It's never been easier to listen to classical music. It's also never been less popular

I got into classical last year.

because it's even easier to listen to other music

That's not true you asshole, it's more popular than ever before

Louder, more aggressive, more visceral. Appeals more to people with low time preferences. Aka: the majority of the population.

Give me your best classical recommendations and I’ll give it a shot

Classical music is ear-fatiguing and comes off as too pompous and bombastic for most people.

I respect the work and coordination that goes into performing classical music but the music itself does nothing for me.

>It's also never been less popular
but that's wrong

youtube.com/watch?v=sgPRF0zQlZI

>a lot more interesting than a lot of classical
lol

>Louder, more aggressive, more visceral
Louder maybe, but I bet you've never sit in the front row of a classical concert of a "louder" piece. You can blast forte fortissimo symphonic bombing at your home as well.
>more aggressive
This is very vague, but there's some extremely aggressive, masochistic and sadistic classical music.
>visceral
Uhhhhhh, lol. Just no. See: literally any religious works, Beethoven, late romanticism, expressionism etc.
>Appeals more to people with low time preferences. Aka: the majority of the population.
That... doesn't make it more interesting. At most it means it's the exact opposite of interesting.

>Classical music is ear-fatiguing and comes off as too pompous and bombastic for most people
Gross generalisation.
>but the music itself does nothing for me
People who don't read think books are boring. Your listening experience just lacks any sort of idea what is going on and why.

Fucking normies man

Attached: 200x200_ives-charles-03.jpg (200x200, 19K)

pick your poison idk

Attached: killing-classical-music-large2.jpg (2480x5101, 3.28M)

>It's never been easier to fuck ya mum. It's also never been less popular

Attached: shrug.jpg (500x327, 19K)

>it boring

Attached: ec09ad15040930ece3ac5dba514d95c3f18fb6a12c1699ca88d35f6d75a4ee04.png (645x729, 116K)

>Non-classical music is less complex and more repetitive
blatantly false.
>In what sense is it more interesting?
Try headbanging to classical. What that means is that rhytmicly classical is weak, or at best different from other music (making that other music worth listening to)
The instruments in classical are usually all the same

That being said I like classical, but saying that classical is the only worthy genre is childish. Would've agreed when I was nine

Let's take a look at larger works: Because it's fundamentally more expensive to produce, make and market due to the great number of members and necessary components to work. The style prevalent in mass media marketing for entertainers also would prove incredibly expensive for every member of the orchestra, or alternatively, there must be a different paradigm designed and engineered for the group to function within society as you and I know it at the moment, and while the internet could provide this in some degree cheaper considering the ability to curate and curtail the viewer of the content, and the content in and of itself-- it still would provide a great struggle to any entertainment group who would own this 'classical' cadre's rights and production. The additional matter is that the music as well would be incredibly expensive on all resources, fiscal and logistic as you must ship the 15~144 members to studio or to venue, which in and of itself is a nightmare already under the current market that 'classical' operates under but would be a different matter all entirely if put onto the budget of a major recording studio. The recording could go smoothly, but I could easily imagine it being far more difficult if time constraints were as pressing as they are in modern commercial music.

You could say in general because most people don't have the time, passion, mental capacity, attention span and/or musical knowledge (prerequisite in many cases to "get" classical music) to listen to a Beethoven doodling on the piano with motive development and creating thick ass structures for 45 minutes or to Scriabin's colourful equalising of harmony and melody (ultimately playing the same notes over and over) for 25 minutes, or God forbid, a religious vocal work with confusing multiple layered polyphonic lines.
Our current consumerist society doesn't have time for art; everything has to be fast and compact. It's much easier to listen to simple ABCBA 3-minute tonal tunes.

>Try headbanging to classical. What that means is that rhytmicly classical is weak, or at best different from other music (making that other music worth listening to)
>The instruments in classical are usually all the same
HAHAHA holy shit

Attached: 50480724263344529334902.jpg (612x960, 37K)

>concert pianist has a hissy fit because someone had a phone at their concert
lol, pretentious fuckers are killing themselves

It's boring. The only reason people listened to it in the past was because it the was the only music they had (other than folk music) so they were forced to listen to some shit that they didn't enjoy.

Attached: Doja Cat - Purrr! poster.jpg (336x336, 28K)

>it's too rhythmically complex for me to comprehend so I can't headbang on every first measure like in my 4/4 music
>what that means is that it's rhythmically weak
Based retard

Attached: Sorabji_Slur+Ctxt.png (3216x1418, 68K)

Historically inaccurate shit opinion. Try again.

Attached: 1553744103770.jpg (674x505, 118K)

>all music technically has a rhythmic pulse therefore all music is suitable for someone looking for rhythmically oriented music

Attached: 1547011827893.jpg (750x602, 237K)

woahhhh bro look at this rhythmically strong music

Attached: Beginner-Drum-Lesson-Music.jpg (800x191, 17K)

>Try headbanging to classical. What that means is that rhytmicly classical is weak
Bruh, you never heard stravinsky

it's trite

Don't even try, dude. He probably thinks rhythmically strong means having the same fucking beat going on for 5 minutes, so fucking lit broo

Attached: messiaen.jpg (610x793, 86K)

Same problem with modern cinema compared to the old cinematography. Classics are less marketable.

Having the same short 10 second tension build up and release over and over is more interesting than this?
youtu.be/vzbsVlG8ips

Bach mass in b minor.

>yeshh

Attached: 1548719416771.png (1000x432, 165K)

Attached: 81lGRTtPMCL._SL1425_.jpg (1425x1425, 379K)

I've never seen a more retarded comment.
If with rythmically weak you mean not all of it is in 4/4 with every beat falling on the 1 2 3 and 4 so your brain is uncapable of understanding it then yes.

broooooooo listen to this epic rhythmically strong piece of music
youtube.com/watch?v=Iq24v4S79pg

Attached: le1.jpg (588x823, 109K)

the double digit IQs have arrived

youtube.com/watch?v=dbbtmskCRUY

>low time preferences
Back to your containment board. You know whhich it is.

actually i think more ppl are starting to realize just how sublime classical is.

