>>52808714 Truly patrician is listening to all kinds of music and moods, exploring those styles deeply and knowing what your personal preferences are. But at the same time, realizing that something you like can be considered bad, and something you don't like is actually good.
My problem with this kind of music is that it focus more on the way it's made than the way it sounds You can make those exactly sounds with other instruments, but since they were made in alternative ways people consider it innovative So listening to this is pointless, you just have to read how it's done, since the sound itself is not even interesting, I mean anyone knows what is the sound of a microphone getting close to a sound source
Spoiler: If you've never studied at a conservatoire and don't know anything about music theory, musicology, world music history, composition, et cetera you don't deserve to call yourself a patrician, or even a music lover.
>>52809091 >my problem with this kind of music more on the way it's made than the way it sounds
this is the exact opposite of their intentions. onkyo artists especially and to a lesser extent electroacoustic improv artists are concerned with focused and considerate use of sound.
I don't think most people could make sound sources such as those that these musicians use sound anywhere near as compelling. This isn't noise music. It's not just about the texture they are creating. interplay between musicians, tension created by sound/silence, momentum, form, structure, aesthetic, etc are all present in this music. It can be difficult to immediately pick up on at times without tangible things to hold onto like melody, harmony, rhythm, and the like, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>52809234 I see I see Well I don't know much about production and "electronic music" but when I listen to stuff like electroacoustic or onkyo I can't not think "why are the artists not doing the sounds with a synth? Why are they complicating stuff?", like this would be acceptable in other medias but music is sound, at least when we're talking about men-made stuff
>>52809353 Not switching gears, the point is: All the classical music you've ever heard of without ever digging into the genre, is generally patrician with a few exceptions. The same cannot be said for Jazz or Rock.
>>52809392 No one definition necessarily, but I think someone has to meet a standard in order to be considered patrician
Let's call it a Bad/Good ratio. If you listen to more patrician music than you do "pleb" music, then you earn patrician status. The more "one-sided" your ratio is (1,000 patrician/65 pleb) the more patrician you are. So in a way I'd say there'd be varying degrees of patrician
>>52809463 >Classical Music, for the sake of being Classical Music, isn't patrician.
I still disagree for the most part, comparatively, the "best stuff that has survived over the years" for classical music, is inherently better than anything that survives from rock and jazz, by nature they are both less patrician, as they are both stripped down in comparison, and the "classics" from both Jazz and Rock can hardly claim to evoke the same range of emotions and mental imagery as classical masterpieces.
>>52809619 defining it the opposite way would be more sensible, i feel he is patrician who, in reference to >>52809156, is reasonably well-versed in music theory, musicology, world music history, composition, et cetera, and patrician music is that which is deemed worthy by such people (ideally by the absolute majority) you could be entirely musically illiterate yet still exclusively listen to bach, hypothetically. wouldn't make you patrish.
Discovering and accepting musical biases, and employing your self-knowledge in a way conducive to the discovery and appreciation of good music >example 1: "I really like 'x' (where 'x' can be a style, instrument, aesthetic, etc.) therefore I will seek out music with 'x' because I understand I am more likely to enjoy them." >example 2: "I really dislike "x" (where 'x' can be a style, instrument, aesthetic, etc.) therefore I will avoid music containing 'x' for now because I understand I am less likely to enjoy them and prefer to keep my time as conducive to the discovery and appreciation of good music as possible." It is perfectly okay (and even encouraged) to dismiss a genre of music if you hold strong bias against the prominent aesthetics that define that genre. To imply that all genres are of equal worth, or that no genre is "devoid of good music" is a sign of both musical immaturity and unrefined taste. >note: Accepting your musical biases does not mean to become complacent with them- quite to the contrary in fact. By pinpointing what you do and don't like, you can be much more effective in your search for good music by paying closer attention to the descriptions of and content within new musics. >note 2: It is encouraged to be as specific and analytic with your musical biases as possible- dismissing large chunks of things merely because they fall under a vague or broad term can be a grave mistake, and putting too much on your plate at once with overly wide musical fetishes can be tiring.
>>52809808 You don't have to have education in history and dates, or be able to recite from memory the names of each component of a song. One can still enjoy patrician music without understanding it fully, and still be able to understand and recognize that it is patrician.
