The vast majority of classical/jazz/art music/whatever you believe isn't "popular music" is soulless, technical wank.
The irony of all these anti-pop attitudes on /mu/ is that the majority of music's masterpieces (as an art form in general) would be considered pop by these same people, but they are unwilling to acknowledge that pop can be good.
People equate the idea of pop to mass consumption and being watered down and shallow, which isn't always wrong, but the problem is, the distinction that artfags are trying to create--art versus folk versus popular, or art/classical/jazz versus popular--is just as shortminded of an attempt at categorization for an enormous medium as they perceive pop to be in general.
Sometimes a masterpiece is the result of a "pop" artist taking some of the better ideas of a "art music" and applying pop techniques to them in order to make them as brilliant as they are trying to be.
Sometimes the most well-renowned, artsy-fartsy artists in music fail to ever produce something of great value because they are trying so hard to PUSH the boundaries that in the end what they come up with is less interesting than if they had never tried to push it at all.
It takes a certain level of both bold experimentation and refinement to create a masterpiece.
Pop music at its core is worthless. Art music is by its definition the attempt to explore boundaries of music expression. Pop music is defined by an adherence to pre-established patterns and norms. As I said, worthless.
What are the four huge overarching classifications of music? I read it here a while ago.
Not sure what the fourth is, or if the 2nd and 1st are the same. Anyone care to elucidate me?
Art music at its core is worthless. Avant-garde music is by its definition the attempt to explore boundaries of music expression. Art music is defined by an adherence to pre-established patterns and artistic norms. As I said, worthless.
pop is just a genre. Shit pop is shit. good pop is good
>implying poptards could even recognize a masterpiece
this piece is widely considered as a masterpiece, but i bet you pleanbian poptard faggots will think it's shit.
there's experimental in all genres
Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Brahms, Strauss, Dvorak, Grieg and Josquin are true musicians. Why would I waste my time with Oneohtrix Point Never, Tim Hecker, Merzbow and Macintosh Plus?
No shit, talented artists previously had no choice but appeal to the masses for income.
There's going to be some people recognized for being unique talent and there will be plenty that won't.
>Sometimes the most well-renowned, artsy-fartsy artists in music fail to ever produce something of great value because they are trying so hard to PUSH the boundaries that in the end what they come up with is less interesting than if they had never tried to push it at all.
If you're implying this about RDJ you are rock solid plebonium.
As an artist, and not a listener, I think one aspect of music making that seems to have slipped through some of this debate is chance the artist is simply expressing themselves or feelings or something.
Not all music is made for the listener or for the sale.
>pop artists cannot make art music.
nah they could most certainly try, even if it wouldn't end up being as good as the music of trained composers (or maybe it would, depends)
but bad art music would still be art music regardless
Birtwistle, Holliger, and Adams are not popular therefore are irrelevant. Reich alone doesn't cut it.
Musicians =/= music, we're talking about musicians. Corpses cannot be musicians.
>Not all music is made for the listener
This is like the /v/ shit
>Not all video games have to be fun
Pure cancer, kill yourself.
incorrect. to make art music you have to be able to write a score all by yourself. most pop musicians are incapable of this, and if they are, they're not willing to spend the lifetime needed to actually create a masterpiece.
they could work with a composer/arranger to try to score something out, but that doesn't really count.
art music is in the classical tradition, and stored primarily in a written score.
They were great musicians in there time, so great that we remember them 300-500 years later. more than you can say about popular music. we hardly remember more than 5% of the pop artists from 20 years ago, let alone 100.
True musicians are relevant, untrue musicians will be lost in the flows of history. Of the composers the anon name-dropped only Reich will be remembered for his contributions to music. The rest will turn into obscure avant-teen drivel, status over quality.
Obscure music is objectively shit.
>untrue musicians will be lost in the flows of history
every current artist except Arvo Part, John Adams, Lera Auerbach, Lachenmann, Penderecki, etc.
There music is stored in scores which gives it a timeless quality, it can be reinterpreted hundreds of years later.
no one will be able to find an ancient mp3 player in the year 2500, but they will still be able to read a score.
>no one will be able to find an ancient mp3 player in the year 2500, but they will still be able to read a score.
No one will be able to find an ancient physical sheet in the years of cyberspace, but they will be able to decipher a digital file.
what "use" is there to popular works that obscure ones lack?
whether or not a musician or another one becomes popular/acclaimed and therefore remembered is pretty much random anyways, so who if not a pop culture drone could give a shit?
you obviously don't play an instrument
you think avante garde jazz musicians give a shit what their audience thinks? they play for their own enjoyment and expression. a lot of 21st century classical music is composed without any regard for the listener
sounds like you know nothing of music history.
relatively unknown works surface years later and go on to inspire entire generations.
Shostakovich string quartets, bach's cello suites, Vivaldi, etc.
as long as something is written down it can be discovered and re discovered hundreds of years later.
Ideas =/= tools
hammers have lasted since the dawn of intelligence. Ideas constantly change.
the beauty of the score is it allows you to capture ideas. plus it has evolved over the years. compare a Palestrina score to a Penderecki score and you'll know what I mean. oh wait, you probably dont know who either of those composers are.
