>I love music!
>Oh, who's your favorite composer?
>I only listen to trendy music, sorry.
Explain this?
>>61191087
>favorite composer isn't Mozart
Explain this?
stfu pretentious cunt
>>61191087
>i like music
>oh cool what bands are you into
>sorry i only like unevolved music from 300 years ago
explain this
>>61191087
What's your favorite composer OP :^)
>>61191087
>he posts an old piece of art and expects me to take him seriously
ahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaah hahah ahahaha keep crying faggot
>>61191194
But the Renaissance sculptors were objectively better than anything the previous half century has produced.
>>61191255
you're asking me to judge what you post by it's cover
it's facetious as hell
>I love music
>Oh, who's your favorite composer
>Well personally I am not a huge repository of knowledge when it comes to the composers of the past as orchestral fare and the like don't really fall into the realm of music I'm interested. Of what I've heard, though, I really enjoy Chopin, Bach, Handel, and Tartini, to name a few. I also enjoy some more modern works by Philip Glass and Max Richter. Would you recommend I listen to any composers based on that information? I love discovering new music!
>>61191164
>unevolved music
wow, have you listened to any of it?
>>61191188
Faure
or Monteverdi
>>61191285
if you want recs genuinely then I can provide
>people listen to music from the time period that they live in and can more readily enjoy because of the shared context
holy jejaroo
how fukn dare they
>>61191255
Renaissance sculptors sought realism but generally lacked in composition, In fact, renaissance art has some of the most horrendous compositions (layout) of any era, including Ptolemaic Greek death paintings. You clearly know nothing about sculpture.
>>61191315
>Monteverdi
Only heard his L'Orfeo, what else is worth checking out?
>>61191255
>but this piece of art is objectively better than this one
what the fuck
>>61191315
no I dont need recs. I was responding how a normal person might, even in the face of pretension
>>61191347
Madrigals and Poppea
>>61191366
I mean a normal person like that would be fine.
>>61191322
>people claim to love music while only listen to music that's immediately accessible
indeed, how dare they
>>61191164
This is what plebs actually believe.
>>61191366
>no old recording memes
>>61191422
>Karlheinz Stockhausen
>not trash
Why don't you listen to classical music? Serious music is the most nuanced, eclectic, perfect music. All the """advancements""" you see in your popular muzak? yes, done to death with much more finesse and depth in the serious music sphere decades or centuries ago. It just can't compete. The display of knowledge is astoundingly bigger in serious music than in another other music. It's music for the patrician, for the cultured mind. The fact that some plebeians try to "appreciate" it on a gut level is why they are plebeians. They are missing the true beauty and subtlety. Like reading a perfect theorem. The inner workings that make their music so much more advanced and worth of respect than anything penned by a popular musikian.
Patrician music is music of considerable intellectual finesse and technical considerations. The fact that intellectuals gravitate towards it is explained because it's more intellectually stimulating, more patrician. it's not a coincidence AT ALL.
>>61191087
https://vimeo.com/64120399
Alec K Redfearn
>>61191422
I'd agree but I hate anime more than I love classical. I'm gonna switch to the other side.
>>61191413
Will do, thanks
>>61191315
fptmiu
>>61191087
this thread is shit
>>61191437
sorry anon, records are for retards.
for what its worth i have probably the worst movie collection of all time. I have a family : (
>>61191535
anyone claiming Mozart is "their" favorite composer is faking it for patrician point
that's been CLT's shtick
dae mahler? my friend showed some of his hits
>>61191555
>anyone claiming Mozart is "their" favorite composer is faking
This is what plebs actually believe.
>>61191087
>>Oh, who's your favorite composer
Thats like asking "Which is your favorite wooden sailing ship"
It just doesn't matter any more
>>61191575
Name 5 composers from last century you have listened to.
Is the elitism really necessary? I feel it would shun more people away from classical than expose them to it.
>>61191589
thats exactly why it doesnt matter retard
its dead
done and dusted
finito
Sorry I don't listen to classical music.
You probably don't like modern music because you just don't get it.
>>61191623
they dont actually want more people to listen to classical
that would make them less obscure
>>61191625
>a genre is dead because I don't listen to it
lol
You came from reddit huh?
>>61191642
Nah it's just boring.
>>61191623
If you can't handle the bants don't post on /mu/ tbqh
>>61191625
(not true, by the way.)
>>61191665
I mean ok, If I found a better place. I find Reddit is mediocre at best imo
>>61191662
Okay then same for classical, it's just boring.
