Delete a 20th century musician to change today's music the most
Delete a 20th century musician to change today's music the most
Paul McCartney
...
Robert Johnson
elvis
I can't name any 20th century musicians.
sorry
*turns 360 degrees and moonwalks out of this thread like Michael Jackson*
cringe
He already deleted himself.
cringe
literally only famous because his name rhymes with pelvis
no contest
...
This, or maybe Pete Townshend.
thought OP posted this dude
who?
Schoenberg.
If I get to delete a 20th century """musician""", I don't give a fuck if you want me to change today's music the most.
Schoenberg goes because fuck serialism.
why the hate?
for me, tonality is a cornerstone of good musical practice. simple as.
I can respect, and in a few cases even enjoy the works of the mighty handful, Debussy, Stravinsky et al because for all they challenged conventional western conservatory tonality, they did not seek to do away with tonality, with all of its tenets on melody and harmony, out the window. They simply chose to follow a different ruleset for tonality which nonetheless gave their music a tonal structure I feel music relies upon.
Personally I feel like he ought to exist, but not be glorified, because his style became the mainstay for about 30 years, and that deeply distanced people from classical. But I think he should exist much like how I think noise artists should exist - do I appreciate their music, so to speak? Not at all; but I'm glad it exists because that way we at least have mapped out how far can we push music, but not what is in between.
absolutely Kurt Cobain
wait...
Karlheinz Stockhausen
...
t. brainlet
Schoenberg was the greatest musical genius since Bach
nice argument you presented there. go on, explain what's so fucking revolutionary about serialism and tone rows.
People are still outraged about the twelve tone system, even 100 years after its inception. What an honor must it have been for the second Viennese school to leave such a legacy.
t. autistic brainlet
still not an argument.
the continued outrage isn't just because he came up with tone rows, but that so many people still credit it as something amazing. as soon as all you fanboys stop riding his dick and pull your heads out your ass, we can all move on and consign it to the past.
still not an argument.
...
This is a bad post.
having no tonal centre can be pretty liberating for a composer you should try it
Stefan Molyneux, is that you?
...
it emancipated dissonance from Western music
literally why
who gives a flying fuck what makes the composer feel "liberated"? you know what else is liberating? pissing outside, pissing against walls, pissing against trees, pissing in compost bins, pissing on your neighbour's car wheel, you should try it dude! and then put me on a fucking pedestal for being as much of a fucking genius as Schoenberg.
that's not the point. the point of music composition is to present something enjoyable to an audience, and the only audience that actually enjoys Schoenberg's shit is a bunch of fucking crypto-jews who will cling to anything to make them feel better than everyone else. it's basement-dweller tier shit, not concert hall quality.
no
that's right
His production techniques and influenced changed electronic music, it would be like deleting Kraftwerk. So much good shit wouldn't exist without him
practically all music cultures around the world have some form of tonality, not just western music. dissonance can still be a feature of tonal music, and as far as atonality goes, serialism is far from the only atonal "music" out there. there are plenty of people producing oftentimes atonal, drone and noise, yet plenty of them won't have been influenced by Schoenberg directly or indirectly. atonality is such a simple idea that it doesn't take a genius to come up with. a retard in a vacuum could come up with that. scratch that, i have a recording of a literal retard singing an atonal, arhythmic version of "the spy who loved me". none of these drone/noise producers are raised to the heights of Schoenberg, and none of them have such an unbelievable fucking pretentious following as Schoenberg. and you know what else is even more ridiculous? Schoenberg, this high and mighty genius, couldn't even fathom using any tones but the 12 that had been designated by convention within western classical music before his time. this is in spite of other tuning systems being part of european music tradition from the ancient greeks, through medieval church music, to the baroque period, and in spite of the fact that with the dawn of modern contemporary music, musician after musician, music producer after music producer, is exploring other tuning systems. everyone from Nicola Vicentino and Mauro Giuliani to Tolgahan Çoğulu, Brendan Byrnes and Sean Archibald (Sevish) just to name a few. yet it never occurred to Schoenberg to push past the limits of the 12 tone equal temperament of western convention as those people have done?
