Why did so many classical composers insist on playing so many notes all the time? Often I'll be listening to a classical piece for piano or harpsichord and I'll hear a beautiful melody in there, but it's just being drowned in all these notes going all over the place all the time.
>>62558582
what is this?
>>62558582
Your statement makes no sense; post an example please.
Why on Earth would you intentionally listen to anything performed on harpsichord
>>62558582
It was an extravagant era, OP, so filling the soundscape with as much energy and noise as possible reflected the trends.
>>62558582
what is this picture
>>62558582
thank you for making me laugh OP
>>62558665
>>62559150
It's 311 you mongs
>>62558665
9/11
>>62558582
Because music isn't meant to indulge you and your unfounded sense of aesthetic prettiness.
Welcome to art, where things don't always go your way.
>>62558665
>>62559150
I believe that is where the world trade towers fell.
because mozart was a freak savant robot who generated algorithms but had no artistic ability. all of beethoven consists of about 5 basic ideas repeated. algorithms and melodies are different. pop was a distillation process of the good material from the raw algorithms......those classical folk were stuffy robots who played proper with no style.
>>62559200
>>62559293
I didn't know they had iPhones back in 9/11
>>62559304
Not quite.
The classical idea of art is that it exists in both physical and essential form, and people rightly intuited that the most exquisite musical expression was one having both harmonious beauty and polyphonic formality.
For the most part this idea is still very much alive and well, popular music is not an evolution of classical music, it's a dumbing-down.
If you want to see where music has gone in recent years take a look at contemporaries like messaien and part.
>>62559380
Not every tall picture was taken with an iPhone jimmy.
>>62559588
im not sure I agree,
but I don't know what you mean by "essential" form.
I think that the paintings you post, or the classical era is very "intellectual" understandings, or head-based, esoteric or rational minded formalisms.
consider that most people upon hearing music will respond to a "good rhythm", and yet we hear no rhythms in mozart or beethoven. no "grooves", nothing that gets people "moving", its all very intellectual.
i relate it to the architectual style at the time or the wigs they wore, it is somewhat preposterous and pompous and pretentious, however I'm not claiming its not "amazing" as it the full human faculty at work, but in terms of "appreciation" consider that most people like songs they can "sing" along to, such as "american pie". essential pop I think is a shortcut to some emotional response.....its very "immediately grasped" and doesn't require an IQ of 200 to understand or relate to
the majority of historical classical composers did not seem to differentiate between a string of notes and a motif, as a result there is usually not a strong motif / phrase backing the melody. as a result a lot of classical sounds like pointless noodling.
modern classical still has this problem which i find mindboggling, but it's probably due to modern composers being largely influenced by the 'golden era'
>>62559870
To me, popular music is pompous and art music is humble.
I can't feel anything when I listen to music with an electric guitar, with few exceptions.
I can predict every note, the themes are trite, there's no substance.
In classical music there are complex and powerful musical statements permeating a piece, and by the profundity of these ideas coupled with the sound of music I am moved on an emotional level.
As I said, there are exceptions, but most popular music is really shallow in this respect.
Besides, are you telling me people would have a hard time finding this emotional:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj1iK2WKS8
to partly answer, back before the pianoforte if you were going to accompany someone the in-house instruments typically didn't sustain notes, like if you were to play on a harpsichord then you would only have a WOMP and then it'd stop producing sound, a one-and-done sort of thing.
to counteract that, they wrote different bass patterns that would keep the music driving forward while keeping within the implied chord
like say if you were in C major, and were writing accompaniment under a long sustained note by a singer, you could utilize the alberti bass method of taking a chord (like tonic CEG) and then playing C G E G / C G E G ... etc and switching to new chords when necessary.
upper voices just got more complex in response to the need to out-do others at the time, at around the baroque era
you had all these songwriters who were hired by lords to perform in their courts, and write songs about them and their glory and wealth; to match the elaborate decorations and visual designs of the era they in turn made the parts more intricate and elaborate, to try and show off "look at how good i am at writing this shit"
basically ornamental notes are a bunch of dick waving
>>62558582
>there are teenagers on /mu/ right now that were born after 9/11
>>62561675
what the fuck
>>62561741
>9/11 was about 14 years ago
>around 65-70% of /mu/ is 18 or younger
>there are a few 14, even 13, year olds posting on /mu/ at any given moment
>these are the kind of people you get music recommendations from
>>62561675
>>62561741
>>62561912
>tfw you've been posting on /mu/ since you were 14 but now you're older you wish all underageb&s would fuck off
I don't even care if it makes me a hypocrite
>>62562087
Don't worry anon. I was underage here once, as well.
