All aesthetic memes aside, what are your opinions on vaporwave music?

All aesthetic memes aside, what are your opinions on vaporwave music?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zPwpVJ-eIgg
youtube.com/watch?v=6tYpkyy7Ogs
youtube.com/watch?v=-RFunvF0mDw
youtube.com/watch?v=FuCloea96Mg
youtube.com/watch?v=pqg5YrtD87U
youtube.com/watch?v=v9a8IupfRzY&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's pretty.

It's disingenuous because only people who were born in the 70s can be nostalgic for the 80s and early 90s and it doesn't sound exactly like top 40 music of that time period therefore it's fake nostalgia and it should try to sound like modern-day electronica instead of trying to remind you of a past era because sounding old is bad and sounding new is good.

it needs more trap beats and 2010s production gimmicks.

The aesthetics are legitimately better than the sound. I want a vaporwave movie

>vaporwave thread
>posts a synthwave image
anyway the music sucks because it's a meme, if it were not a meme I would enjoy it as a novelty

It's a low-effort rehash of old vibes. Low-effort being the key here, which adequately describes the millenial plight. It's hollow, it's empty, and its superficial in the musical sense.

Shit like this would be frowned upon because it has genuine vocals and lyrics.

youtube.com/watch?v=zPwpVJ-eIgg

Trendy internet nerd music

Sometimes it's done well, but more often than not it's really lazily put together. The diamonds in the rough make it a worthwhile genre imo. I enjoy it.

here's a good un: youtube.com/watch?v=6tYpkyy7Ogs

>lazy
>low-effort

doesn't actually matter. Efforts aren't something you can always hear and they aren't enough to make good music. Conversely, low-effort music that hits the mark can be just as great.

In the case of vaporwave it takes awareness of the source material (not just music but also culture and graphic design), a little wit, a little restraint (to avoid super-obnoxious shit), a clear idea of what you're trying to do, and the skills to do it.

Like with most genres of music.

Stuff like Eco Virtual is low effort and good.

This is the only good thing to come out of vaporwave.

>In the case of vaporwave it takes awareness of the source material (not just music but also culture and graphic design), a little wit, a little restraint (to avoid super-obnoxious shit), a clear idea of what you're trying to do, and the skills to do it.
>Like with most genres of music.
Millenial revisionism.

As someone who makes a lot of sample based music I've been influenced by it. I some of the music I make I consider to be post-eccojams, because I loop parts of songs like eccojams but I add more things around it. To a degree I think the aesthetics are limiting and I wish people would do different things than always trying to create the same reverbed out sound. I think it's a great thing for sampling in general cause it's promoting the whole idea of sampling as art. If things continue the way they are and we end up preserving all the music being generated now the albums we are seeing come out of vaporwave will become important artifacts the same way we record early wax cylinder recordings of old folk musicians.

Theres plunderphonics and the theres ripping a loop with audacity and using a low pass filter.

Advanced is Sup Forums incarnate

I think there can be validity in both approaches and have used them both in what I do. Sampling to me has to be black and white. If sampling is ok at all, then it's simplest incarnations must also be valid. I think some of what makes that kind of music interesting is when the source material is in contrasting states of alteration and things are left recognizable but their meaning is re contextualized.

>muhlenial
Unless you're over 40 you're a millenial too

And what I said is true. Most genres only requires as much effort as the skills required to perform them right. Which is to say not necessarily that much.

The aesthetics of effort, of performance art, are another thing, but even then, you can give off the illusion that you're putting extra effort into your music.

It's more than that and you are being obtuse.

The anti-vaporwave people in this thread are over-analyzing. It's just music.

>the aesthetics are limiting

They aren't. They have boundaries but those are very very wide. People's imaginations are just too limited to fully explore what's in those boundaries. If you're coming up with an idea that doesn't fit into vaporwave, it usually just means you haven't come up with a good way to make it fit into vaporwave. Which of course requires imagination and compromise.

If you actually want to make vaporwave, that is.

They're either over-analyzing
>it's pretentious hipster faux-nostalgic pseudo-intellectual post-modernist millenial music!!!!
or under-analyzing
>it's just one looped sample and two filters it's super-dumb!!!!

sometimes both

>Unless you're over 40 you're a millenial too
Music-wise this shit extends only to the 50s-60s and everything afterwards. And is mostly true for popular music. Take Bowie, Grimes, Prince, Bjork: all artists that are image over substance, just like vaporwave. Jazz and classical are the complete opposite.

but if you are trying to make your idea fit into vaporwave you are limiting your idea. I'm saying the methodology of vaporwave music can be used to creating things that are using the same color pallets and aesthetics that make music recognizable as vaporwave.

