>classical composers get better as they get older
>rock, pop, jazz, rap, ambient, electronic musicians get worse as they get older
What's up with that?
>>65439574
Better healthcare due to being born into privilege
are you specifically referring to Bach because that isn't the case with most.
>>65439574
Because popular music is for stupid unsophisticated proles who care far less about the beauty and quality of Western art music and more about the superficial and lackluster cheap ear-catching of popular music
I weep for them sincerely . WEEP for them
Because rock, pop, jazz, rap require physical activity to perform, whilst classical is (often) just writing.
>>65439588
checked
The other genres are much more anchored to a specific and recognisable time period, which very few artists can break out of to stay relevant and "good"
One requires refining a skill and the other requires appealing to young people.
>>65439757
>appealing to young people.
Which is a skill
>>65439574
this is not always the case, some composers get shittier as they get older, look at John Cage or Karlheinz Stockhausen
>>65439786
NO IT IS NOT
CLASSICAL MUSIC IS SOMETHING THAT REFINES THE PURITY OF THE SOUL AND GIVE LIFE TO ALL GOD'S CREATURES AND LIFTS THE DARK VEIL OF SADNESS OF THIS EARTH
SOMETHING POPULAR MUSIC WILL AND NEVER FUCKING DO
>>65439786
aging has nothing to do with skill. young people don't identify with older generations. plus it's all about sex appeal and the perception that every rock/pop star is a joan of arc. a member of their demographic who's a genius or visionary who shows them the way. it's all a load of fluff of course
>>65439574
The only contemporary genre you listed that actually gets worse with age is rap
>>65439635
>that isn't the case with most
Beethoven and his late quartets
Mozart and his Requiem
Middle to late symphonies are almost always better
I could go on...
>>65439954
Then go on.
>>65439867
>aging has nothing to do with skill.
Not what I said. Read it again if you are confused.
Me?
I think all the music is good.
>>65439574
Rock-related/pop music are more heavily dependent on superficial aesthetics and image, and when people grow up, they tend to care less about these things
>>65439835
>CLASSICAL MUSIC IS SOMETHING THAT REFINES THE PURITY OF THE SOUL AND GIVE LIFE TO ALL GOD'S CREATURES AND LIFTS THE DARK VEIL OF SADNESS OF THIS EARTH
>SOMETHING POPULAR MUSIC WILL AND NEVER FUCKING DO
How is this measured?
>>65439588
kill yourself
>>65440012
What about the image of listening to classical music to appear as an intellectual?
>>65439954
>the list goes on...
>>65440022
Fuck you idiot
Don't stupid shit like that when you know im right
>>65440126
Doesn't sound like your dark veil of sadness hasn't been lifted. Maybe you need to listen to more Mahler or something?
>>65439995
and i clarified what i meant by appealing to young people - age is what stops one from appealing to young people. skill doesn't prevent aging.
>>65439982
Lol. Those are just the obvious examples, but if you look at the work of most composers in the Baroque/classical/romantic periods, you'll find that their later work is often more developed and mature; whereas with the more self-indulgent, experimental composers tend to dry up... or return to something more conventional.
Mahler's 9th, which was written shorty before he died is another example of a composer at the top of his game in later years. But even if they're not in PRIME form, they certainly don't have the very short shelf-life of a pop musician.
>>65440217
>Mahler
I dunno, I'd go with Beethoven if I need a heavy does of hope.
>>65440243
By that logic all young artists would appeal to all young audiences. But that simply isn't an observable phenomenon
Nice try though.
>>65440302
Wow it's been working great.
Let me know when you can tell us how it's measured btw
>>65440321
I'm not the person you were responding to.
>>65439982
Debussy, Brahms, Wagner, Ives, and Carter
Popular - read: pleb - music is objectively (and definitionally) inferior.
>>65440375
Neither am I.
>>65440408
>music is objectively inferior.
How so?
>>65440474
How about you shut the fuck up before I come out of your mom's bedroom and snap your dumbass neck
He's right btw
>>65439574
most jazz and electronic musicians get better as they get older
and there are plenty of composers who reached their peak at a young age
>>65440474
Because 'popular' music has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to be 'popular', which requires it to be accessible to stupid people. Sophistication precludes popularity.
>>65440553
>He's right btw
If he was, you'd be able to explain it.
Classical music is a meme
>>65440628
>Because 'popular' music has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to be 'popular'
Incorrect because not all popular music attempts to be popular. See: indie artists.
>>65440678
To the extent that it doesn't, all else equal, it's more sophisticated and less popular.
>>65440678
The fast majority of indie music is still based on catchy and accessible tunes.
Not anon, and I think he's neglecting the fact that classical music did the exact same thing (on an extremely elevated level)
They believed in something truely tribal, of functional communicative music. And they believed in all the whitemagick. That combination never dies. It is all things. Modern troglodyte musicians and their fullblown demonic species, just believe in a placated conscience of 'roots' and 'paranorm'.
>>65440750
Those catchy melodies are usually placed on top of beautiful structures that are ignored by casual listeners.
>>65440803
The NUANCE may be ignored, but the fact that the music has a certain universal appeal remains.
>>65440866
A small part of the music, not nuance.
You think Bach would be okay with his music being listen to outside of aristocratic elites?
>>65440866
That was badly worded: I mean a small part of the music has universal appeal, so it's not a matter of nuance. A lot that is going on is ignored or cut out.
>>65440898
Yes, as long as he was handsomely paid.
Are Autechre art music?
They only get better as they get older.
>>65440898
I'd rather know if Plato would be ok with Jazz Funk?
>>65440974
Yes. You don't need a wig to create art music.
>>65439605
Many were born poor
>>65440716
Sophisticated in what way?
>>65440803
I agree for this about indie music
>>65439679
That's just not true
>>65441073
Musically sophisticated. In the sense that Ulysses (Joyce's) is sophisticated. Music is a language.
>>65439574
OP are you telling me that classical is more popular and has a wider audience now than it was during its conception?
Literally facepalm
>>65440898
He often held performances at a Cafe because he didn't want his music to be limited to religious circles. Also the Baroque period was before music became a commodity for aristocrats -- it was mainly a religious thing.
>>65441056
Many died poor. And before Beethoven they were mostly treated like lowly servants.
Composers who focus more on timbre than on narrative structure tend to "strike gold" with a few of their early works. It's not just rock musicians, the same thing happens with avant-garde electronic composers.
>>65441119
How is sophistication objectively better?
>>65441141
>performing his music for the plebs to enjoy
Bach is literally pop music now. I hate him now. Im deleting his stuff.
>>65441187
It comprises the elements of unsophisticated art and offers more on top of it.
>>65441153
that's my point
>>65441153
This is true. There is a well-known correspondence between Beethoven and a woman, in which he professes his love to her, but her family would not allow her to marry a "commoner".
>>65441225
How is that objectively better?
>>65441120
reading comprehension is literally nil
>>65441277
In the sense that if you consider something a positive value, that positive value + 1 (another positive value) is better.
>>65441358
>is better.
Why is it better? If I'm playing golf, I want the lowest number of strikes. So clearly the +1 is worse.
>>65441187
"Classical" music is not only sophisticated in the technical sense, but is often emotionally sophisticated. Yes, classical music is more complicated than popular forms. People sometimes think it is a pretensions thing when I say I don't like pop music, but that is not it. Classical music is superior because it makes s feel more and touches emotions that pop music will never come close to. Aaron Copland likened listening to pop music as reading magazines and classical music to reading literature. Sure, it is not bad to read magazines but when it is the staple of your diet, you will be illiterate. When people listen to only pop music, they are missing out on all of the great music out there and are becoming musically illiterate. In this age where most people listen to only shitty pop music and /mu/ core bullshit, they will have a very hard time understanding classical music and because of this they will not listen to it because they think it is pretensions and unnecessarily complicated. This is why the symphonic form is dying.
>>65441481
u sound gay
>>65441481
>but is often emotionally sophisticated
>Classical music is superior because it makes s feel more and touches emotions that pop music will never come close to.
Then it's not objectively better, is it? That's a subjective value judgement.
>>65441523
thx
>>65441481
Pop music is free
For you and me
Pop music's your wife
Have it for life
Pop music is fun
Just like chewing gum
Pop music is good
It sounds like it should
Pop music is wine
It tastes so divine
Pop music's a bird
It goes with the herd
Pop music's a fan
A fan to a fire
Pop music's for you
>>65441412
Which is why +1 was defined as a positive value. In your example, the number of strikes is a negative value.
