Classical, metal, and progressive rock are the only real genres of music. Everything else is low IQ amateur pseudo-art garbage.

chuds can't bait

>>126878770 (OP)
this but remove metal and prog

"The hardest thing to do is to do a simple song. It's easier to be in a prog band. Really. Because you're not playing the game of 'memorable,' you're playing the game like jazz, of showing off. You don't expect somebody to walk out of a jazz concert humming [sings a jazz horn line with many notes]. You don't expect that."

"So the hardest thing to do and you have to respect the art of it, if it's a Bruno Mars tune or, you know, whoever, is that hearing it once and the melody — especially the chorus — sticks. And the art of that, it just happens. Like all these musicians, The Beatles and whoever you like, Lennon, Jagger/Richards, can't read a stick of music. I can't read or write music. Nobody could. Hendrix couldn't read or write music. No, you just do it. It's like being able to write a book in another language, although you can't read or write in another language because it's verbal."

>>126878770 (OP)
>metal

>>126878770 (OP)
>classical
high IQ art
>metal
low IQ amateur pseudo-art garbage
>prog
low IQ amateur pseudo-art garbage

>>126879545
>4 decades of power chords and harmonic minor is LE HIGH ART

>>126880326
>if le song has more notes that means it's more good!
Gene is right as usual.
Anyone can learn technical knowhow, doesn't make them capable of writing a good song.

>>126880494

>>126878770 (OP)
What did classical do to deserve being lumped in with prog and metal?

>>126879545
>(((Gene Simmons)))
Go back

>>126880519
Nothing, OP is some 20-something faggot who wasted his teens poisoning his brain with not music, so now he needs to hitch a ride to classical to seem mature and sophisticated by association.

>>126880511
>if i lie and say you misrepresented my argument, i don't have to defend my point and i'll win the argument

>>126882556
bitchy response, literally like arguing with a woman

>>126880511
I haven't strawmanned your argument.
If you're not mocking it for being simplistic then what?

>>126882776
If I'm mocking the kettle for being black, does that necessarily mean the pot isn't black? Use deduction, retard.

>>126879545
Where's the lie?

>>126882670
Concession accepted.

>>126878770 (OP)
Bro tried to sneak metal and progressive rock in there, LOL.

>>126878770 (OP)
Yeah I remember being 15
Can't even tell those were the days since I was a virgin lover, hence why I listened to metal
Anywho, what's your favorite concerto high IQ kun

>>126880494
>>126883050
>>126879545
>"The hardest thing to do is to do a simple song. It's easier to be in a prog band. Really. Because you're not playing the game of 'memorable,'
This is retarded as memorability in pop music is mainly defined by repetition and extra musical factors like the musician's status, stage presence, media presence and airplay on the radio, not by anything meaningful about the song itself. If Billy Jean was done by a no-name band who remained completely anonymous and just sold their demos to radio stations, the song wouldn't have become memorable. We know the song because of it's association with Michael Jackson, not because the song by itself is anything notable.
> you're playing the game like jazz, of showing off. You don't expect somebody to walk out of a jazz concert humming [sings a jazz horn line with many notes]. You don't expect that."
This is really dependent on the performer? Sure, some jazz musicians like to just noodle lines over chords, but what about jazz musicians who develop the head melody in their improvisations like Bill Evans?

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

I definitely hum the head melody of Waltz For Debby, and his improvisations with this melody are also plenty memorable. Is this just "showing off" to you? As I hear genuine emotional expression that you wouldn't hear in 90% of pop music.
>"So the hardest thing to do and you have to respect the art of it, if it's a Bruno Mars tune or, you know, whoever, is that hearing it once and the melody — especially the chorus — sticks.
If it's not constant airplay that makes it stick, it's the fact that most choruses are based off of repeating a short musical phrase as much as it sounds good. There is nothing about the melody that makes it memorable that can't be musically explained.
>And the art of that, it just happens.
What hippy ass bullshit is shit? It doesn't "just happen", that is a delusional way to look at it.

>>126880494
>>126883050
>>126879545
>>126885682
>Like all these musicians, The Beatles and whoever you like, Lennon, Jagger/Richards, can't read a stick of music. I can't read or write music. Nobody could. Hendrix couldn't read or write music
And it shows in their music and their understanding of it. This retard apparently thinks that all music has to do is have a memorable tune, most Jazz and Classical musicians have already moved on from that notion and instead want to tell a musical story with these tunes, rather than just repeating them ad nauseum. But when your brain operates like a rockist, you cannot imagine music being anything more than a flamboyant homosexual in make up prancing around on stage singing about how he sucked a producers dick.
>No, you just do it. It's like being able to write a book in another language, although you can't read or write in another language because it's verbal."
It's not really like that. It's more like me using limited knowledge of words in another language to write a poem. Is it a good poem? In these people's retarded relativist worldview it probably is. But anyone who actually speaks the language will just tell me that it sounds retarded.

>>126878770 (OP)
Tell me you have never listened to classical music without telling me you have never listened to classical music.

>>126880519
nothing. it's nowhere near as interesting as prog and metal.

>>126887365
>nothing. it's nowhere near as interesting as prog and metal.
if you are a child

>>126878770 (OP)
>classical
yep
>prog
maybe

>metal
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>126878770 (OP)
I've unironically ended up at this point. Most of the time, I need a certain level of complexity to the music I listen to or I just get bored, simple as. I enjoy complex music performed by talented musicians and that severely limits your available genres. I would however take out prog rock, which might be complex but is also gay, and replace it with the better subgenres of electronic music.

Anyone shit talking metal
>>126879534
>>126880316
>>126880519
>>126884438
>>126887670
is just clueless. It's an incredibly broad genre and there's a world of difference between the sort of "metal" you guys are likely imagining and the high points of the genre. Some of the worst music ever made falls under the heading of metal, no doubt, but some of the best does as well.

>>126885682
> If Billy Jean was done by a no-name band who remained completely anonymous and just sold their demos to radio stations, the song wouldn't have become memorable.
This isn't true. I don't even like Michael Jackson very much but that song is obviously a good pop song and much better than a lot of other pop songs. The vocals are immediately identifiable and don't sound like anyone else and that's a major part of being a memorable popular singer. Robert Frost said 'There are tones of voice that can say more than words' and it applies here.

>Sure, some jazz musicians like to just noodle lines over chords, but what about jazz musicians who develop the head melody in their improvisations like Bill Evans?
I love a lot of jazz and Bill Evans is one of the best to ever do it. But it's a different thing to what Gene's going on about.
In rock music a lot of it is just power chords because you're writing on a guitar with a lot of distortion. Tony Iommi is a good example of this because of his finger accident he had to rely on power chords and 'trying to make the sound as big as possible'. That's an entirely different way of writing.

