Why do you listen to popular music - music inherently based on its appeal to the Common Man - yet assume that you can be "patrician," or at all be considered a member of the higher class?
Hello i am op and would like to apologize for making this thread. I understand your distress, but i simply did it because my boyfriend (I'm gay) told me to. You see, our fore play is shitposting on /mu/, so sorry to troll you all. hope you all ajve a great day! Bye bye!
yes because every musician who becomes popular knew they were going to be popular when they made the music. and if you can create music for the masses, that makes you patrician, correct?
You're making irrational arguments not worth my time.
Here are some great pieces from Medieval to Modern times.
I think patrician is more of an attitude than just what music you listen. If you just listen to a classical composition but don't think of the beauty and everything related to it then your a pleb. If you listen to pet sounds and can explain why its good with clear explanations then your a patrician
tl;dr: Don't fall for the patrician vs. pleb shit it's dumb. Being a simpleton and being pretentious its just two sides of the same coin. Ignorance.
He was not talking about "popular music" as in "music that many people listen to". He was talking about "popular music" as in pic related.
Minimalist classical music is actually the only good classical music to come out of the 20th century.
Stockhausen and the other serialists and avantgardists come from a dark era and are considered degenerate for a good reason.
Well you named one composer (who is heavily memed on /mu/), but can you really not name 4 others?
This is a very easy question...maybe you just barely know any post-1950 classical music?
Quite a few people care about them, actually, as evidenced by their continual acclaim and patronage given to them.
Can you really not name them? I guess you don't know what you are talking about.
Not when you set an organized tuning note like 440
even if the term isn't obsolete, making music that is good enough to be remembered and passed down for generations can be compared to making music that generates sales. and doing performances for money can be compared to touring.
For the sake of dickmeasuring, some of my favorites are Reich, Young, Ligeti, (Murail) Schaeffer), and Subotnick.
I'm not the guy you are arguing against, and I don't see how namedropping random (in the argument's context) composers is going to shift this debate for the better. Put on your trip Snozzberry, your poor debate techniques have more than revealed you by now.
>but it's just going to be relative to that tone anyway.
Yes, but 440hz is the agreed upon standard so it effectively is the objective standard.
It has been the standard for quite a while.
>I'm not the guy you are arguing against, and I don't see how namedropping random (in the argument's context) composers is going to shift this debate for the better.
I could say "Jazz music is fucking terrible." However, if I couldn't name 5 Jazz artists, then I'd look a fool. I'd look like someone who is criticizing something he has next-to-no knowledge about.
You're comparing two fuckhuge genres - western art music and popular music. There's too much overlap and gray areas for this kind of topic to exist without amounts of shitposting. A good version of this thread would be comparing the fanbases of the two genres, not the genres themselves.
musical experts have been arguing for generations that their generation did it better. now that we have access to a fair amount of generations' music, isn't it time to lay that opinion to rest? humans make music based on the technology they have. they make music for people. the more people that react to their music the better. if YOU heard the music, then it was created for the masses.
The whole problem with the pleb/patrician thing is that it's fucking stupid because it doesn't have a definition. /lit/ calls literature pleb when it's accessible, easy to read like ASOIAF. /mu/ calls things pleb when it's well-known. Things can be well-known for being good, like Shakespeare for example, according to /mu/'s definition of pleb/patrician, Shakespeare is pleb literature, therefore it's bad to like it. Yet every English scholar ever acknowledges Shakespeare's greatness and him being the greatest playwright of all time.
The pleb/patrician thing is not about having good taste, it's about liking things that are not well-known. Everybody knows this conflict, I saw it here ITT like . For example, in another thread I saw 'The Discovery Heaven' by Harry Mulisch being labeled as a 'patrician' book because nobody knew it. I'm from The Netherlands, and I read this book in high school. So by my definition the book is pleb, but when an American reads the translation he would be patrician because nobody in America knows that book, yet the book stays the same in quality. When something is of significant quality and therefore well-known, it's good taste to like it. When something is well-known because it's accessible and made for the masses, then it's not. That's the difference and that's what's keeping 4chan from having any real discussion on something ever
apparently "icy synths" is critical analyzation of work, and simple conjecture that one could make with 0 musical training.
popular music has no analysts. only pretenders
Why do you listen to Vladislav Delay?
Why do you bugger men when you are yourself a man (albeit one with his penis surgically removed)?
Why do you call homosexuals degenerate when you are yourself one?
Why do you worship a despicable mass murderer whom exterminated your own kind (homosexuals)?
Why do you shitpost on a music forum?