Anything more is pretentious elitist slop.
>>129651587TRVKEClassical is overrated slop and even dubstep has better melodies than most of Mozarts pieceshttps://youtu.be/ZItRY-14ZBA?si=gQJf3pY8duC1coIy&t=99
>>129652205hmmmm that isn't the good kind of dubstep thougheverhttps://youtu.be/GnbZn7QwMLY
>>129652212what about dnbhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlovwz7p5A
>>129652155>>129652189Classical has things called quartets, y'know. Or chamber music. You can scale down a lot of pieces. But sometimes bigger is better. Handel only wrote this for harpischord originally, I think.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U7SINyOQREhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsRYidU41-8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7YT1danVJA
>>129652253I know. I'm the guy that made this post.>>129652102
>>129652271What do you even like?
>>129652278I mean your favorite type of music.
>>129652253these suck, classical is for posers
>>129652278Not classical.It is enjoyable on a superficial level but the philosophy of it doesn't gel with me. I find much more enjoyment in a simple Haydn string quartet than some "deep" and pretentious symphony by Bruckner or a 17 hour opera by Wagner. Again, there is some of it that it is enjoyable, but music has evolved to such superior heights of creativity in the last 50-60 years that there's basically no reason to listen to classical anymore.
>>129652283Drum and Bass & Pop Punk
>>129652295If they were posers, they couldn't play or write anything. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.
>>129652305That's cool. I like pop punk at least. Don't know shit about drum n bass desu. I like Squarepusher. Don't know if he counts.
>>129652305It's so cringe when people pretend to be other posters. IDs need to be site-wide.The people that do this shit are the same people that violate the shopping cart theory I imagine. Can't be trusted in society.
>>129652330do you still consider that to be ‘anonymous posting’ or no?
>>129652335Of course. All of the best boards have adopted that extremely logical policy.
>>129652342doesnt this go against the whole>every single post stands on its own meritmaxim thats touted as one of the main motivations for posting as Anonymous? like, what youre suggesting would be the same as just using a tripcode, which is a option you can opt into on any board.
>>129652189Why not? There's plenty of pop songs that have tons of instruments is Wouldn't It Be Nice pretentious elitist s***
>>129652360You are still anonymous with the ID. It eliminates all confusion of who is responding to who, stops immature trolls and generally makes the board a better place for discussion. I mean, this board will always be shit to some degree, because it's filled with coomers and k pop degenerates, but IDs would at least put it in the right direction.
>>129652102>Opera might legit be the worst form of music of all time.I can literally not fathom the depths of ignorance and conceit required to make that statement. >Symphonies are cringekek okgrb8m8ir828
>>129652402if you are concerned about maintaining sole control over the integrity or consistency of your posts, why not tripcode?personally i see no distinction between mandated IDs and tripcoding— neither of which i consider ‘anonymous posting’.the quality of the discourse is the deeper problem. posts like this >>129652278 >>129652283 might just be attempts to open a line for ad hominem. you can ignore them, although then again, maybe there’s meaningful discussion to be had after answering that.the questions posed were so shallow that you cannot really tell what the intentions were.
>>129652407Sorry, music was not meant to tell a story. Doing this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of music. Music is about grooves, vibes, frequencies, patterns, harmonics. Lyrics to tell a linear narrative on top of this is like having a 5 star steak and putting ketchup on it.The added layer of pretentiousness to this is demanding that the listener stop and listen. It accesses parts of the brain that were not meant for music. It's a level of multitasking that music was never built for. When you listen to the story of opera or pay attention to the lyrics, you are devoting part of your brain activity to things that are not the music, which is sensory overload. The best music is music that, depending on mood, can be focused on or can slip into the background. Any music that DEMANDS your full attention is pretentious slop. Wagner is the worst composer of all time.
>>129652455nta but for myself I completely agree with this. I dont wanna dictate what others enjoy though. Some people really seem to be into stuff like musicals and all that but I really don't get it. The music isn't that good and I'd rather just watch a movie if I want a story
>>129652450>posts like this >>129652278 (You) >>129652283 (You) might just be attempts to open a line for ad hominem. you can ignore them, although then again, maybe there’s meaningful discussion to be had after answering that.I was honestly curious what his favorite frame of reference for music was. I don't care if he doesn't like classical, but I'd like to know where someone like that comes from.I like a little of everything. I'm the ultimate tourist and dgaf. It's not like I was gonna shit on whatever he liked. As I said elsewhere in the thread - there's music for every occasion. Including classical.
>>129652455>Sorry, music was not meant to tell a story.The first great work of musical art in the Western world was telling a story. Homer's Illiad. Everyone only knows the story now and not music. The music itself was lost. But I'm just talking intent.On top of that, most rituals and hymn in religion were pretty much doing the same thing. So they predate Homer. They were all intended to bind communities too and give them common things. Just not with clubbing and grinding.
>>129652221this one's not bad at all, I'm kinda past my dnb phase though, especially liquid. Settled into *mostly* ambient or deep bass related stuff for electronic
>>129652455dont know if you are for real but i really believed stuff like this like a decade ago but have managed to get a lot of getting smarter done since then> It accesses parts of the brain that were not meant for music.naturalism fallacy> The best music is music that, depending on mood, can be focused on or can slip into the background.and you cant just ignore lyrics or whatever? try and listen to an opera in another language, maybe that will help clarify or focus all this philosophical sophistry that youre doing.im really curious about what compels you to assemble your sense of taste from some kind of metaphysical principles. for me it was a subtle kind of insecurity. what is it for you?>>129652503no that legitimately scans. i mean, going so far as to clarify your 1st post with the 2nd helped sell its sincerity, at least to me. although if you do want better odds of having discussion, it could be worthwhile to offer a bit more clarity and sincerity as to why youre asking the question.i get that thats a bit more to ask when you dont know whether the other person is here in good faith or not, but a lot of ad hominem ragebaiting reads literally just like the questions you posed. somebody has to be the one to trust first, you know?
