Pleb bingo
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
>>64289180
i use rym for cataloging exclusively
dismissing rap or any other genre is ignorant, there's always some sort of diamond in the rough (yes even nu metal, electro swing etc.)
Not sure how any sane person could do most of these.
Also I played sax in middle school but I'm going to say that counts as not playing an instrument considering how long it's been.
Like >>64289327 said, dismissing any genre outright is stupid and I like a decent amount of hip hop/rap.
I don't really rate on RYM (though I do occasionally) but mostly use it for the album database and for lists and such. I scrobble through Last.fm because why not.
oh boy
>>64289419
At least you didn't get bingo.
>>64289419
>listens to music for lyrics
You've got bingo
>>64289180
>listens exclusively to albums
>plebeian
>>64289499
Kill yourself
Joke's on you; I don't even browse /mu/
>>64289623
>tripfag
>not browsing /mu/
You fucking contrarian
There is literally nothing wrong with last.fm
>this pic implies there is no such thing as a guilty pleasure
enjoying something you are not proud of is a legitimate thing that is well documented, not sure what birk put this shit together
Patrician it seems
Didn't know whether to tick the thing about lyrics or not. I love plenty of instrumental shit, but good lyrics can change an album from a 3 to a 5 for me.
i use soulseek instead of a private tracker
>>64289180
4
>listen to albums
>browse mu
>don't have a collection or access to private tracker
Im pretty damn close
5/25
Rock is indeed the best "genre" of music so far
"Electronic Music" COULD be a genre if you refer to it as the "post-electro" electronic music genre and not just "everything produced through electronic means"
What's wrong with using overrated btw?
still a pleb
Certified non-pleb here. There are a few issues with this chart.
>Uses services like Spotify
Spotify is probably the single best resource you can have access to if you are interested in traditional music. It has the entire Smithsonian Folkways label catalogue for example, which you're not likely to find anywhere else (unless you're buying it, but who can afford all of that, realistically?).
>Likes rap
Liking something will never be a negative, even if its the worst thing in the world. A good and refined taste is all about what you do like. Dismissing entire genres is just bad faith.
>Thinks "electronic music" is a genre
It is. Just as rock is a genre. Just as jazz is a genre. Saying otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of what a genre is.
>Let's the artist or its fanbase etc
This is just something we all do. Social constructivism and all, you know? It's almost impossible to entirely separate the qualities of the creator or fans from the phenomenon in itself. The halo effect also plays a role here.
>Uses last.fm or RYM
I think it's a matter of how you use it. If you use it to find new music and it works for you, all the more power to you. If you use it just to show off your taste, well you can go fuck yourself.
>>64292053
>certified non-pleb
lmfao
>>64292053
>Spotify has the entire Smithsonian Folkways label catalogue for example
That's pretty cool.
>It is. Just as rock is a genre. Just as jazz is a genre. Saying otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of what a genre is.
It depends. Saying Stockhausen is the same genre as Prodigy is like saying Skip James is the same genre as Radiohead.
>It's almost impossible to entirely separate the qualities of the creator or fans from the phenomenon in itself.
Not really. That doesn't apply to me on any case at least
Absolute shit
>>64292306
So you could completely separate Black Star from the fact that Bowie was battling cancer at the time of recording and that he died a few days after release?
>>64292316
So you would rather not listen to something at all ever rather than listen to a 128 kbps rip of it?
>>64292387
Yes
>>64292398
Yep, I would be doing the music a disservice. I'd rather wait for a better rip or try to find a physical copy myself if I really wanted to listen to it. If it isn't worth that effort I don't see the point of listening to it in the first place.
>>64292444
So if the album was made by somebody who was 20 years old and completely fine you wouldn't at all change your view of the album?
>>64292499
Correct
>>64292453
I'd love to have that kind of thinking but I don't think much of anything would be worth scouring foreign language second hand market sites for something rare and then paying whatever extortionist price they have on it. And that would probably be the experience with the few things I've experienced in regards to this issue.
Also how does ripping tapes work? Do tapes have the same quality as CD or record rips or not? Because most stuff only released on tapes I've found rips of have been shit quality.
>>64292306
>Saying Stockhausen is the same genre as Prodigy is like saying Skip James is the same genre as Radiohead.
Literally nothing wrong with either, it just depends on how specific you want to be.
