>>131536302
because generally it's not as well structured or easily "planned out" for analysis. You can hit rocks together and say you're a pioneer of a new sound, but nobody's gonna care, they're gonna think you're retarded.

>>131536302
The appeal of rock is that it's stupid and fun. Showing of your technical chops while playing rock is tacky.

>>131536302
This is a nonsense, loaded question. Ironically, you've attached an image of Paganini who, together with early virtuoso Liszt, is widely derided in the classical world as trash by serious listeners. Look at how many videos there are of "virtuosos" playing, say, Flight of the Bumblebee, a movement completely detached from its original context and meaning, where it's basically just a contest to see who can play it faster. It sounds like crap and is only impressive to non-classical listeners.
This stuff is impressive to normies, just like fast metal solos are impressive to lower-register music listeners, but seasoned classical fans, composers, professors, etc., aren't automatically impressed by someone playing a lot of notes very quickly. Even when "serious" music has lots of notes at astonishing tempi, more often than not they're in service of something greater rather than existing merely to impress people in and of themselves. Basically, there are other things going on besides "look at how fast I can play, lolz".
I've also heard plenty of people dismiss, for example, Coltrane's ecstatic soloing as noise. So the idea that jazz musicians simply get a free pass for playing fast isn't true either. That's why your question is loaded and/or dishonest.

Fast passages sound exciting to me

>>131536516
>>131536562
>>131536714
All correct.

uh oh another metal timmy feels insecure

>>131536302
Overly technical classical pieces that are technical and fast for the sake of being technical are looked down upon.
Overly technical/fast Jazz often gets called meaningless wank by critics, that's where the phrase "noodling" comes from.
Even within the realms of rock's most "demanding" subgenres like progressive rock and technical death metal, there's a contingent of fans of these subgenres who look down on overly masturbatory technical guitarists.


The reason why rock doesn't really get a pass is generally when rock is extremely fast and technical it's at the cost of musical cohesion and are simply a showcase of a single musician's skill (usually the guitarist) and nothing more than that.

what are some examples of extremely technical rock/metal/ that isn't just masturbation?

>>131536714
>Ironically, you've attached an image of Paganini who, together with early virtuoso Liszt, is widely derided in the classical world as trash by serious listeners.

Bullshit. Paganini was one of the greatest composers who ever lived. It's just most players aren't good enough to do his work justice. But those who *are*, as well the man himself, show why his music matters.

https://youtu.be/vadJp7vokL8?si=9zYv5UkepPazAJIS

Liszt's greatest inspiration was Paganini. Seeing him perform was what inspired him not just to be a great player, which he already was, but to learn how to play the instrument as well as it could possibly be played.

The reason rock and metal players tend to get more slagged for this sort of thing is because they do not tend to be nearly as good at composition. They have a high tendency to be tasteless morons.

>>131537883
Is this a bot? Paganini was influential and important as a virtuoso violinist, not as a composer. There's a difference. His output is incredibly narrow and his compositions exist primarily as vehicles to showcase his own superhuman skills rather than to have anything interesting to say or do anything particularly interesting or progressive with form. No serious performer, teacher, musicologist, etc., generally rates him highly purely as a composer. You might personally like him, and that's fine, but virtually no one places him among the greatest composers who ever lived. That claim is just absurd.
>Liszt's greatest inspiration was Paganini. Seeing him perform was what inspired him not just to be a great player, which he already was, but to learn how to play the instrument as well as it could possibly be played.
Thanks for the basic history lesson, which I've known since I was a child, even though one could argue that Liszt was greatly influenced by Berlioz, Chopin and Beethoven later on, when he actually became a serious composer. Good thing I already mentioned early virtuoso Liszt as being the same kind of "trashy" as Paganini. You're not actually contradicting anything I said. Liszt being inspired by Paganini's virtuosity is, if anything, exactly the point.

>>131538294
I'm just thankful Liszt grew up made Piano Concerto #2.

>>131538294
>Paganini was influential and important as a virtuoso violinist, not as a composer. There's a difference.

Paganini would be forgotten today if he were neither influential nor important as a composer. We don't even have sound recordings from his time. He survives entirely *through* his compositions.

>Thanks for the basic history lesson, which I've known since I was a child, even though one could argue that Liszt was greatly influenced by Berlioz, Chopin and Beethoven later on, when he actually became a serious composer.

Liszt released basically everything he wrote. There is never a period of his compositional career where you're going to like everything he did. Some of his least-loved work is precisely *from* his symphonic period, such as a number of his symphonic poems, which are regukarly criticised for formlessness and imperceptibility.

>>131536714
Very true what you say about classical, musicians being able to play fast is merely a tool in the hands of composer, similarly how having access to lowpass filtering is a tool in the hand of a producer.

>>131536302
because an alarming amount of music criticism is entirely aesthetic, even "Classical" writing.