>>61191710
what.cd's forums are decent
>hurr durr you dont listen to one of the hundreds of genres out there, you must have shit taste
>>61191725
What's your credentials in analyzing music? Do you know any music theory?
>>61191734
More like
>you listen to 50 out of the 1000+ years of music, you HAVE shit taste
>>61191734
>classical
>one genre
Been a while since I've seen this meme.
Man Ame/CLT/art music-kun threads are fun.
>>61191754
>Do you know any music theory?
Pointless.
Sorry you wasted all that time and money on what is essentially the equivalent of a women's studies course :^)
>>61191665
"banter"
>>61191803
Are you saying you don't have any credentials or authority to evaluate music?
>>61191754
No I don't. That's irrelevant to the conversation, I said I find classical music boring. What does music theory have to do with that statement.
>>61191803
>music theory
>pointless
internet guitarist detected
>>61191828
>I said I find classical music boring. What does music theory have to do with that statement.
Well you see I can explain that popular music is boring because not only are the raw concepts in the music highly derivative of prior innovations in classical music, but also the melodies, harmonies, and forms of popular music are vastly dumbed down versions of classical music.
Now, how about you try and justify classical music being boring?
>>61191819
>Are you saying you don't have any credentials or authority to evaluate music?
You don't need any.
>>61191858
>Now, how about you try and justify classical music being boring?
He shouldn't have to.
I always find it funny when music "theorists" try to take an intellectual high ground when they're so philosophically naive.
>>61191865
>a teenager's opinion is just as valid as a scholar's
you can go back to reddit now
>>61191858
I don't find any of those things boring. I think classical music is boring because it doesn't evoke any emotional response in me.
>>61191919
I always find it funny when teenagers try to take a philosophical high ground when they're so intellectually naïve.
>>61191947
If you can falsely accuse me of being a teenager, I can falsely accuse you of not actually being a scholar.
>>61191938
>I think classical music is boring because it doesn't evoke any emotional response in me.
uwotm8?
Do you not listen to it or something?
>>61191422
>post anime and call people plebs
>>61191990
I don't actually think that, i'm just proving a point.
>>61192002
What point? That you don't know what you're talking about?
>>61191963
Fine. You're a teenager in mind, but not stature.
Fixed.
>>61191164
>Classical hasn't evovled
There is 20th century and contemporary classical you know. It evolved in parallel to the rest of music, always staying ahead of the pack in terms of innovation.
>>61191803
Music theory allows you to understand how music works, and be able to learn from all the greats of the last 300 years.
If thats not a good point, then feel free to stay pleb.
>>61191828
This is classical: is it boring?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiH3vA7q0jo
Make sure you turn it up fucking loud
>I love music!
>Oh, have you listened to any Mozart today?
>No.
shut the fuck up you fags
no one cares and neither of you are going to accomplish anything if you keep being condescending pretentious asswipes.
>hurr durr patrician classical music im so smart
>hurr durr ur a tryhard fag lol loser
youre both idiots
>>61191087
>why aren't you listening to something you don't like!
Explain this?
>>61191835
It is. How can you have a "theory" when there is no "objective" empirical foundation to anchor it to? Furthermore, how do you extrapolate definitive value judgments from such an arbitrary and subjective point-of-view?
The "Theory of Gravity" affects all equally. Atonality doesn't. So to say this is "better" than that is illogical.
They should rename Music Theory "Music Analysis" or something.
Someone also needs to create an image with the Jew hunched over Wojak saying, "Yes, Good Goy, pay me more to learn this "theory." It will make you more patrician!"
>>61192086
>taking a misnomer literally
lel
>>61192013
Wow you showed me, I don't know what i'm talking about because I disagree with you. You are a music theorist in your mind but not in reality.
My point was ultimately whether you find music boring or interesting has nothing to do with how much it adheres to music theory unless you personally believe it has validity.
>>61191422
>dune
>pleb
>>61192086
>Furthermore, how do you extrapolate definitive value judgments from such an arbitrary and subjective point-of-view?
What value judgements do you think Music Theory makes?
>>61192119
>My point was ultimately whether you find music boring or interesting has nothing to do with how much it adheres to music theory unless you personally believe it has validity.
I didn't just say "it's worse because music theory" I said it's worse because there's less interesting shit melodically, harmonically, etc. going on in it
>>61192086
who cares? theory is useful because it helps you write music that sounds good. of course "good" is subjective and blah blah blah, but again, who cares?
>>61192115
Music theory very much does try to "objectify" the quality of music.