>>129652557>im really curious about what compels you to assemble your sense of taste from some kind of metaphysical principlesMusic is the strangest thing in this universe and frankly we probably don't deserve it. Thinking about it in a metaphysical way is essentially the only correct way to think about it. When you read about things like Pythagoras and the quadrivium and see just how seriously people took music and hear their arguments, it makes you realize that it goes beyond being just another art form. Music is not an art, it's a science, because it's the only "art" that is not derived from the human brain. Songs are already written, we just arrange them into existence.I believe, yes, lyrics can be ignored, but any genre or piece of music where the lyrics are the main focus and aren't just filler to give your voice something to do instead of singing wordless oohs and ahhs and glossolalia is usually music that sucks.I can go deeper into why I believe the things I do and that there are simply certain aspects of music that are not subjective, but it's probably not worth wasting on a random /mu/ thread.
>>129652616> Songs are already written, we just arrange them into existence.yeah platonic forms, sure, i was right there back then too> I can go deeper into why I believe the things I do […]yeah fuck it go>not worth wasting on a random /mu/ thread.from where im sitted that depends 100% on youfwiw,> When you read about things like Pythagorasgot an A in Klein Geometry so im good to go and want to hear your posting more.
>>129652678Well I think what rather needs to happen is instead of me stating my view is for you to state yours, since you claim yours is beyond mine. What revelations did you have that made you no longer share similar views to mine? You don't need to say, it's cool, but I'm genuinely curious. It's ok if you don't, because I don't feel like putting much more energy into this either. It would lead down rabbit holes that might be a bit beyond this thread's and board's limitations.
>>129652750thats a fair question but answering it is exactly what i am going to NOT do. although my perspectives changed over time, these shifts came in very small breakthroughs——an example heard here, a piece of a counterexample noticed there——instead of by way of a small selection of monumental philosophical realisations (which i wouldnt even know if theyd apply to whatever it is youve yet to spell out) and annotating all of the individual moments that went into this probably could not be fit into 2000×310 characters anyways.but what i can do and would gladly do is read what you put forward, appraise it seriously and fairly, and then at best prod you with questions that might help to reveal any gaps in your own theorycrafting. which i do think that you have—— but not because i disagree with your tastes or opinions, but just on the basis of your trying to construct something applicable strictly from metaphysical first principles. you would necessarily need to deal with an immeasurable amount of complexity to do something like that. its just not hopeful that youve wound up with something both generally useful and logically tight.and nor did i say what i have now is better than what you have (though i suppose the way id phrased myselfdid so imply it), but just different. although if youre as smart as you consider yourself, youll still see the exercise on offer here as something that could be mutually beneficial.your call
>>129651830are all the retards with you in the room right now?
>>129652750oh and ps,i dont even care what rabbit holes it goes down (and plus this board is well slow anyhow). like, i have only gotten to see as far as i have thanks to the variety of human cultures and cultural products ive ingested over the years. wherever it is you want to steer this ball, i should be sport enough to at least somewhat follow it.
>>129652941>>129653102There's really not much more I can say that I didn't already say. My understanding of things is constantly changing. To be justified in having my philosophical view you need to have a deep understanding of math, which I currently don't have, but have been in the process of constantly trying to correct. Math and science is basically all I read now.Essentially, to say it as simply as possible, I believe there is most likely something more to music other than pleasant melodies and stuff you can dance to. There is something going on with it that we fully don't understand yet. All of the great thinkers understood this, Pythagoras, Kepler, even Tesla. And the fact that it used to be taken extremely seriously as an academic discipline on the same level as mathematics and astronomy but in the last few centuries has been relegated to a mere "art form" is fishy to me. The more we understand how reality works, the more these guys will probably be vindicated.
I like symphonic metal. For the music, obviously.
>>129651587>parroting this fucking retarded, musically and historically illiterate take againClassical music is better. It has nothing to do with class, reception, or perception. Why do you think people with higher IQs, and especially people with musical educations, gravitate toward it?Because it's simply better: it's much more diverse and musically interesting than most other music, and it rewards deep listening. People who know more about music recognize how rich and rewarding it is, so naturally they gravitate toward it. It's not that hard to understand.Classical music allows greater structural complexity, development, and long-form expression, which gives it a larger expressive range. This is just aesthetic realism. People love to parrot relativism but they don't even believe it themselves, much less practice it. Some things are simply better than others. That's life.It's hard being a classical listener because most people cannot comprehend the music and say it's either boring or random. When you tell them they just aren't getting it, they interpret that as pretentious and snobby, even though it's a statement of fact. You can't really win.>classical is for le rich peopleAt best this is 50% correct before the 18th century; after that it's even less accurate. Mozart already started doing it, but Beethoven was one of the first big composers to actually freelance. He earned a living through public concerts, publishing, and a bourgeois audience. His career shows the shift from aristocratic patronage to the public sphere, and by the end of the 18th century public concert life was flourishing. This was the middle class developing and becoming involved in the arts.People think classical music = rich people in wigs, but in reality the Church (no, it's not even remotely the same class) and the middle classes were just as central in financing this music across history, if not more so.
>>129651587>>129653709>classical music = pop music = upper class and wealthyThis logic makes zero fucking sense. What do you think POP music stands for? What do you think POPULAR music means? Even if one were to accept your retarded premise that classical = music for the wealthy/elites, how the fuck could you possibly think this is even remotely comparable to POPULAR music? Even by your own logic it's retarded.Popular music started developing in the second half of the 19th century, but only really came into existence when the world became globalized enough and there was a market economy where music is created massively and sold as a commodity. That's what POPULAR music means. It's for the masses.The reality is that three categories exist: traditional/folk (the oldest, most localized and community-based), classical (the "artsy" one; composed, written, formally structured, institutionally supported), popular (the newest and most globalized, commercially distributed mass entertainment). The way this music is made, how it's distributed, how it's listened to, etc., all varies between each category. Pic related is a rough sketch of this. It's not perfect, but it covers most music pretty accurately.>For the record I am not a historianYeah, I can tell.>I don't actually know if this is true or notIt's not even close to being true. It's a collection of retarded myths that have been parroted a million times before by normies and midwits. You can do better, OP.>but it sounded smart in my head.I'm sure it did. You are either underage or just retarded, but at least you open the possibility of being wrong, so kudos to you. However, learn or never post about this topic ever again.
