Hypocrisy general

Is there anything worse than Sup Forumssic elitists who can't play a musical instrument?

They buy a $1000 set of headphones to listen to music without actually understanding the process. Action precedes understanding, in all things humans learn. When you've learned to play an instrument from a young age, listening to music literally activates separate areas of the brain. When a pianist listens to a trill, their mirror neurons fire and they can literally envision every note played by their own hand.

It's like a /p/hotographer who has great opinions on photos but can't produce images himself. It's like a /f/itizen who criticises your 5-day split when he hasn't been to a gym in years.

The ironic thing is is that Chad fucking Kroeger would know more about music than your average Sup Forumssic elitist.

Other urls found in this thread:

online-literature.com/wilde/1305/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

obligatory 'don't have to be a 5 star chef to say a meal sucks'

op you're a fucking mong

I've been playing music since I was 2 years old. I'm 24 now and play professionally now and occasionally land tour work. My city is a very "accepting" city in that really shitty musicians can get gigs or sit in at jam sessions and for the most part you won't get vibed out. real like and Sup Forums are two totally different things. the years that I did spend a lot of time here (high school) made me jaded and it would leak over into real life and hurt my growth. ultimately I still can't stand some normie shit but I don't go out of my way to shit on people. except for the lil peep memers. they can fuck off, that nigga sucks.

>/f/itizen
>/f/

I can only speak for the classical side, as I've been playing piano for over 2 decades from age 4. I don't pretend to have great opinions about modern rap or kpop, I wouldn't know how to critically analyze them.

I can spot the classical elitist (read: headphone enthusiast) who wants to appear cultured simply by their playlist. They'll have bullshit like Fur Elise that no classical pianist listens to past the age of 9.

Yes, and some people like ketchup on well-done steaks.

In meta-analysis research, we call that "vote stacking". It's a faux-pas because its use implies that every opinion is equally valid, regardless of statistical significance or effect size.

I once meet a classical musician and when I asked him about modern classical music from the 20th century, he literally sperged out, started talking about popular music and didn't even gave me an answer.

Some people can't be bothered enough to clean the space they live in frequently enough, so how do you expect everyone who happens to be interested in music to willingly endure a far diffucult task like that?

I disagree with you, although I do play an instrument myself. A lot of people with real talent for an instrument are only interested in pop, whilst many who haven't touched an instrument in their lifetime have a pretty interesting taste in music. sure, playing an instrument might help you appreciate music more, but there are so many exceptions to your statement that it simply can't be true.

>I don't pretend to have great opinions about modern rap or kpop, I wouldn't know how to critically analyze them
If it makes you feel any better, analyses of those genres don't even require hours. It's also not nearly as stimulating and rewarding as analyzing finally understanding a classical piece. One and two note melodies, major keys, drum loops, simplistic rhythm machine programming, overabundance of root notes, avoiding sharp or flat notes as much as possible - just some of the traits which are not nearly as rewarding as analyzing classical music from any period.

In my opinion, rap is one of the easiest genres to objectively analyze. This does not mean it isn't a complex genre, in my opinion it is one of the more interesting.

>A lot of people with real talent for an instrument are only interested in pop
It's not like there is a choice of making a living playing music nowadays. If you arent' a fairly well-known musician in your area and if you haven't started your career decades ago, playing pop is the only choice.

For one, rap isn't only about the sound, lyricism is one of the major, if not the most important factors in making a good rap song.
Although I agree with you that in a lot of rap songs the beats are quite simplistic, especially on freestyles, there are numerous rap songs that have instrumentals on par with those of classical pieces. I do understand, and kind-off agree with your critique though.

They are not trying to make a living of music, if I ask them what they listen to, they reply with ''top 40'''. They have no clue what makes music good, and although they are capable of playing complex pieces, they would rather play shit like ''see you again''

>there are numerous rap songs that have instrumentals on par with those of classical pieces
This seems far-fetched. Any examples?

>there are numerous rap songs that have instrumentals on par with those of classical pieces.
Can you share some? I mostly dislike rap as a genre but lately got interested in the instrumentals.

I still do listen to Fur Elise but mostly because my dad loved it. Ever since I moved out abroad that opus helps me relax a bit.

To Pimp a Butterfly, You're Dead! and Flower Boy are some more entry level albums that I think you'll enjoy. Note that I mean entry level not to dismiss the quality of the album, TPAB is one of my favorite albums in music as a whole, but you don't have to be really into rap to get them.

I would recommend you check out j dilla - donuts. Dilla was one of the most well respected producers and influencers of the 2000s and also an avid cello-player. Sadly he passed away.

Great pick

That's a little different. For example, I have shitty 90s pop songs I love because when I listen to them I get super nostalgic.

What's wrong with enjoying Fur Elise?

You need to leach energy from productive boards like Sup Forums, /fit/ or /lit/. Sup Forums can create positive results, but the environment lends itself to create negative energies more often

>Sup Forums
>productive

Again, remember action precedes understanding. Fur Elise is the quintessential song that classically-trained children play when they are very young. When they learn it (which is very simple to do), their parents pretend their child is the next Mozart. It's based on a simple repetitive hook that reminds me of uninspired modern music. It was written by Beethoven on request of his doctor, not through some magnificent burst of inspiration.

Nothing is really "bad" about the song. But you'd be kidding yourself if you thought Kissin would lay back on his couch and listen to it.

