Classical music is objectively superior to popular music

Classical music is objectively superior to popular music.

Prove me wrong.

Other urls found in this thread:

teoria.com/en/articles/kdf/
youtube.com/watch?v=CPdE01SoOBQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ZFncet5VHRs
youtube.com/watch?v=qxbpF_aW4vU
youtube.com/watch?v=cd-Kyk0d3fE
discogs.com/Michaël-Levinas-Nouvel-Orchestre-Philharmonique-De-Radio-France-Ensemble-LItinéraire-Ensemble-2E2M/master/657751
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre#The_art.2Fpopular.2Ftraditional_distinction
youtube.com/watch?v=d4AmYBhGBfM
youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0
youtube.com/watch?v=qocGLpVFS0w
youtube.com/watch?v=KwtAMGXyTI4
youtube.com/watch?v=c7M0MZ424g0
musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0067920
youtube.com/watch?v=JvNQLJ1_HQ0
youtube.com/watch?v=40qg_aLR9rA
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

'scuse me sir, you dropped this

I can't you're absolutely right.

how can i prove you wrong if youre right

tho what we need are classical composers taking advantage of modern technological advancements

classical music is popular

impossibru

You can't dance to art music though outside of ballet. No grooves, nigga.

>You can't dance to art music
Wrong.

...

same boring-ass timbres made by the same two hundred year old instruments forever

You're right. Classical music is objectively superior to popular music, while neo-classical metal is objectively superior to classical music.

>only decided to read half my statement
>being this fucking retarded

No.

no grooves? Are you a fucking retard? Where do you think waltzes, courants...fucking nevermind, you're probably too uneducated to understand anything.

Why because they blatantly imitate, nay, COPY single line melodies (poorly, mind you, zero attention to dynamics) from centuries old works, slap on distortion and reverb, and make bank off the backs of dead composers?

Please explain yourself.

Waltzes aren't art music you dumbass, they are folk. Their grooves were straightforward as hell, too not that interesting.

Courantes had non-existent groove. Nice melodies, but we are talking dance here.

Because it sounds more modern.

>Waltzes aren't art music
(not true, by the way.)
Have you also considered you just suck at dancing?

>severely limiting the progression, dynamics, arrangement, structure, timbre, and rhythms capable of the music style
>more "modern"
Lmao

Chopin's Mazurkas, while intended for the mazurkas, are nothing like that music itself you dumbass. Like courantes, too much focus on melodic/cerebral things like counterpoint and not enough rhythmic grooves.

Why would I try to prove you wrong when you're entirely right?

Classics music may be characterized as follows: Every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece which, in turn, consists of the life relationship of the details and never of a mere enforcement of a musical scheme. For example, in the introduction of the first movement of Beethoven's Seventh Symphony the second theme (in C-major) gets its true meaning only from the context. Only through the whole does it acquire its particular lyrical and expressive quality — that is, a whole built up of its very contrast with the cantus firmus-like character of the first theme. Taken in isolation the second theme would be disrobed to insignificance. Another example may be found in the beginning of the recapitulation over the pedal point of the first movement of Beethoven's "Appassionata". By following the preceding outburst it achieves the utmost dramatic momentum. By omitting the exposition and development and starting with this repetition, all is lost.

Nothing corresponding to this can happen in popular music. It would not affect the musical sense if any detail were taken out of the context; the listener can supply the "framework" automatically, since it is a mere musical automatism itself. The beginning of the chorus is replaceable by the beginning of innumerable other choruses. The interrelationship among the elements or the relationship of the elements to the whole would be unaffected. In Beethoven, position is important only in a living relation between a concrete totality and its concrete parts. In popular music, position is absolute. Every detail is substitutable; it serves its function only as a cog in a machine.

I don't have to, you can't prove yourself right. If you make a claim the burden of proof is on you

kek, falling for bait of such low quality

> Quote demonjohnmarkdavidchapmanfrusciante "B but muh cpus" #bachyousuck

>objective

Wat

Popular music writers dont know what they're doing though. They're literally amateurs.

