He thinks that classical music listeners are pretentious

>he thinks that classical music listeners are pretentious
>he thinks that all music is equal because you can't prove objectively its value
>he thinks classical music fans do not have a right to being smug

Your music is garbage, and the sad part is that you guys are too uneducated to see it.

The stuff on Loony Toons is pretty okay.

#AllMusicMatters

>thinking your nonimprovisitory is meaningful

A autistic freestyling rapper is more creative

>he thinks that all music is equal
Nobody thinks that
>because you can't prove objectively its value
This part is true

classical wasnt good until it went modern

>>he thinks classical music fans do not have a right to being smug

they have, unless they are vivaldi fans

>"he thinks that classical music listeners are pretentious"
>"Your music is garbage"

not pretentious at all

Classical music is art, I'm sorry but vaporwave or whatever rock crap you listen to can't never be that.
At most is can be artsy - the difference is like the difference between genre fiction and actual literature, photoshop drawings and an oil painting. Even contemporary classical music is still art up to the postmodern standards of other art forms.
Now, if you like popular music you probably will completely disregard this post, or leave a hostile response. That is perfectly understandable, you might think that I'm calling all that you felt while listening to popular music a lie. But that's not true, in the same way people can find merit in genre fiction or w/e they can find it in popular music. The only difference is it's not high art.

OP is clearly incapable of being self aware

arvo part's te deum is beautiful but it's a bit pointlessly baggy in places.

never compromise your own aesthetic judgement that god has blessed you with.

>Classical music is art, I'm sorry but vaporwave or whatever rock crap you listen to can't never be that.
>can't never be

So it can sometimes be? Got it. Thanks bud.

...

How are you people falling for this?

lots of teenagers are emotionally invested in the music they listen to

Is it a typo? Pretty sure he's just a rational human being that wouldn't make the classification of art or notions of quality, both of which are obviously by definition subjective concepts, seem as if they were objective? That would be stupid. He clearly in plain English says that popular music can [in his opinion] sometimes be art. There's no stupid pigeonholing or complete lack of rational thought. Everyone can go about their day as normal.

If you abandon all definitions in your "rational" postmodern manner, yeah sure what you made makes sense. Eat up your deskilled garbage. However, 99.9% of popular music isn't art, where as most of classical music is art and even some of it is great art. That's like arguing if fan fiction can be art. Yes, there is nothing preventing it from being art but a person who reads nothing but fanfiction obviously isn't reading art most of the time. Fanfiction just like popular music is garbage and you are too uneducated to see it.

>by definition subjective concepts
And arguing that music should be classified by "objective concepts" (whatever that may be) isn't itself subjective? You seem to mistake rational thought for common sense. Notice how the 2nd one doesn't even involve the word "thought" in it's name.

there has been plenty of really bad classical music as well. I've read sonic fanfiction better than debussy

You should have said that you are an uneducated dilettante with no interest in the arts sooner, so I wouldn't have wasted my time

Being emotionally invested in music isn't a bad thing, but being emotionally invested in Sup Forums bait threads is.

But you love wasting your time on shit like this. Complaining about the evils of postmodernism amongst the uneducated schleps of Sup Forums is just such a delightfully postmodern thing to do.

>debussy fans pretending they have taste

nothing tickles me more.

All the "music fans" triggered in this thread, defending their shitty rock trite.

Its genuinely funny how mad these pseudo-musical and woefully immature fanboys get. Literally on the same level as Fantano.

You've really misunderstood this thread haven't you? Well at least you got to use your reaction image.

I like Ravel more

>talking about classical outside of /classical/

>there's no improvisation in classical music

>Your music is garbage, and the sad part is that you guys are too uneducated to see it.

now I'm actually physically laughing

french composers... ahahahaha

Classical was always modern

Folk and jazz > classical

I have one better:
>Talking about classical music on Sup Forums at all

What's the point? This is one of those things that only works if you talk about it in person with somebody who knows what they are talking about. You amateur.

Seems like you're forgetting Chopin.

people who are really into classical are usually pederasts

Buddy delete this
Sure but better /classical/ than anywhere else on Sup Forums. It's embarrassing seeing the difference

And you're a little boy I take it? underage b&

...one exception. one.

Berlioz, Satie, Saint-Saens, Messiaen, Xenakis...

as I said, one.

OP here
I'm completely serious, I do honestly believe in a hierarchical aesthetic order in which classical music is at the top.

You don't even know who these people are just as you don't even know who Chopin is, retard

Lol no

modern is a later 1800s to mid 1900s you dip
improvisation is largely outside the idiom of like 90+% of western classical

ahahahahaha, sometimes I forget this site is mostly populated by teenagers

those obscure composers, chopin, xenakis and berlioz
ahahahahahahaha

If you knew who Chopin was then you would know he was Polish
I don't think you can ever recover from being this ignorant, kid

And yet you discount Xenakis?
Hmmmmm

I want to get into classical more but the problem is that you basically have to be hyperautistically devoted to it to be able to keep up with all the different composers, soloists, recordings and stuff.

