How much more will the gap between popular and art music continue

to the extent that much experimental music falls under the "pop" banner, there isn't really much of a gap

>>73637639
The only thing today this can even be somewhat made a case for is experimental electronic music, and stuff like that Threadgill release in the OP pic is far more dense than even the most dense of the "pop" electronic releases like Autechre's elseq1-5.

>>73637724
I don't mean Autechre necessarily, although they occasionally come close. Russell Haswell or Florian Hecker are basically on the same page as any "art music" electronic stuff. Or Asmus Tietchens.

But plenty of people can handle Merzbow or Captain Beefheart or AMM or Henry Cow or early Boredoms or whatever. I don't think "art music" is necessarily less accessible than that. You maybe have to listen to it a little differently or adjust your expectations, I don't think it's really difficult.

>>73637885
>Haswell, Hecker, Tietchens
Stockhausen released Kontakte in the early 60s and it's far more dense than their stuff. I am talking about the art music that's there today that's even more dense than that.

>Merzbow, Beefheart, AMM, Cow
Okay, so you definitely have no clue what you're talking about if you think those guys are less accessible. Accessibility isn't determined by surface level weirdness or abrasiveness, it's about how tough a work can be in general to digest. My whole point of making this thread was to talk about what's happening where we are with art music where the music at its forefront is so much more dense and harder to digest than anything before. None of these guys that you mentioned were the most inaccessible of their time with classical/jazz of their time being more out there; today that's taken to a much higher level.

>>73638009
>Stockhausen released Kontakte in the early 60s and it's far more dense than their stuff.
define "dense"

>it's about how tough a work can be in general to digest.
define "digest"

I think you're going to work yourself into a hole here.

>>73638048
he already did in the OP post by showing he has no actual knowledge of music theory and is working solely by image here.

>>73638048
>define
It's far more complex in every way possible. You're wasting my time right now with basic shit. At least give something I have mentioned a listen first.

>>73638099
>It's far more complex in every way possible.
Okay, define "complex"

You're refusing to even think about what this means. Tell me what this means.

>>73638083
New Complexity and negative space in the realm of music have nothing to do with traditional theory.
>>73638114
com·plex

adjective

ˌkämˈpleks,kəmˈpleks,ˈkämˌpleks

consisting of many different and connected parts.

>>73638199
using a dictionary definition instead of the working definition in the field of music? wew, stop trying to pretend to have knowledge you don't have, anon, it's embarrassing!

>>73638199
>consisting of many different and connected parts.
And you think that's important and somehow elevates "art music", right?

Are you aware that it's completely trivial to make something "complex"? You can make a Max/MSP patch in 5 minutes that puts out something arbitrarily "complex" and "dense".

If you can somehow notate a free improvisation performance, that's also "complex". And in the sense that it doesn't repeat and is difficult to predict, it's not perceptually very different from new complexity.

It's not a measure of quality.

>>73638273
>goes straight to shit talking me
Oh so you were here to troll the whole time. *sigh all I wanted was to hear what people had to say about the gap in innovation and complexity continues to increase between popular and art music.
>>73638302
That would just be different parts. Not connected though. Just haphazard. A better example would be how Threadgill's work sounds random to the untrained listener, but closer listening finds that it's the negative space in his work that helps put it all together. Max Patches can't do stuff on this level. I am pretty sure Autechre would've tried.

>>73638302
Oh and one more thing. I never called it a measure of quality. Don't misquote me.

>>73638370
I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out that you're deliberately staying vague regarding your actual knowledge of the topic, while at the same time presenting yourself as an authority and dismissing others' statements (without argument, of course!)

if I'm not allowed to think that's suspicious without being called a troll, then I guess the entire world of academia is just the underside of one big bridge...

>>73638420
I never presented myself as an authority. It's obvious the topic I have brought up is complicated by nature and fully explaining it to someone not familiar at all would take forever. This topic wasn't aimed at people like that, it was aimed at those more knowledgeable on the subject. Yet I got one person who wants to explain me stuff and another that thinks I am talking about how art music is elevated or some shit when what I am saying has also been used by many people as a criticism of modern art music (like that one guy Brit guy that does music documentaries.)

>>73638472
>I never presented myself as an authority
Then why did you make statements without arguments to back them up? why did you dismiss opposing opinions, again without arguments? why did you use descriptors no one with any understanding of the topic would use?


