How come Sup Forums can't discuss music? It's all empty buzzwords vaguely related to texture...

How come Sup Forums can't discuss music? It's all empty buzzwords vaguely related to texture, since that's what is regurgitated from Fantano and Scaruffi. There is no discussion of functional harmony, melodic progression, rhythm and metre, scale analysis, step analysis or anything like it. Discussion of texture and sound is fine and all, but only when combined with concrete musical analysis and discussion. Only /classical/ comes close, but even then it's just people spouting memes about Wagner or Gesualdo being cucks or whatever. I remember /comp/ being the only place for this kind of stuff. Why doesn't Sup Forums involve themselves in their art like /lit/, for example?

Attached: 12stmeme.png (735x736, 824K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=XXQY2dS1Srk
ofo.no/en/guide/harmony
youtube.com/watch?v=RGoRbbSSoTI&t=1129s
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>since that's what is regurgitated from Fantano and Scaruffi.

Theres your answer.

>There is no discussion of functional harmony, melodic progression, rhythm and metre, scale analysis, step analysis or anything like it.
we here listen to pop music, buddy.

Because Sup Forums doesn't know shit about music
Probably because music is an entry-level artform and attracts more "muh feels" plebs than literature or something

also
>Why doesn't Sup Forums involve themselves in their art like /lit/, for example?
pop music isn't art. and i'm pretty sure /lit/ doesn't read young adult fiction and shit like that

>we here listen to pop music, buddy.
Doesn't really exclude the discussion of things mentioned above, as most pop music has all of these elements.

Sup Forums has one of the youngest userbases on the website and most are here or 3 months direct from Sup Forums or TheNeedleDrop.

is this a serious question? Sup Forums isnt really that kind of discussion board.

>Sup Forums isnt really that kind of discussion board
/lit/ and /his/ have decent discussion. Why can't Sup Forums?

nobody cares about music theory, people would rather just like things they like intuitively than pick it apart

But then there's nothing to discuss, yet we do it anyway.

your assumption that musical discussion must relate to the theory is flawed in that you don't need to understand theory to enjoy music for what it is. you're welcome to contribute your theory knowledge to discussions, but the reason it tends not to stick is that it doesn't really matter. i'm going to enjoy bitches brew in the same way I can enjoy industry plants

Because most people here listen to shitty consumerist pop music daily and don't actually have a clue about music.

Sure cuz Death Grips, Swans, Neutral Milk Hotel, My Bloody Valentine and Animal Collective fanbase knows a lot about music right you pretentious redditfag?

>/his/ has decent discussion
bwahahahahaha

>your assumption that musical discussion must relate to the theory is flawed in that you don't need to understand theory to enjoy music for what it is
Being able to enjoy something is not the same as being able to substantiate and expound on what in the music that you liked. There is no discussion of the music (by definition) without knowledge of the structure that makes it so.

>i'm going to enjoy bitches brew in the same way I can enjoy industry plants
Not necessarily connected with your example but if you listen to different types of music the same way, you're going to miss the point of it. A Gregorian chant, Beethoven piano sonata, 50s jazz standard and a dubstep remix of a pop song all have very different purposes for example. Not all music is meant to be "enjoyed" and what I mean by that is listened to lazily and passively and expecting it to come without any effort from your side. I mean, there's nothing wrong with listening to music passively while surfing the internet and just enjoying it but not all music is like that.

>decent
Of course it's still Sup Forums. But at least half the threads have something of value to the field. On Sup Forums there's nothing.

you see, if you knew why you enjoy something you wouldn't be enjoying industry plants in the first place

people do talk about structure they just don't get autistic about correct terminology or nitty-gritty details

Those are literally consumerist pop bands lol I don't know who you think I am.

Attached: muzak.png (1600x1200, 130K)

They really don't. There really isn't any inclination towards discusssion of something outside a textural setting. You're welcome to have lower standards in relation to musical discussion, though. I just don't.

STOP CONSUMING

Attached: 1501547866148.jpg (483x695, 22K)

absolutely, and i didn't mean to imply that they should be listened to in the same ways, but that I will enjoy them all the same nonetheless.
it's not invalid to discuss music in terms of how it sounds alone.
>(by definition)
explain
ME AND MIIICHAAAAAEELLLL

Yeah that's wrong
>autistic about correct terminology or nitty-gritty details
and there's nothing wrong with speaking a certain and correct (agreed upon) language that saves a lot of time and effort but whatever. I guess you could keep on kicking in the dark and use vague and impressionistic phrases.