>>65441481
But hey, maaaan, it's all subjective, maaaan. There's no way to quantify stuff and so Grimes is literally just as good as Bach. LOL
>people literally make this argument with a straight face
>>65441640
Why is sophistication a +1 instead of a -1?
>>65441640
>In your example, the number of strikes is a negative value.
No, my example follows the rules of golf-- the player with the highest score loses. Have you never played it before?
>>65441672
If it was untrue, you'd have been able to prove it by now.
>ambient
they don't get worse, just slightly redundant.
>>65439835
looks like we got a rabid cunt, boys
>>65441541
Sure it is not "objectively" better. But it is objectively a greater form. Just as people prefer to read only magazines and the like and never pick up a real book. People will argue that keeping up with the kardashians is better than the godfather II or some shit, and no matter what you say you may never convince them.
>>65441734
Because it's defined as such. Same with the number of strikes being defined as a negative in golf.
>>65441481
But this is hardly true for "popular music" (any music primarily stored in recorded form). This is the main problem with these threads: the people shouting up and down that classical music is superior to all rock/electronic music are simply interchanging the terms "pop music" and "popular music" to suit their argument.
>>65441775
>But it is objectively a greater form
If it's based on emotions, then no, it's not.
Thanks for playing though.
>>65441799
>Because it's defined as such
Show me a citation stating that Sophistication = +1 and not just an arbitrary definition you assigned to it.
>Same with the number of strikes being defined as a negative in golf
Have you ever played golf before?
>>65441672
I know a few people who try to tell me this kind of shit about the front bottoms. There's just no talking to people like that
>>65441846
The fact that it is a greater form is not based on emotions. I'm not saying it is better by saying it is greater because you can't argue about preference. I am saying it is greater, in the sense that anything pop music does, the classical form can and has done better.
>>65441945
pop or popular music?
>>65441945
>better
>greater
How so?
>>65441734
>if that was true, you'd be able to prove it
Obviously you cannot prove something like this, you absolute moron; however, as far as im concerned, there isn't a single pop musician who's erudition even comes close to a single Master Composer -- or even most neo-classical composers, for that matter -- and any human being who isn't a childish, individualist, "open-minded" fucktwat would agree.
Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out.
>>65441837
I'm speaking of all popular music, including electronic music, hiphop, top 40, alternative, rock, even genres not so popular like jazz. For classical music I include art music such as opera, orchestra music, ballet music, sophisticated festival and dance music, and I'll even go as far as to exclude the shallow virtuosic showoff music of the early romantic and such, although by relation to the other classical forms it still holds significance.
>>65440007
You're cool dude. I like you
>>65439574
Honestly there's so much good music out there. It's ridiculous to think people pick one over the other. Music is a gift from our creator AKA God. We should all give all genres and styles of music a fair chance before we label them as inferior. Real fans of music will understand this. All music has the ability to be great and absolutely beautiful and deserves to be listen to fairly except country and rap.
>>65441993
More expressive, more thought provoking, elicits a greater response in the listener, better stands the test of time. Is more effective on the listener than pop music.
>>65442014
lol
Guys I love pop music too much to let it go and reach patriciandom with western art music
How do I unclog my mind. Please I'll do anything to be just like you.
>>65440126
Except you're not. Pop and other forms of music that also pick people up and speak to them. It's still a matter of personal taste and no way objectively provable. You're implying that younger people don't like, or are not spoken to by, classical music, even though there are young people that elect to play classical instruments, train classically and play in orchestras.
>>65442187
Then you're just wrong, lol. Do yourself a favor and listen to anything (I think 500+ albums) that Scaruffi gave an 8/10 or higher. Pay attention to the carefully crafted, dynamic (as in "changing with time") sounds, and how they are overlapped and contrasted with one another. Such music can only be produced in a recording studio, through the use of analog tape loops and manipulations, or through painstaking experimentation with musical instruments. (If you want something made by formally trained musicians, start with Mission of Burma, Can, Terry Riley, Soft Machine, the list probably goes on. I have a feeling you're going to say you've already listened to those artists, in which case you apparently lacked the skills to respond appropriately to them.)
Rock/electronic music represents a shift from emphasis on narrative structure (macro) to an emphasis on the structure of sounds (micro), from a surface-level aesthetic of aristocracy or intellectualism to a surface-level aesthetic of "trance", psychedelia, revolution etc. But this does not mean that rock/electronic music is any less thought provoking or timeless, or elicits less of a response in the listener than classical music, IF you learn listen to it properly.
>>65443424
I'm not saying that music doesn't have merit. I have listened to rock music that I love.
If you want to truly see the difference, read Copland's What To Listen For In Music, then compare your favorite song, or even entire album to a great classical work.
Even my favorite albums are not on par with great symphonic works and I recognize that. But when it comes to such music that you suggested, I just don't have the time to spend. I'm sure they are expressive, etc., but they just cannot reach the expression of a great composer with a proper medium.
>>65439574
there are less interesting things to do within the boundaries of those genres, so artists run out of ideas quickly
>>65442541
Just listen to a ton of music dude.
>>65442187
Some jazz forms are considered actual serious music
>>65440670
>centuries old
Damn, what an old meme
>>65442187
And if you are including electronic too, what about Karlheinz Stockhausen? Stockhausen's music has influenced modern classical music, and what Stockhausen did can fall into the realm of electronic music.
>>65440783
This included, as anyone into whitemagick will, them all having a scholarly activity/activities. Thus that lended their works a longevity. Where, in older age, that scholarly activity gains momentum, to keep things as fresh. Eat our shit, byei.
>>65442541
like both
personally I don't particularly care about musical "literacy" as one person defined it. Biiitch if i like reading shitty magazines i'll read em, if i like pop music on some days im gonna listen to it.
>>65443768
tell me about this book, sounds interesting
is a deep knowledge of theory required?
>>65443950
I agree
>>65444341
No, it is aimed at the "laylistener". You can buy it on amazon for like 8 bucks. It is by Aaron Copland, the American composer. It is a mix of music appreciation, history, and some basic theory like forms. It is aimed at an audience that doesn't know much about music, although when he wrote it, the basic knowledge of music was much higher than it is today but it is still manageable for the beginner of today. It's a good read, and not too long. It is a good stepping stone for more in-depth books about music.
>>65443768
Thanks, I'll certainly read that. But I don't see how music can be inherently more expressive just because it's superior on a narrative level. Texture-based music can easily convey as much insight into the human condition, and can be just as thought provoking as classical music, in my experience. And I listen to classical a decent amount, have played in orchestras for most of my life (not professionally) ... "popular music" is just a different medium, and in many ways an entirely different musical language than classical. If you judge a Stereolab album by the standards of classical music, it is not very good; if you judge a Bach fugue by the standards of psychedelic music, it will not be very good.
Also if I'm being honest, even if you take "muh textures" out of the equation, works like Faust's s/t and Yes' Close to the Edge are still probably superior to any random symphony. That's another thing -- we essentially know, after centuries of careful analysis and evaluation by competent critics and scholars, who the masters of classical music are, and which works are the masterpieces. Rock/electronic music has never received such treatment, not because the medium is inherently inferior artistically, but because of the medium's ability to use musicians as a means to make a profit.
>there are people who unironically believe that music as an art form is in a state of linear progress
>>65439835
Oh man i remember you. Good to see you again christfag.
>>65439574
because classical composers are actively developing and improving using real technique and study while these popular genres usually pursue whatever sounded nice at the time with no critical thinking involved. their style becomes tied down with an aesthetic or sound of the time when they were founded as opposed to being beholden to nothing but the talents and ideas of the composer. simply put, pop is shallow and often not made in the pursuit of anything higher than a paycheck or personal pride/entertainment, while classical music is made with the intent of furthering music.
Wagner produced his final work, Parsifal, in his late 60s. The Rolling Stones at the same age had been a joke for decades. You do the math.
>>65439574
>jazz, ambient, electronic musicians get worse as they get older
>>65444968
>>65444962
The Stones said it themselves.
"Rock-and-roll is a couple of guitars playing over a 4/4 backbeat. You can't improve on that. We're not doing anything different from what Chuck Berry did in the 50s."
