This is why vidya is a superior artform to music

all art is shit and should be destroyed
go back to cave paintings

So your tellin me that Lego Jurassic Park is a work of art but To Pimp A Butterfly isn't?

Attached: huh.png (108x162, 43.92K)

You just had to choose To Pimp a Butterfly didn't you?

that shit is horrible

That's why I said what I said

Oh

No shit

Games are just a culmination of multiple art forms. That doesn't make them superior to their parts. Try replaying a game 100 times

It does make them superior though

music is an elemental form of art dingus, you need it to create other art, and thus its art itself too.
that being said.
games before 2007 maybe were art, but games nowadays, are just products to the masses to buy.

>reddit spacing
not reading that

We get it, you didn't actually read the post.

Based

Pro-tip for ESLfags and Americans: the plural of medium is media.

HAHAHAHAHAHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Attached: 1508232419705.jpg (324x291, 28.31K)

>Music isn't important, it's secondary.
youtube.com/watch?v=zIVpbS18oJQ
Hmmmmm.

youtube.com/watch?v=w-KGWBDNoFo
>secondary

It doesn't though. Games and movies age music doesn't. Music and drawings/paintings are a pure form of expression. Games are an attempt to blend fundamental art forms together. Does that make them art? Yes. Does that make them somehow better than their components? No.

i didn't read OP, but music is THE most abstract art as the vast majority of people cannot see music

>music doesn't age
Don't mind me lads, just popping down the club to do some speed and rave to Liszt.
You dumb cunt music ages in style, composition, timbre and recording quality what the fuck are you on about.

Well, I did, and I can say with certainty that autistic hands typed that screencap's post.

Yes.jpg

Just because it doesn't fit your taste doesn't mean it ages. Listen to Tchaikovsky's work or Dvorak. Even today we have people imitating great composers from centuries past failing to live up to their genius. Beethoven's work holds up just as good today as it did centuries ago you absolute mongoloid. In 100 years Minecraft/RDR2/(insert any modern game here) will be regarded as we view pong today

Not user, but why does it only apply to music and not videogames or music? Sounds like you're just arbitrarily disregarding them both.

Code ages, technology evolves. The medium relies on a rapidly evolving platform. In 10 years the things games will be able to do will overshadow any modern gaming achievements. Musical scores are eternal. Melodies are eternal. They are simply tones that can be used to convey what we call music. It's a fundamental art form. Instruments may evolve, theory may change, cultural taste may shift but ultimately old music remains unchanged from its original scores. It can forever be reproduced with whatever modern instrumentation may exist in a given period. God discussing "art" feels so fucking pretentious

>things I like are are but things I dislike aren't
Very arbitrary. Were companies not making profit from games prior to 2007 or something?

Cool point

But with that logic art is also on the same level of music, it's there to enhance another situation. Like if you go to a club, park, or play videogames or whatever then the better it looks the better the atmosphere becomes and the better you will feel. Hard to explain but shouldn't art be in the same category as music with this logic?

What is Yas Forums's favourite album?

all you're going to get is nu-Yas Forums albums and OST's. it's pathetic.

tie between these two, the two greatest albums ever made

youtube.com/watch?v=qttI6oytqpw
youtube.com/watch?v=C2-hvlsDhMY

Attached: blue oyster cult sigh.png (600x300, 361.33K)

98.12.28 Otokotachi no Wakare

youtu.be/uhlUbikVqB8

I like Poets of the Fall's Ultraviolet and Streetlight Manifesto's Keasbey Nights.

How about i offer this very nice opinion:
Both music and vidya are art. If a banana taped to a wall can be called art, then so can everything else. The thing is, the word "art" doesn't even mean anything anymore, since it's such a broad, vague term.

Attached: 1585951983109.jpg (998x1200, 141.77K)

Music can be very important in evoking emotions from the player. It's been shown that sound is a great way of bringing back memories. If you listen to a certain song while doing something, when you listen back to that song the memories of what you were doing when you listened to that song will come flooding back. You can see examples of people who break down into tears when they listen to the song that played during their wedding to their dead spouse.

However most "music enthusiasts" are pure cringe, modern bands/singers just use the same base template and copy from each other. There's no creativity left in the industry. Then, of course, you have the lyrics which are even more creatively bankrupt.

