Give me some objective facts on why classical music is superior to all the other genres

imagine thinking some autistic masturbation is superior to the magic of popular music

Attached: 5e493fd13ce3fd9faea118458639552.png (394x304, 15.06K)

based granny

There are. Many.

>uses a garbage song as example
Kek based

cringe

Attached: unjustmalaise.jpg (600x600, 92.41K)

>le boring orchestral nonsense with shitty choral vocals that contain lyrics in latin about christianity
Wow so good, so deep

>b flat on guitar

Not only is it a shit song but it’s a nightmare to play

basically this, this doesn't mean other genres are bad just that classical people are maybe more authentic and dedicated

It's real music. Non-classical music is just noise.

Both types of music are 'just noise'.

>the people are dedicated
ok retards you still havent explained why THE MUSIC is objectively superior

Your favourite type of music is probably descended from it

youtu.be/EVPkfHD6b7E

harmonically and melodically it's super rich and complex, often. Pop music for instance tends to keep its melodies simple, catchy. Blues and rock favor raw personal attitude and emotions over complex harmonies.

but you can have the most harmonically and melodically rich music and it still be shit, so it doesn't say much in general.

but that's about the only objective thing.
your question is really silly, you understand that?

>thematically versatile, it's themes often being about concepts that transcend human affairs, unlike orher genres
>use and mastery of countermelodies and polyrythms: use of different melodies by various instruments to create a sound that sounds cohesively good is something extremely difficult to do
>full comprehension of the tonality of a considerable amount of instruments
>a composition is often separated in different sections to convey different feelings
>all of the things above need to feel captivating in an extensive amount of time

Oh, and the compositions are performed by very competent musicians that go through rigorous practice.

progressive rock

Imagine being this retarded.

>>progressive rock

Attached: soyking.jpg (909x1024, 59.94K)

>Prog Rock band
vocalist, lead guitar, rhythm guitar, bassist, drummer (maybe 2), keyboard, maybe one or two brass/ woodwind instrument

>Orchestra
3 violin desks, 2 viola desks, 2 cello desks (maybe 3), flutes, piccolos, basses, oboe, clarinet and bass clarinet, bassoon, trumpets, piano, tuba, percussion. Maybe even classical guitar, a harp or a pipe organ.

>its complex so its better
every time

Why would complexity make something inferior? That's nigger thinking.

>muh retarded reductionism
low iq post

Not only complex, aesthetically pleasing as well. And that combined equals better, yes.

Classical is also extremely diverse
Complex stuff like this:
youtu.be/HlXDJhLeShg
And simple stuff like this:
youtu.be/y1uvYdW8MSk
Share the genre

>being this retarded
it doesn't make it inferior, nor does it make it superior. complexity =/= quality
>aesthetically pleasing
subjective
>that combined equals better
please explain how something being complex makes it "better"
anyone can scribble a massive amount of different arbitrary notes on a music sheet and have it be an atrocious yet extremely complex mess--how is that better than a simple but well-crafted melodic pop song?

I say this as someone who has many classical pieces in their top 50.

>massive amount of different arbitrary notes on a music sheet
That's not what he said at all, you dunce. The music has to be complex and beautifully composed simultaneously.

>>aesthetically pleasing
>subjective
Nah.

Complexity gives more food for thought and more to chew on. You can only listen to a pop song a few times before you know the entire thing in and out, but it could take a good 50 listens to fully understand a single mahler movement. Some people like that
>different arbitrary notes on a music sheet and have it be an atrocious yet extremely
You JUST said aesthtic pleasure was subjective

>all other genres

with the exception of electronic music which can replicate classical instruments and everything under the sun with synths. so if you wanna know what genre is truly superior now you know.

if Beethoven or Mozart would have had access to synths and modern music editing technology then they wouldn't have done classical only but try a variety of style. classical has a special place among music styles though because it uses the most sophisticated instruments that have a rich history and have been refined through lots of trial and error and scientific testing to provide the sound the give off nowadays.

lmao you weak faggot

Electric lacks soul

Complexity easily leads to messy chaos if not done right. Classical music is the practice of controlled complexity, aka turning chaos into beauty. That’s what makes it objectively superior to all of the petty childish genres that came after it.