>>65439954
>Mozart and his Requiem
His best works were some of his late ones, but his requiem wasn't one of them.
>>65445035
Many jazz musicians were playing into their 70s-80s and if their music lacked the raw energy of their 30s, it was rarely worse from a technical POV and usually no less interesting.
>>65445069
So they admitted to giving up? Why stick with a genre if it's not something you can do anything with? NIGGERNIGGETNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNOGGERNIGGERNIGGER
NIGGER
>>65441672
I'm pretty sure that the subjectivity argument isn't that everything is equally good, but that it's not possible to directly compare two artists or works like that.
It depends on the artist. Bob Dylan has still made interesting music at 60+ while a band like Motley Crue...they just could not possibly do their thing past the age of 40 and not look ridiculous.
>>65444763
When I say more expressive, I am referring partly to the comper's ability within the form, and the instrumentation. If you read any book on instrumentation and orchestration, you will discover that the highest capability for expression is with the stringed instruments and the symphony orchestra. If there ever was an expert in instrumentation, it was Rimsky-Korsakov, and he recognizes this in his book on the subject.
You bring up a good point. The average length of a great work is anywhere from 30 minutes to four hours, which is far longer than songs of popular genres. Maybe you should ask yourself why not many hour-long rock songs exist. There are albums but I'm sure you can agree that almost all albums are composed of songs with distinctly different material. The fact that you can develop ideas over a substantial amount of time in classical music shows the higher capability for musical achievement.
>>65439574
>classical composers get better as they get older
>>65445142
Mick Jagger is certainly talented. He could have done lots of things outside of rock, but it was easier and lazier for him to just play greatest hits setlists in perpetuity.
I do think Keef is the biggest pleb in the band since he doesn't seem to understand music existing outside of stuff you can play with a guitar to a 4/4 beat.
>>65445219
That's not fair. He didn't even live to be 50 and he became insane from syphilis in his last years.
Popular music is a performing art to a large extent while classical composers write a score for an orchestra to play. Decades of touring and playing can gradually wear you down from shot voices to arthritis to blown hearing.
>>65445168
>post-2000 Dylan
>good
If you consider those smarmy Hallmark Greeting Card rhymes he writes now "good". He just comes off as a sentimental, reflective old guy with nothing resembling bite or edge.
http://www.magtudin.org/Henry_Ford_The_International_Jew.pdf#page=154
>>65445351
Then why do professional musicians in orchestras play well into their 70+?
>>65445470
They aren't using drugs or playing next to Spinal Tap-sized amps for 40 years.
Did you also know the average life expectancy of a rock star is something like 63?
>>65445412
You can hate Dylan all you want, at least the man writes music about what he's feeling atm instead of what he thinks is marketable. The lamest thing in existence is when dadrock bands are reduced to paint-by-numbers copies of their old classics. Thus albums like What About Now or all post-1986 Rolling Stones.
>>65445537
>63
good
>>65445470
I think Rubenstein played into his 80s and only retired because he was going blind.
>>65445651
"Though he and Nela never divorced, in 1977, at age 90, he left her for Annabelle Whitestone, then 33 years old."
>>65439574
Heroine.
>>65445707
The guy was 90 and almost blind, also they didn't have Viagra back then. I doubt Ms. Whitestone was anything more than a nursemaid for him.
"Having sex at 90 is like playing pool with a length of rope."
-- George Burns
Remember how Sting said he was retiring from pop to write Broadway musicals? He said (paraphrasing) "I'm 63. Nobody wants to see some old guy prancing around on MTV in tight pants. I need to find new ways to express myself."
>>65440974
I've been wondering this. They are based on hip-hop and techno, which are pop, so I'm leaning toward that
>>65445187
But are there any books specifically comparing the instrumentation of the symphony orchestra with that of the capabilities of analog tape and electric guitars? (Needless to say, Rimsky-Korsakov's book was written before such instrumentation existed.) There is little history of rock music analysis in academia (for reasons unrelated to the artistic capabilities of rock, as I explained earlier) so of course most books on instrumentation will focus on the instrumentation employed in classical music.
In the specific albums I cited, the tracks are more akin to movements than to songs. Now, I'm no rockist, and I'll readily admit that's definitely not the case for most albums. But I've already explained this: rock/electronic music mostly forgoes narrative, macro-scale structures and instead focuses on the design and contrast of sounds. In that sense, multiple distinct ideas can be developed in a few seconds, or even simultaneously, in rock/electronic music. Of course, the symphony orchestra allows for such timbre-related ideas to be developed as well (and Rimsky-Korsakov was certainly an expert in that regard), but not in the complex and time-efficient way for which popular music allows.
>>65439574
They don't necessarily "get better" but image and attractiveness aren't as important in classical music and classical composers aren't as pressured to keep recreating the same thing over and over again. Whenever a popular musician tries to break out of their mold people completely lose their shit and whine about how they've been betrayed but when a classical composer does it they're innovating.
>>65439605
Mozart died of curable illness with little money and was buried in a pauper's grave. Bach had scores of children and a wife to take care of, and didn't have anything to tend to his failing health. His eyesight deteriorated as he aged to the point of near blindness right before his death.
>>65445901
>But I've already explained this: rock/electronic music mostly forgoes narrative, macro-scale structures and instead focuses on the design and contrast of sounds. In that sense, multiple distinct ideas can be developed in a few seconds, or even simultaneously, in rock/electronic music.
Pop music in the sense we know it today was largely the creation of Mitch Miller and gradually took form in the decade following WWII. Frankie Layne and Rosemary Clooney were among the early exponents of this new form which emphasized moods and textures over orchestration.
itt: morons who dont realise pop music doesnt have the same purpose as classical music
go fucking jerk off to beethoven you wrinkly old fucks
>>65443950
Because they are
>>65446010
Bach was only 65 when he died. Most likely he also had a condition that would be easily treatable now.
>>65442014
>Obviously you cannot prove something like this
Then it can't be true
>>65442363
>>65442363
>More expressive
In what way? Expressing what?
>more thought provoking
Proving what?
>elicits a greater response in the listener
Ooops subjective criteria. Not relevant.
>better stands the test of time
Well that is interesting. I will give you that, but there is a lot of classical music largely forgotten. You would have to examine a piece on a case by case basis, rather than the whole body of art music as a whole.
>>65442363
>Is more effective on the listener than pop music.
Effective how?
Popular music is more geared towards marketability and trendiness. Old people aren't cool. Artists usually peak in popularity during their youth and then slowly (or not) fade away from the spotlights. Of couse, there are exceptions to this rule
>>65445977
>Whenever a popular musician tries to break out of their mold people completely lose their shit and whine about how they've been betrayed but when a classical composer does it they're innovating
Not really, 'cos if you look at eg. the Rolling Stones, they were always experimenting with every style under the sun back in the day, but Steel Wheels onward are just formulaic "Stones By Numbers".
>>65447511
>Popular music is more geared towards marketability and trendiness. Old people aren't cool
At least not old white people anyway. White people in general aren't cool and especially not old white people. They just don't have it in them.
>>65447713
Old people in general aren't cool. Don't delude yourself, my colored friend.
>>65447733
Ghostface detected.
>>65447733
Unless it's like William Shatner or something, but for most...
>>65447675
Dunno if it's just me, but it seems that rock after the 70s got a lot more, ah, monotonous? Bands seemed to stick to one rigid sound to a lot greater extent post-1978.
>>65447754
Go back to your BLM protest, jigaboo.
>>65447796
listen to daydream nation or doolittle and compare them to previous works
imo, rock music's creativity truly died out in the 90s
>>65447796
>The only rock that exists is what I hear on the radio
>>65447733
>calling anonymous strangers on /mu/ your "friend"
You lost any ability to be taken seriously here.
Modernity is useless and garbage, the end.
>>65447713
That why rappers are essentially told to commit suicide when they're 35? Seriously, there's a lot, lot less veneration for dadrappers than dadrockers.
>>65447868
coursera has a free couse on Irony, you should give it a try
>>65447868
It was a figure of speech, asslick.
>>65447901
I assume it has to do with the lower life expectancy, lower incomes, and overall more transitory nature of black life. Nostalgia and veneration for the past requires wealth and lots of leisure time and that's in short supply in the black community. Black culture tends to focus more on the immediate present and has little time to worry about 10 or 20 years ago.
