Thread 128180647

The only people who would disagree with this statement are a specific kind of person. They educate themselves in conservatories, study autistic classical music, learn how to play in an orchestra and larp as intellectuals. It's the most stagnated way of appreciating music because it's not just snobbery, it's fart huffing. I can barely understand how people willingly want to torture themselves with a style of music that thought glissando was vulgar. classical music is a sure sign of terminal aspergers and being a huge prude. jazz has the same problem

>>128180647 (OP)
K-pop should be on the right side.

>>128180647 (OP)
We wuz kangz haha classical not muzig

>>128180647 (OP)
what bizarre classification of music would exclude classical, OP?

>>128180647 (OP)
>K-pop should be on the right side.

>>128180911
I look like this and say this.

>>128180647 (OP)
Classical is pretty boring, because of how sonically limited it is. But it was fun when I listened to it as a kid. I had a few classsical CDs and I went to concerts with my mom.

>>128181032
>because of how sonically limited it is
Retarded post, there is more sonic variety in a symphony from Mahler than there is in entire genres. And this isn't even touching spectral music and the like which are even more sonically complicated and far outdo anything you have ever listened to

>>128181120
The Helpful Fox Senko-san

>>128181120
It's very limited to certain kinds of sounds because it's only played with certain kinds of instruments that don't allow for sound modulation almost at all. It's as if you were limited to only making music with farts. Sure, you could do a lot of esoteric theoretical things with it, but you're still only limited to farts. Every album has essentially the same base sound. It gets very boring after a while.

>>128181188
>because it's only played with certain kinds of instruments
Listen to more classical then, classical music is made with literally any instrument. From violins to electric guitars to saxophones to you name it. Just because you are too braindead to figure out who uses those doesn't mean they arent a thing.

>>128181202
It's not really classical at that point. Sure, you could play old classical pieces with modern instruments, but if you're going to be making new music with those same instruments in the same vain as those classical pieces, it won't classify as classical anymore. It will be shit like neoclassical prog rock or whatever the fuck. It's like the time a piece was composed matters more to the genre classification than the actual sonic elements at that point.

>>128181269
>It's not really classical at that point.
Get a different hobby, if you cannot understand basic music terminology even, you cannot understand music.

>>128181032
>>128181188
Oh look, it's this retard again. Haven't you been embarrassed enough the previous few times you've been absolutely obliterated by people who aren't autistic audiophile faggots? Alright, let me spell it out for you again:

Classical music spans over 1000 years and includes
>massive range of acoustic instruments from vastly different instrument families (strings, winds, brass, percussion, keyboards, etc.) that transformed over centuries
>vocal music from Gregorian chant to modern extended vocal techniques
>innovations in orchestration and texture by composers like Berlioz, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Grisey, Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc.
>use of space and acoustic manipulation in different venues
>modern works that use electronic instrumentation or focus solely on timbre, including musique concrete, spectralism, electroacoustic music, microtonal music and many more

You're supremely retarded because you literally judge music purely on how it fits into your extremely narrow definition of timbral ('sonic' in this case) diversity. You're incapable of comprehending and valuing any other musical parameter (there are many). You've been told this a million times and you refuse to accept it and change your retarded ways. I recommend killing yourself, preferably in the most painful way imaginable, you retarded fucking faggot. Never post again.

>>128181314
It's clear you're not equipped to have this conversation. Instead of embarrassing yourself by sperging out, maybe let someone else do the talking for you, yeah?

>>128181352
Nta but that's very ironic coming from you. Classical music isn't defined by what instruments it uses, and if you think it is, you're retarded. This is really basic stuff.

>>128181352
I mean, if someone cannot understand basic terminology and genuinely thinks "classical music is when orchestra", he should indeed just get a different hobby as he does not understand music.

>>128181348
>Oh look, it's this retard again.
You have schizophrenia. That being said, the kind of "sound" music is using is the most vast parameter you could have. You're focusing on this narrow range of what's possible with limited kinds of sounds, making the error in assuming that all of them provide equal amounts of sonic variance, which is false. But hey, if that's vast and exciting for you, then good for you, but for the vast majority of people, we recognize that as pretty limiting and boring during our childhood years and we grow out of it.

>>128181188
>>128181417
>You have schizophrenia
I don't. I recognize your retarded, arrogant nonsense every time you post. You always deflect and never actually offer any counterarguments, just bang your head against the wall like the fucking moron you are.
>woodwinds, brass, strings, percussion, keyboards of various designs, sizes, materials, the human voice, any every possible listenable register
>somehow the same as farting
How does it feel to be so arrogant yet so fucking stupid?

