ITT: Prove that classical is OBJECTIVELY the best/most patrician music...

ITT: Prove that classical is OBJECTIVELY the best/most patrician music. Prove in an objective way that it has more value than all other music.

Protip: you can't.

Attached: 114461-004-55247C77.jpg (231x300, 8K)

Other urls found in this thread:

discogs.com/Igor-Stravinsky-Columbia-Symphony-Orchestra-Stravinsky-Conducts-Stravinsky-The-Firebird/master/274663)
youtube.com/watch?v=xUHQ2ybTejU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Good thread. 10/10

It's objectively the most patrician because there have been scientific researches done where they've found out that the most intelligent people listen to instrumental music which also includes a vast world of (instrumental) classical music. And because patrician equals rich class which means people with an education and thus a higher intelligence, I conclude that it is one of the most patrician musics.

As for value? That's something we prescribe, I guess... well that's something you cannot objectively prove or measure, so I can't do that.
It is however objectively the most intricate and musically progressive music to exist; to prove that, all you need to do an analysis of a piece and look at all the parameters and contextualise; it's important when that piece was created and to consider the aesthetics and philosophy of that period.

Some classical is good, but not all. The Beatles were more consistent than any classical composer. (Except my man Stravinsky)

Not more than Grieg, or Mahler, or Liszt, just to name a few.
On another note, Beatles fucking suck ass

>The Beatles were more consistent than any classical composer
lol

They are. Classical composers tended to write a shitload of compositions. Most of them are crap but classicalheads worship anything classical (while simultaneously being too fussy over the recording) just because it's classical. Whereas, every Beatles album is great.

Tourist

>They are
Prove it.
>Classical composers tended to write a shitload of compositions. Most of them are crap
Yes and so did The Beatles. There's a lot of shite especially on the White Album and the earlier records.
>classicalheads worship anything classical (while simultaneously being too fussy over the recording) just because it's classical
You're legitimately mistaken, (we) classicalfags are some of the more picky music listeners and we have strong preferences even in the canon.
>Whereas, every Beatles album is great.
Extremely debatable. Maybe take off your le 60 psychedelic pop music tinted glasses first.

>Most of them are crap
Most of you is crap

The Beatles have a handful of crappy half-hearted early covers and Ringo songs and that's about it. Classical composers have hours of material that isn't worth listening to. Of course Bach's, Greig's, Mahler's, and Liszt's best material is better than anything The Beatles have ever done.

>classicalheads worship anything classical
>every Beatles album is great
the irony

Attached: batman_greenarrow_robin_laughing.gif (500x372, 391K)

>Prove
>is
>OBJECTIVELY
first solve metaphysics and epistemology so I can have a clue what any of that means

you're being pedantic on purpose and you know it

This post summarizes Yea Forums

what does it mean to know something?

you make me ashamed to like stravinsky

Because, as I already said, The Beatles were more consistent than any classical composer except Stravinsky. Every Stravinsky album out there is great too.

But, yes, classical heads worship anything classical. (As in the compositions - they seem to all think they can play them better than the musicians and conduct better than the conductor) Pop music heads don't worship everything pop. The Beatles are not a genre to themselves, you know.

>Classical composers have hours of material that isn't worth listening to
Maybe to low IQ nimrods like you.

People like you feel like they have to like everything classical because they are insecure about their own intelligence. Every relatively well known classical composer is portrayed as an intellectual genius and because of that, people have problems admitting that any great prolific composer (with prolific meaning roughly a thousand compositions - much more than the Lennon-McCartney catalogue) is guaranteed to write a lot of mediocrity. You don't want to look like a dummy. It's like how people can never admit to being bad at driving and sex.

>Stravinsky album
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I know it feels wrong saying it.
Stravinsky works that are long enough to fill an LP.
For example this (discogs.com/Igor-Stravinsky-Columbia-Symphony-Orchestra-Stravinsky-Conducts-Stravinsky-The-Firebird/master/274663) is an official Stravinsky album, like it or not.

Quite a lot of assumptions for a low IQ nimrod right there

Pop musicians go to shit once they hit age 30-40 when their sex appeal wears off, whereas classical composers only get better with age and their music ages like wine. Try again, Beatlesfag.

>official Stravinsky album
Kek

youtube.com/watch?v=xUHQ2ybTejU
checkmate athiests

I know you think that listening to classical music makes you smarter. (It doesn't btw) The real intellectuals listen to all genres (except rap) and can determine what is or isn't top shelf material.
>inb4 calling me a low IQ nimrod (again) for saying that not everything from an entire genre is good
>inb4 saying that classical is not one genre. Classicalheads are so much like metalheads. (Although metalheads are arguably worse since metal is just a subgenre of rock)

Quite a lot of assumptions for a low IQ nimrod right there

lol u nimrod, we know listening to classical doesn't make you smarter
smarter people listen to classical. It's an exclusive club with a high entry requirement (that you don't meet), it's not brain steroids you pusillanimous jellyfish.

Gregorian chants, baroque operas and expressionist piano sonatas are one and the same genre

Attached: 1479275941766.png (230x328, 11K)

>The real intellectuals listen to all genres (except rap)
peak pseud

It is.
Written by Stravinsky.
Conducted by Stravinsky.
Performance is over 25 minutes long (anything under that length is an EP)
It's an album from the artist that wrote it.

Plus, this particular version was the first time the original, complete ballet was available on record for the masses. Yes, it wasn't an album when it debuted in 1910, but it became one when it was decided to be recorded. Just like anything over 24 minutes that's not a selection of unrelated compositions.
Dad Rock I know, but the Dark Side of the Moon was not originally an album either. Much like The Firebird, it was a live performance piece that later became one. (Of course, if Pink Floyd were to record one of those performances, it would also be an album. As live albums are albums too.)

They are. Jazz is classical too.
It's just like how Goth Rock, Progressive Rock and Soft Rock are the same genre.
There's only really three genres of music: Classical, Rock and Electronic and everything can be put into those categories.

t. peak wigger

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

>smarter people listen to classical. It's an exclusive club with a high entry requirement

Yeah, no.
Smart people can think for themselves, as they are not NPCs. Not all of them listen to classical.

>People like you feel like they have to like everything classical...
>like
So this is a matter of subjective taste? I don't like opera, the same way I don't like cake with cream. That is not to say either is bad.

After listening to some sub-genre of pop music long enough, it starts to sound generic, the lyrics are mostly dull, and so you need to find some new type of music, for most people a new pop-niche substitute identity. When listening to classical, eventually you will go tired of the most melodic compositions and start enjoying what you are now most likely referring to as mediocre, that is to say it is not "catchy", something to play over and over and over and over and over and over on the radio.

This post gave me odd pictures in my head. Bach will never be the same.

>He thinks "Smarter people listen to classical" = "All smart people listen to classical"

Attached: Yikes! Stay Tuned.jpg (475x375, 32K)

>there have been scientific researches done where they've found out that the most intelligent people listen to instrumental music
The sample was 400 Croatian students

It has the most theory wankery but that doesn't actually make it objectively better

and what makes smart/rich people's opinions more objectively than the rest?

Old musicians might be more technically skilled but they don't have as much soul.

>plebs like Shitvinsky
Every time

They don't have to cope by saying "everyone's opinion matters" because they aren't poor

Beethoven's old cranky ass had more soul than any pop musician.

Dumb people listen to classical too, you know

Holy shit lmao