There's a whole universe of music waiting for you to explore it. And it has an unmatched ability to convey emotions, often more powerfully than words ever could. Through its complex arrangements and dynamics, it can express everything from joy and tranquility, to sorrow and tension, allowing listeners to connect with emotions on a deeper level. There's a reason composers spend years studying and analyzing music, it's because classical music is built on an unparalleled understanding of human emotion and sound. The effort effort that goes into crafting these pieces is immense. The beauty of classical music is that anyone can connect with it, but it requires an open mind and a bit more effort than you'd expect. Every person can find a piece of classical music that speaks to them, as long as they're willing to listen closely and let it unfold.

Here are wide range of emotions and feelings expressed through classical music:

>Joy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbyO7qRoB7E&list&index=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxUHZeeW2jU&list&index=1

>Triumph
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KGPFkDaPoo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neszNy7NriU&list&index=6

>Love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVnBZTwXwwM&list=&start_radio=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp0H-fr-y1g&list=&index=3

>Peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch2mrPm1JnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM7LFeDwKiM

>(...)

p.s. I put a great effort into compiling all that music and great recordings, so if you're coming to this thread, put some effort into listening.

>Sorrow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GCUvYuB5gY&list=&index=13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_-P13Yf40&list=OLAK5uy_nDMRAjrCkCyUCxHGPrMLuBeu33aXMcE1o

>Nostalgia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4FKlHCLKmI&list=&start_radio=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkPLDoZXlHQ&list=&start_radio=1

>Anger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip5mf_e-Wz4&list=&index=13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4saShIbOFQ4

>Reflection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxqSyRujNcI&list=OLAK5uy_ki5UBnxjR8zlTpU3PucxDXlvcmJlEOTUM&index=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg_2_umotpo&list=OLAK5uy_kKxwQMv8---_6e8QbV8JbVmXMauk76NPw

Feel free to contribute in similar format

>>126752922 (OP)
anything for you, martha :)

I'm more of a lyrics guy

>>126753053
Classical has dozens of genres with lyrics.

>>126752922 (OP)
>>126752930
Where's the medieval, renaissance, baroque, and 20th century music? You posted a relatively narrow range of possibilities that classical offers.

>>126753053
You're in luck, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (I linked the overture) has libretto:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lRXzLG4-iLKIoDr5b2UUp3iVV1XXcct7c
And generally, classical music has better integrated and more sophisticated texts than other genres!
>>126753022
:3
>>126753084
As I said, feel free to contribute.

>>126752922 (OP)
More of a post-modernist classical guy myself.

>>126753069
Yeah but they're probably all about god or operatic melodrama. No thanks. THIS is real music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrIcgS7-zMI

>>126753084
>>126753091
And on the side note, I am farily certain that music had its peak, which was between 17th and 19th centuries, not before nor after :-) and I did include both Baroque and 20th century music.

>>126753116
Just admit you're unfamiliar with it. It's not "all about god or operatic melodrama", and it depends on the genre. Sacred stuff is obviously spiritual in nature, but then you have dozens of profane 'song genres' that are based on a diverse range of poetry. And not all operas are 'melodramatic'.

>>126753116
>probably
So you don't even know. And no, it's not all about god or melodrama. But melodrama is indeed a very popular topic, and not just in classical music.
>THIS is real music:
It isn't, sincerely I hope you understand that someday.

>>126752922 (OP)
I don't like classical music at all. I wish I liked it, but it sounds boring and samey (which is ironic because it's never repetitive) to me. Medieval and renaissance music in the other hand, is my cup of tea. Stuff like Oswald Wolfenstein, or Michael Praetorius

>>126753118
I almost agree. I guess I'd argue there are several peaks, not just one, and that it depends on the form. Opera clearly peaked with Wagner, for example, but string quartets peaked with Beethoven. Early 20th century classical is definitely a contender for some kind of peak as well.

>>126753175
>Medieval and renaissance music in the other hand, is my cup of tea. Stuff like Oswald Wolfenstein, or Michael Praetorius
That's classical music. It's good that you specific, though, but you probably meant classical period, like Haydn and Mozart?

>>126753193
>specific
specified

I want a Martha Argerich GF so much bros

https://youtu.be/ItSJ_woWnmk

>>126753193
Yes I meant classical period then, I'm bad with genres. Maybe it's because it's too intellectual, maybe it's because of the timbre of the instruments, idk. Meanwhile I love the sounds of bagpipes and crumhorns

>>126753221
>maybe it's because of the timbre of the instruments
This is the same thing keeping me from getting into it. I love classical harmony and form and counterpoint but I can't stand listening to the same few combinations of instruments forever. I especially feel this with symphonies, they're the best compositionally but the large ensemble makes the music lack bite

>>126753175
It's not just highly inaccurate, but also quite ignorant to claim that Beethoven or Brahms are 'samey'. You could say Mozart is samey, relatively at least (because his style is still more diverse than popular music). What you should do is just put some effort - I know I know that might sound crazy but it's normal - into understanding music. Listen to Schubert's sonata no.21 and Brahms' 4th symphony a few times, as many times as it takes, and you'll discover there exists beauty in music thag you would have never imagined.

>>126753343

Can't imagine thinking this. Symphonies have every bit the diverse sonic pallet of longplay records. Look at Charles Ives and Beethoven. They have the whole world in theirs.

>>126753343
Timbre in an average classical orchestral piece is more diverse than in any given music of other genres. That said, you can listen to midi files of great compositons and apply any sort of hideous synth to them

>>126754442
>you can listen to midi files of great compositons and apply any sort of hideous synth to them
a tranny already did this 60 years ago

>>126754487
Oh dear

>>126753147
Opera and choral sacred western music dont have (and never will have) the singing style I'm looking for

>>126754487
You're thinking of Switched-On Bach 2000; the booklet is a nice read.

>>126752922 (OP)
Bump, thanks, I'll check them out later.

>>126755024
Oh well

>>126753221
>Maybe it's because it's too intellectual
Classical period really isn't particularly "intellectual" in the way that Bach fugues or modernist 20th century music might be. It's more about clarity, balance, symmetry, and an elegant, pleasing sound. But as time went on, stronger contrasts started appearing (less "nice", more drama), which culminated in Beethoven and basically led into Romanticism. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of that era either; I prefer what came before and after.
>>126753343
I mean sure, in classical era orchestral music, the basic palette is fairly stable: strings, winds, brass, timpani. But even within that, there is an enormous variety in color, texture, balance, and orchestration. Then if you zoom out to classical music as a whole, there are hundreds of instrumental combinations across centuries. But if you want more "bite", there's a whole world of 20th century music with electronics, extended techniques, tape, noise, etc. where timbral variety explodes.

>>126753221
>Meanwhile I love the sounds of bagpipes and crumhorns
Absolutely based taste. You'll probably like hurdy-gurdies too.

>>126754442
Classical instruments (excluding the pipe organ, and even that loses to the theater organ) have very limited timbral variety. There's nothing that comes close to an electric guitar, let alone a modern synthesizer. I'm sure it's intentional. The rejection of the saxophone is evidence for this. The saxophone is the most expressive of all wind instruments and classical music barely uses it at all.

>>126758219
>have very limited timbral variety
Why do you keep repeating this absolutely retarded, demonstrably false mantra? It's frankly absurd. The orchestral palette alone includes:
>strings (bowed, plucked, harmonic overtones, mutes, sul ponticello, sul tasto, col legno…)
>woodwinds (single reed, double reed, air jets, overblowing, multiphonics possible)
>brass (lip buzz, mutes, wide dynamics, massive overtones)
>percussion (tuned and untuned, metallic, membranophones, wood, skin, metal, even pitched percussion like vibraphone, glockenspiel, celesta, tubular bells, etc.)
>keyed instruments (piano, celesta, organ, harpsichord)
>the human voice, which is in itself massively varied
And that's not even getting into extended techniques developed in the 20th century, or the expansion into electronic instruments, tape, noise, prepared instruments, and so on.

If anything, classical music as a tradition has arguably the BROADEST timbral arsenal of any tradition in world music. Pop and rock use maybe 3-5 primary timbres in total. An electric guitar with effects pedals is timbrally interesting, but it’s not "more variety", it's just a different flavor of limited palette.

>saxophone
That was largely a political thing in the 19th century. The instrument came late historically and by then, the Romantic orchestral tradition had essentially codified its standard ensemble. Composers like Berlioz and Bizet were open to the saxophone, French military bands used it widely, Sousa's American wind bands used it heavily. The problem wasn't that classical composers "hated expressivity", it's just that orchestral institutions are conservative and evolve slowly. By the time composers like Ravel, Debussy, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and others started writing saxophone parts, the instrument was already strongly associated with military bands, popular music, and (soon) jazz.

>saxophone is the most expressive wind instrument
That's purely subjective and just an opinion.

>>126758219
>>126758259
It's frankly bizarre that you would claim classical instruments have "very limited timbral variety" when they come from so many different materials, instrumental families, and sizes and shapes. Just a quick glance at them should tell you that statement is completely retarded, like saying the sky is green or that night is day. It makes no sense. It's like you've decided that something which isn't true is true, and then you work backwards trying to justify it. You start from "classical music is bad" as your conclusion, and then invent reasons to support it, even if those reasons are completely disconnected from reality. And I know it's you, because you go to every classical thread on /mu/ and start your timbral/sound design bullshit and get BTFO every single time.

>>126758259
There's massive overlap between those timbres. A viola in not meaningfully different from a pitch-shifted violin or cello, it's just the only way to extend the range when you don't have electronics.

Classical instruments lack the most important building block in sound design: the variable filter. This is further evidence that the limited timbre is deliberate, because there actually are instruments that can make filter sweep sounds: mute brass, by moving the mute. Jazz uses this, but classical rejected it. And note that by "filter sweep" I don't mean just the naturally faster decay of higher partials, which filter sweeps are often used to simulate. I mean tones like the TB-303 acid bass, where filter movement is used to give a vocal effect. Human voice is full of filter sweep effects because the mouth is a variable filter. In general, the closer an instrument is able to emulate the sound of the human voice the better the instrument. Electric guitar is good at it. Saxophone is good at it. Synths are great at it. Most classical instruments are very bad at it.

The second most important building block in sound design is waveshaping (generalized distortion/overdrive/fuzz/saturation/etc.) This lets you generate additional harmonics (which can them be further sculpted by filters), and perhaps more importantly, it generates intermodulation products, which are critical for "heavy" sounds. There is no classical music with a truly heavy sound (perhaps Stravinsky came closest) because heaviness is primarily distorted power chords (and power chords are also rejected by classical musicians as "parallel fifths").

The third most important building block in sound design is FM synthesis, because it allows great flexibility in building inharmonic timbres. Classical makes very little use of inharmonic timbres. You get the occasional tuned percussion for special effect, and plucked strings have a little inharmonicity, but FM synthesis isn't used at all.

>>126752922 (OP)
music is made by those who hear it, and not necessarily by the performer.

When a critic craps on a recording or performance, they're really just announcing to the world your limitations as a musician.

When a critic praises a recording or performance, they're praising their own ability to make music.

None of what they say actually tells us anything about the recording or performance in question.

All criticism and commentary about performances, recording or musicians is just egoism on the part of the critic, nothing more.

>>126752922 (OP)
music is made by those who hear it, and not necessarily by the performer.

When a critic craps on a recording or performance, they're really just announcing to the world their own limitations as a musician.

When a critic praises a recording or performance, they're praising their own ability to make music.

None of what they say actually tells us anything about the recording or performance in question.

All criticism and commentary about performances, recording or musicians is just egoism on the part of the critic, nothing more.

>>126758373
NTA but you don't know what you're talking about. Pitch is not the same as timbre. Viola's pitch is different, but so is the TIMBRE. It has a warmer, more mellow sound than violin, not just due to the pitch but also how the resonating body responds to different frequency ranges. Not being able to distinguish the details means you either lack experience of auidtory capabilities, or combination of both. There is some overlap, and that is because of balance and clarity. For string section, it's nice to have strings play both outer and inner parts, so it doesn't turn into an incoherent soup.
>Classical instruments lack the most important building block in sound design:
Except that they don't. If you look at history of those instruments, you will realize how they evolved into what they are now. Through careful adjustments and tinkering they were slowly perfected to fit with each other as naturally and neatly as possible. It took centuries of evolution for those instruments, same cannot be said of synth timbres, they usually come one at a time with vocals or bass, and even then mixing process is quite effortful. You can't have constant battle of timbres like you have in a symphony, unless you want to mix more than compose lol. No one does that.
>the closer an instrument is able to emulate the sound of the human voice the better the instrument. Electric guitar is good at it.
Unless you can show the waveforms (and those aren't even enough) and explain how electric guitar is closer in acoustic, mathematical terms, I'm not even considering this argument. Classical instruments are more natural than any other instrument/effects you've listed for the reasons I explained above.
>additional harmonics
Those additional harmonics further remove those sounds from natural, human-like timbre actually.
>with a truly heavy sound
Heavy as in bassy, lower pitch dominated? If so, yes, classical is about balance of all sounds, not just lower pitch monotonic timbres.