>(like that one guy Brit guy that does music documentaries.)

..ah.

>>73638420
complexity is honestly a physics/mathematical concept. you're retarded

>>73638388
>That would just be different parts. Not connected though. Just haphazard.
No, not necessarily. You can set up chaotic systems and things that behave in very organic ways. It's still not really difficult.

>A better example would be how Threadgill's work sounds random to the untrained listener, but closer listening finds that it's the negative space in his work that helps put it all together. Max Patches can't do stuff on this level. I am pretty sure Autechre would've tried.
Okay, now you've stepped in it. The problem is that you assume such complexity is meaningful because it's explicitly notated and visible and can be analyzed.

Just as I expected, you're assuming the value is in the compositional process rather than the perceptual experience. And then you're assuming that a compositional process that's hidden from you and not explicitly described is somehow less "complex" or "dense" because you're not picking up on it.

>>73638570
you're retarded for having no clue how words and their meanings work. But then again, STEMbabs aren't known for their ability to think outside the box...

Henry Threadgill is arguably the most underrated jazz musician alive.

>>73638472
>fully explaining it to someone not familiar at all would take forever
I'm not unfamiliar with it, I'm trying to pick apart your confusion.

>>73638532
>Then why did you make statements without arguments to back them up?
They weren't arguments though. That's the thing. The fact that you even thing the density of these works is something to argue shows that you aren't fit for this topic.
>why did you use descriptors no one with any understanding of the topic would use?
I already said I made this topic with only the intention of people that know their stuff.
>..ah.
Howard Goodall. Mentions it in both The Story Of Music and The Beatles ones I believe.

>>73638570
It's not even a useful musical concept. White noise is the most complex sound.

>>73638009
Electronic music has evolved so much ever since the days of Stockhausen. Both popular electronic music and the avant-garde art music realm.

By using the tired old
>Stockhausen did it better 50 years ago, no I'm not gonna explain how or why he did it better but I'm just gonna namedrop him to look educated
meme you've ousted yourself as a pleb and a pseud, buddy.

>>73638573
>No, not necessarily. You can set up chaotic systems and things that behave in very organic ways. It's still not really difficult.
Through randomization the chances of that would be very low.
>The problem is that you assume such complexity is meaningful because it's explicitly notated and visible and can be analyzed.
....are you fucking retarded? How would you even see negative space in notation? What the fuck are you smoking?
>>73638594
If you truly knew, then you would've had a detailed and elaborate post relating to the actual topic itself.
>>73638593
Dude won a Pulitzer for what it's worth (not much.)

>>73638640
>Electronic music has evolved so much ever since the days of Stockhausen. Both popular electronic music and the avant-garde art music realm.
Yes, but the artists he used in his example are all doing stuff lightyears behind Stockhausen in terms of its textural and serial nature.

>>73638650
>If you truly knew, then you would've had a detailed and elaborate post relating to the actual topic itself.
You think you deserve that?

>>73638602
>The fact that you even thing the density of these works is something to argue shows that you aren't fit for this topic.
more lack of arguments backing up your statements. and what happened to not presenting yourself as an authority?

>Howard Goodall. Mentions it in both The Story Of Music and The Beatles ones I believe

aah yes, a musical theater "composer" wrote this in two non-academic infotainment books.

>>73638640
>you've ousted yourself as a pleb and a pseud, buddy.

yeah that was obvious from the start

>>73638650
>If you truly knew, then you would've had a detailed and elaborate post relating to the actual topic itself.

then how come you haven't made one either?

>>73638680
>Yes, but the artists he used in his example are all doing stuff lightyears behind Stockhausen in terms of its textural and serial nature.
What? This is complete nonsense. Total serialism or whatever the fuck doesn't mean quality or content. You can automate that shit and spit out compositions with millions of notes if you want. You can spit out a score a mile long and make people try to play it. Do you think that makes someone a good composer?

>>73637370
>How much more will the gap between popular and art music continue to increase?
ask capitalism

File: thread-inspector.jpg (49KB, 760x456px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 760x456px

Hi, I represent the city and we're going to have to shut this thread down. You kids got all these arguments set up all over the place with absolutely *no* support.

>>73638790
I think you're going to have to shut down 4chan as a whole, then.

