Listen to rock and jazz

>JUST listening to what you like instead of constantly finding new music yes it's bad
And you base that on?
Quit talking from a post-20th Century perspective.

ofc
we are in the 21st century old man

Personally anything is fine so long as it’s completely instrumental, I’ve pretty much found out just how much songs compromise melody for language.

Of course, and I’m far from being old, but before all this technology came about listening to music wasn’t even done in anywhere near the same fashion as now. So they can listen to only what they like if they want, if they’re surface level listeners anyway then what’s the problem so long as it’s a personal affair? Not like they’re making music to begin with.
Prior to a certain point you only heard what was common in any area you were in, was it bad then?

>no musical elements at all
Intriguing you claim to have studied but have become more retarded

How is that a bad thing? Isn't it actually interesting that language and sound can work together like that?

Most rap is lowbrow and pointless, though that’s beside the point. You need to learn how to embrace the peaks of ameteurism and nonsense when they are perfectly antithetical to supposed “high art”; in the best situations it’s all high art; the artistic value of something is an absolute value, anything good can be bad and anything bad can be good

I just happen to prefer leaps to steps now. Much more interesting to play on an instrument (I know songs are meant to be sung primarily and playing the notes behind the lyrics makes no sense but that’s just one thing), and singing depends more on register than anything else in the end.
It’s why you can’t apply lyrics to materials like opening riffs or main note melodies.
It’s also sort of an easy way out in general, unless it’s choral where no words are necessarily being spoken.

>and folk music
Post examples

Oh, and that post goes for songs I do like as well. Currently I’m just into note detection by hearing so I’m not too keen on hearing numerous repetitions of one or two notes.

>durrr fuck listening to many things a lot and gaining a more intimate understanding I gotta fill up my scrobble list for social clout. Tell me about your favourite riffs/licks/progressions from the last 4/5 you listened to.

Lyrics are the most pleb aspect of music. Much like English, Dutch, Norwegian, etc, music is a language, with its vocabulary and grammar of riffs, licks, rhythmic patterns, time signatures, progressions, scales, etc. People are exposed to spoken word from infancy and therefore are capable of inately picking up on the meaning and emotional nuances of words. Understanding music actually requires going out of your way and putting in the effort to learn it, much like any language, in order to appreciate it. And lyricfags can't be bothered to do that. Which is why they'll only ever be able to pretend to be interested in music, but their superficial relatitonship to the art will always be obvious to any observer by their ability to make any observations outside the text.

Keep pretending you actually appreciate music as an artform. Nobody is buying it.

what are you talking about schizo? when did I imply you should only listen to shit once and move on? no fucking shit you need to come back to an album to understand it

are you the objectivityfag in the classical general?

>come to Yas Forums to discuss my musical findings and find high quality music
hahahahahahhahahahahajhajajajajajahajahhajsjshshshahhahahahahahahahaha bruh look at this dude

By now I've listened to so much music only experimental shit and noise can keep my interested. It's pretty bleak at this point. Never try to get there.

Attached: 1449552030822.png (661x716, 115.39K)

>are objectively superior
Prove it.

Are you a jazz-guitarist?

you are what i was like when i was 16 years old. i just started music then and i became like you.

Retard tier take. Different music is complex and interesting in different ways. Classical music may be among the most complex when it comes to horizontal harmony, but rap has easily the most technically complex lyrics (and second's not even close), some genres are more complex in terms of timbre, people debate endlessly over the most patrician type of music to listen to, but the truth is the only real patrician music choice is to discard genres entirely and listen to an incredibly broad and eclectic sample of music that is ever getting wider

prove it. Music is literally subjective you fucking retard

based as fuck

b&r

>not listening to both

>rap has easily the most technically complex lyrics (and second's not even close)
Gee let's listen to one of the most celebrated rap albums of all time then, shall we?

"I'm the type
To snap in heaven with a Mac-11 and rape Christ
And I'm fast to put a cap in a fag chest
The Big L's mad stressed, cause hell is my address
I'm on some satanic shit, strictly, little kids
Be wakin up cryin, yellin, "Mommy Big L is comin to get me!""

Ah yes, quite profound. Shut up retard.

samefag. He literally advocates for genre tourism in his post
>the truth is the only real patrician music choice is to discard genres entirely and listen to an incredibly broad and eclectic sample of music that is ever getting wider

Sorry, but the truth is that no great musician did this. Learn more about your favorite genre instead of using it as a way to farm dopamine release

>claims samefagging out of desperation
>completely unironically uses the term "genre tourism"
how to identify an autistic loser in two steps

Attached: fag.png (147x56, 4.87K)

>not knowing what the word technical means
>retarded

Checks out

I see your point about hip hop although one could argue aside from the placement of the syllables it's rather poetry than musical complexity.
>some genres are more complex in terms of timbre
which genres?

bump

The focus in hip-hop is mostly more on language than music. Music itself is heavily compromised.