What do you think sent the Downtown composers "Downtown?" Because the academics of the time thought their music was "objectively" terrible.
>>61192152
You then proceeded to say in response to my evaluation that classical music is bad because it doesn't evoke any response in me, that I "don't know what [I'm] talking about.". So true, while you didn't say it's worse because music theory. You said that because you can better subjectively explain why you don't like the music, that makes the music objectively worse. Not once have I said that classical music is outright bad, just that I don't like it.
People itt have to realize no one really likes classical music. They force themselves to listen to it in order to sound smart or sophisticated, when in reality no one who's actually smart believes any music is objectively good or bad.
You all know this is true.
>>61191087
your realize art music is the trendiest of all music types right? unless you live your life permanently in high schools and truck stops youll realize that "coolness" is in upperclass high brow intellectual music, art, and philosophy. you will constantly be looked down upon for not knowing various composers, philosophers, artists, writers, scientists, etc. the "centers of cool" like new york or tokyo are filled with these types and people who dont have the intellect yet want to be like them or simply people they walk all over.
>>61192217
>>61192195
>Music theory very much does try to "objectify" the quality of music.
lol says someone with no understanding of music theory
it's solely based after the fact as an analysis for the time
>>61192211
you don't have any reasoning for why it doesn't evoke a response. your opinion is as shallow as just "I don't like it."
>>61192217
lol
>>61192217
as this poster
>>61192211
I disagree. I think people who think people pretend to listen to music are retarded.
I also don't believe in there being an objective standard of art.
This thread is only serving to reinforce my preconception of classical fans as some of the most purile and intolerable in the medium, alongside jazz fans.
>>61192250
>I'm ignorant and I'm proud
you're a sad kid.
>>61192144
See here
>>61192144
And then at the height of 12 tone serialism, you have "academics" declaring tonal music of lesser worth.
>>61192195
>Music theory very much does try to "objectify" the quality of music.
Show us a specific example from Music Theory. No anecdotal evidence please.
>>61192242
So is yours. You say there is less interesting things going on in modern music. So yes while you can say exactly why you don't like it, it still ultimately boils down to "I just don't like it". But instead of "I just don't like modern music" you can say "I just don't like what is melodically and harmonically going on it".
>>61192276
>you have "academics" declaring tonal music of lesser worth.
Reich pls go home
>>61192217
I actually love classical music.
Is that so hard to comprehend?
There's a whole world of people out there who prefer classical above all else. They're the ones who go to regular classical concerts, and to masters recitals or any random chamber concerts in town. They do exist, you just dont know about them. You and your social circles are probably all just popular music plebs.
>>61192304
No, I say "I don't like this music, it doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't resonate with me BECAUSE there's so little interesting going on in it."
You're missing the BECAUSE. You have no reasoning.
>>61192250
Jazz fans aren't that bad, metal fans are far worse.
>>61192315
that is literally what they said though. anything that is purely tonal is looked down on in the academic classical community.
You have to at least have some serialism or extended techniques to have "credibility" from the academics. Many composers dont give a shit and continue to write tonally though. late Part or Karl Jenkins for example.
>>61192276
>you have "academics" declaring...
Not what I'm asking.
Show us what values Music Theory makes.
>>61192323
If you are actually saying "I don't like this music" I have no problem then. It just seemed to me, and maybe i'm getting you mixed up with other people, there is some people in this thread saying "modern music is objectively worse than classical".
>>61192217
You're right, everyone actually have to start somewhere.
>It is not at all natural to want to listen to classical music. Learning to appreciate it is like Pascal's wager: you pretend to be religious, and suddenly you have faith. You pretend to love Beethoven-or Stravinsky-because you think that will make you appear educated and cultured and intelligent, because that kind of music is prestigious in professional circles, and suddenly you really love it, you have become a fanatic, you go to concerts and buy records and experience true ecstasy when you hear a good performance (or even when you hear a mediocre one if you have little judgment).
>>61191686
Charles Wuorinen. Fuck yeah!
>>61192323
Classical is so wide though, do you find this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiH3vA7q0jo
interesting?
What about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HilGthRhwP8
or this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Gzrake8nI
What music DO you find interesting?
>>61192356
>there is some people in this thread saying "modern music is objectively worse than classical".
Maybe not objectively but there are certainly ways where popular music falls flat.
Modern music is a total misnomer and you should know that.
Has there ever been any classical music fan that wasn't a snob about it?
