Classical composers get better as they get older

>classical composers get better as they get older
>rock, pop, jazz, rap, ambient, electronic musicians get worse as they get older

What's up with that?

Better healthcare due to being born into privilege

are you specifically referring to Bach because that isn't the case with most.

Because popular music is for stupid unsophisticated proles who care far less about the beauty and quality of Western art music and more about the superficial and lackluster cheap ear-catching of popular music

I weep for them sincerely . WEEP for them

Because rock, pop, jazz, rap require physical activity to perform, whilst classical is (often) just writing.

checked

The other genres are much more anchored to a specific and recognisable time period, which very few artists can break out of to stay relevant and "good"

One requires refining a skill and the other requires appealing to young people.

>appealing to young people.
Which is a skill

this is not always the case, some composers get shittier as they get older, look at John Cage or Karlheinz Stockhausen

NO IT IS NOT

CLASSICAL MUSIC IS SOMETHING THAT REFINES THE PURITY OF THE SOUL AND GIVE LIFE TO ALL GOD'S CREATURES AND LIFTS THE DARK VEIL OF SADNESS OF THIS EARTH

SOMETHING POPULAR MUSIC WILL AND NEVER FUCKING DO

aging has nothing to do with skill. young people don't identify with older generations. plus it's all about sex appeal and the perception that every rock/pop star is a joan of arc. a member of their demographic who's a genius or visionary who shows them the way. it's all a load of fluff of course

The only contemporary genre you listed that actually gets worse with age is rap

>that isn't the case with most
Beethoven and his late quartets
Mozart and his Requiem
Middle to late symphonies are almost always better

I could go on...

Then go on.

>aging has nothing to do with skill.
Not what I said. Read it again if you are confused.

Me?

I think all the music is good.

Rock-related/pop music are more heavily dependent on superficial aesthetics and image, and when people grow up, they tend to care less about these things

>CLASSICAL MUSIC IS SOMETHING THAT REFINES THE PURITY OF THE SOUL AND GIVE LIFE TO ALL GOD'S CREATURES AND LIFTS THE DARK VEIL OF SADNESS OF THIS EARTH
>SOMETHING POPULAR MUSIC WILL AND NEVER FUCKING DO
How is this measured?

kill yourself

What about the image of listening to classical music to appear as an intellectual?

>the list goes on...

Fuck you idiot

Don't stupid shit like that when you know im right

Doesn't sound like your dark veil of sadness hasn't been lifted. Maybe you need to listen to more Mahler or something?

and i clarified what i meant by appealing to young people - age is what stops one from appealing to young people. skill doesn't prevent aging.

Lol. Those are just the obvious examples, but if you look at the work of most composers in the Baroque/classical/romantic periods, you'll find that their later work is often more developed and mature; whereas with the more self-indulgent, experimental composers tend to dry up... or return to something more conventional.

Mahler's 9th, which was written shorty before he died is another example of a composer at the top of his game in later years. But even if they're not in PRIME form, they certainly don't have the very short shelf-life of a pop musician.

>Mahler
I dunno, I'd go with Beethoven if I need a heavy does of hope.

By that logic all young artists would appeal to all young audiences. But that simply isn't an observable phenomenon

Nice try though.

Wow it's been working great.

Let me know when you can tell us how it's measured btw

I'm not the person you were responding to.

Debussy, Brahms, Wagner, Ives, and Carter

Popular - read: pleb - music is objectively (and definitionally) inferior.

Neither am I.

>music is objectively inferior.
How so?

How about you shut the fuck up before I come out of your mom's bedroom and snap your dumbass neck

He's right btw

most jazz and electronic musicians get better as they get older

and there are plenty of composers who reached their peak at a young age

Because 'popular' music has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to be 'popular', which requires it to be accessible to stupid people. Sophistication precludes popularity.

>He's right btw
If he was, you'd be able to explain it.

...

Classical music is a meme

>Because 'popular' music has to appeal to the lowest common denominator to be 'popular'
Incorrect because not all popular music attempts to be popular. See: indie artists.

To the extent that it doesn't, all else equal, it's more sophisticated and less popular.