Accessibility. You need to commit at least minimally to reading a book. With music you can just listen to a 3 minute trap song and call everyone who dislikes it a soy boy. Shame that happened to music but it was kinda inevitable.

That's what reddit is for. Sup Forums is for simple comments and replies.

>it's not invalid to discuss music in terms of how it sounds alone.
Of course not. But the discussion could be elevated if anons took an interest in something OTHER than 'sound', which, in turn, would lead them to discuss 'sound' in greater detail.
>by definition
Maybe that was badly worded by me (not a native english speaker), what i meant was that music, by it's very nature, is combination of sound and silence, rhythm and harmony, and by knowing how these elements come together, Sup Forums would have greater understanding of why they like the music that they do, thus discussion would ensue.

It speaks volumes that music has become so universally useless to even warrant discussion these days.

see

Yes, that's it. Brilliant epiphany, you fucking pseud. If you're the OP, you're a giant faggot for thinking this revelation was something brilliant enough that it needed to be discussed with its own thread. If you're not the OP you're as blatantly homosexual as he is for coming into this thread and making a statement like that.

Sup Forums is almost entirely comprised of underageb& who unironically enjoy meme rap, waifufags who listen to artists because of how they make their penis feel, and containment board runoff who don't into music at all and are just here to racebait or shill the mindset of whatever board they're from. The few whose tastes aren't dogshit aren't academics in music, they like what they like without going too far into specifics and they have to rely on parroting the Fantanos and Scaruffis of the world in order to most accurately express their own feelings on what they're listening to. You're not making some big discovery about how dumb Sup Forums is, you're just proving that you're either too new to have known this already or too autistic that you haven't noticed how things have been for the past several years. Pic related is me, I don't know what I expected to get out of this thread besides baiting myself

Attached: how.png (876x768, 148K)

the problem is moreso just how accessible music is as an artform combined with the desire to feel superior about taste in music. people love to whine about "normies" ruining music yet all these people who do so know absolutely nothing about the ins and outs of what they listen to, and are ultimately just as "normie" as the people they complain about. most people here are just here to circlejerk and treat their hobby as a dick waving contest.

>the problem is moreso just how accessible music is as an artform
ir isn't. no one here listens to art music

Luckily, music is still influential as a medium and people are starting to like honest music again (like indie rock or k-pop). Even if it's shit we're making steps in the right direction.

>le reductive retard face

>or k-pop
stop

the jazz /blindfold/ threads were the only threads that ever came close to actually discussing the music in depth like you're talking about other than the very occasional argument in /classical/ or /jazz/

they were pretty much the last good thing about Sup Forums

>K-pop
>honest music

It's really funny seeing people on Sup Forums call each other plebs for liking/dsliking certain bands when they probably couldn't tell you what makes those bands so special or unique, and also what makes a song generic or bad.
Hell, I know that I don't know really much about how music is actually made, I have developed ears to notice some melodies and progressions, but nothing really too deep.
Just listen to whatever you like, it kinda saddens me people choose to drop their albums just becasue Sup Forums told them to.

How smug are you?

Of corse, why do you think Rap is discussed here so much? The focus and emphasis is on the lyrics, rhythm and beats. Which any brainlet can discuss.

At least they're good at pretending. Nobody is getting too involved in politics, there's no petty drama, the politics of it are mostly discussed backstage. It's way better than what we have in the western world even if people who listen to it are terroble.

>It's way better than what we have in the western world
No

ignoring the fact that it's still just as artificial and manufactured as pop music in the west, if not moreso

Great arguments. You don't get it. It's concentrated pop music. People listen to it because they're plebs but still just want to listen to attractive koreans having fun.

Maybe but it's still manufactured to present better values. The fact that there's no artistry involved is secondary.

