Anyone else fucking hate music?

anyone else fucking hate music?
sick of people talking about it like the pinnacle of art. No piece of music has ever stuck with me like a good painting or book or even film. If it is ephemeral, what is the point?
No point. It's all shit. It's dancing and sex addiction and delusion. It's a lizard brain dopamine feedback loop drug. Musicians are addicts and peddlers of opioids that close the mind to higher thought while feigning the opposite.
Fuck music.

Attached: 1579575542001.jpg (700x319, 71.88K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/cA9AXvD09CM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>It's still only march
>Some has already posted bait-of-the-year
Pack it up lads, I'll see you all January 2021

Attached: 1583555658627.png (500x558, 505.56K)

i personally hate cinema. what is the deeeeal with cinema? "oooohh i had sex with your friend, jessica last night, so sorry my dear..." "ohh noooo timothy how could youuu!" and im like "what?". what the hell? this is pointless! really weak art if you ask me lol

yeah, and movies are a superset of music since a movie is music + visuals so think about what that says about music alone?
absolute trash.

y u so mad tho?

Attached: y.png (467x541, 461.18K)

That's because you're a soulless insectoid who consumes art instead of analyzing and understanding it.

I try to analyze music, but music fags always tell me to do the opposite. I sincerely want to like the music, but the more I learn the more it becomes clear that it's just math with a cult of personality and the more I grow to hate it.

don't be mean
anger is not the way y'all
...unless we will just treat this place as a place to vent and not to lead worthy discussion... which is fine by me, i guess it will improve some lives worldwide
let's all get our frustration out, think of it as of a therapy
peace

there was no music in my movies though!

dogme 95 is real art, you're right
I've gotten more out of any given Kiarostami movie than out of the sum total of songs in my entire life
except maybe No Diggity because that's the song I lost my virginity to

thats because your question does not make a lot of sense. you essentially ask what the deeper meaning (what is "under the covers") of music is, which is a way of asking what the purpose of music is but will not accept emotional impact of music as an answer. you therefore imply that other forms of art (cinema, paintings, poetry) do have a purpose and a deeper layer. now what do you think the purpose of these forms of art is? what do you think the purpose of art is at all? answering that might get you a little closer to the truth.

Stop listening to faggots. Like all forms of art, music must be reflected upon. It's true that the essence of art is immaterial but we use material instruments (and that includes systems of ideas such as theory) in order to understand it. This is especially true of music since it's a much more abstract art form. Just like you learn literary theory in school to understand a novel, you need to know at least the basics of music theory to properly understand a composition. But you shouldn't fall into the trap that theoryfags do, or you'll only be able to see music as "math". The artist uses theory to express emotion because emotion in its purest, rawest state is too abstract to be properly expressed or understood by others.

>will not accept emotional impact of music as an answer
It is the difference between emotion tied together with humanity, purpose and questioning (ie The Scream < Guernica) and emotion as the pursuit in itself. Because I am able to control my emotions and don't let hate linger longer than it needs to, music doesn't stick with me? This boils down to "you just don't get it" which is always a lousy excuse. I am driven to tears by the memory of watching a loved one die. I am made happy by the thought of intimacy. I am angered by the injustices I find in the world. Why should music be off limits to me?

You’re stupid.

>The artist uses theory to express emotion because emotion in its purest, rawest state is too abstract to be properly expressed or understood by others.
Anything an infant can be born with intuition for and excel at as soon as they have the necessary motor skills is derived directly from and destined exclusively for the lower brain that drives the need for food and sex. Is that worthwhile? Why should we be concerned with our instincts? On the other hand, are the small nuts of problem solving that pleasingly stroke the higher brain any more worthwhile? Is it simply a balance of forces, the music pleasing our monkey brain and the puzzle solving pleasing our computer brain? Does minimalism appeal to me because it’s reducible to the problem of optimization of expression?

If your body naturally produces something and your active brain is not wholly responsible for its creation, can you really call it yours? If you could wrap up a dream and show it to other people, would you put your signature on it? Does the line of authenticity get drawn between the active brain and the passive brain over control of the creative flow? An active brain is an imitator, which consumes and plans and regititates in a methodical, formulaic way indicative of the problem solving behaviors our brain naturally leans towards. A passive brain consumes and boils and explodes out of emotion and passion.
you're stupid

Are we still talking about music here?

I was challenged to inspect my conceptions about art in general and still think music is a lesser art form, even if I'm a bugman who engages in the same dopamine cycle with intellectualism

>It is the difference between emotion tied together with humanity, purpose and questioning (ie The Scream < Guernica) and emotion as the pursuit in itself
that brings forth two more questions: why do you think emotions stemming from music have no ties to humanity and purpose, and why do you see emotions as a pursuit in itself as a lesser form?

>why do you see emotions as a pursuit in itself as a lesser form
because the distinct quality of mankind is the ability to rise above animal desire

but the rise itself is based fundamentally on exploration of our primal instincts. you cant rise above something if you dont know what youre rising above.

