Imagine unironically listening to some music other than classical music and thinking it's well written or that you have...

Name one classical work written for an electric instrument.

Aphex Twin - Drukqs

Take a break from posting, those goalposts must be pretty heavy

Classical music basically just means educated music aka what those who could read music tried creating detailed artworks
It spans centuries and is extremely varied

So you're claiming that "modern classical" isn't limited to what western europe was doing 200 years ago, except for being limited to the same structure, instrumentation, and tonal system?

>classical just means music by people who can read music
By your definition almost all progressive rock is classical. Is Fripp the greatest classical musician of our time?

Lots of composers have been writing for electro instruments since they were invented
Just Google Stockhausen

I said made high iq art works out of it

>western europe was doing 200 years ago, except for being limited to the same structure, instrumentation, and tonal system?

Just lol you dont seem to know what you're talking about, classical music is unparalleled in instrumentals, structure and tonality

what's your favorite Sorabji composition

oh okay, so it's literally just music you subjectively decide is "high IQ", and your entire argument eventually boils down to "classical is what I like and popular music is anything you like"

Learn theory brainlet

give me a definition of classical that is not subjective, includes stockhausen, and excludes fripp

I'll wait

Classical is just used an excuse for pretentious boring morons to act above others. It's a great genre but a lot of the fans have their heads way up their ass.

Look up classical music on google you retard

You watch cartoons nigga lol

Google gives this

>serious music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition.

Classical music is like great literature
Pop music is failed primary school essays

>classical music
>just play the same notes over and over again in a single key
>they all sound like movie scores

So we're back to "all classically trained progressive rock artists are actually classical composers".

>Classical is just used an excuse for pretentious boring morons to act above others
>It's a great genre
pick one

>"""serious""" (by definition, pretentious) music following principles that haven't changed in 200 years and excluding anything foreign or innovative
yeah we're back to here
thanks for proving me right

No that would be the equivalent of someone who learnt to read and write and writes TMZ scripts

i fucking hate classicalfags. they're the third worst group on this board, only behind toolfags and k-popfags.
prog is shit too

It's both.

>it's bad because it isn't classical
>why is that bad
>because classical is good
Are all classicucks religious? Because this is textbook religious argumentation.

Is this a joke? I seriously can't tell.

it was bait to set up "if stockhausen is classical why isn't fripp" and then from there deconstruct the definition of classical as ultimately a subjective opinion

just
[jəst]

ADJECTIVE
simply; only; no more than

and yet I say "classical music" and you know I'm not talking about Iggy Azalea

>modern classical
>limited to the same structure, instrumentation, and tonal system as 200 years ago
bro
look at this dude
uhju uhju wait till you see the f- uhhujuJUJUJUUU NO NO NO NO ohhhHOHOo ohh uhhuhhuhh EATJAHWQUIEHQWIUOHHHHHHAHAHAHAHA AAA LOOK AT THE TOP OF HIS HEAD HEEEEEEEE HAHAHAHAAA LOOK AT THOSE LIPS HASJHJDHWRUI

Attached: 1452295724654.jpg (533x388, 30K)

U dk what you're talking about classical music spans hundreds of years and explores all the elements of music

>explores all elements of music
>literally defined by what it isn't
this is autism and autism isn't an argument

If you're going to make the incredibly pseud-tier claim "only classical is good" and then can't give a firm definition of classical, what's the point of even arguing?

meme

Can you rigorously define ANY genre?

No, which is why it's incredibly autistic to claim anything but a certain genre is garbage.

>trying to have good tastes
oh yea? Do you have fantasies that some day people will recognize you for having liked a thing? Maybe you'll meet the girl of your dreams and impress her with your extensive knowledge about music that you learned from youtube videos and Yea Forums? Maybe everyone who thought you were retarded and pointless will suddenly kiss your feet now because you liked the most critically acclaimed album?

Maybe you're just a narcissist and that's why you want people to appreciate JUST the act of you liking or disliking something?

>this is autism, and autism isn't an argument
Ok, nigger, let me explain it to you:
contemporary classical music is not in anyway limited to 19th century strucutures, instrumentation and tonal system.
There was indeed, a period, from about 1600 to 1900, where music followed several conventions about instrumentation, tonality and form (and these changed all the time too). This period was called the common practice period and it ended about 100 years ago.
And about 90 years ago, Josef Matthias Hauer and Arnold Schoenberg each developed (indenpendently) systems of composing atonal music, that is, music without no tonal key.
Musique concrète has been a thing since the 1940s with Pierre Schaffer.
John Cage was messing with tape music in the 1950s.
Karlheinz Stockhausen was composing purely electronic music in the 1950s too.

