Once classical music clicks, you'll never go back to pop slop (rock, metal, edm, shoagaze, etc. and all its subgenres). You will primarily listen to classical genres. But the first "click" is the real challenge - you don't believe classical music can offer some arbitrary characteristic that [your favorite genre] does so you don't want to waste your time finding that out. In reality, classical music captures every feeling or emotion in the broadest sense possible. In the most brilliant and flawless manner. Saying and confirming as someone who has went through various phases of /mu/sic, I don't even want to discuss that music at this point, it is superficial, boring and normie to any experienced listener.

Beethoven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pWFsEhQQK0&list=OLAK5uy_nrDP03wSgYJlqy7ZpVb1RZU8C-r_RO1q0&index=9

Chopin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTjro1Dusng

Bartok

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjKzc8quPo&list=OLAK5uy_lYBFEd52S66pRVrSuyaHOwENCtan5gbdk&index=1

It's "hard to swallow" only if you're an brainlet simpleton.

>>126930022 (OP)
Based.

>>126930022 (OP)
>classical music captures every feeling or emotion
Some me a single classical piece with the same emotion as Metallica - Whiplash.

>>126930022 (OP)
ABBA fucking sucks and so does your gay cello music. Stop making garbage juvenile threads and go out and fellate another faggot dork while you both play-act as 18th century landed gentry like you all want to so badly

>>126930022 (OP)
>classical music captures every feeling or emotion
Show me a single classical piece with the same emotion as Metallica - Whiplash.

>>126930113
Sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neszNy7NriU&list=OLAK5uy_m1py4-SLWa16u0pC6vR5cQmf63OGXSLEs&index=5
Instead of post-african repetitions, you have development and contrasting theme, which further supports the heavy drama and reduced monotony, but can filter the metalnormie.
>>126930103
>ABBA fucking sucks
This, but all pop slop

I might be a brainlet but you'll always be a tastelet

>>126930158
>Beethoven's 5th
I've heard that one before. Top-tier classical, cool riff at the start. Laughable to think it has the same emotion as early Metallica. You can't mosh to Beethoven.

>>126930187
>You can't mosh to Beethoven
Yes, you can. Grosse Fuge is heavier than anything Metallica wrote.

>>126930200
Heaviness requires both a strong beat and loud bass. Classical has neither (excluding a few pipe organ works which have bass).

>>126930164
People who listen to classical music already have an infinitely better taste than you ever will.
>I might be a brainlet
You are.

>>126930210
Grosse Fuge is heavier than anything Metallica wrote.

>>126930224
You don't understand heaviness.

>>126930231
Grosse Fuge is heavier than anything Metallica wrote.

>>126930224
well of course, there's like 100 orchestra players and only 4 metallica members

>>126930187
>cool riff at the start.
No, you see there's the problem. "Riff" is a monotonic, lowbrow musical expression, which might sound good on the surface to an unexperienced ear only. The charm of Beethoven's 5th is not the opening motif, but how it is developed. Right after the statement of the motif, you hear how it is developed, broken down into little pieces, and then it starts to shrink into little blocks until it can no longer shrink, and only thing that can stop it is loud dissonance. Then the second theme comes in, and after that you have a whole "development" section which further develops and transforms that themes. It's not merely a repetition, but height of musical expression. Stop looking for "riffs" and look at the bigger picture, "think outside the box" or you'll be forever stuck in metaltard phase.
Also
>mosh
If you like post-african repetitions, what are you even doing here? Just listen to that one shitty song for the rest of your life I guess.
>>126930210
And it also requires contrast and dynamics. If the bass is persistently beating in the background, "heaviness" becomes monotonic nuisance, a background noise, it becomes superficial and meaningless. There's no music heavier than classical for this reason.
>>126930164
But enough about popsloppers

>>126930263
>And it also requires contrast and dynamics.
Correct. Not all metal songs get this right but Whiplash does it perfectly.

honestly I tried a bunch of times but I really can't give a shit about anything made before 1900

"Moshing" is not a feeling or expression in itself, it is expression of various emotions and passion for the music. All of which can be found in classical music. But obviously no one is going to "mosh" at classical music, firstly (and most importantly) because you are wholly engaged with music, you must pay attention or it'll quickly become boring and incoherent. Secondly, because this "act" just signals your personality traits and intelligence, you get excited at communicating with other people about music physically, because you can't do it verbally.
>>126930290
>Whiplash does it perfectly.
Except it's just generic repetitive slop that does nothing heavy music actually should.

>>126930294
Well if there is any classical music from early/mid 20th century you actually like, that's already something. Any pieces in particular that you enjoy?

>>126930336
>Adrenaline starts to flow
>You're thrashing all around
>Acting like a maniac
>Whiplash
This is the feeling that classical music cannot express. Not even "extreme" classical like Rite of Spring. If you disagree you've obviously never experienced the metal emotion. Listen to Kill 'Em All on repeat until you get it.

>Once classical music clicks, you'll never go back to pop slop (rock, metal, edm, shoagaze, etc. and all its subgenres). You will primarily listen to classical genres. But the first "click" is the real challenge - you don't believe classical music can offer some arbitrary characteristic that [your favorite genre] does so you don't want to waste your time finding that out. In reality, classical music captures every feeling or emotion in the broadest sense possible. In the most brilliant and flawless manner. Saying and confirming as someone who has went through various phases of /mu/sic, I don't even want to discuss that music at this point, it is superficial, boring and normie to any experienced listener.

>>126930261
>string quartet
>100 orchestra players
lol

>>126930384
That is just a sub-sub-sub-expression of excitement that does no justice to its actual expression. Listen to Große Fuge until it clicks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQcHPhYEoJY
>you've obviously never experienced the metal emotion.
I obviously have during my popslop phase, unfortunately.

>overtly autistic post
ok sperg good for you

>>126930384
I'm a metalhead who listens to classical. I've "experienced the metal emotion" (it's not a single one, though), and classical music is heavy as fuck. >>126930263 makes a great point with "heaviness" becoming monotonic in "heavy" music. There's nothing like a big, final climax in a loud classical piece after dozens of minutes of suspension, contrasts, and dynamics going up and down.
>>Adrenaline starts to flow
>>You're thrashing all around
>>Acting like a maniac
Describes a lot of Scriabin's music.

Please don't engage OP. He is a mentally ill Brazilian man who learned all his English from /pol/ and Varg Vikernes Twitter posts. He has been spamming /classical/ and /metal/ with his Dunning-Kruger nonsense for years at this point. Ironically, he might actually be the dumbest poster to ever post in those generals as well.

>>126930430
Don't care about his lore, and for all I know, you could be making shit up. He's still, unironically, 100% correct.

>>126930103
>>126930164
>>126930187
>>126930261
>>126930398
Please listen to the OP, you have no clue

>>126930430
This is some next level schizophrenic cope

>>126930429
Not sure why we're fixating on the heaviness debate anyway, it's just a diversion. The fact of the matter is that classical music is amazing and has such a wide range of things you can focus on and enjoy. It's music at its peak and this thread is for celebrating that.
You don't see /lit/ shitting on the classics of their medium, like Homer, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, etc. I mean, you do, but those pseud opinions don't count, they don't really matter, they're just noise. Saying classical music isn't heavy or whatever is like saying Proust is boring because there's no plot, or something retarded like that. Like, it's a stupid, nonsensical criticism and it doesn't matter.

Post something good by this Bach faggot then. Impress me.

Relegating yourself to one specific genre makes your mind smaller. Learn to appreciate everything in different ways.

>>126930484
Pick one and listen until it clicks:

Piano, Art of Fugue, Bach's last and perhaps his greatest work, but left unfinished. A monumental exploration of fugal techniques based on a single principal theme (varied through inversion, augmentation, and complex counterpoint). Listen for how the main subject transforms and intertwines in each fugue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYwTvTka4Vo&list=OLAK5uy_ldbQuu2l6uueuBCYNLSrbLHoYNmjYUjcI&index=1

Harpsichord, Goldberg Variations, one of the highest points of art in history of western civilization. Glenn Gould's recording of Goldberg Variations (piano version) was included on the Voyager spacecraft's Golden Record, which was sent into space. An aria with 30 diverse variations built on the bass line (not the melody), showcasing keyboard virtuosity and emotional range. Watch for the return of the aria and every third variation being a canon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxqSyRujNcI&list=OLAK5uy_ki5UBnxjR8zlTpU3PucxDXlvcmJlEOTUM&index=1

Organ, one of his most dramatic organ works based on a repeating bass theme (passacaglia) varied with increasing intensity, leading to a powerful fugue. Watch how the eight-bar bass motif grounds both sections. (This is a two movement piece, shortest by far):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1atQFLYbzuk

Choral/Orchestral. Enjoy the epic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEnzMw350UM&list=OLAK5uy_mJ-AR3JP_jbqP7bApIqK5ntQ0roG1Txig&index=1

>>126930519
>classical
>one genre
Smartest pop slopper

>>126930561
>Organ
Sorry, ignore that link. It's a shitty performance. Listen to this instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTQ3RHDHCY

>>126930530
>>126930578
>>126930625
Stop avatarfagging

Beethoven's 7th is so good, it baffles me how stupid /mu/core faggots are missing out on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVHVNjqq-a8

Why is Radiohead more popular than Beethoven on /mu/?

>>126930429
Hard monotony is often the appeal. I don't always want to listen to music that climaxes or is flamboyant, that's exhausting.

>>126930928
That's because all you can listen to is monotony. Once larger works click, you'll quickly change your mind. And even then, you can find more appealing (relatively) monotonic works in some classical

>>126930022 (OP)
Classical music obviously didn't 'click' with you if it caused you to stop enjoying other music. You can't love classical music and hate every other genre of music it produced. It makes no sense.

>>126930979
>Classical music obviously didn't 'click' with you if it caused you to stop enjoying other music.
This but the exact opposite

>>126930561
>Klemperer
>not starting with the canonical Matthew Passion by Karl Richter
https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=lCplrNYqReA&si=UBKCCziHkjG8Ligu

>>126930928
>I don't always want to listen to music that climaxes or is flamboyant
Good thing classical music has this and the exact opposite and everything in-between.

