Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What I hate about Youtube Classical Music

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2013 5:11:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've found the people that you mentioned to be in the minority. I found one particular insufferable specimen haunting a Vivaldi piece and lamenting the fact that Vivaldi is popular because his music was 'tuttifrutti nonsense that 19th century bourgeoisie ladies listened to in salons.', or something along those lines. But most of the interactions that I've had have been more of the WRTI-host types, who examine the unique aspects of a certain piece, or historical tidbits regarding its composition and debut. Overall I dislike it when people comment on videos to say how much they hate music. I dislike metal, new country, a lot of pop, fusion jazz, and atonal classical music. But I don't seek out the videos of this music to express my dislike precisely because I dislike them and want nothing to do with them. I think that the people who do seek out things that they hate in order to denounce them have some pathological need to feel above others without actually having to accomplish anything.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 12:22:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?

Ahh... but it IS an object, that's why it is classical. There are specific reason why this specific note need to be there and why the whole pieces are enjoyable. Can't say I understand all of that but at least the part I do is mush more enjoyable than simply listen to it. Classical music is judged by its logic and scientific beauty mush like how one could enjoy a breath-taking architect of skyscraper tower which make it difference from a popular music which is judged simply by its popularity.

Although I can agree with you, sometime this would-be-expert people can be quite a pain to deal with (which the most effective tactic is to simply don't read the comment...) and the music is certainly on a different dimension that's why it should not be used as a standard to judge one another. Some of the most marvelous classical music can make you feel like tasting a rotten onion, while popular music is sweet to hear but is unable to serve its classical purposes. It simply build different, so the best way is to understand your own need and select the right one to enjoy. Sometime I try to use pop music as a way to further my musical knowledge, sometime (and most of the time) I listen to Mozart simply for music to the ear.

D
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2013 4:08:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?

I used to feel the same way, then I thought, maybe I just don't appreciate art/music, and don't see what they see/hear. Finally I decided that I don't give a sh!t, let them wallow in their perhaps exaggerated grandiose superiority, I just ignore them for the most part, every once in awhile I try to understand them, but I never have. In my mind they're like the fundamentalist Christians of music.

But where does Youtube (in the topic title) come in? I was expecting some critique of the quality of classical music on youtube, (the type of rant you'd hear from arrogant and obnoxious classical music freaks.)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2013 6:47:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/31/2013 4:08:32 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?

I used to feel the same way, then I thought, maybe I just don't appreciate art/music, and don't see what they see/hear. Finally I decided that I don't give a sh!t, let them wallow in their perhaps exaggerated grandiose superiority, I just ignore them for the most part, every once in awhile I try to understand them, but I never have. In my mind they're like the fundamentalist Christians of music.

But where does Youtube (in the topic title) come in? I was expecting some critique of the quality of classical music on youtube, (the type of rant you'd hear from arrogant and obnoxious classical music freaks.)

Smart move :D
Seek
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 5:09:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Eh. Whatevs.

One of my favourite musical pieces of all time is Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring. I listen to Gregorian Chant on a regular basis. And I'm an atheist. I can't tell you how many people take exception to that.

You love the music you love. Let the hipsters and knowitalls bore each other to death trying to be the most awesome.
operanewflover
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I disagree with your stance. As someone once pointed out to me she liked Hershey kisses but lindor truffles are better. They are richer, full of flavor. That is how classical music is. It is a culture it is alive it has life. ( Figuratively speaking). Every melody that is popular can be repeated in a simple sequence, there is no substantially to that music, but to classical there are motifs. There are genuine expressions of how the music feels, how it makes others feel. It is an art.
Man is only as happy as he chooses to be. - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2013 9:30:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/22/2013 8:40:27 PM, operanewflover wrote:
I disagree with your stance. As someone once pointed out to me she liked Hershey kisses but lindor truffles are better. They are richer, full of flavor. That is how classical music is. It is a culture it is alive it has life. ( Figuratively speaking). Every melody that is popular can be repeated in a simple sequence, there is no substantially to that music, but to classical there are motifs. There are genuine expressions of how the music feels, how it makes others feel. It is an art.

I'm curious about what you think my stance is.... pray tell
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 4:06:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?

You seem to imply that they are wrong for having their negative opinions on certain types of music, but by criticizing them for their opinions you are essentially doing the very same thing that you claim to hate them for.

Also, realize that when a person studies music, they come to understand the principles on which music functions and there are certain things that are actually objective in the analysis of a composition or performance of a composition (not that someone actually understands this just because they like classical music, I'm only talking about educated individuals). The only thing that is really opinion is whether or not you like it. It is important to note that popular opinion does not necessarily imply any superiority or soundness of an idea, especially if the opinions are born of a complete ignorance of the subject that they are forming their opinions in. For example, there was a time when the vast majority of the population supported slavery or racism or at least thought that there wasn't much wrong with it simply because it was popular and accepted at the time and it benefited their lifestyle. You always have a right to your opinion, as do classical music lovers, but to understand any subject with any depth you have to study it and learn how to analyze it with a little more depth than just that "it sounds pretty". Without an education on a particular subject, your opinions will lack understanding and therefor will lack sophistication. Obviously, the more you understand about a certain subject the more that will go into the formation of your opinions on that subject.