Art music is superior because its written by people who know what they're doing.

what we need are classical composers taking advantage of modern technological advancements
They already are, have been taking advantage of electronics and effects since the 70s.

Wrong. Classical was the dance music of the 19th century. Literally all dances at dance halls were classical music, played by an orchestra

Classical has a much wider variety of timbres than any other genre. Composers know how to utilize unusual combinations of instruments, extended playing techniques, and since the 50s and 60s electronics and live effects.
Hell contemporary composers use electric guitars and drumkits.
So you clearly haven't really listened to classical. They use all the instruments that [whatever your favorite shittty pop band] use, and use them with more finesse and variety.

Show us some popular music that reaches the level of Bach. You can't. And he was writing 300 years ago.

Have a look through some of these:
teoria.com/en/articles/kdf/

and see how Bach handles melodies and creates entire works from them, always keeping them new and interesting.

>air is an objectively superior element to water.

Stupid fuckin thread.

This guy gets it.

More like - a meal made by a Michelin starred chef is better than one you get at the homeless shelter.

Its all about knowing what you're doing. Amateurs just dont have the skills to produce high quality music. You need the basic musical creativity, and then you need to supplement that with knowledge. Popular musicians are just lazy and claim that knowledge will limit their creativity, when really its the other way around - it will expand what their creativity is capable of.

classical all sound the same.

Notice how these all sound exactly the same:
youtube.com/watch?v=CPdE01SoOBQ
youtube.com/watch?v=ZFncet5VHRs
youtube.com/watch?v=qxbpF_aW4vU
youtube.com/watch?v=cd-Kyk0d3fE

Get educated son.

>mfw someone posts both Mural and Grisey on Sup Forums
>mfw they post Jour, Contre-Jour

Its a great piece. Totally the opposite of what people expect from classical. More in line with an experimental drone album. Based Grisey

Have you ever listened to Michël Lévinas or Georg Friedrich Haas?
I greatly recommend them, specially this album.
discogs.com/Michaël-Levinas-Nouvel-Orchestre-Philharmonique-De-Radio-France-Ensemble-LItinéraire-Ensemble-2E2M/master/657751
They are both Spectral composers of incredible quality, although I wouldn't put them on the same level as Murail or Grisey.

Yeah I love Haas. His string quartets are amazing.

Thanks for the rec

Fucking thank you for this.

And thank you for this.


Expanding my knowledge every day...the rest of Sup Forums too busy peddling teddy andreas

popular or pop?
either way ur right

>Wrong. Classical was the dance music of the 19th century. Literally all dances at dance halls were classical music, played by an orchestra
A repetitive, heavy percussive 4/4 beat is objectively better to dance to than any classical composition. Sorry, but that's simply a fact.

LMAO you can't be serious

They've been using electronics for a while.
Many Operas also have dance interludes.

Loveless

>Wrong. Classical was the dance music of the 19th century. Literally all dances at dance halls were classical music, played by an orchestra
No they didn't. Ballrooms back then played folky stuff like waltzes and shit.

None of that stuff, whether it's the actual dance stuff or the stuff that composers started making that was in that vein, comes close to the percussion heavy groove centered dance-able stuff we have today.

>interludes
For the sake of the performance itself that's telling the story, not for the listener.

>Ballrooms back then played folky stuff like waltzes and shit.
Waltzes are classical music written by classical composers. Waltz and dancehall music is a genre of classical.

Its still dancable, and its still dance music, and its classical. Everything you've said about classical not being dancable is wrong. Ignoring Ballet when trying to make a point is also pretty dumb, but we've managed to prove you wrong even without bringing up ballet.

Lots of classical is percussion heavy and in 4/4. See all the dancehall music from the 19th century. Its literally made for dancing to. Modern dance music is trash.

