The more I study music theory and practice composition.

The more I see music was solved by bach.

There's not point in keep making music after his fugues.

Modern music is just trying to get away from him, only to make a children scribble, claiming is better because is too diferent from Bach.

But just like a children drawing is diferent from a Caravaggio or Rembrant painting.
Modern music is just that.
Children scribbles.

Music should've stopped being made after the 19th-early 20th century. Electric guitar was a mistake

True.

>>126881997 (OP)
>The more I study music theory the more I'm retarded
many such cases

>>126882021

>>126881997 (OP)
I love Bach so fucking profoundly but your sentiment (and probably your taste) is fucking garbage.

kill yourself cris

>>126881997 (OP)
Bach was incapable of writing a crusher, and he could barely squeak out any bangers. We wouldn't have any proper crushers until the breakbeat wave of the mid90s.

>>126882229
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHNLdHe8uxY

Vivaldi solved it earlier

>>126881997 (OP)
Bach could never write Highway to Hell.

>>126882246
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5W1GwBekKI

>>126881997 (OP)
Bach is boring shit

>>126883245
Boredom is a subjective emotional state of the listener; it says more about your level of attention, education, or taste than about the object itself. Great art often requires cultivation to fully appreciate. Also, you wouldn't call advanced mathematics "boring" simply because you don't understand it; that would reveal your ignorance, not a flaw in mathematics.

>>126881997 (OP)
thanks Bach

>>126884195
This is a cope.

>>126884249
Well, can't argue with that! Not an argument, by the way.

>>126883245
that's because you need basically to be a composer that knows a lot of music theory to understand bach.

My point was that It took me 8 years to understand a single of his fugues.

Most music is too childish to be interesting after 8 years of study of music theory.

>>126885537
>that's because you need basically to be a composer that knows a lot of music theory to understand bach.
Not really. Bach's music is very clear and detailed, simple to follow really.

>>126885537
>My point was that It took me 8 years to understand a single of his fugues.
You're posting anonymously, and yet you choose to come off as a retard? Strange move.
It's just mathematical patterns. Why any self-respecting creative would look up to him, I will never understand.

>>126884247
thats not bach

>>126885734
I don't think you even know shit about platonic idealism, the kabala, numerology, sacred judeocristian numerological meaning in the bible, if you wanna talk about "simple numerical patterns".

>>126885758
woah, you are jewish

>>126885537
Not really. Besides, understanding is on more than one level. You only need a soul to understand Bach.

>>126885734
>It's just mathematical patterns
The fuck does this even mean?

>>126884247
based

>>126881997 (OP)
>>126885537
Music was probably solved by Tn-shi actually
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOP7G5J755s
Doujin and doujin-inspired music is peak. Japanese (and Japanese-sounding) music is very technical and strives for excellence. You can study EDM, mixing, and Jazz composition for 8 years and you would probably never be better than tn-shi

>>126885750
yes he is

>>126882246
Babies first bach

>>126886311
>Music can be divided into 4 bar phrases, 8 bar phrases, etc
>Intervals can be expressed in ratios
>The Dissonance of intervals can be expressed by the complexity of these ratios.
>Dissonance has to be resolved in a very logical manner
music is very very very numerical and very very very logical. Songs can be thought of as mathematical expressions that evoke an emotional response.

>>126885826
can you niggers stop praising Bach as if he's the musical Messiah kek. He's simply a product of his time and his works fit in with the musical pedagogy of his time, except for the fact that he's an autist who really likes numbers.

>>126882297
Wigger music. low art.

>>126886384
Tn-shi is very high IQ too btw. he's def has +4SD IQ and he musically mogs Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Fux and a bunch of other wannabes from the etheric realm and back.

>>126886503
>Songs can be thought of as mathematical expressions that evoke an emotional response.
And that's a good reason to write off bach as "just mathematics patterns?" Look at what I'm replying to, retard.
I wasn't asking "how is music math?" I was asking why you should write off bach "because he's just mathematical patterns," whatever that is supposed to mean.
The whole idea that "music is math" is pretty dumb to be honest. Math is the most general thing there is. You can describe anything with math. Everything is math, by that criteria

>>126886503
>He's simply a product of his time
Aren't we all? Bach is number 1 though. Simply the GOAT. Your contrarianism is just stupidity

>>126886503
>his works fit in with the musical pedagogy of his time
Not true. In many ways he goes way beyond his contemporaries

>>126886614
>Bach is number 1 though. Simply the GOAT.
Of all time? like, no one in the future will EVER be better than him? should we really judge composers by how well they compose fugues and canons and set Bach as the ultimate standard? Are other styles of music inferior to Bach's because they don't conform to the style and tastes of 17th century Europeans?

