>literally the only non-meme YouTube critic who used to analyze complex avant-garde pieces from the greatest minds in the 20th century classical movement worthy of such analyzation
Sup Forums discovers him
>now panders to the lowest common denominator and has to find "deep" hidden meaning in slightly weird pop songs. Even lowered himself to lyric analyzing.
Why does Sup Forums ruin everything they touch?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
poor guy, he seemed to be a good person
His lost for analyzing TMR.
Are you implying that Trout Mask Replica isn't the single most significant musical work of the 20th century, or did he do some other meme album like Art Angels or some shit?
I agree. Like, one really can't go that far analyzing popular music because there really isn't even that much to analyze. FFS he should know, he's probably done enough musicology reading to know that popular music papers are mainly on cultural not musical analysis. Not to mention that this is exactly why is art music stuff is so much more important than crap like The Velvet Underground and Trout Mask Replica because the former actually needs that analysis while the latter really doesn't.
Who is that?
School of life, but for music. Seriously think about it.
samuel andreyev
JUST
this
fuck shitty youtube channels like this
He only started getting posted around on Sup Forums after he made the TMR analysis, and besides, he only has two popular music analyses (including the Captain Beefheart one) and one interview with the drummer who played on TMR. All of his other videos are about contemporary classical music. Therefore you are wrong an should delete your thread
You're acting like he's going downhill from actually analyzing complex works.
Sure, he did Tom waits and TVU recently. But he also just did Gesang Der Jünglinge.
Honestly think he's analyzing more popular works because his TMR got people into him That's how I know him (and I'm betting most of Sup Forums).
I don't see anything particularly wrong with what he is doing. If it gets more people interested into analyzation of music. And gets him recognition . What's there to hate?
This, you can't get real depth from a youtube video.
Stop shilling your garbage channel. Thanks.
It's the only channel.
And what's with the implication of Trout Mask Replica bent popular music?
Know anyone better, who's an actual composer and has attended a conservatory? Could it be our epic meme lord Anthony Fantano?
>Trout Mask Replica
>Popular music
What's with you people? I sense the "visceral" guy more and more in every thread.
But in terms of just classification, it is popular music. That's not a slight or a criticism. Just because something is popular music doesn't make it bad
Popular music refers to anything that isn't "classical". Trout Mask Replica is blues music.
because it's still firmly based in rock music?
Blue is the worst color.
also the warmest *intense scissoring*
>Trout Mask Replica is blues music.
Are you making a snarky, sarcastic remark?
I'd say it transcends the classification of simply popular music, given its acclaim and the recognition from the academia.
Sure, but:
No one with such credentials would waste his time in youtube.
But would on Sup Forums.
>acclaim and recognition from academia
Is this a joke? By this logic, The Beatles trascended simply popular music as well. But neither have. Trout Mask Replica, like Sam's analysis shows, doesn't even divert from C, Em/G like generic rock music FFS. Hell, it's melodies are simple rock music stuff, too if you look at them individually. Just because a work just went balls out on being highly syncopated doesn't make it some great work.
There's a big reason serious academic musicological works don't cover popular music in a musical analysis context, just a cultural/social one. It has nowhere near as much to analyze as art music, even that which appears to have taken influence from art music (Beatles, TVU, Magic Band, Henry Cow, etc.)
But he "does waste his time on YouTube". What's a better platform? What do you suggest? And it's not like you can't check his credentials.
Does any "popular music" artist warrant such analysis in your opinion?
Of course, because Sup Forums is the biggest online academic platform.
The mere act of using yt discredits him.
>What's a better platform? What do you suggest?
Reading a book.
>Does any "popular music" artist warrant such analysis in your opinion?
James Ferraro
Not him. But popular music shouldn't even be analyzed like that imo.
It's popular music. There is a reason we separate it from the rest.
>Reading a book.
Sure, for the audience. But what's there for the artist? Not ever reaching the public on any platform?
I seriously hope you're not actually being serious.
Not anyone but analysis should be judged on its own merit and not the accessibility or perceived "smartness" of its subject.
Do I think a smart analysis of "Miley Cyrus and Her Dead Petz" is possible? Not really. But I'm willing to be surprised.