>Not really. That doesn't apply to me on any case at least
You can pretend it doesn't all you want, but it does. The only way you can separate them would be if you know literally nothing of the creator.
>>64292281
It's true.
>>64292529
Seems pretty narrow-minded if that's true.
:^(
>>64292552
Low quality tapes have shit audio quality, high quality ones should provide lower noise levels than vinyl, provided professional level equipment.
>>64292568
Fair enough. Since rock has it's roots in blues it makes sense for a "blues & rock" genre to exist and be consistent.
In the case of Stocky and Prodigy, I wouldn't be so sure. They could indeed be of the same "electronic" genre, but I haven't found if there is an actual relation between both artists that follows a similar pattern to those of rock or jazz artists.
It really doesn't. Both albums I like a lot and don't like at all have no influence on my overall enjoyment if we consider this album background thing. Trout Mask Replica and Donuts, respectively, for example.
Denying opposing evidence won't make the background hypothesis any more valid.
>>64292596
There is no relation between both concepts.
In the case of Bowie, if he was battling cancer, it should show on the music in some way that he was, and that would affect me despite me knowing or not if he was battling cancer. Otherwise, it's just useless information.
>>64292552
I have no interest in listening to cassette tapes of inferior quality unless the music is truly revolutionary. I value artists who respect their craft enough to record their music at least somewhat decently.
Whoever made this is really, really insecure.
>>64292828
So you're just going to dismiss anyone that doesn't have access to decent recording equipment and anyone that has no interest in the whole professional recording things, like some punk bands maybe. Just going to shut yourself off entirely from all of that.
Just enjoy the music you like. I hate this ''pleb bingo thing''
>>64292823
>In the case of Stocky and Prodigy, I wouldn't be so sure. They could indeed be of the same "electronic" genre, but I haven't found if there is an actual relation between both artists that follows a similar pattern to those of rock or jazz artists.
Both produce music using primarily electronic instruments. There you go, you have a categorization just as arbitrary as any other.
>Both albums
What?
Also you still live in a socially constructed reality just like everyone else. Your judgement and appraisals of the music will be affected by your information of the artist and your cognitive schemata, learning history, etc. I'm really not going to explain this to you, because I have had enough studying for exams on thursday and friday that is related to this.
>Denying opposing evidence won't make the background hypothesis any more valid.
Self-reported anecdotes from someone who holds an agenda (in this case not losing an argument) is worth absolutely nothing as evidence against a hypothesis.
well...
almost got one
>>64293152
oh wait i got a diagonal
>>64292981
Yep, doesn't interest me in the slightest. The people who don't invest in at least a somewhat decent recording of their music either don't give a shit about what they're making or they think it's "part of the sound". In both cases I have no interest in listening to their poor attempt at a musical statement.
>>64293053
>Both produce music using primarily electronic instruments. There you go, you have a categorization just as arbitrary as any other.
Sure, that's a category, but a genre is more specific than that.
>What?
Both TMR and Donuts have a background that could affect the enjoyment of the albums, but in my case they don't in the slightest. My reaction towards both remained the same when I listened to them before and after learning about them.
>Also you still live in a socially constructed reality just like everyone else.
alright
>Your judgement and appraisals of the music will be affected by your information of the artist
But it really doesn't. Is there any way I could prove that hypothesis wrong or is it unfalsifable?
>I'm really not going to explain this to you, because I have had enough studying for exams on thursday and friday that is related to this.
What ezactly do you study?
>Self-reported anecdotes from someone who holds an agenda (in this case not losing an argument) is worth absolutely nothing as evidence against a hypothesis.
I'm not interested in "winning" an argument, seriously. I'm arguing about this because I don't think it's true for every case (or at least not me). So, yes, it is worth because opposing evidence could be used to further improve the hypothesis or just prove it to be false.
>>64293468
>Sure, that's a category, but a genre is more specific than that.
It's literally not.
>But it really doesn't. Is there any way I could prove that hypothesis wrong or is it unfalsifable?
You can't do it with one person alone, but you could definitely develop an experiment to test this with a sample and infer to the rest of the population (including you).
>What ezactly do you study?
Psychology.
>I'm not interested in "winning" an argument, seriously. I'm arguing about this because I don't think it's true for every case (or at least not me). So, yes, it is worth because opposing evidence could be used to further improve the hypothesis or just prove it to be false.
Every single bit of information you receive affects you in some way, whether you want to or not. It can really minute changes, or it can be drastic, but it's there. That's just how it works.