It's quite literally a meme genre, and it's way past its expiration date.
Also that pic is more synthwave than vaporwave.

image IS part of the substance. And jazzfaggotry involves a shitload of cultural elements and clichés that can't be boiled down to just the notes.

Hell, free jazz, for example, it's not so much about how good the music sounds, it's about the performance of the artist. It's like athletics, it's a spectacle, there's a form of hero worship and self-satisfaction that you don't get from listening to the music without knowing how demanding it is. It's part of the aesthetic.

The satisfaction you get from being able to say "I LISTEN TO MUSIC THAT'S SUPER HARD TO PLAY" is not essentially different from the satisfaction you get from saying "I LISTEN TO MUSIC THAT MAKES ME FEEL NOSTALGIC AND SPECIAL".

>It's like athletics

That's also what I'm saying. If that doesn't sound limiting to you then neither should vaporwave's aesthetics.

>The satisfaction you get from being able to say "I LISTEN TO MUSIC THAT'S SUPER HARD TO PLAY" is not essentially different from the satisfaction you get from saying "I LISTEN TO MUSIC THAT MAKES ME FEEL NOSTALGIC AND SPECIAL".

This is complete bait. People don't listen to music that is hard to play because it is hard to play, they listen because they enjoy the complex melody and rhythms which have an observable sonic difference that other music.

>image IS part of the substance

You don't really believe this do you?

Well, maybe more like pro wrestling, since it's a spectacle on top of being just athletics. Jazz fans enjoy the performance, the difficulty and challenge at least as much as the music itself. I know a couple of them and whenever they're listening to some Jazz they always mention how hard it is to play and how badass the musicians are like they're watching a pro wrestling match.

there was a typo in my post I meant to say the methodology can be use to create things that are NOT limited to the aesthetics of vaporwave. I'm not sure about what you are saying anymore if you are agreeing with me. I'm just saying that that vaporwave is limiting because of the things that make it vaporwave and I wish more people would use the methodology but exceed the boundaries of vaporwave. Although I agree that more can be done within the bounds of vaporwave. for instance
>a vaporwave movie
could be done using appropriated footage or animation.

There's no way to explain this but I only like it if it really has those office at night time, closed mall, 90's bowling alley arcade, american psycho backdrop vibes, otherwise it comes off as the same sort of disgusting "chill" music that you find on 24/7 study beats youtube videos. I also get the impression that it's a way for people to listen to 80's music without listening to 80's music.
Examples of the vibe:
youtube.com/watch?v=-RFunvF0mDw
youtube.com/watch?v=FuCloea96Mg
youtube.com/watch?v=pqg5YrtD87U

Some memories from early childhood I associate with vaporwave that I enjoy:
I was chasing two girls into a shed, and in it were all these weird toys and video games and one of them was Worms for the PC, and I just stared at the back of the box for ages wondering what this crazy game would be like (as my parents only had an ancient computer that wouldn't even take discs).
When we finally did get a proper computer my dad had got a cardboard box full of games, and one was a game called "flip out" with little alien blob things, and vaporwave always takes me back to the feeling of playing in the environment of pic related.

> they listen because they enjoy the complex melody and rhythms which have an observable sonic difference that other music.
true
>People don't listen to music that is hard to play because it is hard to play,
false

How can you NOT believe that image is part of the substance? the overwhelming majority of the music we listen to comes pre-packaged with a whole fucking array of imagery and social connotations and values and ideas that helps or prevents it from being enjoyable. Music is also a spectacle. I shouldn't have to teach you this, it's common sense.

There's very very very few pieces of music that you consume "just for the music"

shoo shoo millenial child

>I also get the impression that it's a way for people to listen to 80's music without listening to 80's music.

without listening to 80s music or without HAVING to listen to 80s music?

Cause that's quite different

it can either be really really really really good or really really really really bad

amusingly enough you'd have to be an actual child (like, a toddler) to listen to music without being aware of the imagery and spectacle and culture that goes with it.

Have you been pottytrained yet?

>you have to be a child to appreciate music solely for it's musical elements and not extra-musical narratives
wow dude

just, wow

your shitty spelling does suggest that you are underage

I guess I was right

Image is largely manufactured. And if you mean the artists upbringing makes their music better, well, I will argue that their music speaks first and how they pose or carry themselves means jack shit to how they sound.

>I will argue that their music speaks first and how they pose or carry themselves means jack shit to how they sound.
that's a fallacy. How they carry themselves will greatly impact how enjoyable the way their music sounds will be.

>Image is largely manufactured
so is music. Music doesn't really happen on its own, you know.

lol I'm browsing this thread while I'm making a video for my vaporwave. The video is pretty shit so far cause it's lazy af

I love it. Listening to it with attention is hipsterism and/or autism, but it is the perfect music to have in the background while working

your dumb opinions suggest that you are an americanocentrist retard

Maybe it's shit because you're approaching it the wrong way.