Interesting that the criticisms of classical music in this thread clearly come from people that don't know anything about classical music.

It's complicated but the two most salient points are lack of attention span and lack of musical knowledge.

Actually dope

>The instruments in classical are usually all the same
I meant there isn't as much sound experimentation as with other genres.
A violin is a violin and they sound similair to each other. Of course you can play it in different ways but don't tell me you get shocked by how a violin sounds in a classical composition. A guitar or a synth can sound completely differently in many more ways
It's not that it's in 4/4 retards. Do you think rhythm only depends on the fucking time signature? And after that you want to be classy! Faggots, I listen to non 4/4 music too and I like it, it's often more interesting. I don't know much classical though, I know only major stuff, and it's mostly 4/4 iirc.
But in classical there is no accentuation of the upbeat, or the 2nd, 4th beat. It's very pretty, but as I said, try to headbang to it. It's rhytmicly not as good, or at best it's just different
Nah bro, if you got something cool send it, I'll be happy to hear it. I don't know classical almost at all except like beethoven mozary and bach, so my assumption that most classical isn't very rhythmic might be wrong
Well I would be lying if I told you I don't listen to music with repetetive percussion. But rhythm is stronger when there are other elements that collaborate, such as bass and... everything else. Check this m.youtube.com/watch?v=8FiK-TJaJAM
Every instrument is part of the rhythm building. The result might be repetitive, but it's incredibly rhythmic.
Of course you'd prefer something less repetetive. What about this?
(Listen from 3:20 youtu.be/0etenwnI1wo)

But of course you are into classical, you won't feel the rhythm, the propulsion that the drums give and will just say "Uuuuh it's repetetive xD dumb reeetard. 4/4! that's sooo bad"

>so my assumption that most classical isn't very rhythmic might be wrong
Check polyrythms or at least "ostinatos" m8
These pieces have a great variety of rythms
youtube.com/watch?v=U_yHdfiJ5k0
youtube.com/watch?v=SxRBkwcSxk8
youtube.com/watch?v=wZtWAqc3qyk&ytbChannel=null

Convert me to classical with one composition

>I don't know classical almost at all except like beethoven mozary and bach, so my assumption that most classical isn't very rhythmic might be wrong

going to listen right now
Post some or your post has no meaning

tell me what you think after

>Classical music is ear-fatiguing
classical is actually the most gentle western music on the ears, classical musicians are frequently too sensitive to listen to rock music at normal volumes

>classical music is xyz
>but I don't actually know classical music

>classical is actually the most gentle western music on the ears
Fake news
youtube.com/watch?v=HtVgWzXGvj4
youtube.com/watch?v=MsOI3QYn5k8
youtube.com/watch?v=PjvTTfbpWjY

that's all postromantic though

still classical music

also if you want it more early here you go
youtube.com/watch?v=kmE42OEnAaA
youtube.com/watch?v=0rNCggzEeFw
youtube.com/watch?v=mQMHdbaaZYE
These might not sound as violent as the ones I posted before but for their times, they were

youtu.be/GHYQrBQCsBY

>youtube.com/watch?v=U_yHdfiJ5k0
Holy shit, that's great
>youtube.com/watch?v=SxRBkwcSxk8
This seems nice but I got pleb filtered pretty bad
>youtube.com/watch?v=wZtWAqc3qyk&ytbChannel=null
Cool, and there really are intereting rhythms

I guess classical music can have very cool rhythms. But imho that doesn't kill my point totally, the rhythm in classical is very different from other music, so it makes sense to listen to both

Makes sense, but you shit on non-classical music which you clearly know very little of so we're even

Did I?
was my first post in this thread

I would say that rythmic exploration in classical music has been pretty much a XX century thing. The previous centuries were more focushed into developing melody and harmony until composers such as Wagner and Mahler reached the limit in those fields

Oh, sorry, my bad. I guess I'm even with the people I was replying to

youtube.com/watch?v=CK0TPuifgxs

I has a bad public image of elitism and stodgy old wealthy types.
People generally hold less admiration for the upper class these days.

Mahler can have 800 people singin their heart out to Romanticist tropes for 2 hours for all I care (he did, didn't he?) doesn't change the fact the Beatles have moved more people with far fewer instruments and musical knowledge than most classical ever has.
This clip sounds like a guy theoretically telling me how epic life is using extremely dated 19the century language. Rock and dance music sounds like an immediate physical manifestation of joy. The only classical music that ever made me feel like that is Beethoven's Grosse Fuge. It sounds so physical. Most other classical sounds like someone reading a long-winded textbook

People forget that music started as stuff to play to dance and to perform rituals, which music that is repetitive, simple, and that has a strong rhythmic drive is good for. It's in the common man's nature to like it

I've been avoiding classical music because (as far as I know, feel free to prove me wrong) it doesn't feel personal enough to me. There is no denying that many classical works are structured in more complex way than several other works today, but it still doesn't invoke any emotion in me. Many of the albums I enjoy paint a clear picture of the situation the artist is in and how the artist feels, which is often reflected through the sound; I just don't feel any of that in classical music.

Aight
youtu.be/Kpqm1hxgH-w

Attached: 745-1.jpg (247x420, 75K)

Wrong. This whole discussion about rhythm is rather a discussion about percussion. It's true that classical music doesn't have much percussion compared to pop. However that doesn't say anything about complexity of rhythm.

Ayy

>the Beatles have moved more people with far fewer instruments and musical knowledge than most classical ever has.
I wouldn't be so sure, everyone has heard some classical compositions, it's everywhere. I think that maybe it's more common to hear a classical refrence than beatles one (maybe because the beatles are still strongly copyrighted)

It's less personal, it's true, but it can be full with emotion. Try this
m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fuIMye31Gw

Nobody listens to the Beatles anymore. And Mahler was only a 3rd rate composer.
But since you already can appreciate the grosse Fuge from Beethoven you might explore some more. I could imagine you might enjoy e.g. something like Bartok's concerto for orchestra or Shostakovich's 5th symphony.

