The vast majority of classical/jazz/art music/whatever you believe

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.

>>52873990
Try being subtle next time.

What are the four huge overarching classifications of music? I read it here a while ago.

>Art
>Experimental
>Pop

Not sure what the fourth is, or if the 2nd and 1st are the same. Anyone care to elucidate me?

>>52874086
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.

>>52874153
I would say Art and Experimental are the same.

>>52874172
Are you even trying?

>>52874188
Are YOU even trying?

>>52874086

Art music=throwing everything at a wall until something sticks.

(Good) pop music=making something good out of what stuck.

>>52874086
There's nothing wrong with patterns and norms
Bridges are all similar in design, but architectural differences make each one beautiful in their own way
philosophy

>>52874172
Art is the same as avant-garde. Sorry.

ITT: People who don't listen to art-music trying to talk about art-music.

File: Kate_Bush_bbc_documentary[1].jpg (124KB, 992x1024px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 992x1024px

pop is just a genre. Shit pop is shit. good pop is good

>>52874213
>>52874184
The pseudo-intellectualism in these posts is staggering.

>The idea of determining what huge fields of music "attempts" to do

>>52874213
Merzbow is my favorite art musician.

>>52874153
commercial/popular music
traditional/folk music
classical/art music

Maybe some people like structure and repeating phrases and melodies
It's often a lot harder writing a simple pop song than an experimental song

>>52874257
that's what it was, sort of
except there were 4, and in this case, commercial + traditional were the same, because they are music for the common human.

>>52874153
Rock
Pop
Electronic
Rap/Hip Hop

>>52874271
rofl

>>52874262
>It's often a lot harder writing a simple pop song than an experimental song
ITT people who don't listen to experimental music try to discuss experimental music.

>>52874271
lol

>>52874268
I don't know what you're talking about, but >>52874257 is the most frequently recognized trichotomy used by musicologists.

Oneohtrix Point Never, Tim Hecker, Merzbow and Macintosh Plus are true musicans. Why would I waste my time with The Arctic Monkeys

>>52873990
What about things that once were popular, like big band music? At a certain point these bands use to be as popular as any touring artist.

>>52874282
>record sinewave
>put paulstretched song on top of sinewave
much avant-garde very experimental

>>52874282
I listen to lots of experimental music. I just haven't developed a superiority complex. Pop music should be respected just as much as experimental music

>implying poptards could even recognize a masterpiece

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2drfpzWros

this piece is widely considered as a masterpiece, but i bet you pleanbian poptard faggots will think it's shit.

File: Axiomatic Triangle 2.png (130KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1600x1200px

>>52874153
there's experimental in all genres

>>52874304
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?

>>52873990
pop artists cannot make art music.

but composers can make pop.

composers can do anything

>>52874563
Bach, Beethoven, Bartok, Brahms, Strauss, Dvorak, Grieg and Josquin are dead.

>>52873990
No shit, talented artists previously had no choice but appeal to the masses for income.
>previously
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.

>>52874625
Birtwistle, Reich, Holliger, and Adams are true musicians. Why would I waste my time with Oneohtrix Point Never, Tim Hecker, Merzbow and Macintosh Plus?

>>52874625
nice observation skills.

and yet their music is still at the forefront of form and beauty. go figure.

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.

>>52874642
>Not all music is made for the listener or for the sale
yeah, only popular music.

>>52874597
>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

>>52874638
Birtwistle, Holliger, and Adams are not popular therefore are irrelevant. Reich alone doesn't cut it.

>>52874641
Musicians =/= music, we're talking about musicians. Corpses cannot be musicians.

File: 1418562437644.jpg (70KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x667px

>>52874642
>Not all music is made for the listener
This is like the /v/ shit
>Not all video games have to be fun
Ok m8

>>52874670
>Adams
>not popular
No matter which Adams we talk about (John or John Luther) you're objectively incorrect.

File: 1337030279243.jpg (98KB, 697x716px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 697x716px

>muh emotions
>muh soul
>muh experimentation
Pure cancer, kill yourself.

>>52874687
The fact his name is so common is proof of his irrelevancy.

>>52874710
Come back when you actually listen to art-music.

It's clear you don't have a leg to stand on right now.

>>52874702
muh muh

>>52874702
>muh conformism
>muh the catchy
>muh mtv
>muh popularity

your the cancer

>>52874663
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.

>>52874670
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.

>>52874726
Come back when you learn what "true musician" actually means.

>>52874670
>Birtwistle, Holliger, and Adams are not popular
that was beside the point
>therefore are irrelevant
relevant or not is irrelevant

>>52874749
What's your background in music?

>>52874749
composers > pure musicians

composers do the hard work making something thats a great work of art. musicians just play it to their best ability.

>>52874633
Some people start with his self titled release, hate it and stop listening.

You have to dig through some weird shit to find gems.

>>52874751
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.

>>52874796
>True musicians are relevant, untrue musicians will be lost in the flows of history.
>Obscure music is objectively shit.
why is that?

>>52874796
>only Reich will be remembered for his contributions to music.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So what you're saying is: you don't know anything about Music History?

>>52874796
>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.

>>52874255
>Merzbow
>avantgarde

>>52874811
What good is there to music that is useless?

>>52874819
>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.
Incorrect.

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.

>>52874825
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?

>>52874820
he is

>>52874340
lmao

>>52874848
sheet music has already lasted 500 years. why shouldn't it last another 500?

what if a CME sends us back to the industrial revolution? all recorded music will be unlistenable

>>52874796
So nickleback, creed, and Katy Perry are better because there more popular, is that right?

