Is music completely worthless compared to literature...

Is music completely worthless compared to literature? Music is incapable of doing anything for a person except giving them feels. Literature can teach you literally anything, and can express any idea which is possibly expressible. Music might give you some better math ability or whatever, if you practice it from the time you're young, if you actually believe that. Otherwise it seems pretty pointless, it's just mindless entertainment that you consume and don't really have to put in any effort to listen to, whereas reading you actually have to focus and concentrate in order to read.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis
youtube.com/watch?v=PwAW4oKUdg0
youtube.com/watch?v=QQYrR4Stos4
youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

For whom?

The bell tolls

Film > Literature > Music

Time marches on

It's precisely the other way around. Aesthetically, music is like film and literature combined.

>Music is incapable of doing anything for a person except giving them feels
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis

>Music is incapable of doing anything for a person except giving them feels. Literature can teach you literally anything

except literature, apparently

before the gutenburg meme most histories were sung

youtube.com/watch?v=PwAW4oKUdg0

The music was only used to encode it better - make it more memorable.

so what you're saying is that you'd rather stare at a gutenburg derivative than listen to someone sing you a story or lesson?

This is a false equivalency. They're two completely different mediums with different places in society that are appealing for different reasons. Any high schooler can tell you this.

Pseuds pls go.

drone

Literature>Film>Music

I've heard it argued that music is superior because it can create something new in and of itself, while lit/film rely on existing objects and places and can therefore only be a reflection of those things

Correct

Everything productive you do you do for feels. Music gives you feels directly, while literature, as you consider it useful, gives you feels as the eventual benefits of competence or understanding.

In short you're stupid. So are most people in this thread, on this board, and on this website.

You're the reason why the movie idiocracy exists.

So are you.

Doesn't work that way buddy.

Explain to me how it works, lowerborn

Start by sucking dick daily, greek.

I can listen to "Peer Gynt suite", and when I do the whole story is told, scenes, characters and action of the play comes to mind like a quick and emotional version of the entire play.

That is if you have actually read the play or seen it, only THEN does it match.

An empty stage

Music is literally the only trace of God left on this forsaken Earth

Music is the pinnacle of art. The purpose of art is creating emotion- everything else in literature is unorginal. The same themes, characters, and ideas you find in one book are present in many others, but the one thing you have that is your own is the personal experience with a work. The purest form of personal experience is emotional attachment.

>it can create something new in and of itself
This is completeley bullshit romanticism. Music works with most subconscious and primal aspects of the psyche. But of course it's easier to say it somehow magically creates an object than to see the art form that penetrates you the hardest and less sensibly, than to see how it relates to your life; because then it turns out it's probably just your own remembrance of birds singing or car engines that have given you that great moment, and that is a very bad thing.

No, music is often the dumbest, least sensible, most nonsensical of art forms. It won't let anything but itself be. Why do you think dumb sluts universally love music? Because they are animalistic people who enjoy being swayed.

Now don't get me wrong, music is pretty good and can be a very enlightening and helpful thing; but this meme of it being this artsy-fartsy sublime thing needs to die.

>pleb doesn't understand music
>hurr it's just entertainment
>durr just about feels
Top kek

kill yourself, never make a thread again

Film is just diluted versions of other art forms mixed together, I've never felt moved by a film like I have been by literature, music, painting, etc.

>Literature can teach you literally anything
Art shouldn't teach a man anything.

>express any idea
We should create art, not political propaganda. The only artistic propaganda is spiritual propaganda.

Because you didn't watch Tarkovsky.

youtube.com/watch?v=QQYrR4Stos4

this desu. back to youtube with this fag

It's threads like this that make me wonder why I even come to Veeky Forums anymore.

Plebs have taken over.

there are some films that feel like music, you should watch brakhage or levine, even clipson

>Because you didn't watch Tarkovsky

10/10. It's unironically true.

Tarkovsky is entry-level, embarassing

entry level =/= garbage

I agree with this.

Music however, can influence your feels. Used correctly it can give you an edge by putting you in desirable, productive moods, used autistically it's probably the least rewarding of the arts

Where does music go then? Why listen to it?

Music does nothing other than occupy your time making you feel emotions you have no experience to go with or reliving ones you do.

You're taking a personal feeling towards films and making a statement of film as a whole as if it would hold any truth beyond yourself.

>Art shouldn't teach a man anything.

This. Thank you.

>music is superior because it can create something new in and of itself, while lit/film rely on existing objects and places and can therefore only be a reflection of those things
>implying fiction can't delve into whatever surreal/abstract stuff that an author can imagine and then put into words
>implying that lyrics don't often reflect reality
>implying that the composition of music does not often reflect previously existing works
youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