Just in case mods are retarded, I'm 19 now.
>>62558582
"counterpoint"
composers got bored of the "one melody" idea by about 1300. By the time harpsichords were invented, it was the norm to have lots of different voices playing different melodies, and the interweaving texture creating an overall beauty.
This density of texture make pieces much harder to digest (for example: you, a pleb, got sick of it and just wanted one melody to focus on), and also give a piece a higher replay value. As you re listen to a dense baroque piece, you hear melodies you missed before, and interactions that require multiple listens to comprehend.
Some pieces like Bach's art of fugue you can never really "comprehend", without comprehensive study of the score. Listening to the piece, you hear music that sounds good, and is comprised of multiple voices all playing complimentary parts, but you will never really understand all the different parts and their interaction just by listening.
Being a person stimulated by the unknown, this density and overwhelming polyphony makes baroque and Renaissance music extremely interesting. Popular music and even some modern classical music doesn't achieve the same heights of interest as the baroque period. Truly once of the most artistic periods of art music.
>>62558582
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU
>>62559293
>Welcome to art, where things don't always go your way
such a bullshit statement especially when we live in an era of artistic choice
>>62559870
>consider that most people
>most people
Well there's your problem.
Why do you care what most people feel about music? What do you feel? I feel that rhythm and 'groove' is overrated, and overemphasized to an obnoxious degree in pop music. Nothing interesting about the harmonies, nothing interesting about the melodies. It's all the same, in superficially different rhythms.
>>62561536
>>62563755
solid answers anons
>>62562158
the mods are always retarded
op is always a faggot
nevar spaghetti
tits or gtfo
hilter din do nuffin
top kek m8
death grips > kanye
BERNIE
jet fuel can make steel connections deformable and non plastic (ie they dont return to theirr original shapes) thus the collapse of the twin towers
>>62559021
have you ever played a harpsichord????
plebs just dont understand
>>62559304
>all of beethoven consists of about 5 basic ideas repeated.
top kek. I love people like this. Flippantly dismissing the musical contribution of one of the world's greatest artists as if they've always had the inside scoop on what great music is about.
>>62559293
Fuck off, retard.
>>62558582
Because most of the common practice period was dominated by formalism - the worship of form and the inevitable disregard of sound. It's basically aural purple prose, where ideas are expressed excruciatingly slow. No, wait, it's actually inferior to purple prose since most composers didn't even bother to express any ideas. They were content with defecating lorem ipsum-like streams of harmonic masturbation for their own sake.
Notable exceptions include Chopin, Debussy, and Scriabin.
>>62559193
>311
>tfw can't think of appropriate joke to make
shit
>>62558582
The Classical thread expired so this can be the new general.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5c4Bt-voQ
>>62564907
lol, you're not even close, the ideas are literally just too nuanced for you to understand.
Don giovanni? Hello?
Get the fuck out of here, you people are a dime-a-dozen, you think you know everything.
You don't even know what formalism is, your entire knowledge base is mass-produced garbage, a mishmash of terms mapped to simple concepts.
>Formalism = no ideas expressed
If you think this is even remotely true then you do not even understand the way human beings think, is the past to you just some angry, irrelevant monochrome world?
And, please, do tell, O college-educated-one, what ideas Chopin or Debussy succeeded in expressing.
Impressionism is one big great sale, everything can be had at a bargain price, the "idea" is moved right into to your fucking mouth for eating by reducing it to a sensation.
If debussy had the skill to compose a piece that expressed the idea of being fucked in the ass then he would have, because that is the ultimate goal of impressionism; the aimless, never ending tingling of the asshole, every sensation, all at a bargain price.
And then people come on here with this preconceived shit about formalism, as if the poor dull lads in the classical period just didn't think of that.
Go all the way back to the fucking 13th century and you will find that almost every composer had better and more substantive ideas than fucking debussy or that sad ass chopin.
>>62564907
Wow, how uninformed.