>Mahler was only a 3rd rate composer
>recommends Shostakovich
please elaborate

youtu.be/Td-cUkR1Tu8
youtu.be/OE3aLhNq5G8

People don't understand it.
They're not educated enough, European countries which have a connection to the heritage of classical music are becoming less European, and even independent of Immigration we are becoming less intelligent due to dysgenics(poor have way more children than wealthy)

It's not surprising that "classical" music died in the Postmodern era, we can see that the deconstruction of objective criteria by which we measured value made it meaningless. If it's meaningless, why care about it?

The recs itt have been amazing so far. I truly can't articulate what it is I'm hearing but I like how it sounds.

>mahler
>third rate composer
Brainlet, please

Attached: dglp43036.jpg (300x300, 22K)

>you have to be educated or particulary smart to enjoy classical

Attached: grug.png (300x168, 8K)

The real Red pill: String quartets are the only classical pieces that don't sound stuffy and are the only compositions worth exploring today

youtu.be/DxtAHpYIXdU

It's the closest thing classical has resembling the 4-piece rock band I bet is more accessible (and sonically "better") for casual listeners to get into.

songs are too long

What do you get out of classical music?

People are disconnected, not only do they not know what to listen for, they don't know why the piece was composed outside of "well he wanted to eat".
People's popular conception of music today is 99cent, 3-5 minute songs that are targeted towards the lowest common denominator. Music, to them, is not designed to make on think or challenge them, but instead to serve their hedonist, self-validating lifestyle.

>songs

Enjoyment, ie purely for pleasure.

ok, """(((symphonies)))"""

So you listen to classical music for the same reason as any other music.
What do you think the barrier of entry is for others to enjoy it?
Clearly they aren't interested currently.
Pieces or works

it's pieces ritard

A desire to listen to it and some patience

What should I be listening for and how do I improve that ability?

Knowledge of music(a bit of theory and history) itself helps tremendously in one's appreciation of it.
You know how people like simply structured music? (Intro, verse, chorus, etc)
Classical music is not that and it's easy for it to sound like one long, run-on sentence if you aren't able to have an idea of how to structure it in your mind.
Classical music is simply not obvious about its purpose, you have to dig a bit to find out why.

>Interesting that the criticisms of classical music in this thread clearly come from people that don't know anything about classical music.
It's always like that. People who think classical is boring are the ones that have a very limited worldview and taste.

This guy is a perfect example. Not sure he realises classical music encompasses hundreds of different schools, compositional tools, instruments; including literally being the pioneers in electroacoustic/electronic music. And then he proceeds to post some shitty boring weeb muzak lmao.

It's called neoclassical you dumbass and it's still classical music. Give me one non-classical piece of music that is as rhythmically exploring and rich as this
youtube.com/watch?v=vocgV-oM6Io

How can you hear Beethoven and not feel any emotion fucks sake normies, you're wired absolutely wrong.

>Mahler was only a 3rd rate composer
Jesus fucking christ I share a board with these mongoloids.

1/2
It's so hard to answer this because we're talking about over 400 years of shifting musical trends and your answers will always come over time from self-exploration and even simply exploring Wikipedia articles as you listen to specific pieces from specific eras. This will come from your own intrinsic interest to read about it. If you don't care, then the answer will just seem like a long-winded explanation about nothing.

I'll try and explain it this way. Classical music is like a game with a set of rules that the composer needs to play by. That's the classical tradition. The reason it might sound stodgy and same-y to listeners is because you can't just go in and write whatever you want. The game is there's a set of rules you have to play within, BUT you can bend the rules just enough to make it fresh and unexpected.

Baroque era (1600s-1740, Bach's era) had counterpoint. The "game" is to write (and listen for) long strings of melodies for individual instruments that kind of run together harmoniously like weaving in and out of eachother. It's called polyphony, and it was an exercise in writing for many separate voices and keeping them running the same harmonic path. Bach's fugues are great examples of this.

Classical era (1750-1830ish, Mozart and Beethoven's era) The "game" was called "Sonata Form". Very simply put:
A 30-ish minute piece divided into 4 "movements" (like chapters, or "songs" if you will). First one is kind of fast and distinct (Allegro), Second one is slower and softer (Andante or Adagio), Third is like a faster, shorter, catchy dance piece (Menuetto or Scherzo), and the Fourth is similar to the first movement, usually in the same key as the 1st, and with a main melody kind of derived or remixed from the first movment (usually Allegro again.)"

Embarrassing thread. Not sure if I want to laugh or cry.

Attached: hoffman_rite-47da6ab3980b9dbaae06c1f5771f6e4b0c933c91-s800-c85.jpg (800x600, 104K)

How does it feel I’m the only response to your long post?

Not for total newbies but he's the GOAT keyboard composer (after Bach and Beethoven) and also wrote transcendental symphonic works about sex and ending the world, so you best just get that out the way now.

youtube.com/watch?v=lQabCdxJ6DM
youtube.com/watch?v=jFgYfOOECFM
youtube.com/watch?v=HT2FXqUJLls
youtube.com/watch?v=JE-riazUvJE

youtube.com/watch?v=-okPcLTbaAc
youtube.com/watch?v=g2WYFb0_l6w

Attached: 5b0293e45e3280b8afeb8d89810b6d2b.jpg (400x575, 50K)

I feel indifferent because I just copy pasted another user from a previous thread. I'm not surprised people who don't listen to classical music (i.e. with short attention spans) can't read something longer than two sentences though; it correlates nicely.

I guess Yea Forums just isn't intellectual enough to appreciate art music.

Attached: 220px-Jordan_Peterson_June_2018.jpg (220x309, 14K)

you were going good until the name of Gould came up

It's an interesting interpretation, you should give it a listen and not let your silly NPC "Gould bad!!!1" prejudices play a part.

harder to listen
no effort or interest in promoting it since it's basically state funded

Imagine my shock.