Keep in mind the jazz standards are all well written popular songs with a strong melody, the 'head' as they call it in jazz before the song goes off into improv land.
With that said, there is a lot of jazz that becomes instrumental wankery and sounds like the jazz version of shred.

>>126885686
>It's not really like that. It's more like me using limited knowledge of words in another language to write a poem. Is it a good poem? In these people's retarded relativist worldview it probably is. But anyone who actually speaks the language will just tell me that it sounds retarded.
It's more like writing a poem in simple direct language.
Or like a basic meal that takes you 10 minutes to prepare compared to a very complicated one that takes hours to make and is cooked by a professional chef. Sometimes an apple on its own is just as good

>>126882850
No one, including Gene Simmons, was suggesting KISS is 'high art' in the first place. Maybe English isn't your first language, I know that's a common issue with a lot of posters these days.

>>126888362
Character limit hit, here's an example of what I mean about the Michael Jackson song

Steve Cropper talks about how they wrote green onions and took it to a radio station, the DJ liked it and after he played it he got non stop calls from people listening asking what that song was because they wanted to get it, the DJ had to keep telling them 'I can't tell you as there's no name for it yet'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1emR12qb_Y

>>126887824
Metal sucks ass. All of it. Not even all classical is good enough, there's probably only one composer in the entire history who never wrote anything "bad" and his name is J.S. Bach.

>>126883550
ad hom is only a fallacy when used as an argument. insulting people isn't inherently illogical, posing faggot moron.

>>126888362
>Bill Evans is one of the best to ever do it
goated in the late 50s and early 60s. everything after that is mildly pleasant, though very bland and predictable, cocktail muzak for white tourists

>>126883050
I've seen people hum standard heads at jazz festivals so there, he lied about that. Isn't that obvious?

>>126888822
>being an elitist to this level of retardation
Like I said, clueless. Anyone who doesn't like at least some metal has no taste and no soul, period. I'm glad you enjoyed the dozen or so Bach works you've heard but he composed over 1,000 pieces of music and plenty of them are not that interesting, though I suppose we both know that you haven't come close to listening to even half of them.

Bach is a basic bitch choice of favorite composer, by the way, the sort of thing someone who doesn't listen to classical music would pick in order to impress other people who don't listen to classical music.
>I don't want to pick someone that even normies would know by name like Beethoven or Mozart but I also don't want to pick someone that I would have to defend
Bach is the perfect pick for this sort of person. Underground by normie standards but still an unimpeachable choice that no one would dare seriously criticize.

not reading the thread but just came here to say that classical is almost ALWAYS real music whereas prog and metal rarely are

>>126888362
>This isn't true. I don't even like Michael Jackson very much but that song is obviously a good pop song and much better than a lot of other pop songs.
Okay, so why is it? Can you explain properly in words?
>The vocals are immediately identifiable and don't sound like anyone else and that's a major part of being a memorable popular singer. Robert Frost said 'There are tones of voice that can say more than words' and it applies here.
That is a major part of literally any singer.
https://youtu.be/23vUsjXqfu4
https://youtu.be/iBt5XkMrYzA
Matti Salminen sounds incredibly different from Kurt Bohme and vice versa, this is not exclusive at all to pop music more than it is to soloist oriented vocal music as a whole.
>In rock music a lot of it is just power chords because you're writing on a guitar with a lot of distortion[...] That's an entirely different way of writing.
...This doesn't affect my argument even a slight bit. The initial argument is about music being "memorable", most of this "memorability" is a product of repetition. What I would actually consider memorable is, for example, Bill Evans' improvisational style and his interactions with the other two musicians in an improvisational setting.
>Keep in mind the jazz standards are all well written popular songs with a strong melody, the 'head' as they call it in jazz before the song goes off into improv land.
Of course, but this is very dependent on the jazz musician. I personally mainly like jazz musicians that do at least some level of development. Jazz isn't my first choice of listening, but I can admit good music when I hear it.
>Or like a basic meal that takes you 10 minutes to prepare compared to a very complicated one that takes hours to make and is cooked by a professional chef. Sometimes an apple on its own is just as good
But that is not the argument that was initially presented. Gene specifically said that this basic meal is HARDER to do than a complicated one

>>126888981
There's a huge amount of shit music in every genre. Classical gets to cheat by having such a long history that not only does it have much more work to draw from, but the majority of the shitty classical music has been lost. Unless you're listening to modern classical music, what you're getting when you listen to classical music is essentially a "greatest hits" collection. You are getting the absolute best from a given century, not a comprehensive collection of every piece of music that was produced. Even the giants of the genre composed music that has been lost so you can imagine how much lesser shitty music by unknown composers has been lost as well.

>>126888703
>Steve Cropper talks about how they wrote green onions and took it to a radio station, the DJ liked it and after he played it he got non stop calls from people listening asking what that song was because they wanted to get it, the DJ had to keep telling them 'I can't tell you as there's no name for it yet'.
Likely because the song is a 12 bar blues with a decent groove. People liked it because it's familiar and there are quadrillions of these songs produced.
>got non stop calls from people listening asking what that song was because they wanted to get it,
Likely people who didn't know much about music thinking "Man I recognize this song, what was the name of it again, uhhh" and asked.

>>126878770 (OP)
Metal is one of the most infantile genres of music ever conceived. Prog rock is mostly devoid of soul, with some exceptions.

>>126889035
>There's a huge amount of shit music in every genre.
Except classical and maaaaaaybe jazz.

>>126879545

Ironically, AI music has proven Gene correct. It only recently stopped struggling with simple power chords but prog and jazz is easy enough to replicate that people were already doing it with random number generators and midi before AI anything was possible which isn't surprising since sounding like a soulless machine is what soulless machines excel at.

>>126889512
jazz AI is incredibly easy to spot to people who actually understand jazz, AI improvisations always sound like dogshit

>>126889388
>Prog rock is mostly devoid of soul, with some exceptions.
Yes, Gentle Giant, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Van Der Graaf Generator, Ekseption, Focus, SBB all have soul. Can you give a contrary example of a prog band without soul?

>>126889512
You just outed yourself for having no soul, not being able to differentiate raw human improvisational expression from a machine seals the deal

>>126889454
>failing this hard at reading comprehension
Most of the shit classical music produced in the 18th century was not preserved because it was shit. The music that was preserved was the best, not a representative sample of everything being composed. If even some of Mozart's works have been lost then you can be assured that many works from lesser composers have been lost as well. It's akin to travelling back to 1975 and listening to the radio for an hour and hearing a modern collection of the best music from that decade.