>>61192273
>kid
I hope you're being ironic because not many words could have more definitively affirmed my initial statement
>>61192356
>modern music is objectively worse than classical
There is modern classical music though. They aren't two different things.
Look, modern classical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gG0j-35Mgk
Lets use the term "art music"
It starts in ancient greece, and goes through to today. popular music has always existed alongside it, and has always been of a lower quality.
>>61192244
>I think people who think people pretend to listen to music are retarded.
>I also don't believe in there being an objective standard of art.
Then there is no "objective" way to listen to it.
What do you mean "pretending?" Not everyone is interested in analyzing the compositional structure of music. Personally, I care more about the whole, the overall aesthetic of a work. "Structure" is simply how you get there.
And a clever, "innovative" structure usually can't save a bad, boring, or unappealing aesthetic (a subjective determination, of course).
I don't care how cleverly a composer used any given "-ism" if I don't like his instrument choice or aspects of the work.
I understand why that aggravates music theorists, because you want us to praise your "microtonal, sonorism, generative, furniture music composition in 2627/11 time" on its structural terms, but art typically doesn't work that way.
A meticulous, brilliantly painted piece of shit is still a painting of a piece of shit (maybe looking at shit is your thing, but it isn't mine).
>>61192427
All music fans of all genres are snobs on 4chan.
>>61192356
No one has thrown the word "objective" ITT besides someone talking about sculptors and people arguing against art music-kun.
>>61192374
With minor alterations, the same statement could fit any kind of music or art.
>>61192420
Yes, okay I can agree with you there. Because when saying there are ways where popular music falls flat you can pick something specific and say "it is not doing this, while classical music is doing this".
>>61192449
as for the name thing, i'm not going to call it anything then besides "not classical".
>>61192470
I have no idea what exactly you are arguing with me about. I just said that I disagree with the poster that people who listen to classical are simply "pretending". I don't believe on average most people pretend to listen to something.
>>61192352
I agree with you that music theory is prescriptive, but its teachers and students certainly come away after learning it with value judgments. That's okay, if the class helped them refine their sensibilities, but all too often they fetishize the certain -isms they learned about in their fun new class over "popular music."
>>61192427
Has there ever been a music fan that wasn't a snob?
Could it be that people are actually just insecure and defensive about an artform that moves them deeply?
>>61192250
Eh not really. Just the ones on /mu/.
>>61192558
And again, not just the classical fans, but /mu/ in general.
>>61192545
>but its teachers and students certainly come away after learning it with value judgments
Not relevant.
Answer the question. Please tell us how a system that describes the language of musical and rhythmic intervals makes any sort of value judgement
PS: Guess what Max Martin, top Pop music writer/producer credits his immense success to? His background in music theory.
>>61192086
/ic/ here, you need a strong understanding of the fundamentals to break them
I see theory as guidelines not as objective truths.
are people seriously defending ignorance and popular music? you dont have to enjoy art music but you do have to recognize its importance and superiority to popular music. a lot art music i do not enjoy.. its hard even painful to listen to but infinitely more rewarding. it excercises the mind in complex ways. a single piece can leave you on an infinte threads of thought. popular music is immediate basic pleasure. sounds good, enjoyable but you come out just as simple minded as before. i dont know where you guys got the idea it about liking or disliking... popular music is made to be liked.... what art is about is making us understand the world and to get the mind to work in new ways. to waste a human mind and body on basic pleasure fulfillment is a waste and a fundemental misunderstanding of what being human even means.
>>61192590
He just said he agrees with you implying he was mistaken. So he isn't going to answer the question obviously you social retard.
>>61192349
Thank you.
And the thing is, those academic value judgments are based on nothing more than trend, not any kind of "objective" truth.
Academia is no more or less subject to superficiality than the pop music landscape.
Can everyone shut up and give me some recs. My favourites of Beethoven are his 7th and 5th symphonies.
>>61192634
>implying
Not relevant.
Let him stand up for himself and admit he doesn't even know what Music Theory is.
>>61192594
Agreed, but do you need to have an understanding of art theory to APPRECIATE art?
>>61192349
>anything that is purely tonal is looked down on in the academic classical community.
I hope you only mean modern tonal music and not tonal music in general.
>>61192576
Pretty much.
>>61192599
>still representing the false duality of art music vs popular music
Everything is just a tradition. Tradition itself is just a meme.
>>61192670
Would people who have an understanding of art theory APPRECIATE art more than those who don't?
I love Gustav Mahler's Symphony No. 8
Rec me some more like that family
>>61192662
What if he doesn't. What are you going to do, no one else really gives a fuck.