The fast majority of indie music is still based on catchy and accessible tunes.

Not user, and I think he's neglecting the fact that classical music did the exact same thing (on an extremely elevated level)

They believed in something truely tribal, of functional communicative music. And they believed in all the whitemagick. That combination never dies. It is all things. Modern troglodyte musicians and their fullblown demonic species, just believe in a placated conscience of 'roots' and 'paranorm'.

Those catchy melodies are usually placed on top of beautiful structures that are ignored by casual listeners.

The NUANCE may be ignored, but the fact that the music has a certain universal appeal remains.

A small part of the music, not nuance.

You think Bach would be okay with his music being listen to outside of aristocratic elites?

That was badly worded: I mean a small part of the music has universal appeal, so it's not a matter of nuance. A lot that is going on is ignored or cut out.

Yes, as long as he was handsomely paid.

Are Autechre art music?

They only get better as they get older.

I'd rather know if Plato would be ok with Jazz Funk?

Yes. You don't need a wig to create art music.

Many were born poor

Sophisticated in what way?
I agree for this about indie music

That's just not true

Musically sophisticated. In the sense that Ulysses (Joyce's) is sophisticated. Music is a language.

OP are you telling me that classical is more popular and has a wider audience now than it was during its conception?

Literally facepalm

He often held performances at a Cafe because he didn't want his music to be limited to religious circles. Also the Baroque period was before music became a commodity for aristocrats -- it was mainly a religious thing.

Many died poor. And before Beethoven they were mostly treated like lowly servants.

Composers who focus more on timbre than on narrative structure tend to "strike gold" with a few of their early works. It's not just rock musicians, the same thing happens with avant-garde electronic composers.

How is sophistication objectively better?

>performing his music for the plebs to enjoy

Bach is literally pop music now. I hate him now. Im deleting his stuff.

It comprises the elements of unsophisticated art and offers more on top of it.

that's my point

This is true. There is a well-known correspondence between Beethoven and a woman, in which he professes his love to her, but her family would not allow her to marry a "commoner".

How is that objectively better?

reading comprehension is literally nil

In the sense that if you consider something a positive value, that positive value + 1 (another positive value) is better.

>is better.
Why is it better? If I'm playing golf, I want the lowest number of strikes. So clearly the +1 is worse.

"Classical" music is not only sophisticated in the technical sense, but is often emotionally sophisticated. Yes, classical music is more complicated than popular forms. People sometimes think it is a pretensions thing when I say I don't like pop music, but that is not it. Classical music is superior because it makes s feel more and touches emotions that pop music will never come close to. Aaron Copland likened listening to pop music as reading magazines and classical music to reading literature. Sure, it is not bad to read magazines but when it is the staple of your diet, you will be illiterate. When people listen to only pop music, they are missing out on all of the great music out there and are becoming musically illiterate. In this age where most people listen to only shitty pop music and Sup Forums core bullshit, they will have a very hard time understanding classical music and because of this they will not listen to it because they think it is pretensions and unnecessarily complicated. This is why the symphonic form is dying.

u sound gay

>but is often emotionally sophisticated
>Classical music is superior because it makes s feel more and touches emotions that pop music will never come close to.
Then it's not objectively better, is it? That's a subjective value judgement.

thx

Pop music is free
For you and me
Pop music's your wife
Have it for life

Pop music is fun
Just like chewing gum
Pop music is good
It sounds like it should

Pop music is wine
It tastes so divine
Pop music's a bird
It goes with the herd

Pop music's a fan
A fan to a fire
Pop music's for you

Which is why +1 was defined as a positive value. In your example, the number of strikes is a negative value.

But hey, maaaan, it's all subjective, maaaan. There's no way to quantify stuff and so Grimes is literally just as good as Bach. LOL

>people literally make this argument with a straight face

Why is sophistication a +1 instead of a -1?
>In your example, the number of strikes is a negative value.
No, my example follows the rules of golf-- the player with the highest score loses. Have you never played it before?
If it was untrue, you'd have been able to prove it by now.

