If it's not classical or traditional folk music, its pop

>if it's not classical or traditional folk music, its pop

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

100% correct.

How is that wrong?

THAS WRONG MUTHAFUCKA
YOU JUST WRONG

How so?

Musicologists have classified music according to a trichotomic distinction such as Philip Tagg's "axiomatic triangle consisting of 'folk', 'art' and 'popular' musics".[8] He explains that each of these three is distinguishable from the others according to certain criteria.[8]

Folk and classical used to be pop music, until they stopped being popular

>'popular' musics".
>its pop
As I said, how is OP's incorrect statement true?

Folk was, not classical.

Musicologists are one step of scientific credibility below astrologists and one step above sociologists.

in the most technical sense yes
but now a days trying to tell normie that both between the buried and me and Katy Perry are the same genre will get you laughed at, so deal with it.

Stop being pedantic for the sake of argument.

Music isn't a scientific field (acoustics beside the point). There's no scientific basis for genre classification and there's no point in bringing up "scientific credibility" to a field that doesn't try to be.

>musicologists

You're joking right? That's basically akin to feminist studies degree

Is classical the only art form of music globally?

Objectively wrong considering Beethoven was pretty much the Justin Bieber of his time

>confusing a musical genre with one of Tagg's points.
>oh stop being pedantic
Why would you want to discuss music if you don't know anything about it?

Comparing the cultural spread of classical music to the modern music industry is retarded

Haydn was the pop star of his time. Beethoven was worshipped towards the end of his life and after his death.

Popular music != number of last.fm scrobblers

Not really considering in 1000 years time we will probably be on whatever the equivalent of Sup Forums will be discussing Led Zeppelin and Kanye west in the same light as Beethoven

I confused nothing. We both know what OP meant.

Yeah thats the definition popular music... music that is popular

>taking the literal meaning

Idiot

This, people need to get their heads out of classicals ass. It's only music but in a different development

No.

Holy shit this board is actually more retarded than reddit.

What am I supposed to take? The metaphorical meaning?

what about harsh noise

(Not true by the way)

The internationally accepted definitions been posted in this thread already.

...

This

What if I start reviving my car engine and jerking off furiously and record it. What genre is that? If it charts on top 40 then it would be objectively pop music

Internationally accepted by who? Your liberal Cuck feminist music "degree" holder writer?

No, we'll still be discussing Beethoven. Fuck sake, every university needs to be shut down and replaced with ones that don't give degrees based on ones absorption of cultural relativism and other lies.

If it has a score, it's art music.

>cultural relativism is a lie

How retarded are you?

LOL
>people actually rate classical higher than other genres

Barely more so than you apparently.

no because Muslims will have taken over the world by then and have banned all music

What I'm trying to say is that music was consumed and appreciated in a completely different fashion compared to the 18th century. In order to listen to Beethoven you had to be wealthy enough to attend music halls. There was fewer composers producing music because very little of the population could afford musical education.

Musical composition was exclusively seen as a highly specialised craft or an artform. It was sometimes made in the context of deep religious expression. Nothing like Beiber's pop music, which is produced to sell as many copies to teenage girls as possible.

Highly doubtful. If any pop music is going to be discussed 1000 years form now it'll be mozza or bob dylan

This thread has finally convinced to leave here

9gag is more musically intelligent than neo-Sup Forums

Enjoy your cringe thread

>he thinks the world revolves areound him and his culture

How cute.

Not really, everyone listened to the "hot classical composer" of their time. There is nothing inherently better in beethovens music

>we were only pretending to be retarded!

Wrong. President Trump and whoever won the democratic elections held in Russia would have wiped Islam from the face of the earth by 2020 and Beethoven will be remembered in the context of the Millennial Renaissance.

>what is intent
Art music

Oh I stand corrected. Wow fuck off commie.

>only the artists that I like will only be discussed

Lol. Grow up.

>intent

Is irrelevant. Not sure why you would even bring that up you goddamn retard

fucking troglodyte. dont reply

>cultural relativism

You have a dreary marxist, scientific perspective of music and you disgust me.

