>>8553497

Obviously. This is why, as reading becomes more niche, people who read and attempt to write novels will be less lethargic and depressed. In the future, those sorts of characters will be merely creative, and existential loneliness or depression, as they figure in novels to come, will be experienced only as a nifty pair of sunglasses, leaking in affectation, removed even farther from sincerity.

/tv/ is easily the worst board for obvious reasons.

Veeky Forums is actually a great board btw since it got a lot of people to read great books when they wouldn't have otherwise.

If my peers don't want to be loomed over maybe they should get on my level.

If you're in it for something to talk about with your friends, that's perfectly admirable.

>she doesn't like interracial porn and white humiliation threads

reading is for kikes

whod have thought, 'music listeners' who were in middle school and high school when "emo" music was popular are more likely to be depressed.

Are you talking shit about emo music?

People who listen to real music, as opposed to whatever the teens this article talks about listen to, aren't depressed, but are the other thing OP describes, IE superior.

Anyone here remember the kid who committed suicide because someone stole his ipod? This shit checks out.

Agreed. Way too many idiots listen to shit like Kanye when they should listen to real music like The Beatles.

I was actually talking about Intelligent Dance Music, such as Aphex Twin and Autechre, or anything else published by Warp Records.

>Anyone here remember the kid who became an hero because someone stole his ipod?
if you're gonna talk about ancient history at least do it right

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GkVhgIeGJQ

The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
Sorry about that.

I would say I'm sorry if I thought that it would change your mind...

Why are IDM and classical listeners so pompous and condescending?

they're trying to hide the fact they don't know anything about music

For classical listeners it's because it's completely justified. For anyone who listens to any genre of popular music (such as IDM) it's because they're retards.

You wish.

i bet you don't even play

You would bet that, but it doesn't even matter. Literally the only thing you need to know about classical music in order to appreciate it more or less fully is how form works, especially sonata form. You don't need to know the basics of chord progression, voice leading, modulation, motivic development, etc, because all of that is understood instinctively. You don't even need to know the difference between an oboe and a clarinet: you can still understand and appreciate the sounds they make. Whether or not you know all of that stuff, you can listen to classical music and quite easily see why it's objectively better than all genres of popular music. People are only plebs because they choose to be.

you don't choose to be patrician by listening to 'classical music' and sitting there thinking you have it all figured out. pop music has form

Actually yeah that kind of is how it works. And "having form" doesn't make something good or worth listening to. Literally everything has form. What makes music interesting is what it does within and to form, and pop music almost never does anything new or interesting with it.

yea but so is being smart and we want that too

yeah true there was absolutely no derivative classical music produced over several centuries

you're only fooling yourself, not me

I'm talking about the masterpieces of classical music, Anonymous. The ones that are remembered specifically for their brilliance and originality. Yes, there are literally thousands of no-name composers who've been completely forgotten over the centuries because their music was shit. They don't matter. There is still a lifetime's work of classical music to listen to and re-listen to, and it would be best for you if you didn't waste your life on pop crap.

Anonymous, too obvious

All of those albums and compilations are just from the 20th and 21st centuries

And neither of those collections add up to anywhere near 799 hours

And pulp comics have literary virtue.
The purpose of it is to show the modern presence of art music. Frankly it's all hot garbage but that is beside the point.

Think ya fell for your own shitpost, man.

So instrumental /mu/core? You forgot GSYBE

>emo
Why do people use that word as a catch-all term for depressing music in general? On Veeky Forums of all places, too.

You guys sure love having studies tell you how to live.

Why not go to a fortune teller? Lol

They're not IDM/Warp Records so I don't listen tot hem.

so you don't even listen to classical music, you listen to memes and you think your survey listening of meme music gives you any insight into actual classical music. when you hear a piece of music can you even name what century its from just by the sound?

>The ones that are remembered specifically for their brilliance and originality.

why be so intellectually dishonest as to compare the 'masterpieces' compiled over centuries to some apparent stagnation of pop music? do you think pop music sounds the same between the 1910s, 1930s, 1950s, 1970s, 1990s, 2010s? if so then you're actually deaf

>if you didn't waste your life on pop crap.

who says i do? i know you think you have to pick a side but i actually don't. maybe i listen to jazz? in any case you don't know what you're talking about or how to approach music as a cultural product. you evidently just care about convincing yourself that you're smart

>because it's completely justified

pretty much this

i don't know what 'literary virtue' means

to dilettantes and pseuds it is justified

>real music

>so you don't even listen to classical music, you listen to memes and you think your survey listening of meme music gives you any insight into actual classical music.
They're "memes" for a reason, user.

>when you hear a piece of music can you even name what century its from just by the sound?
Sure.

>why be so intellectually dishonest as to compare the 'masterpieces' compiled over centuries to some apparent stagnation of pop music?
What's intellectually dishonest about that?

>do you think pop music sounds the same between the 1910s, 1930s, 1950s, 1970s, 1990s, 2010s?
Obviously different kinds of trash become fashionable at different points in history, but that doesn't make any of it interesting or innovative. Everything interesting that pop music has done had already been done by classical, and better.

