>if it's not classical or traditional folk music, its pop

>>69787623
100% correct.

>>69787623
How is that wrong?

THAS WRONG MUTHAFUCKA
YOU JUST WRONG

>>69787636
How so?

>>69787668
Musicologists have classified music according to a trichotomic distinction such as Philip Tagg's "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics".[8] He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.[8]

>>69787623
Folk and classical used to be pop music, until they stopped being popular

>>69787701
>'popular' musics".
>its pop
As I said, how is OP's incorrect statement true?

>>69787729
Folk was, not classical.

>>69787701
Musicologists are one step of scientific credibility below astrologists and one step above sociologists.

>>69787623
in the most technical sense yes
but now a days trying to tell normie that both between the buried and me and Katy Perry are the same genre will get you laughed at, so deal with it.

>>69787772
Stop being pedantic for the sake of argument.

>>69787784
Music isn't a scientific field (acoustics beside the point). There's no scientific basis for genre classification and there's no point in bringing up "scientific credibility" to a field that doesn't try to be.

>>69787701
>musicologists

You're joking right? That's basically akin to feminist studies degree

>>69787701
Is classical the only art form of music globally?

>>69787701
Objectively wrong considering Beethoven was pretty much the Justin Bieber of his time

>>69787807
>confusing a musical genre with one of Tagg's points.
>oh stop being pedantic
Why would you want to discuss music if you don't know anything about it?

>>69787855
Comparing the cultural spread of classical music to the modern music industry is retarded

>>69787855
Haydn was the pop star of his time. Beethoven was worshipped towards the end of his life and after his death.

>>69787855
Popular music != number of last.fm scrobblers

>>69787874
Not really considering in 1000 years time we will probably be on whatever the equivalent of 4chan will be discussing Led Zeppelin and Kanye west in the same light as Beethoven

>>69787871
I confused nothing. We both know what OP meant.

>>69787896
Yeah thats the definition popular music... music that is popular

>>69787907
>taking the literal meaning

Idiot

>>69787907
This, people need to get their heads out of classicals ass. It's only music but in a different development

>>69787925
No.

Holy shit this board is actually more retarded than reddit.

>>69787943
What am I supposed to take? The metaphorical meaning?

>>69787623
what about harsh noise

>>69787947
(Not true by the way)

>>69787968
The internationally accepted definitions been posted in this thread already.

>>69787843

>>69787979
This

What if I start reviving my car engine and jerking off furiously and record it. What genre is that? If it charts on top 40 then it would be objectively pop music

>>69787997
Internationally accepted by who? Your liberal Cuck feminist music "degree" holder writer?

>>69787907
No, we'll still be discussing Beethoven. Fuck sake, every university needs to be shut down and replaced with ones that don't give degrees based on ones absorption of cultural relativism and other lies.

>>69787979
If it has a score, it's art music.

>>69788034
>cultural relativism is a lie

How retarded are you?

File: IMG_5573.jpg (516KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1920x1080px

>>69787982
LOL
>people actually rate classical higher than other genres

>>69788052
Barely more so than you apparently.

>>69788034
no because Muslims will have taken over the world by then and have banned all music

>>69787907
What I'm trying to say is that music was consumed and appreciated in a completely different fashion compared to the 18th century. In order to listen to Beethoven you had to be wealthy enough to attend music halls. There was fewer composers producing music because very little of the population could afford musical education.

Musical composition was exclusively seen as a highly specialised craft or an artform. It was sometimes made in the context of deep religious expression. Nothing like Beiber's pop music, which is produced to sell as many copies to teenage girls as possible.

>>69787907
Highly doubtful. If any pop music is going to be discussed 1000 years form now it'll be mozza or bob dylan

This thread has finally convinced to leave here

9gag is more musically intelligent than neo-/mu/

Enjoy your cringe thread

>>69788089
>he thinks the world revolves areound him and his culture

How cute.