Attached: MV5BNDUyMzQzNWYtOGU3OC00YzZkLTk0YmMtYWQyZjQ5MDU4M2FhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@._V1_.jpg (565x531, 27K)

this except unironically
music is meant to dance to. reclaiming music from western art music elitism is literally progressive

can we not do this? thank you

>harder to listen
Only because we've failed as a society. Our educational systems don't give a shit about art, that's why nobody listens to this kind of music or reads the classics for example; they only consume the McDonalds of art. If you teach people how to read or listen to good music, then it shouldn't be hard at all.

But here’s the kicker. I’m the only person who responded to your post, which means everyone itt (classicalfags and nonclassicalfags both) read your post and didn’t respond, either because of the length, the content, or both. Which implies every single “classical” fag itt is merely pretending to know or care about classical, if they had even the slightest idea what you were talking about they would’ve made a comment. Ergo, most classicalfags on Yea Forums don’t actually know any theory or have any actual insight on classical other than “lol too complex for you rockfag” and are just as brain dead as the many nonclassicalfags that browse Yea Forums. Wouldn’t you agree?

>music is meant to dance to
Lol no

reminder that forcing yourself to listen to classical music doesn't prove anything to anyone

>music is meant to dance to
[citation needed]

Attached: 1548768096058.png (474x711, 90K)

Taking Yea Forums shitposting too seriously mate

Good thing nobody is pretending, brainlet

2/2
Within that first movement, the game isn't "Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus" like in pop music. Instead it goes:
"Theme, Theme repeated, Development , and then Recapitulation (repeat main theme but do it in a slightly different way.)"

Development is the meat and potatoes of classical music, this part of the game is to "remix" the theme you just wrote in new ways, you can fuck around with what key it goes into and dick around the rhythms and harmonies, you can stretch out little tiny parts of the theme into its own little melodies and so on.

I recommend listening to sets of variations for newcomers. It helps train your ear to hear how composers are essentially creating "remixes" of a main melody to fill up a piece. That's the game.

Try this set of variations, or "remixes" if you will.

youtu.be/7v8zxoEoA_Q

Jump to 12:33 of the next video for a clear example of a set of remixes. There's a main melody, and then ot gets remixed in like 5 or 6 different ways.

youtu.be/KPaJ4vf2uYs

>if they had even the slightest idea what you were talking about they would’ve made a comment
Why

>spending years studying music theory so u can get chills while listening to a 30 minute symphony
literally have sex once

>variations
None better than Beethoven in this game.
youtube.com/watch?v=Jb___NojxY8

Attached: -v-_background.jpg (800x800, 123K)

It’s not like schools are telling students to listen to popular music lmao, in fact I’d say school actually teaches musical competence more than not, many american schools have deep music programs where students learn all kinds of theory and instruments. Haven’t seen a single class dedicated to popular music

>le sex meme
kys at this point reddit

That's quite an impressive chain of assumptions, based retard

Right I forgot, it’s easier to just reply to the retards who clearly don’t know anything about music. God forbid you discuss things with the actual classicalfags that you larp as
I see, you’re all just pretending to be retarded

>It's also never been less popular
the percentage of people who have an interest in classical music is probably higher nowadays than back when 99% of people couldn't read or write

They're not but they're also not teaching them how to listen to different types of music and how important context is. You can't just go listening to every kind of music with the same mindset and ears; it's as retarded as that user claiming that music is only for dancing or similar nonsense. They don't teach ANYTHING from where I'm from, all they do is force some theory and Bach at a young age which is obviously the wrong way to go about it.

It's all repetition. It is not necesary to have any knowledge of musical history or music theory -- if you like what you hear enough you'll probably learn some. If you don't like it after listening repeatedly choose some other piece.

What do you want, retard?

Well I’m not sure where you live but that’s not the case where I’m from in Washington state. Students were taught very very basic theory and Bach at elementary schools, but middle schools and high schools always had decently deep music theory programs

yeah everywhere in the world there's music schools for people who have an interest
it's retarded to force people on deep and extensive music programs if they don't care

Well I guess that we shouldn't teach anyone anything ever because most people don't care about whatever is in schools right?

I want to get into classical but I can't feel emotions from it. It feels so sterile and dead, I'm sure many people will find this very opposed to their experienc, but no matter how I try I just don't get any feelings from most of what I tried to listen to. It's like some guys making some sound and it doesn't sound bad but it just doesn't leave me feeling like much.

I want to expose “classical listeners” on Yea Forums as the posers they are, I’m sick of them acting high and mighty when they’re as stupid as your average rockfag. They just like the idea of feeling superior to rockfags without bothering to actually understand what they’re shilling with all their might

they teach the basics of music as they teach the basics of maths and all the other subjects

Nobody is high and mighty and superior, stop projecting; the original post was literally a very levelheaded response. You're not exposing anyone, nobody cares.

>thinks people are forcing themselves to listen
If you ever needed proof there are distinct differences in people's intellectual capacities, this is it.

My point is that they teach it the wrong way and as a result people resent math and music theory instead of maybe growing up appreciating it.

maybe you don't live in a country where borgueoise boomer faggots go to the teather and fall asleep becuase they have to keep status

I still don't have a reason to reply to his post

Well that's an entirely different issue. It's definitely a status symbol to go to a shitty Tchaikovsky ballet and act "cultured" and whatnot. But the majority of people aren't forcing anything.

did you expect this to change my opinion, retard? at least the other two replies tried to help me. it's not that classical pieces don't make me feel anything, but the clearer context portrayed in pieces from the 20th and 21st century allows me to better see that person's perspective and have a deeper emotional connection to the music. new technology allows for more variation in instrumentation, which can further the personality in pieces. classical music may have strongly written pieces, but time has allowed music to grow, and sometimes its age shows when you see how many new possibilities have been opened up over time.

Forgive if I'm wrong but classical has never been meant for a mass proletarian audience, why would they listen to something so clearly not meant for them?

Because most people prefer rhythm whereas most classical focuses on harmony and melody instead.

>muh progress argument

Attached: 1548899323742.jpg (387x437, 41K)

Classical videos on youtube get as much views as any other kind of music, outside of whoever the current top 5-10 popstars are.

Where the FUCK did you get this information from you absolute fucking moron

what about mediterranean and south american countries?

