Why do you listen to popular music - music inherently based on its appeal to the Common Man - yet assume that you can be "patrician," or at all be considered a member of the higher class?
Hello i am op and would like to apologize for making this thread. I understand your distress, but i simply did it because my boyfriend (I'm gay) told me to. You see, our fore play is shitposting on /mu/, so sorry to troll you all. hope you all ajve a great day! Bye bye!
But I don't silly, I have listen to western art music and I still don't think highly of myself that's fucking dumb.
>>53260069
Do you have an actual argument?
>>53260069
must have struck a nerve
>>53260069
>>53260069
listen to my gay operas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1qXQRpF08E
>>53260083
Then you are a proper person.
But you have to admit, the people who listen to popular music yet consider themselves "patrician" are truly absurd, correct?
because i like it. who are you to say they made it for the common man. and if you can not relate to the common man, are you partician? ,,, or autistic
>>53260142
>who are you to say they made it for the common man
The fact it is called "Popular Music" inherently deems it so.
Rec me some cool experimental classical pieces
none of that boring stale old man shit faggots like
>>53260041
>mfw plebs talk about Plato
>>53260171
yes because every musician who becomes popular knew they were going to be popular when they made the music. and if you can create music for the masses, that makes you patrician, correct?
>>53260207
Basically any classical music from the 20th century counts.
are you >>53259336
>>53260041
>anime fag
>bitching about degeneracy and plebs
every time
>>53260041
Plato hated every artform anyway. Why cite his arguments?
>>53260239
You're making irrational arguments not worth my time.
>>53260207
Here are some great pieces from Medieval to Modern times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aySwfcRaOZM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRfF7W4El60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej5rGGTHy54
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2uYb6bMKyI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VELPD6FVylA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mgw8pV4iPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-pVz2LTakM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GsugKHLEzQ
>>53260266
I'm not.
>>53260239
>yes because every musician who becomes popular knew they were going to be popular when they made the music
Do you even know what "popular music" means?
>>53260269
>>53260302
>>53260320
Now come on, why ignore my clear topic of the thread, in favor of distracting?
Are you offended or something?
>>53260116
I think patrician is more of an attitude than just what music you listen. If you just listen to a classical composition but don't think of the beauty and everything related to it then your a pleb. If you listen to pet sounds and can explain why its good with clear explanations then your a patrician
tl;dr: Don't fall for the patrician vs. pleb shit it's dumb. Being a simpleton and being pretentious its just two sides of the same coin. Ignorance.
>>53260341
Pop music versus art music debates are a tired trolling shtick. Go to 2012 or 2013 if you still want those.
>>53260341
Fuck off Ame
>>53260328
yep. that was sarcasm. it's impossible to know you're going to create music that is popular unless you are already popular.
>>53260316
>Perotin
Holy shit this is beautiful, do you know of any more really great crusades/medieval composers?
>>53260400
Trolling? I think it's an essential musical debate...
>>53260404
Not Ame.
>>53260412
Check out Leonin and Machaut.
>>53260343
This, just read that CLT pasta
>>53260406
He was not talking about "popular music" as in "music that many people listen to". He was talking about "popular music" as in pic related.
>>53260404
It's actually Snozzberry.
>>53260316
thanks m8
>Classicalfags
>I was born in le wrong century! XD
>>53260490
That would only be true if classical music had ceased to be composed, when in fact the greatest variety of classical music is available now and being composed now.
>>53260502
All Classical made after 1950 sucks
>>53260545
Can you name 5 composers who primarily worked after 1950?
Oh, and no Minimalists please.
>>53260467
since all of these things have overlapped as the picture shows, doesn't the convergence make the term obsolete?
>>53260563
Minimalist classical music is actually the only good classical music to come out of the 20th century.
Stockhausen and the other serialists and avantgardists come from a dark era and are considered degenerate for a good reason.
>>53260607
Well you named one composer (who is heavily memed on /mu/), but can you really not name 4 others?
This is a very easy question...maybe you just barely know any post-1950 classical music?
>>53260563
No, because no one cares about them
>>53260593
This is like saying that, just because there are only a few degrees of frequency between an A and an A#, that there isn't a clear denotation between an A and an A#.
>>53260665
that denotation is kind of arbitrary though.
>>53260644
Quite a few people care about them, actually, as evidenced by their continual acclaim and patronage given to them.
Can you really not name them? I guess you don't know what you are talking about.
>>53260685
Not when you set an organized tuning note like 440
>>53260593
I don't think so, since the overlaps are rather rare. Most music falls into one of those three categories.
even if the term isn't obsolete, making music that is good enough to be remembered and passed down for generations can be compared to making music that generates sales. and doing performances for money can be compared to touring.
>>53260697
but it's just going to be relative to that tone anyway.