>>73638764
>>73638790
/thread

Gonna be my last post for the night. Goodnight guys. Thanks for the responses...I guess. Not surprised since most posters here aren't familiar with this stuff. Also not sure why anyone thinks this is some kind of "art music is superior" topic when it's just "art music is getting weirder than ever before compared to pop what's the status of that industry" topic.

>>73638682
I mean shit, you waste your time as well by posting stuff itt.
>>73638702
>more lack of arguments backing up your statements. and what happened to not presenting yourself as an authority?
There is no argument to be had. I am not the authority. Your lack of knowledge is.
>aah yes, a musical theater "composer" wrote this in two non-academic infotainment books.
Cool, what about Boulez?
>then how come you haven't made one either?
I have. Again, this isn't an education session. /mu/ is too fucking spoiled with the level of spoonfeeding that happens here.
>>73638749
For the millionth fucking time. I am not talking quality. And no, Stockhausen's approach can't be automated, the closest attempts we have had don't progress anywhere near as much as Stockhausen's stuff does.

OP is the kind of kid who has great half-baked ideas, but thinks they're fully-baked and becomes personally offended when people reveal that he doesn't really have actual ideas, just feelings and opinions.

>>73637370
If you want popular and art music to be the same go back to fucking 1910.

>>73638850
>I have.
He hadn't.

/classical/ here, is this the cringe thread? OP's done a great job of producing some new content

>>73638871
he's evidently got a fucking enormous ego too

and a severe aversion to actually making a point

>>73637639
>>73637885
>>73638048
>>73638114
You idiots, Kontakte is meticulously organized sounds in an organized, serialized row order. It is magnitudes more complex than anything by contemporary electronic producers.

>>73638956
>organized randomness has never been achieved in electronic music ever since stockhausen
aight bruv

http://stockhausenspace.blogspot.com/2015/11/kontakte-planning-design.html

>people really think their favorite pop electronic producer can match this
Lmao

>>73638999
>organized randomness
Did I say this? Is Le Marteau random? Is Kontapunkte random?
Don't call what you don't understand "random," idiot.

>>73638917
OP has also followed up his open-ended question without saying anything particularly valuable. He certainly fails to define his terms, which makes talking to him quite a pain in the ass, not to mention his ego. And he still hasn't defined what it means to be "a good thing for music"? Are we supposed to intuitively know what that means for him, too?

This thread had a nice idea behind it, but the execution was extremely stupid and sloppy. Shame.

>>73638956
>It is magnitudes more complex than anything by contemporary electronic producers.
How do you know what organizational principles are involved in contemporary electronic music if they haven't explicitly described them? You can organize stuff in arbitrarily complex ways. It's not like serialism is the most complex process ever devised.

>>73639043
>How do you know what organizational principles are involved in contemporary electronic music if they haven't explicitly described them?
Because they do describe them, you don't hear Hecker saying "the system I used for Virgins involves..." he just talks about his process in vague, bullshit terms like everyone else because they aren't thinking about it.

That's fine, but don't then say "Oh because they don't explicitly notate every aspect of through-composed design that means it must be on par with the par-excellence of electronic music"

You're an idiot and don't understand systems of composition, hence your confusion.

It's not an arms race, did we learn nothing from Fall Out Boy?

>>73639018
Why the fuck do you think they can't? You really don't have to be a genius to do that. It's far easier if you're using a computer. The vast majority of the work on Kontakte (like other Stockhausen compositions) was the actual realization of it, i.e. months spent splicing tape. That's irrelevant now. It's all automated.

If you assume serialism is rocket science, you don't know what it means.

>>73639067
>he confuses Florian Hecker with Tim Hecker

are you even trying anon?

>>73639094
Post some comparably serialized electronic music from today, then.

>>73639067
>you don't hear Hecker saying "the system I used for Virgins involves..." he just talks about his process in vague, bullshit terms like everyone else because they aren't thinking about it.
Or because he realizes it's not irrelevant and not very interesting as far as the audience is concerned. There's no reason to bother.

>>73638956
>Kontakte is meticulously organized sounds in an organized, serialized row order.

Lol so what? I could make my own arbitrary complex system and device music from it. How is this an achievement on its own? I could literally design a system that creates music fractally producing melodies that manipulated rhythmically leads to itself. Fucking Youtuber Adam Neely did in his channel. That's about as compex as anything Stockhausen ever did. Does it elevate his youtube channel to art music? Qualifying music is a joke and a meaningless exercise. You're going to doe one day and the music you listen to isn't going to stop that so just enjoy.