>>126758373
>because heaviness is primarily distorted power chords (and power chords are also rejected by classical musicians as "parallel fifths").
And there's a very good reason for it. Parallel fifths are avoided for independence of melodic lines, ergo they induce monotony. One of the biggest turn offs in metal is how they avoid tonality, also. Those power chords do not allow for proper musical expression.
>inharmonic timbres.
Again, classical music is about balance. You will find tons of avant-garde, modern classical artists (that are still vastly more expressive than pop artists) that use those techniques, but just because those techniques exist doesn't mean they should be used at all times. Classical balance and clarity ensures harmonic balance, which allows for complexity and sophistication in other, more musical aspects.

>>126753211
I'd settle for an Anna Lapwood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swDuXAKLy8U

>>126758835
>Viola's pitch is different, but so is the TIMBRE. It has a warmer, more mellow sound than violin
The "warmer" sound has the same timbre. Lower pitch always sounds warmer even when the balance of harmonics is the same. If you increase the speed and pitch (like varispeed tape or DJ turntable, so no unnatural artifacts introduced) by 1.5 times then it sounds exactly like a violin played fast (within the variation expected among different models of violin). This is how all families of instruments of different sizes are built. There's only one timbre for the whole set.
>show the waveforms
Wah pedals exist. The "wah" effect is literally the filter sweep I'm talking about. This is the defining characteristic of human voice, and "wah" is an onomatopoeia for voice. The only acoustic instrument that does this is mute brass.
>additional harmonics further remove those sounds from natural, human-like timbre
False. Human singers can produce distortion by contracting the upper vocal tract. This is yet another important technique that's ignored by classical musicians but is common in rock and pop.
>bassy, lower pitch dominated
That literally is balance. The most balanced sound is pink noise, which has power spectral density inversely proportional to frequency. Power spectrum of a full orchestra approximates band-limited pink noise. It's only missing the bass because classical instruments (other than big pipe organs) can't reproduce it. Amplified bass restores the natural balance to the sound.

Another point against classical music: the buzzing bridge of hurdy-gurdy is functionally a distortion effect. Unsurprisingly, classical music ignores it.

>>126759067
>The "warmer" sound has the same timbre.
LOL. Am I being trolled? Warmer already implies a different timbre. You don't know what timbre is, do you?
>then it sounds exactly like a violin played fast
Except it doesn't. There are acoustic differences inherent to the timbre that cannot be replicated merely by pitch-shifting. And what you're saying is disingenuous, because sure, if you manipulate any timbre in various ways, you can get another.
>Wah pedals exist.
"Wah" pedal imitates the sound "wah" and nothing else. Meanwhile violinists or even a pianists can imitate voice and all kinds of syllables.
>False. Human singers can produce distortion by contracting the upper vocal tract.
No, that's not what human-like timbre implies. A natural voice is. That's what you were implying as well. And not not all singer can do that.
>that's ignored by classical musicians
Because it offers little in terms of expressiveness. An opera singer takes years to master their technique, a growler (or whatever you call them) can master such a technique is a relatively short time. That alone should tell you the vast differences between expressiveness of those techniques.
>That literally is balance.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/balance
>equipoise between contrasting, opposing, or interacting elements
Balance occurs when contrasting elements interact. Which is what happens in classical, all the time. And does not happen in what you're describing(pink noise), which is not balance by definition. It is antithetical to balance. You're trolling at this point, but it would be a shame if someone actually fell for your post.

>>126759161
>Balance occurs when contrasting elements interact.
interact in equilibrium*.

>>126759161
>Warmer already implies a different timbre
Timbre is the distribution of harmonics relative to the fundamental over time. Varispeed does not alter timbre. Viola played slow and pitched up 1.5x is indistinguishable from violin (there may be minor difference in brightness, but you get that with changes in string material and technique, so it's within the normal range of violin).
>"Wah" pedal imitates the sound "wah" and nothing else
It imitates the transition between vowels. And there are other similar effects. Phasing/flanging are also variable filters.
>Meanwhile violinists or even a pianists can imitate voice
Violinists can imitate a single vowel at best (they at least have full control over vibrato and bends, which is better than most classical instruments). I'm not surprised that classical musicians consider this "imitating voice". The most iconic demonstration of classical vocal virtuosity is the Queen of the Night aria from The Magic Flute. Even people who never listen to opera know that one. The high part is just "ah ah ah" with no variation in timbre at all. The singer is imitating a violin! And piano is incapable of a convincing imitation of voice even when played by machine (player pianos are strictly superior to human piano because piano action is designed to remove all human expression by disconnecting the hammers from the keys with each note).
>expressiveness of those techniques
Pop singers are objectively more expressive. Good pop singers have full control over distortion/nasality/breathiness, all of which are ignored by classical singers. Pop singers have superior control over vibrato too, using it selectively for effect instead of using it all the time to cover up sloppy tuning.
>Balance
Pink noise is the natural balance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_noise#Humans
The majority of listeners prefer the power spectrum of music to approximate pink noise. Rock and pop does this better than classical because it restores the missing bass.

>>126752922 (OP)
You got one for sadness/depression?
(I Need to walk through the void to appreciate the light) thank you.
Imma go get some food.

>>126759265
>Timbre is the distribution of harmonics relative to the fundamental over time.
Yes, which is exactly why viola has a completely different timbre to violin. And merely changing a pitch won't make viola into a violin when the harmonics are different.
>It imitates the transition between vowels.
The 'Wah' name implies that it imitates the syllable. And it is just one, unimpressive syllable.
>there are other similar effects
And countless of techniques for string instruments to imitate all sorts of syllabels.
>Violinists can imitate a single vowel at best
False. You'd struggle to name a vowel a good violinist can't imitate. But then you'd back down and say "uh, tha's not a good imitation!" - or something along the lines, because you are trolling, evidently.
>player pianos are strictly superior to human piano
More on the troll.tv
Piano action allows better control of articulation and dynamics. Even if it weren't true, I don't see what makes "player pianos" superior. Aren't you tired of trolling?
>Pop singers are objectively more expressive
LOL. No, they're not. Classical vocalists have larger dynamics, that alone puts them above pop singers in expressiveness. But there's obviously more, classical vocalists have tight(est) control, extreme vocal techniques and wider timbral range that also fits within the orchestral settings.

>>126759265
>Pink noise is the natural balance:
As I explained, it isn't balance at all. You can read the definition of 'balance' in any dictionary.

>>126759334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmaUoCgtXoQ&list=OLAK5uy_ndyFQ-H76rmpdDjbx7rGKfKo_ym6PyqiA&index=1

>>126759334
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2xQodIz01s&list=OLAK5uy_lgVzHhxfdv3NXjHGu_2cb1jEuh7RdahIQ&index=33

>>126758373
>>126758299 puts it nicely
>You start from "classical music is bad" as your conclusion, and then invent reasons to support it, even if those reasons are completely disconnected from reality

>>126758373
>massive overlap between those timbres
There is some timbral overlap within instrument families, but the differences still exist and are significant to trained ears.
More importantly: the orchestra's diversity comes from COMBINING these instruments in infinite ways, layering, blending, balancing; that's precisely where the orchestral palette becomes so rich.
This "overlap" argument only makes sense if you reduce timbre to a kind of flat, one-dimensional spectrum, which is not how actual musical color works.
Overlap doesn't mean "no variety", and what you say is reductive nonsense.
>Lack of filter sweeps / variable filters
Yes, but this is completely anachronistic: classical acoustic instruments were never designed for that domain of sound manipulation. It's like criticizing oil painting for not being 3D animation.
The use of mutes in brass, multiphonics, vocal techniques, harmonics, glissandi, flutter tongue, sul ponticello, etc. DO create continuous timbral modulation in acoustic ways, just not in the same way an electronic filter does.
>blah blah blah
Again, you're ignoring my original point about 20th century classical music. I already acknowledged that it has electronic instruments, tape, noise, prepared instruments, extended techniques, etc. You completely sidestep this and go back to framing "classical music" as if it stopped evolving after 1850, then criticize it for lacking things that 20th century classical music directly addresses. You are intellectually dishonest.
>power chords = parallel fifths = classical rejection
More absolute nonsense from you. Power chords have a completely different function in rock than parallel fifths do in classical music. Older classical music (but not too old) avoids voice-leading errors involving parallel fifths because it disrupts part-writing independence. When parallel fifths serve a sonority or coloristic purpose, like the impressionist music of Debussy, they're used intentionally and extensively.

>>126759363
>merely changing a pitch won't make viola into a violin when the harmonics are different
"Merely changing a pitch" does change the harmonics.
>implies that it imitates the syllable
It's named after one use. Good guitarists do more than just "wah" with wah pedals.
>countless of techniques for string instruments
All have the fundamental weakness of not altering the fixed formants of the violin. You need a variable filter like the human mouth to get truly vocal effects.
>Piano action allows better control of articulation and dynamics.
And that's all there is to it. A piano performance (lacking extended technique, which is again mostly ignored by classical musicians) is perfectly captured by MIDI. It can't even compete with violin in expression.
>Classical vocalists have larger dynamics
What a joke. Classical vocalists have terrible microphone technique. They just stand at a distance and ignore it, if they even use one at all. Pop singers fully exploit the microphone both for dynamics and for timbral variation via proximity effect, and that's even before all the compression/EQ/etc. that will be applied.
>extreme vocal techniques
Classical singers can imitate violins. Metal singers can imitate frogs and pigs. I fail to see how one is more "extreme" than the other.
>wider timbral range that also fits within the orchestral settings
True on a technicality, because something with very little range fits within a setting that's defined by very little range.
>>126759372
Yes, it is exactly balance. Pink noise contains all frequencies in a distribution that does not allow any single frequency to dominate. It's more balanced than white noise because it better matches human perception. Surely you agree that stacking identical intervals feels like a smooth change in pitch? This implies that pink noise is more balanced than white noise because it requires logarithmic pitch perception to be true.

>>126758373
>>126759468
>FM synthesis / inharmonic timbres
Plenty of inharmonic timbres exist in classical music: tuned percussion, bells, gongs, cymbals, prepared piano, extended techniques, etc. You are literally just wrong and you're ignoring 20th century classical music again because it suits your retarded, autistic agenda.
You confuse timbral variety with sound design capability. Saying classical music has "limited timbral variety" because it doesn't do real-time filter sweeps (although you're possibly ignoring contemporary classical music here again) is like saying "theatre has limited variety because it doesn't have CGI".
This is just a category mistake, and you are retarded.

>>126759431
I concur. This guy hates classical and constantly atttacks it unprompted.

>>126759468
>>126759487
>20th century classical music
>electronic instruments, tape, noise, prepared instruments, extended techniques
Irrelevant to mainstream classical. Most such work is deliberately unpleasant to listen to and hardly any classical fans listen to it.
>>126759495
I like classical. I like it even better when it's updated with more expressive instruments and production, e.g. jazz/prog/fusion.

>>126759081
I hope you realize you are confusing aesthetic vocabulary with engineering vocabulary. The fact that you declare anything outside this narrow domain as inferior is supremely retarded and autistic.

>>126759509
>confusing aesthetic vocabulary with engineering vocabulary
They're the same thing. All aesthetic advancement is rooted in engineering advancement.

>>126759507
>Irrelevant to mainstream classical
This means nothing, is completely irrelevant, and does nothing to make your point correct or mine wrong. The existence of 20th century classical music with electronic instruments, tape, noise, prepared piano, extended techniques, etc. directly disproves your claim that classical music lacks timbral variety. Whether you personally consider it "mainstream" or not is irrelevant; it exists within the tradition and expands the timbral palette far beyond what you're claiming.
>Most such work is deliberately unpleasant to listen to and hardly any classical fans listen to it.
Again, irrelevant to the debate at hand. Classical music covers everything from the beautiful to the harsh, like any serious art form. The fact that some classical listeners don't engage with the more experimental works has no bearing on whether those works expand the available timbral vocabulary. Popularity doesn't define variety. Most people only listen to a handful of major composers, rarely touch medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, or 20th and 21st century classical music, but it's all the same tradition, and it has the broadest timbral palette. Deal with it.

>>126759534
This is demonstrably false. Aesthetic advancement often happens DESPITE engineering, or even in conscious rejection of technological progress, such as
>neoclassicism
>the entire historically informed performance movement in classical music
>folk revivals
>analog photography revival
>vinyl records, tube amplifiers, mechanical watches
>acoustic instrument preferences over synthesized or digitally produced sounds
None of these are "rooted in engineering advancement", many are explicitly reactions AGAINST newer technology.
Stravinsky's innovations in rhythm and structure had nothing to do with technological advancement, Scriabin's harmonic innovations weren't tied to new instruments, Schoenberg's invention of serialism was entirely theoretical (no engineering involved), Bach's fugues are architecturally complex beyond anything the instrument-making technology of his time required, there are hundreds of examples in history.
Technology may enable certain practical aspects, but it doesn't drive the aesthetic content BY DEFAULT. It does not DICTATE AESTHETIC VALUE. They are absolutely not the same, and aesthetic advancement is primarily driven by human taste, philosophy, and cultural values, not by engineering.