>Waltzes are classical music written by classical composers. Waltz and dancehall music is a genre of classical.

not disagreeing with you but the actual word "waltz" came from traditional folk music.

Only in terms of its enduring popularity. Classical music is just popular music that has managed to stay popular despite its age.

waltz simply means a dance in triple time. Doesn't really matter about the origin or the word, its still a genre of classical, one often used for dances in the 19th century.

>Classical music is just popular music
might want to learn the definitions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre#The_art.2Fpopular.2Ftraditional_distinction

Popular =/= Popular music

All music is technically popular as long as one person somewhere like it. Its kind of meaningless to bring it up.


"Popular music" on the other hand is a very specific label.

>one person
>popular
I repeat, classical music is just popular music that has managed to stay popular despite its age.

>"Popular music" on the other hand is a very specific label.
Only to moronic elitists.

t. Professional Classical Musician Who Is an Elitist, but NOT a Moron

spbp

tl;dr

>Not understanding he is talking about pop music how it is now and all the terrible shit is has to offer.

>Waltzes are classical music written by classical composers.
No they aren't. Waltzes were what the lower middle class folk were doing.

Waltzes that are classical are ballets.

>Its still dancable, and its still dance music, and its classical.
Practically everything's danceable music if a person dances to it. You missed the point of my original post in this topic.

>Ignoring Ballet when trying to make a point is also pretty dumb
Ballet has a very particular form and a particular style to it. It's obvious why I didn't bring it up except in the original post.

>Modern dance music is trash.
It's far better than any art music at being dance stuff due to the play on rhythms and groove that's just not there in stuff like minuets and ballet pieces which still focus too much on complex cerebral melodies rather than having a specialized focus towards visceral intensity, something that art music lacks in general.

>I repeat classical music is just popular music
And I repeat that you should learn the definitions we're using.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre#The_art.2Fpopular.2Ftraditional_distinction

^Try reading that before you reply

Classical is art music. It is also popular. But it is not "popular music" in our modern definition.

If classical was "popular music" it wouldn't be stored in written scores, and would only exist in recordings. Such is not the case.

>NOT a Moron
could have fooled me

>Waltzes that are classical are ballets.
No. Ballet is a genre that has many types of dance in it. It contains waltzes and many other forms.

Waltzes from the 19th century that are played in dancehall by orchestras are classical music: they are written by trained composers, store primarily in a written score, and played by classical musicians. That is the definition of classical music.

>Practically everything's danceable
>It's far better than any art music at being dance stuff
try not to contradict yourself. As we've seen, classical is easily capable of being dancable, as evidenced by ballet being a thing, and by the dancehall music of the 19th century.

This is what most dance music was like in the 1800s:
youtube.com/watch?v=d4AmYBhGBfM

Modern dance music is for modern pleb dancers. In the old days dance music had structure, and so did the dances. These days you dont need structure you just need a big kick drum sample. Its pretty mindless, but such is the case with all popular music.

Approximately 95% of all music produced at any given time is shit, whether it is considered popular at that time or not. The remaining 5% that endures and manages to gain/maintain popularity with time and despite its age is what classical music truly is.

>we're
>referring to yourself in plural

>our modern definition.
YOUR modern definition is wrong, desu.

>If classical was "popular music" it wouldn't be stored in written scores, and would only exist in recordings.
Prior to the advent of sound recording technology (ie. the early 20th century) - yes, since written form was the only way in which music could be accurately preserved. After that - certainly not. Why, as an artist, go through the trouble of visually annotating your music for questionable interpretation by a 2nd or 3rd party when you can distribute a recording that perfectly captures the sound you intended for it?

>recording
>perfectly capturing the intended sound
t. never attended a concert

>pleb
>believing in the pleb/patrician meme

>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782

You can't dance to nigger music outside of a club. Don't want to get shot by police.

What's under the umbrella of classical? Do Steve Reich and La Monte Young fall under it? If so, you're probably right besides some post-rock, math rock, and jazz.

