6 ms·

Please listen to the above pieces once a day (it will take only 4 minutes) for 10 days. Then, while speaking about music, you will sound pretensious to your fri

Please listen to the above pieces once a day (it will take only 4 minutes) for 10 days. Then, while speaking about music, you will sound pretensious to your friends. Please try. (I can send more. This will include jazz certainly. And Beatles... and others. You have to put some effort into it, it will pay off).

CuriouslyC 2y ago
I've been studying music for 10 years, I'm not some 12 year old who's only ever heard pop. Classical music isn't special superior form of art, and people who try to paint it as such tend to be elitists who want to have something to hold over other people to make them feel superior. Kind of like how people latch on to wine to try and seem sophisticated (ironically, wine snobbery has its origin with kings and chieftains of conquered territories trying to fit in with their Roman oppressors, but at least they were cognizant of why they were doing it, unlike modern wine snobs). There's plenty of metal that's far more technical and complex than typical classical music, but you don't see metalheads going around telling people to listen to "real" music.
- suddenlybananas 2y ago
  People can absolutely be snobs in other genres, it's a super common thing
- zozbot234 2y ago
  What's special about classical music is merely that it's a literate form of music. It has an underlying "text" (the score) that everyone agrees on, which represents a somewhat abstracted 'blueprint' of the overall work to be performed. A metal piece doesn't really have that: you can transcribe it after the fact to score notation or tablature, but the result is merely one listener's opinion of how that piece "goes". Jazz music has its "lead sheets" but these are intentionally simplified and/or otherwise changed wrt. the source material taken from the "Great American Songbook" rep (which is far closer to the classical tradition than any kind of modern "pop"). This means that classical music, more than other traditions, is a natural target for both broader academic study as well as automated generation by AI's trained on some sort of existing repertoire.
  - zoogeny 2y ago
    I didn't study classical, but I was watching some YouTube channel by someone with graduate degree in classical. He offhand mentioned that many of the "compositions" of guys like Chopin were actually improvisations that were later transcribed. I've heard similar tales of Bach, especially his ability to improvise complex fugues on the spot as a sort of party trick. I just mean to say, I don't think there is a clear divide between a classical mentality for composition and a modern mentality. It is just we study classical hundreds of years after the fact and that academization of the music has lent a particular view to it. If we study metal in a hundred years the same way we study classical (or jazz) it may seem just as rigid.
    - Slow_Hand 2y ago
      I’m not sure how useful that framing is because improvisation is effectively composition in real time. By writing down an impromptu or something that was played on the spot it becomes composition when it’s crystallized in this way. Chopin predates audio recording, so it’s not as if someone recorded his performance and then transcribed it like people do today with jazz solos. I’m assuming that Chopin was the one to transcribe and publish after he had a good idea because few would have the recall to do so accurately. Sometimes compositions are generated spontaneously by the composer (one pass) and sometimes they require extensive labor and refinement. It’s not to say that classical music doesn’t also include improvisation, and I agree that there’s not a clear divide between classical mentality and modern sensibilties. Although today, the composition (if not scored) ends up taking it’s final form as an audio recording. More and more the composition exists untranscribed in the DAW session.
      - zoogeny 2y ago
        What I'm getting at is that the literate quality of the music as a defining principle (or differentiator) is lessened if the actual practice was improvisation that preceded it being written down. If a composer improvised the music first and wrote it down second, then it is hard to claim that his writing it down was a significant differentiator in it's composition. This is compared to modern music that is improvised, developed than recorded (and often not written down). The argument against my point would be, but the people learning the music (i.e. studying it) later started with the written music and went from there. And that is a differentiator for their own development as composers. That would be compared to modern musicians studying modern pop music where they start with a recording and go from there. My point is that the differentiation is in the contemporary study of music and less in the method of composition.
- williamdclt 2y ago
  Completely agree with you, except > you don't see metalheads going around telling people to listen to "real" music. Have you _met_ a metalhead? :) saying that as one myself (less now, used to play in bands and stuff), this is one of the snobbiest group music-wise!
  - MisterTea 2y ago
    > Have you _met_ a metalhead? :) saying that as one myself (less now, used to play in bands and stuff), this is one of the snobbiest group music-wise! Like when we were 15, yeah sure, everything sucked, Opeth rules, Mayhem is tru Black Metal! etc. Though later on only my really immature friends kept those opinions. But I think this goes for any niche subculture that people use to define themselves. I too am an old metalhead, still practicing! Dress like a 15 year old, crank the volume and bang your fucking head!!! \m/(>.<)\m/ ;-)
  - CuriouslyC 2y ago
    I see metalheads casting shade on subgenres of metal they're not into and overhyped bands moreso than entire other genres of music. I remember a lot of conversations about how Cradle of Filth was poseur black metal for high school kids back in the day, for example.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