>>126759476
>"Merely changing a pitch" does change the harmonics.
Not to the extent of turning a viola into a violin.
>It's named after one use.
Yeah, just one use. kek.
>All have the fundamental weakness
None of these are actual weaknesses as we have already established.
>of not altering the fixed formants of the violin.
That is simply false.
>variable filter like the human mouth
No, that's what you need in synth music, otherwise it sounds likr garbage. Even when the filter is applied, it lacks every bit of expressive element that classical instruments have, making it sound unnatural and uncanny.
>And that's all there is to it.
All there is to it? That's almost all there is to music lol.
Yes, violin has more expressiveness, no one is arguing agains that. But midi piano has to be first recorded too you know, by a professional. And the output is still vastly inferior to the sound of the grand concerto pianos.
>What a joke.
Such ignorance.
>Pop singers fully exploit the microphone both for dynamics and for timbral variation
Microphone does not increase dynamics. And applying effects does not give the vocalist any advantage over natural human voice, which, as you have stated yourself, is what instruments are trying to imitate in the first place. You are contradicting yourself, all for the sake of this: >>126759431 - you don't actually argue in good faith, you start from "classical music is bad" and then come up with contradicting reasons.
>>126759476
>I fail to see how one is more "extreme" than the other.
Your problem, not mine. See how classical vocalists train their voice. They push the limits of control, range, ability, stamina and sound production, beyond what casual singing uses. These techniques require years (even decades) of training and fine muscle coordination. Imitating pigs is childplay in comparison.
>something with very little range
Except it's something with greater range than anything in the same category.

>>126759476
>>126759586
>Yes, it is exactly balance.
Not by any definition from any dictionary in the known universe.
>Pink noise contains all frequencies in a distribution
And they are not in the state of equilibrium, as evidenced by your own post.
>stacking identical intervals feels like a smooth change in pitch?
You don't know what you're talking about kek
>>126759507
>I like classical.
No reason to lie, bud.

>>126759539
You can find rare exceptions to anything. When you're talking in generalities only the mainstream matters. Classical obviously and objectively has narrower timbral palette than modern music because modern music can and does include classical instruments in addition to new timbres.
>>126759565
Those examples are nostalgia for past technological progress, so they prove my point.
In a previous thread there was discussion of Ravel - Bolero, which is a rare example of classical with a beat. This was inspired by the sounds of factories. Maybe you can find example of pure aesthetic advancement with no connection to technology at all, but that is not the mainstream and we're talking generalities.
>>126759586
>Not to the extent of turning a viola into a violin.
You can't tell the difference from sound alone. Violin timbre is not a standardized synthesizer patch. The differences between models/performances/recordings/etc. mask the minor difference between pitched-up viola and violin.
>fixed formants
The formants of the violin are defined by the resonances of the body. No standard technique dynamically changes them.
>Microphone does not increase dynamics
Of course they do. Inverse square law is huge at pop singer distances.
>See how classical vocalists train their voice
See how metal singers train.
>>126759598
>state of equilibrium
That's noise by definition. Any imbalance would be signal.
>[stacking intervals]
So you're denying octave equivalence?
>lie
I listened to some Shostakovich because of an earlier thread. It's good despite the limited timbres. Timbre is the most important aspect of music but it's not the only one. Classical does melody and harmony very well.

>>126759647
>You can't tell the difference from sound alone.
Or maybe you can't.
>The differences between models/performances/recordings/etc. mask the minor difference
The difference is significant between two instruments, recordings have nothing to do with that.
>The formants of the violin are defined by the resonances of the body.
Yes, true. What I meant to say is that "All have the fundamental weakness" is false. It's not a weakness in any sense.
>Of course they do.
A microphone does not increase dynamics, it increases (amplifies) volume. Furthermore, compressors are often applied as singers do not have a good control of their voice, which further destroys any notion of "dynamics".
>See how metal singers train.
I have seen and trained myself?
>That's noise by definition
You're arguing semantics now. No, noise is not balance, literally no one would agree with that claim, and I'm allowed to say that since words are defined through mutual agreement and good faith. And again, you're not arguing in good faith.
>So you're denying octave equivalence?
I'm denying the importance of your nonsense babble.
>I listened to some Shostakovic
So you don't listen to classical music, gotcha.
>Timbre is the most important aspect of music
It isn't as we have already established. Shouldn't you be posting your asuka avatar and spewing nonsensical pastas or are we done with that already?

>>126759760
>asuka avatar
Not my posts.

>>126759647
You're fully retreating into desperation now.
>rare exceptions
Except they're not. Entire large-scale 20th and 21st century classical movements are built on technological expansion
>spectralism
>musique concrete
>tape music
>electroacoustic music
>live electronics
>computer-assisted composition
>multimedia and installation art
This isn't "rare exception" territory, it's a huge portion of 20th century and contemporary art music.
>When you're talking in generalities
I'm not talking about "generalities", I'm debunking your absolutely retarded idea that "classical music has no timbral diversity". I've proven in many ways how it does and how stupid what you're saying is.
>only the mainstream matters
This is not an argument.
>Classical obviously and objectively has narrower timbral palette than modern music because modern music can and does include classical instruments in addition to new timbres
You're committing the fallacy of equating number of available instruments with actual timbral variety, which is completely wrong yet again.
Timbral variety doesn't come only from adding more instruments, it also comes from orchestration (how they're combined), balance of forces, dynamics, articulation, registers, extended techniques, texture and layering, temporal unfolding over long forms, etc.
Therefore, in classical music you have the biggest timbral variety generated from the constant recombination of a set of instruments. Pop music very rarely engages this kind of complex, evolving orchestration.
So even if modern music adds "more instruments", that does not automatically mean it has a richer timbral variety.
You have such a childish reasoning ability, it's almost pitiful reading your nonsense. Your logic is always
>quantity = quality
>more instruments = automatically more timbral variety
>technology = automatically better aesthetics
>mainstream = automatically more important
It's all so flat, one-dimensional, and reductionist.

>>126759778
>>quantity = quality
>>more instruments = automatically more timbral variety
>>technology = automatically better aesthetics
>>mainstream = automatically more important
These are all obviously true.

>>126759647
>Those examples are nostalgia for past technological progress, so they prove my point.
No, they don't. This is a completely different argument from the original one. Now you're redefining all aesthetic choices as somehow being "responses" to technology, whether adoption or rejection. But this was never what we were discussing. The original question was whether aesthetic advancement requires technological/engineering advancement, and the answer remains: no.
What you're doing now is just the unfalsifiable position:
>someone embraces technology = see? engineering drives aesthetics!
>someone rejects technology = see? that's nostalgia for past engineering! engineering still drives aesthetics!
This is literally just circular reasoning at this point. It's not an actual argument, and you're just redefining it to avoid admitting you are wrong. You are intellectually dishonest because it always allows you to "win" no matter what evidence is provided.
I showed you multiple examples where aesthetic innovation occurred completely independently of technological development.

>>126759786
Let me guess, by your logic
>more = better
>newer = superior
>popularity = legitimacy
Which means McDonald's is the best cuisine, Netflix and TikTok is the pinnacle of entertainment, AI slop is the ultimate creative achievement, Marvel and Disney are the greatest works of narrative fiction, and whoever wins the elections is automatically the best candidate? Because this is ultimately where your childish, utilitarian, flat, progress-worshipping thinking ends up.

>>126759647
Your entire argument always basically boils down to
>there's no timbral diversity in classical music
Demonstrably false.
>Well actually, I define timbral diversity very narrowly: only electronic instruments and sound design count
Okay, but that's stupid and arbitrary. Even under that narrow view, 20th century and contemporary classical music offer exactly that.
>but that doesn't count because it's mainstream
Do you realize how fucking retarded that sounds?
>also, all aesthetic preferences are rooted in technology/engineering, even when they're not; if they're not, then they're just nostalgic for some older technology
Demonstrably false, again.
>hurr durr (quits posting)

>>126759647
Your entire argument always basically boils down to
>there's no timbral diversity in classical music
Demonstrably false.
>Well actually, I define timbral diversity very narrowly: only electronic instruments and sound design count
Okay, but that's stupid and arbitrary. Even under that narrow view, 20th century and contemporary classical music offer exactly that.
>but that doesn't count because it's not mainstream
Do you realize how fucking retarded and arbitrary that sounds?
>also, all aesthetic preferences are rooted in technology/engineering, even when they're not; if they're not, then they're just nostalgic for some older technology
Demonstrably false, again.
>hurr durr (quits posting and comes back shitting a different thread with the same retarded arguments and fallacies)

Why can't we have a single classical (not /classical/) thread without the same discussion and same autistic timbre argument over and over

Sacred Music is the true pinnacle such as Byzantine Chant!

Hierarchically, Classical is simply in between the Sacred and the Vernacular. Sacred music is beyond mere Classical music, which is more earthly and base, unlike the dispassionate beauty of Sacred music, which is sanctified by the divine energy through Christ from His Father and in the Holy Spirit, drawing us into loving, humble communion with God as the soul of all so desperately yearns for above all things.

https://youtu.be/sIchU3HAZ4s?si=KQbUf_XtAVtYTjZ4
https://youtu.be/B4XGTS5CMW4?si=iQ-jRj6xpE02OIau

I am too braindead for classical
I just dont get it, it doesnt click

>>126761251
Listen to it on repeat and it'll click. Is there any short classical piece you really like? E.g. Chopim's nocturne 1 or 2, Wagner's ride of the valkyries or anything?

>>126761251
Listen to it on repeat and it'll click. Is there any short classical piece you really like? E.g. Chopin's nocturne 1 or 2, Brahms' hungarian dances or Wagner's ride of the valkyries, or anything else?

>>126761626
>Listen to it on repeat and it'll click.
to be fair, I have done this previously and it works
>Is there any short classical piece you really like?
Canon in C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlprozGcs80

>>126761657
>I have done this previously and it works
So you know what to do, but something else is preventing you.
>Canon in C
Start with the first rec in the OP, Beethoven's Pastoral symphony, no way you're going to dislike it. It's also the only Beethoven symphony that's programmatic, meaning it tells a story or paints a scene, often described by a title or notes from the composer. Beethoven's Pastoral is programmatic because each movement depicts scenes from nature, like a flowing brook or a thunderstorm, reflecting his love of the countryside. It was composed and released alongside his famous 5th, which is also linked in the OP. Listen to both! And take your time, listen to different recordings, maybe read what others write if you want and you'll come to like them.

And some other day check out Hurwitz's channel for recordings and everything classical related. He talks about the 5th symphony here in a way that might be intriguing, explaining the structure and discussing different great recordings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq2-u8_kQAw
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAjIX596BriH_zrQze2Baqz0RwtqxR5SS
But don't bother if you're not interested, just listen.

It has it's place but I'm pretty certain Luther Perkins guitar playing is the actual 'final music pill'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiFh8xq2260

>all those guys moving around the guitar neck are still looking for 'it', I've found 'it'.

>>126761883
>It's also the only Beethoven symphony that's programmatic, meaning it tells a story or paints a scene, often described by a title or notes from the composer. Beethoven's Pastoral is programmatic because each movement depicts scenes from nature, like a flowing brook or a thunderstorm, reflecting his love of the countryside. It was composed and released alongside his famous 5th, which is also linked in the OP. Listen to both! And take your time, listen to different recordings, maybe read what others write if you want and you'll come to like them.
My God couldn't you just talk about how it's got Beethoven's most beautiful melodies or anything beyond this gobbedlygook that the person in question will likely not even understand?

>>126761883
maybe this summer. The reason I'll delay it is that theres a lot of music to explore and right now im digging different genres. If I ever get into classical, its so big of a genre (I say genre but as you know it includes 1000 years of music theory) I dont know if I ever scape, you feeling me?

>>126762155
>if I ever scape
if I'll* ever scape

>>126762131
I think anyone could understand that, and some may even be drawn to it. Popular music relies on imagery and aesthetics more than anything. It's natural to be attracted to such things. But you may be right, I don't know what that person is looking for. I recommended something emotionally similar to Pachelbel's canon and wrote what came to mind.
>>126762155
I do, and I was in a very similar situation as I'm a pop music victim myself. You don't need to scrape anything, just go ahead and listen to Beethoven's 6th. And focus on 'scraping' Beethoven if you will. Don't waste your time.

>>126752922 (OP)
>d. Through its complex arrangements and dynamics, it can express everything from joy and tranquility, to sorrow and tension, allowing listeners to connect with emotions on a deeper level. There's a reason composers spend years studying and analyzing music, it's because classical music is built on an unparalleled understanding of human emotion and sound.
I think this part is what I don't agree with tbqh.

I agree that to make a 'great' classical piece it requires years of study, incredible levels of knowledge about music and so on.