>t. never attended a concert
youtube.com/watch?v=qtf2Q4yyuJ0
Depends on the concert - which is my point.

>That is the definition of classical music.
Jazz Waltzes, Appalachian Waltzes, etc. are:

written by trained composers
stored primarily in written score
played by a set of musicians who are experts at the performance of their respective instruments

None of it entails the "serious music" label that's often a part of being Western Art Music.

>try not to contradict yourself.
I am not. You're just having a hard time following what's being said.

>In the old days dance music had structure
Pretty sure dance-centered music still has structure today.

>so did the dances
We have structured and unstructured dances today. Most of that structured stuff back then is pretty boring by modern standards until ballet made it interesting. In the modern day dance is far more spontaneous and improvisational than the dance of old, and thus has rhythms with varying levels of rhythms and accentuation on those rhythms to have visceral grooves to dance to.

Sure that older dance music arguably is far more cerebrally interesting, but who the fuck is listening to dance music for the mind and not the body??

Also something like this youtube.com/watch?v=qocGLpVFS0w
More rhythmically intricate than any classical composer and maintains complex counterpoint

>YOUR modern definition is wrong, desu.
Its not my modern definition, its one arrived at by musicologists. No need to get butthurt that you dont like it.

>None of it entails the "serious music" label that's often a part of being Western Art Music.
Its still technically art music if its written by trained composers and stored primarily in a written score. Doesn't have to be "serious"

>Pretty sure dance-centered music still has structure today.
Only in the loosest form of the word. Intro, build up, drop, repeat.

> who the fuck is listening to dance music for the mind and not the body??
Definitely not the dancers of ballrooms of the 19th century. Dance music is always primarily for dance, even if its classical dance music.

>More rhythmically intricate than any classical composer
You clearly haven't heard Ferneyhough, or even early stockhausen. That piece is not complex. its in 4/4. just has lots of percussion to make it seem complex to someone who doesn't really understand music

1959:
youtube.com/watch?v=KwtAMGXyTI4
Notice how it never repeats

This is complexity:
youtube.com/watch?v=c7M0MZ424g0

be warned you wont be able to comprehend it. Its so complex it will probably sound like random notes to you. That is was true complexity is: it goes beyond what the average person can understand.

You again. The simple answer is the existence of Weird AL Yankovic

that doesn't mean popular music is worthless though

>Its not my modern definition
In the context of this thread it is YOURS, since you are the only one referring to it. And it is wrong.

>Its still technically art music if its written by trained composers and stored primarily in a written score.
musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=MN0067920
>During her freshman year of high school,[20] Perry completed her General Educational Development (GED) requirements at age 15, and left Dos Pueblos High School to pursue a musical career. She briefly studied Italian opera at the Music Academy of the West in Santa Barbara.
According to your own logic the above qualifies as "art music."

That is was true complexity is: it goes beyond what the average person can understand.
>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782

Classical music sounds alright, I like stuff like Canon in D and Moonlight Sonata but ultimately I only listen to music for the dopamine boost it gives me so I just stick to popular music.

dis u op?

>Its still technically art music if its written by trained composers and stored primarily in a written score.
Nope, then a lot of jazz and pop standards would also be art music, but they aren't.

>Only in the loosest form of the word. Intro, build up, drop, repeat.
Don't forget the most important part: an emphasis on accentuation and rhythm that no art music has come close to match

>Definitely not the dancers of ballrooms of the 19th century. Dance music is always primarily for dance, even if its classical dance music.
Then why even try to make it so complex in terms of melody and arrangement rather than rhythm/groove?

Neither of those are syntactical. Their rhythmic complexity is assured but how much it can be enjoyed is severely limited by its tonality. Just because a piece is meticulously crafted does not make it good. I'm also not limiting enjoyment of music to tonality, I'm saying that those pieces of music are un-listenable dreck regardless of their complexity. Also while the Iglooghost piece is in 4/4 the rhythmic patterns are much more complex while maintaining cohesion. The percussion is also tuned in perfect counterpoint.