So, if I were to say that classical music is "better" than other types of music, well then that is just an opinion. But, if I were to say that a tonal piece written by Rachmaninoff (with his many uses of chromaticism, tonacization, modulations to distantly related keys, and addition of color tones on many vertical sonorities) was more harmonically complex than your basic three or four chord pop song (yes, there are literally many pop songs that consist of nothing but three of four chords used again and again), well then that's just objective fact and has nothing to do with opinion (known by any person who has the ability to actually analyze the harmonic structure of music). Whether or not complex harmonic language makes a song "better" is still opinion, but complexity of harmonic language (when it is actually understood by the person making the opinion) is still a little more of a foundation for an opinion than simply "I like it". So the question becomes, if a person actually understands how music is constructed and what goes into the performance of music through their years of study, analysis, and practice, does that mean that since their opinions will have more substance that they therefor will mean more? That's for each person to decide individually and it is not necessarily all that illogical or horrible for a person to answer "yes". It is really not unreasonable to respect the opinions of those who have studied a subject, although any person has every right to disagree with them no matter their ignorance or education within the subject on which the opinion is formed.

I happen to love and enjoy all forms of classical music as well as many various popular styles (mainly just excluding rap, screamo, and some related genres). I can appreciate amazing art wherever it occurs in any style that I happen to enjoy whether it be classical, jazz, or any popular style. Complex and beautiful writing and performance can occur anywhere. I also enjoy a lot of music that I consider to be quite simple. But even if I can appreciate popular music and performances, I will always have a respect for the great classical and jazz masters of the past. I analyze and study all various forms of music and I can tell you that, with the exception of electronic instruments, there is nothing that popular musicians do today that I have found that has not been done by the great classical and jazz musicians of the past at some point or another. Classical and jazz music has literally formed the entire foundation of music as we know it today. Even if those styles are no longer popular, it doesn't change the fact that all modern music is borrowed from something that has already been done before. But when the classical and jazz masters did it, they were the first, which is what makes it so much more amazing in my opinion. They literally have created the rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic language that we use today and everyone after that point is just borrowing from their efforts. Does that make beautiful music today any less of an amazing experience to behold? Of course not! But I think that it means that we should at least have some level of respect that the musicians of the past made everything that we enjoy today possible at all.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:09:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2013 4:35:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
I hate many of the people that listen to classical music especially. These are some of the most arrogant and obnoxious people I have ever tried to reason with. They know that much of their music is unknown and uncared for, so they compensate by reveling in its esotericism, converting that obscurity to superiority. Even WITHIN classical music, they shun whatever becomes popular. Beethoven is trite now. Tchaikovsky is too simple. Chopin is "easy to digest"... but Messiaen, with his depressing, atonal noises is the heaven too high and exalted for our plebeian ears.

If that wasn't enough, they tend to act as if music is anything near objective, criticizing pieces because they are not "correctly" played. Is the lack of "correct answers" not what differentiates the arts from the sciences? How you can criticize a piece of music as if there were a "right" way?

I've run into this myself, it's just high-brow nonsense. Listen to whatever you want, you don't need to associate with these people :P
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Poiesis
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 10:17:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm a musician, and I can tell you that people who construct music from a purely mathematical mindset create boring noises.

I wouldn't call it music at all.

I've met plenty of people who talk about music as if it were the sum of its parts. That's just not the case. Of course, that's just my opinion. But I've never created anything that did not originate from an emotion, and I've never known a musician who would disagree. Sure, I might use math in order to help bring balance to my composition, but mathematical patterns are an effect of the creative process, not the cause.

I like classical music, personally. But there are definitely a lot of people who enjoy the "Culture" built around it, and not the music itself. But you'll find those people within any musical genre.

You can identify these people because the music does not give them an emotional response. They like it, because they like the kind of people who listen to it.

The OP commented on the type of people who listen to classical music, but not how he/she felt about the music. This is a perfect example.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 6:51:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 10:17:36 PM, Poiesis wrote:
I'm a musician, and I can tell you that people who construct music from a purely mathematical mindset create boring noises.

I wouldn't call it music at all.

I've met plenty of people who talk about music as if it were the sum of its parts. That's just not the case. Of course, that's just my opinion. But I've never created anything that did not originate from an emotion, and I've never known a musician who would disagree. Sure, I might use math in order to help bring balance to my composition, but mathematical patterns are an effect of the creative process, not the cause.

I like classical music, personally. But there are definitely a lot of people who enjoy the "Culture" built around it, and not the music itself. But you'll find those people within any musical genre.

You can identify these people because the music does not give them an emotional response. They like it, because they like the kind of people who listen to it.

The OP commented on the type of people who listen to classical music, but not how he/she felt about the music. This is a perfect example.