>>73639018
>>73639018
It's not that hard to match it now that we have various progeria to ease the process. It's not the 60 anymore after all.

>>73639026
I don't think you quite know what you're arguing for buddy.

>>73639094
>muh serialism
You didn't read it, did you? Most of it talks about relationship between sounds and moments, not serialism. And none of your /mu/core garbage can compare to that much thought being put into the music.

>>73639117
Serialism has been obsolete as fuck since like the 70s. It's not the epitome of musical organization.

>>73639146
good to see the argument has gone full circle now

*tips fedora* m'good sir

>>73639136
>It's not that hard to match it now that we have various progeria to ease the process. It's not the 60 anymore after all.
Examples?
>>73639159
>no examples
Lmao

>>73639129
>Lol so what? I could make my own arbitrary complex system and device music from it.
Then fucking do it. That's the difference between Cage and some hack on the street. He did it when no one else did.
>>73639129
>>73639136
Honestly we have two people who browse /v/ and /tv/ but sometimes listen to off kilter stuff, and think that makes them intelligent. It's fucking sad.
>>73639159
Integral serialism in the way Stockhausen and Boulez used it hasn't been matched in complexity, as their methods of design were completely surreptitious and unmeasurable except for the composers' inputs.

>>73639129
yeah, anyone using Max or whatever can do that same

And I can point out as well that literally anyone using granular synthesis is already doing things more complex than anything Xenakis ever did

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lXD18Rv11k

>>73639146
>And none of your /mu/core garbage can compare to that much thought being put into the music.
lol you are in NO position to judge that, you moron

>>73639172
>That's the difference between Cage and some hack on the street. He did it when no one else did.
What does that have to do with anything?

>Integral serialism in the way Stockhausen and Boulez used it hasn't been matched in complexity, as their methods of design were completely surreptitious and unmeasurable except for the composers' inputs.
Find a credible source anywhere that claims something like that. No one the least bit educated would say something that retarded.

>>73639235
What /mu/core is as good as Kontakte, Studie II, or any number of the peak of 50's/60's Darmstadt music

What do you think?

>>73639172
>Then fucking do it. That's the difference between Cage and some hack on the street. He did it when no one else did.

You're dense if you think John Cage expected people to enjoy his music. Artist like Cage, Schoenberg and Stockhausen weren't making music im the same vein as Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. The former were experimenting with conceptual bonderies of music as a medium. They did create pieces of aesthetic merit such as Cage's Littany for the Whale, but these were accidents in their experiments. They weren't making music to be enjoyed in place of objects but as subjects. They weren't making music they were making notations of music. Their experiments influenced popular music to no end. The members of Can were students of Stockhausen no less. An important detail too is that they made their music with no pretension. Cage sure as hell wouldn't seperate himself from, as you say, "hack from the street" cause he was just one. tldr, most of their music is unlistenable (4:33) and they knew it.

>>73639214
>EDM tripe with a couple bits of sound design
>anything like Kontakte
Hahahahahaha

>>73639261
>Find a credible source anywhere that claims something like that.
Le Marteau was completely incapable of being analyzed until Boulez basically told everyone that he used a multiplicative, non-linear structure throughout the work.
The only reason we know the structure for Gesang de Junglinge is because Stockhausen wrote it in the scores.
Ferneyhough often uses computer randomness and simulation for his works, similar to Xenakis' own experiments like with ST4-1.

>>73639281
All this post says is "I've only listened to the /mu/core examples of these people, oh and some Can, but I want to be taken seriously"

>>73639172
>>73638956
>>73638850
>>73638650
like I could understand and agree with you if you had brought up ferneybough and new complexity and whatnot but you literally going stockhausen boulez the list goes on literally makes you look like a 14 yo RYM pseud with a black and white profile pic and a positive rating system with thousands of 0.5's and not a single rating above 3.5

>>73639281
This is bullshit, and the analysis of Kontakte posted a few posts above yours shows it. The stuff these guys were doing had similar concepts of development and progression that have been in art music for years it's just that they took a completely different approach to it.

>>73639308
Not the same person dude

>>73639286
>denial
k

>>73639264
Even considering a comparison like that is demented. The early stuff was really exploring the medium. It's pioneering and interesting but it isn't the epitome of music or complexity. And you are deeply confused if you think that's the best approach to take anyway. Are these organizational principles relevant at all to the listener? Do they actually convey anything of interest? Not really, so why should they be emphasized? Music is something you're supposed to listen to.