Modern classical can be shit, boring, dissonant, but it is nothing close to stagnant. And you'd know that if you just took the time to google it.

Attached: 1567466628744.jpg (500x375, 26K)

if you aren't on Yea Forums to argue about what music is better why are you here

Before I was 15, I was into Handel and Tchaikovsky. And I liked that sort of thing. Some of Handel's stuff even had vocal parts! But there's only so much you can do with Classical. Music with lyrics has it over instrumentals in that lyrics make music ABOUT something, rather than simply a series of notes. Magically, a piece of music can be about war, a summer day, a girl, a car, or what have you. And sometimes, lyricists are true poets who make music rise to the level of ART. Bob Dylan. Paul Simon. Van Dyke Parks. Bernie Taupin. Another advantage of modern music over classical is that these songs are often about the world we live in. A composer from the 1700s or 1800s is going to find it challenging to relate his music to people living in 2019. Not that it MUST **BE** relateable, But it probably doesn't hurt if it is.

Another issue, too, is attention span. Popular music since 1950 has given us songs that generally fall between 2 and 6 minutes. Much shorter than the time-intensive classical composers wrote. Unlike folks back then, most of us don't have that much time to devote to taking in whole symphonies.

But whatever. I think there's room to enjoy classical *and* modern music.

Again, you cannot define "black metal," and yet you have an idea of what people are talking about when they say "black metal." A rigorous definition is irrelevant; "the music that people are referring to when they say "classical music" is the best music" is enough.

imagine thinking music has to have violins and clarinets as well as be produced in a 1700s and 1800s time period to be considered music

But now you're stretching the definition of "classical" to include literally any music with any form of academic intent or context. And when you do that, it loses all value entirely, because any music can be made that way. In fact, modern pop music is probably more scientifically rigorous (with focus groups, multiple composers, A/B testing) than any other type of music.

If you want to argue "all music made without academic intent is bad", then own up to that. Because it's easily disproved on it's face.

This literally contradicts the argument I previously responded to. Why can't classicucks keep coherent? Is music concrete classical because it's academic, or not classical because it doesn't bear even the most passing resemblance to anything the average person would call classical?

music with violins is better than music without violins regardless of the genre

ITT filthy pop listening peasants try to defend their wretched taste

>But now you're stretching the definition of "classical" to include literally any music with any form of academic intent or context.
no nigger, that IS the definition. you're the one thinking that classical = music from the classical period (1750-1820). But everyone knows that classical music = european art music.

So provide literally any justification that "art music is better".

Pieces are divided into movements which are usually 5-10 mins long

and there's plenty of popular music in the 10+ minitey range

James ferraro has some classical/electronic pieces, like burning prius and human story

i'm not saying art music is absolutely better. I () was just explaining () that you don't know shit about classical music if you think it is stagnant and restricted to 200-year old conventions and forms.
If the other retards in this thread want to say classical music is absolutely better than pop music then it's their job to provide a justification.
I'm just here to spread knowledge, man.

Attached: 1557698730310.jpg (515x497, 21K)

>i'm not saying art music is absolutely better
well that kinda defeats the whole argument because the reason I was pushing so hard on defining classical is because OP did indeed claim exactly that, and there's another user itt literally claiming the definition is "dude is SOUNDS classical"

BTFO'd fag

Attached: Opeth - Ghost Reveries.jpg (900x900, 182K)

>there's another user itt literally claiming the definition is "dude is SOUNDS classical"
that's how definition works for literally every genre of pop music, even prog or experimental genres.

Better harmony better melody better rhythm better instrumentation better counterpoint(If pop music even has counterpoint) better structure more intellectual more deep

Classical music is exploring all elements of music and becoming masterful at them

Theres a lot of programme music where the notes tell a story

I agree genres can't be defined firmly but as I said that means saying "anything but classical is shit" is retarded because you can't even say firmly what is and isn't classical

None of those traits are inherent and all of them are subjective. All you're doing is listing traits you like and saying "classical is better" without supporting your argument.

I'm here to argue about why it's stupid to want people to like your personal experience of a song that they gain nothing from, isn't that kind of obvious?