Bach can autistically write shit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUHQ2ybTejU
but at the end of the day music is just music and it's quality depends on our subjective response to it. If his works evoke the same subjective response a regular ol' fugue would, then how can we say his works are better than everyone else's?
Perhaps you're judging his works based on how technically complex they are. In that case, there are probably countless musicians who are technically more well-versed in their own style, styles that are different to Bach's. For example, Jazz musicians.
In fact, if you studied Jazz theory for 8 years and studied one artist you would have said the same thing about that artist in the OP.
You shouldn't really put Bach on a pedestal like that lol.

>>126886593

you claim you've said:
>I was asking why you (I'm NTA btw) should write off bach "because he's just mathematical patterns," whatever that is supposed to mean.
and claimed:
>I wasn't asking "how is music math?

however you actually said:
>>It's just mathematical patterns
>The fuck does this even mean?
and a lot of nuanced was lost

>>126886985
>Of all time? like, no one in the future will EVER be better than him?
Bro is still counting on the future, LOL

>>126886626
well enlighten me

>>126886503
>can you niggers stop praising Bach as if he's the musical Messiah kek. He's simply a product of his time and his works fit in with the musical pedagogy of his time, except for the fact that he's an autist who really likes numbers.
No. Because he wasn't just a "product of his time". Bach's music is literally out of time. He's the culmination of countless Baroque traditions (German, Italian, French) and yet so modern in his precision and structure that he anticipates elements of 20th century music. And he does all of this within a framework of metaphysical Christian symbolism and 18th century European aesthetics. This combination of cosmic depth, technical brilliancy, and historical rootedness is singular. It won't be achieved again.
The invention of pop music in the 20th century, along with the democratization of music-making and the collapse of patronage and cultural incentive, means no one's even trying anymore. You're either getting market-tested slop or sterile academic noodling, but at the same time, quite ironically, a level of fragmentation and pluralism where you can barely make sense of anything. Entire dimensions of music have been discarded. It's very hard to argue that the general level of structural, contrapuntal, and expressive ambition has increased. We've already peaked. Bach was the summit.

>>126886985
>no one in the future will EVER be better than him?
lol well obviously I can't predict the future
>should we really judge composers by how well they compose fugues and canons
Who said that? Bach didn't just compose fugues, ya know. Judge him by how good the music is.
>Are other styles of music inferior to Bach's
No. I like other styles of music. And to be fair, I don't think you can really say bach is objectively number 1 and nobody comes close. Plenty of people are in the running with him.
>If his works evoke the same subjective response a regular ol' fugue would
But they don't? That's the whole point. They evoke stronger responses. Duh.
>Perhaps you're judging his works based on how technically complex they are.
Ohhh. So this is the assumption underpinning your entire argument. No - that's not what I'm doing. It's what you are assuming I'm doing, for some reason...
>if you studied Jazz theory for 8 years and studied one artist
I know more about jazz than bach lol. I play jazz. I like jazz. Apples to Oranges.
>however you actually said
Keyword was "just." It's "just" mathematical patterns.
All music is mathematical patterns, as you said.
Try to keep with the context of discussion lol

>>126886998
Not my job retard. Go listen to bach for yourself and then come back with some actual knowledge instead of just spouting bullshit out of ignorance

>>126886985
To clarify the whole "just mathematical patterns thing." Let me give you an analogy.
Imagine someone said
>>the rolling stones are just people playing guitars and drums. No idea why you would like them
And I said
>what the fuck does that mean?
Would your swoop in to explain to me what a guitar is? No - that's not the point. The point is that it's a bizarre reductive opinion that makes no sense at all. Anyone who is not autistic would recognize that immediately

>>126881997 (OP)
Is /agdg/ leaking?

>>126881997 (OP)
Damn, since you know so much stuff you must be able to compose some pretty good music.
Why don't you share some?

>>126881997 (OP)
What does "solve music" mean? To perfect it?

>>126890132
for me, its justifying its existence. Like, it gives reason to the whole thing

>>126881997 (OP)
Music isn’t a math, science or engineering problem. But I can see Bach fans think like that considering how lifeless his works are.

>>126884195
>Ackshually that says more about you

>>126890198
hes right

>>126890181
Ironically it is the anti bach fags that have constructed this idea in their head that bach enjoyers are pretentious and think they are "listening to math." Meanwhile, bach enjoyers are like "damn this music is sublime."