Died at 35

As I said, it comes in a package... he was determined to live in the fast lane and die young from the beginning

One of

I think you mean Ian Curtis

If you were talking about a guy like Kurt Cobain then you would be correct. Mozart's death isn't similar to what you are describing.

>Most artists eventually hit the wall and run out of material
Only artists of popular music (which we can barely call "artists"), so no, this doesn't apply to classical artists.

Buddy Holly

He was already so ahead of all of his peers,I can't even imagine the GOAT material he was gonna put out.

Attached: jimi-hendrix-performing-in-1969.jpg (1800x1200, 736K)

Should have said "good" material. It doesn't matter if you are popular or not. Eventually you produce shit. Also, Mozart was popular music then so by your own definition.

>Eventually you produce shit.
Doesn't apply to classical artists. Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all died just after or while they were maing their best works. Stop listening to pop.

At least put in some effort when you troll. You owe it to yourself to put in some effort.

>Bach, Mozart and Beethoven did not die just after or while they were making their best works
>popular artist don't make their best work first and then run out of ideas
How is this trolling?

Dying young is pure poetry though

Attached: John_Keats_by_William_Hilton.jpg (1200x799, 93K)

he'd probably take too much drugs then phone it in for the rest of his life like ozzie did

Attached: 1557187264630.gif (171x172, 962K)

Attached: gira bw.jpg (805x805, 163K)

That's what destiny is.

no, he wasn't. learn theory

very funny

Popular music is a genre, not anything that's popular. Merzbow is popular music, for example.

Attached: 1411973790518.png (1600x1200, 130K)

but electronic music rendered this chart obsolete at least two decades ago

But it didn't? electronic music can be written with in a score (classical) and stored in a recording (popular)

yeah, as you said, "can," it can also be unwritten and still be art music, the score itself might be visual art but the music is the acoustic art regardless of a written component

>it can also be unwritten and still be art music
If it's unwritten its not art music.

>the score itself might be visual art but the music is the acoustic art regardless of a written component
You might as well say the same thing about non-electronic music. The score are the instructions on how to play the music, acoustic or electronic or otherwise.

This belief renders the phrase art music meaningless to me

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand what each concept means and how electronic classical music is written.

I guess im just not autistic enough to create / subscribe to charts like these. additionally many pieces of electronic art music are created without scores, or scores are retroactively applied

>I guess im just not autistic enough to create / subscribe to charts like these
yeah, academic consensus is bad lol

>additionally many pieces of electronic art music are created without scores, or scores are retroactively applied
[citation needed]

You're not wrong, academic consensus is sometimes restrictive, see someone like Debussy's philosophy on academia. And see Curtis Roads book Aesthetics of Electronic Music, he says he retroactively composed the scores to some pieces with a visual artist basically just for fun

>he says he retroactively composed the scores to some pieces with a visual artist basically just for fun
If the scores are accurate, then he's being a classical artist, regardless if this was done retroactively or not, so how again was I wrong in what I said before?

I wanted so say XXX to piss people off but someone already did it after 2 posts.

because if he never bothered to write them the music would therefore not be classical music according to this idea

Yes. Is there anything wrong with that?

Like I said, it renders the phrase art music meaningless to me, just my opinion

It's an unsubstantiated opinion though. Under that hypothetical scenario he wouldn't have been a classical artist, there isn't much denying here, and that doesn't make the categorization above any less accurate, especially considering the fact you are basing this on the work of a single artist who still falls under the guidelines of what art music is.

Ozzy never wrote anything really,I love him but he was always carried by those around him.

Attached: 11825667_1647487305488450_822817038340030395_n.jpg (512x384, 22K)

>no mentions of pic related

Attached: 885CF82B-29C1-42EF-94C7-BCD5A28E3A9C.jpg (1000x774, 161K)

"Unsubstantiated opinion" doesn't make sense, I can have the opinion that lil wayne is better than mozart without having to back it up with any quantitative or qualitative data, that's what an opinion is. The main point I am trying to make is that the chart fails to recognize both common dialectic implications (most people wouldn't consider Merzbow popular music just because he fits the charts description of pop / Curtis Roads pieces are not instantly made art just by the production of a score, they were always artful) and future trends in artistically potent "art music" (most likely electronic musicians will consider a score vestigial as electronic music progresses)

Attached: 650ACEE2-80AF-45DF-BCC7-2F310F6E4AC8.jpg (181x279, 13K)

Jaco

Opinions can be substantiated or not, just like how you can have informed and uninformed opinions, both are still opinions at the end of the day (one holds more weight than the other however).

>most people would
Irrelevant. Academic consensus is what matters here, and they have no problem with it, even if this makes the claim that Merzbow is popular music (which he is).

>they were always artful
"Artful" music =/= art music

>most likely electronic musicians will consider a score vestigial as electronic music progresses
That statement can be dismissed on the grounds of being pure conjecture.

Semantic nitpicking is wasting life, I concede to your wisdom mighty autist