>>69788095
Not really, everyone listened to the "hot classical composer" of their time. There is nothing inherently better in beethovens music

>>69787911
>we were only pretending to be retarded!

>>69788091
Wrong. President Trump and whoever won the democratic elections held in Russia would have wiped Islam from the face of the earth by 2020 and Beethoven will be remembered in the context of the Millennial Renaissance.

>>69788008
>what is intent
>>69787979
Art music

>>69788136
Oh I stand corrected. Wow fuck off commie.

>>69788095
>only the artists that I like will only be discussed

Lol. Grow up.

>>69788162
>intent

Is irrelevant. Not sure why you would even bring that up you goddamn retard

>>69788136
fucking troglodyte. dont reply

File: 1406673191682.gif (878KB, 537x300px) Image search: [Google]

878KB, 537x300px

>>69788136
>cultural relativism

You have a dreary marxist, scientific perspective of music and you disgust me.

>>69788176
I was only kidding there

>>69788203
The only science that is remotely culturally relativist is climate change.

>>69788199
>Not sure why you would even bring that up
Because we are talking about the correct way to discuss art
>irrelevant
How so?

>>69788203
No I have an objective view of it. Whereas you clearly have a narrow minded and low iq harboring teenagers view.

File: 1381206018449.jpg (116KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1280x720px

>>69788248
>No I have an objective view of it.

fuck off

>>69788248
Are you a parody of a stupid college grad? Is it an inside joke that non-college-grads won't get?

>>69788248
>No I have an objective view of it
lmao. Jesus everyone in this thread is fucking retarded

>>69788226
>the correct way to discuss art

There is no correct way to discuss it. Art will always be subjective. Intent is utterly meaningless when discussing genre.

Now answerthe question. If I fart into a mic and it charts on the top 40 what genre is it? That shoukd be either art or pop music by your narrow worldview definition

>>69788307

>n-no you're wrong

Nice argument faggot

>>69788332
there's no such thing as an objective view in art you retard

>Samuel L. Jackson isn't a GOAT actor

>>69788220
By including the word scientific I meant that his perspective music comes from something rational, rather than from passion.

>>69788311
>There is no correct way to discuss it.
So you admit to being wrong?
>Art will always be subjective
Only form the perspective of the audience, which is not helpful. It can be objectively viewed as the artist, so we can use that as rubric, which is why that is "correct"
>Art will always be subjective
We're discussing Tagg's Triage, not genre. Didn't you read the thread?
>If I fart into a mic and it charts on the top 40 what genre is it?
What was your intent? What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

>>69788248
>No I have an objective view of it
How so?

>>69788386
>So you admit to being wrong?

I'm not

>Only form the perspective of the audience, which is not helpful. It can be objectively viewed as the artist, so we can use that as rubric, which is why that is "correct"

Irrelevant

>We're discussing Tagg's Triage

Tagg is an irrelevant hack that no one will know in 50 years time. The way we categorize music based on genre is almost entirely subjective

>What was your intent? What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

We've been over this, Intent is utterly meaningless. Now answer the question

>>69788311
How about we create a 4th category: avant-garde. For the burry intersection between the other three in which the purpose is to push the boundaries of music, rather than to preserve an academic or cultural tradition or to market towards an audience.

File: 1477717862405.jpg (55KB, 760x752px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 760x752px

You know what's funny?

I can snap and kill every mother fucker on this board if we met IRL.

Seriously, think about it. I'd have your windpipe crushed, your nose flattened, your teeth shattered, your fingers snapped, your ribs broken, your pelvis pulverized, and your eyes gouged out before you would even know what's happening.

You guys talk big shit. Watch yourselves.

>>69788386
>musicology is a legitimate field of study

There is your, and everyone elses first mistake in this thread. It's about as important as a gender studies degree.