Just because someone wrote down the music in a sheet doesn't mean that's the primary storage medium of that song.
Pop pieces get stored primarily as a recording, most of the artists don't bother writing them because they're so simple it's pointless (like the example you provided).
Written notation is fundamental for art music because that facilitates the analysis of the piece and it allows another performer to learn it and play it.
The piece you provided doesn't need to be written down to be analyzed and any trained performer will be capable of playing it with one listen.

Nigger the piece you posted is just a simple 4/4, it doesn't have rhythmic complexity, it just has dense percussion.
Just because you don't have someone losing his shit over a drumset doesn't mean there's no rhythm.

>According to your own logic the above qualifies as "art music."
Does this Perry person write sheet music for the concert hall with emphasis on form and inviting detailed analysis and deconstruction?

>a lot of jazz and pop standards would also be art music, but they aren't.
a lot of them are, or straddle the border between popular and art music. Early swing music for example is all scored out and written by trained composers.

>how much it can be enjoyed
we weren't discussing enjoyment, we were discussing complexity. Please stick to the topic. Its well known that simple music is more enjoyable to the common person. Complex music is usually written by composers, for composers.

>timbres
jesus christ, kill yourself

>emphasis on accentuation and rhythm that no art music has come close to match
Please learn English. Art music is just as capable of emphasizing rhythm as any other music. Dont be dense.

>Then why even try to make it so complex in terms of melody and arrangement rather than rhythm/groove?
Not sure where you got the complexity from, classical music for the dancehall tends to be very simple compared to most classical music. It emphasizes the beat, keeps to simple sentences and easy to follow rhythms. Its only complex compared to the dumbed down dance music of today where there is one chord and the same drum pattern looped for 7 minutes, with slight variation over time.

looks like someone hasn't listened to recordings with period instruments before

>Just because someone wrote down the music in a sheet
Backtracking.

>Pop pieces get stored primarily as a recording
Pop pieces get CONSUMED by listeners primarily as a recording, and PERFORMED by musicians (apart from the original author) primarily as a printed score JUST LIKE classical music - in the present age.

>The piece you provided doesn't need to be written down to be analyzed and any trained performer will be capable of playing it with one listen.
Neither does this:
youtube.com/watch?v=JvNQLJ1_HQ0
Theoretical complexity is not a benchmark for what does and doesn't end up being classified as classical music.

>Does this Perry person write sheet music for the concert hall with emphasis on form and inviting detailed analysis and deconstruction?
She doesn't need to (see above.)

>Its well known that simple music is more enjoyable to the common person. Complex music is usually written by composers, for composers.
>>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
Lol congrats on being the embodiment of a simple-minded meme opinion identified by Mozart (hundreds of years ago I might add) as such. If there is ever any wonder in people's minds why it is that "classical music" seems to be in such great decline these past decades, one need look no further than the arrogant elitism present in someone like you.

The primary purpose of music - all music - is to entertain the listener. Popular music is music that manages to attain that goal for a limited time. Classical music is music that manages to attain that goal in virtual perpetuity. Not all popular music ends up being classical, but ALL classical music ends up being popular - by definition.

>a lot of them are, or straddle the border between popular and art music. Early swing music for example is all scored out and written by trained composers.
Yeah, and nobody calls that shit art music. There's a stark difference between the more serious shit and the shit played for a more sophisticated audience/hall.

>Art music is just as capable of emphasizing rhythm as any other music. Don't be dense.
Doesn't really do it that well for dancing though. Sure you can find complex rhythms in works like Rebonds, Psappha, or Drumming, but they have rhythms though, not visceral grooves. Art music can inherently never be really good at making music for the body because it focuses too much on being music for the mind; and that same problem arises with that boring junk you call "good dance music" as well because it lacks the cerebral of art music and the visceral of dance music, being kind of this poppy abomination that's not good at anything.