>>129653190> To be justified in having my philosophical view you need to have a deep understanding of math, which I currently don't have,ok why dont we see if its possible to speed that along> Math and science is basically all I read now.what fields are you interested in? and why?> And the fact that it used to be taken extremely seriously as an academic disciplineaint it still? personally i feel like academic progress in music (which i agree with you has a much more integral basis in the sciences than does, say, all of visual/fine arts) has taken some some dead end redundant turns, but theres still plenty of formal exploration into new understandings—— Xenoharmonicism, New Complexity, No-Input/Generative Music, Totalism, Set Theory (unfortunately titled imo), Negative Harmony (popular rn with the music theory youtuber crowd), heck even Field Recordings can offer valuable insights. the results there so far might not be all that musically compelling, but these are all still, you know, deliberate products of academic discipline.> The more we understand how reality works, the more these guys will probably be vindicated.if theres any editorialising i can offer in response to your post, its on this point: i think that this is not necessarily true. idk exactly what youre referring to with “how reality works”, but if youre talking about things like uncovering new subatomic particles or any other such revelations on the underlying fabrics of the physical universe and everything in it, then id say its not necessarily the case that advances in quantum physics should further ideas of musical theory…
>>129651587You've never listened to classical music.
(>>129653756, 2/2)i couldnt find my pocket copy of ‘Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy’, so ill have to paraphrase this, but B. Russell starts off with a delineation of mathematical work: he says that one’s study of math begins with things “in the middle”, things that are broadly familiar to students by the age of 10: arithmetic, shapes, elementary logic, and other kinds of things we generally take for granted.then from there the development of new mathematics he says takes one of two directions:EITHER1– you begin to take these relatively self-evident and simple ideas and begin to combine them into powerful new constructions: numerical calculus, dynamical systems, graph theory, algebraic geometry. things we can use to meaningfully assess large realworld phenomena.OR2– you go in the other way: you begin trying to pare down everything you trusted by instinct into smaller, more “pure” sets of ideas: set theory, model theory, categories. things that, once you finish making, you can use to provide a simpler (and by extension a more unshakable) basis for all of the stuff built atop of it. the thinking being that, if you can believe in just some handful of primordial axioms, then you can rest assured that the more complicated stuff wont up and betray you so long as its formal constructions out of these basic parts had indeed been carefully done.it may just be that the foundations of musical experiencr are already well enough understood as they need to be, that any upheaval in how we understand our material existences may not actually provide any more different a perspective on how our appreciation of music is logically constructed.its not to say its impossible, ofc, but you wont necessarily need to find out what antimatter is in order to further (or maybe complete) your ideas of music and musical appreciation. imho, theres still plenty of open and promising avenues of investigation given the sciences we already have at the present moment.
>>129653245Symphonic metal sucks. Unironically death metal shares more with classical music than symphonic metal does.
>>129653755Okay but can you respond to any of the post that isn't the obvious bait in the first sentence
>>129652301>music has evolved to such superior heights of creativity in the last 50-60 yearsLike fucking what lmao?
>>129653773I've responded to everything.
>>129652189Okay so listen to chamber music or solo piano works. Not every piece is fucking Mahler 8 lmao
>>129652102>Symphonies are cringe, and it's just the composer trying to be as deep and "serious" as possible.Guy who's only ever listened to Mahler 9
>>129652301>music has evolved to such superior heights of creativity in the last 50-60 years that there's basically no reason to listen to classical anymoreThe stupidest thing I've read this week. Thanks for the laugh, anon. Music doesn't "progress" like that, by the way. It clearly peaked in the previous centuries and anybody who doesn't realize that is an aesthetic retard and cultural moron.
>>129653790>Anyone who, in the current era, continues to impart classical music as any "better" than other types of music is propagating music as defined by class rather than something that should be defined by unity.did you respond to this part? Maybe I missed it
>>129653815You missed it. I replied to myself in that second post. >>129653709
>>129653823oh I see thanks, lemme read
>>12965380620th century classical was pretty decent, at least the stuff up until about the 60s or 70s.
>>129653823>>129653828>Classical music is betterLMAO. I will still read the rest but yeah obviously you're beyond butthurt. Music is and will always be subjective bucko
>>129653823>People who know more about music recognize how rich and rewarding it is, so naturally they gravitate toward it. It's not that hard to understand.Source: your ass btw
>>129653838>everything is le subjectiveVague, parroted cliché. Taste is subjective, but music itself can be evaluated to a very high intersubjective degree; about as close to objectivity as you get in art. There are actual criteria you can compare music on: structure, development, harmony, formal coherence, technical demands, aesthetics, context, and so on. If everything were so subjective, there would be no pedagogy, no standards, and no ability to value or compare anything. Nobody who parrots this actually truly believes it, much less practices it.
>>129653851Is the Rite of Spring "formally coherent"?
>>129653851>There are actual criteria you can compare music on: structure, development, harmony, formal coherence, technical demands, aesthetics, context, and so on. and none of this lends itself to classical music being above any other type unless you judge these categories by taste
>>129653847'My ass' being:>Research consistently shows that musically trained listeners tolerate and prefer greater musical complexity.>Daniel Berlyne: Aesthetics and Psychobiology (1971). Berlyne proposed the inverted-U theory of complexity: people prefer music of moderate complexity relative to their experience. As expertise increases, the preferred complexity level also increases.>North & Hargreaves: The Social and Applied Psychology of Music (2008) and Hargreaves, Miell & MacDonald: Musical Identities (2002). These show that musical expertise expands tolerance for complexity and unfamiliar structures.>Pierre Bourdieu: Distinction (1979). Shows that appreciation for complex art forms (including classical music) correlates with education and cultural knowledge.>Peterson & Kern (1996): Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore. Finds that people with higher cultural knowledge tend to consume more diverse and complex musical genres, including classical.The list goes on and on...