It is an absolute fact, had Sup Forums not supported Donald Trump he would not be president of the United States

online-literature.com/wilde/1305/
read and learn buddy

Imagine being such a pleb and so stupid as OP

Assuming bait because there's no way people on an anime imageboard genuinely believe posting pictures of frogs decides international politics

>Criticism is subjective, therefore, it reveals something about itself rather than simply about the thing in question

That's a convenient and post-modern theory that basically (well, literally) says: "who cares about whether someone is right or not, just look at the way this person writes/speaks".

Better brush up on my 1970s Critical Theory, comrades!

>implying this kind of hypocrisy is limited to Sup Forums
Most of /fit/ doesn't lift, most of /o/ can't drive etc.

>Person thinks /fit/ is called /f/
opinion discarded

I do have a friend that played it as a warm up just because of how simple it was, so there's use. Still, it's famous but there's much better things.

You don't need to be a Berkeley trained pianist to know that you don't enjoy a song

i would say that's a silly reading of the essay if it wasn't so amusingly unique.

wilde is an aesthetician, a postmodernist's theological nightmare. read it again -- this time in earnest. specifically from "gross popular error".

you missed the point of the piece, and you apparently don't know what Critical Theory comprises of

True but you DO have to be a good chef to truly appreciate a good meal.

I'd say it's more that the more you know how to cook the more easily you can notice nuances desu

No matter what you do you can't avoid digital now

I appreciate the reading, I truly do, but that paragraph flies in the face of modern perception and cognitive neuroscience.

So, you have an opinion on a subject, and you call it art. Fine, but what is that based on, some innate knowledge of the world? Descartes would say so, but scientific understanding has moved on from such dualistic notions. Darwin may agree that some, basic levels of innate knowledge exist (else why would things such as the imprinting response of ducklings exist), but it certainly doesn't apply to abstract things such as subjectivity in art. Your opinions are formed through your actions in the world, Piaget and Vygotsky have studied this decades ago.

It is very superficial to say that action is unconscious and incomplete. Such a person may say that culture could not be built on imitation, but modern evolutionary theory says the exact opposite. These "unconscious and incomplete actions" repeated over time is what gave us the building blocks of our culture, symbolism included. And this is precisely what separates us from our simpler ancestors who had no notion of symbolism.

I don't mean to be needlessly esoteric, but I don't find a 19th-century aesthetician's aesthetic stance of physiological mechanisms particularly enlightening.

but it does user, ill let my numeros speak for me now

From what movie is that pic from? I don't remember please.

500 days of summer

hmmm, and this is why i'm interested in how you read the piece. physiological mechanisms! i'm shuddering at the thought of wilde even tangentially discussing empiricism. perhaps i missed something somewhere, but subjectivity is not the exalted concept in the essay.

i appreciate the needlessly esoteric. but i'm unsure if it applies here. more succinctly, wilde considers action as a principle of superiority (premise of op) to be moot. action is consummated only with imagination, and imagination is cultivated through criticism. criticism is, therefore, not immanently inferior; the piece goes further and says groupings of critics molded in this manner gave us supreme civilization. superficial? probably. when wilde says "unconscious", it is more poetic than neurological; consciousness might be defined by imaginative deliberateness, at least in this essay.

I'll give it another read with your points in mind.

The modern evolutionary and neuroscientific view of cumulative culture is that it emerges through our imitative actions (and the errors that come with it) and theory of mind. I have no doubt that criticism requires ToM (as in, to effectively criticise something, you must understand it). Where we differ is where this understanding comes from ("the knowledge problem"); how do we know what we know? The works of Piaget and Vygotsky showed us that we learn through our experiences (but not in such an extreme Blank Slate way as Locke would have you believe).

The ability for ToM is almost wholly biological, this much has been studied very thoroughly. It is understandable that, during Wilde's time, he conflated a byproduct of ToM (the ability to criticize) with ToM itself.

Thus, I would say that the main thing we differ on is the "effect size" of criticisms. My main argument is that criticisms, as shaped by differential experiences, are not equally valid. Even if Wilde's view holds true, how would it invalidate a view that criticisms are not equally significant? Because imagination is an all-or-nothing event, in that if somebody comes up with anything on the top of their head it's as imaginative as a carefully-curated opinion on the matter?

Nice projection. Also

>It's like a /f/itizen who criticises your 5-day split when he hasn't been to a gym in years
Clearly you don't visit /fit/ much.

I hate to admit it too, but meme-wise they're the most productive nowadays. That's the reason why the new face of Sup Forums is dominated by them.

lovely response. a few things:

wilde does not invalidate a hierarchy of opinion. careful curation is the *basis* of any significant criticism. it is simply that cultivation need not be concurrent with actually doing something, supposing the presence of imaginative ability in the criticizer (who -- by definition -- must be a "careful-curator").

if your point is that criticisms are not equally valid, i both applaud and agree with you. but i, like wilde, hesitate in saying simply doing something in the arena of the art in question grants you an immanently superior position. action itself divorced from the critical, or "carefully curated" imaginative faculty, is actually quite useless in this sense. (more simply: passion is Divine Right.)

perhaps this means conflation of ToM. i see your point in this respect. i think that's one of the great ironies (a similar irony with baudelaire) of the essay -- that wilde himself exalts criticism and "doing nothing" while he himself prolifically produced literature.

>Yes, and some people like ketchup on well-done steaks.
Honestly if I had to eat a well-done steak I'd put ketchup on it too.

B-but singing is playing music too, OP.