Why don't you reply to this?
>massive range of acoustic instruments from vastly different instrument families (strings, winds, brass, percussion, keyboards, etc.) that transformed over centuries
>vocal music from Gregorian chant to modern extended vocal techniques
>innovations in orchestration and texture by composers like Berlioz, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Grisey, Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc.
>use of space and acoustic manipulation in different venues
>modern works that use electronic instrumentation or focus solely on timbre, including musique concrete, spectralism, electroacoustic music, microtonal music and many more

Can you please explain how every instrument imaginable (acoustic and INCLUDING ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS) offers a "narrow range" and "limited kinds of sounds"? Can you do that? Or will you deflect like the retarded coward you are?

>>128181417
>>128181455
this is you two right now

>>128181486
Thanks for your useless contribution, faggot. Go to the next thread.

>>128181417
The vast majority of people find it boring because they're fucking morons with the attention span of a goldfish, you retarded faggot. Are you seriously appealing to popularity? LOL

>>128181455
>I don't.
You do. I've never commented on this subject on mu. You have issues. That being said, all you're presenting is straw compared to what you can do with modern technology. One plugin set in DAW could offer you more sonic variance than everything you listed. Being able to manually edit the shape of a sound wave offers you infinitely more variance. Enough that any two modern albums you pick out will have different sound to them. While any classical piece you pick out will have the same exact base sound. It's hard not to get bored. I don't think you comprehend that. Which is why I said you falsely assume that different variables of sound you could identify offer you the same or even comparable amount of variance, which is just false. But it seems you're really mad, which is clearly clouding your judgement on the matter. Maybe it's related to the schizophrenia kekekeke

>>128181530
Well I have a PhD in a technical field, published papers with a lot of citations, have a technical job where I make a shit ton of money, so clearly not stupid, and I'm telling you it's fucking boring. What now, dumdum?

>>128181188
>Every album has essentially the same base sound. It gets very boring after a while.
the trvke that sent classicalfags into meltdown mode lmao

>>128181455
>Read entire thread
>Still not sure what classical music is

Well, what is it?

>>128181622
It's when you do plim plum on a violin (alternatively with farts)

>>128181564
I have a PhD in fucking your mom.

Stating you have a PhD with no supporting evidence is not an argument, it just further proves your retardation.

>>128181549
>One plugin set in DAW could offer you more sonic variance than everything you listed.
This is objectively false and you would know if you ever actually did any production.

that's not how a bell curve works

>>128181549
> One plugin set in DAW could offer you more sonic variance than everything you listed. Being able to manually edit the shape of a sound wave offers you infinitely more variance.
Tell me where it is written that a classical piece of music is not allowed to use that. Point me to the rule that says "Thou shalt not use synthetic instruments", you retarded fucking ape. You do not understand music, get a different hobby.

>>128181348
we can do everything you can do, better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOTh1epOEss
you cannot do what we do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhx0DWIi8lo

>>128181549
>Enough that any two modern albums you pick out will have different sound to them
ESL post, probably by an indian

>>128181765
>Tell me where it is written that a classical piece of music is not allowed to use that.
nta but no one said it didn't. but if you start adding shit like synths and trap beats to a wagner piece, do you think it's still classical? do you still think it has that same essence?

>>128181796
>but if you start adding shit like synths and trap beats to a wagner piece
Who the fuck said anything about adding things to previous repertoire? Do you even know what you are talking about? This is why I am telling you to get a different hobby, your attempts to understand this one have clearly failed.

>>128180647 (OP)
The reality and joke here is that the image needs to be completely flipped
Add rap near classical

Studies show college students with higher grades listen to rap, pop and classical music
kpop I don’t know but it probably helps grow the brains connections to another language (if unspoken)

>>128181786
>He is impressed by IDM
Mark of a NPC. Imagine being so artless that you believe funny noises made by a computer is high art, lmao.

>>128181549
>>128181188
>>128181188
>>128181786
Why are zoomers so obsessed with sonics as if it at all matters in music? A good piece of music is good on any instrument, if a piece of music requires highly specific sonic characteristics to work, then it's objectively a shit composition.

It's like saying that modern cinema is better than golden age cinema because we have CGI, if the script is shit, then no special effects will save it. Same thing with music. If the composition is bad, the best sonics in the world won't make it a good piece. You're just a braindead npc who is obsessed with style over substance and the fact that this is even remotely a opinion that isn't laughed off the site just proves how much of a joke this board and music discussion on the internet as a whole is. The other guy even entertaining your retardation is honestly embarrassing on his part.

>>128181867
that's the mindset of someone who plays music more than they listen to music. if you want to listen to music, "sonics" or what i call sound design is important and a lot of compositions aren't that amazing

>>128181188
that's the mindset of someone who makes movies more than they watch them. if you want to watch movies, "CGI" or what i call special effects is important and a lot of scripts aren't that amazing

>>128181804
no need to be rude little man. you clearly got so BTFO by the other anon you're thinking everyone replying to you is him. it's not.