>>62558582
That's why Satie, Chopin etc. got more popular, because they weren't as "waltzy"
>>62564907
>Debussy
>not formalism
>>62558665
>/mu/ is now too young to remember 9/11
why do I fucking come here
>>62563934
Artistic choice?
Oh I get it, you mean that people can choose to like whatever bullshit "art" they feel like?
So, let me see here, you're saying that I am wrong, since people can go out and find art such that everything goes their way.
Fucking good for you, that's completely besides the point.
Point being that if you wish to appreciate something you have to work for it.
If you don't want to work for it, then I suppose you turn around and find something you don't have to work for.
I guess that's why people read foucault XD
How are you able to dress yourself when you can't even understand the shit you read on anything deeper than a purely semantic level?
>>62565619
I guess I'll repost my question from last thread here then.
Playing through Schroeder's cello etudes. There are some downward-facing brackets above certain groups of notes, what exactly do they mean?
And no I don't mean the fucking downbow symbol (as someone responded last time), it's a single bracket extending over a large number of notes.
>>62567054
>XD
How saddening.
>>62566932
>not a single rebuttal to anything I've said
>>62566932
>You don't even know what formalism is
I just said what it is - the worship of form at the expense of sound.
>your entire knowledge base
I don't need a knowledge base since I have ears and I'm not afraid of listening to music without someone holding my trembling Anglo hand.
>If you think this is even remotely true then you do not even understand the way human beings think
How do human beings think? If your last paragraph is anything to go by then I hope you're right.
>is the past to you just some angry, irrelevant monochrome world?
>proceeds to defecate an impotent ham-fisted Freudian rant containing 0 salient ideas
End yourself.
>>62567054
>Point being that if you wish to appreciate something you have to work for it.
How much would you have to work to appreciate me shitting in your mouth?
>>62558665
11/9
The international date format is YYYY-MM-DD.
The real reason is because most intruments back then were out of tune and when you're playing notes fast you can't tell as much
>>62566932
>Impressionism is one big great sale, everything can be had at a bargain price, the "idea" is moved right into to your fucking mouth for eating by reducing it to a sensation.
This doesn't even qualify as a sentence, let alone an idea.
>>62568805
plebian here
i had no idea how fucking savage these classical threads were
>>62568915
Wait until you hear the music hehehehehe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDTgj_69JKA
(volume warning)
Jesus, so much half- and less-than-half-knowledge in here.
>>62559588
>polyphonic formality
The most cringe-worthy part of this horrendous post, it's a completely meaningless conjunction.
>>62559870
>and yet we hear no rhythms in mozart or beethoven. no "grooves", nothing that gets people "moving", its all very intellectual.
DA-DA-DA-DAAAAAAAAAAAA
DAAA-DA-DAAA-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA-DA
>>62561536
>to counteract that, they wrote different bass patterns that would keep the music driving forward while keeping within the implied chord
>you could utilize the alberti bass method of taking a chord
>upper voices just got more complex in response to the need to out-do others at the time, at around the baroque era
Completely wrong. The Alberti bass is rare prior to 1750, your telling of history contracts the musical facts.
>>62563755
>composers got bored of the "one melody" idea by about 1300.
Make that 1150, but polyphony does not equal counterpoint.
>>62564498
No, those are completely inane answers.
>>62564907
>Because most of the common practice period was dominated by formalism - the worship of form and the inevitable disregard of sound.
Completely wrong, go read some period treatises like Mattheson or Koch. Sound was a major concern, and "formalism" wasn't a thing - music was conceived in rhetorical terms, formal schemata like sonata "form" don't enter musical consciousness until well into the 19th century. Frankly, Chopin and Scriabin's handling of sonata form really does take schemata as its starting point - as opposed to say, Mozart or Haydn, where it was a flexible, natural idiom. In Scriabin, sonata form is a succession of melodic ideas, it is divorced from the harmonic dimension of the music - it's a fetishized crutch for Scriabin's static/post-tonal harmony, to make it digestible.
>>62559588
>tfw you will never be as tall as a house
>>62567054
>>62566932
Oh yeah, you're a cunt too, Debussy is the most important composer of the 20th century alongside Schoenberg and actually just as influential on serial procedures as the latter.
It's anything but "hurr sensuality".