However, the reason I put 'great' in quotes is because I don't think studying music and being able to write complicated music is what makes you able to be 'great' at music. I think someone being great comes from something else within the person that has nothing to do with technical knowledge. The technical side of it allows a person to express what they have within them, though.

If writing incredible music was merely a function of technical knowledge then that would also mean yo could train a robot to write incredible classical music on par with any of the famous composers. And I don't believe AI will be able to do that.

>>126762131
I think anyone could understand that, and some may even be drawn to it. Popular music relies on imagery and aesthetics more than anything. It's natural to be attracted to such things. But you may be right, I don't know what that person is looking for. I recommended something emotionally similar to Pachelbel's canon and wrote what came to mind.
>>126762155
I do, and I was in a very similar situation as I'm a pop music victim myself. You don't need to scape anything, just go ahead and listen to Beethoven's 6th. And focus on 'scaping' Beethoven if you will. Don't waste your time.

>>126762358
Also I'm not saying any of this as a criticism of the music itself, I'm getting at something I think is fundamental not just to music but all art.

>>126762358
>studying music and being able to write complicated music is what makes you able to be 'great' at music
True. But greatness does not come from being able to write complicated music. It comes from understanding the language of music. Who's going to speak Chinese better, a person who's lived in China and attempted to speak with the Chinese for years, or a person who uses google translate to barely put a sentence together? My guess is the former. Studying older music allows composers to learn on their mistakes and successes. There was a lot of trial and error in history of music, and you going through all that alone will take you centuries.
>merely a function of technical knowledge
It's not. There is a lot of intellectual effort that goes into writing this music. The music isn't simply "written down" on the score, it's going through the composer's mind first, forming its shape and structure, then from sketches it evolves into a composition, and through interpretation (which varies) emerges as an actual piece of music. Music isn't just about the melody, but how it's developed, transformed, while keeping the piece cohesive. Most popular (non-classical) music does not have this sense of unity on the same scale. Nor does it have the knowledge of the musical language to express something as beautifully as some classical music does.
>train a robot to write incredible classical music on par with any of the famous composers
We're not there yet, but it's entirely possible if human mind is fully replicated by a robot, somehow.

>>126753111
Post-modernist classical such as? I'm prone to listen some Xenakis and Webern myself

A fine example of what I don't like about Classical fans(on this website at least\)

>>126762488
>Who's going to speak Chinese better, a person who's lived in China and attempted to speak with the Chinese for years, or a person who uses google translate to barely put a
Right, you need to know the language inside and out to start to play around with it. Someone barely fluent in English isn't going to be able to write the great American novel for example.

>, it's going through the composer's mind first, forming its shape and structure, then from sketches it evolves into a composition, and through interpretation (which varies) emerges as an actual piece of music.
I agree, the great composers were people who had mastered the ability to get their musical ideas out of their mind and into reality with not much barrier inbetween the two, which is something a lot of people strive to do.

However, with all of that said, if the composer in question doesn't have this intangible 'thing'' inside of them then they won't create great art. That's why I gave the example of ai / a bot.
Another example are all kinds of virtuosos who create loads of tedious egotistical wankfests.

The point I'm getting at is you could analyze a piece of complex but crappy self indulgent music and a piece of complex but great music and you wouldn't be able to pin down exactly why one of them is bad and another is good in terms of objective musical knowledge alone. There is something else going on with music, (and all art) that isn't defined in that way. It's why you can take any given series of notes and 'look' at them in a certain way and they can become a million different musical ideas.

>We're not there yet, but it's entirely possible if human mind is fully replicated by a robot, somehow.
At that point the line between a robot and a 'real' living being starts to become increasingly blurred and will have many profound implications.

>>126762740
>ability to get their musical ideas out of their mind and into reality with not much barrier inbetween the two
Not only, but it also helped them shape those ideas in a way that is almost, if not literally perfect. A trained musician could "improve" a popular song by adding some polyphony, more interesing harmonies, better melodic lines, but no one would dare to touch Beethoven. It would break the structure, and not align with what's to come. It would break its logical flow. Almost like a proof of a math theory, but obviously not as rigorous.
>if the composer in question doesn't have this intangible 'thing'' inside of them then they won't create great art.
Neither will they study the great art, that's pretty much guaranteed.
>and you wouldn't be able to pin down exactly why one of them is bad and another is good in terms of objective musical knowledge alone
That's untrue. You could easily point out what's wrong with a piece of music in almost any given context. Either the voice leading is bad, harmony is illogical, or simply uninteresting, the melody is forgettable, form is incoherent, or something alike.
(1/2)

>>126762740
>>126763438
What's harder (but very much possible in most contexts) to explain, is what makes something good, specifically a melody. It's something that music theorists struggle to explain, unlike harmony, rhythm, form - all that can be deduced to a set of rules (which are very flexible). Melodies also follow certain rules, but to lesser extent, especially when it comes to long lyrical melodies. It's hard to explain why some of them work and others don't. So even though you're wrong, I understand why you think that way, and there's some truth to that. Studying alone won't turn any person into Mozart or Beethoven. But no one would turn into Mozart without studying hard either. Some need more studying, some need less, but essentially everyone needs to understand what musicians before them did, to make something worthwhile. Intelligence and personality traits (heritable, genetic traits) matter as much as hard work. And it can be observed that Western Canon of art music was created roughly at the same when Europe was at its intellectual peak, which was around 18-19th century. The IQ or in better terms, general intelligence was observed to reach its peak around that time, and now we're actually in decline, this has to do with selection that industrial revolution has enabled (the Flynn effect is negligible for other reasons, which I can explain if you're interested). Anyway, that's way too off topic at the moment, but it helps one to understand the bigger picture.
>and they can become a million different musical ideas.
That's like saying "a word can become a part of million different sentences, so you can't explain why a given sentence is logical or not"
?
(2/2)

>>126762532
Wasn't Webern modernist without the post-?

>>126763788
Yes he was

>>126763438
> A trained musician could "improve" a popular song by adding some polyphony, more interesing harmonies, better melodic lines, but no one would dare to touch Beethoven
A lot of people wouldn't like pieces of music they care about to be 'improved' even if theoretically it could be done because the 'improvement' isn't really going to be one. It's why a lot of the time people prefer rough performances of artists they like compared to the studio version where everything is as good as it's going to be.

>Neither will they study the great art, that's pretty much guaranteed.
That's a big assumption. Right now there's people studying it because they've been cajoled into doing so by their peers, maybe their family has a history of involvement, etc.

To give an example, there are a lot of vocals that are far from perfect that people love for being what they are. I'd argue this is true outside of popular music as well as within it too.

Slightly related, you can think of how a computer can play any given piece of music that you want it to with MIDI. You can any piece of music, as difficult as you like, with a computer, and you won't deal with issues like an instrument going out of tune, a player being sloppy occasionally, etc, but people don't want that. In any genre of music including classical. Even with the best VSTs no one's going to pay to listen to a concert where a laptop is playing Beethoven.

>>126763481
>That's like saying "a word can become a part of million different sentences, so you can't explain why a given sentence is logical or not"
In that example it isn't about a sentence being 'logical or not', it's about a sentence being logical in various different ways but only a few of those ways standing out from the others in some kind of intangible literary sense

The analogy with writing a sentence can only go so far anyway since music has other dimensions to it, the closest approximation with writing would be talking about the entire piece of writing

>>126763788
True, his death was barely at the start of post-WW2 age. I should have typed Ligeti instead.

>>126763813
>A lot of people wouldn't like pieces of music they care about to be 'improved'
Well, yeah. I guess it's not as simple as that. But had they heard the improved version first, then it would be a fair comparison. My point was that almost any trained musician can write a decent, if not a great chord progression, whereas non-trained musicians usually can't. And that musically popular songs aren't written in strict, logical forms which cannot or rather should not be tinkered with.
>Even with the best VSTs no one's going to pay to listen to a concert where a laptop is playing Beethoven.
That's because 1) no VST can replace a professional, trained musician. At least yet. It can sort of amplify or imitate string sections of orchestras pretty good, but that's about it. There are also acoustic differences between sound produced by an instrument and by a speaker.
>it's about a sentence being logical in various different ways but only a few of those ways standing out from the others
Alright but how does that support your claim that 'there is more to music' (not that I disagree as I already pointed out). It kinda seems out of place. Watch this video, Bernstein (acclaimed conductor/composer) explains something similar, but his perspective is quite different from yours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHIb9tcc9c
Although I don't fully agree with his assessments about Beethoven's skills (particularly of fugal writing and harmony), he makes a somewhat valid point. He's explaining in "easy" terms to not confuse the audience I assume, otherwise there are inaccuracies.

>>126763813
>A lot of people wouldn't like pieces of music they care about to be 'improved'
Well, yeah. I guess it's not as simple as that. But had they heard the improved version first, then it would be a fair comparison. My point was that almost any trained musician can write a decent, if not a great chord progression, whereas non-trained musicians usually can't. And that popular songs aren't written in strict, logical forms which cannot be tinkered with.
>Even with the best VSTs no one's going to pay to listen to a concert where a laptop is playing Beethoven.
That's because 1) no VST can replace a professional, trained musician. At least yet. It can sort of amplify or imitate string sections of orchestras pretty good, but that's about it. 2) There are also acoustic differences between sound produced by an instrument and by a speaker.
>it's about a sentence being logical in various different ways but only a few of those ways standing out from the others
Alright but how does that support your claim that 'there is more to music' (not that I disagree as I already pointed out). It kinda seems out of place. Watch this video, Bernstein (acclaimed conductor/composer) explains something similar, but his perspective is quite different from yours:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HHIb9tcc9c [Open]
Although I don't fully agree with his assessments about Beethoven's skills (particularly of fugal writing and harmony), he makes a somewhat valid point. He's explaining in "easy" terms to not confuse the audience I assume, otherwise there are inaccuracies.

Curing /mu/'s shit taste seems like an impossible task desu. The people that read and post in these threads would inevitably listen to classical someday, and others never will. They are cattle with not a single thought in mind, feeding on slop offered through feeding tubes by multibillionaire jewish companies.

smug classical fags can's accept their shit is boring and outdated

>>126765337
Nah, you're just a tourist fag still stuck in a pop phase.

muh jews

What do you classicalfags think of classically trained musicians that turned to pop or rock music? Like John Cale or Garth Hudson's work? Rock music behind a classically trained ensemble like Van Morrison's Veedon Fleece or Astral Weeks? What classical pieces can replicate the feelings conjured from boundary-breaking, avant-garde songs like Van's 'Madame George', 'You Don't Pull no Punches, but You Don't Push the River', or Tim Buckley's 'I Had a Talk with my Woman', or 'Driftin''.

>>126752922 (OP)
such a based post, although you missed an opportunity at not posting handel for the expression of triumph. the first movement of the 5th doesn't really fit there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyUOhij0pCk

>>126767929
Same thing prog rock fans think when their band starts playing pop, which is basically every single one of them when the 80s hit.

>>126768491
>the first movement of the 5th doesn't really fit there.
Yeah, I thought the same after I was done compiling all that, but still left it there.

>>126768654
You fucking sloppy bitch.

Not listening to a bunch of cucks that need a piece of paper in front of them to play the music lmao, nigga just learn the song

>>126767929
>What classical pieces can replicate the feelings conjured from boundary-breaking, avant-garde songs like Van's 'Madame George', 'You Don't Pull no Punches, but You Don't Push the River', or Tim Buckley's 'I Had a Talk with my Woman', or 'Driftin''.
Any classical piece can replicate it because rock is for children and mentally stunted adults that cannot convey any emotion that is in any way meaningful

sorry lil bro but real music is tuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgayxOF4Y7E

>>126767929
I just listened to 'Madam George', finished it, and I honestly can't understand what it's trying to convey without looking at the lyrics. Feel free to check links from the OP, or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47m2naIWRWI&list=OLAK5uy_kfzaVO6_XmrgzvxtFfRgHOfOu7J7xp5Sw&index=1
>>126768677
Many of them don't even need the score though. Retard.

>>126768756
That's not music at all.

>>126768756
Repent

>>126762634
The fact that they know more about music than you?

>>126770259
Kek

>>126762634
What, exactly?

Good thread.

>>126771934
Agreed.

>>126765337
>boring
Boredom is a subjective emotional state of the listener. It says more about your level of attention, education, and taste than about the object itself. You wouldn't call advanced mathematics "boring" simply because you don't understand it either because that would reveal your ignorance, not a flaw in mathematics.
>outdated
Meaningless term when applied to art. The idea of "outdated" applies to tools and technologies which are replaced by superior practical solutions. Art isn't a tool designed for efficiency or functionality, its value is aesthetic, intellectual, emotional, symbolic: all domains where the past remains fully alive.
In conclusion, you are a retarded faggot with shit taste.

>>126773426
Correct.

>>126760176
Because that sound design faggot turboautist techfag retard always shits up every single classical thread with his nonsense about timbre, gets absolutely obliterated to smithereens by actual, coherent arguments that are based on reality and not bias, and inevitably stops posting. I predicted it here >>126759901
As always, this retarded faggot >>126759647 >>126759786 stopped posting because he has run out of fallacies and shitty circular logic. It always ends this way. I will welcome the next threads about classical music that he will invariably shit up with his retarded nonsense, and this stupid fucking dance will repeat.

