>>64290938
the jazz one is just a bunch of fags with copypaste taste forcing their shitty mentality on impressionable plebs

the classical one would be exactly the same

plus, analyzing classical music by the sound of it instead of analyzing it as very purposefully composed art music in the western classical tradition would only further the mentality here that you can understand classical music in the same way you understand pop. not to mention that there's no way you could form an understanding of a piece in one casual listen while liveblogging your reaction

in short, don't ruin classical music on here in the way that JTG ruined jazz

>>64291256
lol you seem mad

>>64291256
haha i read the first line and i knew it was you
this is one of the better trolls i've seen on 4chan

>>64292004
understanding the difference between pop and art music is somehow mad?

if i was mad I wouldn't have made a structured and direct argument against the idea

>>64291256
>not to mention that there's no way you could form an understanding of a piece
I don't think that's the point

>>64291256
i think you misunderstand the purpose of those threads
people aren't trying to 'understand' the music. we are all aware that you need a lot of theory to truly understand music. we just want to test our knowledge of music and remove the prejudice of knowing who the artist is and analyze what we hear

>>64290938
I think it's a nice idea and I'd try it at least once if it happened. If you want it to happen then you're probably going to have to be the one to organize it.

I do this listening to classical radio, I'm often wrong though because at music school we only studied the revolutionary composers, not mid-brow obscure guys

>>64292287
you don't need "a lot" of theory to understand most compositions, though. that's the sad thing, with a basic understanding of chordal and melodic analysis people would be able to teach themselves a lot of the theory by looking at music and following along to the scores

it's really pathetic how these days, people find that the concept of basic music theory is so daunting that listening to classical music like it's pop music is preferable and gaining an actual understanding is just out of the question.

imagine the alternative, if people refused to listen to Stevie Wonder or Beach Boys songs and only paid attention to the scores, because the effort to listen to the music was too high.

No one on this board seems to have any desire to actually understand music, and it's been getting worse and worse

I strongly encourage anyone thinking that /jazz/ is a jtg echochamber to make a playlist themselves and expose people to different shit.

I had something on my last list jtg wouldn't even listen through, so go nuts.

I'd gladly participate also in a classical blibdfold as well even though I would suck since the jazz blindfold's are great to participate and learn about music - recognizing something is cool and all, but learning something New about music is the best.

It does require respect for other people who participate in the thread to work because having the same people participate weekly makes it a lot better, but disliking music should be fair game and expected even.

>>64292287
This. Nobody's trying to say they completely understand the music with just one listen. This week there were even a lot of people who said they think some of the tracks would take more listens to start understanding.

The purpose is just to discover some new music and listen to it with an open mind. If you find stuff you like then you can always return to it later and try to understand it.

Who here remembers when Blindfold threads were actually good??

It seems interesting, though I doubt you'll get much attendance. (Or perhaps this might be just the thing needed to bring /classical/ back from its fucking death throes, who knows.)
>>64291256
>analyzing classical music by the sound of it instead of analyzing it as very purposefully composed art music in the western classical tradition
What a strange sentence. As though analyzing art music is done by observing the score and pointing out the recurrence of certain patterns and when certain ledgers on the background align in certain ways. No, classical music is in fact written to be played and heard. You can in fact listen to classical music and hear the things that the composer intended to be heard without the score.

>not to mention that there's no way you could form an understanding of a piece in one casual listen
Maybe you can't. It won't be an especially deep understanding, and indeed every time I relisten to something on my playlist I hear an extra little reason the piece is so amazingly written. But you can in fact listen to something for the first time and figure out the form, the main themes, and at least one or two motives and their variances (or the lack of those, in certain 20th century stuff).

Actually, >>64292442 gives me an idea. Perhaps you might include the score (when possible at least), with the title and composer removed? Though even that might be a bit against the spirit of the blindfold test.

So in a blindfold test thread it's posted a week in advance so people have a week to listen to them only once and then discuss them a week later? I'm a bit confused by this.
(alright, I'll stop posting so many times in a row now)

>>64293228
You can listen to them as many times as you want but I think most people just do once so that everybody is having the same experience. They're posted a week early with the idea that if somebody wants to participate but doesn't have time to do the listening on the day of the thread they can listen and write in advance and then just post their thoughts on the day of the thread.

>>64293346
I see.

Well, in general, I'm all for the idea