>>61192648
Listen to Mozart.
>>61192715
>What if he doesn't
Sure would be silly for him to debate something he doesn't understand.
>>61192545
>I agree with you that music theory is prescriptive
>>61192195
>Music theory very much does try to "objectify" the quality of music.
You can only have one.
>>61192590
I agree with you, and have always agreed with you about Music Theory being a descriptive exercise. My issue comes when "music theorists" try to use it prescriptively. I don't understand why they think they can, but they certainly do.
>>61192756
So you misspoke then.
>>61192670
What this >>61192699 anon said
Art became way more enjoyable once I understood what was done to make the end result, before I just thought of it as nice pictures, now I see form and all the creative choices an artist puts into his art. People who don't understand the fundamentals can be easily fooled into thinking subpar art is actually good.
>>61192525
The distinction was in the "becoming a fanatic" part. The musical canon is not decided by majority opinion but by enthusiasm and passion. A work that ten people love passionately is more important than one that ten thousand do not mind hearing. It also need to warrant replaying so it will continue to incite and create new fans while retaining its earlier converts. The canon of western literature, music and art fulfils those two criteria, in fact that's precisely the reason why those works have become canonical in the first place. Conductors and performers programmed works they liked to play, and critics campaigned for works they thought had not been given a fair hearing. This is why the greats endured, while names like Hasse, Albrechtsberger and Hummel fell by the wayside. How much of all the other kinds of music and art does this?
>>61192731
he doesn't even have to admit he doesn't understand it though.
>>61192756
case in point.
>>61192790
Goodbye anon.
Art is subjective because man is inherently flawed. Man is driven to create because of his imperfection, and in turn creates imperfect art. A perfect being would not have the desire to create as desire is an attribute of an imperfect being.
Perfect art can not exist because a perfect being by nature would not create art. If there is no highest degree for something to be, then it is not quantifiable, and cannot be objectively good or bad.
nerds
>>61192820
adios
>>61192671
yeah only things written by living composers.
Even then as long as you do something "interesting" you can probably get away with tonal music. Even just a few microtonal bends and you'll be fine.
>>61192704
Mahler 5, 6, 1 and 2. Bruckner 8 (4th movement)
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring
the power of a single shitpost on /mu/
>>61192831
in fact the meaning of the word "art" was forever fucked when Duchamp signed that urinal.
The word has lost its meaning these days.
Anything can be considered "art" if the "artist" intended it to be art.
>>61192699
I'm from a film theory background, and you don't.
If someone doesn't like Citizen Kane's story, no amount of explanation about that film's innovative use of depth-of-field, narrative structure, framing, lighting, symbolism, is going to change their mind.
And that's the way it should be, imo. No one should have to force themselves to like something just because it's "clever" or innovative.
"Theory" really only helps you understand structure. Sure, it can help illuminate certain aesthetic facets of a work, but it's not going to open up some whole new world of understanding.
This thread has more posts and traffic than the actual /classical/ thread.
Fuck all of you guys.
>>61192889
>If someone doesn't like
Not what we are talking about.
Try again.
>>61192785
I still don't see the distinction.
Could not any kind of music endure with enough enthusiasm and passion?
>>61192852
Thanks for recs friend!
>>61191422
>intellectuals
>fucking wine bar
What is this pretentious, tumblr, meme shit.
leave.
>>61192912
yeah maybe you all should stick there because you people do a shitty job at convincing others classical music is superior.
it's kind of like how no one gives a shit about feminism because feminists think no one elses opinion is valid because they havent taken gender studies.
>>61192768
No. My issue was clearly always with the practitioners than with music theory in a vacuum.
As I said in my first post:
>Furthermore, how do you extrapolate
Takes a practitioner to extrapolate.
>>61192987
>No
Well you did. You said
>Music theory very much does try to "objectify" the quality of music
>>61192831
>A perfect being would not have the desire to create
uh..checkmate christians?
>>61192986
Pretty much this.
This discussion is better than /classical/, which is one of the lower-tier generals.
>>61192250
nice adjectives faggot
>>61192929
Yes, provided the music elicit that kind of enthusiasm and passion in the first place. The point was that not many do, and you can look at the composer lists for any era and see all the names of all those that failed.
>>61193067
That's why I maintain that everything we call art music or popular music is just music trying to become tradition, with a mostly negligible success rate.
>>61192918
What are we talking about then?
Appreciating vis a vis liking?