>There is no discussion of functional harmony, melodic progression, rhythm and metre, scale analysis, step analysis or anything like it.
Music is primarily perceived through emotions. In fact I believe even the most inept people on here could pinpoint exactly what they like about a certain song, even without using the correct terms.
This isn't a board for music students, it's a public board where we compare, rate and largely shitpost about music. A huge number of artists that are liked here don't give a damn about music theory either, and I feel that music as a whole has been moving away from its strictly theoretical roots anyway, especially in the last few decades. Prominent exceptions are jazz and classical, which, as you said, are the more "sophisticated" (autistic) generals on Sup Forums.
Isolated threads about music theory do attract attention from time to time, and there are tons of generals for instruments, you're just not looking hard enough.

>feels > reals
okay junior

>Brilliant epiphany, you fucking pseud.
Never said it was an epiphany of any sort, user. Don't know why you're suddenly throwing around buzzwords at me, did i strike a nerve?

>le ur stupid cuz Sup Forums was always like this
This does not make it okay. There is no reason why we can't improve the state of the board.

Most of the music discussed on Sup Forums does not lend itself well to theoretical analysis. If you went into most hip-hop or indie rock for example, looking to analyse them in a theoretical sense, you would be disappointed. Not to say those genres are shallow. You just have to look at them from a different perspective than say, jazz or classical.

what values are you referring to

>music is primarily percieved through emotions
This can apply to any artform.

>This isn't a board for music students, it's a public board where we compare, rate and largely shitpost about music.
This does not mean it can't be improved.

>Isolated threads about music theory do attract attention from time to time
This is not very often.

>At least they're good at pretending
So you're okay with music being artificial manufactured bullshit? Kpop is a fucking sham and its just cringy to see people defending it.

>Most of the music discussed on Sup Forums does not lend itself well to theoretical analysis.
Not exactly sure this is true. Progressive rock and most Sup Forumscore has ample material for decent analysis. I see where you are coming from, though.

>k-pop is honest
Didn't an artist kill himself not too long ago because the industry was working that guy to death to pump out more shit music?

Check your Schenker at the door. functional harmony is boring.

>functional harmony is boring.
youtube.com/watch?v=XXQY2dS1Srk

Isn't it because he got seasonal depression or some shit

has more in common with melodic structure of modal counterpoint. which is non functional and far more interesting.

Yeah from being overworked. There's a lot of stories of kpop artists being shat on by labels and stuff

Chordal movements, not melodic.

ofo.no/en/guide/harmony

flatten that chordal heirarchy. Melody expresses harmony.

>which is non functional
The way Bach utilizes counterpoint in AoF is certainly functional.

>implying /lit/ or /his/ read books and don't just read Wikipedia pages
No one on Sup Forums really knows what they're talking about. "Intelligent" boards like /lit/ and /sci/ are still 90% memes and undergrads. /lit/ in particular picks one meme philosopher to endlessly post about (it was Evola the last time I was a regular there) and recycles discussion about the same entry level high school/undergrad authors. If you want meaningful artistic discussion, you're gonna have to find somewhere else.

Bach was considered old fashioned in his day for too closely resembling equal voiced polyphony. which is non functional, and much better.

I must have missed something, then. I was sure Bach was functional. Do the cadential movements not imply functional? Or am i simply wrong on the definition of functional harmony?

Bach merely reinterpreted palestrina-isms through a tonal language.

bach IS functional. I am saying functional harmony, after 300 years of being assaulted with perfect authentic cadences is boring.

>through a tonal language
Which is inherently functional, or?
So Bach doesn't utilize what we know as traditional functional harmony?

fucking jesus christ.

Well, please explain again user, i clearly haven't been understanding you correctly.

Agreed. I don't come here very often either, mainly due to the abundance of memes and eceleb dicksucking, but it's pretty obvious to me as to why /lit/ is more involved in their art than Sup Forums, simply because picking up a book requires more dedication than listening to Kanye West's most recent turd in the background. I've never been to /lit/ though so I can't really compare the two.
In the end it's just your misconception that any board on Sup Forums should be filled with intellectuals. Most people only come here to anonymously talk about porn.

You show a video of art of fugue. implying that this is good functional harmony. and i agree. However, the main stylistic thing that art of fugue, and bach in general, is known for is imitative writing. What makes the art of fugue interesting is not that it is functional, its interesting because its fugal. The functional harmony is merely happenstance. Its not what makes the Art of Fugue interesting. Its the melodic relationships that do.