>>52809768 >Why is that? How are they stripped down in comparison? Why should deign to answer such a ridiculous question? The answer is obvious, and you already know it. I'm not going to bother answering "4" when you ask "What is 2+2?" >What emotions can Classical Music evoke that Jazz and Rock can't? More obscure emotions than simple love, hate, anger, and sadness. Closer to sensations rooted in emotion. Also, Rock and Jazz hardly dare to create a single song in which you experience the full spectrum of primary emotions. >What do you mean with "mental imagery"? if you don't conjure mental imagery when you listen to music, then I really can't explain it further without spending more time on here than I want to.
As far as "what is classical music", for this conversation I'm only taking symphonies and the like into consideration.
>>52810042 I really don't think they are stripped down. They just have different structures.
>More obscure emotions than simple love, hate, anger, and sadness. Closer to sensations rooted in emotion. Yeah, cool. What emotions? >Also, Rock and Jazz hardly dare to create a single song in which you experience the full spectrum of primary emotions. Progressive Rock does that. See, Faust's self titled and King Crimson's ITCOTCK
>if you don't conjure mental imagery when you listen to music, then I really can't explain it further without spending more time on here than I want to. I do. Jazz and Rock can have imagery too. For example, Charles Mingus, Ahleuchatistas and Haniwa-Chan.
>As far as "what is classical music", for this conversation I'm only taking symphonies and the like into consideration. Rock musicians have made Classical Music too in this case. See, Mike Keneally's The Universe Will Provide.
>>52810042 You DO know that the emotional and mental imagery thing is completely subjective and is different to every person? Someone can see crazy images when listening to Jefferson Airplane that he won't see when hearing a bruckner symphony. Someone can feel things from listening to the beatles that he won't from listening to any other kind of music. This aspect doesn't make the music inherently good or bad.
>>52810118 >Yeah, cool. What emotions? Come on dude. More subtle emotions, like Wariness, or transitional and meta emotions.
>Progressive Rock does that. See, Faust's self titled and King Crimson's ITCOTCK As much as we might consider those classics, the majority of the people in the world do not, and even in this day and age, even with Kanye using bits off a KC song, there are COUNTLESS people we encounter day in and day out who have never listened to them, and most likely have never even heard their name. This could be a regional issue on my part, I admit.
>Rock musicians have made Classical Music too in this case. See, Mike Keneally's The Universe Will Provide. I should have clarified "before the 1900s"
Guess I'll throw my old trip on, for gits and shuggles.
>>52810245 >Come on dude. More subtle emotions, like Wariness, or transitional and meta emotions. And you think Jazz and Rock can't create that kind of emotions? Come on.
>As much as we might consider those classics, the majority of the people in the world do not, and even in this day and age, even with Kanye using bits off a KC song, there are COUNTLESS people we encounter day in and day out who have never listened to them, and most likely have never even heard their name. This could be a regional issue on my part, I admit. I agree with this. Bt like I said before, that's because Rock music has had less than a hundred years of history, while Classical ha more than a thousand. In one thousand years, ITCOTCK might be considered at the same level of a lot of classical works. Also, keep in mind when we talk about Classical Music, we only talk about European and American composers, even if there is Classical Music from all over the world. Does this mean Euro/American Classical Music is better? No, it only means it had better ways of surviving the tests of time.
>I should have clarified "before the 1900s" The point is, what makes Classical Music Classical?
>>52810378 >It does make the music better, imo. It might make it more enjoyable (and it does) but it doesn't make the music better. Every different person can see and feel different things in different kinds of music, it doesn't mean shit.
>>52810042 what i meant when i quoted the dude simply was that one would think a patrician would show an active interest to understand music to a greater extent, not just to hoard all kinds of novelties on their hard drive or analyze it merely binarily. yeah i guess one doesn't need to have studied at a conservatory for that, but still, with all the information you could crave readily available, claiming to be a le music nerd and oh you get what i mean, and that was just a not-so-fleshed-out idea so idc or to equate "patrician" with "expert" (and "pleb" with "layman" or something), that would make sense, wouldn't it?
>>52810471 Yeah, but some music has actually stronger "visuals". Some music is even designed to make you have more intense visualizations. Of course it's going to be subjective, that applies to everything, but that doesn't make it less true.