I was only kidding there

The only science that is remotely culturally relativist is climate change.

>Not sure why you would even bring that up
Because we are talking about the correct way to discuss art
>irrelevant
How so?

No I have an objective view of it. Whereas you clearly have a narrow minded and low iq harboring teenagers view.

>No I have an objective view of it.

fuck off

Are you a parody of a stupid college grad? Is it an inside joke that non-college-grads won't get?

>No I have an objective view of it
lmao. Jesus everyone in this thread is fucking retarded

>the correct way to discuss art

There is no correct way to discuss it. Art will always be subjective. Intent is utterly meaningless when discussing genre.

Now answerthe question. If I fart into a mic and it charts on the top 40 what genre is it? That shoukd be either art or pop music by your narrow worldview definition

>n-no you're wrong

Nice argument faggot

there's no such thing as an objective view in art you retard

>Samuel L. Jackson isn't a GOAT actor

By including the word scientific I meant that his perspective music comes from something rational, rather than from passion.

>There is no correct way to discuss it.
So you admit to being wrong?
>Art will always be subjective
Only form the perspective of the audience, which is not helpful. It can be objectively viewed as the artist, so we can use that as rubric, which is why that is "correct"
>Art will always be subjective
We're discussing Tagg's Triage, not genre. Didn't you read the thread?
>If I fart into a mic and it charts on the top 40 what genre is it?
What was your intent? What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

>No I have an objective view of it
How so?

>So you admit to being wrong?

I'm not

>Only form the perspective of the audience, which is not helpful. It can be objectively viewed as the artist, so we can use that as rubric, which is why that is "correct"

Irrelevant

>We're discussing Tagg's Triage

Tagg is an irrelevant hack that no one will know in 50 years time. The way we categorize music based on genre is almost entirely subjective

>What was your intent? What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

We've been over this, Intent is utterly meaningless. Now answer the question

How about we create a 4th category: avant-garde. For the burry intersection between the other three in which the purpose is to push the boundaries of music, rather than to preserve an academic or cultural tradition or to market towards an audience.

You know what's funny?

I can snap and kill every mother fucker on this board if we met IRL.

Seriously, think about it. I'd have your windpipe crushed, your nose flattened, your teeth shattered, your fingers snapped, your ribs broken, your pelvis pulverized, and your eyes gouged out before you would even know what's happening.

You guys talk big shit. Watch yourselves.

>musicology is a legitimate field of study

There is your, and everyone elses first mistake in this thread. It's about as important as a gender studies degree.

All other forms are inferior to Western Art Music except Afro Disco and Slow Jams

It's as important as a history or art history degree, you mean. Which is a step up from gender studies.

It's useful in the sense that it gives us solid definitions to work with.

What is considered "avant-garde" is entirely subjective and based off of culture at the time.

When the beatles first used feedback it could have been considered "avant garde" but it was also top 40 so it's also pop.

>getting mad on the internet
Fucking kek, be less fragile m8

it's a stupid bait thread dude, calm down lmao

>history or art history degree, you mean. Which is a step up from gender studies.

No not even close. History or music is objective, it's all facts.

Musicology is on par with a liberal arts degree.

>I'm not
Well you just said there is a specific way to judge art, then you said there wasn't.
So you are contradicting yourself now
>Irrelevant
Why?
>Tagg is an irrelevant hack that no one will know in 50 years time.
Irrelevant
>Intent is utterly meaningless.
What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?
Why isn't it?

How about you shut your fucking mouth pal before I kick your fucking teeth in. You are nothing to me but an insignificant little worm, A fucking cretinous little scrote of a man. I will DOOF you right in the fucking chin. Two hits. me smacking your face, and you hitting the fucking ground.

Shut your dirty mouth and do not reply to me.

no, it's useful in the sense that musicology studies the history of music
all this aesthetic classification shit is best left for philosophy

too late im already driving to your houses to beat you up and steal your oneitis

Musicology encompasses history of music dude.

>all this aesthetic classification shit is best left for philosophy

But we're discussing an artform holy shit

holy fucking shit dude

>Well you just said there is a specific way to judge art, then you said there wasn't.