>>129653870Why do I like classical when I don't play a classical instrument and suck at guitar then?
>>129653870>>Research consistently shows that musically trained listeners tolerate and prefer greater musical complexity.has nothing to do with classical alone>>Daniel Berlyne: Aesthetics and Psychobiology (1971). Berlyne proposed the inverted-U theory of complexity: people prefer music of moderate complexity relative to their experience. As expertise increases, the preferred complexity level also increases.has nothing to do with classical alone>>North & Hargreaves: The Social and Applied Psychology of Music (2008) and Hargreaves, Miell & MacDonald: Musical Identities (2002). These show that musical expertise expands tolerance for complexity and unfamiliar structures.has nothing to do with classical alone>>Pierre Bourdieu: Distinction (1979). Shows that appreciation for complex art forms (including classical music) correlates with education and cultural knowledge.has nothing to do with classical alone>>Peterson & Kern (1996): Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore. Finds that people with higher cultural knowledge tend to consume more diverse and complex musical genres, including classical.has nothing to do with classical alone
>>129653858Depends how you define formal coherence. Is it coherent in 19th century sonata form? No. Is it extremely structured? Yes, it is. It's divided into two large parts, each part contains clearly defined sections tied to the narrative, and motives and rhythmic cells recur and transform throughout the piece. It's been famously analyzed for its structure by guys like Allen Forte and Richard Taruskin. You could call that formally coherent. If it were formless, it wouldn't support this amount of analysis.
>>129653847cosigned. this may just be correlation, but as i became more smart in my life, i also became way more into gangsta rap for the first time in my life.>>129653851 >>129653870 >>129653899your choices for whic objective appraisal functions are best and which objective musical criteria are more important than the rest were, themselves, subjective choices.
>>129653886Of course it doesn't apply to classical ALONE. Nobody said it did. The research shows that trained listeners prefer more complex music. Classical repertoire simply tends to be structurally more complex on average (long-form development, harmonic architecture, counterpoint, orchestration, etc.), so unsurprisingly a lot of musically trained listeners gravitate toward it.
>>129653903"More smart" (vague and self-proclaimed) isn't the same as "more musically educated".As for your subjective choices point, that doesn't undermine what I said. Obviously the criteria are historically developed, but that doesn't make evaluation purely subjective. Every field works this way when shared standards emerge from practice and expertise, and once they exist we can compare things relative to them. That's what intersubjectivity means. If everything were purely subjective, criticism, pedagogy, and theory wouldn't exist in the first place.
>>129653905Okay but just because "Classical repertoire tends to be structurally more complex on average" does not mean trained listeners prefer it. Correlation without causation
>>129653924That's not what correlation vs. causation means. The research actually proposes a mechanism. Musical training increases sensitivity to structure and complexity, and people tend to enjoy what they can cognitively process. Classical repertoire simply contains a lot of that structural complexity, so it's not surprising that many trained listeners gravitate toward it. The point isn't that classical magically causes preference, it's that expertise changes what listeners find rewarding.
>>129653939Why do I enjoy classical so much if I don't know much about music theory then?
>>129653946Because you don't need theoretical knowledge to enjoy something. Theory mostly gives you language and awareness for things that are already happening in the music. You can enjoy the structure, tension, orchestration, melodies and emotional arc intuitively without being able to name the techniques behind them. Musical training just tends to deepen that perception and make complex music easier to follow.
>>129652102>Opera might legit be the worst form of music of all time.This one is actually true. It's a genre focused on singing but it uses the most limited vocal technique. Individuality and expression is not permitted because the technique is solely optimized for maximum volume. Everything else has to be sacrificed for loudness. Opera could be so much better if they used microphones.
>>129653772Why does it suck? I actually like it well enough, but I'm just kidding around here. I don't care for a lot of death metal themes, but the musicians are cool.
>>129653939>it's that expertise changes what listeners find rewarding.As I said, correlation does not imply causation. Maybe I didn't use it 110% correctly. Anyway, you are saying that expertise changes what listeners find rewarding and implying that the 'what' must be classical when there is really no "cause" for that to be the case, only a correlation being that classical music has structural complexity
>>129653965It's shallow music. It doesn't really share much with classical music in substance and that combinated with the classical timbres pisses me off.
>>129653979You're still misunderstanding the argument. The causal claim isn't necessarily "expertise -> classical." The causal claim is "expertise -> preference for structural complexity". Classical repertoire simply contains a lot of that complexity, so many trained listeners gravitate toward it. The same mechanism also explains why trained listeners often like jazz or other structurally complex genres. Classical isn't the necessary cause, complexity is.
>>129652102Opera isn't a form of music it's a form of theatre. Listen to excerpts or abridged recompositions if you want just the music.
>>129653709> Why do you think … especially people with musical educations, gravitate toward [classical music]?>>129653922ok congrats youve successfully substantiated here >>129653922 that ‘people who learn to appreciate classical music’ tend to appreciate classical music more compared with those who dontthis however,> Why do you think people with higher IQs … gravitate toward [classical music]?remains a baseless claim
>>129654002I have a 140 IQ and I love classical. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a correlation.
>>129653963Oh hey, I remember you and I still see you have that retarded theory about opera singing.Let me remind you that singing isn't "normal" by default. There's no neutral baseline. Pop and rock singers routinely fake accents and adopt highly artificial vocal mannerisms. They don't sing the way they talk either. Singing isn't a natural human behavior in the way birdsong is; it's always stylized and trained.You're confusing technique and aesthetics with technological constraints. Operatic singing isn't a workaround for missing technology, it's a deliberate aesthetic choice. It wasn't invented because microphones didn't exist, any more than counterpoint was invented because recording tape didn't exist.Your chiptune analogy completely misses the point. Chiptune is defined by technical limitation. Classical vocal technique is defined by timbre, resonance, line and projection as aesthetic values, not by some failed attempt to do pop singing louder."Culturally normal" is more vague nonsense that just means dominant at the moment, not neutral, superior or more expressive. Opera was culturally normal for centuries in large parts of Europe. Pop styles are culturally normal now because of mass media, not because they're closer to some human default.You're also smuggling in a very crude definition of "expression". Listing surface effects doesn't prove greater expressivity; it just proves stylistic variety within a narrow expressive bandwidth. Many of those effects exist exactly because the singing itself is technically weak and needs coloration.Operatic technique doesn't "reduce expression" it reallocates it. Expression in opera happens through pitch control, sustained line, harmonic tension, timbral shading within a stable tone, diction, dynamic architecture over long spans and interaction with orchestral harmony. You're mistaking restraint and discipline for absence.