>in any case you don't know what you're talking about or how to approach music as a cultural product.
Yes I do. The way to approach it is to enjoy it if it's good, and not to listen to it if it's bad.

do u see the quotation marks

>do you think pop music sounds the same between the 1910s, 1930s, 1950s, 1970s, 1990s, 2010s? if so then you're actually deaf
It all does, you are the one who is deaf; and totally ignorant of theory.
Virtue in the Greek sense; as in it functions well as literature and is open for interpretation, dialogue, et cetera. Pulp comics do not have this, of course.

Yes, we've covered this, and we've determined that Real Music is Intelligent Dance Music. If you ever listen to anything other than Aphex Twin, then you've made the wrong life choices, my friend.

my two passions in life are books and music, and I'm quite gloomy

There's some variety in popular music.

>IDM
>popular music
>less popular than classical music
>popular music

>They're "memes" for a reason

popular music is popular for a reason. you can't tell if something is interesting or innovative just by listening to it in isolation. and something that is interesting or innovative isn't necessarily good. and something that uses interesting or innovative techniques and becomes a 'meme' for it isn't necessarily the first to do so. this is what you miss on your survey course -- in-depth knowledge. and it shows, when you posture on the internet and call things 'good' or 'bad', you act defensive about your tastes rather than willing to share your knowledge and discuss something you are actually passionate about

you know what classical music does these days? it's played in stores to make the consumer feel sophisticated. it's used to make things seem more 'high class' than they are, even though the historical moment in which classical music was reserved for the high class has passed, so all you have is the image to associate with, rather than the knowledge with which the high class would have been acquainted

>What's intellectually dishonest about that?
not an equal comparison based on the length of time

>Everything interesting that pop music has done had already been done by classical, and better.
so pop music, as you admit, is not sonically much different to classical. and that the music itself isn't what makes it good or bad, but external factors

>Yes I do.
no you don't because you have less and less to say the more you post, and what you do say is so vague and unconvincing

>The way to approach it is to enjoy it if it's good, and not to listen to it if it's bad.
but never actually know why you think that way?

You only think this because you are blind.

Yeah, YA and children's books might be written about different things but they all have the same simple plot formula and the same basic prosestyle.
>I don't know the definition of popular music

so if you heard a song from any point in the 20th century you would genuinely find it difficult placing it in a given decade?

>functions well as literature

?

>I don't know what the word popular means

>It all does, you are the one who is deaf; and totally ignorant of theory

yeah these two sound completly alike
youtube.com/watch?v=My2FRPA3Gf8
youtube.com/watch?v=NR7_TbMIVnA

You totally debunked pop music!

>superficial differences have any meaning

>functions well as literature
I defined this immediately afterwards.
It doesn't mean popular in that sense, it means popular in the same way communism is a popular government.

As in, it deals with common people. Popular music is music aimed at common people rather than given no such limitations.
>sound
Sound is more than superficial frequencies.

>but never actually know why you think that way?
a meme pic told him, duh

now what do you mean by 'meaning'? you're just saying nonsense in an effort to seem like you know what you're talking about. sophisticated consumer, surely you have something more to add?

>I defined this immediately afterwards.

no you make a distinction between something functioning as literature and something open for interpretation, etc. all that is open for interpretation is not literature, and pulp comics are open for interpretation.

>Sound is more than superficial frequencies.

Sound in music, you pseud.

>popular music is music aimed at common people rather than given no such limitations
youtu.be/d2iSMvXL1ho

Out of the totality of music you would consider popular music, only a thin slice could be said to aim at the largest possible audiences. All you did was describe music that is put together for commercial profit.

leave him alone, he is exactly the type of faggot the OP was describing

Common does not mean largest. Learn to read, please.
No, I'm somebody not screaming like a chimp because jargon they don't understand is being used.

>sound in music is different than sound in everything else
yeah i agree, sound in music is made of smart boy points, (pro tip: music that schopenhauer and meme pics say is better have more smart boy points) you many did you got today, bro?

Shitposting does not make you right.

Common, I took to mean average. What is commonly called pop music is directed at the most average theoretical person possible as to have the greatest quantity of sales. Common people, I now am seeming to realize, to you means someone who doesn't listen to classical music.

do you actually have anything to contribute to the conversation aside from 'NO'? you've been posting on average one sentence per reply, and everyone has to guess what you're actually trying to say since you won't give your argument any definition. what is the purpose of engaging in discussion if you're so hesitant to make a point? are you waiting for the right time to get your thoughts in order? are you waiting for others to make the first mistake in trying to decipher your nonsense posts?

pseud-posting does not make you right either.

>popular music is popular for a reason.
Yeah, a stupid one.

>you can't tell if something is interesting or innovative just by listening to it in isolation.
Of course, you must have extensive knowledge of the entire history of music, which is something those who have compiled the musical canon possess.

>and something that is interesting or innovative isn't necessarily good.
They're necessary conditions for being good.