>>126752922 (OP)
I really really like the chamber music of Bach, Scarlatti, Purcell, Handel, Corelli, and Telemann but I can't find anything new out of it. Digging for novelty is becoming more and more difficult with these Baroque composers, and the real problem is that I can't stand choral or orchestral music. Classical singing is indistinct and ugly, whether it's soprano down to baritones; it's especially bad when more than two voices join in because it becomes mush, much like the bulk of string and brass sections in larger symphonic pieces. So I've been relegated to small ensemble chamber music, and it is nice but I'm afraid I'm squeezing blood out of a rock. I also don't particularly enjoy the sound of pianos; they too are really boring and frankly ugly in comparison to the light and delicate touch of the clavier or harpsichord. Later music also tends to be dissonant and artistically inhuman, completely at odds with the genteel sensibilities of a lute or harpsichord study. There's no major difference to my ears between Merzbow and Stravinsky. The former is merely carrying out the logical conclusion of the latter.

So what do, anon? What's left to listen to? Is there some secret, obscure music I'm not aware of?

>>126774065
Disliking orchestral music is one of the most unbelievable things I've ever heard. I could see someone disliking chamber music for its complexity and polyphonic tendencies, and some vocal music at first, if they are not used to it. And even keyboard instruments altogether. But orchestra? You are objecting to one of the greatest inventions of the western civilization. There is nothing better than the sound of dozens of trained musicians bringing together a whole universe of music. No matter how many times you tried, you have to keep trying and do not come back until it "clicks". Never thought orchestral music would need "clicking", I'm sorry but that's embarrassing. Listen to Beethoven's 5th or 6th(both in OP), many times over, diffetent recordings, daily like medicine, that'e the best advice I can give.
>it becomes mush, much like the bulk of string and brass sections in larger symphonic pieces.
No it does not become a "mush", it becomes a new, grand and powerful sound of orchestra. Something even normiest of normalfags can appreciate in movie and game soundtracks.

Also, AFTER you're done with some orchestral music, go ahead and listen to one of the greatest works in entire chamber repertoire, namely Schubert's 14th string quartet " Death and the Maiden"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpphG25bV-U&list=OLAK5uy_lVJldi7QXBqYHH9CPD3agCMyJmh9dIewg&index=1
There's much to discover in chamber music that isn't Stravinsky-like, cold and dissonant. And you can't make me believe that this is ugly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAiH9XhTHc

>You have to like classical music because....because you just do OK?

>>126774998
Am I talking to a chat bot or something? How did you parse my post in this way at all?
>There's much to discover in chamber music that isn't Stravinsky-like, cold and dissonant
Nigger, you just posted a Bach orchestral work with a single vocalist as an example of presumably modern chamber music. This is meant to be listened to in a grand hall, not at your bedside or the living room, unlike the Well-tempered Clavier. Also, the problem with her singing is indistinct pronunciation and the tendency to melisma. I just hate melismatic singing, it's ugly and the music loses the words. Music should be entirely musical, poetry should be atonal and written. I don't care about tradition. Mixing them together leads to one side being degraded. The solo harpsichord or lute is the highest form of art to me but the conventions of the Baroque composers I mentioned are getting tiresome, hence my question for something... different. And no, bowed strings are not the solution, especially not in great numbers where they lose character entirely.
>Never thought orchestral music would need "clicking"
You worm, I played this music in concert bands and orchestras. I'm sick of it. I enjoyed it to some extent but it was a rare piece that could truly exemplify a soloist and give the melody a proper voicing; God forbid your piece is overly-thematic, because then all you're left with are vague motifs and a complete lack of solid ground. Music is about the expression of abstract ideas that can't be uttered in words, and the clarity of this expression can be gauged much the same way as rhetorical speech. Grand orchestras lose clarity, and while you can say that the sum is greater than the parts, I call it mush in most cases. It's like taking a finely cooked steak, poatoes, and asparagus and putting in a blender with a glass of wine. I'm sure it nourishes you but it's revolting.

>>126752922 (OP)
Not listening to any of that. Get mogged nerd
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsFzHpBlugs

>>126775137
>an example of presumably modern chamber music.
No? I posted that as an example of beautiful classical singing you imbecile.
>This is meant to be listened to in a grand hall
Absolute pseudo intellectual nonsense. Total bullshit. With the right set up and a great recording, you literally wouldn't be able to tell if you're in a hall or not. Some studio recordings take it so far with clarity that retards like you started criticizing it for being 'too clean' as opposed to what's heard in the halls.
>unlike the Well-tempered Clavier.
Says who, some faggot on 4chan
>indistinct pronunciation
1) are you native German? If so, go argue with thousands of vocalists and the corpse of Bach himself, I have little to say to an autistic kraut 2) you're not? Well, I'm self taught, and can understand German quite well, and I completely disagree with that claim. Composers after 19th century simply could not write vocal and choral music because of this exact issue, which is not present in Bach. You have to provide a solid argument when presenting such an outrageous claim.
>and the music loses the words.
??? Lol?
> I'm sick of it.
So get the fuck out of this thread you deaf retarded concern troll

>>126775074
It's your choice. But what we're pointing out is that you're choosing slop mcdonalds basedburger (pop) instead of highly nutritious delicacy (classical). I suggest you read the OP before posting in a threas, it's a common courtesy.
>>126775182
Your loss, melanated mutant

>>126775233
>basedburger
What the hell is a "basedburger", intellectual?

>>126775263
sóyburger, newfag

>>126775233>But what we're pointing out is that you're choosing slop mcdonalds basedburger (pop) instead of highly nutritious delicacy (classical). I suggest you read the OP before posting in a threas, it's a common courtesy.

>>126752922 (OP)
>effort effort

>It's your choice. But what we're pointing out is that you're choosing slop mcdonalds basedburger (pop) instead of highly nutritious delicacy (classical). I suggest you read the OP before posting in a threas, it's a common courtesy.

>>126752922 (OP)
If you're so big brained about classical, give me some tracks that are trippy as hell. Interwoven apreggios like heavy rainfall that my mind can turn into a kaleidoscope.

>>126752930
Pretty shitty unconvincing examples of anger

Mogs all classical ever made

>>126775999
Checked for true

>>126752922 (OP)
argentina is a paradise

>>126752922 (OP)
I'm classically retarded but I want to find more music with the adventurous spirit of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYapTTMN2bo

>>126775780
You might enjoy something like Chopin etudes, try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEK_dCSto8o
>>126775826
No these are excellent examples of anger. You can look for more dissonant examples yourself.
>>126775999
How many times are you going to post the same bait?
>>126776617
Sametranny

>>126779037
I'm not sure what you're familiar with, but check out Dvorak's 9th symphony, cello concerto and other chamber works, and here's couple chamber works in same spirit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEeE1pLKzSU&list=OLAK5uy_mIAq9oDandl4xSeH3g2rMTTiYJZvsNiQI&index=5
(Paired with beautiful Brahms' piano quintet, although more on sorrowful/nostalgic side)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfVEbNdeCwY&list=OLAK5uy_nK9YG9QJmqThkFKB4LlJI-ya6tQoEyTJI&index=1

And couple orchestral works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u1u_xAYg4o&list=OLAK5uy_mYFL7dnQoVrM4xTpqGjSkW4FnDYU_i_x8&index=16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpT3s4CGJt4&list=OLAK5uy_kA7hjMXOqMJ_3KvVZxcOE66CdLTtryv-M&index=9

>>126775725
reddit HATES classical though

>>126779403
This

>>126779403
They have a classical subreddit with 2.4million followers as well as several much less active subreddits dedicated

>>126779445
There's a subreddit for everything. And redditors hate Mozart, they hate classical music.

>>126775182
>>126775999
Ironically, and despite some of their cartoonish works, both Zappa and Wilson wanted to be considered "serious" composers so, so bad.

>>126775780
Solo piano examples only, but three very different tracks that sound pretty trippy and/or kaleidoscopic in their own way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHP9Az5V8Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqjr5wgtztQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4WWyGWGhTA

>>126752922 (OP)
>The beauty of classical music is that anyone can connect with it
even brown people?

>>126758259
why do you fags always type 4chan posts like they're book reports lmao

>>126779569
Listen, buddy. I have history with that retard whom I replied to. We've been through this dance a few times. You don't know what's going on, and this is above your pay grade. Don't even @me.

>>126779566
>people

>>126775780
>>126779554
Thought of some orchestral stuff too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLxa5BL2e1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJBZ7jeU2YI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOjQ4j9bLvg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPr4vRRQKvQ

>>126779512
False

>>126758259
So strings, reeds, percussion ( used less than in other genres), keyed instruments which are just strings again and the human voice only done in the limited style. All these things are used in other genres as well on top of even more

>>126779631
Which part of that is false

>>126779582
I see

>>126752922 (OP)
I do not care for the aesthetics of classical.

>>126762532
I lean mainly towards Minimalists, "New Music", and Fluxus myself.

>>126779910
That is a personal issue you must overcome to appreciate greater art and music. What exavtly do you mean by "aesthetics" anyway

>>126780049
If he doesn’t like the aesthetics he doesn’t like them there’s nothing for him to overcome. More complicated does not mean greater art

>>126780133
But what is "aethethics" in this context? I want him to elaborate on that.
>More complicated does not mean greater art
And why are you putting words in my mouth, mister?
Greater simply means GREATER. Art crafted by a genius who understands the language of music. Music which is flawless in every aspect, form, harmony, arrangement, orchestration, expressiveness, on and on.

Comparing classical music to non-classical is like comparing Neuschwanstein castle to an african mud-hut, a delicious steak to a donut, a michelin-starred meal to a microwave dinner, The Creation of Adam to a child's first attempt at painting, a supercomputer to an abacus or a diamond to a pebble.

Listen more, speak less, child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SAcV-IK03I&list=OLAK5uy_laVS9YvtveL5gtvAWTsPxU1u8Xcyu-ozM&index=1

>>126752922 (OP)
Blessed thread

>>126779654
Like I said, these instruments, and how they're used, are very different.
>Keyed instruments which are just strings again
No. People who actually understand music are aware of the Hornbostel-Sachs instrumental classification, where an organ is clearly an aerophone, while a violin and a piano are both chordophones... but in practice, one is mostly bowed and the other is struck by hammers, making it far more percussive in nature. Harpsichords are plucked, celestas don't even have strings (they have metallic bars). So no, they aren't "just strings again".
>the human voice only done in the limited style
Wrong again, dipshit. You have
>recitatives (speech-like)
>arias (highly melodic, ornamented)
>choral textures (complex polyphony)
>extended vocal techniques (20th century Sprechstimme, whispers, shouts, growls, spoken word, tone clusters, overtones, multiphonics, etc.)
>pure gestural or phonetic vocalizations
In classical music, the human voice is extremely diverse.
>All these things are used in other genres as well on top of even more
As I've already explained in this thread, you're committing the fallacy of equating number of available instruments in theory with actual timbral variety in practice. It's not this flat, one-dimensional idea that if there are more instruments, there's automatically more variety. That's demonstrably false. It's what you actually DO with those instruments; how they're combined (orchestration), balance of forces, dynamics, articulation, registers, extended techniques, texture and layering, temporal unfolding over long forms, etc., all of which classical music blows every other genre out of the fucking water.
And that's not even touching the fact that classical music was the first to use electronic instruments, invented electroacoustic music, musique concrete, etc. It's no contest, really.
Oh, and in pop music, it's more often than not sampling instruments, so it's not even fucking accurate to say they have "all that and more".

>>126779910
I don't even know if you guys realize what you're arguing for or against here.
>aesthetics of classical
What are these? The fact that people wear suits and perform on stage? If that's what you're referring to, then okay, that's at least coherent, but kind of weird. You don't need to be a part of it or go to concerts. You can listen to the music at home.
If it's something else, then it's more inexplicable. What exactly are the "aesthetics of classical"? If you look at history, techniques and aesthetics are constantly changing. There is barely a single, unifying aesthetic when it comes to classical music. Yes, it's one tradition, but you have literal opposing aesthetics coexisting throughout its entire history
>>126780133
See above. Also, nobody is arguing "more complicated = better". There plenty of "simple = better" aspects across composers, genres, forms, movements. The entire Classical period is basically built on the idea that simple, symmetrical, balanced is good. Not exactly complicated. I mean, yeah, the works may be complex at times, especially towards the end of that era, but other movements are simple in different ways, like Satie and Minimalism, and complicated in others. Again, there's isn't really a unifying idea of "complexity = good" in classical music. It's far too diverse to reduce like that.

>>126779654
When is the last fucking time you've heard reeds in any music?

>>126781215
>Again, there's isn't really a unifying idea of "complexity = good" in classical music.
That's not really true is it?