Try listening to classical music composed in the past 50 years and you'll hear quite a lot of bad music.


>>126889388
>Metal is one of the most infantile genres of music ever conceived.
You're just outing yourself as having listened to only a very narrow spectrum of metal. You heard some slop like nu metal or some unlistenable mess like black metal and you wrote it all off. It's an incredibly diverse genre and anyone with taste should be able to enjoy at least some metal subgenres.

oh he likes and defends metal, that explains it kek

>>126883050
For one: That it's hard (and even more retardedly harder or the hardest thing to do) to make something that's easy to remember.

It's hard to make something complex AND easy to remember, but the simpler you make something the easier to remember it becomes, just by that.

>>126888959
>Anyone who doesn't like at least some metal has no taste and no soul, period.
Pop has no soul therefore your statement is wrong and shit.
What makes this funnier, is that I used to be hardcore metal fan and even have t shirts to this day, but it's honestly embarrassing to even call metal music. It is a complete embarrassment to music and culture and would be quickly forgotten at the height of European cultures in 18th-19th centuries.
>the dozen or so Bach works you've heard but he composed over 1,000 pieces of music
Speak for yourself, ladyboy.
>and plenty of them are not that interesting,
Way to put words in my mouth. No, I did not say they are all equally interesting to listen to. What I said, is that Bach is the only composer who never wrote a single "wrong" note. I dare you to find a logical, compositional flaw in ANY Bach piece. Until then, you shouldn't even reply at all.
>Bach is a basic bitch choice of favorite composer, by the way,
Not that you'd know, no. And I never claimed he's my favorite. Some people have really hard time differentiating between subjective opinion and objective factuality, and you're one of them.
>who doesn't listen to classical music
Like you?

>>I don't want to pick someone that even normies would know by name like Beethoven or Mozart...
Complete and total schizophrenia of the highest order. I am impressed. Your stupidity and ignorance is equally impressive.

>>126885682
>but what about jazz musicians who develop the head melody in their improvisations like Bill Evans?
You are a deeply ignorant tourist if you are sincerely suggesting that this was rare and impressive in jazz or if this is what made Evans unique.

>>126889885
>coward has no rebuttal
I accept your concession.

>>126889900
>Pop has no soul
So your position is just being an extreme contrarian, pretending that there's been no good music produced in the last century? You gonna give me some cliched line about the decline of Western civilization or something? Turning completely against something you used to enjoy is not a mark of maturity. I listened to some really terrible stuff when I was 12 years old and I would never touch that music today but that doesn't mean I would write off the entire genre it belonged to.

If you can't find something to enjoy in ANY genre of music then you have no soul and that's a fact. Yes I'm defending metal in this thread (and I'd love to know some of the bands you listened to when you were a "hardcore metal fan") but if it were rap or country or some other commonly maligned genre being attacked instead then I'd be defending it in the same fashion.

>>126885682
>repetition
Untrue see boring post rock, minimalist stuff.
>status, stage presence, etc.
Untrue, see Dreams by Fleetwood Mac appreciated by zoomers
>Billy Jean
Untrue this is a GOAT tier pop song with tons of personality missing from typical “complex” music with no soul.
>develop the melody
This usually leads to wankery, all those variations of the same theme from Bill Evan’s or Beethoven but it’s all boring and unmemorable.
>Waltz
Yeah this is unmemorable elevator music. Maybe you thought repetition makes memorable cuz you’ve probs listened to this boring shit 10000x. There’s no real personality or emotion here like even the most basic pop.
>chorus melody
Writing short memorable choruses is hard tho much harder than classical/jazz
>doesn’t just happen
But it does! Great art isn’t an exercise in mathematical analysis or self serving wankery, it’s something far primal, deeper.
>>126885686
>most classical and jazz moved on from that
And look where classical and jazz are now by trying to move on from memorability; so far up their own ass they are irrelevant in the modern world. This is not even a rockist thing; conciseness is valued in a lot of the human experience.
>poems in limited words
Yes, overly wordy poems are just as ass as purple prose in literature, long winded conversationalists, classical, jazz.

>t. actively trying to take the position as the only rightful elitist but you can't even begin to defend that position
Had no idea classical had so many subhumans listening, or pretending to listen, to it.

>>126889900
Pop has more soul than every Bach piece out together. Most of Bach’s stuff were commissions. It also aged like ass it has complex harmony since that’s the only very limited way instruments could express back then. Rhythm? Dynamics? “Lmao what’s are those?” thought Bach while he wrote music that’s so “logically flawless” to the extent of being robotic soulless trash

>>126890065
That’s because they don’t actually enjoy classical for its real musical qualities. They only enjoy it so that they can feel elitist and intelligent. Which will always be the wrong reason to enjoy something.

classical and jazz are the only real genres out there. that's why third stream is the pinnacle of music.

>>126889986
>pretending that there's been no good music produced in the last century?
There's no need to pretend. There is great art, produced by geniuses who are characterized by extraordinarily high intelligence and very specific personality traits (such as conscientiousness, which typically is in positive correlation with general intelligence, but is low in geniuses) necessary to revolutionize and make exceptional art. And then there's slop of various kinds and shapes, produced by all sorts of people, except geniuses.
And yes, it should be of no surprise that geniuses are dwindling by each generation as intelligence is decreasing, meaning there are not enough geniuses, or environmental spaces to support the growth of a genius. These topics can be explored and studied in Edward Dutton's books. I gave you the redpill, you're giving me the same cliche every pop slop faggot does.
>Turning completely against
No, it is simply realization and acknowledgement.
>I would write off the entire genre it belonged to.
You would, had you given it a proper thought. There's nothing salvageable in pop music, it is inherently a lowbrow music primarily for instinct-driven, low-conscientiousness high-impulse and low IQ people. Not exclusively, but on average.
>then you have no soul
I'll turn that statement around and say, more pop genres you enjoy, less soul you have and more midwit you are likely to be, and that's actually a fact, as per research and studies and how g correlates with musical preferences and abilities.
>I'm defending metal in this thread
Yeah you're an average metalcuck, I can tell just on your writing style.
>>126890084
>Rhythm? Dynamics? “Lmao what’s are those?”
Peak lowbrow moment. Pathetic popfag.

>Pop has more soul than every Bach piece out together.

>>126890158
/thread

Jazzfags acknowledge classical as the only other form of music worth a damn, but they choose to be gay.

