EPTPeople need to listen to real music - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
| ||
|
I_Love_Bacon
United States5765 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:11 Jonoman92 wrote: I think you're missing their point. I mean, we can all agree that no form of art is better than another, it is up to the individual to decide. However, arguing that classical music may be a more developed and complex art form than Hannah Montana seems valid to me. (Though the whole idea of pop culture and how it drives popular music could be seen as an equally sophisticated idea from a sociologists point of view.) I mean the grand comparison was made already: classical music=sc:bw hannah montana=age of empires (sry AoE you're not really THAT bad) That said, we can still look down upon people who talk about their love of classical music too often as being snobs or posers. Ad hominem arguement that I have to note: Your user ID references bacon, a subject often reference by Homer Simpson. The other guy's ID that I can't spell but that I google defined is a chemical process, a subject discussed by smart scientist people. Therefore... well you know. My base argument has more to do with the fact that such judgments and discussion serve no real purpose (back to mental masturbation comments) other than to claim your opinion is superior to another's. The only thing, the only only only only only thing that should ultimately matter; is how enjoyable one's experience with the game/music/art/literature is. You can choose to put lesser value in that and instead focus your attention on what makes good art; but don't impose your views on others in any way. You can never dictate taste, regardless of how much you wrap it in reasons. It's hard to really get this particular point across, because when people put so much effort and time into debating semantics and philosophy, it becomes difficult to point out the irrelevancy of it all. If I mention how I'm working on my masters, does my love of Bacon still outweigh that? Damn pork products in all of their glory... Forever will I be doomed to mockery. | ||
|
TimmyMac
Canada499 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: No, not better as a work of art. Better as a...For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone. - impressionist landscape painting - piece of music by conservatory standards - etc And even then it's hard to say 'better' unless the difference is obvious | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On May 18 2010 17:09 TimmyMac wrote: No, not better as a work of art. Better as a... - impressionist landscape painting - piece of music by conservatory standards - etc And even then it's hard to say 'better' unless the difference is obvious Pretty much. | ||
|
yubee
United States3826 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: stop trying to say that classical music is better than popular music dude, it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you. i mean, if you compare it as being more sophisticated and a better work of art maybe, then maybe, but that doesn't make it betterFor the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone. i tend to agree with this.... then i open the kpop thread.... what the fuck people, what the fuck? | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 18 2010 22:20 yubee wrote: stop trying to say that classical music is better than popular music dude, it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you. i mean, if you compare it as being more sophisticated and a better work of art maybe, then maybe, but that doesn't make it better dude wtf you are basically agreeing with me | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
Terrible music is terrible if it doesnt fit with the genre it was classified as. | ||
|
Sharkified
Canada254 Posts
On May 17 2010 19:59 SoManyDeadLings wrote: I lol'ed hard in contempt and pity. Just because an old musician dies there's no need to put him on a pedestal. Rachmaninoff died too, yet people are free to express their dislike for his music. If 50 Cent were to die in place of Ronnie today, I'm sure people would mourn for him and act with much hostility towards anyone who says anything negative about "Candy Shop", but you and I both know what a pitiful joke this "artist" really is. I apologize for I am about to burst precious little bubbles, but only arrogant tone-deafs could so firmly believe others to be ignorant simply because they do not appreciate certain styles of "music". Popular music in general has very little musicality in terms of harmony, dynamics, tonal variations and other musical elements. Heavy Metal is a bit better in this regard, as there are a few semi-decent songs that are bearable because they have been written by classical-turned-metal musicians but nonetheless, the genre overall still fits into the popular music category and what I have said applies 99.99% of the time. This is coming from someone who holds his ARCT performers in Piano so my neutrality is naturally questioned, but I listen to just about every style of music and occasionally enjoy the catchy hit songs, but ultimately popular music offers almost