>>52874865
>what "use" is there to popular works that obscure ones lack?
Historical relevancy.

>>52874892
why and for what is that of use?

>>52874882
Myths that the earht was flat lasted for thousands of decades, why couldn't they last for another couple of thousand?

>>52874679

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

>>52874908
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.

>>52874775
This. Musicians aren't artists unless they contribute to the composition

>>52874908
History implies documentation of one's existence in the universe. History is proof of our own existence as a race to cosmic beings greater than us.

>>52874948
>>52874935

>>52874935
yeah i was aware of that but that's not what i meant
so the worth of music is measured by how many people are inspired by it, you say? alrighty then

Let's put it this way:

500 years from now people will still be listening to Beethoven/Mozart/Miles Davis/Coltrane

Kanye West/NMH/Weezer will not even be mentioned in archives

>>52874915
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.

>>52874935
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.

>>52874972
that alone doesn't say anything about how good the music itself is.

>>52874972
pretty much this.

>>52874987
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

>>52874972
Kanye West will be remembered along the lines of Bach and Mozart.

>>52875004
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

>>52875023
My arguments encompass a time stretch larger than you could ever imagine. You argue from the viewpoint of 50-100 years in the future.

>>52875023
so what i get from your arguments is that music is entirely impersonal to you, and society is the only thing to measure it against, right?
k

>>52875025
>Some flavor of the year producer/rapper
>Equal to the seminal, timeless greatness of Bach or Mozart

delusion: the post

>>52875060
>no one listens to Joplin
>no one listen to Sinatra
>no one listens to Elvis
>no one listens to The Beatles

>>52875088
>Bach and Mozart
>timeless
[citation needed]

>b-but they survived for 500 years! they will survive another 500!
fallacious argument, try again

>>52875060
>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.

>>52875025

made me spit out water lol

>>52875080
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.

>>52875060

how the fuck is NMH written for sales? take away the cult following of hipsters and you have a very obscure album that wouldn't make it onto radio

>>52875143
>released in Album format
>for sales

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.

>>52875060
>ITAOTS/popular music in general
>written for money and record sales
lol

art music plebs should stop arguing about shit they know nothing about just like poppists should stop arguing about art music

File: Axiomatic Triangle.png (278KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 800x600px

>>52875184
lets just consider pic related and call it a day :^)

>>52875167
>released in Album format
>for sales
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.

>>52875167
>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

>>52875198
I wish I was a 14 year old meme spouter to be able to end arguments with biased meme pictures.

>>52875198

dumb as fuck...so tin pan alley songs are art music just because it's notated? coltrane is popular music? lol you shouldn't be in this argument

>>52875230
stop posting

>>52875198
>>52875251
Schaeffer is my favorite pop musikian

>>52875266
take your own advice buddy

>>52875198
how is folk music patrician just because it's not made for monetary gains? it's usually extremely basic and boring
what's your beef with capitalism, even?

>>52875080
what would you be measuring?
for me you can't get very far from "you either like it or not" without losing lots of objectivity so why bother with analysis

>>52875251
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre

all based on musicologists friend. it is debated though.

>>52875216
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.

>>52875338
>music released on albums for sales is popular music. music written by trained composers on scores and played by live performers is art music
top black and white logic.

>>52875288
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzp-90317w0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZTfu4jWcI

>>52875373
>tell me these are boring
tell me these are interesting

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.

>>52875368
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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

Art music =/= art
non art music =/= not art

its just a label for whats commonly called 'classical' music

>>52875380
leave your country and go check out a foreign culture and their music, then tell me its not interesting.

oh wait, you probably dont even leave your house.

>>52874184
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.

>someone actually thinks this is true

ITT: Still people who know nothing about art-music try to talk about art-music, versus people who study art-music.

>>52874201
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.

>>52875411
>Moreover, in some cases the distinction between popular and art music has been blurred, particularly in the late 20th century.[8]
:^)

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.

>>52875483
It's art music, not art-music.

>>52875492
>improvisation is the opposite of art
this thread gets more retarded by the second

>>52875545
Good improv is done with deep knowledge of music theory, melody constructión, harmony, with good knowledge and experience with your instrument. Not playing random shit.

>>52875060
>classical fags actually believe composers didn't write for money
ayy lmao

>>52873990
Congratulations OP, you got classical autists butthurt

>>52875500
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7Gzrake8nI

Here's a man pushing what a cello can do to its absolute limits. actual experimentation.

here's another one, from the 70s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py5Vk90ZTak

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.

>>52875593
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

>>52875615
see

>>52875338
>classical was actually written for money plenty in its time

>>52875668
So you are completely ignoring facts
Lmao classical autists are so funny

>>52875637
why did you drop your trip though m8

>>52875423
>that projecting

When did you grow out of """art""" music?
Me when I was 15

>>52875637
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

>>52875060
> 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?

>>52875198
>>52875338
What about Rock albums released on Bancamp for free?

>>52874509
what makes this a masterpiece?

>>52875644
*you still have knowledge of it present within you on a basic level

>>52875802
well they aint art music, that's for sure

>>52875786
obviously composers wrote for money.

>>52874563
>bartok
my nigga

>>52874739
>your

>>52874304
Tim Hecker's musics are tasteless

>>52875917
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

>>52875993
Oh, forgot to say that Macintosh Plus is pure shit

>>52875644
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.

>>52875408
thank you for being the voice of reason in this thread, anon

>>52874304
Oneohtrix and Macintosh Plus are the same guy aren't they?

>>52874534
>idiot was too lazy to make a real Venn Diagram
>omits the rather massive amount of overlap between Traditional and Art music

Hell it basically defined the 19th century