You also basically have to sit in a dimly lit room with the music playing and focus on that and only that to be able to grasp the full breadth and emotion of it and pick it apart and analyze it to figure out what the composer and performers wanted to say with the piece. It's not really something you can just put on in the background while you're doing something else, unless it's made for that purpose, like Satie, because then all the nuance and stuff gets lost.

Maybe I'm just a brainlet and am missing out on something, but I prefer folk and jazz because it's usually more straightforward and doesn't have as much stuff you need to pick apart and analyze to fully appreciate it on more than a shallow level

>improvisation is largely outside the idiom of like 90+% of western classical

All the great composes in our canon who were also virtuosos used to improvise extensively, the loss of this figure is very recent, and is due to the segregation between composers and virtuosos (who now have to dedicate their entire life to the instrument alone, since the bar has been raised so high after Liszt).

We know for a fact that Bach could improvise 6 voice fugues (he did so with a simplified version of the theme of Ricercar a 6), Mozart could improvise on the spot almost anything by the time he was 7, Beethoven used to make people cry with his improvisations, Schubert would read random poems and improvise lieders over it, Schumann would compose so fast that most of his compositions are basically improvisations on paper (he was the fastest great composer in history), Liszt... well, i don't need to continue.

tl;dr: study your music history right, you pleb

Either he did not know who Chopin, Berliox, Xenakis etc. were, or he is the user with the worst taste in this board. Can you imagine liking Chopin more than ANY french composer in history? It is excusable only if you're a teenage girl or a middle-aged housewife.

he spent a lot of time in and around paris, as you know you cheeky git

yeah he's shite

What about Postmodern classical music?
You don't have to do that with classical music but it certainly enhances it. To be honest you could do that with Jazz too.

Don't listen to OP, he's a newfag who's sexually frustrated.

>he spent a lot of time in and around paris
topkek, you have no idea what you are talking about
I don't think you ever listened to classical music extensively - shut up and stop embarrassing yourself

trolling is one thing, and being so uneducated is another

Probably you've never understood ANY classical piece you've listened to, otherwise you could not stop listening to it every time you're by yourself. Although it requires some concentration, to the true afficionado is a natural, effortless experience: I don't have to psyche myself up to listen to something as accessible as Beethoven (but I may have to do so when it comes to contemporary music).

Here's my tip: take drugs and listen to classical music. You may also wait for an epiphany, but that may take forever, since it's such a personal experience. Being stoned will immediatly put you in that mood that is required for the appreciation of any art. After that first experience, drop the dychotomy drug-art, since it will only dull you in the long run.

Fucking hell. Do people actually listen to Beethoven? They actually listen to that trash?

Let me enlighten you,

Beethoven has no understanding of artistic expression just as the people who make classical recordings make the covers pictures of pretty nature and themselves sitting in chairs. These people don't have the slightest clue what meaningful art is. It doesn't matter if Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven understood the dynamics of music better than anyone, because thy had no idea what to do with it. You've essentially been tricked into listening to the musical equivalent a rococo painting.

Only later when Debussy, Ravel, and Wagner came in did we start to see a more fitting music to be considered ar (note that many of these guys were controversial for the pretentious no taste elites of their time). But those are far and few in between. Most composers were, and still are, artistically bankrupt.

Most of contemporary genres are the same no doubt, but certain musicians and groups have the prowess and understanding to release incredible works. You think classical is better purely on aesthetic terms, and the fact that you have to bring up how much more intelligent you are for listening proves it. In that case, classical isn't art at all, it's the bourgeois antichrist of it.

I'm absolutely convinced that the french are inherently tone-deaf. Chopin fortunately was actually deaf so it counter-balanced this sad genetic disorder and made his music great.

>The Liszt could go on
Just kidding. Good post

If you can follow sheet music at all I recommend doing so while listening to some piano sonatas, string quartets, etc. Might be helpful. Gives you something to "do" while listening and will give you a better understanding of what's going on in a piece until you're a better listener

>KILL THE WABBIT!
>KILL THE WABBIT!
>KILL THE WABBIT!

Postmodern classical music is similar to postmodern art, whatever your opinion on it, it is still art. Actually it is less deskilled so I assume positivists respect it more, even if they don't understand it.

Sure, Rameau is inherently tone-deaf.

>You don't have to do that with classical music but it certainly enhances it.

That's the thing, I don't really get into it unless I sit down and focus on it, otherwise it just serves as background noise when I could listen to something else like jazz which is more straightforward.

>he can't enjoy the 5th symphony

I'm so sorry user

>Here's my tip: take drugs and listen to classical music. You may also wait for an epiphany, but that may take forever, since it's such a personal experience. Being stoned will immediatly put you in that mood that is required for the appreciation of any art. After that first experience, drop the dychotomy drug-art, since it will only dull you in the long run.


Holy fuck, kill yourself you dilettante. Drugs to appreciate classical music? You need a clear head for it, you have no idea what you are talking about.

It's not about enjoyment. I can derive some form of enjoyment from most music. It's about what is actually subconsciously powerful and resonating to the listener.

Weed destroys art for me. Light opiates or benzos open it up. Allows you to put aside the will for the moment, which is the key to appreciating any art.

I really don't see how Classical is background noise but Jazz isn't.