I don't have a problem with Bach. I think its fairly obvious that functional harmony as described by Rameau in 1722 has kinda run its course. Which is why I have a personal preference toward intervallic, modal counterpoint. Though it is "earlier" and perhaps "more primitive", the harmonic relationships that arise in that music is very unexpected. After 300 years of perfect authentic cadences, its refreshing.

Common practice period's reliance on the V I cadence makes the music boringly predictable at this point. It limits what the artist truly wants to communicate to the listener. Even the most basic bitch rock music can sometimes have the balls to not resolve like that or not resolve at all. Baroque era composers are some of the least interesting as the lack of dynamics at the time doesn't allow for excitement in the music, and the relative straightforward rhythms of many of the works only make the ultimate result feel plodding. Only Bach's music is maybe justifiable with his extensive usage of inversions and occasional usage of extended chords to create a more colorful harmonic framework, but even that's greatly limited compared to what future musicians did musically.

AMEN

Okay, thank you. I misunderstood your post as saying that Bach WASN'T functional harmony. I get what you're saying now.

>its fairly obvious that functional harmony as described by Rameau in 1722 has kinda run its course. Which is why I have a personal preference toward intervallic, modal counterpoint. Though it is "earlier" and perhaps "more primitive", the harmonic relationships that arise in that music is very unexpected. After 300 years of perfect authentic cadences, its refreshing.
I agree. This seems to be the main critique of common practice music in general, doesn't it?

Do you have any recommendations for some of this modal counterpoint, with the harmonic relationships you call 'unexpected'? I have heard Ockeghem, Palestrina and the like, but i'm not terribly acquainted with that period.

i find English music, like Tallis very interesting. there are some wacky dissonances in Tallis. he uses false relations in cadences! esp. in "in manus tuas" Its a stylistic feature of English polyphony that is super cool:

raised 7 resolves up to 8 while natural 7 resolves down to 6-5


youtube.com/watch?v=RGoRbbSSoTI&t=1129s

its like some 16th century augmented 6 chord!

Thanks for this, i had heard Tallis, but i haven't heard some of these motets.

When you factor those things in a lot of the "dadrock" these fags whine about actually has merit and the dogshit they actually like mostly just proves to be the same thing with different sound fonts and effects

Attached: VirginChad.png (2518x1256, 174K)

>pop music isn't art.
elaborate

No it doesn't lmao. Like Beatles, Bowie, Radiohead and the like are already respected here. The dadrock that's shit in is the likes of Clapton or Zeppelin who limit themselves harmonically even more than pop music does.

...

/his/ is an unmoderated hellhole infected by Sup Forums faggotry. What a waste of a board. At least /lit/ is less shitty, but that's probably because brainlets can't read so they won't go there.

>babby tier mu-core is patrician i swear!!

What is there to discuss about? I IV V chords? freaking 4/4 kick drums? In /gg/ there are cool conversations about theory, solos, chord progressions, song structures etc.

It literally isn't lmao fucking Google art music and then pop music

>Beatles, Bowie, Radiohead and the like are already respected here.
No they're not, they're shit.

>Zeppelin who limit themselves harmonically even more than pop music does.
Clapton maybe but his solo stuff is way more pop than rock but he's also a hack

Attached: 1503727261749.jpg (207x253, 17K)

Metal is the only music that has any value other than classical but most of Sup Forums hasn't realized this

Most of the time criticism is limited to the lyrics and nothing else, and that says a lot about Sup Forums's musical knowledge. You can only explain the part that's directly spelled out to you.

99% of the people who post here are retarded egoists who know nothing about music

>implying pop music doesn't have functional harmony, melodic progression, rhythm and meter etc

That depth of outward influence on introspection isn't memey enough for us.

Attached: 57epjiywjw8z.png (943x926, 2.5M)

this is exactly what's wrong with this board
too many dumb children who are afraid of books

because i have no clue about music theory.
Recommend me good internetsides for learning pls

No one here can help you and you fucking know that.

it's literally a product

>this is what fedora tipping classical cucks actually believe

Top kek and you wonder why people don't listen to your old music anymore when most fans are pretentious cunts who only listen to it to look more intelligent, I had the exact same attitude when I was 14, I only listened to classical and thought everything else was commercial garbage, luckily I am more open minded now.

Yeah because most classical music was totally not written to make money, all these classical concerts and CDs are free

Idiot