>>53260632
For the sake of dickmeasuring, some of my favorites are Reich, Young, Ligeti, (Murail) Schaeffer), and Subotnick.
I'm not the guy you are arguing against, and I don't see how namedropping random (in the argument's context) composers is going to shift this debate for the better. Put on your trip Snozzberry, your poor debate techniques have more than revealed you by now.
>>53260730
>but it's just going to be relative to that tone anyway.
Yes, but 440hz is the agreed upon standard so it effectively is the objective standard.
It has been the standard for quite a while.
>>53260750
>I'm not the guy you are arguing against, and I don't see how namedropping random (in the argument's context) composers is going to shift this debate for the better.
I could say "Jazz music is fucking terrible." However, if I couldn't name 5 Jazz artists, then I'd look a fool. I'd look like someone who is criticizing something he has next-to-no knowledge about.
>>53260783
You're comparing two fuckhuge genres - western art music and popular music. There's too much overlap and gray areas for this kind of topic to exist without amounts of shitposting. A good version of this thread would be comparing the fanbases of the two genres, not the genres themselves.
>>53260752
But the times are changing and that's no longer the case. People are waking up to the idea that it doesn't need to be that way.
>>53260898
In popular music, where standards of quality are nonexistent.
Not in classical music.
musical experts have been arguing for generations that their generation did it better. now that we have access to a fair amount of generations' music, isn't it time to lay that opinion to rest? humans make music based on the technology they have. they make music for people. the more people that react to their music the better. if YOU heard the music, then it was created for the masses.
>>53260041
>tfw I grew out of art music at 15
>>53260923
You're assuming classical music is STRICTLY from the past, which is absurd.
>>53260924
I guess you wanted to be popular or something.
>>53260922
You are aware that different orchestras tune to frequencies other than A440, right?
>>53260922
>Not in pre-John Cageian classical music.
ftfy
>>53260953
PERIOD orchestras do this, in order to channel the past times which lacked a centralization.
>>53260963
To be fair, lots of people consider his work controversial at best.
>>53260949
I just got bored of it
>>53261039
Ah, I suppose your standards of quality dropped, and you considered the repetitive throbbing of a Bass to be equivalent to a Bach Prelude.
>>53260041
The best part about this being posted is realizing Plato would have hated classical music.
>>53261013
people consider the music that came after him/was influenced by him controversial as well
you're not very bright are you?
>>53260949
so you're saying that since the music was composed in non-written form, that makes it non-art?
>>53261096
Plato hated music
>>53261096
People continually ignoring my direct question in favor of avoiding the point...
>>53261114
what
>>53261131
wasnt plato the guy that said rejecting anything completely is unintelligent?
>>53260343
The new pasta. Very well said.
>>53261222
Thanks, my first meme.
>>53261176
your fault for posting an image more interesting than the question.
>>53261222
The whole problem with the pleb/patrician thing is that it's fucking stupid because it doesn't have a definition. /lit/ calls literature pleb when it's accessible, easy to read like ASOIAF. /mu/ calls things pleb when it's well-known. Things can be well-known for being good, like Shakespeare for example, according to /mu/'s definition of pleb/patrician, Shakespeare is pleb literature, therefore it's bad to like it. Yet every English scholar ever acknowledges Shakespeare's greatness and him being the greatest playwright of all time.
The pleb/patrician thing is not about having good taste, it's about liking things that are not well-known. Everybody knows this conflict, I saw it here ITT like >>28390024 . For example, in another thread I saw 'The Discovery Heaven' by Harry Mulisch being labeled as a 'patrician' book because nobody knew it. I'm from The Netherlands, and I read this book in high school. So by my definition the book is pleb, but when an American reads the translation he would be patrician because nobody in America knows that book, yet the book stays the same in quality. When something is of significant quality and therefore well-known, it's good taste to like it. When something is well-known because it's accessible and made for the masses, then it's not. That's the difference and that's what's keeping 4chan from having any real discussion on something ever
where did the ayy lmao thread go?
>>53261176
what the hell is the difference between popular music and classical? the fact that one is written, analyzed, performed and the other is digitized, analyzed, performed.
stay mad
>>53261275
The janitor deleted it for free
>>53261304
>analyzed
apparently "icy synths" is critical analyzation of work, and simple conjecture that one could make with 0 musical training.
popular music has no analysts. only pretenders
>>53261263
gb2/pol/
Holy shit you people are dumb.
>>53260041
Why do you listen to Vladislav Delay?
Why do you bugger men when you are yourself a man (albeit one with his penis surgically removed)?
Why do you call homosexuals degenerate when you are yourself one?
Why do you worship a despicable mass murderer whom exterminated your own kind (homosexuals)?
Why do you shitpost on a music forum?
>>53261454
>yeeeeeeup