>>62559588
>contemporaries like messaien
>who has been dead for almost a quarter of a century
>>62569157
>the last paragraph
I meant "the worship of form" as a general concept, mostly pertaining to people's morbid fixation with harmonic "adventures" at the expense of what you hear.
So instead of saying "I want to repeat that part 10 times because it sounds good, give or take minor variations", most composers said "I want to repeat this part 10 times because I want to change a couple of notes on each repetition because this will aid in modulating whatever".
The fact that most things didn't sound that good to being with didn't help either.
>>62569356
Actually, in the rhetorical conception of music that prevailed during the common practice period, the beginning of a piece was conceived as its subject matter - the inventio, the basic idea - that, apart from being open to development that did not amount to mere repetition, had to be striking and recognizable. You know, what you could call "sounding good".
Also, harmonic adventures are something you can hear - even if you're not trained for it. Furthermore, you don't know what musical listening was like 250 years ago - don't project modern sensibilities into the past too much.
>>62569356
But please, give an example of "I want to repeat this part 10 times because I want to change a couple of notes on each repetition because this will aid in modulating whatever" in a composition. :)
>>62566932
the other guy is right yah know
>>62569428
Beethoven's symphonies? I would imagine Mozart's too, but I haven't listened to most of them, RIP.
>>62569506
Cite specific parts of a composition and how they fit your description.
>>62564515
Blast from the past anon, thanks
>>62561912
I don't get music recommendations of /mu/ i just shitpost and discuss /mu/ core.
>>62569517
Posting the Malinowski animation since I want to contribute to the trivialization of Beethoven:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRgXUFnfKIY
>0:36-0:49
>0:54-1:13
No subsequent repetitions of these parts are there for anything other than harmonic onanism.
>>62569722
What's harmonic onanism?
>>62559021
You're a dickhead.
>>62569941
>assuming this isn't a meme question
Having note x instead of note y because it contributes to the overarching theme of subCmajbBbneapolitan#subconterdominant, something no one but the composer and a handful of goulds care about.
>>62558582
I know right senpai. Chopin and that violin dude are literally just SHREDDING. NO EMOTIONALS AT ALL.
>>62570048
So your ideal of music is what, pure diatonic material? Or is that already too extravagant? Pentatonic, where you can't have minor second dissonances?
You'd be surprised how much chart pop engages in "harmonic onanism" my meme-ing friend.
>>62570048
Actually the repetition is so simple (transposition from E-flat major to C major) that it's almost trivial, nothing adventurous about that.
>>62570127
My favorite music is music that sounds good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iexkUMZfl5A
>>62570158
You do realize that in Chopin, harmony is much more an end in itself (something that is often dismissed as masturbatory) than in Beethoven, where it clarifies and structures form, right? :)
>>62564635
We have Kanye now, there's literally no need to reminiscence over Beethoven.
>>62570184
The grandiose My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (Roc-A-Fella, 2010), that basically reversed the path of the previous two albums, was hailed as an epochal masterpiece by the press but mostly because of what it represented (a diligent adoption of all "cool" stereotypes of the time), and not necessarily because of what it sounded like. This overcrowded album certainly brought together West's arrangement ambitions in a pompous and multifaceted manner, feeling more like a Wagner symphony than a hip-hop album.
>Wagner symphony
>Wagner
>symphony
This is what Scaruffi actually believes.
>>62570172
I don't think I understand the question.
Strongly suspecting you're modulating towards trolling.
>>62570236
What you called "harmonic onanism" in Beethoven is actually part of a large-scale cadential progress, i.e. a goal-directed motion that brings closure to the piece.
Compare the coloristic use of harmony in this desecending 7-6 pattern in Chopin, where such functional harmony is completely shunned in favor of irregularly placed chromatic passing tones that obscure the direction of the phrase until 0:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwPzHJ-Pic
>>62570172
Just change your name to Scheißeberg Defecate Fart.
>>62570289
Yeah, that'll teach him for having a different opinion!
Check this amigo !!!!! https://youtu.be/andy1OOwb2g
>>62570285
Yes?
>a large-scale cadential progress
>a goal-directed motion that brings closure to the piece.
And these AREN'T formalist to you?