>>64292823
If I told you a story about how I killed a shark with my bare hands, you really wouldn't care whether I was telling the truth or not? You could separate my appearance in the story from the story itself?
I like rap, though I think it's the least complex genre, least innovative genre, and easiest music to make.
Am I that bad?
>>64293605
>rap less complex and easier to make than ambient drone
>>64293644
Well, it's not looking good
>>64293545
>You can't do it with one person alone
But I'm telling you that when it came to the album scenario, the background of the artist has no effect on me, and even posted a proof of it.
If the background of an artist changes my enjoyment of an album, then I would have enjoyed Donuts at two different levels when I listened to it both after and before learning about it, but it didn't. Therefore, the background of an artist has no effect on my enjoyment of their music.
>Every single bit of information you receive affects you in some way, whether you want to or not. It can really minute changes, or it can be drastic, but it's there. That's just how it works.
Yes, that's true, but there isn't a noticeable effect when it comes to artist background versus album enjoyment in my case.
>>64293548
Of course I would, but we are talking about music here, so how is that related? Unless you mean lyrics instead of music, that could make more sense.
>>64293650
I agree, there's a lot of shitty half-assed ambient drone out there, but ambient drone has the potential to be complex and well thought-out with innovative textures and small changes throughout to change the mood/tone of the work
Rap is limited to a specific sound and the lyrics of the artist unless it's paired/combined with another genre(industrial hip-hop, rock rap, etc)
>>64293545
>It's literally not
"Genre (/ˈʒɒ̃rə/, /ˈʒɒnrə/ or /ˈdʒɒnrə/; from French genre [ʒɑ̃ʁ(ə)], "kind" or "sort", from Latin genus (stem gener-), Greek γένος, gés) is any category of literature, music, or other forms of art or entertainment, whether written or spoken, audio or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria."
>based on some set of stylistic criteria
This means that a genre is a category, but it's restricted to categories according to stylistic categories, therefore a genre is more specific than a category.
If any category could be a genre, then music released in the year 2011 could be a genre, and that doesn't make sense by any definition of a genre.
>>64293689
Your own recital is, again, not very good evidence at all. Certainly not proof. Minutae like that can be really difficult to measure and/or self-assess, that doesn't mean it's not there. Also different artist backgrounds will have different salience and as such change your perception in different ways. For example if you found out an album was produced by someone who was serially raping little children while recording the music, and you can faintly hear the kids' screams in the background but you wouldn't notice if you weren't listening for it (which you wouldn't on first listen, but on subsequent listens after finding out the background), you simply can not say that this wouldn't change your perception. Top down processing is a real thing.
>Yes, that's true, but there isn't a noticeable effect when it comes to artist background versus album enjoyment in my case.
Not noticeable doesn't mean not present.
>>64293780
Orchestration would be a stylistic criterion. There are several genres (I'd say almost most of them) that are based on nothing but instrumentation.
idklol
>>64293836
>Certainly not proof.
This is a proof
>If the background of an artist changes my enjoyment of an album, then I would have enjoyed Donuts at two different levels when I listened to it both after and before learning about it, but it didn't. Therefore, the background of an artist has no effect on my enjoyment of their music.
For the proof to be wrong, you have to tell me what step of the demonstration is wrong.
>different artist backgrounds will have different salience and as such change your perception in different ways
The point is that in my case there is no change of perception when it comes to enjoyment.
>For example if you found out an album was produced by someone who was serially raping little children while recording the music, and you can faintly hear the kids' screams in the background but you wouldn't notice if you weren't listening for it (which you wouldn't on first listen, but on subsequent listens after finding out the background), you simply can not say that this wouldn't change your perception.
Yes, that could change my perception, but in the two cases I mentioned, it didn't. How can you tell me I perceived something when I didn't, until you told me, or even more, not even after you told me?
>Not noticeable doesn't mean not present.
If my perception doesn't notice something, then it means that something is not present on my perception.
>Orchestration would be a stylistic criterion.
alright, but I haven't heard people use orchestration as a genre. This would mean that a genre is a category restricted to style, but not every category of style is a genre. That's pretty interesting. My guess is that the difference between both is that one of them shares a history while the other one doesn't.
>There are several genres (I'd say almost most of them) that are based on nothing but instrumentation.
For ezample?