File: Mozart.jpg (75KB, 550x590px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 550x590px

All other forms are inferior to Western Art Music except Afro Disco and Slow Jams

>>69788478
It's as important as a history or art history degree, you mean. Which is a step up from gender studies.

>>69788478
It's useful in the sense that it gives us solid definitions to work with.

>>69788448
What is considered "avant-garde" is entirely subjective and based off of culture at the time.

When the beatles first used feedback it could have been considered "avant garde" but it was also top 40 so it's also pop.

>>69788452
>getting mad on the internet
Fucking kek, be less fragile m8

>>69788452
it's a stupid bait thread dude, calm down lmao

>>69788519
>history or art history degree, you mean. Which is a step up from gender studies.

No not even close. History or music is objective, it's all facts.

Musicology is on par with a liberal arts degree.

>>69788442
>I'm not
Well you just said there is a specific way to judge art, then you said there wasn't.
So you are contradicting yourself now
>Irrelevant
Why?
>Tagg is an irrelevant hack that no one will know in 50 years time.
Irrelevant
>Intent is utterly meaningless.
What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?
>>69788478
Why isn't it?

>>69788534
How about you shut your fucking mouth pal before I kick your fucking teeth in. You are nothing to me but an insignificant little worm, A fucking cretinous little scrote of a man. I will DOOF you right in the fucking chin. Two hits. me smacking your face, and you hitting the fucking ground.

Shut your dirty mouth and do not reply to me.

>>69788524
no, it's useful in the sense that musicology studies the history of music
all this aesthetic classification shit is best left for philosophy

>>69788534
>>69788551
too late im already driving to your houses to beat you up and steal your oneitis

>>69788554
Musicology encompasses history of music dude.

>>69788576
>all this aesthetic classification shit is best left for philosophy

But we're discussing an artform holy shit

File: 1474917855086.png (30KB, 256x264px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 256x264px

>>69788452
holy fucking shit dude

>>69788563
>Well you just said there is a specific way to judge art, then you said there wasn't.

"judging art" in the sense that we can judge it's cultural and historical impacts and look at it without any bias. Not in the sense that we can categorize it into an arbitrary genre or judge it's worth.

>What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

Why does it matter? Do you need to know my intent to tell me what genre of music it is? What if beethovens intent was to attract 10 year old girls to fuck like Justin Bieber? Would that make it pop music to you? Why does how I "market it" matter at all? Death of the author is slightly relevant in this case

>>69788600
Philosophy of art is still philosophy

>>69788452

>implying I wouldn't shoot you in the face as soon as I knew you were attacking me

silly non-Americans thinking physical strength matters in a violent altercation

>>69788599
Musical history is different from the type of "musicology" we're discussing here. Phillip Tagg's classifcations hold no weight objectively speaking.

>>69788658
There's literally nothing wrong with discussing music philospohically

>>69788704
No one ever said that though

>>69788695
Nothing relating to the discussion of music hold objective weight.

go back to /sci/

>>69788725
>Nothing relating to the discussion of music hold objective weight.

Good to see we agree then. Trying to broadly pin music into 3 arbitrarily defined genres holds zero weight in the real world

>>69788641
>"judging art" in the sense that we can judge it's cultural and historical impacts and look at it without any bias. Not in the sense that we can categorize it into an arbitrary genre or judge it's worth.
So you don't think farting into a mic is a genre at all? Do you think it's music?
>Why does it matter?
Why does your example matter?
>Do you need to know my intent to tell me what genre of music it is?
To know if it's art, folk or popular music, yes.
>Death of the author is slightly relevant
The drunken ramblings of a French, gay, failed artist is not relevant to Tagg's Triangle.

>>69788779
>Tagg is somehow relevant but barthes isn't

holy shit kill yourself you fucking idiot

>>69788779
>Tagg's Triangle.