Only Blackmore could play fast without fucking up the groove

File: yngwiepilled.jpg (53 KB, 850x400)

53 KB JPG

>>131536302

>>131538781
>Paganini would be forgotten today if he were neither influential nor important as a composer.
This is a non sequitur.
>We don't even have sound recordings from his time. He survives entirely *through* his compositions.
He survives through his compositions insofar as they serve as vehicles for his innovative and influential techniques, not because of his actual compositional chops in terms of form, development, or other musical parameters, yes. But this just feels like a pedantic semantic argument for the sake of arguing. What I've said is 100% true: nobody cares about Paganini as a composer outside of his technical innovations for the instrument. There is nothing else there.
>Liszt released basically everything he wrote. There is never a period of his compositional career where you're going to like everything he did. Some of his least-loved work is precisely *from* his symphonic period, such as a number of his symphonic poems, which are regukarly criticised for formlessness and imperceptibility.
Okay. What does this have to do with anything I said?

>>131536302
anon we classical listeners also call astonishingly fast tempo tasteless showoffness a lot of times, it just depends on the context. the classical music general was just having a discussion the other day about "virtuososlop" which would fit your description.

>>131536516
https://wandelweiser.de/_e-w-records/_ewr-catalogue/ewr9604.html

https://www.squidco.com/r.cgi?p=21790

>>131536302
Because everytime a rocker does it it's always pentatonic wankery that sounds like how a jerk plays the guitar

>>131540658
Fast pentatonics can sound good

>>131536302
because classical is academic and it having unattainable skill is a given to most people whereas rock music is generally regarded as more down to earth and relatable to the average listener. it basically prides itself as "music of the people", especially metal, so when it exhibits exceptional technical skill, like in prog or whatever, it makes the all the indie and punk listeners (critics) feel inadequate and insecure, causing them to lash out emotionally and have a hissy fit.

>>131540695
Fast pentatonics are literally indistinguishable from the sounds produced by homosexual intercourse

>>131540086
Based Wandelweiser knower.

>>131540888
This is literally just a cope for people who can't play fast pentatonics.

>>131539378
>He survives through his compositions insofar as they serve as vehicles for his innovative and influential techniques, not because of his actual compositional chops in terms of form, development, or other musical parameters

There have been countless violin virtuosi throughout history, before and since Paganini, and none of them before or since have left behind as strong a compositional legacy. Aside from the very highest two-dozen figures in the art—your Beethovens and Schoenbergs, he is at the very highest and most influential tier of compositional influence, and the only reason anyone says otherwise is because they're still jealous of his virtuosity two centuries later.

This same crap is said about every great instrumental virtuoso who also makes great original music. It was said about Beethoven in his own time and was said about Liszt, too. It was wrong then and it's even more wrong today.

>>131540812
>classical is academic and it having unattainable skill is a given to most people
The Chinese probably have 100,000,000 competent violinists, how did they do it?

>>131541684
bugs aren't people

>>131537855
Is bebop as a genre generally considered wank?
Srs question

>>131536302
let's ignore you start with a falsehood about classical musicians
>but as soon as a rock or metal guitarist plays fast it's consider non-musical masturbation?
at that point it is not different than a synth doing it and even doing that with a synth is lazy
playing fast is machine music
using distortion and effects to mask your mistakes and/or flatness is distateful
unplug the amp and actually play the guitar

>>131536302
False

>>131541174
Everytime you hear fast pentatonics it turns you gay faster than 5g

>>131542198
Srs answer: No. Maybe by Europeans but they know shit about fuck when it comes to jazz.

>>131536516
>nobody's gonna care, they're gonna think you're retarded.
'first impressions only' coded notion

>>131542882
If 5g turns me gay *and* causes me to not be able to play fast pentatonics anymore, I don't *want* to be straight.

>>131541216
Good God, there's a difference between a virtuoso and an influential virtuoso who actually transformed instrumental technique. I don't know why this needs to be spelt out for you. Paganini's compositional legacy is basically inseparable from that technical legacy: the 24 Caprices, the concerti, etc., matter only because of what they did for violin technique and virtuoso writing, not because Paganini was some great master of form, development, harmony or large-scale musical thought.

Mentioning Beethoven is hilarious just because he also happened to be a great performer and improviser, because Beethoven actually wrote great original music as a composer, and his historical importance obviously does not depend on preserving the technical tricks of his piano playing. Those are completely different cases.

Nothing I said is contradicted by any of this. You're just refusing to accept the fairly mundane reality that Paganini, and the early virtuoso Liszt, have long been criticized as flashy, shallow, showy, technically spectacular music. Paganini literally is not ranked among the great composers on purely compositional grounds. Pretending he belongs just below Beethoven and Schoenberg in "the very highest tier of compositional influence" is an absolutely bizarre claim with no basis in reality.