As a non-classical listener. Im scared that once I get interested in classical, I stop caring about non-classical. I've spent so much time increasing my 20th century music knowledge, I dont want it to be a waste of time

>>126930561
if classical is not a genre then what is it? a feeling?

>>126931345
Unironically, it's just music. Every other type stems from classical music. It was the first genre, making it genreless.

>>126931363
Wrong. Medieval music is a different and superior genre. Medieval music isn't afraid of power chords ("parallel fifths"). Also folk music isn't classical and it's also better than classical because it has beats.

I listened to Mozarts entire works, 800 pieces in total. I listened to it over 2 years constantly on loop, I gave it the chance.
my verdict? its bland, boring, safe and predictable. its pretty wallpaper music but if thats the best "Classical" has to offer then no thanks.

>>126931386
First of all, there are no recordings of medieval music and the fact that you use the term power chords in relation to said music shows you don't even know what you are talking about. And second, folk music 100% stems from classical. There would be no folk without classical first.

>>126931345
The term classical music arose during 19th century when people began distinguishing art a.k.a. serious music from popular and folk music

As for the definition: A broad tradition of Western art music composed primarily between the 9th century and the present, characterized by written scores, complex structure, AND trained performance, distinct from popular or folk traditions.

Etymologically, classical comes from Latin (classicus. plural classici). Meaning of the highest class, belonging to the first class of citizens, superior, authoritative or exemplary. Originally a Roman social term used to designate upper class citizens of society. So when the phrase "classical music" was adopted, it borrowed the prestige of the term, something superior, timeless, worthy of study and preservation. Since historians wanted to treat this music asenduring art, on par with classical architecture and literature.

>>126931183
>I stop caring about non-classical.
Well, yes, but not exactly. It'll be your choice, endulge in easy-listen pop songs or explore more and more great music, you might find yourself enjoying both, but preferring classical. I chose not to waste my time with popular genres myself.
>I dont want it to be a waste of time
But you already know it's a waste of time, so why delude yourself?

>>126930471
The OP is antagonistic towards non-classical genres. You have to assume that is the reason people are shitting on classical itt. Start a neutral thread saying
>classical music is amazing and has such a wide range of things you can focus on and enjoy. It's music at its peak and this thread is for celebrating that.
But you didn't do that, OP. Because you're a faggot. This thread isn't about convincing people to appreciate and enjoy classical music, this thread is about you being a faggot and saying "hey everyone look how much of a faggot I can be in one single post".
So really, I'm asking you to look into your heart and ask yourself why you made this thread. Then reread your OP and ask yourself if it brings you any closer to your desired outcome. Then consider making a new thread that's about music rather than being about your faggot personality.

>>126931431
This entire thread is basically just OP sucking his own microdick about how superior he is to everyone else. He does not enjoy classical music, he latches onto it in an attempt to appear superior because he is insecure.

>>126931386
>Medieval music isn't afraid of power chords ("parallel fifths").
No one is "afraid" of parallelism, it just induces monotony. When the music became more sophisticated, composers realized music can be more expressive this way.
>it has beats.
A lot of folk music has no beat, and a lot of classical music has beats. No, it can't make one superior to the other. But the deliberate, calculated and careful way the classical composers use beats is indeed superior. For the definition of classical refer to >>126931413
>>126931400
Mozart has a lot of mediocrity. But no one here believes you truly sat down and listened to Mozart's late piano concertos or symphonies, because you haven't.
>>126931412
>folk music 100% stems from classical.
This is wrong. Many indigenous cultures have folk music and have no classical. Although that anon is definitely ignorant.
>>126931431
>people are shitting on classical itt.
It's only bunch of ignorant tourist who can't even recognize Beethoven's 5th beyond the first few bars. "People".
>Start a neutral thread saying
More people engage in posts that induce rage and excitement. This is basic facebook algorithm.
>But you didn't do that, OP.
I'm the OP, retard.
>This thread isn't about convincing people to appreciate and enjoy classical music
It is. There's no other reason to make thread with that OP
>why you made this thread.
For the reason stated above.
>>126931449
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.

Pytten

>>126931458
>More people engage in posts that induce rage and excitement. This is basic facebook algorithm.
kek

>>126931458
Thank you sister

While classical is objectively superior, it's unfair to judge people for not getting it or having the patience to get it, because music appreciation can only really be done by a tiny portion of the population. Everyone thinks of themselves as some sort of music critic, which is obviously ridiculous; everyone eats food, very few people would claim to be well-informed "food critics", yet people aren't as aware of their cluelessness when it comes to music,

If you strip the social aspect of music (live shows etc) and the means by which it ties each generation together (i like this inane shit, my friend likes this inane shit, the people older than me and younger than me don't get this inane shit, we are in some sense therefore bonded), 95% of people don't even like music. Including most people on this subreddit. If music wasn't a means by which you felt kinship with your social peers, most of you wouldn't listen to it (or talk about it or care about it).

>>126931458
>Many indigenous cultures
Do not ever compare monkeys beating sticks on rocks to real music again. This thread is for discussing music. Specifically white music. The only type.

>>126931512
I wont have my thread devolve into racist garbage. Begone.

Kill yourself Hector.

I'm fairly convinced that metal started and ended with Obtained Enslavement, no one with half as much talent as Heks ever touched this genre. It's unbelievable how good Witchcraft is, it's contrapuntally and harmonically rich masterpiece. As a compliment, I would say Heks either stole from classical masters, or actually studied music at the conservatory for years (and god bless him for writing in metal style). It's definitely one of the most contrapuntal albums in metal and even entire popular music. Hell, it's more contrapuntal than some classical music.
Hek's mastery of harmony combined with one of the greatest metal producer (Pytten), raw guitar tone and 90's symphonic textures is a marvel of our times, in all seriousness.
Metal will never reach this peak again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMlc52GcbUk

Sad but true. I would like to chat with Heks. Unfortunately he's disappeared from the internet.

>>126931512
I'm talking about indigenous cultures, regardless of race. There is European folk music too, which is historically documented and predates classical music.
>>126931484
>it's unfair to judge people for not getting it or having the patience to get it
I don't disagree. It's unfair in general, but pretty fair on this board. Because why are you even here then? If you want to discuss music, expect to be judged and criticized.
>most people on this subreddit
>subreddit
Go back

Unfunniest bait persona there is on this shitty board

>>126931520
There is no proof any non whites had a concept of music until they were introduced to whites. The oldest accounts of non whites having music were written by the whites that observed them. On account of whites being the only ones capable of recording said indigenous 'people' since 'they' somehow couldn't.

>>126931581
Ancient Egypt, China, Mesopotamia had music. I'm not sure how you'd classify them as European, although Egyptian nobility was Greek for a period of time.

>>126931581
Non-whites invented music and they still rule it. They are just better at it. Stick to math and accounting, Melvin.

>>126931458
>There's no other reason to make thread with that OP
What about rage farming engagement through ragebait like you described in the very same post I'm responding to now? Take a look at your thread. It doesn't look like anybody is convincing anybody to listen to more classical. It looks like a bunch of monkeys flinging shit at each other on their cellphones while bored at work. It looks like performative internet arguing for the fun of it. That is exactly why you made this thread. You got what you wanted, and as a result you've damaged the reputation of classical music for the dozen or so people who read this thread.

>>126931618
Non-Europeans developed their music independant of Europeans, the Europeans similarly developed it independently, but first the Italians, then the Germans improved it significantly, and no one has reached those peaks to this day.
>>126931628
>in the very same post I'm responding to now?
I don't know what you're responding to, but we're currentlu discussing more music ITT than in any other thread.
Go back to your kpop threads, mutant.
>It doesn't look like anybody is convincing anybody
I have convinced quite a few already, I suppose not everyone is vocal about it.
>That is exactly why you made this thread.
Not really, but okay sure. The question is, what the hell are you doing here then?
>damaged the reputation of classical music
LOL. You flatter me.

OP must have a lot of friends and a family that loves and respects him to make a thread like this and act they way he does

>>126931618
Is that why the blues didn't become popular until a white man perfected it? The same blues that blacks only came up with on diddly bows because they couldn't handle the complexity of 6 strings until a white man showed them how? Or how the black man's disco became the white man's techno? Or how rap didn't become mainstream until a white man came along? Or how you wouldn't even know what asian music sounded like if it weren't for a white man inventing a device to record actual music?

>>126931431
I'm not OP, retard.

>>126931694
So you are just agreeing with me that whites stole everything from colored folks, thanks.

>>126931413
>The term classical music arose during 19th century when people began distinguishing art a.k.a. serious music from popular and folk music
Popular music didn't exist in the 19th century. What you probably mean is "light music", i.e. less serious classical music. Pop music was invented in the 20th century.

Classical music was the pop music of it's time. Rock and metal were invented because classical was too gaypilled.

This thread has appropriate levels of incel poptimists seething and genuine music discussion. Like eating a delicious chicken and dipping it into a sauce.

>>126931699
Stole what? Blacks had their chance and we all see what the best they could produce was. If it wasn't for whites you wouldn't even know your own history. Pic related is the greatest black artist by the way.

>>126931719
>implying OP has ever or will ever have sex that did not come by way of an uncle forcing himself on him

>>126931713
see >>126931702
You don't know what "pop music" is. You are musically illiterate and this thread is way above your pay grade.