Is hardly objective. Tagg is that you? Here's another musicoligist criticizing Tagg's triangle

>Musicologist and popular music specialist Richard Middleton has discussed the blurred nature of these distinctions:

Neat divisions between 'folk' and 'popular', and 'popular' and 'art', are impossible to find ... arbitrary criteria [are used] to define the complement of 'popular'. 'Art' music, for example, is generally regarded as by nature complex, difficult, demanding; 'popular' music then has to be defined as 'simple', 'accessible', 'facile'. But many pieces commonly thought of as 'art' (Handel's 'Hallelujah Chorus', many Schubert songs, many Verdi arias) have qualities of simplicity; conversely, it is by no means obvious that the Sex Pistols' records were 'accessible', Frank Zappa's work 'simple', or Billie Holiday's 'facile'.[13]

>>69788833
This

>>69788833
>Richard Middleton
Hes an idiot im smarter than him

>>69788852
But he's one of those "musicologists" whose opinions you hold so dearly.

>>69788833

This is true, if art music prides itself on complexity than how can people consider the entire genre of minimalism to be art music? Because they do, minimalism is generally regarded as a major part of classical/art music's history yet its entire existence completely goes against complexity.

>>69788807
Tagg is relevant because that's what we are discussing in this thread.
Barthes isn't because he was a failed artist himself who created a justification for other failed artists and homosexuals to take down what he perceived as a threatening patriarchy. In effect, we are unable to understand art at it's utmost core because we are limited top our own perceptions and life experience.
>>69788833
>Neat divisions between 'folk' and 'popular', and 'popular' and 'art', are impossible to find ... arbitrary criteria [are used] to define the complement of 'popular'. 'Art' music, for example, is generally regarded as by nature complex, difficult, demanding; 'popular' music then has to be defined as 'simple', 'accessible', 'facile'. But many pieces commonly thought of as 'art' (Handel's 'Hallelujah Chorus', many Schubert songs, many Verdi arias) have qualities of simplicity; conversely, it is by no means obvious that the Sex Pistols' records were 'accessible', Frank Zappa's work 'simple', or Billie Holiday's 'facile'.[13]
Looking at intent will solve all of this. If we ignore Barthe's wild idiocy, everything is simplified and can easily be explained.
>>69788882
>if art music prides itself on complexity
Strawman

I guess you don't know what minimalism is?

>>69788904
>Looking at intent will solve all of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

>>69788904
>him being a homosexual is relevant

Ad hominem

Shut up and enjoy the music! ∩ (︶︿︶) ∩

>>69788918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes#Criticism

>>69788928
How so?

>>69788904
>If we ignore what makes the most sense! Everything will make perfect sense!

So what happens 5000 years from now when all that's left of Beethoven is just his music, and none of it's history and people are blasting it on the radio and at parties and twerking and doing drugs to it?

It would be pop music then. And what happens when Eminem's songs are listened to by the hipsters of their time and lyrics analyzed in schools like shakespeare?

If we look at intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

Then what is this?

>>69788918
Death of the Author is about equally valid interpretation of art, not about aesthetic definitions. Art is made with creative intent.

>>69788937
That criticism has nothing to do with his "Death of the Author" essay you fucking idiot

See>>69788833

>>69788975
>only my point of view makes sense!
It couldn't possibly, could it?
>So what happens 5000 years from now when all that's left of Beethoven is just his music, and none of it's history
Why would the music remain but not the history? So far we've observed that the history will outlive the music
>people are blasting it on the radio and at parties and twerking and doing drugs to it?
Not relevant
>If we look at intent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology
Wow it's almost as if an artist can make BOTH art music and popular music! AMAZING

>>69788904

>>if art music prides itself on complexity
>Strawman
>
>I guess you don't know what minimalism is?

did you even read my post, retard?

minimalism is literally my favorite form of classical, but it is also literally the antithesis to the idea that art music/classical has to be complex. that's what I'm trying to say.