Sure, you can appreciate the effort or innovation that went into something, but it isn't going to make you "like" it.
I also think we need to delineate between producers and consumers here. On the production side (whether you're a musician, filmmaker, painter, etc), I agree that theory is pretty much a requisite. On the consumer side, it's not and shouldn't be.
>>61193146
>Appreciating vis a vis liking?
Very clever but it won't work.
Nice backpedaling though
>>61193190
What the fuck are you talking about? this guy just came into the thread he isn't backpedaling about anything?
holy fuck are you autistic or something? Also yes we pretty much are talking about how you don't or do need to know theory to fully appreciate something.
>>61193190
>>61192918
why are you flipping out on a guy who came in just to give his two cents. Is it because he disagrees with you or something?
>>61193208
>Also yes we pretty much are talking about how you don't or do need to know theory to fully appreciate something.
Which is why a comment about enjoying something (rather than appreciating something) is not what we are talking about.
>I love music
>Limiting yourself to a single approach to music
>>61193258
Wow, calm down.
>>61193268
no but i'd really like to fucking hear how he was "backpedaling". Do you even know what that word means? I'd also like to know why you bothered to reply to him with anything but what we were talking about, and why it was such an issue.
>>61193296
>no but i'd really like to fucking hear how he was "backpedaling"
I literally greetexted it. Please pay attention.
>>61193289
"I was only pretending to be retarded".
>>61193317
Whom are you quoting?
>>61193313
So you don't know what backpedaling means then? THAT ISNT FUCKING BACKPEDALING
>He says something
>You say thats not what the thread is about
>Oh so is it about this?
>NICE BACKPEDALING
WHAT THE FUCK. Backpedaling is when you say one thing, and go back on it. Not when you say something, someone tells you thats wrong, and then you ASK if something else was right.
>>61192056
yes
>>61191422
>Implying Camus is a bad writer
>lumping him with George R. R. Martin
God damn, whoever wrote this shlock better not go to /lit/.
>>61193339
that funny meme image.
>>61193208
you need to know theory to fully appreciate bach fugues.
in fact, you need theory to fully appreciate any classical music. Sure you can "enjoy" listening to it, but you can't fully grasp whats going on unless you know your theory and orchestration etc.
Just like a cars engine. You can feel that it works and pulls the car forward, but you wont understand the beauty of the engines construction unless you take it apart and understand each piece. Its not for the general public, but mostly for mechanics and engineers to enjoy.
Just like with classical music. The general public dont know the inner workings, they can still "enjoy" it, but only composers, musicologists and conductors with large amounts of knowledge (and the score in front of them) can divulge the inner workings of a piece and fully appreciate its construction.
This is why academic composers these days value atonal / complexity / live electronics over traditional tonality. To use the engine analogy, they're over the traditional internal combustion engine, and instead are turning to new methods like ion drives or hendo hoverboard MFA tech
>there's people on this board who generally don't give a shit about classical and want to call themselves fans of music
plebs need to leave
>>61192449
that's fusion to me
>>61193397
Not relevant.
>>61193350
Did you read what I greentexted? it should be clear
>>61193402
that is exactly what the OP said congrats you are fucking hours late to the party you genius. Just think, if your brain was a little bit quicker this shitty thread could have been YOURS!!
>>61193423
I wish I could bottle this autism and use it to heat my house or something.
>>61193190
I'm not trying to be clever.
My contention is:
Learning the craft of something won't "make" anyone like a certain aesthetic. A person who prefers the minimalism of Mid Century Modern furniture is always going to choose that over the table in the picture here, despite the latter's more detailed craftsmanship that I'm sure required days of more effort to produce than a piece of Mid Century Modern.
And you can go out and learn a marble carving class, and while you might come away with more appreciation for this table, you're still not going to "like" it more than whatever you prefer.
>>61193413
wow you got me.
>>61193404
fusion is part of what modern composers do. Combining all sorts of styles.
Its still contemporary classical because its written by a trained composer and is primarily stored in a written score, not a recording.
>>61193443
>Learning the craft of something won't "make" anyone like...
Not what we are discussing. Did you read the thread?
In case you are confused, there is a difference between enjoyment and appreciation. You can try to misconstrue one into the other to make your original "opinion" relevant, but it won't work.
>>61193042
Rach fan detected.
>>61192986
Clearly they must be pretty good at making plebs angry and insecure.