>>126931702
The term popular music was coined in late 19th century. From Britannica
>principally intended to be received and appreciated by a wide audience … written by known individuals … distinct from folk music passed organically
It wasn't exactly "pop" in the modern sense, but it was its predecessor. Mostly commercially circulated sheet music of songs (e.g. Vaudeville). With records and radio, popular music came to mean recorded music primarily, with a broad appeal, non-elite mass-market endeavor. All popular music essentially serves the same purpose today. Although sometimes the lines can blur between the three categories.
>>126931713
Rock and metal are gay themselves
>>126931785
Tru

>>126931400
>I listened to Mozarts entire works, 800 pieces in total
First of all, no you didn't.
>bland... safe and predictable
He's anything but that. I mean, maybe if you're talking about the early pieces he wrote when he was five years old, lol. But his mature works are nothing like that. He synthesized all major musical developments of his time and excelled in virtually every genre and form that existed. His music regularly features irregular or aperiodic structures, unpredictable turns in melody and harmony, and subtle experiments in form, texture, and orchestration.
>boring
Boredom is a subjective emotional state of the listener; it says more about your level of attention, education, or taste than the music itself. Great art requires cultivation to fully appreciate.
>pretty wallpaper music
That just shows how sincerely you engaged with the material: you probably listened to a handful of works (most likely in shitty performances, too) as background noise while doing other things.
>if thats the best "Classical" has to offer
There are 10-20 names that are the indisputable titans of the tradition. The extended canon includes roughly 50-100 composers, and if you include specialists' favorites (cult, underrated composers), that's another 100-200.
Judging the entirety of classical music (a thousand year old tradition) based on a single great composer is supremely idiotic. It just proves the task at hand was too difficult for a retard of your caliber. You'd be better off listening to the 5-10 best pieces of every major composer across a wide variety of time periods and genres.

>>126931743
>implying one person amounts to statistical average
Smartest poptimist. keep em rageposts comin

>>126931813
Keep posturing online while achieving nothing EVER IRL. Thank god your bloodline ends with you.

>>126931800
>The term popular music was coined in late 19th century. From Britannica
>>principally intended to be received and appreciated by a wide audience … written by known individuals … distinct from folk music passed organically
>It wasn't exactly "pop" in the modern sense, but it was its predecessor. Mostly commercially circulated sheet music of songs (e.g. Vaudeville). With records and radio, popular music came to mean recorded music primarily, with a broad appeal, non-elite mass-market endeavor. All popular music essentially serves the same purpose today. Although sometimes the lines can blur between the three categories.
I stand corrected. I always thought the correct term was "light music", but I hadn't realized vaudeville songs and parlor music weren't included in that category. Thanks for the clarification.

>>126931730
>worshipping a pedo
Typical /pol/tard musiclet.

>>126931854
>bot that responds to pictures because it doesn't understand English

This can't be a very convincing tactic for persuading people to listen to classical music. Your overwhelmingly pompous and condescending demeanor would only encourage the types of people you're targeting to steer clear of the things you take interest in for the fear of becoming anything like you. Which I suppose is effective if your goal is gatekeeping but if your intention is to get more people interested in classical music, this is not the way to do it I think.

classical is for people over 80

>>126930022 (OP)
>he thinks classical music is as challenging and fulfilling as music can get
Adorable. I got bored of the baroque in my teenage years. I tire of notes, scales and structure more generally. These days I only listen to field recordings of MRI scans in progress, compilations of Geiger counters going berserk, interviews with sexual abuse survivors, and clips of old Armenian news broadcasts played in reverse juxtaposed against vinyl rips of 1950s Christmas records. Call me once you're on my level, OP. You're far behind.

>>126931922
I thought OP was baiting when I first saw him shit up other generals (and before he got laughed out of those) but he is genuinely mentally ill and thinks this behaviour is helping his case.

>>126931922
>Your overwhelmingly pompous and condescending demeanor
First of, the OP is not pompous or condescending. Your implications (and admittedly, rest of the thread), are. But I disagree, if person decides to engage in a coversation, there's no reason for me to shy away from truth to avoid hurting someone's feelings. That is literally what happens on reddit. If your feelings dictate so much of your views, you're probably never going to appreciate art music either way.

But even if we take your argument seriously, here's what happens: Effectively, this thread gatekeeps people with highly undesirable personality traits (low openness and conscientiousness, very high neuroticism) that also negatively correlates with intelligence, and invites people with more open mind and high intellect (openness), which positively correlates to intelligence. So if you're right (you're not), it's still a good thing that I can gatekeep clowns.

>>126932001
>t. actually baiting and seething
lel

>>126930022 (OP)
genuinely curious, are you or are you not a fan of groups or artists that clash classical/symphonic shit with genres like rock etc.? no judgment

>>126932149
Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Sad behaviour.

>First of, the OP is not pompous or condescending
Levels of autism and lack of self-awareness previously unknown to man

>>126932186
No.
>>126932195
(OP) which means Original Post (as well as Poster), incel

By order of required intelligence, it's:

Noise/power electronics > Post-avant > Generative/IDM > Dadaist musique concrete > Plunderphonics > Neotrash > Proto-Hyperpop > Outsider Art > Field recordings of owls > Lowercase > Hauntology AND THEN Classical.

You talk a lotta shit for someone nowhere near the top of the pyramid, OP. Perhaps your brashness comes from a place of insecurity?

>>126932301
>Noise/power electronics > Post-avant > Generative/IDM > Dadaist musique concrete > Plunderphonics > Neotrash > Proto-Hyperpop > Outsider Art > Field recordings of owls > Lowercase
SloPop.

>>126932312
>filtered by treated static and Max/MSP compositions
Embarrassing.

>>126932330
>compositions
>generative
Smartest slopper

>>126931400
Rondo alla Turca is good.

>>126932349
>doesn't fully understand what Max/MSP is
>doesn't fully understand what generative music is
>doesn't fully understand what nonlinear music production software does
>all he knows is violins
Embarrassing.

>>126931412
Power chord is the standard name for any chord using only fifths and optionally octaves. Medieval music used power chords because they sounds great, even without distortion. Classical musicians abandoned power chords, first for a good reason (maintaining clarity of polyphony), but later purely out of snobbery because they avoid them even in non-polyphonic works. The medieval tradition lives on with Sacred Harp which is a highly underrated genre.

>>126932375
>doesn't understand [my pop slop terminology]
No thank you.
>>126932436
>because they sounds great,
No, because they didn't know any better.
>purely out of snobbery
???
>they avoid them even in non-polyphonic works.
Fifths are avoided to maintain voice independence when needed, no matter chorale or a fugue. And you can see a LOT of parallelism everywhere, even in Bach, Beethoven, and romantics like Liszt. And later by impressionists like Debussy. You have severe dunning kruger, never studied music and regurgitate what you heard from your bullies online. Go clean a toilet.

>>126932553
>LOT of parallelism everywhere
Just not between voices, obviously. Sometimes even between voices though.

>>126932553
>clearly doesn't even fully understand what qualifies as pop music and what doesn't
Embarrassing.

>>126932553
>No, because they didn't know any better.
A power chord is objectively the most consonant chord possible. If you avoid them you are not exploiting the full range of possible consonance.

>>126930022 (OP)
I had a period of almost two years where this was true and even then I could only listen to the mellower forms of orchestral music. Anything else agitated me. I'm in a place now where I can and do listen to other sorts of music. I still don't like overly bombastic, marching style or metropolitan orchestral music tho

>>126932575
But enough about you
>>126932591
>A power chord is objectively the most consonant chord possible.
A fifth is not a chord, idiot. It's yet another case of pop sloppers wrongly adopting terminology from theorists without having read a single book in their lives. (Another classic example is guitarfags and jazzplebs calling tonic chords "dominant 9ths" when it's simply a tonic 9th, because dominant 9ths are common in classical whereas tonic 9ths aren't. lmfao)
And no, it isn't even the most consonant interval (hint: it's unison and octave).
>If you avoid them
LOL. Yet another brainlettery. No, no one is avoiding fifths. Every single piece of music written by Beethoven has a fifth interval.

>>126932682
>n-no u...
Embarrassing.

>>126932682
>unison and octave
Those are not chords. You have to use more than one note to qualify as a chord. By convention octaves are considered the same note.

>>126932682
anon, generative music very clearly fits into the "art music" category in the image you just posted...

>>126932682
>Every single piece of music written by Beethoven has a fifth interval
Just because there happens to be a fifth in passing doesn't mean it's functioning as a power chord.

>>126932702
>provides definition fully rebutting both of your points
>uhm.... that's a no u!
Concession accepted.
>>126932707
>Those are not chords.
No one said they were. I said intervals, and you just repeated what I said. Learn to read.
>>126932721
Not really. But go ahead and explain.
>>126932723
>doesn't mean it's functioning as a power chord.
And I didn't say it was functioning as a parallel fifth. But parallel fifths do appear in classical, even as early as Chopin and especially by Debussy.

>>126932769
Explain how generative music classifies as pop music without also demonstrating in the process that you don't fully understand what generative music is or how it is stored or distributed.

>>126932769
>I said intervals
You said "And no," which implies you are categorizing them the same way as power chords.

>>126932769
>"m-my jaypegg proves you wrong!!"
>it actually proves me right
Embarrassing.

>>126932436
>Medieval music used power chords
Source?

>>126932841
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organum

I will be totally honest with you dude I don't care about anything made before World War II and certainly not anything made in Europe

>>126930022 (OP)
There are lots of musicians who end up listening to something else. Darryl McDaniels from run DMC was mostly listening to 60s rock at one point.

only exclusively listening to classical music and nothing else is an empty performative gesture meant to imitate a dumb person's idea of what a smart person is. like when a tv show depicts a hacker as a guy in a hoodie and sunglasses tapping away violently at a keyboard and saying "I'm in" when his laptop beeps, or an autistic savant as the world's leading surgeon no one else can even get close to but who also can't make eye contact or hold a conversation and has meltdowns when you say something incorrect about walruses.

>>126932784
You were first to suggest it's not pop (so it must be art music?) Burden of proof is on you. Why would I pamper and spoonfeed you
>>126932795
No, what I said was "And no, it isn't even the most consonant interval". I pointed out that it is not a chord. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>>126932802
>it actually proves me right
It proves you wrong on both accounts, actually.

>>126932858
That's odd. I don't see the word power chord, or even a description of a power chord. If you actually did research on this subject outside of Wikipedia, I'd like to see your sources. Or do you only use Wikipedia to 'research'?