It depends on what kind of artist you are. Of course a band who's image was based primarily on youth and sexuality won't be able to still pull it off after 40.
>>65447987
>overall more transitory nature of black life
why am I laughing so hard at this? lmao
>>65448015
*whose, you fucking animal
What's even the point of comparing Popular music and Art music? They're so different and the result, at least on /mu/, is art music listeners and popular music listeners having big pointless autistic arguments. And why doesn't anybody care about Traditional Music damn it
>>65448021
Ephemeral is really the word I meant to use. But you get my point. Blacks are poorer, they die younger, they have less time and money to indulge in nostalgia.
Take classic car collecting. This is almost overwhelmingly done by white males over 50. Are there some blacks who might appreciate old cars or feel nostalgia for a particular vehicle? I'm sure there are, but they generally lack the disposable income for that and tend to die at earlier ages.
>>65448015
Unless maybe RHCP who weren't still making songs like Special Secret Song and Breaking The Girl in their 40s.
>>65448095
Ok but what does this have to do with rap music?
>>65446315
>then it can't be true
You can't prove that it is more VALUABLE by means of objective analysis and experimentation; however, given a certain set of criteria, my OPINION is that, in terms of scope and breadth of work, there isn't a pop musician who could hold a candle to any major composer.
You're just a small-minded contrarian who's hiding behind subjectivity. But you go ahead and continue with this relativistic line of thinking -- that way you can simply invoke "subjectivity" or "its just different" when somone says that you have shitty taste in music (I know it's much easier that way).
Many artists have a certain schtick that's rooted in a certain era to the point where it can't work outside of that era. Why do you reckon that hair metal bands became outdated in the 90s?
>>65448155
Just what I said. White people are wealthier, we live longer, we can afford to venerate past musical greats like the Stones. Blacks are not. The poorer you are, the more life simply focuses on the immediate present. From the black POV, hip-hop is simply an expression of youthful anger and so rappers quickly get shitcanned when they're 35-40.
That's not to say rock isn't as well, but nostalgia for past rockers is simply easier if you aren't so concerned with day to day survival and not getting shot in a drive-by.
>>65447733
>>65447511
Some old artists retain their cool factor. I don't think Black Sabbath have ever not been cool and they have three generations of fans. The Rolling Stones are very, very uncool for over 25 years. Why that is is something we can nitpick over.
>>65448283
Man, if you go on hip-hop sites there's lots of middle aged niggas who whine how much better the 90s was and why don't we have classic rap stations like white people have classic rock stations. It's all like "Shit mang, rap died with Pac. I ain't feeling this Kanye/Drake shit the kids are into now."
>>65448195
>MUH OPINION ;____;
>>65448397
The black population is very much smaller than the white population. I don't think there's a big enough market for that to make it profitable.
>>65448340
As I see it, that's more likely just because metal is still being made and young people still listen to it. The Stones' clangly jangly country bl00z rock is really pretty antiquated. Nobody does that kind of music anymore.
All those old black bluesmen like Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters...those guys were over the age of 50 when hippie kids start masturbating over them. It's not that old guys can't be cool sometimes, but it does depend on a lot more luck and happenstance than when you're young and can be cool without even trying.
I saw Tony Iommi when he was old as fuck and he was just miraculous on his instrument. Such finesse. Such subtlety. Like an aged jazz great.
I think a lot of the time for older musicians they are just touring to cash in on their name, and they don't actually play their instrument anymore (at least not seriously)
>>65448639
And that's even considering he had hand surgery and back problems that made standing on stage painful for him.
In the case of pop musicians, there's the rare exception like Frank Sinatra who sang personal, heartfelt kind of songs so his music grew older with him. The problem is that a lot of pop music is just product and artists can't do it past 40 without looking silly. Don't assume either that this is peculiar to the rock generation; Sinatra's contemporaries numbered many who were just product and completely lost all relevance once Elvis and Little Richard broke.
Andrews Sisters, Martha Tilton, Jo Stafford. They ruled the music landscape at one time, but became nobodies by 1960. Because their music was just disposable pop fluff and they simply got discarded for the next young, upcoming purveyor of disposable pop fluff. Frank Sinatra was a rare talent in that he was able to transcend that.
>>65448607
It might be that young people simply have more time to spend on music.
>>65448607
Consumers, I mean.
>>65439679
literally what the fuck
>>65448807
I think people often forget that pop music was always fundamentally just silly nonsense that kids dance or have sex to, the big difference being that pre-1955 artists didn't write their own shit and teenage rebellion wasn't really a lyrical subject before the rock-and-roll era. Inasmuch as some old luddities of my grandparents' generation used to whine that pre-rock music was much more sophisticated and adult...it wasn't.
>radio gets worse as it gets older
>>65449022
>>65448807
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRgFizcXjhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVCwBtFHVLo
Just replace the bandstand instrumentation with guitars and these could have been made in 1972. Pop fluff is pop fluff is pop fluff in any era.
Yet it will still never stop nostalgiafags from claiming the pop fluff from when they were 13 was better than the pop fluff now even though it's all the same and nothing really changes beyond the production and period slang used in the lyrics.
I don't think Bach's music was tied into him whining about how much his mom sucks as he waves his conductor's baton around on stage.
>your perception of new music gets worse as you get older
>>65449566
It's mostly related to a a quirk of physiology. During adolescence, when the body is flooded with hormones, music has an extremely powerful effect on the listener, almost like a hallucinogen. By the age of 20, this effect weakens so that any music you listen to afterwards will not have the same effect, although there is some evidence to suggest that hearing music you listened to in your adolescence may partially re-activate that hallucinogenic effect.
"If there is one thing that divides generations more than anything else, it's music. People who grew up with the Beatles generally find themselves indifferent, if not outright hostile to rap, punk, and heavy metal. The music most of my peers came up listening to was jazz. You'd have a hard time convincing someone my age that Eminem, Bono, or even the very fine, Grammy-winning Norah Jones are better and more talented than Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Jo Stafford, or Dizzie Gillespie. And just to show I'm not biased, I will exclude from the mix so-called 'swing' music as exemplified by the amazingly untalented Guy Lombardo."
-- Andy Rooney
Modern music is very similar to advertisements, it's a visceral art with a focus on creating a subconscious response, Largely through tones included in the mix or lyrics, but when you approach with a logical mind (music theory) it lacks density and complexity
Good classical music is capable of providing quality as well as quantity of progressions. Everything included in the music is there for a reason, except for the viola,
You guys aren't getting the difference between art music and popular music.
>guy's personal agonies and the realization that he's dying
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmLx4w2VHo
>product shit out by a record label for teenagers to fuck to, no different than a fashion accessory you buy at Gap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2XdmyBtCRQ
>>65448562
The Rolling Stones were out of date in the 80s already when rock largely discarded any blues sounds.
There isn't much of a difference. Most classical composers were considered popular music and have been completely forgotten, or are only known by music scholars. It's like looking at 20th century music in the 24th century and saying the only important musicians were The Beatles and one or two other musicians/bands.
Pop music is product, yes. But it is silly to say it lacks any artistic merit or that it's not a window into the social atmosphere of its time.
It's kind of too bad with Elvis because so much of his short life was wasted on obnoxious pop novelties when he could and did demonstrate an ability to perform songs like If I Could Dream.
>>65440974
nope. they're not trained composers, they dont write sheet music, and their music isn't played by professional performers that aren't the composer in a concert hall setting.
>>65450822
He was very good at performing schmaltz, which is a shame. Now Sinatra, he was awful at schmaltz or novelty songs. When he tried them, they always came out terrible.
>>65450606
Well, by that time, the Beatles and some others will be the only important musicians. The others will have faded into obscurity.
But that's based on the past. With modern technology, we may preserve past masterpieces indefinetley.
>>65448639
Dio was also great in his 60s and still was able to perform without looking stupid or age-inappropriate, but then he was in his 30s-40s when he recorded his most well-known material, not a 20 year old.
>>65446068
I've read that what actually killed him was his eyesight, ultimately. Apparently there was a surgeon going around taking out cataracts with a lead scalpel. Work miracles, at least for the first few months, then lead poisoning set in (of course the good doctor had moved on to ply his miraculous trade in some other townlet, by then). Likely what ended up killing Bach was a series of strokes or aneurysms brought on by lead poisoning.