You've just described the process of the Hollywood checklist. I notice more and more how this is typical for Anglos. It's one of the reasons I've stopped sifting through imdb. Every single movie that's even mildly atypical makes dozens of spastic children wail about lack of FOCUS (large-scale cadential progress) and CLOSURE (goal-directed motion that brings closure to the piece).
Strongly considering leaving /mu/. This place is AIDS.
>>62570506
First of all, you're shaming music for the only thing it really can communicate in lieu of semantically precise meaning: Formal processes. This is as true of folk ditties as it is of a Beethoven symphony.
Secondly, every sonata form is a unique realization of a cadential process. The goal is just that - the goal. The interest lies in the unpredictable turns and detours on the way. You sound an awful lot like a teenage existentialist going "hurr death is certain, so life is meaningless".
Thirdly, I'm German/Austrian and have spent a total of 5 days in an anglophone country.
>le dated classical musical :^)
>>62570590
>First of all, you're shaming music for the only thing it really can communicate in lieu of semantically precise meaning: Formal processes.
This is actual Satanism. Antagonism in its purest form.
>Secondly, every sonata form is a unique realization of a cadential process. The goal is just that - the goal. The interest lies in the unpredictable turns and detours on the way.
Every Steven Seagal film is a unique realization of a law enforcement process. The goal is just that - the goal. The interest lies in the unpredictable settings, firearms, and martial arts on the way.
What does liquid basalt taste like, Mephistopheles?
>>62570679
Like the blood of Aryan children, served with mazzes and hummus.
>>62570590
>>62570679
That's probably why you like German composers so much. They're all down there keeping you company.
>>62570706
Nah, I can assure you my tastes are rootless and cosmopolitan and I enjoy much music without structural cadential processes.
>>62569941
A fancy way of saying "harmonic masturbation".
because classical music is masturbatory and no one truly enjoys it
>>62570754
I enjoy it, though
>>62570754
contemporary can say as much in 6 minutes as a classical piece can say in 1 hour
it's simply dated
>>62570770
you forced yourself to enjoy it, just like everyone who claims to be into it
>>62570795
This is literally the opposite of the truth.
>>62570795
[citation needed]
>>62564907
>the worship of form and the inevitable disregard of sound
oh my god fuck off
Spoiler: Musical form is sound in time.
>>62570833
>>62570834
What I mean is moving emotionally, not musically since that doesn't make sense
Listen to Schubert's song cycles.
>>62570863
Being moved emotionally is subjective and depends on the individual and its musical socialization.
>>62570832
If I ever did, then damn was it the right decision.
I was born and raised with it though.
overly complex music isn't enjoyable, period.
>>62570916
What's overly complex is subjective.
>>62570916
What you say blatantly contradicts reality.
>>62570901
I can only imagine what kind of shitty petit-bourgeois environment you were raised in.
>>62570895
If that's true then why isn't classical music more popular today?
is it possible to like classical music and not be a douchebag
>>62569329
Dutilleux would have been a better example, sorry.
>>62570963
Because music education that introduces people to classical music from an early age is a scarce commodity and popular music permeates popular culture (alongside some classical pieces) and is, by contrast, utterly inescapable.
>>62570971
Excuse me? Are you saying that us fans of Western Art Music should lower our standards, to be on the level with you pop plebs? *glares at peasant*
>>62570992
You're just proving my point. The fact that you need education to properly understand and appreciate classical music proves that contemporary music is superior in that it has tapped into something in the human psyche.
>>62571017
The fact is that exposure and thus education in popular music is compulsory, whereas the same is not true. If anything, this proves that music that is a profitable commodity flourishes in capitalism by virtue of social conditioning.
>>62570935
your reality, perhaps. the reality of a socially inept loser who most likely spends hours listening to old compositions in an attempt to seem more sophisticated and smart than he actually is.
the rest of the world couldn't care less about it, thankfully.
>>62571017
>proves that contemporary music is superior in that it has tapped into something in the human psyche.
no... it means that popular music is incredibly formulaic and simple, and that you have learnt it unconsciously through pure repetition of
a) individual songs played over and over again
and
b) conventional and expected chord progressions and harmonies, expected song structures, expected conventions in different subgenres, expected lengths of songs, etc.
>>62571017
>"Things that require education to understand and appreciate are inferior to things you are confronted with in daily life whether you like it or not."