>>73639340
So
1. You can't name anything out of fear of not being able to back up your opinion.
2. You think it's all about "muh complexity." The problem is that modern electronic producers usually put out half-effort shit and then /mu/ and reddit push them as high art somehow. Fucking Bleep said Aphex Twin's "Cheetah" EP made him on par with Xenakis.

>>73639172
>Then fucking do it. That's the difference between Cage and some hack on the street. He did it when no one else did.

Why? You never said how this is an achievment on its own. Like why is creating some arbitrary system to make music any different from what Trap Rappers or Death Metalheads are doing? It's literally just for the fuck of it. There's no meaning or purpose to it beyond doing it for the sake of it. Composers like Mozart, Beethoven and Bach made music that resonated and defined defined certain emotions to people from around the world with centuries of lasting effect. Beethoven created the anthem of a the world with Ode to Joy. Same goes for pop bands like the Beatles. That's a much bigger accomplishment than making up skme austitic system that the whole pleasure of it is to"get" like waching Dota 2 matches.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8fwWZD159k

>>73639281
>You're dense if you think John Cage expected people to enjoy his music.
Well, I think he wanted you to enjoy it, but in the same way that you could enjoy listening to the sounds of traffic or construction or whatever. It's not a "beautiful" sound that exists apart from daily life, the final conception of that sort of thing is that it isn't really separate from daily life at all.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l9kzS_B7gg

>>73639388
>Mozart, Beethoven and Bach made music that resonated and defined defined certain emotions to people from around the world with centuries of lasting effect.
If you think Le Marteau, Gruppen, Rituel in Memoriam Bruno Maderna, etc. aren't the same then you're an idiot who doesn't know those pieces nor anything about classical music.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcNG-zMlB8Q

>>73639394
>posting more simple repetitive EDM crap
Okay come on, stop embarrassing yourselves here.

>>73639293
So you're assuming the structure and organizational principles can be inferred from analyzing the score? Have you notated an analyzed Autechre to determine that it uses organizational principles simpler and less substantial than Stockhausen or Boulez? I'm guessing you would also find it "completely incapable of being analyzed".

>>73639306
>>73639315

>ah yes i enjoy listening to 4 minue and 33 seconds of silence. This is music i listen to in the car on my way to work
>Sometimes i put on my serialist piano concertos when cooking, it really gets me going

All the Classical composers would be outraged at anything coming from the Second Viennese School or related. It's far removed from the history of art music and they were very aware of it when doing it.

>>73639286
>>73639306
great argument, very convinced

>>73639308
>you literally going stockhausen boulez the list goes on literally makes you look like a 14 yo RYM pseud
He hasn't even mentioned Charles Wuorinen

>>73639443
>>73639474
>people think repetitive grooves and drones, literally primitive stuff, can hold a candle to Kontakte
How embarrassing.

>>73639452
What's wrong with 4'33''?

>>73639381
>1. You can't name anything out of fear of not being able to back up your opinion.
No, I just think you're asking for something idiotic and nonsensical and will reject anything offered out of hand.

But here, notate and analyze this and tell me how it's organizationally inferior to Stockhausen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR09sMqNTQg

>>73639517

As an experiment nothing. As music, well for starters there's none, however that was very intentional

>>73639388
>It's literally just for the fuck of it. There's no meaning or purpose to it beyond doing it for the sake of it.
or "I want to see what it sounds like when I do this"

>>73639441
what's repetitive about it? the use of rhythmic elements? it's not even minimalist, it's frantic nature makes it less repetitive than most autechre tracks which rely on a more minimalist, gradual harmonic and rhythmic progression

there's venetian snares and opn which try to not repeat any single rhythm in their bars, but honestly I think they are crap

if your problem is rhythm then I guess I can't help you, sorry m8. I like rhythms

>>73639622

Not a very novel notion in music. Im sure Lil Wayne has probably felt and said that several time in his career.

>>73639515
Again this is a total cop out, you're not making anything resembling an argument.