>>65450980
Yes, he was operated on by a notorious quack physician who also fucked up Handel. It is pretty unusual to have eyesight problems like that in your 50s-early 60s, but not unknown (Roseanne Barr is in her 60s and she's going blind). Bach just hit the wrong side of the genetic lottery.
>>65439574
Classical compositions are the subjects of knowledge, experience, and hard work, which generally become better/more fine tuned with age.
Modern music are subjects of emotion, expression, and energy. These aspects of human depreciate with age.
Also, many composer write their best MELODIES as young composers, but their best COMPOSITIONS as older ones, just my opinion on that last part though.
>>65450887
>Any written score they may have produced has not been made publicly available
FTFY
>>65451036
>it isn't possible to be old and feel emotions
You're forgetting that pop musicians rarely understand music theory or even how to read music. It doesn't take any unusual talent to sing or play chords over a 4/4 beat. Their compositional knowledge is often extremely limited.
>>65440400
I like Debussy and Brahms earlier work better actually...
>>65451068
Ok, I didn't word that the best way. What I meant is that old guys certainly can feel emotions, but only the young feel visceral emotions which is basically stick your middle finger out and yell "Fuck you, Mom!"
>>65451068
>strawmanning that hard
Though admittedly with classical music, a composer's output tends to be highest when he's young and has the energy to churn out compositions like sausages. Beethoven produced far less in his final 12 years than his first 10, though the late works far exceeded the early ones in depth and complexity.
>>65441222
"pop" music refers to "popular" music. Bach.....and Beethoven and Mozart and Wagner....are all popular and are considered "pop" music. I never understood why people never realized that, unless of course they were thinking of the more contrived "pop" music "format" (which is technically as complex or more complex than ternary, the most common classical structure) which doesn't apply to this discussion because, as already mentioned, most classical music is in ternary or Sonata form.
So is no different with rockers. Most don't produce their best work in their early 20s (other than maybe Metallica). The Rolling Stones and The Who did their best albums in the 70s, not the 60s which is a testament to a little more maturity and experience.
>/mu/ trying to have a serious discussion about music composition and history
Just...stop.
>>65439574
you'll cowards dont even smoke crack
>>65451310
>wanting to stop /mu/ from having a serious discussion about music composition/history
Just... stop.
>>65448639
Sabbath's music is kind of a bit abstract and grounded in Christian symbolism. Generally speaking, that style isn't quite as age-limited as, like, Van Halen's music.
>being in your 60s and singing about wanting to fuck your hot high school teacher
>>65442187
Ummmm no.
Almost all baroque, classical, and early romantic music relies on a very simple formula of binary or ternary form (AB and ABA respectively), they almost ALWAYS used I IV V in that order, even modern pop music doesn't have a tonality as simple as that (as a whole, most modern pop absolutely uses that structure, though during those periods is was almost EXCLUSIVELY that structure. Additionally, most music during all periods was for small ensembles, or for piano alone, so there was little in the way of complicated textures. The baroque and early classical had absolutely NO use of shared timbre between musical instrument families. Modern music mixes timbres abound. Additionally, the doctrine of affections ensures that baroque music was very repetitive, much like modern pop. Don't delude yourself. Also, you're comparing the best composers of the day. What you listen to doesn't represent all of classical, there were plenty of bad composers.
>>65451416
In their defense, that was mostly the DLR stuff. The Hagar stuff is a fair bit more mature.
>>65445268
OP used mozart as an example, how old was he when he died again???
In the 18th century, there was lots and lots of now-forgotten stuff, especially operas. The Neapolitan school consisted of hundreds of the same boring, tedious productions about classical mythology or ancient history, all with completely wooden characters and performances. It's what led to a revolution in opera that started with Gluck.
Opera finally reached a pinnacle with Wagner that was unsurpassable. He took the genre to its logical conclusion and since there was no further direction to take it, it gradually died as a mainstream thing.
>>65451465
I think it's fairer to compare art music from the baroque, classical and early romanticism with popular music from their respective periods. And contemporary art music with contemporary popular music, of course.
>>65451465
>Almost all baroque, classical, and early romantic music relies on a very simple formula of binary or ternary form
Yeah, but isn't that kind of dramatically oversimplifying the complexities of say, the sonata allegro format or the rules of a fugue?
Yes, sonata allegro is essentially ABA, but there are many "rules" (so-to-speak) which dictate the format that any given section would take.
I mean, are you legitimately trying to argue that a fugue is simpler than a pop song?
>>65439574
To make good Classical, you need knowledge and experience
To make good pop, you dont need shit, just a catchy song. As people mature they realize there's more to music than catchy shit, but without the knowledge needed to advance beyond that, they stagnate
>>65451465
>>65451239
nice samefag, too bad when we are talking about complexity in classical we are NOT talking about form, Get on my tasteful romantic period counterpoint harmonies level
>>65451480
Maybe a little bit more mature, still a guy in his 60s can't really sing something like Poundcake, can he.
>>65451614
>As people mature they realize there's more to music than catchy shit
You'd be surprised at just how many nimrods never listen to anything but the same songs from high school until they die.
>>65451068
When did I say that???? Older people demonstrably have less emotional reactions, i believe i used the word "depreciate"
>>65451157
isn't me wtf
>>65451554
I believe same with Beethoven. He also took the symphonic form to its logical conclusion. Through the 1700s as you mention, music was highly disposable. Everyone wanted the latest thing and Bach was totally antiquated and forgotten in a few decades of his death. After Beethoven, it was not possible to advance the European symphonic tradition further, so for the first time orchestras played more old than new music.
>>65451594
The "rules" of a fugue can by copy-pasted into a tonality, Bach literally wrote a book on it
>>65451663
Hence the second part of the post.
>but without the knowledge needed to advance beyond that, they stagnate
The average person does grow out of their old HS music collection, but since the average person also doesn't understand music theory, they aren't able to progress beyond that, so they stagnant and become the 50 year old redneck who sits in a trailer drinking a beer and listening to Back In Black on repeat.
>>65451630
So you admit classical music is inferior to modern music in a number of ways? Am I to infer the only redeeming quality of orchestral music is 18th century counterpoint?
>>65451594
Is all baroque music fugal? no...
Is all modern music simple melodies? no...
Does having a bunch of notes mean X song is better than Y song with less notes? no...
>>65451834
*19th century
>>65451772
not really. The fugue is a very flexible form, you have to get pretty inventive, and there's no "set" form like sonata form for a fugue. No two Bach fugues are the same you'll find
>>65451879
I never made claims about complex music necessarily being better or worse than less complex music. I simply find it very hard to believe you're legitimately trying to argue that modern pop is more complex than classical.
>>65451772
You're right, you can transpose fugues extremely easily. However, composing a good-sounding fugal theme which works when you apply the contortions of the fugal structure to it isn't extremely easy.
If the fugue were really as easy a compositional structure to use (and make sound appealing) as you're presumably making it out to be, wouldn't you expect there to be a whole lot more of them being composed?
>>65451923
The way that individual composer put them together is important, but the basic idea is more simple than its made out to be. Bach's fugues are great, he was a genius, they just sound solid. Other composers? often very mediocre, not moving in the slightest
>>65451988
I'm attempting to trivialize classical music (perhaps unfairly), its not as complex as people make it out to be (at least before the late Romantic), at least in comparison to modern popular music. In many ways it is less complex, especially when you start to talk about psychedelic music, jazz, and different flavors of progressive rock.
I'm not trying to say one is better than another.
Lemme explain how emotions work. We all have them, but only the young have visceral emotions which tend to result in verbal or physical outbursts.
Children primarily feel visceral emotions since they lack the developed thought processes for a more cerebral way of dealing with their problems. A child will yell at his parents or punch or kick other children. He understands no other way of getting back at those who anger him.
Adults still feel emotions to be sure, but they are more subdued and less overt. Some of it is for understandable reasons. Physical violence can seriously hurt or kill someone while a child lacks the strength to inflict major harm on someone else (brawls between 5 year olds rarely result in more than a bruise or scrape). A child also has less ability to rationalize or see that there is no point in getting angry over something trivial that doesn't really matter like someone else stealing their toys.
