I just can't like classical music...

I just can't like classical music. I've listened to hundreds of classical compositions in my time that I haven't catalogued on here because I simply lack the interest, and would feel bad giving that much shit a 0.5-2.5. I don't necessarily seriously think that classical is a blight on the world etc etc, but I just really hate people who will defend every classical piece that exists, even if it is genuinely bad. I think that's something that people need to legitimately consider in *all* genres of music - does it sound good, or are you convincing yourself it's good because you want to believe it's good independent of its content? Obvious non-classical potential examples of this phenomenon: Death Grips, The Velvet Underground, The Beatles, Burzum.

The text on my profile is to root out those people, essentially - if I post my RYM on Sup Forums and get a reply crying about how I'm a classless asshole, I've clearly dodged dealing with an idiot. People who are snobbish about classical tend to be so much more radically defensive of their taste than those who like other stuff - like Radiohead fans or Death Grips fans. You can convince the latter two that some of the albums by those favorite artists aren't really '10/10 omg pinnacle of humanity', and they might readjust their views on music diversity accordingly. I've literally never met a 'classical music fan' willing to do that, or even make the slightest compromise: like making a 5-star rating into a 4.5 rating; that's somehow too much for them to handle emotionally. I just thought of probably the best simile possible for the state of affairs: Classical fans in music are the equivalent of SJWs in general culture. They'll scream your ear off if you disagree and call you biased, uncultured, cis, whatever.

Other urls found in this thread:

economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/behavioural-economics
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Classical fans in music are the equivalent of SJWs in general culture.

I somewhat agree with this, but this is also very common with people who obsess over radiohead. I think in general there's just a lot of arrogant and insecure people out there - especially on the internet and even more so on this board. Those with a music theory education delegitimize everybody else's opinions and thoughts about music.

On a regular basis you even see people who are both fans of the same artist argue passionately about what's the better album.

These people are trying so hard to prove their intelligence and cultivated taste. To them its a massive part of their identity - and they are looking for confirmation. If you fuck with their favorite artist you are fucking with their world view.

These people can easily be ignored. It's better to not set them off so you can avoid senseless arguing.

I let people listen to whatever the fuck they want. And if they tell me what i listen to is pleb shit their opinion is invalid to me.

t. uncultured swine

Classicalfags in general irk me. I have no issue if you listen to classical. If you start circlejerking about it and shitting on people who dare listen to "Nigger music" like Jazz or hip-hop and listen to near-exclusively classical, you're a fucking faggot. Branch out.

You'd be a fool to discuss classical music in the terms or context of popular music. This is why you don't mix these together.

You either discuss classical in the context of classical, traditional in the context of traditional and popular in the context of popular.

Don't compare popular albums to classical scores, it's never gonna end well because they don't belong together.

>If you start circlejerking about it and shitting on people who dare listen to "Nigger music" like Jazz or hip-hop and listen to near-exclusively classical, you're a fucking faggot. Branch out.

i can tell you're underage

Why do you think it's bad, and what music do you listen to normally?
That's literally what a lot of classicalfags think tho. There's so much elitism that it's a massive put off, and it can get into the whole white power thing at times.

>You can convince the latter two that some of the albums by those favorite artists aren't really '10/10 omg pinnacle of humanity', and they might readjust their views on music diversity accordingly. I've literally never met a 'classical music fan' willing to do that, or even make the slightest compromise: like making a 5-star rating into a 4.5 rating; that's somehow too much for them to handle emotionally.

why would anyone make it their goal to change people's opinions on what they enjoy? what the fuck, that's sad

>That's literally what a lot of classicalfags think tho. There's so much elitism that it's a massive put off, and it can get into the whole white power thing at times.

you know, those b8 posts are mean in jest, right

Can anyone rec me composers with small oeuvres? (e.g., Varèse and Ravel)

I go to music school man, it's not all a meme.

first post best post.

I definitely think that there are people who do what you are saying for the reason you're saying, but I don't think thats the only reason. If a friend and I argue over what album in better from a discography we both like, its not because we're trying to have some intellectual battle to prove who has better taste. More often its to get eachother's perspectives on the albums and maybe see them from a different point of view. Of course part of that is defending your own perspective as well. As long as no one takes the stance that they're superior in the argument for some dumb reason or tries to delegitimize others' opinions, I think it can be really fun to argue about music. That being said, I totally agree with your last point.

So not adjusting your rating of a certain piece because someone tells you it's not that good is a bad thing? That's just being confident in your own opinion.

>why would anyone make it their goal to change people's opinions on what they enjoy?
this.

Fuck off with this music is subjective garbage.

Objectivity is the death of art

>can't listen to classical
>nigger beethoven
Yeah OP you truly nailed the subhumans who don't listen to classical. Since there it actually requires attention and time its too hard for the niggers, better just listen generic 1000000# beat again with just different lyrics(if you can even call them that, and am not only talking about rap).

That is such trash, dude. Do you like classical music? In the real classical era the objectivity of art wasn't controversial in the least.
It wasn't until very recently that the theory of subjectivity became mainstream, mostly due to anthropological texts (Boas, etc.) that tried to paint non-western cultures as superior.
Subjectivity in art is a meme.