no musicality whatsoever. Let's start with R.A.P. music, but since everyone already knows about the Retards Attempting Poetry, I rest my case. Then there's J-K-C pop. Sure they arouse certain emotions and are interesting due to the often catchy melodies, but this only applies to the first 30 seconds of the songs heard. Just try and tell me how the ladies in Brown Eyed Girls are great musicians. Exceptions are always present, and the exception here is selected songs by the Chinese artist Jay Chou (#1 Pop artist in China); again, he is a capable classical pianist / cellist and employs an impressive variety of instruments in his songs. Heavy metal, in general, puts a heavy emphasis on the speed of the music, mashes in a bunch of the simplest chords (the majority of power cords are merely just one interval, normally just the perfect fifth), employs hideously repetitive melodies and rhythms throughout entire songs and sings about the same and boring musical themes (often death, violence, and aggression). It frustrates me when a certain upbring instills so much damage on one's ability to appreciate real music that they are blind-sighted into a such distasteful genres. I'd like to throw in an analogy that a SC player could potentially empathize with. On TL you hear all the BW veterans crying about SC2 being dumbed down, while hordes of SC2 fanboys are there to lash out and defend Blizzard's new game. Why? If it's true that SC2 has been dumbed down so much, then why do people still enjoy it? Why would Blizzard implement the changes in the first place? The answer is simple; Blizzard chose to make SC2 more accessible to new players, sacrificing depth for increased revenue but in the end, people who never played BW would become accustomed to the SC2 mechanics and have a very hard time playing and enjoying BW. They would still enjoy SC2 immensely, however oblivious to all the map control concept, multitasking and sexy micro that defined BW. A similar story holds true for Popular Music vs. Classical Music. Sure Popular Music has been dumbed down immensely, but people who have never had proper musical training still enjoy popular songs despite being unaware of all the truly amazing aspects of Classical Music. The trend has only become worse and worse through time, with increasingly dumbed down songs gaining more and more popularity. To illustrate, the first search result on youtube for "Tik Tok" has a view count of over 20 million, in unfortunate comparison to the first hit for "Beethoven's 5th Symphony" which returns a meager result of under 1 million view count. Hell, there are more Tik Tok parodies on youtube than all the renditions of the 5th Symphony combined. Popular "Music" is no longer music, but rather carefully engineered sound waves designed solely to alter the listener's emotion by means of controversial themes and catchy but terribly repetitive melody/rhythm. Add flashy music videos, ridiculous stage choreography, and auto-tune for recent songs. I guess my point is that the vast majority of popular music will not stand the test of time. People still listen to classical music hundreds of years old, just as how dedicated BW players still play a 12-year old game simply because both aforementioned things are fucking amazing. Yet, out of my somewhat impressive friend circle, I know NO ONE that still listen to older metal music, but I do know a friend who deleted his entire K-pop collection because he was “tired of this shit”. Think people will still listen to Genie or Holy Diver 200 years from now on? It is a possibility, but one that I’m willing to bet my life against. “Leave me alone, I know my taste is shitty but it’s what I enjoy, so fuck off”. Quote the posts defending SC2 and half the posts in the K-pop discussion thread. Well, just as it would take time and effort to learn and properly appreciate BW, the same thing applies perfectly for Classical Music. I have to agree with the fact that Classical music is in general better than "Tik Tok", not better as in an opinion like everyone seems to think here, but better in the way that the composition is tons better, the musicality is also way better, and it's much deeper. However I think you are just lucky to get that spot on, because you are obviously a cocky delusional close-minded guy. You lost me when you started flaming rap, which is imo the most underrated good music (not 50 cents, real rap). | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On May 18 2010 16:20 phosphorylation wrote: For the love of god, for the last time: no art is "better" for everyone. However, some art IS objectively better as a work of art. But some people might not care about that, that's why it cannot be said it's "better" for everyone. Right, and I kept telling you how you're wrong, and you kept arguing nebulously and circuituously, oftentimes by revising what it is you said and/or bringing up shit completely and entirely unrelated to the conversation, until you presented what is the same ho-hum, simple argument that you presented on page like four. So, because you've proven yourself at the very least incapable of close reading, one last thing and I will avoid this