>with the exception of electronic music which can replicate classical instruments
Is that why it's only used for video game OSTs and 2-bar Two Steps From Hell-esque "le Epic music", and never for complex pieces?
Synth is like animation (opposed to live action). It's technically unlimited but extremely ineffective for certain things at the moment.

>with the exception of electronic music which can replicate classical instruments
I've yet to see that actually happen, especially something like rubato/classical rhythm.

Christ man. Go slam your head in a door, you might knock something loose and actually gain a few IQ points.

fpbp

there's no such thing as psychedelic ambient classical music so it's like comparing apples to oranges tqbf (to be quite frank)

except it does, tourist

if you're trying to obtain or satisfy a desire for an experience which cannot be found in classical music or vice-versa, then it's pointless to try to compare them

It isn't, and who cares? Just listen to what you like instead of being some insufferable psued.

>m-muh pseuds
Literally only tastelets and rap fans say this.

It is actually, you're all just plebs.

I’m not gonna argue the superiority of anything, but one thing that’s for certain is that the only people who dislike classical music are those who ONLY listen to pop, rock, and hiphop. I was the same way when I was in my teens and early 20s. I thought classical was boring and that I was enlightened for listening to “experimental” music like Animal Collective (lol). Most people grow out of that mindset by the time they’re adults, but most posters on this board are either still minors or stunted 20-something virgins living with their parents who think trap and indie are worth following.

it sounds better

Attached: schubert.jpg (300x300, 9.84K)

Trap and indie are better genres if you're more interested in lyrics, rythm, timbre/texture than melodic and harmonic complexity, which most people are.

>Trap
>if you're more interested in lyrics

Attached: HELLGODBABYDAMNNO.png (500x500, 157.93K)

Ok theorylet

Nice bait

>classical isn't good for rhythm
t. Only listened to mozart and beethoven
>classical isn't good for texture
Pfffffffffffffttttt oh nonononononononono

SO CALLED «CLASSICAL» MUSIC —MUSIC MADE, APPROXIMATELY, FROM THE LATTER THIRD OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY TO THE THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY— IS BORING, BECAUSE IT IS SOULLESS; THIS TYPE OF MUSIC IS SOULLESS BECAUSE IT WAS MADE BY SOULLESS INDIVIDUALS; THE ARTISTES OF THIS EPOCH WERE SOULLESS BECAUSE, EITHER: THEY WERE ILLUMINISTS, OR: THE ILLUMINISTIC MILIEU IN WHICH THEY LIVED HAD SUBCONSCIOUSLY AFFECTED THEM DETRIMENTALLY.

SO CALLED «CLASSICAL» MUSIC IS THE ABERRANT, ABOMINABLE, AND TEDIOUS, RESULT OF «THE ENLIGHTENMENT'S» ATTEMPT TO SET A NEW STYLE OF MUSIC IN CONCORD WITH SUPERRATIONALISTIC & ATHEISTIC STANDARDS, IN ANTITHESIS OF BAROQUE MUSIC, WHICH PRECEDED IT.

Attached: MXN MYFLD B.png (750x548, 519.95K)

I need some high test classical music. Ive been listening to philip glass by kronos quartet, music for 18 musicians and chopin, debussy, beethoven youtube shit and I like them all but feel like I need something stronger. Any suggestions?

youtube.com/watch?v=GfgBORsUhW4

Shostakovich

>classical is soulles--
youtu.be/CvFH_6DNRCY

youtu.be/6EJn43FEmjo

CLAUDE DEBUSSY’S MUSIC IS ROMANTIC, NOT «CLASSICAL»; IN MY PREVIOUS POST I STATE THE TIMESPAN COMPRISED BY THE SO CALLED «CLASSICAL» (ILLUMINISTIC) PERIOD.

>Debussy

Attached: reddit.png (487x677, 48.46K)

Go back to John Cage

>noooo classical is suppossed to be about complex harmonies and rhythms nooooooooo