Yes, yes, good goy, music is always getting better!

Attached: le happy merchant.jpg (501x504, 72K)

1. I like classical and I think it's great. I listened to Bachs cello suits when I was 12/13 and I really liked them, even now they are something special for me
2. From 1. and my post above you can notice that I'm not trying to prove classical music isn't worthwhile, I'm trying to prove it's not the only music that is so. Other music has things classical doesn't have
3. Classical music is an increadibly broad term, maybe even broader than jazz and rock. When something is so generic it's impossible to describe it's attributes, because it encompasses a lot of different and contrasting ones. To hold a discussion I had to narrow the definition of classical to bach mozart wagner beethoven chopin and that kind of stuff. I know there is classical with synths but that's not what people mean when they say "classical"
So yeah that wasn't precise but I didn't thought Yea Forums(nel) required this since usually threads are about art hoes and "music for this feel"

>being the pioneers in electroacoustic/electronic music
That's actually interesting if true, can you post something I can read? An article or something. Artists

>And then he proceeds to post some shitty boring weeb muzak lmao.
shitty? no, I guess subjectivly
boring? If you set the standarts high, yes. However by how you talk it seems you just got pleb filtered by funk.
weeb? One was a video game soundtrack. Not related to japan in any way. I really like the drum fills. The fact that you threw away a song by it's provenience lowers again my hopes that you aren't retarded

what kind of music touches you?

Art music should be listened to live in an auditorium. Recordings just don't compare, it wasn't made for them.

>That's actually interesting if true, can you post something I can read? An article or something. Artists
Wikipedia is always a good place to start
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgard_Varèse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Schaeffer
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen

Really? This thread alone begs to differ:
All bitching about “brainlets” instead of actually discussing classical. And I’m saying the posers are the only ones acting high and mighty, while people who actually know what they’re talking about don’t talk down to people, but instead articulate their opinion via their own knowledge of the subject; “classical fans” aka posers articulate their opinion via shitposting, they love feeling superior to the rockfags that they’re actually no better than

the new lit trap hit with the constant 3 minute 4/4 complex and strong rhythm, obviously
roll over classical music! you're boring and unemotional!

Attached: le juice.jpg (1108x600, 45K)

not arguments, faggots. try again.

see

>they love feeling superior to the rockfags that they’re actually no better than

Attached: 1547519957883.png (1000x999, 573K)

>posers articulate their opinion via shitposting, they love feeling superior to
>Yea Forums

No, no! You are correct, goyim! The new music is always the best! We must forget the old!

welcome to Yea Forums
now get out

You sure showed them

Wow, I’ll just take my leave. Have fun throwing shit around pretending it’s gold

wtf why is this post pinned?

May I kindly redirect you to r*ddit

Attached: 1546695825609.png (2000x2000, 1.21M)

go back to your traditionalist LARP twotter or whatever fag

>looking for answers on Yea Forums
Get out of here and listen to classical or kill yourself you fucking weak retard

He literally couldn't take the bants. Get a load of this guy.

Mods have triple digit IQ.

Jazz is better and requires more skill

Attached: D2ssBsAX4AAxyNh.png (640x400, 56K)

Bye, faggot.

Attached: 1548806048356.png (179x282, 50K)

>blatantly false.
how so? you can fill a book with analyses about a single movement of a single Beethoven sonata. Can you do that with any non classical music?

Well mostly symphonic and power/progressive metal. In particular if you listen to songs like these

youtu.be/BBZsbKFs-j8

youtu.be/ng42hgc3UDw

youtu.be/VvYRYCIAKZo

They incorporate some classical elements like orchestra and opera style singing and I love them, but when I go to listen to actual classical music I don't get the same emotion and feelings. Maybe I didn't try listening enough to any one piece to let it grow on me.

>symphonic and power/progressive metal

Attached: MY2BTrK.jpg (333x333, 20K)

good bait
I dont know why i come to this board anymore

How is it bait

Interesting thread, I'm wondering what you think would be the material causes for this decline in interest (if it truly exists?)

The economic condition for most Americans is instability. To be an artist and make anything other than popular, broadly appealing music, is to get into bed with that instability. Which is why it can be difficult for many to attain an adequate education in music, because without the support of inheritance/family/legacy during the study of something "impractical" or establishment through academic or cultural institutions, it's extremely difficult to use that knowledge to make a living. In this way art music elitism is continues through a sort of soft exclusion of lower classes. So there is a material cause to our culture pressuring public schools to cut art programs while pushing for STEM education, because those are "practical" studies and art is not, and we wouldn't want our children studying something frivolous! They have to be competitive thinkers and workers!
There is also the decline of church participation in younger generations which was previously a way for people to be exposed at least superficially to this type of music.

Attached: beginnerClassical.jpg (2050x568, 550K)

Attached: amaericanclassical.png (1358x2134, 961K)

>new = bad! i'm not like other girls!
ftfy

Classical is, at its core, aristocratic wankage. Made for aristocrats, and played in huge dining parlours in your moorish villa or whatever. When you listen to classical, you are subconsciously channeling your aristocratic self via the music.

Attached: Mozart.jpg (838x557, 519K)

Attached: ModernClassical.jpg (4219x2847, 3.64M)

Arguably a smattering of works in non-classical if you take the album to be related to the song cycle. But they are few and far between.

Attached: masses.jpg (1800x3217, 1.1M)

Attached: Bach4Degenerates.png (3572x1183, 3.2M)

>jazz

Attached: AmeChart.jpg (1905x4920, 2.08M)

>vidya soundtrack
look at this dude

Why are classical fans so elitist? Not everyone has the same music tastes and people should accept that.

Attached: cltclassical.jpg (1050x2270, 578K)

I have no clue; as the ultimate STEMfag (Computer Engineer) in a decidedly unmusical family, the only thing that would have some form of a musical connection for me is the fact I'm from a Methodist family and somewhere along the way I got interested in playing music. I personally feel the reality is a lot bleaker; the great majority barely care about art in general, often using it mostly as a background wash. Few go to museums or theaters, for instance. The rapid vanishing of folk music might also prove a factor here; how many local songs do you know? That basis is vanishing surprisingly quickly in the public eye.