Classicalchads know that classical is inherently the only form of music worth a damn.

You can see where the truth lies just by that alone. Jazz being the highest form of pop music, doesn't make it into non-pop music.

>>126890158
Funnily enough, while I like both, I'd rather listen to either of them than third stream.

>>126890101
No one pretends to like anything. This is all just intellectual insecurity and fear of missing out because you saw someone appreciate something you don't get.

>>126890217
>peak lowbrow moment
Resorting to name calling since you don’t have any real points. Real deal “intellectual” classical listeners everyone!

>>126890292
laufey isn't jazz no matter how bad you wish this were true, tourist

>>126890314
There’s nothing wrong with people liking classical and jazz cuz they like the music. But it’s so obvious how insecure some here are that it’s the pseudo-intellectualism that draws them to it.

>>126890319
How else can you seriously respond to an objectively false claim that itself uses non-objective buzzword terminology such as "soul"? If you made an effort to sound honest and ingenuous, I would respond in similar manner.

>>126890342
How could you possibly know they don't like the music? Guessing their entire personality and the way they experience music by a few shitposts that may not even be sincere on here?

>>126890411
>that may not even be sincere on here?
>No one pretends
hmm...

>>126890436
I'm not >>126890314

>>126890217
Ahh, it's an ESL coping with his inferiority complex by becoming le extreme defender of classic Western tradition. It all makes sense now.

>I gave you the redpill
You're just repeating the same tired, trite clichés I could get from any random "traditionalist" twitter account. You use a lot of words in your posts but you've said very little. You haven't given any real argument in favor of your position, just vague and empty ramblings that essentially amount to
>classical music is the best because it has soul and was made by geniuses and any non-classical music has no soul because it was made by dumb people
You're telling us that pop music is bad because...it just is, ok???? Only low IQ people would enjoy it! And that's a nice opinion, I guess, but it's not an argument and dressing it up in pretentious verbosity doesn't make it any more compelling.

I notice you didn't name any of your favorite bands from when you were a "hardcore metal fan". Is that because you're full of shit, or...?

>Yeah you're an average metalcuck
As I said, I listen to and enjoy music from every genre. I'm sorry your disability leaves you unable to do the same.

>>126890346
>uses non-objective buzzword terminology such as "soul"?
Like you've done in every single post in this thread?

>>126890346
You responded to me mocking baroque’s relative lack of rhythmic/dynamic play, which is objectively true look at baroque HIPs. Nothing about soul. Are you illiterate?

I feel like the problem with music is that ever since the invention of sound/audio recording and reproduction, pop music, the democratization of technology and music-making, etc., you basically have no more standards. You can't really compare something as diverse and comprehensive as classical music with pop music, because the latter quite literally abandoned certain aspects of music entirely, such as form, which is only experimented with within the very narrow frame of the album format, where you have track sequencing and that's it. So you basically have music that fixates only on trendy timbres and hooks, maybe a few interesting rhythms (but repeated to oblivion, rendering them uninteresting in the end).
You can't really compare that with something which focuses on form, development, harmony and/or melody, has differentiated rhythm (more developmental, rhythmic cells that evolve, or rubato, or rhythms where it feels like time stands still, etc.), and an entirely different function. It's sort of like comparing Bach and Debussy; they're so different technically and aesthetically that it doesn't make sense to compare them too much; acknowledging both are great and having a preference for one or the other is fair. But even those two still fit under a single tradition, whereas pop music is this weird thing that completely ignores certain aspects of music and exists only within an industrial, monetary society where it functions as a commodity.

>>126890526
You can have a certain level of artistry within that frame, but ultimately it's mostly made up either by professional bullshit-makers (Top 40 slop/radio pop) or passionate but usually amateur musicians who reinvent the wheel (any slightly more "niche" subgenre or subculture). But again: development doesn't really exist (except maybe in some progressive subgenres), and form is completely ignored. Traditional parameters are dead. There's no real criterion to measure quality. It’s "anything goes", completely fragmented and pluralized.
What's even worse is that musical education is virtually non-existent among listeners and the audience at large, and music journalism/criticism is mostly made up of musical illiterates who talk about everything but the music. So you have "anything goes" + "no critical/useful feedback" = a clusterfuck.
Basically, my point is
>classical music developed within a structured, hierarchical tradition that emphasized complex musical parameters like form, development, harmony, melody, rhythm, and aesthetic function
>pop music, especially post-recording and post-technological democratization, abandons many of these parameters, focusing instead on timbre, hooks, and repetition, within a commercial, industrial framework (yes, even non-mainstream artists operate within a commercial-industrial system, just for smaller markets/niche subcultures)
>without shared standards, musical literacy, or critical infrastructure, the field becomes fragmented, and qualitative assessment breaks down
>meaningful comparison between classical and pop is incoherent, except in the most general, relativistic sense, i.e. "I like this more than that"

>>126878770 (OP)
American garage rock with schizo band members >>>> Any academically acknowledged form of music.

>>126890526
This is because democratization also made classical accessible to everyone, not just nobles. Classical was complex partly because it was made for a certain group of people who could afford to understand/appreciate it. But now that everyone can listen to/spend enough time appreciate classical, it no longer holds that status symbol, leading to just experimentalists and autists left. Modern day labor aristocracy and aristocracy’s status symbols are expensive popular music concert seats.

>>126878770 (OP)
Factually incorrect

>>126890464
>coping with his inferiority complex
But enough about you, allegedly anglo-mutt.
>You're just repeating the same tired, trite clichés I could get from any random "traditionalist" twitter account.
I had no idea Twitter could be that based. All I see there are incel conservacucks who have no grasp on reality.
>but you've said very little.
Perhaps a little mind cannot handle so much information at a time, unfortunate!
>You haven't given any real argument in favor of your position
Oh I have given plenty, you just refuse to engage because you have nothing to say.
>You're telling us that pop music is bad because...it just is, ok??
It is bad for various of reasons, you never even bothered to ask that so what makes you this uppity
>I notice you didn't name any of your favorite bands
I don't intent to discuss pop slop.
Especially with a musically illiterate, ignorant, high impulse, low intelligent and highly emotional individual such as yourself. The only form of music discussion known to your kind is "this musak good. this bad. me no like it."
>I listen to and enjoy music from every genre.
People who say this usually don't listen to much music, judging from my observations. You don't listen to nor enjoy any classical music that I can guarantee.

>>126890548
I think it was Jung who called Americans only half conscious, and that your entire culture has a Negro complex, and that it's unconsciously influenced by this Negro complex. That means you only like the primitive, emotional, and intense qualities, but you're not rational.