FAK
>>64294110
No, that's not proof. Most people, you included, are not aware of their internal processes or how their perception is affected by a range of things.
>For the proof to be wrong, you have to tell me what step of the demonstration is wrong.
No, you need to understand what constitutes proof. One anecdotal datapoint is not proof of anything.
>The point is that in my case there is no change of perception when it comes to enjoyment.
The point is that you wouldn't know. Emotion is a complex process that is constantly affected by underlying processes including cognition and appraisal, both of which are in turn affected by the knowledge you have at hand. Clearly the backgrounds for TMR and Donuts are not salient enough for you to be aware of the changes that it creates on your perception; something more salient would, like the example I pointed out after and you yourself admitted it would change your perception. You simply can't believe that if background can change your perception in some cases, it will not in other. It's all about salience and it will change the size of the effect.
>If my perception doesn't notice something, then it means that something is not present on my perception.
It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
>>64294293
1) How could I be wrong about making a genuine statement about my own perceptions?
2) Do you believe me when I say that for those two albums there was no change in the perception of my enjoyment?
3) Is perception always conscious?
>>64294396
>1) How could I be wrong about making a genuine statement about my own perceptions?
Because you're making a subjective recitation that is only logically consistent within your own socially constructed reality.
>2) Do you believe me when I say that for those two albums there was no change in the perception of my enjoyment?
No, I believe the change in perception wasn't large enough for you to really take notice.
>3) Is perception always conscious?
Depends on if you separate sensation and perception.
Not bad I guess.
>>64294454
>Because you're making a subjective recitation that is only logically consistent within your own socially constructed reality.
and that would be what exactly?
I don't think it's possible to be wrong about someone's perception, but they could about the perception of a reality. For ezample, I perceive audible voices, but there are none in reality. My perception of those voices is an actual thing, even if they are not in reality.
In the musical case, I perceive Donuts the same both after and before reading about it, but it could have affected me in an unconscious way.
>No, I believe the change in perception wasn't large enough for you to really take notice.
Well, you could argue that everything changes my perception of musical enjoyment, but lots of aspects don't affect it in a relevant way. For ezample, start listening to albums in an even numbered hour.
>Depends on if you separate sensation and perception.
On which cases would it be not always conscious then?
>>64294867
>In the musical case, I perceive Donuts the same both after and before reading about it, but it could have affected me in an unconscious way.
You think you're experiencing Donuts the same as you did, but the very idea of experiencing Donuts is something that you remember subjectively and can change due to new information.
>you could argue that everything changes my perception of musical enjoyment
It does.
>On which cases would it be not always conscious then?
When you perceive something differently from how it is in reality, for example look at this image. On the left, you will unconsciously infer that this is two rectangles, with the red on top. This isn't necessarily true. It can also be perceiving threats that will make you alert or reflexively react. It can also be, like in this example, when you make a comparison to a previous phenomenon and don't notice a difference in your experience even though there might have been one.
holy shit the only pleb thing about this meme is the pleb or troll that made it
>>64295038
>You think you're experiencing Donuts the same as you did, but the very idea of experiencing Donuts is something that you remember subjectively and can change due to new information.
But I'm not. I remember people talking on /mu/ about Dilla and the way it made them appreciate the album more, but when I did, I was left the same as before. No emotional response of any kind. It really was the same.
Maybe in the case of TMR you could be right, but in the Donuts case it was from non enjoyment, to non enjoyment.
Yeah, your ezample makes sense, I guess perception can indeed be not conscious. In that case, my conscious perception of Dilla's Donuts remained the same after and before knowing about it's background.
Btw, do you have a skype, email, or something?
>>64289180
This bingo chart was made by a wanna be patrician avant teen
Wait, if I'm referring to like hipster fashion do I still check that square? I'm assuming yes?
>>64295230
>Btw, do you have a skype, email, or something?
Depends on what you want to use it for.
>>64295378
To keep talking/chatting
>>64295425
Eh, alright, I feel the discussion is fairly satiated at the moment though. I'm going to bed for now.
[email protected]
I didn't know whether to check the music theory one or not because I do know what music theory is and I don't typically criticize music openly but I have a super limited knowledge on music theory.
What's a private tracker?
what do I win?
>>64295334
>Wait, if I'm referring to like hipster fashion do I still check that square?
the fact you asked this is like if you had to double check it
>>64296521
>you can make music without skill
how the hell do you make music without skill?