You sound like Pol Pot. Do you perchance want to kill everyone who wears glasses?
this thread really proves how classical music purists are the biggest fedoras of any genre
>>62558582
OP don't listen to symphonies or concertos for your first endeavors. Try more solo works or solo with accompaniment. this will be a start to become accustomed to the writing styles of each composer.
Then eventually you will be able to control your hearing to almost be like a peripheral vision. You can focus on a melody but you are also hearing and understanding the harmony with the other parts,
would you sit in an art gallery and look really close at a painting and say, "this train looks cool but whatever the fuck are these dickkfucks doing over on the left here??"
>>62571078
pretty much
I like a bit of classical, can't say I know much about it, but seeing people act like this almost makes me glad I don't
>>62571079
no, OP, don't listen to this guy. stick to music you actually enjoy.
music should be entertaining, not a chore to listen to.
>>62571078
>>62571091
Go back to your Kanye threads already.
>>62571034
>>62571053
classicalfags getting btfo this easily. you haven't refuted my point of modern music effecting humans emotions much easier. you're literally just saying modern music is more prevalent in modern culture an therefore people like it more.
>>62571064
why are you replying to posts twice? are you that slow?
that's not even what I'm saying. if classical music moved people in the same way or more than modern music, it would be more popular and not sound so dated, but it doesn't. They don't exist in separate vacuums, people are exposed to classical and choose modern music because it is much more relatable than dated irrelevant music that doesn't or rarely has vocals, the key part of modern music. The same reason why instrumental music is not very popular either.
Just because it's more complex doesn't mean it's better. A book could have 100,000 pages that says little and there could be a book with 10 pages that actually speaks to people.
When will classicalfags learn
>>62571053
please give us a good reason why music should be anything other than simple.
>>62571193
>dated irrelevant music that doesn't or rarely has vocals
Until 1800, vocal music was the predominant form of classical music. Please learn some music history.
You might as well defend fast food with your populist argument.
>>62561181
I am classically trained, make popular classical music, which I am sure you have heard (initials are M R), and you don't know what you're talking about.
>>62571194
>why music should be
I'm not here to impose limitations on what music should be, and I love plenty of simple as fuck music, including plenty of pop. What I don't believe is that pop music taps into something we understand on a level deeper than other kinds of music, I think we simply have been conditioned to understand it better through sheer repetition.
In much the same way that people from western countries often find the use of microtonal scales and the like to sound "wrong", whereas people who have heard them a lot understand them. Really it is all about context - most people have inevitably been exposed to a lot of popular music, and so understand it better than classical. This does not mean, I do not think, that popular music is tapping into some deeper consciousness of ours which is more in-tune with a sort of primal (and therefore more "human") psyche.
I'm not really expressing this very well.
>>62571232
quoting one line of my post and saying your argument is correct.
well done, certainly showing your intellect
>>62571193
plz post yfw you realize they replaced complex musical theory based on related pitch with driving rhythms and shitty lyrics.
>>62571246
Hi Max, that Vivaldi album sucks.
>>62571254
No, I'm saying your argument does not prove the value of something because it is a) an appeal to popularity, which is not intrinsically related to value and b) can be used to defend popular cultural practices that are harmful but convenient and easy to take part in.
>>62571267
>with driving rhythms and shitty lyrics.
>classicalfags generalising this hard
>>62571193
>if classical music moved people in the same way or more than modern music, it would be more popular
>it would be more popular
>I care about what's popular
Yeah, bro, all the kids dig this latest tune. It's the most hip thing on the street, word up dude!
>>62571267
Most lyrics set to classical music are pretty fucking shitty on so many levels
>>62571078
While I might agree, this thread shows the inverse situation
>>62571163
Why should music be mindless and dumbed down so that everyone can bob their head without actually liking it?
>>62571287
>No, I'm saying your argument does not prove the value of something because it is a) an appeal to popularity, which is not intrinsically related to value and b) can be used to defend popular cultural practices that are harmful but convenient and easy to take part in.
you're totally dismissing the value of the entirety of modern music (1960s-present) and the effect it has had on the human race on the premise of popularity. you are genuinely retarded.
you are literally saying it's popular and therefore it sucks automatically. that is retard level argument.
>>62571296
you tried!