I've been studying music for 10 years, I'm not some 12 year old who's only ever heard pop. Classical music isn't special superior form of art, and people who try to paint it as such tend to be elitists who want to have something to hold over other people to make them feel superior. Kind of like how people latch on to wine to try and seem sophisticated (ironically, wine snobbery has its origin with kings and chieftains of conquered territories trying to fit in with their Roman oppressors, but at least they were cognizant of why they were doing it, unlike modern wine snobs). There's plenty of metal that's far more technical and complex than typical classical music, but you don't see metalheads going around telling people to listen to "real" music.

suddenlybananas 2y ago
People can absolutely be snobs in other genres, it's a super common thing
zozbot234 2y ago
What's special about classical music is merely that it's a literate form of music. It has an underlying "text" (the score) that everyone agrees on, which represents a somewhat abstracted 'blueprint' of the overall work to be performed. A metal piece doesn't really have that: you can transcribe it after the fact to score notation or tablature, but the result is merely one listener's opinion of how that piece "goes". Jazz music has its "lead sheets" but these are intentionally simplified and/or otherwise changed wrt. the source material taken from the "Great American Songbook" rep (which is far closer to the classical tradition than any kind of modern "pop"). This means that classical music, more than other traditions, is a natural target for both broader academic study as well as automated generation by AI's trained on some sort of existing repertoire.
- zoogeny 2y ago
  I didn't study classical, but I was watching some YouTube channel by someone with graduate degree in classical. He offhand mentioned that many of the "compositions" of guys like Chopin were actually improvisations that were later transcribed. I've heard similar tales of Bach, especially his ability to improvise complex fugues on the spot as a sort of party trick. I just mean to say, I don't think there is a clear divide between a classical mentality for composition and a modern mentality. It is just we study classical hundreds of years after the fact and that academization of the music has lent a particular view to it. If we study metal in a hundred years the same way we study classical (or jazz) it may seem just as rigid.
  - Slow_Hand 2y ago
    I’m not sure how useful that framing is because improvisation is effectively composition in real time. By writing down an impromptu or something that was played on the spot it becomes composition when it’s crystallized in this way. Chopin predates audio recording, so it’s not as if someone recorded his performance and then transcribed it like people do today with jazz solos. I’m assuming that Chopin was the one to transcribe and publish after he had a good idea because few would have the recall to do so accurately. Sometimes compositions are generated spontaneously by the composer (one pass) and sometimes they require extensive labor and refinement. It’s not to say that classical music doesn’t also include improvisation, and I agree that there’s not a clear divide between classical mentality and modern sensibilties. Although today, the composition (if not scored) ends up taking it’s final form as an audio recording. More and more the composition exists untranscribed in the DAW session.
    - zoogeny 2y ago
      What I'm getting at is that the literate quality of the music as a defining principle (or differentiator) is lessened if the actual practice was improvisation that preceded it being written down. If a composer improvised the music first and wrote it down second, then it is hard to claim that his writing it down was a significant differentiator in it's composition. This is compared to modern music that is improvised, developed than recorded (and often not written down). The argument against my point would be, but the people learning the music (i.e. studying it) later started with the written music and went from there. And that is a differentiator for their own development as composers. That would be compared to modern musicians studying modern pop music where they start with a recording and go from there. My point is that the differentiation is in the contemporary study of music and less in the method of composition.
williamdclt 2y ago
Completely agree with you, except > you don't see metalheads going around telling people to listen to "real" music. Have you _met_ a metalhead? :) saying that as one myself (less now, used to play in bands and stuff), this is one of the snobbiest group music-wise!
- MisterTea 2y ago
  > Have you _met_ a metalhead? :) saying that as one myself (less now, used to play in bands and stuff), this is one of the snobbiest group music-wise! Like when we were 15, yeah sure, everything sucked, Opeth rules, Mayhem is tru Black Metal! etc. Though later on only my really immature friends kept those opinions. But I think this goes for any niche subculture that people use to define themselves. I too am an old metalhead, still practicing! Dress like a 15 year old, crank the volume and bang your fucking head!!! \m/(>.<)\m/ ;-)
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  I see metalheads casting shade on subgenres of metal they're not into and overhyped bands moreso than entire other genres of music. I remember a lot of conversations about how Cradle of Filth was poseur black metal for high school kids back in the day, for example.