Classical music is so evidently superior to all other kinds of music, yet we keep lowering the standards when we talk about other types of music, to avoid the uncomfortable situation where the butt rock dude or the druggy EDM boy gets anal pained when they are told the great masters are better than their shitty hedonistic hero.
Instead of white guilt, in the music world there is "classical" guilt. We keep lowering the standards for other kinds of music to compensate and preserve our dream of marxist culturalism. Of perfect musical relativism. Guess what? It isn't true and the compositional talent and imagination displayed, which is all that counts in the end when we have to say what is worth being saved and what not, is infinitely superior in classical music than in any other form of music.
If your shitty pop muzak is an 8 what the fuck are Beethoven's late string quartets? a 400? most music is barely a 1 to 3, the Beatles fall in here and so do most other popular music with very few exceptions that reach a 4, even a 5. Bartok string quartets would be a 6, 2 degrees of magnitude higher you have works by Brahms and other great masters. Then 9 and 10 are reserved for the highest achievements of human race like Beethoven's late string quartets or his Missa Solemnis or Mass in B minor by Bach or his Brandenburg Concertos.
The great composer/performers of Western Art Music are obviously the pinnacle of music history but masterpieces of modern inprovised jazz at times rival the great compositions and improvisers in the Western tradition.
Ian Gray
Oh boy here's the fucking troll to make people hate classical music and music theory and shit again.
Here's a protip: There's no superior or inferior music. All music is equal. Each type/large group of music (and people) has its own purpose; it can be deep, philosophical, mind bending, experimental, or to entertain, or to continue tradition and culture. And while I wish more people on here and in general would be open and listen to more traditional and art music and discuss music more professionally, properly or just more interestingly, there's absolutely nothing wrong with listening to "shitty pop muzak". The worst of it all is your attitude, it won't actually inspire anybody to listen to different music, it'll only make them hate it or be afraid of it even more. So fuck off, dude. And don't write such garbage next to my daddy Luddy van B.
Daniel Lee
>went to music school >class had presentation where we talked about our favourite piece >everyone had 3 minute songs whilst I had the 40 minute op 131 quartet >tfw
Jonathan Allen
Oh and might I add, a pop song can be an 8/10. But that's all it is. A pop song, that's an 8/10. You can't compare it to Beethoven's late quartets, they're uncomparable, they live in a entirely different dimension and serve completely different purposes.
Juan Cooper
>they live in a entirely different dimension and serve completely different purposes But they both occupy the same physical dimension that we all do and they both serve the purpose of being heard and enjoyed.
How is that different?
Robert Lewis
>all music is equal Kill yourself, you virtue signaling faggot. Even you don't believe the shit you're spewing. I guarantee there are artists you think are objectively trash. Is Nickelback equal to Stravinsky? Is Justin Beiber equal to Mussorgsky?
Zachary Lewis
Wrong. Not all music is supposed to enjoyed, heck, not even heard or felt in a sense see: religious/sacred music, calls and rituals, some experimental music etc.
Music serves a million different purposes. Pure pop and pure art music are not comparable, they just aren't.
Matthew Howard
>it's another classcuck virgin cosplays as J Peterman/Peterson thread actual new music composers would find your "arguments" incredibly infantile and lacking in context
Camden Lopez
All music is equal in the sense that it's music and they serve specific purposes. Those purposes however aren't equal. So no, Nickelback are not fucking equal to Stravinsky because they're not fucking comparable. You can say Stravinsky has better understanding of stage, harmony and composition and whatnot but who is better at making shitty pop rock hits? Nickelback. Does that make them better or worse? No, because they're unfuckingcomparable, what part of this is not getting to you? Most people agree Nickelback are fucking awful, so do I. But they serve purposes I'm not fond of, I don't enjoy fast food in the form of music on the radio most of the time.
It's like comparing a fucking tree and a fish. Which one is better? Better at what? Why? Who cares?
>virtue signaling Go watch a PJW video, delinquent.
Aaron White
Let me repeat: I did not say equal in composition, harmonical, etc. quality or content or substance. But it's all equally music because that's just what it is in the end. Context is fucking important.
I'm saying it's equal in the fact that it's music and that is serves different purposes. That's it. The purposes and quality if you will are completely different and make it incomparable. You can't compare traditional, art and popular music when talking about quality of harmony or something. You can say one is richer than the other but not objectively better or some bullshit like that: a religious call to ritual or pornogrind song doesn't care how rich it is in harmony, it has other purposes.
To say pop music is shitty because it isn't as rich or mindblowing as a piano concerto is retarded. Obviously it's meant to make you dance most of the time and nothing else.
Now fuck off.
Logan Price
>Jewry >orwelltoday
WOKE
Samuel Murphy
>To say pop music is shitty because it isn't as rich or mindblowing as a piano concerto is retarded. This is such a stupid fucking argument. It doesn’t matter what the purpose of any form of created music is, it is all music and thus can be held to the same level of scrutiny. Pop songs can be written in the same fucking form of music notation as Bach’s st Matt passion. They’re both music. There is no reason why both forms can’t be held to the same level of scrutiny.
Carter Wood
If seen this thread before
Anthony Edwards
>can be held to the same level of scrutiny
They can if you really want to but it's pointless. They serve completely different purposes. You could notate it yes but again it's pointless. Art music is usually notated, pop music is usually recorded.
I'd say the purpose is key. You can compare pop songs between themselves and critique them and inspire people to do the same so that the quality might rise over time because that's what we all want but to compare pop songs with a 200 year old string quartet is utterly pointless. You aren't going to achieve anything by doing that. They live in completely different dimensions and serve different purposes.
Jack Myers
Listening to Beethoven after Aus-bitch is barbaric
