There's something inherently anti intellectual about lots of the music Sup Forums cares about...

There's something inherently anti intellectual about lots of the music Sup Forums cares about. The artists in the universe of the music nerd largely lacks the intellectual pretensions of artists revered with the same amount of nerd fandom in other mediums. In the world of cinema, a personality like David Lynch, Francis F- Coppola or Stanley Kubrick is almost to be expected. In the music world - it's a are anomaly. Commonly considered musical geniuses like Paul McCartney or Kevin Shields never intellectualize about their art in the way most film directors do. The musicians keep considering themselves nothing but regular people.

Why is this? Why is the nerdy world of music so casual?

compared to other things like film the medium itself is less all-consuming. Can someone listen to music for hours daily? I dont that'd be a hassle

Classical and jazz are the only music worth discussing at an intellectual level. Hence, you will find a lot of intellectual study and discussion of those idioms (not on Sup Forums though) and little of any other kinds.

Why is classical and jazz above other music? Before you use the argument of musical theory and overall technical skill you will have to acknowledge that such idea are not necessary for visual artists, and I'd like you to explain why there's a difference between the perception of those mediums (if that's the case).

Also why is popular cinema then more intellectual than popular music? .

There's a difference between content and intellectualization. You can write highly sophisticated and erudite music, but that doesn't mean you'll necessarily have a lot to say about it, or that it would be beneficial to try to intellectualize.

no not really

>Why is classical and jazz above other music?
they're better for bolstering your ego

This is true. My introductory sentence is stupid.

I think it's about the nature of the art. Comparing cinema with music, cinema has a lot more "intellectual playground" than music as it regards an a lot more objective media, Visual. Visual media has a lot more to do with reality and it's interpretation than sound does (and after all, cinema has both). Sound is much more emotional, and consequently personal so tastes vary much more in music than in cinema.

Also, music has a much wider variety of purpouses and ways of consuming than film does. Some albums are meant to be heard with all of the listener attention while others serve as mood setting, something a movie can never do. Cinema tends to be a more distant art focused on reaching the watcher through it's narrative, concept, metaphors and manipulated "reality" while music tends to be much more emotional and focused on texture and taste.

Last, as a conclusion of what was said, cinema stimulates the conscious mind much more than music, so, it's much easier to rationalize and intellectualize.

>Sound is much more emotional, and consequently personal so tastes vary much more in music than in cinema.
I don't "emotional" is the right word. But it's more abstract and resistant to analysis.

>in the way most film directors do

That's a fucking laugh riot, unless you're talking about Snow or Bokanowski most filmmakers are industry pawns designed to make popcorn flicks. Even arthouse is designed to appeal to niche audiences. It's probably the dumbest and most soulless art form in its current state. I say this as a filmmaker. It's mostly garbage. There are a lot better music pieces than films and video art works.

>I say this as a filmmaker
lol

>David Lynch, Francis F. Coppola, or Stanley Kubrick
Jesus Christ how entry level 15 year old American film guy can you get. Might as well name Tarantino you redditspacing embryo

I'm at calarts for film. I've made several 16mm films screened in Los Angeles galleries. It's what i do in my spare time. It's fun. I make films. Therefore I am a filmmaker. The fact that you judge relevancy as an art form by financial success immediately discredits your notions of authentic or highbrow art. Don't expect anything more from someone who watches Lynch or Kubrick flicks though

>It's probably the dumbest and most soulless art form in its current state.
I don't think that's a problem with film by definition; it's a problem with any large scale work that require a lot of money and resources. There's too much motivation to recoup your investment and not take risks.

Especially now with music you can be a loser with a laptop in a bedroom making highly ambitious symphonies to no one, and it doesn't cost anything.

has this guy actually ever bothered to listen to anything other than surface level music?

Your definition of film is narrow though, film doesn't inherently mean a Hollywood production with actors and sets and budgets. If you go out and shoot something and edit the footage to make it a painting like a Brakhage you're still making films, you're still a filmmaker. The state of film is a result of an imbalance and disassociation between art and entertainment. Things before could be both entertaining and art, but several decades of American industry have separated the two from one another. Now the only thing most people are exposed to are capeshit and really basic by the book works. It's sad. If film was inherently soulless I wouldn't be drawn to it. It's in a rough spot right now and i don't think it's getting better (as a whole).

>In the world of cinema, a personality like David Lynch, Francis F- Coppola or Stanley Kubrick is almost to be expected.
not in 2017 it isn't

your thinking of popular music....

listen to john cage, alvin lucier, etc...

>The state of film is a result of an imbalance and disassociation between art and entertainment.
So what, then, you're complaining because Xenakis has a bigger audience than Paul Sharits or something?

Notice how this doesn't happen in the european classical tradition.

No, but I think America's obsession with labeling leads to a divide into what is acceptable and marketable and what is not. Contrast with France, where a Godard film had the same success in the weekend box office as the Minions film a few years back.

bump

>tfw actual music discussion

I can and do

>Can someone listen to music for hours daily
Yes

A real music thread? Whoa. We don't get many of these around here anymore. Have a bump because you're starting to get buried by taylor swift and grimes threads.

>In the music world - it's a are anomaly. Commonly considered musical geniuses like Paul McCartney or Kevin Shields never intellectualize about their art in the way most film directors do. The musicians keep considering themselves nothing but regular people.
because if a musician does it he'll get called pretentious and a hack
expecially by this board
also pop music (by pop I mean anything not strictly classical/jazz/folk) doesn't really come from intellectual enviroinments

>it's a are anomaly

>Paul McCartney or Kevin Shields never intellectualize about their art
Show me Lynch or Kubrick ever intellectualized about their art.

>lynch and kubrick are bad

lel

i don't think that was the claim there. more of a judgement on those types

Is this pasta?

>There's something inherently anti intellectual about lots of the music Sup Forums cares about.
>Commonly considered musical geniuses... never intellectualize about their art in the way most film directors do.

I find these claims to be unfounded and in need of an explanation.

Also, Pink Floyd, Beethoven, Kanye, Prince, John Lennon, and even Mozart myself would all be considered notable musical artists that people know of.

(psst... there's actually just an "r" missing)

>it's a are ranomaly

You can't really compare music industry to film. I mean you can, but music is much more varied and easy to maintain a living that it has more passion than films. Not saying there are no passionate films, just that in music it's more intimate with the fans and the artist since like an user said before it's easier and cheaper to make music.

Literally what?