>>73639602
>As music, well for starters there's none
The whole intention was that Cage realized he could never escape sound, even in a hyperbaric chamber (supposedly "silent")

>>73639598
It follows a simpler take on a minimalist structure with all its repetition with not many layers of sound happening. Simple stuff.
>>73639624
>same beat played over and over again then another beat played over and over again
Dude, it's popular music, it's repetitive as fuck in nature. Sure this isn't minimalist like most electronic music is, but it's more akin to metal style pop music approach where it's still "repeat this four four to eight bars then repeat that for four to eight bars." Not to mention its the same set of sounds while Kontakte has so many more sounds, rhythms, dynamics, layers, etc. with a lot more to it conceptually as well based on how it progresses.

>>73639651
it's really just the essence of the creative process

>>73639598
Literally constantly repeats a similar pattern, you can clearly hear the E and B-flat repetitions.

>>73639711
so you want thimgs devoid of clear rhythm that sounds like pots and pans falling down a stairwell after all

not into that kind of stuff so again sorry m8

>>73639711
>It follows a simpler take on a minimalist structure with all its repetition with not many layers of sound happening. Simple stuff.
Repetition? really? where? Show me in the score that you've produced. Show me how it's simple, since you seem to know exactly what went into making it. Because I think you're talking out your ass unless you can produce evidence of simplicity or repetition.

Early Stockhausen pieces don't have a lot of "layers of sound happening" either, FYI.

>>73639751
>so you want thimgs devoid of clear rhythm that sounds like pots and pans falling down a stairwell after all
The rhythm's there. It just doesn't come to the listener instantly.

>>73639674
? I just explained, didn't I?

>>73639709

That's not really music though. He's not manipulating or organizing the sound to incite a reaction from the listener. It's just a field recording. It's an experiment bending the boundaries of the medium of music, but not music in itself.

>>73639711
It's exceedingly obvious at this point that you're a terrible listener and are just impressed by things that have a reputation for being intellectual and sophisticated.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGP92H6b3So

>>73639759
>Repetition? really? where?
Is this a joke? You can literally hear the parts repeating in that song, then other parts building on top of it.

>Early Stockhausen pieces don't have a lot of "layers of sound happening" either, FYI.
Yes, but we aren't talking about them. Stay on subject, please.

>>73639726
So the only relevant parameter that can be organized is pitch?

If you didn't notice, it's a recording that's been chopped up and processed in various ways. Of course you're going to hear the same segments multiple times. It would seem far more salient to me to focus on how the recording is being modified.

>>73639786
>ad hominems
>the state of these /mu/core loving losers right now

>>73639855
...are you aware that this post is an ad hominem?

>>73639878
It's not an ad hominem if you also successfully tear down their argument as well. That's what I did by pointing out his fallacy. So for example if somebody goes "you dipshit *insert counter argument*" it's still valid and not ad hominem due to the counterargument.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3ucZLL-jw

>>73639306

>Hey, my name is Avant. I know im just a Teen now, but i've heard the top 100 recordings in RYM tagged "art music". I guess you could say I'm a bit of an expert; Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, the list goes on... I don't like the music the dorks in the 4chinz page /moo listen to, but I still browse it regularly to let them know how much of an expert I really am.

>>73639951
You have not successfully torn down a single argument in this thread, you've just tarded out and embarrassed yourself repeatedly.

>>73639848
When others could organize every single aspect of composition meticulously, that electronic track isn't a big deal

>>73639779
How is not music? John Cage thinks/thought it was music. I think it's music. Field recordings are music.

>>73639964
even as avant teens go, he's exceptionally bad

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dfgkbey6F0

>>73639340
>Music is something you're supposed to listen to.

Damn...

>>73639972
>continues with ad hominem and no counterargument
>S E E T H I N G this hard

>>73640004
Why do you keep posting shallow, repetitive stuff with little variety in timbre, rhythm, and not many layers? No matter how much of it you post, you know it still won't be holding a candle to Kontakte.

>>73639983
How are you even presuming how it's organized though? Did you break it down into sections and measure the timings of all the different cuts? How do you presume to know how meticulously organized it is or isn't?

Try this one then, tell me how this is organized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb9lTU9TR6Q

>>73640060
Babbitt and co. literally tell you, you fucking moron. It's often written in the fucking score.

God fucking dammit, forget you fucking morons. Either learn the music or don't, don't pretend to know music you don't actually understand.

Sick of /mu/ idolizing teenage faggots who don't know music theory and just talk shit.