>No. People who actually understand music are aware of the Hornbostel-Sachs instrumental classification, where an organ is clearly an aerophone, while a violin and a piano are both chordophones... but in practice, one is mostly bowed and the other is struck by hammers, making it far more percussive in nature. Harpsichords are plucked, celestas don't even have strings (they have metallic bars). So no, they aren't "just strings again".
>>the human voice only done in the limited style
>Wrong again, dipshit. You have
>>recitatives (speech-like)
>>arias (highly melodic, ornamented)
>>choral textures (complex polyphony)
>>extended vocal techniques (20th century Sprechstimme, whispers, shouts, growls, spoken word, tone clusters, overtones, multiphonics, etc.)
>>pure gestural or phonetic vocalizations
>In classical music, the human voice is extremely diverse.
>>All these things are used in other genres as well on top of even more
>As I've already explained in this thread, you're committing the fallacy of equating number of available instruments in theory with actual timbral variety in practice. It's not this flat, one-dimensional idea that if there are more instruments, there's automatically more variety. That's demonstrably false. It's what you actually DO with those instruments; how they're combined (orchestration), balance of forces, dynamics, articulation, registers, extended techniques, texture and layering, temporal unfolding over long forms, etc., all of which classical music blows every other genre out of the fucking water.
>And that's not even touching the fact that classical music was the first to use electronic instruments, invented electroacoustic music, musique concrete, etc. It's no contest, really.
>Oh, and in pop music, it's more often than not sampling instruments, so it's not even fucking accurate to say they have "all that and more".

>>126781350
I just explained, did I not? Baroque music was complex, or "complicated", but the Classical era followed it and wanted to be clear, balanced, symmetrical, and simple. Complexity later on became a tool, not a value in itself. Whole movements actively rejected complexity, like Minimalism, Neoclassicism, whatever Erik Satie was doing, folk-inspired music, etc.
Don't conflate "some classical works are complex" with "classical music as a whole values complexity by definition". That isn't true.

>>126781377
I accept your concession.

>>126781390
How does it feel to have made the most upvoted post ever here on r/4chan? How will you be spending your reddit gold?

>>126753158
>It isn't, sincerely I hope you understand that someday.
anon people into music almost always have an iq of around 85 and/or mentally busted up in more than one way

>>126781380
>movements actively rejected complexity, like Minimalism, Neoclassicism, whatever Erik Satie was doing, folk-inspired music, etc.
Weird fringe examples that no classical fan values
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner etc all very complex music.
> "classical music as a whole values complexity by definition"
That is 100% true especially compared to other genres like pop

Can you imagine saying classical ackshually uses electronic instruments and then holding up avant garde bullshit like Stockhausen, Xenakis, Electroacoustic(!) and music concrete? To be that seems dishonest. If I were that anon I'd take the L and say "Well Ok classical doesn't really use electronic instruments

>>126781462
did Stockhausen ever make a good piece of music

>>126781520
Yeah

>>126781439
NTA. But you're terribly wrong.
>all very complex music.
Factually incorrect. If Bach was striving for "complexity" why didn't he write 6 voice fugues only and nothing else? Why did he write inventions and sinfonias at all? Why did he write this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO6Zcrnopgw&list=OLAK5uy_lmv_swqd1gGSOTnFRkKHru75zMHSPMWZg&index=15
Why did Mozart write some of the most accessible, catchy music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKs1WpMJ0X8

Why are the most famous melodies/motifs by classical composers (e.g. the melody from Turkish Marc, Swan Lake, arpeggios of Moonlight Sonata, themes from 5th symphony, chorale of 9th)?

Composers(especially from classical era), in fact, tried to write very accessible music that you'd like on the first listen. Because they didn't have recordings back then, people would only hear a piece once or twice in their life. Some composers didn't even get to hear their pieces played in their life. But indeed they were sophisticated, much like intricate designs of some European castles. There was no effort to make it "complex", just beautiful and as expressive as possible. In rare cases it was relatively academic and complex, as you say. Say, Beethoven's string quartets.

>>126781608
Why don't you ask the people at large how "accessible and catchy" they think that Mozart piece is? What grade is it? It's a 20 minute piece far far from simple or beginner piece. I'm guessing no one outside of classical fans holds that opinion of anything apart from the Turkish March.

Bach is very complicated by an large. His most celebrated pieces are all the complicated. No one talks aboit Minuet in G. When people talk about how great classical is they talk about the harmonic complexity, the thematic development , the forms, the counterpoint etc etc No one talks about how simple it is., it blows my mind that you stupid bastards would even try and argue this point. Classical is valued for its complexity and intellectualism accept this and move on

>>126752930
>>126752922 (OP)
Do zoomers have brain worms?

>126781418
Here's your (You).
>>126781439
>Weird fringe examples that no classical fan values
Vague, unquantifiable, and irrelevant. Also factually wrong.
CPE Bach, for example, wrote much simpler music than his father, valuing symmetry and clarity. As did the entire Classical period. Mozart also wrote plenty of simple pieces. Is his Sonata Facile somehow a lesser work than his 15th Sonata just because it's "simpler"?
Calling Neoclassicism a "fringe movement" is also laughably wrong. It was one of the major movement of the 20th century. Serialism, for a while, dominated academia, but Neoclassicism dominated concert life, audience appeal, and many of the major composers active between the wars. To claim that people don't value Prokofiev, Respighi, or Stravinsky is simply wrong. Not to mention the countless neoclassical-lite tendencies already present in earlier composers like Grieg and Tchaikovsky, who also wrote many simple, clear, and symmetrical works that explicitly REJECTED complexity.
>That is 100% true especially compared to other genres like pop
Again, irrelevant. I'm not comparing classical music to pop. I'm making a universal claim about classical music itself. It does not, by definition, necessarily value complexity. There are hundreds of examples that prove that statement wrong.

So I have to listen to Classical until I enjoy it? I don't feel like doing that, specially for some internet autist.

>>126781917
do it out of respect for yourself, not for somebody else

>>126781925
I've listened to some before and I didn't care for it. Not going to try again. Same reason I don't like beer or stinky cheeses.

>>126781939
what a baby

>>126781939
>I don't like beer
its good for you, you'll get used to it

>>126781917
>>126781939
Have you really liked nothing so far? Not even the famous Chopin nocturnes no.1 and 2? Or Beethoven's 5th? Moonlight Sonata?

>>126781682
That's technically what I did. I assessed the catchiness of Mozart's melody (40th symphony theme, Turkish March, whatever), by pointing out how popular it is. Everybody knows it. Even people who dislike classical know it.
>apart from the Turkish March.
And the 11th sonata is one of his best sonatas and well regarded in any serious discussion. But people only know about Turkish March not because it is his greatest or catchies melody, but almost by chance, because Mozart is FULL of catchy melodies. Mozart is nothing but catchy melodies even at his most "complex" writing (e.g. fugue of the Jupitar finale, blows your socks off once you hear the symphony in its entirety and realize how themes are brought back together as a fugue). But it requires a bit more attention than your average pop song. It's almost like watching a movie, you closely listen and enjoy, not put it in the background.
>His most celebrated pieces are all the complicated.
False. This is one of, if not the most celebrated arias of all time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAiH9XhTHc
And there's nothing crazy going on relative to Art of Fugue for example.

And people do talk about inventions. Inventions are far from complex. Maybe not Minuets since they're so short and serve the purpose of teaching more than anything.
>Classical is valued for its complexity
What even is complexity. Is playing two note melody where one is quiet and other is loud more complex than playing both at the same volume? Is this dynamic relationship more complex than adding a third note to the melody?

I'd say dynamics introduces more complexity, yes, but not in a way to make it less accessible. In fact, it makes it MORE accessible.

>>126752922 (OP)
great thread anon. anybody have good book recs on the history of classical music?

>>126781910
>CPE Bach, for example, wrote much simpler music than his father,
The funny thing is you people could have picked Ligeti's Musica Ricercata 1 and 2 or 4 33 or something as an example of simplicity but instead you choose fucking C.P.E Bach

>>126782299
https://www.classicfm.com/composers/bach/all-time-best-pieces-music/

None of these are particuarly simple
>>126781910
Well that's what we're talking about, classical's merit relative to other genres. Asserting it's supremacy over all others is the purpose of this thread no?

Listen to Blowin in the Wind or Mr Tambourine Man as examples of music that is actually simple

>>126781947
Why should I force myself to like something I don't like?

>>126781956
All alcohol tastes like shit. I'm not going to keep drinking it until I develop a taste for it.

>>126782157
Did not care for any of them.

>>126782623
The video Iinked is literally on that list lol.
And yes, many of them are simple. Including almost every single prelude on Well Temperer Clavier, and fugues are rarely too complicated. Once you know how they work, you just sit back, relax and enjoy the hell out of them. If yoi're genuinely interested and not arguing for the sake of arguing, check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yfHY22Ew1c
And now, you can understand almsot every single Bach fugue.

>>126782696
>Did not care for any of them.
Huh? Not even Ride of the Valkyries? Clair de lune? Ein klain nachtmusik?
Every fucking normie likes these pieces dude. What do you even listen to, rap? If so, I guess that would explain the mental retardation.

>>126782696
You can always have apple juice

>>126782598
Okay, then Ligeti's Musica Ricercata, the one where it's just one note... fine, whatever. It doesn't really matter which specific examples we pick, there are many. I made my point clear, and that part isn't even the core of my argument.
>>126782623
I don't know what the goal of OP's thread was; I can only speak for what I originally said:
>there's isn't really a unifying idea of "complexity = good" in classical music
which is true, because it doesn't apply universally to every classical piece, composer, or even genre/movement. Of course classical music is generally more complex, diverse, rich, and musically interesting than pop music, that's obvious. My point was simply that complexity isn't some unifying core value across the entire tradition. That's a universal claim about classical music itself, not a comparison with other genres.
But some people are still disputing that, which seems a bit silly to me, especially when you have really popular pieces, like Bach's Prelude in C major or Satie's Gymnopedies, which are quite simple by any standard. But apparently, those somehow don't count for some reason.

>>126782763
>Huh? Not even Ride of the Valkyries? Clair de lune? Ein klain nachtmusik?
They're just lame.
>Every fucking normie likes these pieces dude.
I've never met a normie that likes classical. The vast majority of normies just know it exists but don't listen to it.
>What do you even listen
Guitarshit.

>>126782434
Taruskin

I'm too low IQ for classical

>>126782808
>They're just lame.
In what way are they lame?
You sound like another sperg we had in this thread: "You start from "classical music is bad" as your conclusion, and then invent reasons to support it"
Classical music has infinitely more to offer besides those pieces, but every single person that likes music (excluding cRap) can appreciate at least something about them, from which they can discover their taste and listen to similar pieces (e.g. if you like Wagnerian, epic music you'll listen to his overtures and preludes, or even operas). You're either being dishonest or what you listen to can barely even be classified as music

good thread, fren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ3zzNI0oRc

>>126783021
>Uhm you HAVE to like classical because....because you just DO ok?

>>126783261
Incoherent post.

>>126783261
Perfectly coherent post

>>126783852
tf is that

>>126784049

A mass collective multidimensional
experience that happened in the 90s
hundreds of millions experienced it
from 1992-1996 multiple times
i cant believe u dont even know
what it is (why tf u playin if u do?)

>>126784325
>>126784049

hundreds of
millions if not billions

>>126784325
>>126784336
Meds

>>126779170
Thank you, anon.

>>126782915
You don't need a high IQ for classical. It helps, but it's not necessary. You do need a soul, though.

>>126785043
Correct.

Mahler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAlDsUF8LoQ&list=OLAK5uy_lqkeEWGC4g4A0QtVhwXdDKa5P7sXjgtPs&index=3 my personal favorite

>>126785043
It's the opposite, classical fags don't have a soul, they just pretend to have one.

What classical piece reaches the same libertine heights as The Velvet Underground's 'Sister Ray'? Something as sadistic and manic as this torrential storm of a song.

>>126787483
Found the retarded demon projecting his own emptiness again.

>>126787483
Wrong. Niggers hate classical, so I'm going to jot it down as something that needs a soul to understand. Are you a nigger?
>>126787739
Sadistic and manic? Probably something like Wozzeck, Rite of Spring, Poem of Ecstasy or Bartok's String Quartet No. 4.

>>126787483
Your argument would be more valuable if you had actually listened to classical. You haven't. I think that proves you have no soul yourself, you're morally gray and a liar.
>>126787739
>The Velvet Underground's 'Sister Ray
This is so basic (and terrible) I couldn't go wrong with anything. Start with the music in the OP. What other anon is recommending might be too harsh and dissonant for you, but try that if you're curious.

stay in your thread schizo don't bubble over into others

>>126789386
Who? Where?

>>126782808
>They're just lame.
Filtered

>>126787448
Based. Check out Sokolov's Ocean Etude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vA8qX_p11w

Bump

>>126789035
>>126788674
prime examples of people with no soul pretending to have one.

>>126793554
>no u
That's all you got?

>>126793562
I don't argue with people who pretend to have a soul, sorry soul larper.

>>126793586
>I don't argue
You seem to be putting a lot of effort into not arguing. All I see is projection.