>>61191422
>call others plen
>has animu girl in it
>>61193479
no because no one wants to read this pile of shit opinions including yours. keep saying "not relevant" though as if you are some kind of cool calculated robot who can't fucking have a discussion and leaves everything up to the other person because they just are so less important compared to you.
>>61193505
who feminists?
>>61193534
Apparently both.
>>61193564
tru
>>61193399
This doesn't make any sense because music is not a science nor engineering.
It's an artform, and structure, as I've said before, works in service of the aesthetic.
To take your engine analogy, if I like the growl of the internal combustion engine over then whirr of an ion drive, then it matters not how each were constructed. The inner workings don't mean anything. A growl is no more "advanced" than a whirr.
I get that some "composers" want the focus to be on the inner workings so their cleverness can be feted, but ultimately, the aesthetic is what matters, and if a traditional method needs to be used in service of the artist's vision, it should be used.
>>61193534
>no because no one wants to read this pile of shit opinions including yours
Then by all means keep replying to things you didn't read!
>>61193623
i'm not even him you autismo. I've read through this entire thread, it wasn't worth reading, he isn't even that far off. and you are acting like he is up to something when he is just in here to throw his opinion out. once again probably because he disagrees with you.
>>61193621
>if I like
Not relevant to the discussion.
You will appreciate it less than an expert in the field.
>>61193652
>throw his opinion out
Oh I definitely threw it out.
>>61193674
what the fuck man. i have no fucking clue what is wrong with you, i thought i was way too invested in this thread but apparently there is people so autistic about this they get visibly shaken when someone else , being nothing but nice and good natured, comes in who has a background in some kind of theory and disagrees with them.
>>61193699
>someone
>>61193621
>music is not a science nor engineering.
it really is if you know anything about it
Intervals: Science (Basic Physics)
Harmony: Science
Counterpoint: Science
Form: Engineering
All art forms have a science behind them. Painting has anatomy and golden ratio / composition, not to mention the science of working with oil paints and canvas construction
Photography has composition and the technical science of developing
Film making has lens construction, lighting, editing, effects etc.
Literature has the science of the language at its heart. You dont write a great book without a great understanding of the language.
The only people who claim an art form doesn't have a science behind it, simply dont know enough about that art form, or have only been exposed to art made by plebs for plebs.
>>61193699
>who has a background in some kind of theory
[citation needed]
>>61193657
And appreciation really has no place in something as subjective as art.
What exactly am I supposed to be "appreciating" here?
Effort? Who cares? Effort isn't automatically worthy of appreciation.
"Innovation?" Art isn't technology.
"Creative risk taking?" Not inherently worthy of "appreciation" either. A composer composing a piece for orchestra of farters would be a pretty creative risk, but it's not something I would particularly appreciate or care about.
So yeah, "like" is really all that should matter.
>>61193674
Of course you did, because I'm right, and you essentially have no counterargument.
>>61193716
yeah and I use a TV, computer, medicine etc. everyday yet i dont need to know how it works to use it
>science of language
haha dont make me laugh
>>61193791
>you essentially have no counterargument.
Your argument wasn't relevant to begin with. State a valid argument, and we'll see.
But be careful, as tripe like this >>61193770 will just embarrass yourself.
>>61193770
Your examples are straw men, though. Innovation, effort, and creativity can be appreciated by the audience. For example, I appreciate the creative risk and innovation of Radiohead's transition from OK Computer to Kid A, from alternative rock to more electronic, atonal music. To say that elements like these are minimally appreciated by people is to create an inaccurate generalization of the relationship between the artist and his or her audience.
Science only deals with facts.
>>61193716
>Intervals: Science (Basic Physics)
So? Science can't say anything about the aesthetic value of intervals.
>Harmony: Science
Science has nothing to say about the aesthetic value of harmony.
>Counterpoint: Science
Science has nothing to say about the aesthetic value of harmony.
>Form: Engineering
Nope. Aesthetic forms have no real world function in the engineering sense. A internal combustion engine's design produces horsepower for the purpose of locomotion. What an aesthetic form achieves in reality is highly subjective (I might find a form interesting, while do not). On the other hand, an internal combustion functions the same for both of us.
>All art forms have a science behind them. Painting has anatomy and golden ratio / composition, not to mention the science of working with oil paints and canvas construction
Painters have violated those "rules" since man first scrawled a yak on a cave. The very fact that these "rules" can be broken means they aren't "scientific."
>Photography has composition and the technical science of developing
There's no objective compositional rules. The technical side is just a means to an end.
>Film making has lens construction, lighting, editing, effects etc.