>>52810378 >And you think Jazz and Rock can't create that kind of emotions? Come on. I never said that. Remember, we're talking exclusively about "greats" that will be passed down through the ages. Maybe opinion will change over time as mankind progresses from here, but thus far majority opinion on modern rock and jazz "greats" barely evoke anything more than primary emotions. Most can't seem to find their way past sadness.
> In one thousand years, ITCOTCK might be considered at the same level of a lot of classical works. Yeah, that!
>The point is, what makes Classical Music Classical? I'm only going by the modern definition of classical music that most people think of when they hear the term. The same music you hear when you turn on a "classical" radio station.
>>52810553 Okay, tell me then. Who are the greats of Classical, Jazz, and Rock, and how did you choose them.
>I'm only going by the modern definition of classical music that most people think of when they hear the term. The same music you hear when you turn on a "classical" radio station. That's very vague. There are two ways of defining Classical Music, but I'm only going to say one. It's music with the intention of making complex/sophisticated music (that doesn't make the music better, but it's often the case, imo). By that definition, some Jazz and Rock works can actually be considered Classical Music. If you disagree, I would like you to propose a good definition of classical music.
>>52810486 Please stop projecting more implications that cannot be logically inferred from what I said. "Classical music from before the 1900s" is the TOPIC. I never suggested classical music has not been made post-1900, and nobody but a nitwit would have translated it as such.
>>52810540 Show me some Jazz that makes you feel gallant, or maybe even disgust.
>>52810581 >equating public perception with value/worthiness far too much. If you could comprehend the things you read better, you'd know that's not my stance, especially as it is entirely anti-patrician in nature.
>>52810658 >>52810671 I used that definition as a way that Classical Music has been used as very vague term, but in a sense, it's true. Classical Music aims for certain complexity. What's your definition anyways?
>>52810709 >>52810727 I think our perception of disgust is a little different, for me those evoke irritation. To me disgust is a little more vehement.
>>52810637 I think that definition works, but for it to work in my mind, it's absolutely required to a large number of individual musicians to qualify as classical music. Full groups of wind, strings, percussion, brass, etc
And you, actually - I haven't gotten into a discussion like this on /mu/ in ages.
>>52810757 >Classical Music aims for certain complexity. that's depends on the composer really. Chopin wasn't always aiming for complexity for example. And the real big difference between classical music to other genres is that it's must be notated, and is composed differently to other genres. It has certain rules (that other genres don't have and that can be broken), and it consistently tries to evolve harmonically (but you can say this about some other genres too I guess).
>>52810929 >for it to work in my mind, it's absolutely required to a large number of individual musicians to qualify as classical music. Full groups of wind, strings, percussion, brass, etc wait you do realize classical music for solo instruments is a thing, right?
>>52810929 >I think that definition works, but for it to work in my mind, it's absolutely required to a large number of individual musicians to qualify as classical music. That's just so wrong. I know you are talking about Symphonies before 1900, but still, that's an awful way of defining Classical Music.
>>52811066 Well, unless we are changing the definition of the word "disgust", then yeah I would actually say you are. By "to me" I really meant "to anyone who knows the proper requirements for 'disgust'."
>>52811095 I didn't really feel it. Maybe they are feeling it as they play, but it's not coming across on my end.
>>52811099 My definition is very narrow, I know. But then again, so is the rest of my mind.
>>52811249 >"to anyone who knows the proper requirements for 'disgust'." how the fuck do you know what I felt when i listened to it? jesus because you don't feel it doesn't mean it's not there. The fact that we're even having this discussion is completely ridicules. What are some pieces that can objectively me feel disgust?
>>52811323 >how the fuck do you know what I felt when i listened to it? Because you linked it to me when I called for "disgust" or "gallant", and I seriously doubt that made you feel gallant. If you felt disgust at what I felt irritation, then I'd say it has something to do with sensitivity.
>>52811463 I'm not saying you didn't feel disgust. I'm saying my conclusion is that in order to feel disgust, less is required for you than it is for me. You reach that state of emotion (at least in regards to that particular song) much quicker than me. In fact I never got to that point, and only achieved irritation as I said. I think it's because you are disgusted by being irritated perhaps?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.