Didn't mean to quote

I would define art as anything that a human puts effort into creating that is intended to appeal to one or more of our five major senses. Obviously this makes almost everything man made art which I would argue is the case. The argument isn't typically whether something "is" art but rather if it's shit or "good" art

Music has fallen to the wayside because making it is difficult and making money off it is barely possible even though it's still very difficult. Truly amazing music exists but no one gives a shit and being too retarded to listen to an entire album is their problem, not mine.

Art is supposed to be subjective though, so you can't really have "good" or "bad" art.

programming is easy to understand and learn the basics of while music is fucking incomprehensible, though.
i've never seen a music tutorial that didn't look like the ramblings of a french philosopher, despite the fact the UI of a piano roll or mario paint look like you should just be able to remember some patterns, click down the notes and fucking go.

music can carry an average game, but above-average gameplay won't make up for the damage done by a shit soundtrack.

Yeah that was kind of the point I was trying to make. Whether or not it is good is subjective. But subjectivity breeds debate so my point still stands

Mine

Attached: Tom_Waits_-_Closing_Time.jpg (300x300, 25.62K)

I was about to say this has to be the most retarded thing I've seen on this board, but then realized you actually went out of your way to screencap that, so yeah

>music doesn't deserve effort put into it
go to Yas Forums retard

I'd argue that it simply has to be something you made that you put your heart into. The fence you put up isn't art, and if you're some corporate plug that doesn't write anything then your music isn't art either.

There are literal historical periods of music. How could baroque move into classical if music doesn't age?

See:
We like to categorize things. That doesn't "age" them. Maybe we're just disagreeing on what aging means but I make my position clear in the linked post

There was a big fuss recently about how loads of Beethoven concertos had been mistranslated from his unique notation used in his original copies. Interpretation of old scores is fucking hard, hence the divide between purists who attempt to play it how it is written and historians who try to play it in the accepted fashion of the time.
It's besides the point though, two popular music pieces from 1500 will sound similar compared to two pieces from 1920, so there is a time dependence on musical style so music ages

Outlandish rightful opinion. I often think of what goes together with music. I try to tie music with ideas, characters and actions. Indeed without our chemicals making us feel, music would simply be noise.
Music helps us trigger our brain chemicals more directly.
This is playful, dreamy, overly disgustingly bright/positive/cutesy
youtube.com/watch?v=JEjV-DywL_8
youtube.com/watch?v=71tnG6nU9eI

This is bright as fuck and victorious
youtube.com/watch?v=qFEWBm_3yK8
This sounds serious/dark and preparing for something
youtube.com/watch?v=po1Hy4BXLIo
youtube.com/watch?v=INaM813ohL8
This again sounds dreamy/relaxing, but less cutesy/bright/
youtube.com/watch?v=206A_9Km6Uk
Bells, xylophones, metallophones, harps, lyres for baby music
Violins, double bass, cellos for cold yet elegant music
Pianos for true cold depressing music like jazz.
Trumpets for victorious tunes.

The interesting ones are when they combine genres, feels, themes together
Jazz, classical,
youtube.com/watch?v=206A_9Km6Uk
youtube.com/watch?v=tAeSOpwZsGg
youtube.com/watch?v=Ttqnz-xnwWM

But the most truly interesting ones are when unique serotonin and oxytocin chemicals get triggered and create some rare feelings; empowerment melancholy, relaxing freedom. These feelings are related more to atmospheric music rather than full blown songs.

>born in the wrong generation :^(

Not him but I did

I see what you're saying and obviously it's difficult to perfectly notate a musical performance so that in 10 generations someone can perform it exactly as it was played. But theoretically if score preservation was perfect music wouldn't age. When you strip back a song to it's bare components it doesn't matter the timbre of the instrument you play it on. It's just a series of frequencies. You can whistle it, play it on a piano, guitar, flute, violin, lute, whatever. It's fundamentally the same song. That's the point I was trying to make. That musical style may change, instrumentation may change, but ultimately music is fundamentally the same no matter how many years pass. A melody played on a modern synthesizer is no different than the same melody on a viola. A game is defined by the time it was released both graphically and in feature set. Music is not bound in that way