What a fucking genius.
your choice, i like both
...
>there are plenty of people producing oftentimes atonal, drone and noise, yet plenty of them won't have been influenced by Schoenberg directly or indirectly
there's actually a strong case to be made on the contrary. drone and noise musicians are bearing a musical legacy tracing back to the postwar avant-garde and by extension composers like Schoenberg and Webern who set that into motion
cont.
consider it analogous to how contemporary conceptual artists may not view Duchamp as an influence on their work but he nevertheless inexorably opened the parameters of the medium for what followed in his wake
Taking the easy one since somehow no one else has. I'd almost count John Cale just as much because he was like 70% of what made their first two albums so massively innovative.
Jew Reed
some homo
You'd be crediting Schoenberg with far too much though. He himself did not exist in a vacuum, but existed on a single offshoot of a multidisciplinary movement within art that was sweeping people in that direction whether he introduced tone rows to music or not. The technological development that allowed for the recording, manipulation and production - eventually to the point where it could all be done entirely electronically - has had far more of a lasting effect on the development of those styles of music or sound, than Schoenberg. Hardly anyone uses tone rows anymore, but plenty of people use and manipulate field recordings, incorporating them into music. Without Schoenberg, we would still have Pierre Schaeffer and concrete music, for example.
In one of my first comments I mentioned I do have a respect for the contributions of some of the antecedents and contemporaries of Schoenberg, even if they're not to my tastes.
But I have never met a lover of Debussy who stared down their nose at people who prefer convention with as much venom and arrogance as those of Schoenberg.
Essentially your entire argument revolves around chaos theory, the idea that if we misplaced a single contributor to the arts, that the environment in which subsequent artists developed would have been intrinsically different, as would their work. And that's true, but you infer too much from it. Implicitly you would seem to believe that if it weren't for the contributions of Schoenberg or Duchamp, that the works of subsequent artists would be lacking. We don't know that, and we never will. And if you try to use this to justify praise for Schoenberg or Duchamp, you could use it to justify praise for any and all historical persons no matter how heinous their actions, because they inevitably paved the way for the world as we know it now. Could we consider the wars of the 20th century good, simply because without them we as we know ourselves would not exist?
Seriously this. It is hard to even imagine what the next few decades of music would be like.
that's the point retard
under rated answer
If composers count, Stravinsky.
If not, probably Lennon or McCartney. Whichever is most likely to undo the Beatles
The thread topic is artists you would delete to change music today, not which artists you think are the most influential. Delete yourself
>having no lanes marked on a two-way highway can be pretty liberating for a driver you should try it
deleting influential artists would change music today, genius
John Cage
because writing music without training wheels is fatal amirite
this
what Schoenberg did was inevitable, if he didn't do it then someone else would have
who?
Yeah no shit Einstein. That's not what this is about. Those two don't have the same implications. Obviously if you would delete an artist it's because you think the world would be better off without their influence
you're literally missing the entire point of this thread
you're an idiot, the other guy is right
pissing outside is fantastic, what are you on about m8?
Either or
Considering the majority of this thread is a fucking debate over the legitimacy of atonal music and whether music would have been better without Schoenberg, that doesn't actually make sense in context. You're probably right but the word choice and connotations in the OP doesn't help
On a two-way street? Yes.
I came to say this
Ummmmm Lou Reed for pop/rock music imo. Maybe McCartney but admitting that would make me sore.
most likely billy corgan
It's not about whether something is good or not, it's about whether something is good enough for a person to gain recognition for it or not.
Robert Zimmerman
Charley Patton
eh, the blues would've existed w/o robert johnson
this
either Johnson or Woody Guthrie
>Guthrie
how would we ever be able to kill fascists without his machine?