How old were you when you realized that classical and some jazz is the only music worth "listening to"?

How old were you when you realized that classical and some jazz is the only music worth "listening to"?

The other stuff is fun as background noise sometime but just not stimulating enough to hold up to active listening.

not there yet. can still dance around the board some. but hey, those are a both good places to end up.

20

Uhmm, nope

OP sounds like he was drunk while typing this.

Sure, they take more active listening from a musical-theoretical standpoint, but you're not gonna get the same thing as when certain blues/folk artists speak to your life experiences throughout an entire catalog that you listen to by yourself and carry with you for decades of your life.

>certain blues/folk artists
but that stuff is so unsatisfying to listen to when I could be listening to a brilliant composer writing complex variations and developments on folk forms or hearing a great jazz player expand on the blues form

Now I'm in my later twenties and realize industrial and bleeps are all that matter.

Sometimes lyrics, and blend of music and lyrics are more important in songs.
Also, there's nothing wrong with simple music, if just a three note melody can make you feel something, or make you think(for nth time), then that music surely is worth listening to.

>but that stuff is so unsatisfying to listen to when I could be listening to a brilliant composer writing complex variations and developments on folk forms or hearing a great jazz player expand on the blues form
I found the technical wanker, because techniicality is all that matters in music

This is the thought process of a child.

Profound emotional expression is the goal of music. Technique is tool for expressing emotion. Complexity is a tool for achieving depth and profundity.

Complexity and technicality don't automatically mean music is great. Complexity and technicality allow for the possibility of great music.

Jazz is not as complicated or complex as some people would have you believe. A lot of Jazz is actually just pretty standard pop music.

No shit. That's why you listen to good jazz. Look in the OP where it literally says SOME jazz.

You could say the same thing about classical music t b h

What artists constitute as good jazz?

I listen to progressive rock, which I believe is the best of both worlds

some Davis, some Coltrane and some Evans.

>lists all hipster approved artists
Don't get me wrong I like those artists but come on now

Duke Ellington
Charlie Parker
Bud Powell
Chico Hamilton
Thelonious Monk
John Coltrane
Charles Mingus
Bill Evans
Wayne Shorter
Jimmy Giuffre
Andrew Hill
Eric Dolphy
Dave Holland
David Murray
Henry Threadgill
Tim Berne
Yosvany Terry

to name a few

It's all about mood and preference. Nobody's going to deny that an expensive steak from a top michelin star restaurant or something like that is probably the best in the world in terms of technique and complexity, but sometimes you just wanna have scrambled eggs.

My fucking nigga

But then you don't go on Sup Forums and post about how amazing scrambled eggs are

Meh depends who's making them

#
No, childish is what OP said, deeming technically proficient music to be the “only music worth listening to”, which is absolutely idiotic. Yes, technical proficiency does make possible even more in the realm of musical quality, but quality and technicality can sometimes be mutually exclusive. I’m a big fan or classical as well, and do enjoy some jazz, but writing off entire genres because they simply aren’t as technical is tardtastic.

Nobody's "writing off entire genres." I'm just stating that most of these genres are shallow and really only fulfilling to hear as background music.

I was 24 when I learned music that wasn't classical or jazz was worth listening to.