"judging art" in the sense that we can judge it's cultural and historical impacts and look at it without any bias. Not in the sense that we can categorize it into an arbitrary genre or judge it's worth.

>What was your methods to create the music? How did you market it?

Why does it matter? Do you need to know my intent to tell me what genre of music it is? What if beethovens intent was to attract 10 year old girls to fuck like Justin Bieber? Would that make it pop music to you? Why does how I "market it" matter at all? Death of the author is slightly relevant in this case

Philosophy of art is still philosophy

>implying I wouldn't shoot you in the face as soon as I knew you were attacking me

silly non-Americans thinking physical strength matters in a violent altercation

Musical history is different from the type of "musicology" we're discussing here. Phillip Tagg's classifcations hold no weight objectively speaking.

There's literally nothing wrong with discussing music philospohically

No one ever said that though

Nothing relating to the discussion of music hold objective weight.

go back to /sci/

>Nothing relating to the discussion of music hold objective weight.

Good to see we agree then. Trying to broadly pin music into 3 arbitrarily defined genres holds zero weight in the real world

>"judging art" in the sense that we can judge it's cultural and historical impacts and look at it without any bias. Not in the sense that we can categorize it into an arbitrary genre or judge it's worth.
So you don't think farting into a mic is a genre at all? Do you think it's music?
>Why does it matter?
Why does your example matter?
>Do you need to know my intent to tell me what genre of music it is?
To know if it's art, folk or popular music, yes.
>Death of the author is slightly relevant
The drunken ramblings of a French, gay, failed artist is not relevant to Tagg's Triangle.

>Tagg is somehow relevant but barthes isn't

holy shit kill yourself you fucking idiot

>Tagg's Triangle.

Is hardly objective. Tagg is that you? Here's another musicoligist criticizing Tagg's triangle

>Musicologist and popular music specialist Richard Middleton has discussed the blurred nature of these distinctions:

Neat divisions between 'folk' and 'popular', and 'popular' and 'art', are impossible to find ... arbitrary criteria [are used] to define the complement of 'popular'. 'Art' music, for example, is generally regarded as by nature complex, difficult, demanding; 'popular' music then has to be defined as 'simple', 'accessible', 'facile'. But many pieces commonly thought of as 'art' (Handel's 'Hallelujah Chorus', many Schubert songs, many Verdi arias) have qualities of simplicity; conversely, it is by no means obvious that the Sex Pistols' records were 'accessible', Frank Zappa's work 'simple', or Billie Holiday's 'facile'.[13]

This

>Richard Middleton
Hes an idiot im smarter than him

But he's one of those "musicologists" whose opinions you hold so dearly.

This is true, if art music prides itself on complexity than how can people consider the entire genre of minimalism to be art music? Because they do, minimalism is generally regarded as a major part of classical/art music's history yet its entire existence completely goes against complexity.

Tagg is relevant because that's what we are discussing in this thread.
Barthes isn't because he was a failed artist himself who created a justification for other failed artists and homosexuals to take down what he perceived as a threatening patriarchy. In effect, we are unable to understand art at it's utmost core because we are limited top our own perceptions and life experience.
>Neat divisions between 'folk' and 'popular', and 'popular' and 'art', are impossible to find ... arbitrary criteria [are used] to define the complement of 'popular'. 'Art' music, for example, is generally regarded as by nature complex, difficult, demanding; 'popular' music then has to be defined as 'simple', 'accessible', 'facile'. But many pieces commonly thought of as 'art' (Handel's 'Hallelujah Chorus', many Schubert songs, many Verdi arias) have qualities of simplicity; conversely, it is by no means obvious that the Sex Pistols' records were 'accessible', Frank Zappa's work 'simple', or Billie Holiday's 'facile'.[13]
Looking at intent will solve all of this. If we ignore Barthe's wild idiocy, everything is simplified and can easily be explained.
>if art music prides itself on complexity
Strawman

I guess you don't know what minimalism is?

>Looking at intent will solve all of this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

>him being a homosexual is relevant

Ad hominem

Shut up and enjoy the music! ∩ (︶︿︶) ∩