When you talk about people writing music according to a mathematical mindset, what specifically do you mean? Are you talking about something like serialism, aleatoric music, or some other form of experimental music?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:18:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are elitists in every musical genre, as well as every form of art there is. Rock elitists can be just as bad as classical. The guy who taught me how to play guitar ( about 15 years ago) was too good for any rock band unless it was Rage Against the Machine, Tool, or Foo Fighters. There's a lot of hard rock elitists - people who don't like rock unless it is tough-guy screamo and monotonous barre-chording with relentless double-bassing that sounds like a machine gun is going off the whole song, every song. Metallica is criticized by these people (and others) for making the best rock songs of our age during the 80s and 90s, instead of sticking with the style in their first album (Garage, Inc.) which was harder and less melodic. Nickelback is probably the most popular whipping-boy for rock elitists, because they have a very melodic, soft sound and they are extremely successful. I just read a page on an online dating site where the girl said that "Nickelback fans need not apply" lol. Nickelback has some very good songs and people just envy them for their success. People hated on Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera as well for similar reasons (I think that Pink was actually a response to this). I myself am sort of a hip-hop elitist, I absolutely loved the hardcore east-coast styles of artists like Notorious B.I.G. and Wu-Tang, and at the end of the 90s this genre went belly-up in favor of a more popular emphasis. Hip-hop used to be a rugged story of life in the ghetto... Wu-Tang rapped about "picking roaches out the cereal box," for instance. Hip-hop has now changed into mainly bragging about wealth and success. 50 Cent, one of the forerunners of this movement, criticized the roach line from Wu-Tang in recent years, expressing disgust at them in the same way a wealthy person would express disgust at a pauper. So I guess you could say I am elitist in a certain sense, and 50 Cent is an elitist in the opposite.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 5:57:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 1:18:59 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
There are elitists in every musical genre, as well as every form of art there is. Rock elitists can be just as bad as classical. The guy who taught me how to play guitar ( about 15 years ago) was too good for any rock band unless it was Rage Against the Machine, Tool, or Foo Fighters. There's a lot of hard rock elitists - people who don't like rock unless it is tough-guy screamo and monotonous barre-chording with relentless double-bassing that sounds like a machine gun is going off the whole song, every song. Metallica is criticized by these people (and others) for making the best rock songs of our age during the 80s and 90s, instead of sticking with the style in their first album (Garage, Inc.) which was harder and less melodic. Nickelback is probably the most popular whipping-boy for rock elitists, because they have a very melodic, soft sound and they are extremely successful. I just read a page on an online dating site where the girl said that "Nickelback fans need not apply" lol. Nickelback has some very good songs and people just envy them for their success. People hated on Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera as well for similar reasons (I think that Pink was actually a response to this). I myself am sort of a hip-hop elitist, I absolutely loved the hardcore east-coast styles of artists like Notorious B.I.G. and Wu-Tang, and at the end of the 90s this genre went belly-up in favor of a more popular emphasis. Hip-hop used to be a rugged story of life in the ghetto... Wu-Tang rapped about "picking roaches out the cereal box," for instance. Hip-hop has now changed into mainly bragging about wealth and success. 50 Cent, one of the forerunners of this movement, criticized the roach line from Wu-Tang in recent years, expressing disgust at them in the same way a wealthy person would express disgust at a pauper. So I guess you could say I am elitist in a certain sense, and 50 Cent is an elitist in the opposite.

I totally agree with this. Sometimes people think that being an anti-classical/pro-popular music "snob" is somehow a better position just because there was a time in the long ago past when pop, rock, etc was the underdog. The truth is that society has changed and being one type of snob over another type of snob isn't somehow inherently better. It really doesn't matter if you actually do happen to be the underdog, snobbery is snobbery and no one's snobbery is really better or worse. Besides, we all are probably guilty of it to some degree.
Poiesis
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 8:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When you talk about people writing music according to a mathematical mindset, what specifically do you mean? Are you talking about something like serialism, aleatoric music, or some other form of experimental music?

I didn't have a specific type of music in mind. I've known a few people who attempt to create music by arranging the notes according to a strict predetermined pattern. Or they attempt to control the tempo artificially in order to make a perfect match when mixing. Basically, they ignore what their ears tell them and try to use math in order to clean up their tracks. There are a lot of different ways people can do it. It makes the music sound artificial and removes the emotional content. I think that music is mathematical by nature, but some of the best novelties and hooks that I've ever heard or made myself are the result of unexpected or illogical change (from a mathematical standpoint anyway.

It's possible to map an entire song out with chord progressions and time signatures without ever playing it on an instrument, but it doesn't really have life if you don't let the music go where it wants. If you have good rhythm and technique you can make almost anything sound good. It takes both sides together to create something which feels "Alive." It's still structured, but it has that human element of unpredictability and change.

Of course, these are just my views, and you'll hear a lot of different ones from anyone who creates anything. I write, paint, play music.... It's all relative. I try to feel first and think later. I am fascinated by different musical structures, and I do marvel over how different artists come up with certain things. But in the end I only care if it makes me feel something or not.

I'll listen to anything at least once, beginning to end, and give it a fair chance. It always seems silly to me when people write off entire genres of music. I think that they end up missing out on a lot of good stuff.