The two are both structured genres with depth.

Yeah, you do need a certain level of intelligence (which you lack) to appreciate classical music. If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art

That too. But it's fine, since you appreciate Wagner. What from him is your favorite?

>If it is art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not art
That's the most backwards shit you could possibly say.

I've been playing electric guitar for about 8 years and I'm trying to learn how to play piano and classical guitar, but right now I can just barely read the sheet music of even the easiest stuff like Moonlight Sonata. But I guess listening to more classical guitar works is a good place to start since they usually only have the guitar and nothing else going on compared to shit like gigantic symphonies.

Okay.
Tristan und Isolde because I'm a basic bitch.

You don't even need to be able to read it in detail. As long as you can follow along I recommend it.

>Drugs to appreciate classical music? You need a clear head for it, you have no idea what you are talking about.

I've talked about using drugs to kickstart classical music appreciation. You take it once, you will SURELY notice something that you like about that music and then you sober up.
That guy's problem is that there is probably no moment he can't stop himself from listening to. He has probably listened distractly to some meme piece, without understanding not even one moment of it: he can't even use emotional and aesthetic attachment to justify the practice of listening to classical music.
You may as well have a fun time with drugs and music once, and understand what it's like to appreciate music. After that, as I said, he should keep expanding his knowledge mostly while (mostly, if he wants) sober. Stop being such a pussy.

Moonlight Sonata isn't easy. You need an actual beginner piano book.

Your drug addled brain is clearly incapable of appreciating art. You think Bach was on opiates while composing? You think - no you don't think. You desecrate art through your degenerate behavior.

dude chill with the autism

I didn't say it first. Just quoting Shoenberg, faggot.

M8 you're right, it is, that's why I use drugs. They help me to appreciate it. Maybe I can't up to your standards but it helps me. I'm fairly intelligent, for what it's worth.

Me too

Bach was extremely used to alcohol, no other drug was available to him.
Generally, most great composers used liberally drugs in a way or anoher, ranging from tobacco to opiates. It's not a prerequisite for artistic success and appreciation, rather it is indifferent to the question: there have been many straightedge great composers and many composers that would have been seen nowadays as drug addicts.

>I'm fairly intelligent

why are you doing drugs then?

WTF are you talking about, classical music in one of these genres where you need to analyse every single note, you can't do that on drugs. Stop being such a junkie shit, there's nothing good about drugs.

They're really fun. Why shouldn't I?

fpbp

Not sure. You sound like my mom!

because you're drowning in bliss rather than living an authentic ascetic lifestyle?

You don't really sound like an ascetic

>many composers that would have been seen nowadays as drug addicts
You are pulling that info directly from your asshole. All great composers where: a) white b) christian c) sober. The rules of morality are also the rules of art.

I loved when Jesus turned water into grape juice

why is that?

You're a retard, it takes either years of ear training, or multiple listenings in order to do such a thing on the spot, and in both cases this user has no reason to do so, since he still simply don't like classical music.
You may need theory to appreciate fully, but to reach that stage you have to have some emotional attachment to it (otherwise you would have no reason to study so much), which is why it makes sense to use drugs to trigger such a reaction. By the way I'm paraphrasing Schopenhauer and Nietzsche here, it's not a crazy pontification of mine.

Bach drank alcohol every night, Mozart and Beethoven were downright alcoholics. Here's your big 3 sober greatest composers.

Is posting on Sup Forums part of your ascetic lifestyle?
Also
>authentic
>ascetic
>implying

I mostly listen to stuff like jazz fusion lately which doesn't really have the same kind of emotional message and complexity that classical has, and has more conventional song structures so I don't really need to think about it, it's just fun music. Something like Weather Report isn't exactly comparable to a huge, hours long symphony with multiple movements and stuff.

It's got depth when you're talking about the theory side of it but that's not really something you have to think about when listening unless you're some kind of turbo autist who needs to pick apart everything.

>paraphrasing Schopenhauer and Nietzsche
>drugs 420 lmao

Holy shit, stop doing drugs

>Bach had wine with supper, him and Mozart and Beethoven were alcoholics!
dude

Haven't you even seen Amadeus?

is this /pseud/ general?

>Holy shit, stop doing drugs
Comfirmed for never having read neither Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer. Fuck you for associating me with shitty contemporary subcultures.

>dude
Bach was a regular in a nearby tavern, he would visit it every single night, after concerts and rehearsals.
Mozart's and Beethoven's alcoholism is well documented. Mozart was basically always drunk, Beethoven downright lost, once you add all the years he spent in this state, almost a decade of his life doing nothing, due to emotional crisis' and heavy alcoholism.

Learning music theory is cool, it helps you to appreciate every genre, not only classical music, everybody on this board should try. Drugs are a waste of time, not learning

Have you read anything of what I've written. Fuck off.

no, go back to /lit/ faggot
crossboarding pseud LARPers are the worst

bruh
Schopenhauer.
you actually think Schopenhauer would advocate drug use?

Mozart wasn't a praiseworthy person, you know. Learn how to separate the art from the artist.

I don't think anyone should read what you've written. Can't wait until you OD

Never