>>126890508
Not really.
>>126890524
>baroque’s relative lack of rhythmic/dynamic play,
Relative to WHAT you gigantic faggot. Romantic music? Fuck yes. There is nothing more expressive than romantic music even when it is devoid of everything it can be highly expressive. Compared to POP music? LOL. fucking LOL. Listen to more music.

>>126890626
I think the emotional and intense qualities of America makes it more grounded and ultimately truly rational. Which is why it has been the hub of innovation as it becomes closer to that culture instead of the old European one. Evola has also said the same thing, but I think it’s actually a great thing about America.

>>126878770 (OP)
Classical, jazz and pop (and some rap) (and some experimental/art music)

>>126890644
Nah romantic music is the peak of melodramatic long winded bullshit. But anyway, baroque literally objectively couldn’t do much with dynamics even against pop music the instruments like harpsichords back then couldn’t do stuff like velocity on a DAW today.

Zero objectivity and smartness from you classical bozos.

>>126890606
>not just nobles
Ah, but classical music was never only for the nobility. Church music was heard weekly by ordinary people, there was municipal and civic music-making, opera had different audience tiers, and by the 18th century, public concerts and subscription series were booming. In the 19th century, the middle class became the primary audience for most classical music.
That said, I don't think people were necessarily educated in the formal sense, not even the nobility, but their aesthetic sense was definitely above what you have today. In any case, they did understand and appreciate the music because they had internalized its language, they grasped it intuitively.
Today, that's no longer the case. Unless you grew up with it or made an effort to get into it, classical music just becomes one of many genres that you have to consciously acclimate yourself to.
>Modern day labor aristocracy and aristocracy’s status symbols are expensive popular music concert seats.
This is true.

>>126890658
>grounded and ultimately truly rational
Hmm, I don't know about that. I think this is a bit of a confused chain of reasoning, I don't think the logic follows. Grounded usually refers to something earthy, immediate, practical, emotional, but rational refers to something abstract, analytical, structured, and often detached from immediate emotion or impulse. Like, a street brawl is grounded, while a legal argument in court is rational. I don't think they're comparable modes.

>>126890542
>musical education is virtually non-existent among listeners and the audience at large
If you require extensive schooling to understand and appreciate something then it may just not be as good as you think it is. Art should be inherently enjoyable on some level and it's telling that the ultimate argument from people who reject non-classical music is
>classical music is the best because it's the most complex
and that would be fine if we were robots grading music purely on mathematical complexity but, of course, we're not.

>>126890526
>You can't really compare something as diverse and comprehensive as classical music with pop music
Why would you need to compare them? The only people who seem to feel that need are ones like >>126890217 who want to dismiss modern music entirely because it doesn't live up to whatever standard they imagine was set by classical music. Art's main purpose is to evoke emotion and a simple modern song can do that just as well as any elaborate piece of classical music.

Putting that aside, I have a recurring suspicion that all of these people claiming that classical is the only thing worth listening to are really just taking that position as a political action; restricting themselves to music created during a certain period of time in some misguided effort to reject modernity. Otherwise, why do I never see them name modern classical composers? The most recent name I see in this thread in Debussy, dead in 1918. Has no classical music been composed since? Even as a teen growing up in the middle of nowhere in the '90s, I managed to find and enjoy more modern composers like Philip Glass but these "traditionalist" zoomers with 24/7 internet access only know Bach and Debussy?

>>126890688
>Nah romantic music is the peak of melodramatic long winded bullshit.
In other worde: you are musically illiterate and don't know any musical terminology at all, nor classical music and its history. Thanks for confirming that fact.
>couldn’t do much with dynamics even against pop music the instruments like harpsichords back then
And why do you think harpsichord was the only instrument back then you deluded faggot

>>126890722
Most church goers back then weren’t appreciating the counterpoint of Mass In B Minor tho. I also disagree that a lot of the appreciation was intuitive, nobles’ aesthetics came from the fact they were clearly more literate and educated than their peers. Not sure what you mean by formal education sure they didn’t go to a “school” but they often had multiple tutors teaching different things, knowing many languages, stuff like that. You’re not wrong about the 19th century, but that was quite a bit into the romantic era during a transitional period from traditionally aristocracy to the modern world.
>>126890749
I see the differentiation here, and it makes sense what you’re saying. My main disagreement would be calling rationality “abstract” as I think a rational approach to being grounded is where real ability to change the world lies. Staying just in the world of the abstract only leads to more irrationality. I also disagree about grounded being exclusively emotional, many people that would be “in their head” are also emotional but certainly not grounded. I guess I am going for a bit of pragmatic groundedness

>>126890768
>Has no classical music been composed since?
No. Refer to >>126769212. Modern classical sucks cock. NTA btw.

>>126890827
Music isn’t read, it’s felt, no such thing as musical literacy. Maybe you should work on your actual literacy than musical literacy.

Harpsichord is one example I thought if I would give the biggest example you would get my point but you’re either retarded or (hopefully) pretending to be retarded

>>126878770 (OP)
everyone who’s posted in this thread is an absolute faggot

>>126890621
>People who say this usually don't listen to much music, judging from my observations.
You don't exactly strike me as the sort to interact with many people so I'm not sure how much those observations are worth.

>You don't listen to nor enjoy any classical music that I can guarantee.
You may be terrified of naming music you enjoy or used to enjoy but I have no such qualms. I'll happily list for you music that I enjoy from any genre you care to name. If I had to pick a favorite piece of classical music, it would be either Rachmaninov's second piano concerto or the Sarabande from the first of Bach's cello suites.

>>126890866
I'm sure it couldn't possibly be because there are a finite amount of things to "innovate" and the available pool of untouched innovations has been decreasing sharply for the past few centuries. All of the low hanging fruit has long since been plucked and new advances will slow as the inevitable result of their increasing complexity.