>>126932935
>You were first to suggest it's not pop
No, I wasn't. Someone else referred to generative music as requiring higher intelligence to appreciate than classical music and you called it popslop, meaning you were the first one to categorize it and now must defend that categorization. I didn't come in until later.
>(so it must be art music?)
You do understand that this meme that's been floating around /mu/ for about a decade doesn't actually dictate anything objective about the nature of music right? It's not an authority here. You're allowed to disagree with it or disregard it. Music can be categorized in other ways that aren't mentioned there. Generative music as a concept doesn't really fit neatly into either of the categories proposed in that theory but if forced into one, it's clearly closer to "art music" than any of the others.

>>126932935
A chord is two or more different notes played simultaneously. A power chord is the simplest type of chord, using exactly two different notes. A unison or an octave is not a chord because it uses only one note.
>>126932956
You are lacking in either musical knowledge or reading comprehension.
>the same melody transposed by a consonant interval, usually a perfect fifth
That is a description of power chords.

>>126932935
>doubling down on your retarded baseless stance and further proving you don't fully understand what generative music is
Embarrassing.

>>126933010
No, you lack knowledge. In music, terms have exact and unchangeable definitions. Just because you are too stupid to understand the difference between a power chord and a Gregorian chant and how and when to apply them, doesn't mean everyone else is. Now go ahead and find me the original source to the term power chord, and give me THEIR definition. And then tell me what genre of music it is. You absolute retard.

>>126933047
A power chord is a chord. It's literally right there in the name. Not my problem if you can't understand the difference between chords and triads.

>>126933063
>fortissimo and pianissimo are the same thing, it just depends on the context
That's you dipshit. You don't get to change the definitions in music just because you are ignorant. Do you know music theory at all?

>>126933104
Triads are a specific type of chord, not the definition of a chord. A power chord is a chord.

>>126931690
Kek

>>126933111
A power chord is a style of play, you fucking numbskull. If you knew how to read sheet music you'd understand. You are comparing apples to oranges because you don't know what you don't know.

>>126933009
>requiring higher intelligence to appreciate than classical music
An arbitrary claim
>popslop
>meaning you were the first one to categorize it
Categorizing would be calling it "popular music" not dismissive term. He suggested I didn't know what qualifies as pop music, to which I responded with the definition.
>You do understand that this meme
>meme
No. Johann Forkel (founder of classical music historiography) defined the canon in 19th century. Later came Burney Hawkins who established who further elaborated on the canon. And around mid 19th century there was a clear classification and distinction between art music and pop/folk music. This "meme" is not some imageboard nonsense but a century old musicological classification.
>doesn't actually dictate anything objective
It literally does, that's the entire point of it. Of course, your post-modernist kind will disagree and claim everything is subjective to which I'll just comapre you to sophists.
>It's not an authority here.
What is that even supposed to mean
>You're allowed to disagree with it or disregard it.
Yeah just as you're allowed to say earth is flat.
>Music can be categorized in other ways
Which are irrelevant to this discussion.
>Generative music as a concept doesn't really fit neatly into either of the categories proposed in that theory
It does. Read the definition of popular music.
>>126933010
>A chord is two or more different notes played simultaneously
Incorrect. A chord has three notes. And not all three notes are called "chords" in traditional, 18th century sense.
>A power chord is the simplest type of chord,
It's not a chord, as I already explained. Learn to read.
>A unison or an octave is not a chord because it uses only one note.
It has two notes, of the same pitch class. It is an interval just like a fifth.
>>126933029
"It proves you wrong on both accounts, actually."

>>126933209
>A chord has three notes
At least* three.

>>126933236
Wrong. All you need is 2. Why give input on things you don't know?

>>126933209
>It has two notes, of the same pitch class. It is an interval just like a fifth.
The difference is obvious when you look at the spectrogram. A power chord, like all two-note chords, has uneven spacing of partials. A unison or octave has perfectly regular spacing of partials, making it indistinguishable from a single note ("pitch class"). It's crazy how classical musicians double down on their incorrect definition of "chord" when it's so easy to prove them wrong.

>>126930113
>metal
Kek, 14 year old emotions

>>126933260
>Why give input on things you don't know?
But enough about you. You couldn't even name one literary source to back your illiterate claims. You're as dumb as a rock.
>>126933272
>A power chord, like all two-note chords,
It's not a chord
>A unison or octave has perfectly regular spacing of partials,
And? That has nothing to do with the definition of a chord, or an interval.

>>126933272
>making it indistinguishable from a single note ("pitch class")
Also embarrassingly wrong. Go clean a toilet, musical debates ain't for you.

>>126933297
>You couldn't even name one literary source to back your illiterate claims
How about I have you prove to yourself that all you need is 2 notes. What do you call playing 2 notes together, without using the word chord?

>>126930022 (OP)
Imagine thinking you're superior cause you only listen to classical music. This has to be the dumbest thread here in a long time and I'm also counting the /pol/tards posting about Kanye

>>126933260
Correct.
>>126933297
>nothing to do with the definition of a chord, or an interval
Of course it does. There is a simple mathematical property that two-pitch-class chords and three-pitch-class chords share, but one-pitch-class intervals lack. Therefore the minimum number of pitch classes to qualify as a chord is two. (Obviously we are talking about harmonic timbres here.)

>>126930561
Thanks for the suggestions. I do like classical, but I still love black metal more. Lots of metal musicians love classical.

>>126933209
>An arbitrary claim
You say that like it discredits the claim, which would be an odd thing for you in particular to do given that pretty much all of your claims have been equally arbitrary.
>Categorizing would be calling it "popular music" not dismissive term. He suggested I didn't know what qualifies as pop music, to which I responded with the definition.
Terrible argumentative sleight-of-hand there. You categorized the music by referring to it as a more casually dismissive derivative of its supposed rightful category. You categorized it first.
>No. Johann Forkel (founder of classical music historiography) defined the canon in 19th century. Later came Burney Hawkins who established who further elaborated on the canon. And around mid 19th century there was a clear classification and distinction between art music and pop/folk music. This "meme" is not some imageboard nonsense but a century old musicological classification.
It's a meme. It's imageboard nonsense. Nothing you just mentioned is relevant to it.
Even if Johann Forkel did note the distinction between these categories, why should we treat them as factual and not merely observatory?
>It literally does, that's the entire point of it.
It doesn't.
>Of course, your post-modernist kind will disagree and claim everything is subjective to which I'll just comapre you to sophists.
I didn't and wouldn't say that.
>What is that even supposed to mean
Self-explanatory. The MS Paint jpg you posted is not some nuggets of objective truth.
>Yeah just as you're allowed to say earth is flat.
The difference being you'd be wrong to say the earth is flat because that is a statement that can be proven wrong.
>Which are irrelevant to this discussion.
Nothing is more relevant given that the categorization is what the discussion is about.
>It does. Read the definition of popular music.
I did. It doesn't describe generative music. You don't know what generative music is.

>>126933209
Intelligent post. Art is not subjective, nothing is really. The idea that “everything is equal, it’s just how you look at it” is anti-intellectual crap.

The same people trying to tell you that Beyoncé is just as artistically valid as Bach are the same ones telling you that tribal jungle cultures are just as deep and complicated as modern European society. “They just didn’t care about money and exploring and stuff!” We literally have people now days trying to tell us that indigenous medicine and knowledge is just as valid western science, because it just is, ok. Everything is equal if you believe!

>>126933346
>Art is not subjective
No one even made that argument. You're preemptively arguing against something you HOPE someone will say.

Power chord sloppa

>>126933346
>nothing is subjective
This website has fallen.

>>126932149
>this thread gatekeeps people with highly undesirable personality traits (low openness and conscientiousness, very high neuroticism) that also negatively correlates with intelligence
Literally just describing OP's personality lmao

>>126930022 (OP)
No classical sounds as good as Loveless does. Fuck off, pseuds.

>>126933490
I don't like that album much but I respect them for doing something that mainstream classical never does: getting truly novel tone from their instruments.

>>126933336
Cheers. Spend more time with classical and you might change your mind about that.
>>126933312
>How about I have you prove to yourself that all you need is 2 notes.
The definition.
>What do you call playing 2 notes together, without using the word chord?
An interval.
>>126933328
>replying to yourself
kek
>Of course it does
It has nothing to do with the definition. Period.
>There is a simple mathematical property
The mathematical property you forget to mention are the frequencies. A3 is 220 hz, A4 is 440hz. Playing an octave is not the same as playing a single note. Furthemore, in voice leading unison functions as an interval. Some random illiterate 4chin faggot doesn't get to define intervals and chords, read a book.
>>126933344
>You say that like it discredits the claim
The claim is meaningless and is not backed by empirical evidence.
>You categorized the music by referring to it as a more casually dismissive derivative of its supposed rightful category.
That's a wild implication!
>'s a meme. It's imageboard nonsense.
As I pointed out, it isn't.
>why should we treat them as factual and not merely observatory?
Observations can be factual.
>It doesn't.
Only if you can't read a few sentences maybe.
>The MS Paint jpg
This is completely irrelevant
>nuggets of objective truth.
It tries to convey an objective truth.
>The difference being you'd be wrong
There is no difference since you'd be wrong in both cases.
>Nothing is more relevant given that the categorization
The specific categorization we're discussing is relevant. Not any other.
>I did. It doesn't describe generative music.
An exact, one-to-one description is not required. The definition provided gives us several characteristics to describe what "popular music" is.


We're wasting time here and you have nothing to say, I assume the feeling is mutual.

>>126933521
>A3 is 220 hz, A4 is 440hz
No classical instrument is capable of playing pure sine waves, so this is irrelevant to classification of chords. You always have harmonics, and there is a clear and obvious difference between the structure of the harmonics in an unison/octave interval and a two-pitch-class chord.

>>126933521
>interval
Thanks for proving to be retarded. An interval is the distance between 2 notes. Now, this time give me the definition of playing 2 notes together at the same time.

>Etymologically, classical comes from Latin (classicus. plural classici). Meaning of the highest class, belonging to the first class of citizens, superior, authoritative or exemplary. Originally a Roman social term used to designate upper class citizens of society.