Encode some VHS footage, it's simple, quick, and you'll get excellent results.

too much of a weeb/anglophile for that

So you're saying a blind perseon cannot enjoy music because they can't see how the artists looks?

>Music doesn't really happen on its own, you know.

Right. And if I wanted to watch manufactured imagrey, I'd rather watch a fashion show.

in any case your stance is hardly different from the unironic yaaaas beyonce is the new schubert etc foks

I'm saying they'll enjoy it very differently and that, since you aren't blind, you're lying if you say that you enjoy music "just for the music"


Your idea of authenticity is all screwed up. Wouldn't surprise me if you thought that cellphones grow on trees.

Beyonce's music is shit, Beyonce's image is shit. Schubert's image is mediocre, Schubert's music is pretty good. My stance allows me to compare them because they're both musicians with an image. Like every musician.

I think you're less authentic if you think how an artist dress himself matters when it comes to musical talent.

>since you aren't blind, you're lying if you say that you enjoy music "just for the music"

I did that to flush out your dumb argument. I'm sorry I don't care for childish posers and only evaluate musicians talent solely based on their, you know, musical talent.

>Schubert's image is mediocre,

What? Im very interested on how you value an artist' image. And also how does their image affect how their music sound?

You seem very dumb holding on to a position you didn't mean to defend this vehemently.

musical talent is vague and ambiguous, and presentation matters about as much as the music. Musical talent can be part of the "extra-musical narrative". I gave you the example of free jazz, where the musician's talent is part of the image. I don't think most jazz fans enjoy algorithmic music half as much as jazz performed by live musicians. Which is fair.

between image and sound, it's roughly 50/50

Also, you can be wrong and authentic, so once again, your idea of authenticity is all screwed up.

It's alright. I like the art more than the music, but some of the older stuff is good, like almost anything by blank banshee or saint pepsi's empire building. [spoiler]I'm still a big fan of his. Got a cherry colored hit vibes vinyl and he signed my vinyl of prom king when he was touring in my area. Awkward, but chill dude. The coolest thing about that concert I went to,
he played Private Caller on guitar live with his band. Coolest live vaporwave performance ever.[/spoiler]

The best thing to come out of vaporwave is futurefunk

>i like his music but he dresses funny
>i dont like his music but he dresses good

This is how you sound. Like an outright idiot. Anyway, enjoy your extraneous criteria.

The author's work should speak for itself, and now how the author wants to be seen.

Good day, pleb.

nostalgia isn't the only reason to do retrogressive design

I'm not being vehement I'm just teaching you stuff so that you don't go disrespecting showmanship, graphic design, performance etc. Of course that tone is hard to convey through text.

Music and image aren't strictly separate. they interface in a very blatant way through lyrics. But even purely instrumental music conveys attitudes, postures, and relies on these postures and imagery to ensure that you enjoy it the right way. it helps you pick up on which aspects of the music the artist wanted you to focus on.

Sometimes it's not intentional , of course, but it's still at work. Music can speak for itself but always in a fairly vague way that doesn't always let you value it as much as you could.

That's a very very naive way of looking at things. You're seriously missing out.

stop posting

Vaporwave is simulacra

Basically, I'm not gonna let how cute or ugly the artists is when I'm rating their songs.

You can do it, but I think it's not the main point of music.

stop believing that you don't take "extraneous criteria" into account.

Like it or not, you do, and you should take them MORE into account because not every artist is a short-sighted shut-in who only wants you to care about how he makes your eardrums vibrate. Some are more ambitious than that. Most of them are.

you're brainwashed dude

>but I think it's not the main point of music.
that depends a lot.

And most of them are vapid talentless poseurs who need to rely on their image to prop the illusion that they have good music,

Relaxing. But I could do without it. It's not nearly exiting enough.

And you're delusional on two accounts:
1- you believe that music is JUST about the music
2- you believe that you enjoy music JUST for the music

No, I'd say only about a fourth of them.

the majority are either good enough already, or looking for an extra edge, or more about the spectacle than about the music.

You aren't being elitist, you know, you're just being unfair to musicians, including those you respect, for claiming that you don't take their image into account.

>you're just being unfair to musicians
those aren't musicians those are, as scaruffi puts them, "performance artists"

That's actually not delusional lmao.

Are you having a good time? being intentionally retarded?

Pretty stupid.

Most musicians are.
Jazz musicians CERTAINLY are
I'm just teaching you basic facts about the way human beings produce and enjoy music. Always glad to help a lost plutonian learn more about earthling culture.

all musicians are artists and they perform. :thonk:

>everyone appreciates music in the same way that I do.

everyone appreciates music the same way, yes

you aren't special, just delusional

rate my vaporwave

youtube.com/watch?v=v9a8IupfRzY&feature=youtu.be