>>73640005
Well that was literally the argument a lot of composers made against people like Stockhausen and Boulez, that they care how it was organized more than they cared how it sounded. Pierre Schaeffer and GRM went the exact opposite way and did everything empirically, i.e. mostly just going by what sounds good. So they wouldn't pass muster in this thread even though they have just as much a claim to being "art music"

>>73640060
>How are you even presuming how it's organized though? Did you break it down into sections and measure the timings of all the different cuts? How do you presume to know how meticulously organized it is or isn't?
Not that guy, but you keep thinking, or keep posting with the implied premise that you have to have some kind of notation in front of your face to enjoy art music which is utterly ridiculous and even cringey OP said otherwise as well. You also continue to move goalposts with every new track you post, meaning that you lost the argument itself a long time ago, and really for this topic posting new tracks one after the other isn't going to make a difference.

>>73640101
>Babbitt and co. literally tell you, you fucking moron. It's often written in the fucking score.
I mean in the absence of a score, genius. Try to follow along. How do you know "/mu/core" doesn't abide by complex organizational principles when they don't bother to explicitly describe the process?

>>73640049
>give me examples
>gets examples
>nuh-huh
kk

>>73640000

I mean that's the whole exercise. You're aware that conventionally it's not really music since theirs no input by anyone. But conceptually by the very nature of it being recorded/performed it's treated as music. That's why it bends the boundaries of the medium, but you would have to be dense not to understand why it wouldn't br regarded as music. Traditionally music has sounds that are organized in a deliberate fashion to produce some sort of response from a listener. Your missing that input in 4:33

>>73640138
Already posted multiple times that these examples don't match up to what's being described itt, including that very post you just replied to. Why are you wasting your time posting stuff that at this point nobody's listening to in a topic where you aren't being interacted with otherwise?

>>73640165
>Already posted multiple times
By whom?

>>73640145
The sounds are organized by the intentional beginning and ending of the piece. 4'33'' isn't just all the time, it's specifically the timed 4'33''.

>>73640165
You don't like Vladislav Delay anymore, Ame?

>>73640212

That's not a particularity of 4:33. All recordings/performances by their very nature have a set length. That doesn't constitute it as music traditionally

>>73640116
I'm actually arguing that you can't dismiss something as "simple" or by whatever measure inferior to Stockhausen by listening to it and simply presuming that it's simple.

I mean you could hypothetically devise an extraordinarily complex and completely ordered process far more sophisticated than anything Stockhausen ever did that generates something statistically resembling white noise. The listener, in the absence of a score or description, wouldn't know if he's hearing something coming from a supreme intellect or just "simple" white noise. Of course it would be nonsensical to try to analyze it and deduce some sort of governing process.

So the notion that you can assume something has more or less "substance" (by whatever measure) than, say, Kontakte, is kind of absurd from the start.

>>73640165
>Already posted multiple times that these examples don't match up to what's being described itt
Yeah, you're not actually smart enough to judge that. And anyone who is wouldn't say the stupid shit that you're saying, so...

>>73640212

If two guys walked up on stage and started having a conversation about some fictional event in front of everyone for 4 mins and 33 secs, would that be music or theater? If i had an audio recording of that would it be music or a recording of a short play? What sets the limits and boundaries of what is music? How do you make the distinction? Is there a point in making it? Can you at all? Those are the questions that 4:33 rouses. But first you have to accept the generally accepted conventions. Among them that it would be a play not music even if when you answer the questions it doesn't turn out that way

>>73637370

>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782

You are woefully ill-informed, anon.

>>73640265
Who the fuck is Ame? No, Vladislav is for pretentious fags who can't into real sophisticated stuff.
>>73640275
But you can when the other examples given in this topic are so much relatively simpler in every realm of composition compared to Stockhausen. If the end result of something would be a sound mass that only sounds like white noise, then perhaps it was never that complex to begin with. Such a sound mass doesn't take into account how certain sounds work with each other like the way Kontakte does, nor does it take into account structure, or really everything else. You're also still bound to the whole serialism aspect of it all and think the serialism concepts gets used to randomly put stuff together or something when me and that other anon (maybe the OP too?) have been trying to say that this is far from it. It's why I posted that one link earlier in this topic as well.
>>73640300
Make love, not ad hominems <3 xoxo

>>73640361
If they were audience members, not the performers, then that would still be true to the MUSIC. The performers don't do anything except keep time.

File: 1393548534255.jpg (2MB, 2008x2008px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2008x2008px

4 years later and this board is just as pseud as ever.