>Do you like classical music? In the real classical era the objectivity of art wasn't controversial in the least

so? in the classical era people also believed that washing yourself was bad for your health

What I'm saying is that objectivity is majorly pointless. Let's say artwork A is objectively better than artwork B. is that going to make people that like B more change their opinion? of course not. Objectivity is if not nonexistant, irrelevant.

>so? in the classical era people also believed that washing yourself was bad for your health
You said objectivity is the death of art. If that was the case then the art created during a time period when objectivity was not just a common interpretation, but the only interpretation, then wouldn't that mean that classical music is either representative, or a symptom of the death of art?
It's clearly not, man.

>What I'm saying is that objectivity is majorly pointless. Let's say artwork A is objectively better than artwork B. is that going to make people that like B more change their opinion? of course not. Objectivity is if not nonexistant, irrelevant.
They are saying this because they have fallen victim to the subjectivity meme.
If a person believes in the objectivity of art, and you can point out logical and correct ways why artwork A is better, then he will gain a better appreciation of the art, and might actually change his opinion.
It has literally happened to me in my life.

Subjectivity is just another way modern people consider themselves 'unique,' and 'mysterious.'
It's just stubbornness over being challenged intellectually in any real way.

How could either be a meme? Objectifying a work is necessary as it gives rise to theory which creates great works. Subjectivity is necessary because this is how an audience interacts with the piece.

>wouldn't that mean that classical music is either representative, or a symptom of the death of art

no, that's just you going off on a strange ad absurdum tangent. What I meant is that the very purpose of art, which is to experience it, is incompatible with "objectivity", as experience cannot be objective.

>If a person believes in the objectivity of art, and you can point out logical and correct ways why artwork A is better

yeah, that's called an opinion, sweetheart.

>Subjectivity is just another way modern people consider themselves 'unique,' and 'mysterious.'

actually, that's objectivity. the delusion of objectivity is what people use to feel superior over others without having to actually come up with an argument to back up their opinions.
with an opinion, you can spend time thinking and analyzing how you feel about the artwork, how you experience it, and why it has that effect. "objective" statements are by definition immuable and therefore ultimately pointless to the human experience.

note how you said "objectifying" here. that's because there are different shades of subjectivity, but objectivity ultimately does not exist

I'm calling subjectivity a meme because I can't think of another word except trend.
It's a modern invention among one of the two oldest kinds of art in the world, and yet people buy it without thinking critically.
Like, music is almost 10,000 years old. Subjectivity became a trend in the last 150 years.

>no, that's just you going off on a strange ad absurdum tangent. What I meant is that the very purpose of art, which is to experience it, is incompatible with "objectivity", as experience cannot be objective.
No, it's really not ad absurdum.
If objectivity is the death of art, then how could the vast amount of music composed with objectivity in mind be considered art to you?
Maybe you have to define 'death of art'.
>yeah, that's called an opinion, sweetheart.
It isn't. Bach is literally better than Mac Demarco.
>actually, that's objectivity. the delusion of objectivity is what people use to feel superior over others
Subjectivity is the delusion people use when they are confronted with facts that make them feel bad.

Alright senpai, I'm not who you were replying to, but this shit triggers me so I'll play ball. What makes a work of art objectively good, and what empirical evidence do you have to back it up?

Most people at music school are normies who want to make nigger music

this is pasta you fucks

>Maybe you have to define 'death of art'.

bruh you literally quoted me in that post explaining what I mean by that. I said that that interpretation you had of "death of art" was not what I meant, then explained what I did mean. why do you

>It isn't. Bach is literally better than Mac Demarco

I agree with your opinion. it's still an opinion though. hell, you just bust out words like "better" as if they have an (((objective definition))) (the very concept of which is kek)

>Subjectivity is the delusion people use when they are confronted with facts that make them feel bad.
you know, you're awfully defensive for someone who believes has the upper hand by default through REALITY and FACTS ;^)
you're the one confronted with the simple fact that your opinion isn't an universal law, and somehow you can't handle that.

ssshhh don't ask him to actually back up his opinion, that kills the objectivist

economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/08/behavioural-economics

How does a general consensus on the quality of a work of art (which is all this article says that's relevant to your point) provide objective standards for art, or negate another's personal relationship with a piece?

You didnt even read the article dude, it's saying that people remember good and popular art better than good obscure art. This doesn't say anything about what makes art good. In fact it uses the terms good at bad but never once defines them. This is a trash article that's basically clickbait and doesn't prove your point.
>mfw they say "music theory"
that's always a good laugh

Copypasta or not, I firmly believe the first chorus of St. John Passion could get anyone into classical music.

>they say "music theory"

only someone who has never studied music theory and doesn't even know what it is (and has somehow fooled himself into thinking it's some magic set of golden rules of perfection instead of a language system used to describe and analyse music) would say that. These are the same people that thing math isn't a human invention

>only someone who has never studied music theory and doesn't even know what it isonly someone who has never studied music theory and doesn't even know what it is would say that
who do you think objectivists are?