>>65452089
Fugues were one of the most popular forms of music in the Baroque period. They fell out of fashion somewhat but almost every major composer has some body of fugal works. Making a fugue isn't easy, but its not some daunting task only a genius can do, its a product of knowledge and hardwork. Also, as I said
>>65452242
There are standout fugues that go above and beyond common form and structure. In my opinion the best known fugue, Toccata and Fuge, as well as BWV 915 are the pinnacle of music, and can only be equaled by posterity. That doens't mean "classical: music is better than pop.
But thats not what this thread is about is it lol :(
>>65452300
This may also explain why women in general are more emotional than men - insulting a woman isn't likely to result in getting the shit kicked out of you while insulting a man could result in your death. Women therefore insult each other freely and without consequence since doing so is unlikely to result in your head being smashed into the pavement. When women do get into physical fights, it also doesn't tend to result in major injuries due to their weaker body strength.
>>65452242
>its not as complex as people make it out to be (at least before the late Romantic) ... In many ways it is less complex, especially when you start to talk about psychedelic music, jazz, and different flavors of progressive rock.
You see, that's a whole lot more reasonable!
>>65452349
>Making a fugue isn't easy
That was my point.
>>65452300
So adults emotions are inferior because they aren't true to themselves and they hide their truths and passions? Is that what you're trying to say?
Thats a joke....but in all honesty you completely failed to link orchestral/classical to the "adult" emotions that you so kindly try display as superior to a childs (which is itself flawed)
>>65452445
How is being in control of your emotions mean those emotions are inferior? Do you really think the best emotions are the ones people display with reckless abandon?
>>65452433
We have to talk in black and white on 4chan or else noone will listen ;)
You know, if it were all about compositional music being more advanced than 4/4 cockrock, then we'd see aging prog bands from the 70s producing a Beethoven's 9th. Surely they would have the maturity and compositional knowledge at 50-60+ to pull it off.
Oh wait, they don't. They're as much of a joke as Motley Crue now is.
>>65452445
No, I was saying it in response to >>65451697
>>65452496
Prog is just as much lowball pop music as anything else, it just has a fake veneer of pretentiousness.
>>65452478
Who said reckless abandon? Not me.
Displaying emotions is a character of humanity.
Also you're implying kids are always acting out and adults are always in control.
and you still haven't linked orchestral music to eliciting more "subtle" emotions that you claim exist
its interesting that you would present an adults mind as being more complex when in actuality a young person's mind had much more nuance during development, which is why child psychology is so hard
>>65452532
If thats the case then no,
adults literally have brain activity when it comes to emotion, there is no subtlety to it, they either have emotions or they are hiding them, they don't have "flavors" of emotions that children lack
>>65452631
literally have *LESS* brain activity
>>65452576
Child psychology is hard because children lack an adequate means of articulating their feelings. They don't have the vocabulary or frames of reference to tell you what's eating them beyond "My tummy hurts." or "Uncle Stu put his pee pee in my butt and it hurt real bad."
>>65452631
>adults literally have brain activity when it comes to emotion, there is no subtlety to it, they either have emotions or they are hiding them
You disagreed and then agreed with me all in the same sentence. I think you're trying to make an argument that's over your head.
>>65452672
You realize "children" can refer from ages 0-26 from a psychology standpoint right?
>>65452711
If I met the person who made this in real life I would pull out my dick and piss all over them
>>65452696
Do I have to lay everything out for you?
Children: E M O T I O N S
Adults: e m o t i o n s
adults and children have the same emotions, the difference is that adult have less of a Limbic reaction. I didn't say anything that was contradictory, its all just you're comprehension, talk about "over you head."
>>65452711
So, basically left=Taylor Swift, right=metal. Got that.
>>65452711
>Shakespeare
>art
it was literally lowest common denominator theater, sure he was a better writer, but that just makes him Terrence Malik instead of Micheal Bay
>>65452479
I'm listening, anon
>>65452711
Someone doesn't like Game of Thrones, lol.
>>65452908
Well it kind of sucks.
>>65452889
STRINGS INSTRUMENTS HURT MY EARS
BEETHOVEN WAS A HACK
GRIMES IS BETTER THAN ALL CLASSICAL
FUCK THE JEWS
BACH??? MORE LIKE BICH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA
thats all im trying to say brotha
>>65439574
Art music composers are sophisticated folks who always look forward to refining their works while popular musicians are one-trick pony hacks.
/thread
>>65452780
2/10
"The more artistic a person is, the less he is preoccupied with the pleasures of the flesh. In the final analysis, fornication is the art of the brute."
-- Charles Bauderlaire
>>65453282
Then why was Joyce such a hound?
>inb4 Joyce sucks
>>65453282
>Baudelaire began to frequent prostitutes and may have contracted gonorrhea and syphilis during this period. Baudelaire began to run up debts, mostly for clothes. Upon gaining his degree in 1839, he told his brother "I don't feel I have a vocation for anything."
>>65453359
He did.
>>65453377
Really didn't but whatever you say.
"Everyone has a limited number of good songs in them and I'm not an exception. Paul McCartney, one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, has written nothing but manure for over 25 years. Rock stars over the age of 30 do not produce important material."
This thread:
>Classical music is superior to pop
>prove it
>can't
>must not be true then
>but it's much more sophisticated
>nuh uh... it's just different
>but the major composers were less superficial and more skilled than any pop musician
>oh, I see... so a pop record can't profoundly effect someone because it's not as virtuosic, or melodically complex?
>you can't quantify the enjoyment of a good piece of candy with a 5 star meal, but one certainly has more substance
>but "substance" is subjective
>but you can't live on candy
>music isn't a necessity, so the food analogy falls short
>ok, so you'd place the best pop musicians on the same level as the major composers?
>you can't compare them, they're just different
>ok, so you're side-stepping the issue...
>nope... it's aaaaall subjective
Round and round you go...
>>65453645
That's aesthetic relativism for you.
>>65439794
And Franz Listz.
I still love his works though
>>65453668
Yeah, it's extraordinarily triggering lol
Their arguments basically consist of iterations of "it's subjective". I've learned to walk away when I sense that an argument is going in that direction -- it's just such a lazy position.
One person ends up doing all of the intellectual heavy-lifting, while the relativistic cunt just sits back and asks a bunch of smug questions that merely reinforce the fact that it's all relative (which is intrinsically true, but I find it to be a very tepid and lame way to approach an artform). And by this line of reasoning, my 1yo nephew is "just different" than Bach -- he just plays his little keyboard without any of the education, skill, or preconceptions of how it should sound.
>>65453920
Thanks for the hot take kiddo. Care to weigh in on the issue?
>>65454169
>care to weigh in?
I believe I already have, kiddo.
>>65453920
What's your point though? The burden of proof falls on the person saying one sort of music is better than the other. Who do you expect to have to do the work?
>>65454367
the burden of proof falls on the person who makes an allegation.
if you say they're equal, you have to prove it just the same.
regardless, proof is not necessary for an allegation to be true, it's a verification tool. and in the case of inductive propositions, it might be impossible.
>>65454367
Merely stating that it's "better" is on par with constantly invoking relativism as your fail-safe argument.
I don't feel it's necessary to always precede a statement with "in my opinion", but I suppose it's important when someone points out the obvious fact that artistic critique is almost 100% an abstract matter of perception.
I'm very comfortable with the position that pop music is mostly comprised of superficial aesthetics, image-conscious narcissism, and utterly hackneyed formulas; having that said, I listen to a a lot of music that i'd be inclined to place in this category (less and less as I get older).
I believe the difference between a pathological relativist and myself, is that I'm able to compartmentalize my philisophical sense of logic when it concerns my subjective assessment of the quality of various artforms. And when it concerns quantifying the value of Death Grips to the annals of music and to the human race, I'm at home with the judgement that it is not equal to that of Bach.
And you must recognize that when you take a relativistic position, you can't cherry-pick. By this line of reasoning, Bach is no better than Chief Keef, Beethoven is no more valuable than Justin Bieber, Wagner is "just different" than Grimes -- if you'd stand behind this, then I'd be content to just point and laugh.
>>65453645
Classical music is superior becuse the people who write it know what they're doing.
The same way trained artists make much better paintings and sculptures than those who dont know the first thing about oil pants or proportion.
its not rocket science. If you learn as much as possible about an art form, you will have the potential to create great art in that form. If you dont learn as much as possible, greatness will always be beyond your reach.