You do make a very good point, though.

F you
Which obviously means respect to you! You are correct and just won 1.000.000 $$ by destroying that libtard!
No game music ever created is good, it's all shit! How could that pleb not know that? lmao

>Not everyone has the same music tastes and people should accept that
This is totally acceptable. Some people are intelligent classical fans and some people are retarded.

Yeah, obviously not every classical fan is like that.

I could equally ask why pop fans are so elitist in their poptimism. Truth is most people just enjoy music and don't sperg out about it online, and there's no such thing as some unified group of "classical fans".

I don't mean to say every single person who likes classical is like that, but you get a lot of them.

Bruh classical is really rhythmically simple compared to any music from this century. Classical musicians can't play anything syncopated for a reason.

If I was ignorant in music and had to pick an "intellectual" genre to listen to and feel good and superior, guess what would it be?

On a serious note, apart from the faggots and people who pretend, if you were raised on classical it would be very hard for you to get into something else. It's very very different music, and when you try to get into a new genre at the beginning all of it will sound the same to you. I think most classicalfags can't manage to go through that phase, so they conclude that non classical music is boring, repetetive, uncreative and not worth their time(except maybe 1/2 artists). So they come here and see lots of people listening to what they thought was "crap". So they explain this to themselves this way: they have better taste. The other explanation is much harder to accept, because it would hurt their confidence and worldview, it would mean that they actually don't have that great of a taste, but that's impossible, they love classical and everyone says classical is good!

They don't have shit taste. They just don't understand that if you don't like/understand something, it's not either you're shit or that thing is shit. Maybe you're just not ready yet

>he projects as he understands nothing
When we're talking about classical musicians, we're generally talking about players of instruments capable of consistent and common polyphony. Keyboard, Harp, Classical Guitar, etc
The polyphony by itself creates syncopated rhythms, different voice weave in and out of music which trains them to be used to that.

You don't understand these words you're using. Polyphony don't equal syncopation. Most of Bach's work is squarely on the beat.

Classical music and Jazz listeners have an IQ advantage on average over other genres of music.
The less analyical and listener-structured, the less intelligent the listener.
Listeners of Instrumental music, of any kind, have a postive correlation with IQ.

Listen to some Beethoven
youtube.com/watch?v=WFifaY_eZU0

We discussed this before. For older classical composers you are right, but classical also has these:
youtu.be/U_yHdfiJ5k0
Which are rhythmically complex
Classical has a different rhythm and it's ok. It doesn't usually accent the upbeat or the second and fourth beat so it doesn't have the rhythmic feel of other genres. That's one of the things people miss in classical imho

Respect for including jazz
>Instrumental music, of any kind
Fuck yeah! I listen to chiptune

Is it worth it to skip work Saturday to buy an overpriced local cinema ticket for the met opera's 5 hour German with English subtitle Die Walkuré tomorrow starting at 9am PST?

Attached: tumblr_nyqzv38kU51tiruuio1_1280.jpg (1280x960, 151K)

Ps- it's a live broadcast

that's a lot of projecting, my dude
I listen to classical and rap music overlapped

If you flip the thing on its head you'd have an incredibly classical elitist post, frankly.

On a serious note, apart from the faggots and people who pretend, if you were raised on [INSERT GENRE HERE] it would be very hard for you to get into something else. It's very very different music, and when you try to get into a new genre at the beginning all of it will sound the same to you. I think most [INSERT GENRE HERE]fags can't manage to go through that phase, so they conclude that non [INSERT GENRE HERE] music is boring, repetetive, uncreative and not worth their time(except maybe 1/2 artists). So they come here and see lots of people listening to what they thought was "crap". So they explain this to themselves this way: they have better taste. The other explanation is much harder to accept, because it would hurt their confidence and worldview, it would mean that they actually don't have that great of a taste, but that's impossible, they love [INSERT GENRE HERE] and everyone says [INSERT GENRE HERE] is good!

There's multiple types of syncopation. In any case, Bach generally avoids syncopation while Stravinsky and Bartok thrived on them. Though, the concept of phase-locking is a bit alien to classical musicians due to the nature of the instrumentation. And overall most syncopation is to be found in folk music, which is just about the genre people listen to the least.

>classical
>instrumental
Are you disrespecting Mozart, Schubert and Bach in a single stroke?

Retarded
Good thing Bach is the only works imaginable within the wide umbrella that classical musicians perform.

Attached: 133B8A61-CC5F-40AD-B2D8-BFACE28112F5.jpg (768x1024, 148K)

>instrumental
Do you even listen to classical?

doesn't fit modern world.
"Classical" needs silence. There's really no place on earth right now where you can accomodate a bunch of people and have silence around you.

That's literally all on the beat. Can you read?

>Stravinsky and Bartok

Most classical fans hate them, but yes I do find their music more interesting than a lot common practice composers.

>And overall most syncopation is to be found in folk music, which is just about the genre people listen to the least.

Folk is more syncopated than classical, but neither really compare to rock, hip-hop, jazz or especially any type of Latin music.

The guy was asking about elitists. By listening to rap you are not as much of an eletist from the start (it's a good thing)

>There's really no place on earth right now where you can accomodate a bunch of people and have silence around you.
The concert hall, maybe your own home.

>Most classical fans hate them, but yes I do find their music more interesting than a lot common practice composers.
Most classical fans absolutely love Stravinsky and Bartok, wipe that from your mind. If you want another example, Brahms is a much beloved composer that also abused syncopations.

>Folk is more syncopated than classical, but neither really compare to rock, hip-hop, jazz or especially any type of Latin music.
Try, y'know, folk from South America. Or from West Africa. Or Southeast Asia. Remember there's many, many different cultures in those areas, the folk music of Argentina is very different from that of Southeast Brazil which is vastly different from that of Peru. Folk music isn't necessarily one dude strumming a guitar. I can maybe give you jazz.

Elitism is good when it tries to reach out and bring others to the same level.