>>128182076
>that's the mindset of someone who plays music more than they listen to music
That is coming from someone who has actually studied this and listened to more music than you can imagine.
> if you want to listen to music, "sonics" or what i call sound design is important
Not at all, if a composition is shit, it's going to be shit regardless of what you sonically do to it. Nobody is going to say "This song is good because of the sonics" besides maybe a braindead imbecile like you who desperately wishes he was smart.
>and a lot of compositions aren't that amazing
Okay? A lot of music isn't that amazing, no fucking shit. 90% of everything ever made is going to be subpar. How is this an argument for your case? You enjoy shitty compositions because your monkey brain is impressed by synthesizers so you judge music on that rather than it's substance? All this says is that your opinions on music or any art should never be trusted because you are an easily impressed retard who does not understand art.

>>128182146
Not the anon you're talking about, you're schizophrenic. Either way, asnwer my question please: Where is "Thou shalt not use synthetic instruments" written?

>>128180647 (OP)
Thats not how bell curve graphs work

>>128181867
If you don't see how an instrument's specific timbre can affect the overall essence of a piece of music, you should probably leave the thread.

>>128182159
>Where is "Thou shalt not use synthetic instruments" written?
i already answered that in my previous post, pay attention. funny you're calling me schizo when you just exhibited schizo behavior right now.

>>128182174
It does not change a piece's "essence", that is way too far reaching of a word to use here. It changes the character slightly, but any flaw that was there will still be there. Changing a flute to a clarinet won't magically make something a different piece of music. It is simply the same piece with a different timbre and all the same criticism you could make about one, you could make about the other. If it truly changed the "essence" of a work, then a work would not be recognizable when played on this other instrument which is simply not the case.

You can cope in any way you want, but this does not change the fact that composition is the substance and while changes in timbre can affect a composition, it cannot make a composition better

>>128182247
You didn't answer it, you started rambling about adding trap beats to wagner which did not relate at all to what I was asking in my post.

>>128182174
If you don't see how an movie's specific special effects can affect the overall essence of a film, you should probably leave the thread.

metal is extremely low iq lol

>>128182254
>then a work would not be recognizable when played on this other instrument which is simply not the case
well to be fair that might be the case with retards

>>128182289
true and its easy to make too so yeah.
Its definitely below average

>>128180647 (OP)
where is rap?

>>128182149
consider that personally, as a human being, i value the right message at the right time delivered by the right person at the right level for my comprehension more than a trivial message at the wrong time delivered by a person with an attitude problem that i can comprehend but don't care to

>>128183142
I get you're an easily impressed retard, just own up to it. You already started this conversation by giving the most low IQ possible critique of anything (Calling it boring), why be so shy now?

>>128182076
>>128182146
>>128182247
>>128182174
>>128181549
>>128181188
>>128181188
>>128181786
Can't wait for AI to ruin all computer-produced music by being indistinguishable from hours of work in ableton so all the fake musicians who call themselves "producers" and their obnoxious fans finally shut the fuck up and kill themselves. Meanwhile classical and jazzchads can go to a live performance and never have to worry about whether what they listen to is human made or not.

This is inevitable, all of the "sonically complex" IDM shit you praise will be indistinguishable from the slop that the AI produces in seconds, the "producers" will lose their careers to AI and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Lol.

Normally, I hate AI for being indian garbage. But in this specific scenario, I can't help but kek

>>128183290
yeah, surely ai won't compose classical music, whether or not it's performed by humans

>>128183290
sar
SAAR
AI IS FUTURE YOU BLOODY BICH YOU FUCK BLOODY YOU BITCH

>>128183596
If everyone who supports AI is an indian, and you are using an AI image, does that make you indian? Is this the pot calling the kettle nigger?

surely ai is incapable of composing classical music and will always be that way

>>128183595
>>128183620
It's not like people are listening to newly composed classical because it already sucks, AI or not.

>>128183617
Yes.

>>128183620
>>128183595
You can only say this if you have never listened to contemporary classical. Contemporary music is more about experimenting with the possibilities of acoustic performance and most modern scores are often not enough to explain the music. Composers will also structure their pieces in all kinds of bizarre ways which an AI won't be able to replicate.

>>128182980
doesnt even appear because its not music

>>128183617
'fraid so

>>128181765
>You do not understand music, get a different hobby.

maybe im schizo but you say this shit a lot to people.

>>128180647 (OP)
Man, these bait threads are so boring.

>>128181867
>if a piece of music requires highly specific sonic characteristics to work, then it's objectively a shit composition
Ironically, it's the classical composers who do this. E.g. Alvin Lucier - I Am Sitting In a Room. Literally just applying an analog reverb effect to a single vocal sample over and over.

>>128185075
no classical listener knows or cares who the fuck that is

>>128184889
but i have to generate the worst kind of engagement possible...