>>126878770 (OP)
Classical is the only real art music, everything else is just for entertainment, this is why I can’t stand rock fags who take certain sub genres and bands so seriously, if you are making rock, pop, country, rap etc etc etc and you are taking yourself very seriously you are genuinely a retard, it isn’t serious music, this is why an AC/DC will always mog posers like Radiohead

>>126878770 (OP)
Everyone who’s posted in this thread is a faggot

>>126890621
redditor babble

>>126890848
>Not sure what you mean by formal education sure they didn’t go to a “school” but they often had multiple tutors teaching different things, knowing many languages, stuff like that
Holy shit you're retarded. Basic reading comprehension.
Not that anon, just pointing out.
>>126890868
>no such thing as musical literacy.
Yes there is you faggot. You are using musical terminology which you have no grasp of. Either quit acting like you kniw anything or get to learning.
>Harpsichord is one example
It is the only example, you retarded faggot. Basically every instrument had vastly more dynamic range and expressive ability than any synthesizer does today. And romantics pushed that to its limits by structurally integrating expressiveness into compositions more so than their predecessors. You're the most annyoing fag ITT kek
>>126890876
>You don't exactly strike me as the sort to interact with many people
You're completely right about that.
>You may be terrified of naming music you enjoy or used to enjoy
Fantasy in C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wxnjg42Go&list=OLAK5uy_kmi3iCA1hBeE4QKckj_1y__d1ciTgvRCw&index=1
Speaking of expressiveness(with the fag anon), when it comes to solo piano, this is as expressive as it gets! It lives almost entirely off of expressiveness, more so than Liszt even. Of course there's still much formal genius in it.
>I'll happily list for you music that I enjoy
No thanks.
>Rachmaninov's second piano concerto or the Sarabande from the first of Bach's cello suites.
Not to dismiss these pieces, but that reveals your lack of exposure to classical music. There's a difference between enjoying surface level pretty melodies and actually understanding the structure and form behind. How familiar are you with the sonata form? Can you vaguely describe what happens in it? And no, you don't need to be a composer to know these things, an average 19th century music-loving upper middle class citizen would be able to describe it.

>>126890923
>I'm sure it couldn't possibly be because there are a finite amount of things to "innovate"
It's not just about innovation but yes, that question is literally answered and the argument rebutted in one of the links.
>All of the low hanging fruit
This exact phrase is used even. Funny!

>>126890991
But enough about you

>>126890876
>>126891010
Just letting (You) know I'll get back to the conversation when I can, if you're still there. Cheers.

>>126878770 (OP)
Counter point: this song fucking bangs and it's none of those genres https://youtu.be/AyQ9SErLi1M

>>126891010
>Not to dismiss these pieces, but that reveals your lack of exposure to classical music.
Son, I'm in my 50s and I spent 15 years as a professional cellist. Believe me, I've been exposed to quite a bit of classical music. But one thing I've always noticed, and you seem to keep missing this point though I keep beating you over the head with it, is that there are two types of classical music listeners: people who enjoy it on a personal, emotional level, and people like you. Past a certain point, the more you study and analyze music, the more you distance yourself from it and remove your ability to enjoy it on a simple human level. As the saying goes, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Whipping out Schumann as some sort of attempted deep cut made me lmao, though.

>>126891020
>y-you mean you didn't watch the 30 minutes of videos attached to my post???
Correct.

>>126889034
>Okay, so why is it? Can you explain properly in words?
I don't know, there are a lot of songs out there with the same 3 or 4 chords as each other for example but not every one of them is as good as the other. Similarly, there are songs where the original version sounds uninteresting, like something you wouldn't pay any mind to, and then a cover version stands out and sounds great. It's like turning lead into gold.
>>126889090
>There's quadrillions
Yeah there's load of those 12 bars recorded and a lot of them don't catch your attention. Every band was releasing a 12 bar at that time but they weren't all 'Green Onions'.

>Likely people who didn't know much about music thinking "Man I recognize this song, what was the name of it again
It was one of those immediately popular songs.

As much as I like blues music I also find 12 bar electric blues to be a drag a lot of the time, but not with that one for some reason.

The flip side of that record was the side intended to be the hit but it went nowhere

>>126889034
>That is a major part of literally any singer.
Of course, and some singers have a voice that captures a lot of people.

>...This doesn't affect my argument even a slight bit. The initial argument is about music being "memorable"
The part about power chords was a tangential point about why rock music (in a broad sense) is written in a simple way on gtr

>What I would actually consider memorable is, for example, Bill Evans' improvisational style and his interactions with the other two musicians in an improvisational setting
Yeah, and that's one of the things which makes him great. It's a different thing to putting on a 3 minute rock n roll song.

>Gene specifically said that this basic meal is HARDER
I think the distinction is between making a complex but mediocre meal, and a simple but good meal. There's a lot of complex but uninteresting music that impresses people because it's technical.

There's also a lot of simple & mediocre meals

>>126890065
A lot of these people are relegated to 4chan. Most people who like classical listen to other forms of music as well instead of using 'liking classical' as a fashion statement in a basketweaving emporium

The problem with the small subset of people who do this is their argument is identical to every edgy 15 year old metalhead in 2005 telling everyone that Malmsteen is the 'best guitarist in the world' because he plays difficult stuff at a fast tempo. It's the tired old 'more technical complexity = more good!' argument which fails immediately because no one enjoys a piece of music based upon that. If they did then people would have their favorite music be the most complex piece they've heard, and then as soon as they hear a more complex piece it will take its place as #1. No one does that.

>>126891010
holy faggotry

>>126891124
I'm pretty sure the stupid cunt you're replying to spends all day long on here arguing his poorly thought drivel in any thread with the given keyword in it. That makes me think it's either an incredibly sad individual or it's actual an actual AI posting. Hopefully the latter.
A lot of discussion on the internet is done by bots today so it's not so unlikely.

>>126890626
nta but he didn't say that and you don't sound smart and never will

>>126889941
where did I say it was impressive, retard? I used him as an example

>>126890084
You have no soul, sorry bro. Not understanding Bach of all music is a clear sign

>>126890084
>Most of Bach’s stuff were commissions.
And? Most pop music is written because the 'artists' stash of cocaine is running out. All music is for money, the fact that you think that a pop musician makes music for anything else is hilarious

>>126890059
>Untrue see boring post rock, minimalist stuff.
...are you retarded? Do you sincerely not understand nuance? Minimalism and post rock tend to operate on extreme levels of repetition. That doesn't change the fact that repetition is 90% of the reason a melody is what retards like Gene consider "memorable"
>Untrue this is a GOAT tier pop song with tons of personality missing from typical “complex” music with no soul.
Illustrate the personality of the song without talking about the lyrics, music video, Michael Jackson himself, or anything that is not related to the composition. What you get is (Ironically) a completely soulless tune with little to no discerning identity that, if not for Michael Jackson himself, would be forgotten like the millions of other generic disco tunes from that time.
>This usually leads to wankery, all those variations of the same theme from Bill Evan’s or Beethoven but it’s all boring and unmemorable.
So you do not understand music on a fundamental level, I would recommend killing yourself.
>Yeah this is unmemorable elevator music. Maybe you thought repetition makes memorable cuz you’ve probs listened to this boring shit 10000x. There’s no real personality or emotion here like even the most basic pop.
If you cannot feel any emotion or personality in this piece, you are a subhuman.
>Writing short memorable choruses is hard tho much harder than classical/jazz
It objectively, factually isn't. There is 0 skill in writing a memorable chorus and 90% of it is repetition of short phrases. A memorable pop song is almost 90% defined by airplay and extra-musical factors.
>But it does! Great art isn’t an exercise in mathematical analysis or self serving wankery, it’s something far primal, deeper.
You can have a hippy view of the medium, doesn't change the fact that it's delusional and wrong. You not understanding something does not make it magic, you are playing God of the Gaps.

