Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 76fb8f50c8a8f000120ef936e344beb4.jpg (179KB, 866x1300px) Image search:
[Google]
179KB, 866x1300px
>IF IT'S NOT CLASSICAL, THEN IT'S NOT ART! HMPH!
The only reason classicalfags proclaim this pathetic statement to be true is because it's called "Art Music". To them, Sun City Girls, Deathprod, and David Bowie, despite performing vastly different styles, are all the same simply because they're referred to as "popular music". However, if someone does the same with classical, they get their panties in a twist and call you a plebeian simply because you don't care about their pseudo-intellectual nonsense. They speak (or type) in a really smug fashion as though because they listen to classical, they're better than you.
So tell me classicalfags, how is classical better than popular music? Saying "because it's sophisticated" isn't an argument.
>>
>>75023372
I don't think anyone on this board matches your strawman snob guy here
>>
>>75023372
>Sun City Girls, Deathprod, and David Bowie
so you only listen to pop music?
>>
>>75023372
>implying "art" has any merit in and of itself
>>
Just listen to whatever you want INTENTLY, and if it doesn't hold up to you, consider it not good; if it does, consider it good. Any other method is retarded.
There are a lot of composers that genuinely ARE boring as hell and made obsolete, but there are also great composers which achieved things which aren't possible in contemporary music.
>>
File: fife-and-drum.jpg (36KB, 550x367px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 550x367px
>>75023372
If there isnt a fife, rethink your life
>>
>>75023372
>this is what pop babbies believe
kekekekk
is transformers the rise of ultron art? of course not. it follows a predictable formula that's proven to appeal to the masses. same with pop music.
popular music is merely entertainment; if you just listen to pop you might as well be playing video games.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2