>So when the phrase "classical music" was adopted, it borrowed the prestige of the term, something superior, timeless, worthy of study and preservation.

>>126933557
You should be clearer about the distinction between "note" and "pitch class". This one the classical musicians got right.

I started playing the piano earlier this year and I'm taking weekly lessons. The first piece my teacher had me practice was Minuette in G by Bach and now a Mazurka by Chopin (op. 67 no. 2). She said she wanted me to choose the next piece, do you guys have any good suggestions? I don't really care that much about whether the piece is good or not as long as it's not too easy/hard for my current level and that it can help me improve.

>>126933521
My favourite classical songs share the same features as my favourite black metal songs. I love Ravel's Bolero, it has the repetitive and almost hypnotising quality that Jesus' Tod by Burzum has. Sergiu Celibidache's 70s and 81 performance is the best you'll ever hear, I believe. But I love the buzzing distortion from the guitars in black metal. Some of the darker or weirder classical just doesn't hit the same spots for me.

Stravinsky's Firebird is a good one, the whole of Messiah too. John Gardiner does Beethoven the best, and he's got some great performances with him conducting. Valerie Gergiev also has some great performances. Darker opera (like Rigoletto) just didn't do it for me. I think the Barber of Seville is probably the best opera I've ever heard.

Franco Corelli was a better tenor than Pavarotti in my opinion too.

>>126930263
>unexperienced
I stopped there. Kys you fucking pseud.

>>126933521
>The claim is meaningless and is not backed by empirical evidence.
Perfect for this thread.
>That's a wild implication!
Not an implication. It is very literally what you did.
>As I pointed out, it isn't.
There is no evidence than Johann Forkel ever used the terms "popular music," "art music" or "traditional music." You pulled that out of your ass.
>Observations can be factual.
They can also be misleading, incorrect or incomplete, hence the distinction.
>Only if you can't read a few sentences maybe.
It factually doesn't, though. You don't seem to know what objectivity even is.
>This is completely irrelevant
If the MS Paint jpg is irrelevant, why did you post it as if it wasn't?
>It tries to convey an objective truth.
It fails.
>There is no difference since you'd be wrong in both cases.
If that were true you would've been able to prove me wrong by now. You won't because you can't.
>The specific categorization we're discussing is relevant. Not any other.
What we're discussing now is why the categories you've proposed are flawed and not at all objectively valid, which is why it was necessary to remind you that there are other forms of categorization you haven't taken into account.
>An exact, one-to-one description is not required. The definition provided gives us several characteristics to describe what "popular music" is.
LOL. You're still further demonstrating a dearth of knowledge regarding generative music and what it consists of.
What is generative music? It's a simple question you can't seem to answer, but you still seem hellbent on categorizing it in a way that is clearly incompatible with its meaning.
>We're wasting time here and you have nothing to say, I assume the feeling is mutual.
You're wrong. You lost the argument.

>>126933604
In no universe would you ever call any 2 notes played together at the same time an interval. You can pretend you to play Mr. Pedant all you want.

>>126930022 (OP)
Gimme the fastest paced, highest energy classical composition. Prove "speed ticket anthems" were a thing before cars were and I will be sold. and it better be from pre-20th century.

>>126933665
You would, because that's the only way to distinguish between intervals and two-pitch-class chords.

>>126933679
It doesn't exist. There's fast classical, e.g. Flight of the Bumblebee, but it's not high energy because it's lacking bass.

>>126933679

Not OP, but Khachaturian's Sabre Dance is pretty good.

Classical music is rendered obsolete. Its cultural context is lost and with that its relevance is dead.

>>126933679
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKkR4YFtyJk

>>126933753
Wishing something were so doesn't make it so. It still captures people's attention, imagination and admiration. You can't talk it to death, no matter how much you hate it and wish it didn't exist.

>>126933838
I'm not wishing, I'm just noting. Of course people still like classical music, but society as a whole has advanced on to more. It's obsolete. The people who enjoy it are more akin to musician archaeologists than conduits of culture at this point. It's become irrelevant.

>>126933753
what a retard lol

>>126933555
>No classical instrument is capable of playing pure sine waves
Irrelevant. No instrument plays mathematically accurate harmonics either.
Again, illiterate 4chins faggots don't get to define fundamental musical terminology! Thank god.
>>126933557
>Thanks for proving to be retarded.
But enough about you.
>An interval is the distance between 2 notes.
Exactly. An an interval is not a chord.
>>126933639
>t.inexperienced tourist
>>126933651
>Perfect for this thread.
I disagree.
>Not an implication.
An implication of what I said. You can only argue I'm not being honest.
>You pulled that out of your ass.
No, I never even claimed it. You made it up. I claimed he made a canon, which he did.
>They can also be misleading
Thankfully not in this case!
>It factually doesn't, though.
This is just a 'No u'
>why did you post it
Post what, definition? I was asked and I kindly did so.
>fails.
It hasn't failed to this day, in fact.
>If that were true you would've been able to prove me wrong
Prove some slop perfectly fits into "popular music" category? lel
>not at all objectively valid,
That statment is false. All music can be essentially categorized as either of those 3.
>dearth of knowledge regarding generative music
A quick search revealed there's barely any info about it. Judging from what's available, it's popular music that can have an overlap with art music.
>You're wrong. You lost the argument
That's essentially what you did the moment you claimed classification was not valid and couldn't even defend your argumeny. You simply revealed your ignorance.

>>126933697
>two-pitch-class chords
What's that? I thought chords had 3 or more pitches?

>>126933619
I firmly believe repetitiveness will get boring to anyone who's used to more sophisticated forms. So all I can suggest is to listen more. A melody in metal song will repeat over and over, so you may enjoy it regardless of actual quality, whereas in classical music you hear themes just a couple of times(or three if exposition repeat is taken, this is in sonata form), and the rest is usually development or variations. So naturally you'd need to listen to it more often to get acclimated. I would suggest Schubet's late sonatas, especially (D958, 959 and especially 960). Once you grasp the main melodic ideas, it's easier to follow their development.

>>126933923
Noice, I'll check that Schubet guy out, never heard of him desu.

>>126933905
What do dyads and triads describe? Types of ...... come on now, you can do it.

>>126933905
>No instrument plays mathematically accurate harmonics either.
Every wind and bowed string instrument does while playing steady tones. And plucked/hammered strings are close enough for the purpose of discussion. Slight inharmonicity makes no practical difference. Complete absence of harmonics makes a big difference, but that's only possible with electronics.
>>126933909
A power chord is a chord. Modern music theory accepts it as a chord. If you stubbornly refuse to accept it as a chord because that's what classical-era musicians did then you lose the musically important distinction between regular and irregular spacing of harmonics in two-pitch-class chords.

>>126933947
Schubert is pretty famous. He's one of the most important figures of the classical/early romantic eras. This string quartet is also one of the pillars of chamber music, you can also start from here actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpphG25bV-U&list=OLAK5uy_lVJldi7QXBqYHH9CPD3agCMyJmh9dIewg&index=1

Swagless and corny studyfag muzak for nerds who get no pussy.

>>126933870
I suppose in the sense of top 40/pop relevance it slipped out of favor over a century ago. New compositions are still being made. Plenty of normies still go to the shows. This wouldn't happen if it weren't still culturally relevant.

>>126933905
>I disagree.
You've given me no reason thus far to hold anything you say in high regard.
>An implication of what I said.
Not an implication of what you said — it's very literally what you said.
>You can only argue I'm not being honest.
That too, but you did categorize the music first and for that reason are tasked with defending your categorization. This much is on record.
>No, I never even claimed it.
THIS is where implications come in; you clearly implied the sentiment behind the image you posted originated with Forkel.
>You made it up. I claimed he made a canon, which he did.
In that case, the image is just as baseless and irrelevant as I originally said it was.
>Thankfully not in this case!
You keep saying that without actually proving it.
>This is just a 'No u'
No, it isn't. It's closer to a "nu-uh."
The meme you posted does not at all dictate any objective categorization of music. We do not have to treat it as law.
>Post what, definition? I was asked and I kindly did so.
The image you posted cites nothing for its claims. It's like holding up a piece of paper that says "because I said so." It's irrelevant.

>>126934045
>New compositions are still being made. Plenty of normies still go to the shows.
They're not listening to the new compositions, and once they're dead there will be no more shows.

>>126933905
>>126934067
>It hasn't failed to this day, in fact.
It fails by default, actually. There exist many types of music that cannot be categorized according to its structure.
>Prove some slop perfectly fits into "popular music" category? lel
Yes. You can't because your argument is foundationally nonsensical.
>That statment is false. All music can be essentially categorized as either of those 3.
No, it can't. You can keep repeating yourself here as many times as you'd like, but it's not true.
>A quick search revealed there's barely any info about it. Judging from what's available, it's popular music that can have an overlap with art music.
So you don't know what generative music is, then.
It exists in its own category which if anything is more closely aligned with art music than popular music definitionally.
>That's essentially what you did the moment you claimed classification was not valid
I never claimed classification was invalid. I claimed the form of classification you posted was nonsensical and nowhere near as objective as you seem to believe. Classification, as a concept, is perfectly reasonable rhetoric.
>and couldn't even defend your argumeny.
The argument stands because you've failed to dismantle it.
>You simply revealed your ignorance.
This is where you get a "no u."

>>126934045
You're conflating the terms "irrelevant" and "extinct."

>>126934071
This sure sounds like wishful thinking. Time will tell.

>>126934085
And you sound like someone who thinks anything that exists outside (in spite of?) of your particular set has no influence on any other set.

>>126934045
'The Simpsons' is irrelevant. It's still on the air, it's still being produced, people still watch it, but it's no longer a significantly influential force in mainstream culture. It's been left behind by the zeitgeist. Like classical music.

>>126934164
Truly extravagant cope. "Classical music still matters... somewhere!" Yeah, that oughta do it.

>>126934201
Sorry the world isn't as small as you would like it to be

>>126934232
Sorry classical music is on life support and you're still camping out near its deathbed praying it recovers.