>>129653954How would you recommend I learn theory? I want to make classical inspired music but I know absolutely nothing.
>>129654011my bitch i have a 175 and can only like steve reichjesus christ i hate sharing this stat fuck you for taking it there
>>129654014Okay but opera singing definitely is the way it is because of a lack of amplification lol
>>129654024A 175 IQ is literally not a thing anon. I don't know where you got that number from.
>>129653992Okay so if complexity is the cause then what the hell do all those articles you linked have to do with classical music? You could have linked them for any type of music, such as you implied with jazz. My point being, you said "Classical music is better". I fail to see how any of this proves that statement being true. If anything all it proves is that there is no one "better" type of music since complexity doesn't come from one space
>>129654037140iq post
>>129653985I like fantasy and positive stuff. It's like Enya, but with guitars. lol. Maybe from some perspective, that could be shallow. It's good to look at the harsher things in life too.
>>129654002That's not what I substantiated. I won't repeat myself anymore.As for the IQ part: it's not baseless either, but it is a weaker and more indirect claim. I mentioned it because it's rhetorically strong, but it's not wrong either. There are studies showing correlations between intelligence, education, openness to complex stimuli, and preference for genres like classical and jazz. The relationship isn't deterministic, but calling it "baseless" is simply false.
>>129654042It's literally true though IQ tests don't go past 145-160, and IQ becomes increasingly meaningless beyond 130.
>>129654053I just wish it was more musically interesting. I'd probably love it if they used classical forms and harmony and such.
>>129654039You're missing the point again. The research about expertise and complexity explains why trained listeners tend to value structural richness in music. Classical repertoire historically developed entire compositional systems that allow very large-scale structure and development. That's why it tends to attract listeners who care about those things.That doesn't mean complexity can't exist in jazz or other genres. Of course it can. But the classical tradition was specifically built around exploring those structural possibilities over centuries. That's why its repertoire is so unusually rich and diverse. Which was my point.So the argument isn't "complexity only exists in classical". The argument is that classical music as a tradition developed an enormous toolkit for structural and expressive depth, which is why people who value those things often gravitate toward it.
>>129652616>it's the only "art" that is not derived from the human brainHarmony isn't some law of nature. The circle of fifths doesn't even close in Pythagorean tuning. Perception of consonance and dissonance is an artifact of how human hearing works. Dissonant sounds are merely sounds where the partials happen to line up with awkward spacing that's wide enough to be obviously different but narrow enough to be hard to separate. There's nothing magical about small integer ratios. Small integer ratios aren't even most consonant for tuned percussion (e.g. piano, which is why pianos are tuned with stretched octaves).
>>129654039>>129654083Oh and the point of bringing this up was to respond to the OP's claim that classical music "isn't better" and is basically just pop music of its time. My point is that historically it developed a much larger expressive and structural toolkit than most other musical traditions.
>>129654083>which is why people who value those things often gravitate toward it.and we are back to the correlation without causation point. Look, you can say that enjoyers of classical music tend to be those who value structural and expressive depth. You cannot say that those who enjoy structural and expressive depth automatically gravitate towards classical music because you simply have no proof of that
>>129654039>>129654083>>129654093Anyway, I've made my case. I responded to OP, proved him wrong, explained my reasoning, and nothing I've said is wrong. Oversimplified, maybe, but not inaccurate. I stand by it.I'm going to bed now. Good night.
>>129654085Consonance and dissonance are absolutely law of nature. Music wouldn't work without them, and that's what harmony exploits.>Perception of consonance and dissonance is an artifact of how human hearing works.i.e. baked into our brains
>>129654107You did explain your reasoning but it isn't exactly sound.Good night
>>129654107thanks you fuck off now
>>129654105That's just the calculation of a percentile from a normal distribution you retard. What IQ test did you get that gave you a 175 IQ?>error of estimation in IQ scoring increases as IQ increasesThus IQ is increasingly meaningless the higher you go. Basic stuff anon.
>140 is higher than 139 and lower and higher than 141 and higher as well140 ass post
>>129654112>i.e. baked into our brainsWhich isn't what's meant by a "law of nature". If there are aliens who evolved from a different starting point they might have an entirely different ear anatomy and not hear consonance and dissonance as we do. And humans report changes in perception of harmony under the influence of certain drugs, e.g.:https://erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal04.shtmlThe idea that harmony is somehow mathematically special should be obviously false to anybody with the slightest knowledge of tuning theory. The circle of fifths doesn't close because a^1.5 = b^2 has no integer solutions. It's pure luck that it comes close enough to fool human hearing.
>>129654214>it's only because of our ear anatomylmao okay and? Why should we care? It's a law of human nature, isn't that enough?
>>129654073I understand. There's only a handful of symphonic metal bands that even do guitar solos or complicated parts. The closest to that is power metal, I guess.
>>129654242is something being a law of nature supposed to mean anything to me?like hey whats for lunch?>ask the laws of nature???
>>129653772>Unironically death metal shares more with classical music than symphonic metal doeselaborate
Is there any classical music that has a significant low end or is that just "not important" according to classicalfags?
>>129654272Death metal is more harmonically and rhythmically complex, uses forms closer to classical forms, and has a greater degree of virtuosity.
>>129654310Some pipe organ music, but recordings tend not to emphasize it well. Also orchestral bass drums are bigger than rock bass drums but again it's rare to find good bass on recordings. Telarc's releases are a notable exception.
