Middlebrow art music

ok

>>74895904
Better luck next time OP.

Shut up man I love talk talk

File: catplanetcatplanetcatplanetcatplanet.gif (147KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 384x384px

>>74896666
quads of good taste and truth

checking them

File: The_Getty_Address_(Front_Cover).png (78KB, 367x271px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 367x271px

but it's true... that doesn't make it a bad album though.

>>74896832
This just because it's middlebrow doesn't make it bad

Rock music is inherently lowbrow.
Middlebrow is stuff like John Cage and Minimalism.

>>74895904
wtf i love middlebrow art music now

>>74896870
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art.

>>74896870
I'd say it's a bit of a spectrum. Talk Talk is definitely middle brow; John Cage and minimalism may be as well, but they're academic enough to at least be on the higher end of it. Rock in general is fairly low, but still middle brow- true low brow is like folk. pop is too institutionalized to ever be truly low brow. Generally people oppose middle brow more than low brow though, so this shouldn't be taken as an insult to folk.

>>74897088
Why did you bump and why are you enabling OP to further run this board into the ground?

>>74897088
Stop deluding yourself. Talk Talk is lowbrow.

>>74895904
>pop/rock
>art music
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>74897561
>>74897654
What's with these fags getting so elitist, when they probably don't even listen mostly to classical music?

>>74897670
>said the guy calling Talk Talk middlebrow
It has nothing to do with quality. Just educate yourself on what the term means.

>>74897691
Link me to something that explains them, I can't find any consensus from a quick google. I thought low bro was generally folk, high brow was generally classical, and middle brow was art rock or stuff that otherwise was rooted in folk/pop but trying to be artsy, so stuff like Talk Talk

>>74897740
Middlebrow was highbrow music that had to perform at lower venues, so stuff like John Cage, Minimalism, and other 20th century art music.

>>74897949
would that be romanticism too then?

>>74897984
No. Romanticism music was still commissioned by the aristocracy since its inception.

>>74898058
I tend to think of romanticism as classical music at the height of its popular appeal, so I imagine its performances were pretty accessible. Still not middle brow though?

Why are you people getting willingly baited?

>>74898135
Well classical is still commissioned by aristocrats often. But it has been a gradual development from Mozart's times when almost everything was by aristocrats into the romantic period when more was commissioned by others, such as industrialists and charitable bodies. Paganini was one of the first performers who made so much money performing that he was able to commission works from people like Berlioz.

>>74898185
Where's the bait ITT? They're pretty pointless terms, but that doesn't make anything bait

File: 1497991973898.jpg (338KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1080x1920px

>>74898058
But what does highbrowness have to do with aristocracy?

>>74898304
But since when is highbrow/lowbrow has to do with money? I always thought that highbrow appeals to intellectuals while lowbrow appeals to regular people. By your logic Duchamp did middlebrow art which is not true at all.

>>74898135
Brows have nothing to do about being accesible. John Cage is very unaccessible and considered middlebrow, while Mozart who is very accessible is considered highbrow. It has to do with the social classes who comisioned or financed their art.

>>74900145
Everything.

>>74900570
It's not money, it's social classes.
It has nothing to do with intellectualism, but if you go by that logic, rock like Talk Talk is lowbrow. And yes, Duchamp was middlebrow.

>>74895904
>implying middlebrow isn't a great place for your taste to be

File: 1491351991607.jpg (8KB, 274x237px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 274x237px

>>74896666
>6666

>>74900145
katie kat

File: 1497986050754.jpg (1MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x3264px

>>74900933
Being this wrong and/or baity.
>considered
By who? Also, implying the word 'middlebrow' was not invented by OP several hours ago.

>>74900933
>It's not money, it's social classes.
Implying there's difference. Read some literature on 'classes', Erving Goffman for beginning. Michelangelo worked for the Church, which is not aristocracy, is he "middlebrow" now all of a sudden?

>>74900570
>By your logic Duchamp
My logic says nothing so stupid about Duchamp and brows, I was explaining the history of patronage.

It's just an insult, it doesn't try to make sense, ignore anyone here offering those stupid distinctions. 19th century anthropologists decided that lowbrow meant stupid and highbrow meant intelligent. Nowadays the biggest insult people can offer is that it is middlebrow: not simple enough to be low, not complex enough to be high, desperately middling. The words appeal to pathetic people who do a bad job of trying to appear superior to others.

>>74901139
The Church certainly is an aristocracy and especially so when Michelangelo worked for the Medicis.

>>74901139
The church was the aristocracy of the time. Sure, aristocracy is not the proper word, but you get the idea.

>>74901033
Middlebrow has been used since the early 20th century.

>>74897088
Where does noise/harsh noise/power electronics fall on this spectrum?

itt: pseud general

>>74902008
Lowbrow or middlebrow, but it's a pretty meaningless spectrum anyways, which is why the OP is retarded.