>>126930336
>it'll quickly become boring and incoherent
Sounds like a major failing

i used to be indifferent to classical music but now after opening this thread i firmly believe we should actively toss all classical listeners into giant vats of sulfuric acid. thanks op!

>>126934067
>You've given me no reason thus far
The feeling is mutual.
>it's very literally what you said.
Not really, I didn't say "popular music", ergo it is an implication and not "literally" what I said.
>That too,
That. Only.
>you clearly implied the sentiment behind the image you posted originated with Forkel.
I literally did not. I mentioned two other authors, which I claimed were responsible for the CANON. The classification arose as a result of that, by different authors altogether.
>the image
Is irrelevant. The canon is relevant, as it established foundations upon which the distinction was made.
>without actually proving it.
It's too trivial. I would argue against counterxample, had you provided one.
>The meme you posted
I don't remember posting any memes
>The image you posted cites nothing for its claims.
Philip Tagg formalized the idea, if you are curious. But it is based on Forkel's and other 19th century musicologists' (e.g. Alder) ideas of what makes up the canon and "serious" music (which in simple terms implies advanced structural and theoretical considerations).
>>126934076
>It fails by default, actually.
The definition is not strict, and logically allows all forms of music to be classified into either, with overlaps.
>You can't
Oh no, this pop is slightly different than that one!
>You can keep repeating yourself
You want me to write a logical essay but I'm not going to, because it's quite trivial.
>It exists in its own category
Feel free to show that. As I said, it can overlap with art music, but it is not art music since it does not adhere to the canon, nor is it folk. And it freely fits into the popular music category by the definition.
>I never claimed classification was invalid.
I meant the* classification. Not classification in general.
>The argument stands
There is not even an argument, just you trying to extract one from me.
>no u
Yeah, obviously you have nothing meaningful to say, as I said.

>>126933981
>triad
Has three distinc pitch classes. A triad is a chord. An interval of 5th is not a chord, it is a dyad.
>inb4 this causes further confusion
>>126933985
>Every wind and bowed string instrument does while playing steady tones.
They are close, but no acoustic instrument follows ideal 100% model.
>Slight inharmonicity makes no practical difference.
Exactly. An instrument does not need to play pure sine waves to make a distinction between a single note and an octave, if that was your point. Music isn't just harmonic overtones.

>>126934430
>>126933328
>Therefore the minimum number of pitch classes to qualify as a chord is two.
This is logically untrue. The implication cannot be made from your claim. A chord is defined as consisting of three or more pitch classes
And you ignored this post>>126933307
It isn't indistinguishable. You can hear the difference between a note and an interval of an octave.
Stop regurgitating nonsense.

True. I still listen to other kinds of music (mostly kpop and salsa) but nothing compares to classical. 90% of my music collection is classical.

>>126934201
I don’t want to defend an assnigger like OP but it’s still alive in the sense that it’s performed regularly. Hell Karajan’s total sales across his career are about the same as Taylor Swift. However people like the OP probably don’t think there’s been a good piece written since 1915. Even if they do like a token piece after that they probably several tiers before their favorite dead Germans

>>126934518
>A chord is defined as consisting of three
or more pitch classes
Not that’s a triad a chord is “Two or more notes sounded simultaneously”

>>126934430
>Exactly. An instrument does not need to play pure sine waves to make a distinction
Inharmonicity of partials is orthogonal to number of partials. An octave interval played on a piano is not a chord despite very slight irregularity of harmonic structure caused by inharmonicity. The irregularity is much smaller than you get in true chords such as power chords. But a "power chord" played with sine oscillators is not a true power chord because it lacks the defining irregular structure. It has only two partials so there's insufficient information to establish any kind of pattern. It is merely an interval of a fifth.
>>126934518
If you refuse to acknowledge that power chords are chords then they must necessarily be mere intervals. But if power chords are intervals then you conflate intervals having regular harmonic structure with intervals having irregular harmonic structure. This is a critically important distinction. The concept of octave equivalence implicitly acknowledges its importance. If you pretend it doesn't matter you are forced to reject octave equivalence which is central to music theory. Therefore the idea that a chord must have at least three pitch classes is a bad definition. Modern music theory corrects this mistake and acknowledges that power chords are chords.

>>126934614
>Two or more notes sounded simultaneously
Any relevant musical texbook says three or more notes. Triad has 3 pitch classes, not more or less. A chord can have 4 notes, it may or may not be a triad depending on how many pitch classes there are. Two notes is a dyad, which is not classified as a chord.

>>126930041
Hmmm yes, quite.

>>126934684
>Any relevant musical texbook says three or more notes.
Any outdated textbook written before the invention of distorted guitar forced music theorists to confront their mistake.

>>126934413
>Not really, I didn't say "popular music",
I didn't say you did. I said you said "popslop," which you did.
Did you mean nothing by "popslop?" Was it total nonsense with no meaning whatsoever? Were you having a stroke?
>ergo it is an implication
No, it is not. You used an alternative term for the same idea. Nothing is implied; what you said was explicit and unambiguous.
>and not "literally" what I said.
"Popslop" is very literally what you said. I can quote you there.
>That. Only.
I did not misspeak.
>I literally did not.
You literally did.
>I mentioned two other authors, which I claimed were responsible for the CANON.
Again, relevance.
>The classification arose as a result of that, by different authors altogether.
Same difference. The meme is baseless nonsense.
>Is irrelevant.
If it were irrelevant you wouldn't have tried to use it argumentatively.
>The canon is relevant, as it established foundations upon which the distinction was made.
No, it doesn't.
>It's too trivial. I would argue against counterxample, had you provided one.
I already have and you failed to argue against it.
>I don't remember posting any memes
Likely a result of your low IQ. Poor memory is a symptom.
>Philip Tagg formalized the idea, if you are curious.
Note your usage of the word "idea," but not, "fact," here. Even you, on some level, acknowledge that this isn't fact.
>But it is based on Forkel's and other 19th century musicologists' (e.g. Alder) ideas
There's that word again.
>of what makes up the canon and "serious" music (which in simple terms implies advanced structural and theoretical considerations).
Again, irrelevant. These are theories, propositions that are negotiable and revisable. Not concrete facts.

>>126934413
>>126934712
>The definition is not strict,
You're backtracking already?
>and logically allows all forms of music to be classified into either, with overlaps.
Except for the ones that don't really fit into either category at all.
>Oh no, this pop is slightly different than that one!
You do not know what generative music is. You don't understand how it is stored and distributed, you don't know how it's rendered and yet you're overwhelmingly confident that it must count as pop music specifically — whatever it is.
>You want me to write a logical essay but I'm not going to,
Because there's no logic to anything you're saying. You're treating your opinion as immutable fact. This whole thread could've been reduced to "I really like classical music" but that wouldn't have been inflammatory enough to get attention.
>because it's quite trivial.
If it's trivial then navigating the topic should be easy. Yet you struggle.
>Feel free to show that.
Alright alright, would you like me to explain to you what generative music is since you are so clearly lost on the subject? Genuine offer.
>As I said, it can overlap with art music, but it is not art music since it does not adhere to the canon, nor is it folk.
You don't know what it is, so you don't know if that's even true.
>And it freely fits into the popular music category by the definition.
It does not.
>I meant the* classification. Not classification in general.
Well. You were wrong.
>There is not even an argument, just you trying to extract one from me.
So you agree, then, that you have no argument?
>Yeah, obviously you have nothing meaningful to say, as I said.
Yet you read every word and respond to every meaningless nothing.

>>126934684
>Two notes is a dyad
Two notes *of different pitch class* is a dyad (the simplest type of chord). The most important dyad is the power chord.

>>126934661
No interval is a chord, octave, fifth or otherwise. Period.
Your word salad is meaningless. What matters is the fundamental logic as well as common conventions. None of which support your claim.
>intervals having regular harmonic structure with intervals having irregular harmonic structure.
Nonsensical word salad, as I said.
This is not at all an important distinction.
>If you pretend it doesn't matter you are forced to reject octave equivalence
LOL no.
>classes is a bad definition
Yet you have provided no argument.
>Modern music theory corrects this mistake and acknowledges that power chords are chords.
No, power chord is just a slang, pop buzzword. You could at least provide a single relevant "modern" music theory textbook that refers to fifths as chords, but you can't.
>>126934708
>>126934741
Absolute stupidity.

>>126934777
>>126934741
>muh pawa chordz
why are you wasting time arguing with this plebbitor?

>>126934430
I can see you are going to be a pedantic asshole and pretend you don't understand what I am getting at.

The point of playing chords is to create harmony. Can 2 different notes played together create harmony? Now jump through hoops explaining this.

>>126934777
>This is not at all an important distinction.
It's the difference between something that sounds like a chord and something that sounds like tweaking the brightness knob. This is universal human experience. Octave equivalence is accepted even outside Western music theory. Adding an octave to a root note is mathematically and aesthetically not the same thing as adding a note of a different pitch class. Octaves blend perfectly together. True chords have irregular structure that allows you to distinguish the individual notes.

>>126930103
/thread desu

pop slop kinda btfos classical honestly. like with electronic music you can do stuff that would otherwise be physically impossible. you can make sounds so bizarre and otherworldly it would make mozart kill himself immediately if he heard it.

>>126934712
>I didn't say you did.
So there it is.
>for the same idea.
That is your implication
>You literally did.
Nope >>126933209
>relevance
?
>The meme
Remains as solid classification
>you wouldn't have tried to use it
I used the definition, not the image. The image just neatly packed all the info.
>No, it doesn't.
>I already have
>result of your low IQ.
>There's that word again.
>You were wrong.
>It does not
Bunch of "nuh uhs". Concessions accepted.
>Note your usage of the word "idea," but not, "fact,"
An idea can become factual. Which it did.
>irrelevant
Not quite. Those "theories" are based on fundamental understanding of theory behind the music.
>>126934725
>You're backtracking
Nope.
>Except for the ones that don't really fit
They all fit from what I can see.
>You do not know what generative music is... X2
Based on what I read, a safe assumption that it is popular music that can have overlap with art music, as I said.
>Because there's no logic
You're just refusing to look into it. There is obviously logic to it, which is again, trivial.
>would you like me to explain to you what generative music is
I'd rather not continue discussing since you're obviously not arguing in good faith. So do whatever.
>that you have no argument?
I guess you agree that you have no argument yourself. I did have my argument, to which you addressed in bad faith.
>Yet you read every word
Ironic.
>>126934839
Good question.