>and something that uses interesting or innovative techniques and becomes a 'meme' for it isn't necessarily the first to do so.
Very rarely do things become "memes" simply for being the first to use a technique.

>this is what you miss on your survey course -- in-depth knowledge.
I know a little bit of theory and musical history, but that's not entirely necessary to appreciate the music, as I've explained.

>and it shows, when you posture on the internet and call things 'good' or 'bad', you act defensive about your tastes rather than willing to share your knowledge and discuss something you are actually passionate about
I don't think I'm being particularly defensive. If anything, I'm being offensive.

>you know what classical music does these days? it's played in stores to make the consumer feel sophisticated. it's used to make things seem more 'high class' than they are, even though the historical moment in which classical music was reserved for the high class has passed, so all you have is the image to associate with, rather than the knowledge with which the high class would have been acquainted
I don't really care, and I'm not associating with an image, or anything like that. I'm just listening to great music.

>not an equal comparison based on the length of time
Popular music has always existed.

>so pop music, as you admit, is not sonically much different to classical.
Well, there are obvious timbrel, formal, and stylistic differences for the most part, but what really matters, classical music has always excelled at.

>and that the music itself isn't what makes it good or bad, but external factors
I never said that.

>no you don't because you have less and less to say the more you post, and what you do say is so vague and unconvincing
I don't need to get into specifics to make my points.

>but never actually know why you think that way?
I know why I think that way.

for someone who believes this is true you're sure shitposting a lot

>UHHHHHHHH NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT

Common means ignorant or otherwise unconcerned with the traditions and breaking-ofs in art or folk music.
I've given plenty of definition and you have a library at your fingertips.

Dropping trip before it becomes a mess, was a throwaway anyway

That doesn't mean anything

>jargon
Saying "theory" a bunch isn't jargon. Try defining it. You don't even know what that it implies, let alone means.
No you haven't. And your definitions for words integral to your five-word arguments clearly don't match up with reality, seeing that you think sound is more than frequencies.

Sound is a kind of conscious experience, or quale.

Sound is vibrations through a medium.

Pelase no one bring up Bourdieu's Distinction int his discussion again, btw. His work is irrelevant in this context

you're saying nothing and responding to the argument line-by-line (and not even the main points), you're obviously on the defensive.

>good things are good, bad things are bad

thanks for your amazing insight into music

>I've given plenty of definition and you have a library at your fingertips.

for anyone who can read your mind yes your argument has been sufficient. you may leave the thread

I responded to every sentence you wrote.

I can read user's mind, and user's argument has been perfectly good.

no you didn't and that doesn't change the point that arguing line-by-line shows you're on the defensive. it's up to me to shape the argument and you to respond, since you don't know how to logically link thoughts together in a coherent manner

but no i agree with you, classical music is good because it's good. you don't need to get any more specific than that

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Over the line

Who defined literary virtue?

Pseudo-Longinus

Classical music is still the only kind of music worth listening to, fellas.

What are some good literature discussion boards?

LOL

>that doesn't mean anything
Yes it does.
>Saying "theory" a bunch isn't jargon.
The trichotomy where popular music is one of its branches is jargon to you, since you fail to understand it after multiple explanations.

It's called popular since 'folk' is already taken, and because it is more modern and thereby follows the modern standard of being more global. Say, in the 60s, there were Beatles knockoffs all over the globe. That could not happen with folk music.
>don't match up with reality
Very poor argument; 'i define reality becuz i sed so'
You tell yourself that, positivist.
Those that wrote the Western canon.

Regardless of how 'out-there' or nihilistic you try to be, you will be writing according to the canon.

How can assume the standards of Homer? A criterion such as "What would Melville find valuable" is open to many interpretation.

cuz its got like math n stuff n i can feel dope while i also excercize my brain

>sound is more than superficial frequencies
>I MEAN SOUND IS WHAT I DEFINE IT TO MEAN SUCH THAT BEACH BOYS AND MILEY CYRUS "SOUND" THE SAME
>stop shitposting pseud

confirmed most degenerate faggot 2016 kys

Folk music is shit for stupid farmers btw.

Also pop music that calls itself folk isn't actually folk but folk-inspired pop but I'm just pointing out the obvious

> For the study, the researchers surveyed 106 participants

They may as well have not conducted the study. I think the lack of depression among readers probably has a lot to do with just how many books are self help books. Well it would be attributed to that if there was a significant sample size and the study said the same thing. 0.2% percent of the time with 106 people? Hell thats like half of what i read, the other half being mostly non fiction. I dont really know why i come here as i barely read fiction but certain threads always seem to interest me. I should probably leave Veeky Forums though because it seems to be full of people trying their hardest to make strangers genuinely suffer. You came here to prop up your self worth by trying to push others beneath you. Yoy wanted to make others sad and feel inferior. Maybe you should consider why it us youd want to do something like that

Also whos the contrarian narcissest trying to loom over others exactly? Maybe you should ask yourself why youre so smart, youre too smart to read?