Is human emotion just an 'animal desire' to you?

yeah, and that's what travel and experience and interpersonal relationships are for. Art is for reflection and contemplation.

devoid of the context given to it by other art forms, yes

if you genuinely want an answer, the emotion of art is from the meeting of ourselves with it; the value is in the in between of us and the music.
it's not just inside art and it's not just inside us. so when you ask, "is it pure emotion or technical?", the question is wrong. what you should be asking about is, "how, where and why do these things intersect?" but this is such a contextual question that there's no final answer.

what makes life good is that the ground moves from underneath you. that's what makes music good too.
anyone talking about the nature of music of the nature of man can be ignored. fuck off plato.

this thread is gay

Attached: 1582230422874.jpg (997x997, 102.31K)

What's the difference between emotion in the context of music and emotion in the context of any other art form?

art CAN be for reflection and contemplation but is not just for it. art can explore primal desires in ways travel and relationships cant. because of the limitless potential evolutionary value of a single eureka moment you cant really propose a scale with which to measure worth of one type of art in relation to others, as long as the art form offers something unique.
its actually pretty cool, i might not agree but its food for thought

>"how, where and why do these things intersect?"
hmmmmmmm
would you get the same experience listening to The Planets if you didn't know it was called "The Planets"? Does context matter in music at all? If it does matter, that throws doubt on the purity of expression to me.

Attached: 1548351682333.jpg (2560x1440, 1.27M)

OP is actually right in some respects on this. Music has always been for conveying meanings rather than creating new ones. Hence why we put on certain music for weddings, or certain music for parties, or sad music to portray a sad scene, etc. You would never read a piece of literature in order to replicate a feeling; literature exists as a tool for the writer to create a meaning by aesthetic merit, yet music exists to aesthetically convey universal emotions. This only makes sense once you take into consideration that you can understand what someone is trying to convey to you if they walk you through it, as is in the case of a book, yet is not the case in music due to the fact that entirely individualistic music cannot connect to the listener because of its lack of universality.

Music is my favorite form of art but it should only be appreciated for how well it portrays a particular meaning that you connect with in an aesthetic matter. I only listen to music I agree with that is well crafted (Classical). If I did otherwise, it would be perverse.

>art CAN be for reflection and contemplation but is not just for it
what is some contemplative and reflective music? Does such a thing exist?

my favorite form of art is video games

I unironically think video games have an incredible potential as an art form, but that it may be impossible for a single person to enact enough authorial intent across each discipline necessary for an immersive game experience to elevate it above entertainment

>you would never read a piece of literature to replicate a feeling
there are lazy novels and good ones, just like how it is with music, just like how it is is with visual arts.
i don't know what you mean by well-crafted, but for me, it's about responding creatively within a dialogue-- 'playing' with convention. (because everybody is immersed in the 'schema' of music, novels, etc., but in a wider context, the schema of the bigger values, framings, 'the big Other'). and there are thousands, thousands, of novels which don't effectively play with convention, they only recreate it. this essentially comes down to replicating a feeling (genre, or the popular).

Yes, the title you give to a piece of art is part of it and can alter its meaning. Context matters in every art form. Would you get the same experience looking at Saturn Devouring His Son if it was called Shitting and Farting? Would someone familiar with the history of 19th century Russia get the same experience reading a Dostoevsky novel as someone who isn't?
>purity of expression
There's no such thing as purity of expression.

Imagine a video game by Scaruffi
>great story
>great music
>great cinematic

Scaruffi would make David Cage-tier shit

but then how do you explain Pepper No. 30

Attached: Weston-pepper30.jpg (216x272, 11.76K)

what album is this?

You were born will a lack of spirit

oh Yas Forums
where we come to have a serious discussion of "is music good?"

It's Syzgys

youtu.be/cA9AXvD09CM

>Context matters in every art form
so would you not say that an art form that is in itself its own context such as a piece of literature not more effective than an art form where the context must be supplied peripherally?
>Would someone familiar with the history of 19th century Russia get the same experience reading a Dostoevsky novel as someone who isn't?
Lack of knowledge doesn't preclude the empathetic understanding of a Dostoevskian character
more like "music is shit. Why?"

how can you claim literature supplies its own context?

???does the Iliad lose its tragic achilles if you've never been to Troy???

are you implying pepper no. 30 disproves that titles give context or that its a proof for existence of purity of expression? cause i dont think it makes a very good case for either

I don't think so either, but I also think there's a human understanding implicit in (some) art that doesn't rely on contextual clues and is beyond the scope of music

what the fuck are you talking about? the context is other poems, the associations of greece that modern day people have, of other tragedies ...

sounds like you just hate being alive
classical art only had to convey meaning because other media like TV wasn't invented yet

i dont think its beyond the scope of music, i think it can be very much present in music as well.
when i wrote art i meant art other than music. id have to agree that i dont think theres music thats inherently (as in, without the aid of any other art form) contemplative or reflective

>sounds like you just hate being alive
on the contrary, I think musicians hate being alive

>on the contrary, I think musicians hate being alive
id hope so, that usually yields good results for music

you can listen to something like taylor swift and interpret that?

I don't want to say that I'm a structuralist, but I think the link between art and suffering can be overcome. Refer back to >If you could wrap up a dream and show it to other people, would you put your signature on it?
I've seen arguments that argue against this in principle by invoking authenticity, but that's a matter of perspective.