>Doesn't really do it that well for dancing though
It did for hundreds of years.

>There's a stark difference between the more serious shit and the shit played for a more sophisticated audience/hall.
You should go back to the definitions:

The term art music refers primarily to classical traditions, including both contemporary and historical classical music forms. Art music exists in many parts of the world. It emphasizes formal styles that invite technical and detailed deconstruction and criticism, and demand focused attention from the listener. In Western practice, art music is considered primarily a written musical tradition, preserved in some form of music notation rather than being transmitted orally, by rote, or in recordings, as popular and traditional music usually are.

Make up your own mind as to what fits into that category.

>Art music can inherently never be really good at making music for the body because it focuses too much on being music for the mind
You have a very narrow view of what art music can be. Its not always cerebral. Minimalism like Philip Glass and Steve Reich often has steady pulse and a focus on rhythm rather than technicality.

And like we've discussed, classical dance hall music is specifically written to be danced to.

Your points are pretty weak. People have danced to classical music for hundreds of years. It may not have loud electronic kick sounds, and it has certainly gone out of fashion today, but it is no less danceable than any other form of music.

Classical music is a fucking mess.
It's just so noisy and purposeless; there's not a central thought to it.

gorteem

>You should go back to the definitions:
I am, and I am also looking at in the context of the other two supergenres and how they are used academically. This dance shit is never called art music.

>Its not always cerebral
>sometimes also called "serious" music; not cerebral
Next you're gonna tell me prog rock isn't always trying to be cerebral either.

>Minimalism like Philip Glass and Steve Reich often has steady pulse and a focus on rhythm rather than technicality.
Their works are effective exactly on the basis of psychoacoustics though. Very cerebral.

>my argument is that it has been done for hundreds of years
But it hasn't though. Ballet as we know it has only existed since the mid 19th century.

>and it has certainly gone out of fashion today
So you admit that, even if we were to consider folk dance stuff to be art music, that it's ineffective and outdated unlike other works from its times? Aka what I have been saying this whole time?

That's just not true. All music is relative to the preceding part. Individual notes are meaningless without preceding notes to show harmony. Plenty of modern composers are focused on individual layers of sound at individual moments; any interesting slow piece is inevitably going to build interest through harmonic structure. The theme is icing on the cake, but it's not like the section doesn't work without it. Sections are like words; they can have meaning even if the sentence they are in misuses them.

stop listening to shostakovich

This is actually a good post

This is your original post
You're tried to claim that one can't dance to art music outside of ballet. This has been proven to be false.

There isn't much more to the discussion other than you're incorrect.

> it hasn't though. Ballet as we know it has only existed since the mid 19th century.
19 century, 20th century, 21st century (because yes, people do still do dance to classical music) is hundreds of years.

I thought you specifically wanted us to ignore ballet? I'm talking about dance hall music of the ballrooms, peaking in the 19th century.

You're pretty dense son. Claim classical can't be danced to, try to claim that classical written for the dancehall isn't classical, even though its a genre of classical, and dance forms have been part of classical for all time.

Go read some books or something instead of spouting your ignorance online.

Yes and?

Prove yourself right
Pro-tip: more extensive use of music theory doesn't mean it's 'objectively superior'

>It's just so noisy and purposeless; there's not a central thought to it.

This is true of most music.

wow i used to enjoy classical music but it got so objectively btfo'd in this thread that im going to have to reconsider

>CALLING ALL AUTISTS

Welp. You got em.

jesus...is this what its like talking to classical musicians?

No, it's more like this.

...

You could still dance to it if you wanted to.
youtube.com/watch?v=40qg_aLR9rA

Music has always been a weak art
Classical doesn't change anything other than highlight the inferiority of just having to cram every music theory thing into it and jacking off to it

Why are flutes such sissies?