>ambient

they don't get worse, just slightly redundant.

looks like we got a rabid cunt, boys

Sure it is not "objectively" better. But it is objectively a greater form. Just as people prefer to read only magazines and the like and never pick up a real book. People will argue that keeping up with the kardashians is better than the godfather II or some shit, and no matter what you say you may never convince them.

Because it's defined as such. Same with the number of strikes being defined as a negative in golf.

But this is hardly true for "popular music" (any music primarily stored in recorded form). This is the main problem with these threads: the people shouting up and down that classical music is superior to all rock/electronic music are simply interchanging the terms "pop music" and "popular music" to suit their argument.

>But it is objectively a greater form
If it's based on emotions, then no, it's not.

Thanks for playing though.
>Because it's defined as such
Show me a citation stating that Sophistication = +1 and not just an arbitrary definition you assigned to it.
>Same with the number of strikes being defined as a negative in golf
Have you ever played golf before?

I know a few people who try to tell me this kind of shit about the front bottoms. There's just no talking to people like that

The fact that it is a greater form is not based on emotions. I'm not saying it is better by saying it is greater because you can't argue about preference. I am saying it is greater, in the sense that anything pop music does, the classical form can and has done better.

pop or popular music?

>better
>greater
How so?

>if that was true, you'd be able to prove it
Obviously you cannot prove something like this, you absolute moron; however, as far as im concerned, there isn't a single pop musician who's erudition even comes close to a single Master Composer -- or even most neo-classical composers, for that matter -- and any human being who isn't a childish, individualist, "open-minded" fucktwat would agree.

Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

I'm speaking of all popular music, including electronic music, hiphop, top 40, alternative, rock, even genres not so popular like jazz. For classical music I include art music such as opera, orchestra music, ballet music, sophisticated festival and dance music, and I'll even go as far as to exclude the shallow virtuosic showoff music of the early romantic and such, although by relation to the other classical forms it still holds significance.

You're cool dude. I like you

Honestly there's so much good music out there. It's ridiculous to think people pick one over the other. Music is a gift from our creator AKA God. We should all give all genres and styles of music a fair chance before we label them as inferior. Real fans of music will understand this. All music has the ability to be great and absolutely beautiful and deserves to be listen to fairly except country and rap.

More expressive, more thought provoking, elicits a greater response in the listener, better stands the test of time. Is more effective on the listener than pop music.

lol

see

Guys I love pop music too much to let it go and reach patriciandom with western art music

How do I unclog my mind. Please I'll do anything to be just like you.

Except you're not. Pop and other forms of music that also pick people up and speak to them. It's still a matter of personal taste and no way objectively provable. You're implying that younger people don't like, or are not spoken to by, classical music, even though there are young people that elect to play classical instruments, train classically and play in orchestras.

Then you're just wrong, lol. Do yourself a favor and listen to anything (I think 500+ albums) that Scaruffi gave an 8/10 or higher. Pay attention to the carefully crafted, dynamic (as in "changing with time") sounds, and how they are overlapped and contrasted with one another. Such music can only be produced in a recording studio, through the use of analog tape loops and manipulations, or through painstaking experimentation with musical instruments. (If you want something made by formally trained musicians, start with Mission of Burma, Can, Terry Riley, Soft Machine, the list probably goes on. I have a feeling you're going to say you've already listened to those artists, in which case you apparently lacked the skills to respond appropriately to them.)

Rock/electronic music represents a shift from emphasis on narrative structure (macro) to an emphasis on the structure of sounds (micro), from a surface-level aesthetic of aristocracy or intellectualism to a surface-level aesthetic of "trance", psychedelia, revolution etc. But this does not mean that rock/electronic music is any less thought provoking or timeless, or elicits less of a response in the listener than classical music, IF you learn listen to it properly.

I'm not saying that music doesn't have merit. I have listened to rock music that I love.

If you want to truly see the difference, read Copland's What To Listen For In Music, then compare your favorite song, or even entire album to a great classical work.

Even my favorite albums are not on par with great symphonic works and I recognize that. But when it comes to such music that you suggested, I just don't have the time to spend. I'm sure they are expressive, etc., but they just cannot reach the expression of a great composer with a proper medium.

there are less interesting things to do within the boundaries of those genres, so artists run out of ideas quickly