So absolutely everything besides jazz and classical music is worthless fodder and doesn't warrant any musical analysis?
Nope. Popular music doesn't need to be analyzed that way at all considering its structural limitations. It's not that popular music is inferior or anything, just different, and that difference is enough to not really merit musical analysis on that level.
"popular" isn't necessarily derogatory in this context
Almost everyone in this thread made it seems as such.
And how are you personally on authority on those questions? How did you come to your conclusions?
No. Just that Popular Music doesn't need a 30 min analyzation to explain itself.
You can defiantly look at it more than just something you put in the background. But it usually doesn't need such lengths.
Ya feel me?
...
I didn't. This isn't based on what I personally think, but just the actual content of popular music itself.
>Ya feel me?
I do now, but the pervading thought in this thread has been the exact opposite of:
>"popular" isn't necessarily derogatory in this context
As evidenced here .
>but just the actual content of popular music itself.
You can't honestly say that just about any popular music is the same as the next (Miley Cyrus and The Magic Band for example).
Popular music refers to any kind of music that isn't either classical or ethnographic recordings.
>It's not that popular music is inferior or anything, just different
If popular music is "music appealing to the popular taste", then would TMR fit? It doesn't and didn't appeal to the popular taste.
en.wikipedia.org
Fuck man, do some of you people just come from other boards, cop the Sup Forumsssential chart, then pretend you know wtf you're talking about? I swear I feel less interested in posting here everyday once I realize how little people here know about music related stuff.
as far as i know, none of the musicians on tmr were classically trained
It's not about that, it's about:
>but the pervading thought in this thread has been the exact opposite of:
>"popular" isn't necessarily derogatory in this context
this
classical music needs a ton of explaining to be good but pop is just good
You're going all out at this point?
Sure, but that's why even initially itt I used Beatles, Magic Band, and Henry Cow (some of the most complex in their particular realm of popular music) as examples whose contents, while for sure more worthy of analysis than a Miley Cyrus track, isn't the kind of thing you can write big ass papers about because even then it doesn't have that much to analyze compared to art music.
There's nothing derogatory about that term, it's just for classification. Again, most people here who are unfamiliar with what it means think it's derogatory.
>OP claims Sup Forums has "ruined" a music critic
>have personally never seen music critic mentioned on Sup Forums
>look up music critic
>french
>entire wikipedia article was almost entirely written by one french ip
>oldest video on youtube is three years old
yeah this shilling
mark this, my dudes, this is what youtube channel shilling looks like
This thread is the reason I watch Fantano.
He's funny and doesn't talk about "mug superiority".
How dare people be educated on a subject and not include memes in their videos? Not to mention the scary big words.
>have personally never seen music critic mentioned on Sup Forums
Dude is usually mentioned in TMR threads or best music tuber threads.
He's becoming pretty popular here lately.
>mark this, my dudes, this is what youtube channel shilling looks like
We're on an anonymous image board and let's not pretend you can even begin to confirm that. And even if you're right, what are you complaining about? Isn't this board due to actually watch informative content and not Fantano and memes all the time?
it's sort of true though
unless you understand music it's hard to get a lot out of classical music, it's too emotionally all over the place
pop has accessibility in its favor
fantano is a retard and so are you
>pop has accessibility in its favor
Yeah, "favor" in most cases. Favor for the accountants for sure.
Trout Mask Replica isn't the single most significant musical work of the 20th century.
ok attack it politically, nice deflection
Explain your position now. I was being facetious.
OP didn't even post a link or anything. YOU'RE the one who look him up.
But nowhere in the definition of "popular music" does it say that the musicians can't be classically trained.
pop music is like star wars
>you know what's going on, not very ambiguous, it's pretty clear what's going on thematically and emotionally
classical music is like the phantom menace
>overblown and tedious, you have no idea what's going on, nothing seems to make any sense emotionally, it just seems like a sterile exercise in showing off some fancy production tricks
>>overblown and tedious, you have no idea what's going on, nothing seems to make any sense emotionally, it just seems like a sterile exercise in showing off some fancy production tricks
Couldn't have anything to do with people wanting to push boundaries of what music could be, could it? Couldn't have anything to do with genuine love for music and experimentation, could it? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that not all people crave attention at all costs and want to make their music digestible? And you could've chosen a better movie analogy example - Armageddon vs The Seventh Seal.
classically trained musicians can make popular music, but popular musicians can't play art music
What makes you say that?
i mean you could say what i said about classical about holy mountain if you want
doesn't make it a bad film but to most people it's still arty wank
art music requires a thorough knowledge of music theory and extreme discipline to compose and play, unlike popular music.
again, it needs to be reiterated that this doesn't make popular music bad. it's just that anyone could've potentially made tmr, for example.
