Does it bother you that great music is less popular than it used to be? In the 1800s the most popular artists were Beethoven, Wagner, and Liszt. In the 1900s it was The Beatles and Led Zeppelin. Today pretty much everything mainstream is terrible, and interesting, boundary-pushing music is extremely niche.There's a clear downward trend.
>>129847760the difference between beethoven and the beatles is effectively the same as beethoven and today's music. dont lump fucking 60s and 70s pop and rock with the masters
>>129847760>The Beatlesopinion immediately discarded. you write like a faggot btw
>>129847915>>129847939I don't like the Beatles. Just saying that they're better than modern pop. You seem illiterate.
in the 1800s 99% of people didn't listen to music other than hymns on a sunday. the middle classes may have had a piano in the house, but they wouldn't have been playing anything particularly revolutionary. in the 1900s people didn't have any choice, so popularity was a given. people liked what was on the radio. there's bound to be music as good as those eras now, it's just there's infinitely more shit being produced and exponentially more retards who listen to music and add click/likes/listens to like-minded retards making said shit so it's hard to weed through the shit to find the good stuff
jews pushed boundaries in a dead end direction
Tchai was gay. Homos used to be so talented....
>>129848105standards are down all over the place, the shit that makes the youtube frontpage is more lowbrow entertainment than Barnum & Bailey
>>129847760>In the 1800s the most popular artists were Beethoven, Wagner, and Liszt.If they were around today, they would all be begging for a feature on a Kanye album.
>>129847976it's just that even bothering to differentiate the beatles from modern pop is a waste of your time imobut yeah, sure. you're right: a mere fart is indeed better than total shit.anyway, to answer your first question: it doesn't really bother me at least when it comes to music specifically. But that's because ALL great art is less popular than it used to be, and THAT does bother me. from what I see, the advancement of technology has allowed people to pick and choose how they interact with art much more than before, which in turn led to them constantly re-experiencing the same favorite things (thanks to say, the birth of audio recording). This, in turn, has led to shorter art (movies have sort of stabilized at 1-2 hours. TV shows are long sure but they are multiple episodes of just 1 hour each. Music has sufferes tremendously, now being dominated by 2-3 minute long songs over almost anything else for what, a century now? Poor music didn't deserve this fate. I guess it does bother me now that I've written this and thought about it, but oh well)
Wagner was awful and unbearable, but agreed on the others.
>>129848627You know that's not true
>>129847760>In the 1900s it was The Beatles and Led ZeppelinLOL>>129848105(not true by the way)>>129848627If they were around today, they'd call him a nigger.
>>129848717>washttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Meyerbeer
The most influential album of the 2000s.
Ive listened to my fair share of classical but I would probably prefer listening to Sewerslvt over the same beethoven symphony for the thousandth time
Nope it's the logical consequence of democratization and free market logic and I'm willing to live with that consequence if it means everyone is better off for it by the metrics that matter to me. No individual is prevented from liking or making actually good things anyways
>>129847760I fkn love Tchaikowsky. Fkn goated homosexual
why was reddit music so popular in the 1800s?
>>129847760Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the average worker was listening to the most pretentious genre of music that circulated at that point in time.I think they listened to whatever was playing in the cabaret and sea shanties.Don't think they were doing strip tease while playing Liszt.
>>129853243Wagner is the least Reddit music imaginable
>>129851621music ended here