>>73640425

I was talking in a general sense. Not necessarily during a 4:33 performance

>>73640392
>But you can when the other examples given in this topic are so much relatively simpler in every realm of composition compared to Stockhausen.
Prove that. How can you know what the composers was thinking? And by what metric are they simpler?

>If the end result of something would be a sound mass that only sounds like white noise, then perhaps it was never that complex to begin with.
So if you listen to Stockhausen or Ferneyhough or Wuorinen and can't infer the way it's structured purely through listening and assume it's simply random or improvised, this means that it's actually simple? So maybe all this nonsense about rigorous organization of sound is actually totally irrelevant and you should just fucking listen to it and not worry about whether it's "simple" or not. Thus rendering comparisons and rankings and pissing matches meaningless.

>>73640523
>How can you know what the composers was thinking?
Why the fuck is this important to you? This has nothing to do with what we hear, nor this discussion.
>And by what metric are they simpler?
Timbre, progression/repetition, rhythm, etc.
>So if you listen to Stockhausen or Ferneyhough or Wuorinen and can't infer the way it's structured purely through listening and assume it's simply random or improvised, this means that it's actually simple?
Again, why do you keep making these weird false arguments where you strawman a premise/or conclusion we never agreed to? I never said this, neither did the other guy. Using a hypothetical sound mass that sounds exactly like a session of white noise in the place of the works of those composers is utterly ridiculous and guilty of false equivalence.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLZRYQMLDW4

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ui5Bi6ECyA

>>73640392
>If the end result of something complex would be a sound mass that only sounds like random gibberish, then perhaps it was never that genius to begin with

>>73640676
Are you trying to imply that Stockhausen's works sound like just static white noise?

>>73640590
>Why the fuck is this important to you? This has nothing to do with what we hear, nor this discussion.
Because you're attempting to evaluate whether one thing is "simpler" than another without knowing anything about the compositional processes behind them.

>Using a hypothetical sound mass that sounds exactly like a session of white noise in the place of the works of those composers is utterly ridiculous and guilty of false equivalence.
How so? If you knew anything about high level processes applied to composition, it would be obvious that many of them, despite being objectively highly organized, do not result in a perceptible sensation or order. You can make nested polyrhythms and apply total serialization principles to pitch, amplitude, duration, timbre and spatialization and it's just going to sound like a fucking unorganized mess. Rigor doesn't mean that you get the subjective impression of complexity or order. At a certain point, more organizational complexity results in an apparently less complex sound. And similarly many very simple, even trivial things that can be done that give the perceptual sensation of "complexity".

So you are not in any position to judge whether something is "simple" or "complex" and the whole idea is totally meaningless from the outset. Thus it's totally irrelevant how many pages of shit the composer prepared when putting something together and comparing anything to Stockhausen is retarded.

>>73640712
Do they sound like they took 700 pages of design notes?

>>73640760
>Because you're attempting to evaluate whether one thing is "simpler" than another without knowing anything about the compositional processes behind them.
Dude, you can literally hear this stuff.
>How so?
For the 10000000000000th time, total serialism is NOT muh random shit all over the place. Kontakte in particular we have said it, is very organized and you can hear it in how the piece builds.
>At a certain point, more organizational complexity results in an apparently less complex sound.
Great but doesn't apply here because Stockhausen's stuff isn't goddamn white noise levels thus the false equivalency.

>>73640831
You're not a composer, are you? Because I feel like you'd have an intuitive sense of what I'm talking about if you knew more about it.

>>73640910
I know what you're talking about, it just isn't pertinent to this topic or our discussion at all. Your definition of complex isn't really that complex, in fact quite a few harsh noise artists create their noise that way. What Stockhausen did on Kontakte is nothing like that.

>Kontakte
so I just listened to this and it's literally just random noise

is this shit bait?

>>73641034
>it just isn't pertinent to this topic or our discussion at all.
It is, you're just failing to pick up on it and I'm disappointed. Bye.

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCpUzftSHV4

>>73641049
Nah, it's basically proto-Autechre/Arca but with more dated production. It's pretty cool, don't let the pseud discourage you from it.

>>73641049
Listen to it more closely. There's a lot more happening than initially seems to be.
>>73641065
>you just don't get it
>no real argument
Is this girl you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVtuwxeqBYM

>>73641090
>>73641118
it still sounds like shit

>>73639166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiwG_miPJuQ