It doesn't take much to prove how superior classical is to popular music on the purely musical level (excluding "enjoyment" and other subjective things) You just have to look at the scores. Something most people who defend popular music are incapable of (and most popular music isn't scored out so you can't see how literally kindergarten it is compared to classical music)
>>65454738
>And you must recognize that when you take a relativistic position, you can't cherry-pick. By this line of reasoning, Bach is no better than Chief Keef, Beethoven is no more valuable than Justin Bieber, Wagner is "just different" than Grimes -- if you'd stand behind this, then I'd be content to just point and laugh.
As I said earlier, how come Frank Sinatra became a deified figure and one of the giants of 20th century music while most of his peers like the Andrews Sisters quietly disappeared once rock-and-roll happened. Might it be that they were just product designed to be thrown in the rubbish bin once they turned 40 and replaced by the next manufactured pop singer?
>>65454746
You're preaching to the choir, m8. I made that post to illustrate the insufferable nature of relativism when it concerns art.
>a canvas painted in all black is "just different" than a Caravaggio
>Beethoven's 9th is "just different" than a Burzum song
>James Joyce is "just different" than Dean Koontz
It's like arguing with a child who's favorite response is "nuh uh"
Now you watch just how fast Taylor Swift vanishes from sight once she's 35. PROOOODDDUUUUUCCTTTT.
The correct philosophical stance for this question is who cares
>>65454846
I'm not exactly sure how that fits into the context of my post. Elaborate?
>>65454746
>and most popular music isn't scored out so you can't see how literally kindergarten it is compared to classical music
Lol that's true. It's like looking at the lyrics to a rap album, and comparing it to Yeats or Pound.
>>65454942
If you argue that all music is the same, then you'd have to say that talent doesn't exist and no composer or singer is more talented than any other, only different. But it would be silly to claim that, right?
>>65454846
frank sinatra is inarguably shit and his modern day equivalent would be someone like justin bieber though
>>65454746
>and most popular music isn't scored out so you can't see how literally kindergarten it is compared to classical music
Get on Vocaroo with your guitar and play Eruption for us if it's all so easy, big boy.
>>65454980
Oh, right. Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to illustrate
>>65454987
But that's the problem. The guy _was_ the JB of the 40s, but he became much more than that. The thing is, we can't look 30 years into the future to see if Bieber has any real talent. It takes some decades before we realize what artists of the present had talent and what were a flash in the pan.
For example, I don't see any convincing reason to believe Taylor Swift will be remembered by anyone when she's 60. She's been in the game almost 10 years now and has not demonstrated she has any actual talent beyond shallow top 40.
>>65454987
>frank sinatra is inarguably shit
Pleb
What Popular musicians are deserve the most artistic merit?
>>65454991
>Guitar
come back when you've learned how to play oboe
Thats another thing. Classical music has to be good, becuase people spend fucking 10+ years mastering some of the most difficult instruments to play in the world. French horn, Oboe, Bassoon, even the string instruments are notoriously hard to play well, compared to a fretted guitar.
If you spend your life mastering a very difficult instrument, at the very least you want to play mostly masterpieces, if not all masterpieces all the time.
There aren't really any materpieces in popular music, its just catchy tunes for plebs to dance to or have as background music.
Show me a popular piece that rivals Bach's art of fugue or st Matthew Passion, or his violin partitas.
And thats just 1 composer from 300 years ago, there are countless other masterpieces in the classical world.
the question is: why would you waste your time listening to music written by untrained plebs, unless you yourself were an untrained pleb and didn't know any better?
>>65455040
yeah because he was essentially deified
i don't think that you're looking at this the right way
why is a singer like jeanne lee who pushed the art of vocal jazz to the same limits as someone like coltrane or mingus totally forgotten while frank sinatra has been effectively "cannonized"?
the way an artist is remembered is obviously culturally relevant but not artistically relevant imo
>>65454991
How about Reign In Blood where most of the album is songs over 200 BPM? I bet he can't play those on a guitar.
>>65455103
A lot of music isn't technique so much as it is feels. For your money, Bing Crosby and Ella Fitzgerald had bigger vocal ranges than Sinatra, yet they always had a high degree of camp and non-seriousness to their music. They always felt faintly artificial, as if they were more interested in the techniques of singing rather than making an emotional connection to the audience.
>>65455098
>Show me a popular piece that rivals Bach's art of fugue or st Matthew Passion, or his violin partitas
You'd have to look to metal for anything close to that. Metal is the nearest thing to the classical symphonic tradition we have now.
>>65455257
this is b8
>>65455257
>Metal is the closest thing to the classical symphonic tradition
Oh, it's this little gem. I think the closest thing would be film scores, but OK
What? LOLno. Meal is as much pop garbage as Justin Bieber, but it pretends to be something it isn't.
Poptimists like Christgau hate metal and prog because it's too challenging for their simple little minds who can only process 4/4 music in the key of C major.
>>65455257
Why do people think this? Is it because of pic related?
>>65455326
Name one rock band that can rival Bach. I dare you.
>>65453645
>>65453920
>>65454746
>Classical music is better than pop music
>OK, sure
>All classical music is better than all rock and electronic music
>OK, hold on now. There are plenty of examples of rock and electronic music that rival classical music in terms of skill, nuance, complexity, knowledge required to --
>IT'S BETTER. Stop misusing "subjective"
>But I never --
>Zero pop musicians know how to read sheet music
Every fucking thread.
>tfw the only way to start a successful /classical general/ is to pick a fight with /mu/
>>65455345
I've already named four. Go back and read the thread.
>>65455326
>in terms of skill, nuance, complexity, knowledge required to...
You'll have to be more specific there, pal. And you may wanna think real hard about it before you name somebody that is going to send my sides into orbit.
>>65455367
None of those listed even come close to making something as incredible as the Art of Fugue, try again fucktard, and actually put in some effort.
>>65455364
There's a classical general right now that's almost at the bump limit.
>>65455098
Can's Tago Mago, I believe, could be a valid candidate. The problem is that these types of interpretations of art, in this case a very abstract work, will always, fail-safely, fall under the "subjective, can't touch it" argument.
Masterpieces are not at a lack in popular music, though, logically, because it is exactly that, popular, many takes of it are utter shit. Masterpieces that can parallel those you mentioned are rare, but hey, how many 9th Symphonies are there?
What I'm trying to get at is that popular music has artistic value that hews on the same realm as of that of classical music, it is just expressed in a completely different way. One is inherently more difficult to play, while the other one, in this case my example, Tago Mago, can appeal to a more, I don't know, abstract? Colorful? Aggressive audience?
And, yes, I recognize that classical music is technically more valuable than a vast majority of popular music. That doesn't make it better, nor does it mean that it will leave a greater impact than, say, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Clubs Band or Trout Mask Replica. Only time will tell.
>>65455367
>>65455387
Sorry, but I have a more thorough understanding of the Art of Fugue than (either of) you do.
>>65455428
Okay?
>>65455348
I think the word classical is misleading. Art music allows the inclusion of, say, Autechre. So those who believe quality exists beyond taste could group them together with great 'wigged' composers.
>>65455348
>>65455348
kek'd and /threa'd
>>65455414
>Tago Mago could be a valid candidate
This instantly made it into the top 10 most triggering assertions that I've seen posted on /mu/.
Tago Mago is one of the most perfunctory, over fucking rated albums in the history of music. It sounds like a demo-tape that was made by some high-school kids as a submission to the battle of the bands.
Kill yourself... I'm fucking serious
>>65455442
And the bands I've named have, in fact, come close to making something as incredible as the Art of Fugue. Try listening to music more carefully, and stop spouting off about that which you know nothing about.
>>65455482
haha ok pal if you don't like it that's ok. My choice is mine. If you have a better one that could prove my point by all mean post it.
I understand that albums is not everyone's cup of tea.
>>65455501
If I'd be so bold as to name a rock band that could stand amongst the great composers... oh wait... I fucking wouldn't
With classical/art music being so superior I wish it was more interesting to listen to without having to critically analyze it according to music theory.
From what I've listened to the smaller pieces, as in made for fewer instruments, generally appeal to me more. Used to flip to my local NPR classical radio stations occasionally and the things like the classical guitar trios or violin quartets or whatever were great. Anyone have any recs for that kind of thing, or chamber stuff?