>Most classical fans hate them, but yes I do find their music more interesting than a lot common practice composers.
They are popular on every classical music forum and the Le Sacre is usually extremely well received by concert goers

ironic considering the day of its premiere was received with a massive fight between the listeners

Because it's dropdead boring.

That's all I cared to post were a few pick-up notes and odd rests in different voices.
Here's something modern then shit head.
Notice where the accents are?
The melody is erratic in this piece, rarely falls on the beat.

Attached: 91BF22EB-F43D-4D9B-821C-1746923312A3.png (2479x3508, 45K)

rhythmic complexity mentioned

Attached: Ferneyhough.jpg (2450x3062, 1.12M)

>If you flip the thing on its head you'd have an incredibly classical elitist post, frankly.
This applies in the other direction as well. That's why so many here said classical was boring. Also
>incredibly classical elitist post
>elitist
Nobody is better or worse here. Nobody is smarter or cooler. It's just trying to understand why attitudes are different. I was actually thinking of people I know who don't listen to (much) classical when I was talking about taste not being absolute.

Also
I think that classical is further from rock, than rock is from pop or funk or soul or folk or blues and so on. That's why for a guy who likes rock it's easier to expand their taste inside this group rather than it is for someone who is into classical only. It's like two people learning a new language, but one already speaks a language from the same tree, the other doesn't. It would still be a challenge for both though
Classical comes (partly) from another era. I guess thanks to newer classical music classical fags could get into jazz not as harshly, I don't know. But mostly it is very different. You can hear classical influences often here and there but there is a lot going on apart from that.
And of course there are people who listened to both during childhood or did the jump and now can enjoy both classical and rock/rap/whatever. I'm just reasoning about those who didn't

I repeat: in no way are classical fags inferior. They just speak another language

>Remember there's many, many different cultures in those areas, the folk music of Argentina is very different from that of Southeast Brazil which is vastly different from that of Peru.

I hear what you're saying. I don't really like calling things folk, because it can mean so many types of music and people really use it as a short hand for european and american folk styles.

But yes west African drumming is a folk music and one of the most rhythmically intense types of music

By all accounts, the works of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern produced virulent reactions that at one point involved Mahler having to be restrained from engaging in a fistfight with a heckler.

I was going off the three "genres" - folk, commercial and erudite music.

Does that happen? And like genuenly, not because you want the people you are close to to be "better than other people" with you?

I've found that does happen, yes. It does require something of a two-way street; one side has to be willing to learn and the other has to be willing to teach.

cool

>lament the lack of attention spn in listeners
>composers can't even stick with an idea for more than 30 seconds

In the sense that it's less complex and more repetitive.
I don't care for complexity I care for what sounds good.

define "idea"

>>composers can't even stick with an idea for more than 30 seconds
The complete opposite is true, retard. Beethoven's 40-60 minute wanking is literally a whole dramatic structure growing out of a single little motive.

youtube.com/watch?v=lyemiiHXn-0
youtube.com/watch?v=4ufehp7gULA
youtube.com/watch?v=KLwwbCfT2OU
youtube.com/watch?v=36BF7A4M4o0
>user's such a pretentious fag he links Scriabin as a recommendation to someone who's not into classical at all
Nice job sucking his dick

And he's been dead for a while now.
Honestly OP, I think a lot of it has to do with novelty. People like what is new. Most of my friends think movies from the 90s are "old" and for the sole reason exclusively, need to be in the specific "mood" to watch them. For some reason the average person doesn't want to experience what isn't "in" right NOW, like they have to catch up to what's going on. Of course once they have experience something they can go back to it regardless of how old its become, but still they won't spend their time watching/reading/listening to something that already came out a long time ago while they have no guarantee that their friends will have experienced it too so they can't share or talk about it.
The modern classical composers, needless to say, don't particularly care for pleasing that general public. Latest opera I heard of (last year I think) was a 12 tone work based on some old black and white abstract film, for instance. Do you think the general public will want to watch that, even if it is new? And most of the classical music they WOULD enjoy isn't new, so it gets 'stuck' like that. It's almost like Paliophobia.
Like, said, get me a modern Beethoven who's 'in' and does that same type of music and they'd love him.

>classical sax scene has been booming since the 40s

There is so much more chamber work and solos being produced right now.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (600x600, 87K)

>A guy theoretically telling me how epic life is using extremely dated 19the century language.

It's about death stupid.

No, it's about God

Are you fucking stupid? Every classical fan in this thread is trying to convince people to start listening to it? How is that elitism? That's the opposite of elitism. Meanwhile all the pop fans are getting offended about the fact that they are not listening to something that many people deem to be fantastic and are attacking it as a self defense mechanism.

whoa based

It's more popular than ever.

Classical is probably enjoyed by more people than it ever has been if you take population increase into account.

Classical, chamber music was almost at the brink of death in the late 80's, but film music did a great deal to bring it back into popularity.

Ask any kid who listens to classical today and a majority of them will list Hans Zimmer, John Williams or video game music as a reason to why they started to listen to it in the first place.

And the Asians are crazy about classical.

Attached: 3e5.jpg (300x300, 31K)

>see thread
>expect comfy discussion and talking about music theory
>pretentious fucks trying to show off how much they know and revealing the opposite in the process
>modernfags vs classicfags engaging in inane "One of the two is better" arguments

S-So what is your favorite musical gimmick?
I like when pivot chords are used throghout, but without ever resulting in a full key change.

Attached: 1542285176381.jpg (1024x576, 57K)

Nope, about death and resurrection. No god is mentioned or specified.

hey, thank you for finding my insights well written enough to just copy and paste them-- I'm flattered.

I like it when cadences are teased but don't really come just to blue ball you

and what doctrine revolves around the concept of resurrection mate? Mahler was jewish/christian

>piece about Jesus getting murked to give his followers everlasting life
It's a two-sided coin user.

this desu

The melody bouncing around multiple instruments is always great.

ITT:
>REEEEEEEEEE LISTENNNNNN

>REEEEEEEEEE NUUUUUUUUU

Also an accurate description of all this board

>less than 800,000 samples
>only Norwegians and brits
Valid study right here

boomers killed it, like any art worth a damn

cough*immigration*cough

Attached: fdsfdfdf.jpg (1500x1009, 221K)

>Die Walkure
>Wagner in general
That's always a yes, my nigga.