>>126890059
>And look where classical and jazz are now by trying to move on from memorability; so far up their own ass they are irrelevant in the modern world.
Classical and Jazz got ruined by other factors than not being braindead. It's mainly just jews.
>Yes, overly wordy poems are just as ass as purple prose in literature, long winded conversationalists, classical, jazz.
Then you might just be low iq

>>126891477
where did I say you said that? do you not know what the word "if" means? my point is that you sound like a larping tourist using a generic example to support a weak argument

>>126891356
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between autism and AI. But I suppose you're right; we're just about at the point where internet debate finally becomes 100% pointless due to how likely it is you're just talking to a bot.

>>126891637
>Generic example
You can call it whatever you want, I don't listen to jazz often, my main home on this board is /classical/. Amazing that you are so elitist that you'd attack someone for defending your shit genre.

>>126891680
>>126891356
>>126891124
NTA but samefagging and grandstanding about AI, while not actually bothering to make any meaningful statement about his post makes you look like a faggot. I'd be less surprised if your post was made by an AI than his. You're using the same speech patterns for one. And bullshitting about being a cellist for second.

>>126891173
>I don't know, there are a lot of songs out there with the same 3 or 4 chords as each other for example but not every one of them is as good as the other.
But what do you define as "good"? Why are those songs better than others to you? I ask you for an explanation as to why Billie Jean is better than other pop songs, and you give me a circular argument.
>Similarly, there are songs where the original version sounds uninteresting, like something you wouldn't pay any mind to, and then a cover version stands out and sounds great. It's like turning lead into gold.
Might be for a number of reasons. Either instrumentation, tempo, etc
>Yeah there's load of those 12 bars recorded and a lot of them don't catch your attention. Every band was releasing a 12 bar at that time but they weren't all 'Green Onions'.
I wouldn't be able to give you a certain answer there as I don't look into blues often, most of it sounds the same to me.
>I think the distinction is between making a complex but mediocre meal, and a simple but good meal. There's a lot of complex but uninteresting music that impresses people because it's technical.
This is mainly stuff you'd find when it comes to prog and jazz fans. I do agree that there is a lot of music like that, though I feel like time generally is unkind to those. There are plenty of concertos from the baroque, classical, and romantic periods that were extremely flashy and virtuosic that nobody remembers, while less virtuosic works got far more recognition down the line by virtue of being well thought out works on a musical level. I think the main issue is that people think complex = virtuosic when that isn't really the case. Bruckner isn't virtuosic, but it's mighty complex.

>>126891824
>I don't listen to jazz often
Trust me, we can tell.

>>126885682
>>126885686
you are a massive total faggot and i hope you get raped and tortured in a stalinist gulag

>>126878770 (OP)
north indian classical is higher iq than all of those combined. and, no, i have zero indian ancestry.

metal is only "popular" because insecure white men and boys feel like they need a masculine alternative to rap. but it just falls flat. screaming and growling about nietzsche and/or dismembering people just comes off as trying way too hard and overcompensating.

the real masculine alternative to rap is not feeling like you need one at all. also, you do not need "lifting music."

>>126889986
>So your position is just being an extreme contrarian, pretending that there's been no good music produced in the last century?
I'll butt in here, he did not make any statement about there being no good music being produced in the last century in your quote. He said that pop music was commercialized and braindead, which is objectively true in most scenarios. He is a bit spergy in the way he pushes his point, but still.
>You gonna give me some cliched line about the decline of Western civilization or something?
Cliche lines aren't always wrong. There definitely has been a decline in how western society treats art, music especially. A lot of the posts in this thread, bait or not, are proof of that. Generally most people who listen to music cannot properly describe or understand why they like the things they like, looking at it more like a hedonistic activity of mindless pleasure. You can claim that there isn't anything wrong with this idea, but it's always good to look at things with a critical eye. There's a reason the notion of "turn your brain off" is heavily looked down upon in literature, film, theater, etc. I do not see why music can't be the same, it takes a tiny bit of research to get acquainted with the basic terminology and most concepts should already be familiar to you from listening expierence. This is not to say that everyone should seek out complex music for the sake of it, but at least be able to describe the music they like and why they like it. When someone asks you what you like about your favorite film, do you not have an answer? Most people do, even if that answer is extremely rudimentary. Yet with music I rarely get anything beyond "sick bassline and beat" when asking a person about why they like the music they like.

>>126889986
>Turning completely against something you used to enjoy is not a mark of maturity
It depends on what this particular thing is, I used to enjoy Ennio Morricone soundtracks and Frank Sinatra when I was 12. I still enjoy them from time to time. But this is because I can find genuine worthwhile qualities in that music that intrigue me when relistening to them. I personally hold a preference for music that, to some degree, tells a compelling story through it's music (in either a literal or figurative sense) and utilizes the medium as a tool for expression. Some genres just do not utilize the expressive capabilities of the medium by their nature, someone not liking that genre in their entirety I do not think is a crime like you claim it is. If someone dislikes a genre not for it's musical characterstics but due to it's image; I'd say that is a sign of immaturity, yes. And I would also say liking certain genres for how you look when listening to it is also a sign of immaturity. Being into classical music has exposed me to enough people like that. If that is your main argument, then sure I can agree to an extend. But I think you present it in a flawed way.
>If you can't find something to enjoy in ANY genre of music then you have no soul and that's a fact
Are you religious? Because if you are not, then the concept of a soul does not exist. If you are, then by necessity every human being has a soul. Unless you are a gnostic who believes in the concept of hylics, but gnosticism is a heresy that isn't taken seriously by almost anyone. I'll be charitable and assume you are using it in the metaphorical sense, but even in the metaphorical sense I find this really silly. Having specific personal musical preferences is not something that indicates a lack of soul.