>>129654310Just turn up the bass on your equalizer if it bothers you that much. Anything with an organ basically. Depends on how the recording is as well, obviously there are bass instruments. I was listening to Mahler 8 yesterday and you can literally hear everything shaking from the bass in the finale.
>>129654358>Just turn up the bass on your equalizerDoesn't help if they didn't record it properly. You'll either get background rumble or nothing.
>>129651587uh actually OP, folk was the pop of its time ("folk" music literally means "the people's" music, so in other words "the music of their popular culture". Classical was the artsy music by the ones who studied in conservatories and whatnot)
>>129651587Which is why I only listen to real (Spectral) music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xCnmj5Yrkg
>>129654310like this?
>>129651689>>129652159Middle and lower class audiences attended classical performances and opera all the time in the 18th and 19th centuries.
>>129654066the standard test used by mensa in my cunt doesnt measure past 135.
Probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Pop is an industry whose sole purpose is to make money, which results in repetitive, uncreative music because it all comes from the same formula. Pop music wasn't meant to be complex or profound; it's just a quick way to guarantee fun. For example, look up any video about Taylor Swift's music.Yes, the elites consumed more of this type of music, but to claim that it is only relevant today because of them is a completely retarded idea. Classical music is the most complex art form of humanity and that is why it has been rememberedBecause of its complexity, it is superior to any other musical style. But if you think it's shit, no problem, people can like different things and making an issue of it doesn't make sense. The ideal would be to at least understand that everyone has a specific taste in music, but that doesn't stop it from being shit.Actually, your comment isn't so bad compared to most of the responses in this thread. This completely meaningless statement seems to be the hardest thing to respond to.
>>129655058Spectral music is classical.
>>129654310I'm sure you could find some pretentious, low register, rumbling, repetitive, drone/electronic/experimental nonsense to quench your autistic techfag thirst. But it really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things if you aren't mentally disabled.
>>129654115Relatively speaking, for OP's nonsense post and the level of this thread, it's more than good enough. I was never interested in writing a treatise or getting into a deep technical discussion here. My comment was reactionary because OP's claim was so uninformed.My position was never that complexity alone makes classical music the best. Technique is part of it, but it's not the only factor, and it may not even be the primary one. There are other aspects to consider: historical depth, aesthetic ambitions, role in society, or the fact that it developed a large, shared framework that invites analysis, pedagogy, philosophy and long-term engagement.In serious literary criticism and academia, people still distinguish between serious literature and purely plot-driven genre fiction. Those works can obviously be entertaining or well made, but they're usually not treated as the same kind of artistic project. I see no reason to suddenly abandon that kind of evaluative judgment when talking about music. Classical music simply offers a level of structural, aesthetic and intellectual richness that most other musical traditions are not built around. Classical music is, you could say, built different.And to be clear, I don't necessarily mean only Western classical music. Other cultures have classical traditions with similarly deep frameworks. But living in the West and considering the OP, that's the one most relevant to the discussion here.>>129654116Nobody is talking to you.
>>129652455>>129652485>>129652616>>129653190TL;DR for those who dont want to sit through this psuedophilosophical niggerbabble>I am too retarded and autistic to focus on 2 things at once so I will blame the primary purpose of music for thousands of years across nearly all cultures because they're all wrong and i am rightYour thread is shit and the fact that there is even 1 response taking your retardation seriously is a perfect example of why this board is a complete joke and nobody here has any actual understanding of music or art. Then again, what can you expect from a celeb gossip and generational whining board
>>129652455>music was not meant to tell a story. Doing this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of music. Music is about grooves, vibes, frequencies, patterns, harmonicsSource: your ass btw
>>129658153I agree with you apart from the implication that engaging with OP's post somehow shows a lack of understanding. This is probably semi-directed at me, since I responded to OP at length (albeit somewhat reactionarily).Whether OP's post was ignorant, trolling, or ragebait doesn't really matter. People respond to threads like this because there's always the chance that someone reading might learn something or reconsider a bad assumption.Taking a bad argument seriously long enough to explain why it's wrong isn't a sign that someone "doesn't understand music or art".
>>129658335I mainly mean that this is even an argument that spanned 139 posts to begin with thats the joke. The post should have gotten one reply, that being "fuck off, retard". A space where posts like OP's need to be answered so retards dont parrot it is not a space which understands music on any levelAlso please dont bump this shit thread, sage if you want to respond
>>129658113>>129658153samefag?
>>129658869Nope. Now stop bumping this thread, you retards.
>>129652102This. Most of it is just the composer being as pretentious as possible. It's just complexity for complexity's sake to try to outdo each other. Like the shred guitarists of yore. Nothing I really want to listen to and it doesn't really do anything for me. I do like chamber music, string quartets and anything with a more chilled out atmosphere though.
>>129661580Most classical music isn't very shreddy though. Obviously a lot is, but a lot focuses on harmony and development instead. I don't know why that's pretentious.
>>129658323He's right though how do you tell a story with just noise? >inb4 operaThat's theater, not music. It's generally pretty boring as only music and about 3x as long as it should be.
>>129661623Idk I've been exposed to pretty much all of it and there's always nice sections which I like a lot but then it's ruined by a bunch of crazy shit going on. Or they don't develop and sit on a motif for long enough and it's just changing constantly. It's like they always have to introduce these super loud complex crazy sections or change it up constantly as a way of saying "look what I can do!!!" I'd rather have a whole symphony / whatever that's more relaxing and chilled out and they can have a different one for all the crazy stuff I don't want to hear. This is just my personal taste and opinion though. I listen to music to try and relax, not to feel like I'm having a schizophrenic breakdown. There are some classical composers I like which don't do this though.