topic permanently: "Some art IS objectively better as a work of art" presumes that "art" can be given a definite standard objective shape to which all other things may be compared. You are then making the tacit assumption that, say, a piece of baroque or romantic or classical composition from centuries ago may be compared to a pop song written a year ago usinfg the same rubric. You are comparing two pieces of music vastly different in their composition, in their uses (in their given times), in their audience, and in the materials available to these people. This method of criticism in practice is akin to the following: Dear 50 Cent, You suck because Scriabin wrote in the octotonic scales and because Mozart wrote Italian opera. Sincerely, phosphorylation or, alternately, Dear Alexander Scriabin, You suck because 50 Cent spits hot fire. Sincerely, phosphorylation You're comparing apples with dodos. When I said you argued nebulously, it's because you've left undefined what it is that makes "true" "artistic" form. By your criteria, I must say something meaningful and/or I can say something deceptive because it's ironic. Or I must produce something original and/or I can do something intentionally unoriginal in order to be ironic or engage in postmodern pastiche. Or I must produce something cohesive and/or I can be purposefully and intentionally self-interrupting and schizophrenic. Great theory. Really clears things up. In such a situation, there is no standard against which I may determine artistic value. All there is, instead, is the incredibly vague idea of what "art" is, looks like, and sounds like, coming from people who think there's no scholarly debate on Shakespeare, that there aren't accomplished musicians and composers who think Beethoven is uninspired tripe (like, I dunno, Karlheinz Stockhausen), who think there's no scholarly artistic discourse on pop music, and who should probably brush up on art theory and art itself - all art - from the last fifty to one-hundred years, if only to familiarize themselves with how the very form has changed, and how any concept of an objective standard has eroded and died. | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 19 2010 06:45 jon arbuckle wrote: When I said you argued nebulously, it's because you've left undefined what it is that makes "true" "artistic" form. By your criteria, I must say something meaningful and/or I can say something deceptive because it's ironic. Or I must produce something original and/or I can do something intentionally unoriginal in order to be ironic or engage in postmodern pastiche. Or I must produce something cohesive and/or I can be purposefully and intentionally self-interrupting and schizophrenic. Great theory. Really clears things up. In such a situation, there is no standard against which I may determine artistic value. All there is, instead, is the incredibly vague idea of what "art" is, looks like, and sounds like, coming from people who think there's no scholarly debate on Shakespeare, that there aren't accomplished musicians and composers who think Beethoven is uninspired tripe (like, I dunno, Karlheinz Stockhausen), who think there's no scholarly artistic discourse on pop music, and who should probably brush up on art theory and art itself - all art - from the last fifty to one-hundred years, if only to familiarize themselves with how the very form has changed, and how any concept of an objective standard has eroded and died. Clearly, we cannot compare the music of 50 cent to Beethoven in the most conventional rubric. Your example of Scriabin and 50 cents just refers to the standard parameters that I have repeatedly dismissed, all the way back to my first post in the thread. You are the one with utter lack of reading comprehension -- or, more likely, just incredible stubbornness and narrow-mindedness. Why can we, then, compare the artistry of music from composers of completely different backgrounds? Simple, because they are all artists -- they seek to express, and express well. I don't see what the problem is with the italicized portion. Admittedly the criteria fits some art better than other, but that's why I keep emphasizing that each portion of the criteria should be looked with great flexibility. And keep in mind, this is my own (probably imperfect) criteria; other thinkers would have come with similar but subtly different critieria to better fit the type of art that they encounter. The main point is that I am argue that it makes sense (because there is truth to it, ie art strives to achieve these ideals) to establish such measures to compare art, not directly for the criteria I have established. That was just an example. As for the bolded part, I am not sure if it's just me (I doubt it) but your syntax is ridiculously disorganized and unnecessarily convoluted. I have tried to decipher it but decided that it was not worth it after a minute. If my alleged incapability "of close reading is true", then it's due to your shoddy writing. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
| ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:15 JohannesH wrote: How does something being "better art" relate to the listening experience exactly? When something's good art by your definition how will it make me enjoy it more, compared to a less artsy song? I have made this poitn earlier but I wil say it again. It doesn't relate to listening experience directly. A good art piece won't necessarily make you enjoy it more. And, I think it's completely legitimate that some music doesn't try to be good art but rather just please the listener. That is one goal for certain types of music -- to please the ears. Most dance music/pop music fall under this category. And there is no problem with that; there is no reason to rob music of this important role. However, often, "better art" does sound beautiful. This is no coincidence; beauty and sublime human experience often was the subject of its expression. Here is a new point: sometimes, even creators of good art (take mozart and beethoven) tried to achieve both goals of music -- to be good art and to sound good -- at once. And they certainly did. Sometimes though, especially in modern classical music, beauty is not what the art strives to express. In addition, more and more, classical composers --- arguably necessarily -- start to ignore the "sounding good" goal of music (unlike Beethoven and Mozart), and instead focus completely on communicating some message. This can be attributed to the history of classical tradition, changing social climate, the modern society etc. That is why the listener will not necessarily enjoy casually listening to most modern music (But I do anyways) | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
I would think there's something to it for you so I must ask again; what makes good art worth listening? You say that modern classical often ignores the "sounding good" goal, then say that it sounds good to you... Is that all to it, music that sounds good to you Of course one can enjoy the listening session too without the song being "pleasing to the ear" per se... Like listening to Whitehouse feels more like hurting your ears but it's a powerful experience that can be interesting once in a while - it makes you feel something even if it's not only a positive feeling, exploring that in a safe environment can be a good "mental masturbation" or whatever you wanna call it | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 19 2010 08:21 JohannesH wrote: Hahah so you gave no reason one should prefer art over less artistic music? I would think there's something to it for you so I must ask again; what makes good art worth listening? You say that modern classical often ignores the "sounding good" goal, then say that it sounds good to you... Is that all to it, music that sounds good to you Of course one can enjoy the listening session too without the song being "pleasing to the ear" per se... Like listening to Whitehouse feels more like hurting your ears but it's a powerful experience that can be interesting once in a while - it makes you feel something even if it's not only a positive feeling, exploring that in a safe environment can be a good "mental masturbation" or whatever you wanna call it You are asking for a different issue. I have my reasons but that's for a different topic. And don't put words into my mouth; I never said modern classical "sounds good" to me. I said I like listening to it; there is a distinction. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
Music being artful doesn't make it more enjoyable to listen There is nevertheless still some reason to listen to music for the sake of its artfulness Modern classical music does not sound good but its good art You enjoy listening to modern classical music I hope I got this right... | ||
|
Amnesia
United States3818 Posts
I admit I don't listen to Ronne Dio or his type of music but really, you don't say that it's shit just because you think it is. Opinion =/= Fact Get that straight... | ||
|
phosphorylation
United States2935 Posts
On May 19 2010 08:44 JohannesH wrote: Hmm, Music being artful doesn't make it more enjoyable to listen There is nevertheless still some reason to listen to music for the sake of its artfulness Modern classical music does not sound good but its good art You enjoy listening to modern classical music I hope I got this right... This is mostly correct. I guess adding this to the last part would make it more accurate. "You enjoy studying and listening to modern classic music." Because without learning about it first, it usually won't be enjoyable in any sense of the word. | ||
|
Nal_rAwr
United States2611 Posts
+ Show Spoiler [original] + the comments all say that the fray's cover is 100x better. is it really THAT MUCH better? seriously, i'm posting this because i cant comprehend how people can actually like that cover that many more times than kanye's i think the comments and people who like the fray's are either 1. racist against blacks 2. biased against the mainstream rap style (that kanye isn't really a part of) 3. favoring a white rock group 4. hating on kanye for his ego i think the people are just releasing some of their kanye-hate in those comments, and as a result are really biased seriously the fray sounds like a depressed shit in that cover wow... | ||
| ||