>Die Walkuré
Is that a French version

niggas are too dumb to appreciate it

sure

It's a fine study.
The Flynn Effect is independent of g.

Unfortunate how nobody ITT wants to comment on based Gergiev in your photo and his toothpick, which I always found hilarious.

I like deceptive cadences that lead to a subtle minor section without and hard tension or resolution on it till suddenly there's tons of tension/dissonance being developed as voices move further apart. Triple forte, then silence, tension isn't resolved, the main theme plays quitely in the silence.

It’s valid for describing the state of Norway

A pseud who makes shit recordings

FUCK norway

you ever heard his Daphnis et Chloe with LSO
thats quality

His scriabin's recordings on LSO are absolute shit and I am hurtful because he had the best recordings of his symphonic poems with the kirov orchestra.

I mean yeah, looks like they’re getting pretty stupid over there

thats scriabin fault for being such a based maniac

So basically modernism? Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, the list goes on...

Scriabin has no fault of his works being interpreted badly

Polyrhythms, the more the merrier.

>Nice job sucking his dick
Thanks.

Attached: The man of my dreams.png (864x497, 590K)

Stravinsky Rite of Spring, sounds like could be a modern soundtrack. very bass heavy with interesting rhythms

youtube.com/watch?v=tmDEuFaoSC0

Attached: 1328550517984.jpg (335x360, 38K)

fair point, but non-syntesthetes can only interpret works made by syntesthetes so well

I don't like traditional orchestra stuff at all. Too sterile. I do like pic related, Phillip Glass and Claude Debussy. Bach's Fugue's are interesting, but not really something I find myself wanting to listen to. Am I a pleb? I don't care.

Attached: rev.jpg (225x225, 18K)

>Too sterile.
In what sense? To stiff and pompeous?

Sorry, what is "traditional orchestra" and how does Debussy not hit in there?

Klangfarbenmelodie are pretty great

No, just too refined. I don't find it stiff or pompous, but I do find it very (comparatively, on average) boring even when listening hard.

>what is "traditional orchestra"
You'll have to just "know what I mean" here. I'm not a classical expert, I'm just telling you what I like. I'm not a music historian either so get ready for some cringe but, in my experience, Debussy's time marked a shift in the sound on a macro level. I find myself more likely to like something if it was after Debussy than before.

I never listen to it either, so I’m in the same position as most of you. Owen Pallette mixes classical with electronic.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=AVLylgAu6T0

And the only full classical piece that I regularly listen to and go “this is god-tier.”
m.youtube.com/watch?v=EZecL3Fmqe8

Attached: 25E09701-2044-46B0-988F-74231149F0DC.jpg (1000x667, 424K)

also, perhaps worth noting I play piano (badly) and mostly only care to find neat piano pieces. I enjoy piano based classical a lot, or piano and violin, but find the majority of orchestra straight up enjoyable. It's not that I don't like brass or woodwind, as I enjoy them solo or when paired with a few other instruments.

I've never really thought about why I don't like orchestra so forgive my inarticulate responses.

interesting that string quartet, as an asiduous classical music listener thanks for sharing

im pretty into classical nowadays, its pretty much all i listen to, but im mostly into individual sub 15 minute piano and cello and operatic pieces and not full on symphonies and stuff. sometimes i feel like a pleb but then i remember how much joy its given me anyway, and no one listens to classical so i dont actually have to justify my taste to elitists irl

feels good man

>No, just too refined.
Well, I can see that point. Classical music, when held back is pretty dull. I always find that I enjoy the interpritations that pushes the musicians to the very limit of what they can perform to be the best, when they hold back to a more comfortable and "refined" level, most of it is a rather a dull afaire to listen to.

But that's why the likes of Karajan and Bernstein with his frenetic tempos are some of the more popular conductors since they pushed the orchestra harder than most.

All in all I really enjoy a lot of classical pieces, but I'm not enough of a theory nerd to be able to fully extract the structural joy from it. Hopefully a year from now, after learning more theory, I'll be able to derive more pleasure from it.

>Karajan and Bernstein
I'll check those out, thanks.

I don't listen to full works often, but I did gain an appreciation for opera by practicing and performing arrangements of arias. Have to listen to them a bunch in order to capture the spirit of the piece.
I can listen to them now.

What are you Karajan is plebeian don't mention him

youtube.com/watch?v=tf5fM1i3MGQ
youtube.com/watch?v=tmDEuFaoSC0

Attached: 1323302889879.jpg (658x652, 35K)

yeah there is another side to it, but the sweet side of classical music is more sensitive than the best pop

>but I'm not enough of a theory nerd to be able to fully extract the structural joy from it.
Well most people who enjoy classical doesnt. I have the most basic of understanding of music theory and there's still pieces that move me to tears or give me goosebumps. I am of the opinion that if knowledge of advanced music theory is a prerequisite for enjoyment of a particular piece, then it fails on a very fundamental level.

Some people enjoy that, more power to them.

Sometime you just need to listen to some pieces untill you find your eureka moment when it finally clicks.

the theory is honestly not that important to appreciation. what most people are missing these days is an understanding of classical form, sentence structure in particular. also classical forms are not as overtly repetitive as pop music, when a section comes back there is usually significant variation on the original. so a classical piece has a buildup that is much larger in scale than what pop listeners are used to. the central element of most common practice classical pieces is the melody, if you come away remembering that you are getting a lot of the point.

>its a Nancy Argenta singing bach episode
god damn that woman can sing

youtube.com/watch?v=bdSmqU81wjA

Attached: feelsgoodman.png (300x276, 17K)

But that music wasn't composed for that mass appeal in the capitalist world. It was a refined music for the nobility and the church

right but I was making this point because one guy claimed it is "fatiguing" to listen to

ah okay then

this fucking sucks. makes that billie eilish listenable

Bump

you fucking suck

Whoah. Based Nishimura quartet. That's pretty cool.