>>129661884>Or they don't develop and sit on a motif for long enough and it's just changing constantlyMinimalism maybe? Anyways that's the primary reason I like classical music so much. It's not that they don't develop motifs, it's that they do develop them. If you're just repeating a motif verbatim many times you're not developing it.>there's always nice sections which I like a lot but then it's ruined by a bunch of crazy shit going onThere's classical music that isn't busy, but constantly changing is basically what classical music is. >It's like they always have to introduce these super loud complex crazy sections or change it up constantly as a way of saying "look what I can do!!!"It's not a flex, it's just more music per minute. There are orders of magnitude more melodies in a classical piece than a popular music song of the same length. https://youtu.be/FcFrImouGg8Take this from Verdi's Requiem. It's two minutes and just has more music than a pop song 3 times its length. I think if you've listened to enough music you'll start to get bored by repetition.>There are some classical composers I like which don't do this though.Well then it just sounds like you have your own taste. Not every metalhead likes every metal song. Why would classical be any different? Who do you like?
>>129662105I'm not saying I want no changes and the same thing repeated over and over, I'm saying I want a balance where I can listen to an idea for a bit before it's off into a new direction. I thought I made that obvious.>It's not a flexWell I grew up around people in the classical world and they're the most pretentious people you can imagine. I think most agree on that so let's not bullshit here.>more music per minuteLmao, how does that automatically make it better? I guess my argument is they're always trying to jam too many ideas into one song. That's just my opinion man. I don't listen to pop music or indie slop. I don't get bored by a healthy amount of repetition, I get bored by styles of music that have been done to death (like most classical).The only classical I like are some songs here and there. Mostly stuff like Chopin, Satie, Debussy and Arvo Part. People who let the music breathe.
>>129662105>>129662330Also when I say "listen to an idea for a bit" I don't mean just repeat the same thing over and over... just before you jump down my throat again. I mean like the same general progression explored for longer with other instruments introducing different melodies / whatever over it.
>>129662330>I'm saying I want a balance where I can listen to an idea for a bit before it's off into a new directionHmm yeah that's a tough balance to strike, because different people are going to prefer a different pace of development. I imagine any composer will generally prefer that pace to be faster.>Well I grew up around people in the classical world and they're the most pretentious people you can imagineI'd rather be pretentious than anti-intellectual, or pseudointellectual.>how does that automatically make it better?I don't know, it's just more interesting to me. More relistenable.>I guess my argument is they're always trying to jam too many ideas into one songI mean that's kind of what classical is. Except for minimalism and such lol. That's why I like classical so much too, there's something for everyone.>Arvo PärtChecks out. I like him too.>I get bored by styles of music that have been done to deathEverything's been done to death man. At this point all I care about is quality.
>>129662407>Everything's been done to death manspoken like someone who doesn't listen to any new music
>>129662407Fair enough. To each their own. :)I remember hearing something before about how kings used to make their composers outdo the composers of their rivals. I just googled it to see how true it is and here's what their ai says... just thought you might find it interesting. So it appears a lot of it was indeed to "flex" as you put it haha.Yes, throughout history, monarchs and nobility often fostered competition among composers, using them to outdo rival courts and display their own cultural superiority, wealth, and power. This was common during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, where court composers were expected to produce increasingly grand, innovative, or technically superior music.How Kings Fostered Competition Talent Acquisition: Royals competed to hire the best composers and performers, often stealing talent from other courts. Direct Competitions: Kings and aristocrats would arrange "musical duels" to see which composer was superior. For instance, Emperor Joseph II organized a competition between Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Muzio Clementi in 1781. Commissioning "Better" Work: Patrons demanded new music that surpassed previous standards. Jean-Baptiste Lully, for example, dominated the French court of Louis XIV by monopolizing opera, forcing others to compete under his restrictive policies. The "Italian vs. German" Rivalry: In 18th-century Vienna, the court fostered a tense environment by favoring Italian composers over German ones, creating an intense, competitive atmosphere between composers like Salieri and Mozart.
>>129662496Famous Examples of Rivalries Encouraged by Royalty Mozart vs. Clementi (1781): Emperor Joseph II set up a musical duel between Mozart and Clementi, with the Emperor betting on Mozart and his sister-in-law betting on Clementi. Handel vs. Scarlatti (1709): Cardinal Ottoboni staged a contest between George Frideric Handel and Domenico Scarlatti to determine who was better at the organ and harpsichord. Beethoven vs. Steibelt (1800): Aristocrats in Vienna arranged a battle between Beethoven and the pianist Daniel Steibelt. Louis XIV’s Court: The King required a constant stream of new, spectacular music for his entertainment, with composers like Michel-Richard de Lalande competing to deliver the most majestic "grand motet". Why They Did It Display of Power: A lavish, well-orchestrated court, capable of producing superior art, directly mirrored the power and wealth of the monarch. Entertainment: In a time before mass media, monarchs provided high-quality music as a form of social entertainment and intellectual competition. Cultural Dominance: Supporting a particular style of music (e.g., Italian opera) allowed a monarch to show they were up-to-date with European fashion, often at the expense of local traditions.
>>129662455All new music I hear is either derivative or of inferior quality. At the end of the day whether you use drums and an electric guitar or violins and flutes music is music, and quality melodies, forms, and harmony are what's going to win me over. What's your mindblowing new music?
>>129651689Historically, upper-class people always had shit taste.
>>129662542well considering your statement maybe you wont find it mindblowing then since your mind sounds about made up. Also considering your conversation with the other anon I wonder whether any of it will resonate since it probably adheres more to his taste in music than yours.https://soundcloud.com/yunzero/cool-skunkhttps://youtu.be/OFcwG9jAVLwhttps://youtu.be/6YjiqyctXs4 (if you do listen, dont just listen to the first track)
>>129651587nuh uh
>>129653755i think that holds true today but was different back then so op might be right
>>129661623truth, rarely always technically demanding
>>129662623That claim doesn't make much historical sense. A huge amount of what we consider the greatest art in history was funded by aristocracies as well as the Church. You can criticize patronage systems, but saying elites "always had shit taste" ignores the fact that those same systems produced and preserved much of what we consider great art.It's also a strange comparison to make in the first place, because we have far less historical evidence about the aesthetic tastes of poorer classes. Most of the art that survives from earlier periods is precisely the art that had institutional or elite backing.As for the middle classes, their role in the arts expands later, especially from the 18th century onward, with urbanization, printing, education, and the growth of a public sphere. But that comparison is vague and somewhat pointless as well.>>129664863Could you be any more vague? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by "it was different back then". Different in what sense?The distinction I described isn't about the present day. It's about how different musical traditions function. Art music is composed and stored in notation, folk/traditional music is transmitted orally and popular music is produced and distributed as a commercial mass commodity. It's a description of how these traditions operate historically.So I'm not sure what part of that you think only applies today.