>>65455486
I get the feeling that you have either never heard the Art of Fugue, or any classical music for that matter, or are just such a dedicated poptimist that you can delude yourself into thinking things that just aren't at all true. Nothing in the catalogue of any of those bands, including the ones I'm a pretty big fan of, touch the Art of Fugue in it's economy of material and brilliant inventiveness. Stretched composition to it's fucking limits, Mission to Burma, much as I love him, couldn't hold his fucking jock-strap.
Can is also Stockhausen for babbies even though I love them.
>>65455574
new thread
>>65455527
lurk moar then, buddy. If you seriously can't think of any popular artist that matches the great composers, then you're missing a ton of music.
Check the sticky for some solid recs
>>65455547
The late string quartets of Schubet and Beethoven are some of my favorites. Listen to Schubert's "Death and the Maiden." It's quite harrowing.
>>65455547
You don't have to critically analyze art music according to music theory to enjoy it. You do need focus to absorb the relationships between a big number of instruments, but this understanding is intuitive.
>>65455579
meant for me?>>65455414
>>65455453
>Art music allows the inclusion of, say, Autechre
lol i love them, but what?
>>65455593
I MIGHT go so far as to RELATE an electronic musician with a vast knowledge of their programs and equipment -- and who also creates their tools -- to a classical composer. But a band?... fucking NOPE.
>>65455660
works for me. Which electronic artists are on your mind? Not gonna shit on your or anything, you seem to know what you're talking about. I'm intersted
>>65455684
Guetta, deadmau5 and Skrillex
>>65455695
well, I thought we were having a good discussion. K then.
>>65455684
Aphex Twin is the first one that comes to mind. He has a knowledge of musical technology that is utterly humbling, and his sound is about as singular as it gets
>>65455695
Lol
>>65455579
For the nth time, it's not about macro-scale structure, it's about SOUND. The design, contrast and mutation of sound that can only be made in a recording studio, that the masters of classical music simply did not have access to. It's not even comparing apples to oranges, it's comparing alchemy to quantum mechanics, ffs dude. In all honesty, I listen to more classical, spend more of my life learning my instrument to play classical music than I do listening to rock music. I get the sense that you and your ilk listen to rock more than you do classical, and that is why you would even bother making such a comparison in order to seem knowledgeable on the internet.
>>65455731
Agree. Excellent musician, although, IMO, he has yet to put out his true masterpiece. SAW are mindblowingly good though, but I feel like he's yet to change the music once more.
>>65455798
the music scene**
>>65455741
But... muh Art of Fugue.
I actually agree with that dude, but if he cites Art of Fugue one more time, I'm going to wake my roommate up with a sonic boom of laughter.
>>65455660
What about the bands where one or more of the members qualifies as an electronic musician?
>>65455840
The dilution keeps it from sounding as good as the Art of Fugue.
>>65455741
I have read and understand your point about fucking sound, but using new timbres isn't as brilliant as an actually good fucking composition. You can take great pieces and adapt them to new instruments with different timbres and have them still be great, the same cannot be said for most rock music.
>>65455832
ART OF FUGUE
Wake that fucker up, he can sleep when he's dead.
>>65455798
I agree. I thought Syro seemed a bit half-assed, and unfortunately the dude is such a legend that I'm afraid he may be resting on his laurels a bit.
>>65455840
No, I wouldn't compare a group of individuals who write songs to a composer
>>65455875
>>65455876
From now on, anytime someone talks about an album, I'm just going to compare it to the Art of Fugue, and say that it's not as good.
>>65455955
I like you. Let's be friends.
>>65439605
Learn your fucking history you SJW.
>>65439650
Is this you?
>>65455961
Yeah!
>acquire one friend
Check
>>65455876
>using new timbres
Who said anything about "new"?
>isn't as brilliant as an actually good fucking composition
The timbres aren't part of the composition?
>You can take great pieces and adapt them to new instruments with different timbres and have them still be great, the same cannot be said for most rock music.
Indeed, it cannot be said for most rock music. But it cannot be said for most classical music either. Let me quote myself:
>we essentially know, after centuries of careful analysis and evaluation by competent critics and scholars, who the masters of classical music are, and which works are the masterpieces. Rock/electronic music has never received such treatment, not because the medium is inherently inferior artistically, but because of the medium's ability to use musicians as a means to make a profit.
>>65456027
I'm not saying rock music doesn't have masterpieces. It does. I'm saying that it's masterpieces are not on par with the masterpieces of classical music. How this point has escaped you when this has been the primary argument throughout the thread is beyond me.
>>65455876
>>65456027
Oh, wait a minute, reading fail. You said "You can take GREAT pieces and adapt them to new instruments with different timbres and have them still be great". Well, of course a "great piece" would still be great if adapted to different timbres; it was a "great piece" in the first place. The same would apply to "great" pieces of rock, by definition.
>>65456070
If you took the full, shimmering guitar tone of That's When I Reach For My Revolver and replaced it with a heavy metal guitar tone, the song would lose a metric fuck ton of impact. The timbres in rock music are absolutely crucial. That's why so many covers are totally disastrous. They change the way it sounds.
I totally understand what you're saying when you say it's about sounds, I agree. The way an album sounds is the very first thing I look to when I'm listening to rock, especially the way the guitars sound, but I just don't see how bands who do great things with the way things sound can be equivocated with the works of great composers.
>>65456037
THAT'S THE EXACT POINT I'VE BEEN ARGUING AGAINST. The masterpieces of rock music ARE on par with the masterpieces of classical. That is all I've argued throughout the thread. Here are all my posts ITT before I posted >>65450929:
>>65441837
>>65443424
>>65444806
>>65445901
>>65456156
Agree to disagree then, I can't see it, even being a fan of rock music.
>>65456156
Still not as good as Art of Fugue
>>65456143
>I just don't see how bands who do great things with the way things sound can be equivocated with the works of great composers.
Neither do I, and that is why these threads bother me, and I always find them to be full of fallacies and illogical arguments. The comparison is pointless in the first place, and I think you and many others would agree with that. But if the comparison is pointless, then it follows that rock/electronic and classical music are "equal", yet there are these constant troll threads suggesting that classical is "superior", and there's no actual justification for it besides dumb preconceived notions of what classical music is.
If you screw around with the timbre of a rock song (which is what most covers do), you screw up the song. What if I randomly changed some notes of the Art of Fugue, or any other classical work for that matter? It would screw up the Art of Fugue. I fail to see how the structure of timbre is any less important than tonal structures; they are simply different things.
>>65456295
I think these comparisons are ultimately pointless, yes. But what I'm trying to say is that the timelessness of a tune, a structure, supercedes that microcosm of creating a pleasing (and in the case of some bands like Faust, challenging) set of sounds. I feel as though the structure of music is more important that the texture, because it is the structures that survive, that's why not every performance of a classical piece is historical, it is still effective.
And while I do totally agree that the timbre of rock is incredibly important, I don't think it's a true equivalency to changing notes, because rock can also be destroyed by changing around a few notes. It's this more delicate nature of the medium that makes me question it standing on the same level of classical. Still, I think rock is probably the best and most interesting form of popular music, and I love it dearly. I've enjoyed our discussion, it's nice to see someone on /mu/ who is intelligent and can construct a coherent thought even though I disagree with them. I'm glad this didn't devolve into "MUH RELATIVISM." +
>>65456295
>but if the comparison is pointless, then it follows that rock/electronic and classical music are "equal"
Just remember...you believe that John, Paul, Ringo, and George are "equal" to Beethoven.
This is what you believe -- and this is why I will simply tip my fedora and disappear into the shadows.
>>65456347
> I don't think it's a true equivalency to changing notes, because rock can also be destroyed by changing around a few notes.
This is a really good point... But the thing with rock is that no one, even with a recording studio and all the time left in their lives, could replicate the timbres Mission of Burma or Faust, etc., have created within their albums. Probably not even themselves if they were to try now (which is why the OP brings up a good point: musicians more focused on timbre do worsen with age). Yet orchestras are recreating classical works satisfactorily everyday (to some extent). So in that sense I think the mediums are equally delicate, or equally strong...
>>65456402
>Implying
I think I've made it pretty clear with my posts that I'm a dedicated Scaruffi drone.