>certain aspects of musical composition are objectively superior than others whether you like it or not
prove it

rapping is more than words.
its intonation, tone of voice, rhythm, cadence, delivery. all musical

This.
The most impressive, complex part of the artistic process in rap is coming up with a bunch of lines that have the right amount of syllables, end similarly or at the very least rhyme, and make sense together, tell a story or something, play around with the language, have witty refernces, jokes, etc.
And this part takes lyrical, poetic talent, not musical.

>only caring about music when it's made with a formula

Yes, structure is quite important. Hence why the greatest buildings were constructed with a plan.

>know jackshit about music
>listen to stravinsky, shostakovich, ligeti, liszt, bjork, dababy, nirvana, aphex twin, elysia crampton, NLE Choppa, ...
>appreciate all music
>even jam out to the sound airplanes make when they fly by
>life is art
>feel ecstatic to live in an audio paradise

Attached: chad.jpg (1040x1200, 136.23K)

Music is simply the transmission of ideas.
If you want to sit and bathe in applied music theory then sure listen to Mozart, he's really good at it. As time goes on composers veeeery slowly distance themselves from that, but in the end it's all trapped in this elitist bubble where complexity and skill are the most important parts of the music.
After years of studying music I find "rock" music to be the most interesting music of all, and thats due to how quickly music evolved and how rapidly ideas mutated. Look at Krautrock and the way it changed from '60s jam band stuff with Amon Duul to ambient synthy works by Can and Harmonia; look at the Canterbury scene and how you get something (relatively) simple like Soft Machine's first album mutating into Hatfield and the North and Henry Cow, all due to this new porous uptake of influences. This is all thanks to the fact ANYONE was able to make music now, not just the extreme rich folk of the world. it's why post-punk is so rich.
I'm rambling, but saying that western classical art music > rock music is like saying a steak is better than broccoli; they are made of entirely different things and fulfil different niches. Stop being a snob and listen to some John Cage lectures, he's considered "classical" so it's ok to listen to him OP.

>oppose rock music on ethical grounds
>bro they're for different things, just like both bro it's all relative anyway
This is why my pic was about postmodernism. I also like how you recommended John Cage unironically, a postmodernist composer.

I would argue that lyrics is an aspect of music like harmony or rhythm and that's pointless to say that it isn't musical, but at this point it's down to semantic disagreements so whatever.

>music is the same as building

You're a thick cunt if you think that music has to be measured by one metric just because that's what it was evaluated by in the past. Music isn't just one thing, big vague concepts like that have no basis for any objectivity.
What are these "ethical" dislikes for rock?

>oppose rock music on ethical grounds

This is literally the most autistic thing I've ever heard

That's why I love candy claws.

No, but it's only one example of many. A more relevant one would be iambic pentameter and Shakespeare's sonnets.

"Tradition" is not how I measure music. Morality is. My dislike is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" as found in classic rock.

A moral barometer is not autism.

I hope this is bait user because humans have always been degenerate, your classical faves are just as or more immoral than my favourite rock composers.
What's more immoral, Jaki Liebezeit taking mushrooms to find higher purpose or the thousands of classical composers who lived off the hard work of millions of the working class in order to churn out a few pages of counterpoint? Where do you start to draw the line with your "moral barometer"?

Language is inherently flawed as a means of expression and description (as Wittgenstein proved) and so any art using it will be similarly flawed. Instrumental music is the truest, purest form of artistic statement.

This is why I hate genre autism. "Rock music" isn't some monolith, there are lots of ethical rock songs and musicians, and it's ridiculous to act like they're homogeneous. And classical composers aren't exactly saints either, Tchaikovsky was a homosexual for example

Ofc rock has a lot of potential. The presence of drumbeats, repetations, syncopations, the distorted guitar sound that makes empty fifths sound so massive/rich, etc allow you to do a lot of things that'd be impossible with the classical language.
BUT I don't see it happening. Almost everything I hear in rock/metal/punk is overly banal or simple. Shoegaze, grunge, numetal/alternative metal, post-hardcore, etc will sometimes have interesting moments, chord progression, vocal melodies, song structures, ideas but even then it feels like they've been messing around, found a cool sound and never tried to understand the logic behind it, the mechanics, why it works, and that's why they can't take these ideas further, like classical composers did with certain ideas (literally why we ended up with such massive, complex, polished masterpieces).
People seem to hate the idea of theorizing genres/styles, but it'd almost certainly improve genres like rock.
Sorry for the essay.

>Mozart
Yikes