Yes, but that's on the people's inability to pick up on the good stuff, not on the art itself.
I'm the one you originally replied to and I agree with .
yeah i agree but since 'good' is subjective, accessibility is a major factor, if anything it's the only variable, particularly if you use any kind of objective rating
Good is subjective but the qualities for a person to pick up on, understand, and engage with in a musical piece (or really any art) is objective. Innovation is objective.
Accessibility is also extremely subjective, and bar the top 40 usually, accessibility for many different people who come from many different places around the world have totally different views on it. What a westerner might find to be a grating musical texture, an indonesian who has been raised around traditional music in their style won't find grating at all.
>objective rating
Thankfully actual musicology stays away from that crap. Never liked this stuff.
>Innovation is objective.
it can't be if recognition of innovation is subjective, which it is
Recognition is one thing, but the actual thing itself happening is anything. You're too stuck on the populous' personal feelings on something versus how that something actually is.
independent innovation is a thing though, particularly in music
>There's nothing derogatory about that term
yea that's why classical is called ART music(also SERIOUS music and REAL music) and rock/pop-shit is called popular music (aka shit for the plebs), aight.
BUMP for autism
Bump for an answer to .
I never said it's not? Musicology covers historical contexts as well for that stuff.
Not really. Like, since when did popularity automatically become a bad thing? Popular music is structurally like how it is for the sake of accessibility. There's nothing wrong with that. You're letting your own pre-conceived views/insecurity get in the way of what are technical terms.
>pretending to look at something
>in a suit
>by a wall
>Instagram b&w
>Musicology covers historical contexts as well for that stuff.
it does, but at increasingly poor resolution, there's simply too much music out there
at least he's not wearing a fedora like you
This is blatantly not true though. When I am talking about musicology, I am talking about actual academic stuff. Skilled historians and music experts all coming together. Not crap like pop journalism. Musicology also branches into ethnomusicology, too which also covers it from that perspective as well.
Sure, one can say that today it might be tougher because there's technology accessible to anyone and someone might have come up with an idea somewhere or w/e. But that's more a popular music thing, and innovations don't really happen in the popular music world relative to general music itself. Only innovations that can be considered innovations in popular music world are by its own standards (which, before that other guy tries to jump on me, IS FINE.)
>recognition from the academia
What recognition from academia?
>and innovations don't really happen in the popular music world relative to general music itself.
how would you know if, as you just admitted, academics are largely blind to developments in modern music
>how would you know if, as you just admitted, academics are largely blind to developments in modern music
What the fuck is this post? When did I ever say academics are blind to developments in modern music? They are the only ones who aren't blind to it. If you think the only developments happening are in popular music, or even that popular music has the most innovation happening, then you're delusional.
you're talking from an uninformed position, there are millions of hours of music being made every year
i'm sorry to be the one pointing this out but there it is
That doesn't mean any of it is innovative. Fucking a dude, you haven't even given a concrete example or anything. If you wanna go by what is just talking out of your ass, then it's also easy to say that a random ass person with zero knowledge about music or anything cannot possibly make anything innovative because they'll not be knowledgeable about what has been done with music. Just because there's a million soundcloud rappers/vapormemes doesn't mean they are doing anything new.
Also, I would like to point out and wonder if you're that same user from before because if you are, you changed your argument from popular music's accessibility to now muh innovation.
you brought up innovation here
I know that I did. Just find it weird that he decided to latch onto that of all things, ya know?
It is inherently fucked. That's part of the beauty of rock music, it's the closest I think we've come to bridging that gap between serious music and something that's easier to digest