>>126793554
Brown hands typed this post. Niggers hate classical, so you must be a nigger.

>>126793628
Reported for racism outside b

>>126787739
nothing nigga. classical is just full of squares playing like robots

>>126752922 (OP)
honestly the main reason I haven't gotten into classical is because I'm too lazy to go through different performances
These artists exist on recordings strictly through others and I find it intimidating to consume when there's so many versions of everything

>>126793970
What does that even mean

>>126793994
You can just stick to 1 recording per work as long as it's fine for you lol. You REALLY don't have to go through different recordings. Just start listening and enjoy, I guarantee you won't regret it. You just have to find the "right" piece, and truly get into it by repeatedly playing and paying attention to music.

>>126794010
How do I know what's the best one to pick though?
Maybe I do overthink this stuff

>>126794017
Easy. Google "X best recording" e.g. "Beethoven 7th symphony best recording". You'll get results from websites like classical-music.com, grammophone, the talkclassical.com forum where people discuss their favorite recorings. Just pick the first one and listen. There's also classicstoday.com - you just type in composer/work and you'll get recordings with ratings, pick highest rated and listen to that.
Don't overthink.

>>126775999
Smile as well

>>126794017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn-UOVxOmq4

>>126752922 (OP)
I don't like the sound of classical instruments.
>Joy
>Triumph
>Love
>Peace
These are the most normie emotions. The best music is the one that makes you feel something very strongly but there's no word for the emotion.

>>126797598
>normie emotions
There's no such thing as "normie emotions", reddit. And there are others >>126752930. Anything can make you feel strongly, even joy and triumph, let alone love. And there's a whole bunch of classical music that I can't find words to describe, as they express wide range of emotions. The fact is, classical is inherently more expressive than any pop genre. It's up to you, whether you want to experience better music or not. It does take effort, but it's the most rewarding.

>>126797598
>I don't like the sound of classical instruments.
This seems like a very silly and narrow statement considering how wide the variety of orchestration styles, textures, and instrumentation actually is. But fine, fair enough, I guess.
>These are the most normie emotions.
There aren't really normie or non-normie emotions. What separates normies from people who are capable of deeper aesthetic or emotional experiences isn't which emotions they feel, but how deeply, authentically, and fully they feel or express them.
Triumph doesn't exactly sound like an everyday normie emotion, unless you're confusing it with pride. Same goes for love or peace, considering how much petty hatred, jealousy, and insecurity most people walk around with. I wouldn't exactly call those normie emotions.
>The best music is the one that makes you feel something very strongly but there's no word for the emotion.
Pretty sure OP was simplifying things for the sake of the thread, assigning one label to individual movements from complex, multi-movement works. It's obviously reductive, but acceptable for the purpose of this thread and to get their point across.
Again, classical music is so musically and aesthetically diverse that you could easily point to hundreds of works where you do feel "something very strongly but there's no word the emotion". So this just comes off as you not understanding what OP was actually doing.

>>126797737
More important question is, why are you so proud of liking something? You aren't adding anything to the world, you don't matter.

>>126798396
>More important question is, why are you so proud of liking something?
Aesthetics isn't just about liking something. Liking something is easy, but recognizing greatness requires judgment. That's what good taste actually is. It's not that meaningful on its own, but it potentially reflects better judgment in other areas. Regardless, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
>You aren't adding anything to the world, you don't matter.
This sounds very vague, irrelevant, and insecure. On one hand, I don't really care about "contributing to humanity", if that's what you mean. On the other, you know very little about my worldview. So not really the gotcha you were hoping for.

Coping and seething classical sister

>>126799215
>"seething"
>no arguments, no bump for effortOP

>effortOP
Eh not really, it's pretty standard "aren't I so clever for liking classical?" fart huffing, you can get that anywhere if you care to look

>>126799215
... he screams into the void, having nothing left to say.

>>126799423
>aren't I so clever for liking classical?
No. It's just "give it a try"
t. OP.

>>126799423
Yeah, so standard you can't actually argue with any of it and have to resort to memes and buzzwords, lol.

>>126799464
>No heckin argument!!
This is a shitposting website, so I'm happy to call you a faggot and leave it at that. What would I gain from trying to convince anonymous retards anything anway?

>>126799486
>This is a shitposting website
It's a website where people post whatever they like. Depends on the thread; this is clearly one that tries to raise the bar.
>What would I gain from trying to convince anonymous retards anything anway?
What could you possibly convince OP or anyone ITT of? That they're somehow wrong about classical music? That you're not retarded? I doubt it.
>and leave it at that
So leave it, lol. Thanks for your contribution.

>>126799514
>What could you possibly convince OP or anyone ITT
So why bring up "no argument" then hmm?
You definetly don't sound seething by the way

>>126799523
To see if you'd at least make an effort and embarrass yourself. You didn't, but you still managed to anyway.

Martha Goddess Argerich

>>126781520
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mI-HP5xdS0

Bumperino

I don't really start to resonate with classical until the romantic period, but classical as a genre is such a broad category with so many different composers spanning centuries, all speaking something in the language of music to reach out to another's musical soul, so you're bound to find something for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tisvEpblig

goofy ass wypipo shit

>>126752922 (OP)
I'm just gonna fucking say it

thank you

>>126752922 (OP)
what about confusion?

you have a general stay in it, spergy

>>126752922 (OP)
>There's a whole universe of music waiting for you to explore it.
There's a lot of garbage too.

>>126806173
>>126806453
Greetings, niggers.

>>126806748
You can say that about anything so by that logic why bother doing anything at all?

>>126804825
Based and true.

>>126806394
That's a hard one. There are certainly moments of confusion in many places, especially when composers are "searching for the key" in development section (e.g. right before the loud climax in Eroica symphony, development section of Mahler 6th 1st mov). But an entire piece that evokes confusion is hard. Clair de lune, but you probably know that one. Schumann's dreamlike Fantasies come in mind. Listen to this and op.17. It might take some time to click.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO3htDaEfpU&list=OLAK5uy_lIDchDb0w_i95rKdnREp3MYUgpSdq1oQ0&index=3
Less confusing and more immediately appealing are Chopin's nocturnes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3q-WfZBDvc&list=OLAK5uy_myWMkUNKxUfhwuj59LjCewqYqBXMADN2U&index=8
God I love this nocturne.
Also Berceuse, maybe Fantasy in F minor and lastly, 4th Ballade is the most beautiful and ethereal piece of music for the piano. Ballades were my gateway drug to classical ;)
>>126804825
>>126806356
Blessed.
>>126806748
Yeah, that's what /mu/core and popular music is. Classical music is as far from that as possible.

>>126807492
>Yeah, that's what /mu/core and popular music is. Classical music is as far from that as possible.
I mean, let's be honest here for a second: there's a lot of second and third rate classical music from literal nobodies from any time period that gets pushed on streaming platforms for dumb reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the music, usually identity politics. This wouldn't be a problem if people just stuck with the standard repertoire (which does, in fact, have some subpar music, like Bolero or Canon in D) and the actual greats, but beginners might not know any better and just follow whatever corporations or musicians are pushing for whatever agenda.
Like, if somebody's exposure to classical music was Clara Schumann (woman), Florence Price (black woman), Leonard Bernstein (gay and Jewish), and Ludovico Einaudi (modern minimalist slop, not even classical) because they got shilled online, they'd walk away with a pretty skewed view of what classical music actually is.

>>126806394
For the more conventional stuff, probably something like
>Schubert's Der Doppelgänger
Weird, haunting harmony and unsettling emotional content.
>Schumann's Kreisleriana & Humoreske
Rapid shifts of mood, constantly flipping between whimsical, manic, and serious.
>Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique
Progressively disorienting and surreal semi-autobiographical program piece: romantic suffering, opium hallucinations, a ball, a pastoral scene, a march to the scaffold, ending with a grotesque Witches' Sabbath

Unless you want that confusion to be more direct in the form of extreme dissonance and fragmented structure, in that case there's stuff like
>Schoenberg's Ewartung
>Xenakis's Metastaseis
>Ligeti's Atmospheres

https://youtu.be/XU1kOOunlRk?si=VIo2-p4vkMOjqINU
Tchaikovsky solved classical. No one has topped it since

>>126807760
Yes there are many stinkers especially from mid/late 20th century. But even lesser known composers that get pushed for agena purely, especially Clara Schumann's pieces, are way better and more enjoyable than pop music.

But I was talking about the standard repertoire mainly. It doesn't really have any subpar music in major genres. Bolero and the canon are very tiny exceptions, and they are not from "major genres" like a symphony, concerto, string quartet or a piano sonata.

>>126807889
Rachmaninoff's 2nd and 3rd are much better honestly. Not that I dislike Tchaikovsky's, it has the greatest opening of all time, but Rachmaninoff's are truly masterpieces. The introduction from Tchaikovsky's is never used again which is a shame. And Tchaikovsky always struggled with form, you can hear that well from the concerto. His violin concerto on the other hand, top tier.

Bumping a based thread.

Has any pretentious classical nigger ever tried to expand their taste or explore new music outside of their norm which they were likely raised on? if so what is your faviorite and i dont wanna hear about no black metal or jazz for obvios faggotry reasons.

>>126758373
This is an excellent point

>>126810970
Apart from the fact that it completely fails to defend the original "limited timbral variety" claim. It's a category error: confusing timbral variety with sound design capability. Like saying oil painting has limited variety because it doesn't use Photoshop filters. His entire view reduces timbre to sound design and assumes that absence of it equals inferiority, which is absurdly narrow and retarded. But other than that, an excellent post, yeah.

>>126811307
Nah I don't agree with that

>>126811307
It also fails in its own logic. Acoustic instruments are physical filters by design. But ignoring that, classical music uses mutes frequently. Baroque trumpets had no valves or modern mutes, but horn players used hand-stopping to modify timbre, a primitive kind of mute/filter effect directly in the bell. The idea that "classical music rejected mutes and filter effects" is historically false even as far back as baroque. Then you have Harmon mutes, cup mutes, straight mutes all over Mahler, Shostakovich, Ravel, Stravinsky and many others. So what in the actual fuck are you talking about? >>126810970 >>126758373

>>126811392
Can't argue with that. See >>126759901

I think what bothers me is that people in this thread refuse to accept that they're love of Classical is a subjective. No, it HAS to be objective there's no possible reasons for disliking it (to any agree) these are all wrong and all fallacies that have to be debunked. I would conceed it's more intelligent and complex than other forms of music. But the emotions it entails, how you react and experience it, how great it is these are all subjective.

>>126810886
>pretentious
There is nothing pretentious. This is your inellectual insecurity and fear of missing out because others appreciate something you don't get.
Listening to pop music is not "expanding" your taste, at all. Quite the opposite.
>for obvios faggotry reasons.
Why? What makes you think these two stand out of from rest of pop music? I've actually listened to both before I got into classical. Along with many other pop genres. Rock, metal, edm, you name it. Exceptions are hip hop, which isn't even music, and low effort punk garbage. Honestly I don't listen to any of that anymore, I rarely if ever find myself humming to or thinking of non-classical.
>>126810970
Nah, that was refuted countless of times. It is an argumeny by people that have never listened to classical, or listened to very little of it.
>>126811307
>Like saying oil painting has limited variety because it doesn't use Photoshop filters.
Kek exactly.

>>126811525
It wasn't refuted, I wasn't impressed by any of the replies. None of the points were satisfactorily adressed

>>126809239
Cringe thread

>>126810886
No, those people you mention are convinced that their one genre of music can do everything every other genre of music does and better. Which is obviously wrong since you're never going to get what you get out of listening to Motorhead (as an example) from any classical, or vice versa. Of course a great many people who enjoy classical and also listen to lots of other music too so this isn't an issue for them. It's just a small subset of autists who don't enjoy anything else get a stick up their ass about it.

Somewhat related, the guy above who said classical music never sounds actually heavy is correct, and that's likely part of the reason the audience for classical is mostly elderly people who generally aren't into heavier music.

>>126811475
>But the emotions it entails, how you react and experience it, how great it is these are all subjective.
You see, it isn't subjective, and there's a reason we disagree. I, and probably many others, used to think exactly the same way you do. But it's really not that complicated. There are subjective preferences in music: what style(baroque or romantic, modern or classical), genre(chamber, orchestral, choral, orgab or solo piano) or mood you prefer comes down to subjective preferences more than not. Of course there are still objective qualities that cannot be dismissed, such as that some instruments are less expressive and cannot fully convey the emotion that the music was written for.

But the quality of music itself can be objectively assessed. And naturally, the more you listen, the better you'll discern its quality (there are other environmental and genetic factors that can aid your judgement obviously). The problem is that you don't listen to "more", you keep listening to the same, smaller forms of music.
>emotions it entails, how you react and experience it, how great it is
Some of these are pretty much objective, and can be proven empirically. Instead of diving your nose into something you don't understand, try listening to the music and you'll see for yourself.
>>126811559
>emotions it entails, how you react and experience it, how great it is
Your satisfication is irrelevant to the fact that it was logically and empirically proven wrong in every aspect.

