I thought for a moment about posting this, then I looked at the average thread at the front page.
At any rate, feel free to suggest a third axis.
I thought for a moment about posting this, then I looked at the average thread at the front page.
At any rate, feel free to suggest a third axis.
Also, I should have warned: no humour inside, sorry. Sage.
Are you okay with constructive criticism?
Pay tell, user.
yes
thing fucking sucks DICK
>math rock
well that's not very constructive is it
OP here. Perhaps it should have been even farther to the left.
John Cage's concepts are more classical than jazz oriented, I'd say.
'musical variation' isnt the opposite of 'non-musical "merits"' so why are they placed on the same axis or am i just a big dummy
plus too many """quotation marks""""
This is actually really good bait, quite subtle. 9/10
Yes yes. I actually wanted to add ranges from 'classical' and some down into the negative range to refer to the moments that it degenerates into 'minimalism' and such. I didn't mean Cage's definitional fuckery is related to jazz (although jazz is certainly unhealthily interested in 'breaking boundaries' as if it were sufficient for art), I just meant that it both betrays disinterest in producing a solid product within the established definitions: 'look if you look at it from this angle it's kinda music too'.
It is the opposite. It refers to whether a piece is supposed to be judged on the aesthetic and intellectual pleasure it brings, or on the nonmusical 'look how hard we try' or 'look how we make you calm'.
Not bait, but feel free to take the axes' descriptions and fill it as you want. Or, as I said, even add a third axis.
>jazz less musically complex than pop and yelling niggers
I don't even like jazz but that's just blatantly wrong
you should have something like "challenge of listening to this particular genre" on a third axis to maximize the cancer that you've produced
Pop is hardly composed, but still composed. Jazz is literally performers playing at random.
>>Claiming jazz has no sonical or mysical variation and is mostly nonmusical merits.
I call bs
Sorry, JIDF.
after looking at this more i'm starting to think that OP wasn't trolling, just tragically misunderstood. its still shit tho
this, also trad folk is usually all about those nonmusical merits
this [spoiler]art wanks that call their music challenging or demanding are so cringey[/spoiler]
this is obviously bait but folk would be at the bottom by these qualifiers. do you even listen to these genres?
I don't think emotion and variety are necessarily opposite. They should be separate axis.
What I mean is that sonical quality, musical quality, and emotional quality should all be three separate axis.
>hurr if it's complicated it's good
go back to listen technical death metal faggot
lmao
>It is the opposite. It refers to whether a piece is supposed to be judged on the aesthetic and intellectual pleasure it brings, or on the nonmusical 'look how hard we try' or 'look how we make you calm'.
I think you're wrong, because it's still possible to do both at the same time. i.e. Prog Rock. The only way to resolve this problem is to consider the vertical axis as a ratio "intellectual aspect / non musical merits" so a genre which have high scores on both variables still can be placed.
>emotion
>non-musical
literally more important than technical/compositional/experimental wankery