>>69789020
>Some scholars have rejected Barthes's argument in toto. Camille Paglia, for example, wrote: "Most pernicious of French imports [into American academia] is the notion that there is no person behind a text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and relentlessly concrete than a Parisian intellectual behind his/her turgid text? The Parisian is a provincial when he pretends to speak for the universe."[5]
>Literary theorist Seán Burke dedicated an entire book to opposing "The Death of the Author", pointedly called The Death and Return of the Author.[6]
You are not intelligent. Please do not discuss art
>See>>69788833
I already addressed that. Criticisms of Tagg's Triangle are strawmen, his distinctions stand.

>>69789025
>Why would the music remain but not the history? So far we've observed that the history will outlive the music

It's a hypothetical question you fucking mong.

>>69789025
>Not relevant

Why?

>Wow it's almost as if an artist can make BOTH art music and popular music! AMAZING

So how is that not art music? If I talk about shit it's automatically disqualifed from being art? What if I consider it avant garde? Are you going to answer my previous question about the farting mic or are you just going to keep dodging it?

>>69788975
>>69789025
How can you call Mozart's poop canon popular music? The only difference between that and a "serious" canon is that the Mozart one is humorous.

File: kek.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>69788452

>>69789061
>You are not intelligent. Please do not discuss art

Are you a fucking idiot? The greentext in your post is not in the page you linked you dumbass. Read your posts before you hit submit fucking dumbass

>I already addressed that. Criticisms of Tagg's Triangle are strawmen, his distinctions stand.


>criticisms of the person I agree with is a strawman! Not the other way around though

>>69787784
this was a stupid post, are you proud

>>69789061
Fagg's opinions hold no objective weight though. What he defines as "genre" might be different from what other people define as "genre".

We've gone over this already. Try again

>>69789056
>did you even read my post, retard?
Wow calm down. My homosexual remark wasn't meant to insult you.
>minimalism is literally my favorite form of classical,
The you realize you are making a strawman argument! I'm glad you agree with me.
>>69789076
>It's a hypothetical question you fucking mong.
So is mine. Answer it.
>Why?
It doesn't have to do with intent.
>So how is that not art music?
Was it intended as art music or popular music?
>If I talk about shit it's automatically disqualifed from being art?
You tell us -- did you intend it to be art? or are you one of those types who don't think modern art is art?
>What if I consider it avant garde?
It probably isn't since it's been done before.
>Are you going to answer my previous question about the farting mic or are you just going to keep dodging it?
Are you going to answer my previous questions about intent, process and marketing or are you just going to keep dodging them?
>>69789119
>The greentext in your post is not in the page you linked you dumbass
Quote me where I said it was. You seemed to think Death of The Author is impervious to criticism, so I gave you a few different options.
>criticisms of the person I agree with is a strawman!
In this case it is, since they are misrepresenting his argument
>>69789150
>What he defines as "genre" might be different from what other people define as "genre".
Like what?

>>69789137
Certainly not any more stupid than the moron who thinks musicology is a legitimate field of study and that thinks there is an objective way to rank genres.

>>69789150
Yes you figured it out. Philosophy is not objective. Congrats.

>>69789170
>Yes you figured it out. Philosophy is not objective. Congrats.

You finally admitted you were wrong. Congrats

>>69789168
>you can get a PHD in studying an aspect of sociology as well as frequency mathematics?
>that's not a legitimate field of study!

>>69789199
Wait sorry who am I again? Who do you think I am?

>>69789201
>he thinks philosophy degrees are relevant

Try again

>>69787623
"Pop" as in "popular music". Nothing wrong with that statement. In this sense, those three categories of music are distinguished by aesthetic sensibilities more than sonic differences.

>>69789229
It's certainly relevant to this thread. Or do you honestly think a bunch of STEM majors can argue competently about philosophy (this thread definitely does NOT prove that)?