>>126934863
>The point of playing chords is to create harmony.
An interval can also create harmony. A third can create harmony, it's not a chord.
>>126934864
>True chords
You don't even understand what a chord is

>>126935120
You lost track of pretty much every argument being made here. Revise your reply and try again, preferably reading more carefully and offering more than one-word replies this time.

>>126935153
So 3 to infinite notes can make a harmony. 2 notes can make a harmony. But these aren't the same?

How about this: give me the definition of chord without mentioning the amount of notes used. Give me the purpose of what a chord is supposed to do that a 2 note chord can't.

>>126934684
This is not up for debate my guy. What I told you was a fact a chord is two or more notes end of discussion. You can accept that or cope-your choice

>>126935311
An octave is not a chord. See >>126934864

>>126935431
>An octave is not a chord
Uh...ok?? I'm not reading your pathetic discussion btw

>>126935536
>>126935292 is almost right, but misses the important point that stacking octaves does not provide any harmony, it's just changing the timbre. You need to specify that it's two or more notes of different pitch class.

I haven't been in this board very long, only since about 2013 or so, but I gotta say this is definitely one of the absolute worst thread I've ever seen here. Worse than the OOOOO MASSA posts. Worse than the Blurryface threads. Worse than the forced Jason Aldean meme. Worse than yellowposting. Easily somewhere in the bottom 5. God help 4chan.

without a degree in music (post it with timestamp if you have one), you can only appreciate classical music on the surface level, i.e. how pleasing it is to your ears, which makes it not much different than popular music
i'm not saying that classical music isn't better than popular music, just that it's impossible to understand why it's better without a deeper understanding of music, which most people don't have

>>126935596
No I don't because you know what I'm talking about. You choose to be pedantic because you can't face the fact you are wrong.

Since you can have 3 to infinite notes making up a chord, then you don't need to specify an exact amount to give the definition of chord. Now give the definition of a chord without using numbers.

>>126935737
A chord is a sound with significantly irregular spacing of harmonics. (Note that strongly inharmonic timbres, e.g. some tuned percussion, are out of scope for discussion of Western music theory. Start a thread about gamelan or something if you want to bring them up.)

>>126935737
>3 to infinite notes making up a chord
In Western music theory, it's a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 12.

>>126935215
>You lost track of pretty much every argument being made
None were made by you to be frank. This is a petty, pointless bickering.
>>126935292
Chord was originally defined to fit within the context of harmony (no such thing as "western" harmony. "Correct" harmony, if you will). A consonant chord can have at most 3 distinct pitch classes. In 4 part harmony, tonic (consonant chord, used for strong cadences) has one note that is simply doubled. It still has only 3 distinct pitch classes. Once you add a 7th, it becomes dissonant. Renaissance masters understood and differentiated between consonant and dissonant intervals. This fact led to the definition of a "chord". A concord can have at most 3 distinct pitch classes. 2 is incomplete and only denotes an interval, 4 or more is a discord. Ergo it's logical to claim that "chord" has at least 3 distinct pitch classes. God this is fucking tedious.

Eventually, this was broken down by post-modernists, pop sloppers etc. Now they call everything a "chord". Suspensions are literally non-chord tones so they were not classified as chords, rightfully so. I do not agree with today's practices. According to which, by the way, you're still wrong.
>>126935311
I accept your concession.

am I a pleb if the only classical I like is tone poems and orchestral songs

>>126935795
>A consonant chord can have at most 3 distinct pitch classes.
A barbershop seventh chord is consonant, has 4 distinct pitch classes, and is impossible to represent in standard Western harmony.

>>126935795
>None were made by you to be frank.
Ah, so you're illiterate. You could've just said that earlier.

>>126935795
You chose to cope then. Dissappointing but also entirely predictable

>>126935803
Yes.

>>126935821
>and is impossible to represent in standard Western harmony.
So it is not relevant to the definition of a "chord", an etymologically European word.
>>126935823
But enough about you.
>>126935841
Your concession was accepted earlier.

>>126935862
Barbershop music is an American derivative of European folk music, much of which uses 7-limit harmony. And alphorn music is also European and goes up to 11-limit harmony. You can extend the barbershop chord with a harmonic 11th (also impossible to represent in standard Western theory) and get a chord that still sounds consonant.

>>126935860
thank you

>>126935795
>2 is incomplete
What objectively is it lacking that all other chords have?

>>126935795
For the love of God, without using numbers, explain WHY a dyad can't be a chord. Without using numbers. You cannot without having to backtrack on your definitions.

>you can only drive a car with 2 hands, says so in the manual
>I don't care that you think you saw someone doing it with their feet
>they were steering, not driving. Totally different. Because it's impossible to drive with less than 2 hands.
That is your argument because you lack the knowledge to logically explain why a dyad can never be a chord. You can keep repeating the definition til you are blue in the face, but dyad fits the description if you change '3 or more' to multiple. You cling real hard to that 3 because you don't understand the WHYS.

>>126935821
>>126935862
Classical music actually does accept harmonic sevenths as consonant. They're found in some pipe organ mutation stops.

>>126935897
Just intonation exists in "western harmony" you fucking idiot

>>126936067
Only up to 5-limit.

>>126935862
>But enough about you.
That comeback doesn't even make sense syntactically. Really not beating the illiteracy allegations.

>>126935862
>But enough about you.
isn't that like your sixth time using that. literal npc behavior

>>126935999
A dyad can't be a chord because it's lacking in Christian symbolism. Only a triad counts as a chord because only a triad can represent the Trinity.

>>126930022 (OP)
I like classical-like music, this is my favorite : https://youtu.be/Np1-o0Lxf38?si=8eiOfMgaMqg111z4 and is one of the few instrumental songs on my top 100 best songs, which includes this : https://youtu.be/bGNLnorYJDk?si=AHyDMsjPNY8o4_ky this : https://youtu.be/9-G4xAijMq4?si=Ru1-dhM_VZPFoU3T this : https://youtu.be/pMprVIS2L5g?si=r51LQArYp377WqCc this : https://youtu.be/3HNiKiPJT0E?si=ZJpHgPbf_mQg_FCD this : https://youtu.be/Zuw_O5MU5CE?si=dsyktP55W6B8oEM0 and this : https://youtu.be/j2d6T5G2rrY?si=U5SzS00oNOkULhUV , but I still 1000x rather listen to MCR than classical music.

>>126936303
Ok, I will accept this reasoning.

Classical has no answer to Buck Bumble

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8FQ-N0zb2U&list=RDw8FQ-N0zb2U&start_radio=1

>>126936333
Does this counts as classical music ? : https://youtu.be/KF32DRg9opA?si=1vZiHZ51l_KvTYQv , https://youtu.be/BCOCa9LeE3s?si=pIGCwvQC0f4ZgBMy , https://youtu.be/Xqf8jID9TsE?si=iopvf-wl-pZ7epKF

>>126930717
>>126930625
>>126930578
Sexo con Yuja.

>>126935897
>American derivative
So not European.
>>126935912
7ths are accepted, but they are not consonant. The seventh interval itself is dissonant.
>>126936082

Either a fifth or a third
>>126935999
>without using numbers,
And why would I do that?
>That is your argument
That's a false analogy. A chord is a term, which is in a way descriptive. It has a formal definition accepted by all music theorists. I explained logically WHY it's defined that way, even though I was not obliged to since we were not arguing about WHYs but rather WHATs, and you're still complaining. You have nothing meaningful to say.
>>126936050
But still, enough about you.
>>126936246
>seething

>>126935897
>American derivative
So not European.
>>126936050
7ths are accepted, but they are not consonant. The seventh interval itself is dissonant.
>>126935912
Either a fifth or a third
>>126935999
>without using numbers,
And why would I do that?
>That is your argument
That's a false analogy. A chord is a term, which is in a way descriptive. It has a formal definition accepted by all music theorists. I explained logically WHY it's defined that way, even though I was not obliged to since we were not arguing about WHYs but rather WHATs, and you're still complaining. You have nothing meaningful to say.
>>126936082
But still, enough about you.
>>126936246
>seething

>>126938379
>7ths are accepted, but they are not consonant. The seventh interval itself is dissonant.
A harmonic seventh chord is not the same as a standard Western harmony seventh chord. Standard Western harmony seventh chords contain very poor approximations of the seventh harmonic (note two different meanings of "seventh" here: scale degree and harmonic number, so it's pure coincidence that there's any approximation at all). The simplest 5-limit just intonation tuning for a dominant seventh chord is 20:25:30:36, which is indeed noticeably dissonant (hence the idea that it's a "jazz chord", despite being used in classical too). The equivalent 7-limit harmonic seventh chord (the defining sound of barbershop) is tuned 4:5:6:7. Much simpler ratios and consonant sound. It's arguably more consonant than a minor triad which is tuned 10:12:15.

>>126931183
That shouldn't happen unless you want it to happen. In fact if you listen to enough classical you'll notice the habits of composers and even get a little annoyed by them. It's really like any other sort of music

>>126938379
>seething
but enough about you

Mahler mogs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTW5yMVHtRo

Mogs all classical ever made

>>126930022 (OP)
>some fag in a faggot disco band is supposed to make me wanna listen to boring ass library music played by artists who need a wand waver to keep time
Fuck you and fuck him

>andy warhol
slop

>>126930022 (OP)
You know OP (fag), people would give Classical more of a chance if you didn't sound like a pompous douche giving the "I'll save your ears and make you enlightened" routine
Plus listening to only one main genre... really?
I know there people who like classical and non classical at the same time

>>126941319
Very based.
>>126941589
Slop
>>126941843
Your low IQ certainly doesn't help
>>126942081
>classical
>genre
Pick one, and then pick a cotton.