>>62571338
classicalfag damage control mode engaged
>>62571362
>you're totally dismissing the value of the entirety of modern music (1960s-present) and the effect it has had on the human race on the premise of popularity. you are genuinely retarded.
Again, you are completely misreading my argument. I value popular music a lot and I think aesthetic pluralism is one of the great accomplishments of modernity: Now, more than ever before, music can mean different things to different people. I am perfectly fine and at peace with people finding all they want from music in say, Kanye's TLOP, even though that kind of music could never exhaust what I expect from and value in music. Some of my fondest music is popular music and some of my best research deals with it, even though you might shun it as "formalist".
All I've said is that popularity should not be the (sole) index of value and claiming it is (and therefore dismissing classical music) is totalitarian and at odds with the freedom offered to us by modernity. We live in a glorious age, where all the music of humankind is at our fingertips, wanting to be listened to. Why not embrace it, as far and as wide as you - and only you - want to?
>>62571362
>Modern music (1960s-present)
>as opposed to classical music
Some of the best classical music was written in the 1960s
>>62571502
No, it wasn't.
>>62571521
Well, okay. It was, though
>>62571539
Yeah, you just keep thinking that.
>>62571193
>people are exposed to classical and choose modern music
Sorry but this just isn't true. Maybe you grew up in a somewhat affluent area where exposure to classical music was a mandatory part of early education, I was too, but that simply is not the norm. I would wager that the majority of random adults you pulled off the street on the south side of Chicago right now haven't heard Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven in their lives. There simply isn't access or anything to spur the desire. And even then any amount of exposure a good upbringing would provide still pales in comparison to modern mass media pumping popular music at you from each and every crack in the wall.
>tfw sharing a board with people who thinks the 1780s wasn't the best decade for music
>>62571683
>Maybe you grew up in a somewhat affluent area where exposure to classical music was a mandatory part of early education
yeah, this is true. I played many instruments as well since a young age (like 5-6 I think) though I've stuck with guitar for a while now
>>62571683
I would wager that the majority of random adults you pulled off the street on the south side of Chicago right now haven't heard Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven in their lives
I think that kind of music is still fairly prevalent, though be it TV shows or movies or the like, people are still exposed to it in some way. I'm sure if it really piqued their interest people would seek it out but that doesn't seem to be the case.
This assblasted little peon can't comprehend the beauty in a Babbitt or Carter score.
Seriously, fucking drown yourself you worthless waste of atoms, you're holding back the species.
>>62571800
Art doesn't make the species progress, at least not in modernity.
if you have autism like me, the hardest part about getting into classical is handling the tagging situation
>>62571939
The struggle is real
>>62571939
>early 19th century
>a genre
>>62558665
The french revolution.
Does anyone know any musicians that mainly play really instrumental music?
I love classical as much as everyone, but i have a real soft spot for jazz/bossa nova style piano.
I can't stand jazz where the musicians just take turns soloing, but really love the ones with just heavy chord progressions, all the extended chord, with the usual embellishments and no fancy stuff.
any suggestions?
>>62574177
Check out Nikolai Kapustin, a living composer who writes classical common practice forms, but with the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic idiom of jazz. It's intricately constructed music, but doesn't sound dry in the least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=116QHk9jNGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYFEFXbNeQQ
He's one of the great pianist-composers of the 20th/21st century.
>>62574177
You might furthermore appreciate some piano music by Erwin Schulhoff, a Czech-Jewish composer murdered by the Nazis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzpUGUQBto
>>62574177
Try Alexander Rosenblatt.
Here are his modern jazz Paganini Variations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXKqh0etaio
>>62574549
>>62574380
>>62574308
Thanks guys, these are really good.
but i'm looking for sort of a really "basic" level, not too technical, just really simple chord progressions. the kind of music you hear in the background of some jazz club sort of vibe.
all those dissonant harmonies, the 9th/11th chords, the diminished 7ths, all that stuff.
this might not be "classical" but something like Bohren style jazz
>>62574308
oh shit, you nailed it, i was only about a min into dansante.
damn this is good
>>62574847
Sounds like you'll like instrumental performances of Michel Legrand songs.
Here's a very tasty one by an old man on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_-bB6XF9E0
>>62566932
HI CLT
>>62575090
this is amazing.
thank you
>>62574894
Glad you like it.