I might not be able to respond immediately. I would like to discuss this further when both of us have more time (It's evening for me). If you post some way to contact you after this thread, I'll check it out

>>126891960
Who is "we"? Can you get that elitist stick out of your ass for a moment? I am not acting like I am a massive fan of jazz and an authority of the genre. I simply hear a poor argument against jazz and I want to defend it out of intellectual honesty. I do not believe Bill Evans is unique for developing motifs, I just know him as someone who does out of the small bit of Jazz that I listened to. Being a retarded "muh sekrit club" faggot about music and actively arguing on the side of someone shitting on a genre you like because someone guilty of the crime of not being an encyclopedia on it is defending it is really gay and embarrassing. Critique the argument on it's own merit, not on
>Ackshyuwally, bill evans ish not the only one to develop motifs!
I never said this and this isn't part of my argument. Swap Bill Evans for anyone else who develops the head melody, I don't care. I just happened to be specifically familiar with Bill Evans because I like his music.
>>126892014
Nice argument. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish with this post? Are you specifically stating "Stalinist gulag" because you believe I am a communist? I like certain communist composers but I certainly am not one myself in any way

Bump

>>126891124
>Son, I'm in my 50s
So you're a senile fuck, gotcha.
It's true I don't talk to a lot of people, but no cellist would pick those pieces over Dvorak, Saint-Saens, Haydn, Schumann cello concertos as their favorite. If you're a cellist, you're probably not a "professional" one.
>people who enjoy it on a personal, emotional level, and people like you.
I don't see the difference.
>Whipping out Schumann as some sort of attempted deep cut made me
Deep cut you? You asked for music I enjoy and that's what I posted LOL. I genuinely don't believe you're cellist, just some retard melanated larper. Kill yourself.
>>126891135
I accept your concession.
>>126891304
But enough about you.

>>126888822
>there's probably only one composer in the entire history who never wrote anything "bad" and his name is J.S. Bach.
Monteverdi
Nice digits

>>126890768
>If you require extensive schooling...
You've misread my argument. I never claimed that classical music absolutely requires that to enjoy or understand. In fact, I kind of made the opposite point here >>126890722 that even in the past, most listeners weren't formally educated, but they still intuitively grasped the music because they were immersed in the tradition. The lack of musical education today matters not because classical is "too hard" for modern people, but because it means there's no longer a shared aesthetic language.
>>classical music is the best because it's the most complex
Again, misrepresentation. When I talk about complexity, I don't mean for its own sake, nor do I think musical quality can be judged solely by it. I'm talking about internal complexity/logic (form, development, harmony, counterpoint) and how these parameters evolved over time within a tradition. Mozart's music can sound simple and immediately attractive on the surface, but is actually structurally complex underneath. So yes, complexity can mean many things, and I'm speaking of the kind that's artistically integrated, not just needlessly convoluted and impossible to understand.
>Why would you need to compare them?
Because pop displaced classical in cultural centrality. We now live in a world where pop is the default musical language, so asking what was lost in that transition is a valid and important question. I'm not dismissing modern music entirely, I'm analyzing the structural differences in function, form, and aesthetic grounding.
>Art should be...
That's not universally agreed upon. You're making a normative claim about art's purpose (ironically, kind of elitist, no?), as if this one narrow criterion applies to all of music history. Art can also serve spiritual, intellectual, ceremonial, or other functions. The assumption that emotional immediacy is the highest standard says more about your own cultural conditioning than it does about art itself.

>>126890768
>>126895272
>I have a recurring suspicion...
A lot of assumptions here. That may be true for a few edge cases online, but it's not my position necessarily. My reasoning doesn't go backwards from "I hate modernity" to "therefore classical good". It's the reverse: I engaged with pop, niche subgenres, experimental rock, and minimalism, and eventually found that classical offered more satisfying depth; formally, emotionally, and aesthetically.
>Why do I never see them name modern classical composers? The most recent name I see in this thread is Debussy...
That's a weak rhetorical trick. I named Bach and Debussy because they're well-known and make the argument accessible. I actually listen to more "modern" composers than Debussy (like Poulenc, Messiaen, Pärt). I just don't like most contemporary/academic or American classical music (e.g. minimalism) because it often lacks any sense of spiritual weight or metaphysical grounding. American minimalism, for example, is obsessed with surface simplicity, repetition, and pop-culture aesthetics. The academic ultra-experimental stuff with extended techniques, found objects, blowing bubbles into a bowl of water, etc., feels too fragmented and often comes across as experimentation of its own sake. It's mostly incredibly unappealing to me on more than one level.
>restricting themselves...
The irony is that that's exactly what a lot of /mu/fags do when they limit themselves to /mu/core or whatever is high on RYM charts or whatever the current trend is, and they dismiss everything that doesn't have an electronic instrument or something. Classical music arguably spans over a thousand years. I've been listening to it for years and still haven't even touched certain composers, genres, or periods. Not really "restricting", and I'm not doing it just to "reject modernity".

yeah these loser dudes listen to classical shit because they racists its le white music cant stand BBCs fucking all ther oneitis you lost timmy

>>126895280
based honest classical enjoyer

>>126895299
>comes out of nowhere mentioning BBC
kek

>>126895299
>>126895308
Mutt's Law

>>126895337
I'm not American though

>>126895347
You're a mutt either way

>>126895347
You have a subconscious Negro complex.

>>126890768
>Putting that aside, I have a recurring suspicion that all of these people claiming that classical is the only thing worth listening to are really just taking that position as a political action; restricting themselves to music created during a certain period of time in some misguided effort to reject modernity. Otherwise, why do I never see them name modern classical composers?
Gee, I wonder why people who want to reject MODERNITY don't like MODERNIST composers. It's truly a mystery why a person who likes works of art that have a classical sense of beauty would then not like works by composers who want to dismantle this idea of beauty.
>The most recent name I see in this thread in Debussy, dead in 1918. Has no classical music been composed since? Even as a teen growing up in the middle of nowhere in the '90s, I managed to find and enjoy more modern composers like Philip Glass but these "traditionalist" zoomers with 24/7 internet access only know Bach and Debussy?
There has been music composed since, nobody is denying that. Everyone knows who Philip Glass is. Most people just disagree with the direction the medium took, and academia's stranglehold on it makes it difficult for most to get a foot in the door without having a bunch of fart-huffing nonsense shoved down their throats. What that leads to is complete and utter trite like this that nobody in their right mind would enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MtXqnC2Cac

Besides this, do you NEVER see any zoomer even mention soviet composers like Myaskovsky, Shostakovich, Profokiev or anyone else from there? Maybe my view is skewed because I interact with Russians quite often, but you've never heard a right winger praise any of the three even if they were commies? These composers come from way later than Debussy and are still liked because their music keeps a classical sense of beauty.