>>126941589
i know this is bait but TVU aside, cale's "modern classical" albums are fucking terrible
he never had the markings of a good composer

>>126930022 (OP)
hey fag, did you know you can listen to more than one kind of music?
>my identity is a single music genre bcuz I'm a boring shitter with no personality
You can even visit more than one website!
I listen to Slayer, Beethoven, Underworld, Atarashi Gakko, Leonard Cohen, Tori Amos, Pearl Jam, Wu Tang, Bolt Thrower and They Might Be Giants. Eat shit.

>>126944378
>classical
>single music genre
Double digit IQ

>>126930103
cello is cool af but yeah op is a faggot

>>126945167
>samefagging x10

>>126932875
Imagine being such a spiritual nigger and having everything upside down like that. Must suck to have taste THIS bad.

>>126933679
Third movement of this sonata, but especially after 18:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCslDmwzWhE

>>126944378
>single music genre
>it's 1000 years of vastly different music
Every time, lol.

The amount of seething OP has caused ITT is gold. KEK


Godbless, OP. Christ is King. Here's some Bach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW9rq3Q5G08

>>126945344
Yeah and he does it every single time. It's glorious. The amount of cope and mental gymnastics plebs go through to justify their shit taste/bad judgment and not listening to classical is hilarious.

>>126945344
kek

you have to be able to buy albums for my theory to make sense. if you just say "yeah i had a look on Spotify i get then gist" then my theory doesn't work

>>126933426
>There is NO objective qualitative difference between lil pump and bruckner
kys

I find classical music to be too difficult to understand and enjoy, there's just nothing for me to grasp onto and feel
Symphonies become background music to me and so do concertos and I hate background music, it's just noise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bleInQuZ5Tg
Maybe this music is actually quite complex, I don't know, but it's much easier to grasp onto

this beethoven guy's pretty good, can't wait for him to drop his next album!

>>126945531
Just keep trying, keep exploring. Why do you expect greatest masterpieces in history of music to click immediately baffles me...
Listen to the Eroica symphony, or this quartet >>126934009. No matter what your tastes are, you are bound to love it. Just give it a time, because nothing is more rewarding. Additionally, you can try watching some crashcourse about classical forms (e.g. sonata, fugue), and how they work, why they work etc., there are many videos on youtube, and you don't need to have any theoretical knowledge. Back in the time, it was a common knowledge (among upper middle class and upper class), nowdays, the music has dumbed down and so has collective mind of society. Quick gratification is preferred to slower, more enduring and powerful, inspiring and meaningful one.

>>126945656
I spent 3 years listening to classical music daily when I was younger and more ambitious
You really need an education in classical music to appreciate it

>>126945680
>You really need an education in classical music to appreciate it
This is blatantly false.

>>126945656
I love a slow burn classic

>>126945531
that's ok. music is here for our enjoyment. it's good to explore outside your comfort zone but there is no reason to force yourself to listen to something that doesn't move you.

FWIW I have some classical piano training (although mostly jazz) and a lot of symphonic & chamber music doesn't do it for me, either. Opera, on the other hand, is captivating because of the performance aspect. I also got really into early music (medieval & renaissance primarily vocal) and support a local early music ensemble in my city. Stuff like this:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qamFme4P71U&list=RDqamFme4P71U&start_radio=1&ab_channel=HilliardEnsemble-Topic

I think it's a shame when people force themselves to attend lengthy symphonies, bored out of their minds, because it's something they feel they are "supposed" to do. There's a whole world out there, explore!

>>126945720
Then you will love the fuck out of Mahler and Bruckner. Wagner even more so. I'll rec Mahler's 6th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2y5Ntys6gU
If it's not slow burn enough for ya, try Wagner's Tristan und Isolde or Parsifal. Or... The Ring cycle.

Just keep in mind, that all these are some of the greatest achievements of humanity, your subjective taste is irrelevant, and you can enjoy it all given enough time and attention.

>>126945531
Then listen to short pieces? There are miniatures 30-90 seconds in length all over the place. But yes, this is like listening to two people talk in a foreign language: you have no idea what they're talking about and it just becomes this boring, droning sound.

>>126945495
Where did I or anyone say that? This website has fallen.

>>126945813
This website has always been decadant. While it's true that we had been getting worse with each generation, this board was always unsalvageable, besides the /classical/ general mayhaps.

>>126930022 (OP)
Honestly I don’t think it does happiness very well an abstract concept perhaps. It certainly does triumph well

>>126941589
truke

This weirdo >>126946204 has never listened to classical music

>>126946204
True. Classical doesn't use the best techniques for expressing happiness in music, e.g. pitched-up vocals, "trance gating" (envelope follower controlling a VCA), bright and consonant synth pads (lots of variations here but core idea is a chord with several dynamic spectrum shaping effects running at once), chord planing, inhumanly fast tempos, reversed delay effects, chopped breakbeats, etc.

Any random happy hardcore track is going to sound happier than the happiest classical.

>>126946654
>doesn't use the best techniques for expressing happiness
>lists unrelated synthslop tricks

>>126946675
And yet there's not a single classical instrument that sounds as happy as a basic supersaw.

>>126946686
>And
>as if any other point was valid

>>126946692
Objectively happier than any classical instrument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Supersaw_Arp_1.ogg

>>126946696
An instrument cannot be objectively happy.

>>126946707
The sound is an idealization of vocalizations of happy humans. It triggers hard-wired brain circuitry evolved through group selection to support empathy. All normal people can appreciate happy sounds.

>>126930022 (OP)
People who say "once you listen to classical you cant go back" are posers who only listen to music to feel better than others who dont. It's perfectly reasonable to enjoy multiple genres.

>>126946750
>group selection
More likely kin selection, with empathy for strangers a spandrel.

>>126946750
Non-sequitur.

>>126931363
>>126931412

Bait used to be believable

>>126947283
No it didn’t

>>126944281
>t. wand waver

Nothing in this universe comes close to the musical essence of joy and happiness than the genius of Mozart

>he [Richwar Wagner] had tried to discover the secret of Mozart's fluency and lightness in solving difficult technical problems. In particular he tried to emulate the fugal finale of the great C major Symphony, 'magnificent, never surpassed'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oCxq5MU-Mo&list=OLAK5uy_njchY3Keh9XYVEl1T438RFoqo_02GjNkg&index=8

>>126947971
Yes I waved my wandie in front of your mom's face

>>126948072
Outdated

>>126948089
Hope she has a microscope around to see it

>>126948095
>classical superior music
>outdated
Pick one

>>126945344
lmfao

But the tastiest redpill.

>>126930022 (OP)
When you get stuck with the ugly ABBA wife you probably have some underlying shit taste, no wonder he's enamored with classical music.

>>126949970
Classical music is so evidently superior to all other kinds of music, yet we keep lowering the standards when we talk about other types of music, to avoid the uncomfortable situation where the butt rock dude or the druggy EDM boy gets anal pained when they are told the great masters are better than their shitty hedonistic hero.

Instead of white guilt, in the music world there is "classical" guilt. We keep lowering the standards for other kinds of music to compensate and preserve our dream of marxist culturalism. Of perfect musical relativism. Guess what? It isn't true and the compositional talent and imagination displayed, which is all that counts in the end when we have to say what is worth being saved and what not, is infinitely superior in classical music than in any other form of music.

If your shitty pop muzak is an 8 what the fuck are Beethoven's late string quartets? a 400? most music is barely a 1 to 3, the Beatles fall in here and so do most other popular music with very few exceptions that reach a 4, even a 5. Bartok string quartets would be a 6, 2 degrees of magnitude higher you have works by Brahms and other great masters. Then 9 and 10 are reserved for the highest achievements of human race like Beethoven's late string quartets or his Missa Solemnis or Mass in B minor by Bach or his Brandenburg Concertos.

Anyone know The Ramones? After learning the violin for 8 years in a classical household, the first time I heard a song of theirs, I was so blown away I listened to it nonstop for a week. I thought I’d be good after, but then I listened to the next one and it was exactly the same song but written differently. I had to listen to it for a week. After that the next song, same thing.

By the time I was done listening to a song of the same song for a week at a time, it had been four years and I was cured of classical music. Now I can listen to any genre and not find it insignificant in the least.

>>126946654
>classical can't express happiness musically
>look inside
>argument about timbre

>>126950011
No one is reading all that

>>126950178
Chord planing is a compositional technique not a timbre. Instead of building chord progressions from a diatonic scale, simply transpose a single chord up and down. This allows for happier sound than classical harmony because you can make an entire progression from nothing but major chords.

>>126950410
Yeah you got me on that one and the tempo thing but a) you're presently arguing that a supersaw sounds 'happier' than the conventional instruments used in classical and b) stripping the function out of chords can only achieve a greater musical effect of happiness if you're the kind of normgroid that thinks that arpeggio sounds 'objectively happier than any classical instrument'

>>126946204
Baroque suites with dance movements is some of the happiest, most whimsical shit in the world.

>>126950178
Don't bother with the sound design/timbre faggot. He shits up every single classical thread on /mu/ and gets obliterated every time. It's always the same schtick: obsessing over some retardedly narrow modern production gimmick as if that invalidates an entire millennium of music. Just fallacies, category errors, and zero understanding of historical gestures, aesthetics, form, structure, or musical depth. It's like criticizing theater for not having CGI, or complaining that an oil painting doesn't have motion blur or dynamic lighting effects.

>>126950178
Don't bother with the sound design/timbre faggot. He shits up every single classical thread on /mu/ and gets obliterated every time he engages with someone who isn't a complete midwit like him. It's always the same schtick: obsessing over some retardedly narrow modern production gimmick as if that invalidates an entire millennium of music. He always invents a backwards rationalization for classical music "being good, but lacking something important", even though it's always absurd on even the most superficial factual level. It's nothing but fallacies, category errors, and zero understanding of historical gestures, aesthetics, form, structure, or musical depth with this retarded faggot. It's like criticizing theater for not having CGI, or complaining that an oil painting doesn't have motion blur or dynamic lighting effects.