Search Results
6/19/2025, 6:06:57 PM
>>126760645
How can you explain that something good is bad? The common fallacies when criticizing Rach include: bad counterpoint (he can handle 4 voice counterpoint perfectly btw), bad form (his form is as good as Mozart's, the "problem" is not that it's bad, but not innovative for modernist circlejerk), and no innovation, which is quite laughable, as any sort of innovation after early 20th century has led to nothing but ugliness and downfall of classical music pretty much. Rachmaninoff is god tier (high S tier) melodist, and that alone scares the krautslopper who probably jerks off to Simon Sechter. His structural brilliance and seamless harmonic flow exceeds expectations from 20th century sloppers. To claim otherwise is no different than to claim late Beethoven isn't good, you are moving into post-modernist, subjective nonsense territory. Both can be justified by pseudo-reasoning, but neither can be justified by logic and common sense.
How can you explain that something good is bad? The common fallacies when criticizing Rach include: bad counterpoint (he can handle 4 voice counterpoint perfectly btw), bad form (his form is as good as Mozart's, the "problem" is not that it's bad, but not innovative for modernist circlejerk), and no innovation, which is quite laughable, as any sort of innovation after early 20th century has led to nothing but ugliness and downfall of classical music pretty much. Rachmaninoff is god tier (high S tier) melodist, and that alone scares the krautslopper who probably jerks off to Simon Sechter. His structural brilliance and seamless harmonic flow exceeds expectations from 20th century sloppers. To claim otherwise is no different than to claim late Beethoven isn't good, you are moving into post-modernist, subjective nonsense territory. Both can be justified by pseudo-reasoning, but neither can be justified by logic and common sense.
Page 1