There was no cyberspace during the time Shostakovitch, Bach and Vivaldi lived. And even so, history isn't final. It becomes final only when there is no one to update it anymore, only when as an individual race we go extinct will our history finally reach a dead end.
pretty much this.
what are you trying to argue here? of course history isn't "final" what's the point of bringing this up
I feel like I'm trying to explain basic music history to 12 year olds
actually is says everything about how good it is.
popular music (Kanye/NMH/Weezer) is written for money and record sales. Bach wrote for the glory of god, Beethoven wrote for his pure emotions, etc. they created true art for their various reasons. Popular music isn't art, and It doesn't last more than 50 years, as shown by how few 50s and 60s pop artists anyone listens to today
>popular music (Kanye/NMH/Weezer) is written for money and record sales
yeah they were probably bad examples, but i'm pretty sure it's not like there aren't pop/rock musicians writing to express their pure emotions etc.
not at all. its because Bach and Beethoven still pull on our feelings all these years later that makes them great. and the fact that they inspired countless artists (for example the Bach like Chorale at the end of Paranoid Android)
They are masters of the art form of music, so much so that we still praise them 300+ years later. The same cannot be said of modern popular music. We live in a disposable society, and the music is also disposable. look at the radio, its a new flavor of singles every month, throw out the old and get something new.
classical radio on the other hand plays a mix of timeless classics and new interesting works.
>released in Album format
thats pretty much it
a truly obscure album written purely for feels would be written on a score and put in a drawer, only to be discovered years after the composers death.
>ITAOTS/popular music in general
>written for money and record sales
art music plebs should stop arguing about shit they know nothing about just like poppists should stop arguing about art music
lets just consider pic related and call it a day :^)
>released in Album format
art music doesn't have that huh?
your argument what constitutes good/relevant music is basically if it's notated or not. you're a retard straight from 1800, mate. I suggest you go back there with a bullet through the head.
>a truly obscure album written purely for feels would be written on a score and put in a drawer, only to be discovered years after the composers death.
i'll going to do exactly that just to show your bitch ass
all based on musicologists friend. it is debated though.
See >>52874534 there are overlaps
classical was actually written for money plenty in its time. Beethoven put on concerts to make money.
Nothing to do with quality of relevance, just the basic music genres. music released on albums for sales is popular music. music written by trained composers on scores and played by live performers is art music.
ethnomusicology is the most patrician activity around.
go and study a culture and their music, and how it relates to and impacts their society. fascinating stuff.
tell me these are boring:
Arguing about the future of music after the invention of recording technology and especially after the the age of internet based on past examples is retardation at it's finest if I've ever seen one.
thats just the basic definition. there are huge gray areas bewteen art and popular music. also the 3 basic definitions are disputed among musicologists.
music isn't black and white, and genres are descriptive, not prescriptive.
There's much more to art music that being written by trained composers on scores. read:
Art music =/= art
non art music =/= not art
its just a label for whats commonly called 'classical' music
No, they aren´t. I could say "im gonna write a piece using serialism" or "a piece only using the whole tone scale or just using some kinds of sounds and try to come up with something interesting (the best you can come up). Experimental.
Or you can already hear a piece in your head which you construct carefully to express all your emotions and using the sounds, scales, harmonies and textures which better suit what you want to express. Art.
Sometimes a piece is both but not always.
What the fuck???
Is like nobody here is a musician
>Not "hearing" the music in your head and translating into harmony, scales and textures.
>Creating music with your fingers. Randomly.
That is the opposite of art.
>Moreover, in some cases the distinction between popular and art music has been blurred, particularly in the late 20th century.
the era of today is incoparable to centuries ago. we've now entered a brand new, different millennium and there's no changing that. whether it's for the best or for the worst we won't be alive to see that for certain.
popular music started getting huge in 20th C. larger than it traditionally had, due to radio and TV. traditionally pop music was just some musicians playing at a tavern.
Composers are still writing art music, and still pushing the boundaries of what can be done with music. Popular musicians are still writing music based on feels and their limited knowledge of chords (if they write their own songs that is)
how much better pop music would be if they utilized applied chords and modulations... I guess we'll never know.
Flamewar between popular and art music aside, what do you guys think of this:
Here's a man pushing what a cello can do to its absolute limits. actual experimentation.
here's another one, from the 70s:
it may not be as listenable as your popular music, but I find it pretty interesting what they can do with only a single instrument (and lots of electronics and human voice in the case of the Ferneyhough piece)
This is what experimental art music sounds like.
music theory isn't something you know to automatically make "quality music". it's like language, even if you don't "know" it you still have it present within you on a basic level
if you actually knew what music theory is you would have known this
boundary-pushing composers haven't been making standard music based around emotion since the early 20th century, Cage, Stockhausen and their pupils, the list goes on.
composers that still stick to the basics like Glass and Reich are made fun of and are compared to popular musicians than art musicians
there's no arguing that the start of the 20th century was the start of art music's dark ages and the beginning of popular music's shining breakthrough
> intentional fallacy: the post
Also, you actually believe that classical composers didn't ever write for money? How can you claim that when so many composers in the Classical and Baroque periods had to complete assignments with deadlines for their livelihoods?
there's a composer who definitely wasn't writing for money. he may have received commissions, but was pretty much left to do his own thing.
Concerto for orchestra is a masterpiece, and his string quartets are considered the high point of 20th C chamber music
Never said that. I actually know music theory. I am not talking about the classic old "you should play this and that and rules about counterpoint". Following those guidelines will make you sound like that old music. I mean in more general terms with some aural training. Know how to make changes from tonality, how to raise tension and resolve it. You have to know theory to know how to break it (use it like a tool). You should be able to have the idea of how it will sound what you play/write. Know what you are doing.
A shitload of fine musicians didn´t took any theory but they certainly knew what they were doing. They know that if they play X chords or Y cadence while playing Z scale it sounds like XYZ.
What the original pleb i wrote to looked like it was implying the process as an idiot strumming chords and shit like a chimp without knowing how would sound and then saying "o, that sounds good". And that is how begginers approach "composition". Even when some musicians didn´t took classes or don´t know the name of things, thay have by experience the intuition of how sounds X, Y paired with Z. Like some jazzman said, learn all the scales and then forget about it. Musician´s nirvana state only reached by those who work hard enough is directly effortless translation of what you have in your head to the score sheet/fingers.