Does music truly need an academic ingredient to to be good? Is old folk music from the cultures around the world "bad", or just bad to your ears or other modern ears? Did the greeks make bad music, despite working on a 'shaky' foundation (for lack of a better word) compared to the canons of European classical music theory that came many centuries after?
Did the people from back then have "bad taste", or were they just not allowed to have "good taste" by being blocked by socioeconomical barriers that stopped them from truly accessing classical music?

If you were educated you would know why classical composers are far greater masters at these

Muh subjectivity no lol you can't say a pop song with a banal melody has the same melodic worth of a set of 20 variations
Or a song with a non changing 5 note bass line/riff is the same harmonic and counterpoint level of a Bach fugue

>you can't even say firmly what is and isn't classical
well, if you really want to, classical boils down to three things:
1. it's through-composed
2. it uses staff notation.
3. it's part of the written western tradition

Is 'good' music necessarily complex?

If a person listens to classical music on the regular, but they just 'feel' the music like the common listener does for their commoner music (because they aren't clasically trained) and doesn't go further than that, analyzing it, understanding how it works, does this person have good taste, the same as a trained composer and musician who understands the subtleties of the music on a far deeper level?

>you can't say a pop song with a banal melody has the same melodic worth of a set of 20 variations
"Melodic worth" is not a real concept in music theory, it's something you've just made up to point out that 20 variations has a larger number of melodies than one. Genius, though making up a stupid neologism wasn't required to say that 20 > 1.

Justify using the word "good" and maybe you'll get somewhere.

>Or a song with a non changing 5 note bass line/riff is the same harmonic and counterpoint level of a Bach fugue
I don't recall the OP saying that classical music has more counterpoint than other genres, as this is a totally uncontroversial statement. Rather, he is implying all non-classic is inferior music.

>that classical music has more counterpoint than other genres, as this is a totally uncontroversial statement.

Neither is it controversial to say classical music had better harmony, melody, Structure e.t.c basically all elements of music so therefore it is better music

>Melodic worth" is not a real concept in music theory
Yes it is thats the main point of theme and variations to thoroughly develop a melody

>Neither is it controversial to say classical music had better harmony, melody, Structure e.t.c basically all elements of music so therefore it is better music
No that is controversial. You're taking a leap from mathematical quantity to artistic quality. Try to actually explain this transition instead of just asserting it over and over.
>Yes it is thats the main point of theme and variations to thoroughly develop a melody
No, it is literally not. The only references I can even find to it on google are people informally talking about Ragas and something from a music blog. There is no concept in music theory that states "more notes, more counterpoint, more harmony = better" and even classical musicians would laugh at you for suggesting that. By your definition, the best music around is black MIDI, and it sounds like total shite.

Classical music is dang
youtu.be/RjivkJ0HwO4

Its not controversial to say Mozart was a better melodist than the Beatles JFL

>when you finally realize that all music and art is completely subjective and it’s impossible to objectively quantify its worth

>i-it's all subjective it's just opinion mang
the final cry of all plebs

I like to think EDM will eventually surpass classical music in terms of creativity

>tfw i'm all three

Attached: Lull-Shity.png (1013x912, 215K)

Bach is the shit

Based

Taste is subjective. I know youre going to say this isn't true, but "MY TASTE GOOD UR TASTE A SHIT" is caveman tier whinging. You're better than this.

electronic music will rule

Attached: 1485315152359.jpg (640x640, 26K)

I actually only listen to gregorian chant, you wouldn't get it

t. schlattfag

>thing I like is better than thing you like

Attached: IntroCalcforInfants.jpg (640x424, 53K)

Pierre Schaeffer literally created the first electronic music in his studio in Paris and it's called 4 etudes of noise or something like that, Stockhausen's electronic studied and Gesang der Jünglinge and others, Luciano Berio created a shitload, Olivier Messiaen used an electronic instrument in a symphony for the first time after WW2, Pierre Boulez, John Cage etc. there's a shitload of them.
Why don't you Google this shit before you ask questions?

Gregorian chants aren't for listening, but for religious meditation, you stupid hipster fuck.

it's Le Jardin Parfume for me lads
youtube.com/watch?v=HwANh7y4qCE

forgot my image

Attached: transcendental experience.jpg (1011x825, 553K)

Classical music is so beautiful
youtu.be/vGq3-Fi_zQY