>>69789229
Musicology (from Greek μουσιkή (mousikē), meaning "music", and -λογία (-logia), meaning "study of") is the scholarly analysis and research-based study of music. Musicology is part of the humanities. A scholar who participates in musical research is a musicologist.[1][2][3]

>>69789293
>Musicology is part of the humanities

Exactly. Bullshit degree for liberal cucks

>>69789314
Nice backpedeling

>>69789314
Anon my sweet anon, liberal arts isn't about the degree. It's about the knowledge and the critical thinking skills that go along with it. Evidently you do care about it, or else you wouldn't be in this thread, hmm?

>>69789158

your reading comprehension is terrible

also if you aren't intending to mean "homosexual" as an insult than stop mentioning it when it isn't relevant to any other insult you are slinging at people.

also stop being such a snarky prick

>>69789259
My point is that you can't define music based on arbitrarily defined genres that some British faggot philosopher made up. The fact that your classifation of genre requires "intent" to define shows it's logical inconsistensies

>>69789323
>>69789343
He didn't tho. That's what he's been saying this whole time

>>69789343
Your dumb

>>69789314
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music
>also if you aren't intending to mean "homosexual" as an insult than stop mentioning it when it isn't relevant
Of course it's relevant. Did you not read my post or at least anything about Barthes?
>also stop being such a snarky prick
It's not my fault I am speaking to uneducated peons
>>69789362
>philosophy
>oh wait I mean the humanities
Also this is ignoring the mathematics of music theory, biology of musical neurosciences and the physics of acoustic engineering

>>69789158
>It probably isn't since it's been done before.

By that logic nothing is really avant garde anymore since everything has pretty much been done already in regards to music.

>>69789347
>>69789394

>>69789400
>By that logic nothing is really avant garde anymore
Sounds like you need a new title for it then.

File: portrait-happy-old-man-smiling-looking-camera-36503172.jpg (88KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1300x957px

>>69789394
>humanities isn't a part of philosophy.

>>69789410
Idk who you are but that's my point. Genre is arbitraily defined.

>>69789432
You mean philosophy is a part of the humanities

Nice try though

>>69789446
I don't spend much time thinking about useless fields of studies.

>>69789394
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience_of_music

Except these have nothing to do with what we are discussing. The science of music is far different than the philospohy of it. Neither is music theory as it deals with objective things like Chord progressions.

>>69789348
This

is there such thing as post suicidal pop

>>69789400

>everything has pretty much been done already in regards to music.

you don't actually believe this do you?

>>69789617
Name something that hasn't been done. We've done feedback, harsh noise, all different kinds of sounds etc...

>>69789644
What about snuff music

>>69789644

we're at a point where artists are literally making compositions based on visual analysis of sound waves

>>69789671
?

As in music of someone getting killed? I mean it'd be illegal so you couldn't release it but I'm sure it's been done.

>>69789685
And that was done 40 years ago

>>69789685
>>69789722
by who?

>>69789746
Gerard Grisey

>>69789751
>>69789746
>>69789722
>>69789685
>>69789671
>>69789644
So music is officialy over from a logical standpoint then right?

>>69787783
come here, son. i need to tell you something

mfw calling hip hop 'pop'

>>69789782
If we're talking about pushing the boundaries to the logical extremes, probably. But conceptually speaking, maybe not.

>>69789885
Name one "concept" that hasn't been done

>>69788953
Gee I don't know, cause his being homosexual has nothing to do with the discussion at hand

>>69789479
Nice damage control friendo.

>>69790101
it hasn't been thought up yet

>>69790265
You're a cuck

>>69790323
>>>/pol/

>>69790343
see>>69790265

>>69790369
see>>69790323

>>69790413
see>>69790343

>>69790424
see>>69790369

is stuff like Hank Williams and Merle Haggard 'traditional folk' as well as country?

>>69790433
see>>69790424

>>69788452
screencapped and kek'd

Also to everyone, objectivity is in itself subjective. Now calm down and get back to cyclejerking lmao