>>126811608
>you're never going to get what you get out of listening to Motorhead
You do. You get more of it, and something with much more variety and color. At the expense of your time and efffort I guess, but if that's not something you're willing to sacrifice in order to appreciate better music, then what the hell are you doing on a board that's about music discussion?

>>126811696
>But the quality of music itself can be objectively assessed.
Nope.
>Your satisfication is irrelevant to the fact that it was logically and empirically proven wrong in every aspect.
What??
>Of course there are still objective qualities that cannot be dismissed, such as that some instruments are less expressive and cannot fully convey the emotion that the music was written for.

I disagree with that

>>126811744
This is just bullshit. The fact remains if you understand and enjoy Motorhead you will not get that from any classical and sure as fuck not from Shostakovich

>>126811746
>Nope.
Well yes, it can be. That's what harmony, voice leading, instrumentation, orchestration, articulation, acoustics among other things strive to balance. There are many objective qualities to music.
>What?
Again, it was refuted, both logically and empirically.
>I disagree with that
You are disagreeing with a factual statement which you can ask to any musician.
>>126811781
>The fact remains if you understand and enjoy Motorhead you will not get that from any classical and sure as fuck not from Shostakovich
Get what, exactly?

>>126752922 (OP)
Started playing the piano in february, currently practicing on a mazurka by Chopin. My teacher has introduced me to a lot of classical music I'd never heard before that I now really like, like this mazurka I'm practicing on and Tempest by Beethoven for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rokiODCk9HQ&list=RDrokiODCk9HQ&start_radio=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKkR4YFtyJk&list=RDhKkR4YFtyJk&start_radio=1

>>126811964
Nice. Have you listened to his ballades yet? It's a hell of a motivator to get better and learn more.

>>126811999
I'm not sure to be honest, my knowledge of classical/romantic music is extremely limited at best (mostly listen to Led Zeppelin and Toots). I've listened to some "best of" playlists of Chopin's music though and since my teacher loves Chopin she'll most likely introduce me to more good stuff from him.

>>126812104
Well, you can't expect her to introduce you to everything! Listen to the ballades, barcarolle, and sonatas 2, 3, cello. The first ballade is probably his most iconic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSFNl4roGlI

>>126812139
Thanks buddy, will listen to this and some more at work tomorrow. Now, time for some more practice before sleep. Have a good one!

>>126812208
Good luck with your studies and cheers!

>>126811475
You've already realized that classical music is more complex and intelligent than other forms of music, which means you're acknowledging some objective differences in craft, structure, and depth. That alone shows that judgment isn't purely subjective whim.
Sure, emotional responses feel subjective, but how skillfully those emotions are created, shaped, and sustained depends on form, structure, balance, complexity, and expression; all of which can be analyzed and compared to a fairly objective degree. That's the whole point of aesthetic judgment: it's not arbitrary, but based on understanding the qualities that make art great.
Kant explained this clearly: while judgments of beauty arise from subjective feeling, we still express them with the expectation of universal agreement (subjective universality). One may prefer Bach over Chopin (or vice versa), but failing to recognize the greatness of either isn't "taste", it's simply poor judgment.
If all value were purely subjective, there would be no criticism, canon formation, pedagogy, or meaningful discussion about art. The entire history of education has always involved training judgment (recognizing and understanding what makes something good), not just liking things. Even those who claim "everything is subjective" rarely act as if they believe it; they inevitably make judgments, but they shift the criteria whenever it suits them.
The idea that "everything is subjective" is a modern fabrication that has no basis in any aesthetic thought in history. Sure, aesthetic judgments can never be empirical, like natural sciences, but they're far from meaningless or arbitrary.

>>126813471
>If all value were purely subjective, there would be no criticism, canon formation, pedagogy, or meaningful discussion about art.
Well there would still be teaching, I'm not sure where you got that idea. Criticism meaningful discussion we can have them for sure
>they inevitably make{subjective]judgments

>One may prefer Bach over Chopin (or vice versa), but failing to recognize the greatness of either isn't "taste", it's simply poor judgment.

Saying "I don't like Bach's music but he is the greatest musician ever" is a nonsenical statement, it cheapens art and music to look at in
this way. I can objectively say a lot of people have liked and do like Bach

>>126813582
*Criticism meaningful discussion we can have them for sure but they are still subjective, it's still the opinion and the personal reaction of the critic

>>126810886
First of all, every time someone uses the word "pretentious", it's because something probably made them feel intellectually insecure. Secondly, your loaded question assumes that classical music isn't already the most diverse and expansive category of music in history, and that people who like it were somehow "raised on it" like brainwashing. Most people aren't. Personally, I wasn't. I got into it in my early 20s. I couldn't read music and didn't understand anything, but I became obsessed, learned, and developed my taste over time.
At the same time (purely coincidentally, I'm sure), I lost interest in /mu/core. I went through several phases, but eventually realized most of it just isn't that musically or aesthetically interesting to me. I still listen to albums from other genres, but most of them are barely discussed on /mu/, if ever. I definitely don't care for "new music" at all. Seems like a waste of time and pure FOMO, fueled by streaming platforms and social media.

>>126811559
>It wasn't refuted
It was refuted, cleanly and directly.
>I wasn't impressed by any of the replies
Whether or not you were "impressed" is irrelevant. You're either samefagging, or you're simply biased.
>None of the points were satisfactorily adressed
Some points might not have been "addressed" because their (your) entire framework was already exposed as narrow, flawed, and built on faulty assumptions. Once the foundation collapses, the rest becomes irrelevant.

>>126811608
>one genre of music
This is genuinely so funny when you people try to compare something as diverse as the classical music tradition to a "single genre", as if that even remotely makes any sense. Classical music spans well over a thousand years. Do you have any idea how much time that is? How many different composers, aesthetic movements, forms, schools, and how much technological development occurred in that time? Pretending it's just "one genre", comparable to something like "heavy metal" or "atmospheric drum and bass" or whatever, is either astonishingly uninformed or simply disingenuous.

>>126813735
>Classical music spans well over a thousand years
Now that's just bullshit it's 300 years at most. The only real diversity was seen at the end of the 19th century going into the 20th.
>Inb4 UHm ackshually here's some sketchy manuscripts from the middle ages
just stop

>>126813582
>>126813593
>there would still be teaching
Yes, but what would you be teaching? If everything is subjective, what standards are you teaching? You can't teach someone to "like" something. You teach criteria: form, structure, technique, balance, history, craft, all of which require shared standards. The existence of teaching implies that there are things worthy of learning, that there are better and worse understandings.
>Criticism and discussion are still subjective
They're subjective in experience, but not arbitrary. Serious criticism is built on shared knowledge, experience, comparison, technical understanding, and history. It's not "just feelings", otherwise there's no difference between a trained critic/academic/artist/teacher and a random kid saying "this slaps". The fact that people can argue, persuade, convince, and educate shows that they're appealing to something beyond raw opinion.
>Saying "I don't like Bach's music but he is the greatest musician ever" is a nonsenical statement
No, it's a little extreme but still coherent. You can personally dislike something while still recognizing its objective merit based on its craft, historical importance, innovation, and influence. Judgment isn't the same as personal enjoyment. What I was going for was more like: "I understand what Bach is doing and why he's important, but I personally prefer Chopin because X, Y, and Z".
>I can objectively say a lot of people have liked and do like Bach
That's just statistics. Popularity isn't the same as artistic merit.

>>126752922 (OP)
Already did, it's jazz, you ignorant motherfucker
rock is shit

>>126813767
>Now that's just bullshit it's 300 years at most.
Yeah, no. Medieval music counts; there were already distinct schools, forms, and composers back then. Arbitrarily dismissing it doesn't change that. Even if we accepted your absurd "300 years" (the baroque era somehow excluded), classical music would still be far more diverse than any genre in history.
>The only real diversity was seen at the end of the 19th century going into the 20th.
This is just vague nonsense. The fact that you personally don't know or hear the differences between early music and common practice period styles doesn't mean they're not there.

Why are there so many jewish classical composers?

>You have to like classical music because....because you just do OK?

>>126813735
>This is genuinely so funny when you people try to compare something as diverse as the classical music tradition to a "single genre",
You're missing the point, possibly intentionally.

There is no classical music that will do what Motorhead does for you, or vice versa. No one listens to classical expecting to get the same thing out of it as listening to a band like that, and vice versa. There's your lesson in tautology for the day.

It is a sign of severe autism to have such a massive problem with people who like different things to yourself that you insist they must like it. 'Why don't you like it? You should do! in fact it's better! You're wrong if you don't like it!' Textbook examples of it.

I have discovered the real final music pill.
Never topped to this day, never will be (probably).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19vApPwWqh8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrJkzd2oLb8

>>126807492
I like the classical music OP but you're either pretentious autist or a tastelet for only liking or claiming to only like classical music

>>126816735
>There is no classical music that will do what Motorhead does for you, or vice versa.
This was addressed already, by another anon (me). And yes there is. You didn't answer me when I asked what "Motorhead does for you", so I know you're being disingenuous.
>>126817065
I'm neither. And I'm claiming that classical music is factually better at doing everything, learn to read :^)

Listen to Mahler. As many times as it takes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUtmfVeUdmI

>>126816735
>You're missing the point, possibly intentionally.
No, you're conflating two separate points you made. The "one genre of music" claim is entirely separate from the Motorhead comparison. The "one genre" framing is just objectively stupid and false, as I already explained: classical music spans over a thousand years (or no more than 300 years for some, although that's easily disputed) of radically different styles, schools, forms, and aesthetics. It may seem like a minor point to you, but it's so blatantly wrong that it needs to be called out. People constantly make this mistake, which is why it was worth correcting.
I wasn't even addressing your Motorhead point. Like I said, that's a different point entirely.
As for this "massive problem with people who like different things" bit: again, nobody here is forcing you to like anything. OP made this thread to recommend good music and argue for its merits. The only contention arises when people post obviously false claims like "classical music has no timbral variety" or "it's just one genre". Beyond that, most of what I see is people desperately rationalizing why they won't give it a chance. And like I've said before: taste is subjective to a degree, but judgment is either good or bad. If you don't want to listen to classical, that's personally fine with me, but trying to justify that with bad arguments is where people here call you out.

>>126817065
>you only listen to music that's anywhere from 0 to 1000 years old

>>126814287
Name 5 (five) without Googling

What fucking chords do you people want me to use. This is all just window dressing on top of 12 root notes. I want riffs and emotional honesty.

>>126818702
Mendelssohn, Mahler, Schoenberg, Meyerbeer, Alkan. Didn't google. And they're among the top composers.
But there are also bunch of other minimalists and serialist jews.

>>126818723
>emotional honesty.
There's nothing more emotionally honest and coherent than classical music.

>>126818833
>Meyerbeer, Alkan
>top composers

>>126818923
They're at least in top 50-100 both by influence/quality and popularity. You could argue against Alkan I guess. But sure, have more: Gerschwin, Ligeti, Glass, Reich.

This thread should be a sticky.

>>126818923
People don't like Meyerbeer anymore, but he was the most popular opera composer back in his day.

>>126818843
Pffft you reveal your ignorance now. Classical is filled with emotionally dishonest music,

>>126821339
Untrue. Classical music is completely honest and more importantly, coherent when it comes to coveying emotions. Now, the style and complexity varies. And I'm not including contemporary composers for obvious reasons. Everybody else is completely on point.

>>126821339
As if you'd know what classical is 'filled with' when you're completely unfamiliar with it.

>>126821509
Lol, Lmao even

>>126821689
Not an argument.

Let's continue this thread? /mu/ needs constant redpilling

>>126818669
It's a largely semantic point because it's obvious what I'm talking about, I should have phrased it as 'heavy metal' instead of singling out 'Motorhead', an individual band, for my example. Or I should have listed an individual musician from classical music to contrast.

Again, that's an insignificant error because the point I'm making is pretty obvious. No one's listening to that music to get the same thing out of it as with classical. It's a different style entirely, even the multitude of styles within it don't scratch the same itch'.

I could give many examples for any given type of music, you don't put on traditional country music and expect to get 'the same thing' out of it from listening to ambient either.

Also I never said I'm not giving it a chance, I don't dislike classical music, as I said, plenty of people listen to classical along with other genres of music without this causing them a problem.

>>126817556
>>This was addressed already, by another anon (me)
You may be confusing me with another poster.
>. And yes there is. You didn't answer me when I asked what "Motorhead does for you",
> I'm claiming that classical music is factually better at doing everything,
I'm not that anon you replied to either but this is the part where 'autism' enters the equation. It's such an obvious point that the fact you don't see it speaks volumes. No one's putting on Bach in the car to fulfill the same purpose as putting on some hard driving blues rock band like ZZ Top either. And vice versa.
You do not understand this because autistic people have a thing where they believe their tastes are supreme and they cannot understand anyone differing.

A prime example would be that Nico sperg who threw a tantrum in any thread about music that was different to what he liked. 'Why listen to 'x' when 'y' does it better!'