>>129661580>pretentious100% of the time people use the word 'pretentious', it's because something made them feel intellectually insecure. You feel that way because classical music provokes an intellectual insecurity within you. It has nothing to do with others, only yourself.
>>129661646>He's right thoughHe isn't. Saying "music was not meant to tell a story" is simply historically false. Many composers explicitly aimed to do exactly that.>how do you tell a story with just noise?You can easily create a sense of narration with instrumental sound, just as you can with words in literature or images in cinema. Humans naturally interpret patterns over time. In music, some sounds, chords, and sequences create tension while others resolve it. Tonal systems exploit acoustic relationships in the harmonic (overtone) series, which helps produce those perceptions of stability and tension. Composers then manipulate that tension through harmony, melody, development, orchestration, form, etc., creating movement and transformation over time. That's basically the backbone of tonal music.>boringEvaluating art purely by how much it distracted you from boredom is a pretty weak standard. Boredom is a subjective state of the listener; it says more about their attention, education, or taste than about the work itself. A lot of serious art requires cultivation to appreciate. You wouldn't call advanced mathematics boring simply because you don't understand it; that would reveal your ignorance, not a flaw in mathematics.
>>129669316>A lot of serious art requires cultivation to appreciate.What "cultivation" does it require to appreciate opera as solely music if you already enjoy vocal classical music? I'm sorry anon but about 70% of an opera is going to be musically monotonous. I've watched operas and enjoyed them. I get bored as hell when I just listen to them, but I don't when I listen to Mahler's 8th symphony or Verdi's requiem. It's not a lack of understanding, opera is just not a purely musical art form and taking away the visual and thematic elements make it inferior to what it is as say a movie.>You can easily create a sense of narration with instrumental sound, just as you can with words in literature or images in cinemaAbsolutely not. The sense of narration is emotional only, and we project our own story onto it. That's different than a movie or a book, where the story is played out and we project our emotions onto it. A narrative that's purely emotional is not a "story" by any means.>story: an account of incidents or events
>>129670665>operaYou're mixing a few things here. I wasn't even arguing specifically in favor of opera. My point was simply that a lot of serious art requires some degree of cultivation to fully appreciate. Opera obviously requires a different kind of listening than symphonic music because it's a hybrid form (music and drama) but it still requires cultivation nonetheless.Also, "vocal classical music" is an extremely vague category. Opera alone contains a wide range of vocal styles and techniques, and those differ quite a bit from other vocal traditions like choral music or art songs. So simply saying "if you already enjoy vocal classical music" doesn't really settle anything, because those are very different musical contexts and listening experiences.And the claim that "70% of an opera is musically monotonous" is just vague criticism. That might be your personal listening experience, but it's not a serious description of the repertoire. There are plenty of operas by Mozart, Wagner, Strauss, Puccini, etc. where the musical writing is anything but monotonous.>storyAnd the comparison with books or movies isn't quite accurate either. Plenty of literature and film are not strictly plot-driven. In many works the "story" is vague, fragmented or secondary to atmosphere, psychology or formal structure. So the idea that narrative must consist of clearly defined events is already questionable even in those media.You're also treating "story" in an overly literal sense. Instrumental music can absolutely create a sense of dramatic progression over time through tension, development and transformation of musical material. That's why people talk about thematic development, musical drama and narrative arcs in things like symphonies and tone poems.The fact of the matter is that saying something like "music was not meant to tell a story" is vague, ahistorical nonsense and simply false.
>>129651587i agree classical is just so pretentious and soulless, its form just prevents it from being listenable>>129651960>>129652045saluting the Satie posts, I used to think I would like classical but then I found Satie who is so good and I realized classical is basically the opposite of him>>129651982nice and Satiesquewtf how did this thread fill up so fast
>>129673051>pretentiousThat's that vapid word again. People use it as a substitute for actual criticism. It doesn't describe anything about the music itself; it's just a way of saying "this made me uncomfortable or I didn't understand it". Calling something pretentious isn't an argument.>I found Satie who is so good and I realized classical is basically the opposite of himThis doesn't make sense either. Classical music is far too old and diverse to be reduced to a single style or idea. There's a huge stylistic continuum within the tradition. Satie didn't exist in a vacuum; he came out of a long line of French composers with similar aesthetic ideas. If you like Satie, there are plenty of other composers in that tradition: Koechlin, Mompou, Tailleferre, and some pieces by Debussy or Ravel. You can even draw lines back to Chabrier and Fauré, and forward to Poulenc, Cage, Takemitsu, the countless Minimalists, new age/ambient music, etc.Saying classical music is "the opposite of Satie" is like saying literature is the opposite of Kafka. It just shows you don't really know the field you're talking about.
>>129673135Nuance ruins comfortable stupidity.
>>129673051>its form prevents it from being listenableWhat form? There are so many different classical forms.
I'm not reading anything itt but I will say that music is all about melody, and there's some classical pieces with amazing melodies. That's it.
>>129673882Seems like an extremely narrow and retarded way of looking at music, but you do you.>>129673051This is even worse. I really like Satie but he's literally the unseasoned chicken of music (he did it on purpose), and I'd kill myself out of embarrassment if that was the only classical I could handle.There's an enormous amount of interesting music out there. You can learn a lot and develop a much broader taste if you're willing to explore it.It might be worth spending some time listening to the examples people have mentioned in this thread before drawing sweeping conclusions about an entire musical tradition that spans centuries and thousands of composers.Introducing a little nuance into your thinking would go a long way. Don't assume you've figured out the whole field. You can do better, anon.
>>129673195I wouldn't say it's necessarily stupidity, but it's definitely ignorance.