Tools. Used as a means to an end. The tools have no aesthetic value in their own right.
>Literature has the science of the language at its heart. You dont write a great book without a great understanding of the language.
See above.
>The only people who claim an art form doesn't have a science behind it, simply dont know enough about that art form, or have only been exposed to art made by plebs for plebs.
"Pleb" art is probably more scientific than fine art, since "pleb" art typically uses psychological tactics to connect with its audience, much like junk food makers use food science to make their food as tasty and addictive as possible.
>>61193996
>Innovation, effort, and creativity can be appreciated by the audience. For example, I appreciate the creative risk and innovation of Radiohead's transition from OK Computer to Kid A, from alternative rock to more electronic, atonal music.
You appreciated those moves because you liked the overall aesthetic anyway.
My point is I'm not going to give an artist automatic "brownie points" because he "took a risk" or "put a lot of effort into his work."
And knowing theory isn't going to make me "appreciate" that effort or risk any more so, nor is it going to change my mind if I don't like the final result, which is the point I was trying to make to the other guy.
>>61194261
Okay.
>>61194261
>You appreciated those moves because you liked the overall aesthetic anyway.
Not him, but I appreciate Trout Mask Replica, but I don't like it. Why? because they are different concepts, two ways to view art. They are not tied, unless you want them to be
Try again.
>My point is I'm not going to give an artist automatic "brownie points" because he "took a risk" or "put a lot of effort into his work."
Well you don't know music theory, so I don't doubt it
> nor is it going to change my mind if I don't like the final result
Then you simply aren't viewing art properly.
>>61193842
>He thinks artistic conventions are at all comparable to scientific conventions
>>61194304
>Well you don't know music theory, so I don't doubt it
I don't need to. Music theory isn't prescriptive.
>Then you simply aren't viewing art properly.
The only "proper way" to view art is from your own critical framework.
I don't care about "structure." I see it as simply a "slave" so to speak of the aesthetic.
Your theory class has convinced you to prioritize structure, and fair enough, that works for you, but I'm not bailing an artist out for work I think is shit because his "structure" was interesting or "innovative."
>>61194502
If you don't know what music theory is, how do you know you don't need it?
>The only "proper way" to view art is from your own critical framework.
Not everyone's critical framework is equal.
>Your theory class has convinced you to prioritize structure
Quote me specifics, what it has told me about structure.
>>61191589
>Name 5 composers from last century you have listened to.
not anon, but
dumitrescu
takemitsu
grisey
davidowsky
ligeti
>>61194004
you're wrong, there's a field of study called musical psychology which maps out mostly everything you said it can't
>>61194627
>>61194693
same guy that wrote both of these posts here
my thesis is that "classical music" fans are generally fucking retards
"classical music" still exists, people still make it, and it's interesting as hell
>>61194560
>If you don't know what music theory is, how do you know you don't need it?
Because it's not prescriptive.
Now, if you're going to be a chemist, you better have your PHD, because if you don't know your "craft," you won't get results.
Music isn't an empirical field. Music isn't after any kind of "results" other than self-expression, and the ultimate value of that self-expression is subjective.
>Not everyone's critical framework is equal.
I think it is. If there's no objective standard of what "good" art is, then nobody can really have any more insight than another. Now, I agree some people can articulate their criticism better than others, but that's a totally different thing. And more verbosity doesn't necessarily equal "better" criticism.
>Quote me specifics, what it has told me about structure.
Every music theory department is different, but I'm sure it told you to value atonality over tonality. Avoid cliches, like 4/4 time, etc.
>>61194794
>but I'm sure it told you to value
Ooops you just said
>Music theory isn't prescriptive.
Which is it? Is it whatever is convenient for your argument?
>>61194334
>implying music isn't a fucking math
>>61194794
>Avoid cliches, like 4/4 time, etc.
If you think Music Theory "said" this, then your opinion on music criticism is retarded.
>>61194693
>psychology
When did this become a hard science?
Psychological states are also malleable and environmentally/culturally dependent.
>An individual's culture or ethnicity plays a role in their music cognition,
Yeah, there's nothing empirical here.
>>61194832
Just because I said it isn't prescriptive doesn't mean I don't think its teachers/practitioners try to be.
>>61194842
is this b8
>>61194860
Of course music theory didn't "say it," but you're the one who is retarded if you don't think music theorists try to make [objective] value judgments.
Case in point:
>Some music theorists have criticized serialism on the basis that the compositional strategies employed are often incompatible with the way information is extracted by the human mind from a piece of music.
