Can literature be as beautiful as music?

I'm getting memed right now. You're literally suggesting the exact issues I have. It's tripe. All trap tries to achieve is something aesthetically pleasing rather than actually challenging. If the only reason you have is that, "It sounds gud," that's literally the reason why I enjoy foods or prefer certain porn stars over others. There is no grand statement. It's empty senpai.

Okay, I didn't say it wasn't integral. I said it's overwhelmingly empty and overhyped. Musicians are the lowest form of artists. They're more technicians than anything.

What about classical?

>having to prove you have "reasons" to enjoy something
thats retarded, my dude, i think you have severe autism, of course you dont get music, you should had been just another STEMlord.

Are you talking to me?

chamber music by joyce is honestly his best and most honest work. it's been set to music repeatedly.
crystal castles did a nice job on the sirens chapter too, but that's definitely more artificial.

those guys had rents to pay dude. They didn't write for as much fun as you think they did. We as musicians are no more artistic than machinists or stonecutters or carpenters. It's cool and all, you can make novel things that are worthy of appreciation, but in my 12 years of being a musician never have I had a moment of, "Fuck, that's right," when reading a book or looking at a FANTASTIC piece of art.

Most classical is just extreamly complex pop music, complex stuff is not better or worse than simpler stuff, all in the universe is the same, my dude.

I might be autistic but I know you're a fucking commercialized shitsucking retard if you think trap is worthy of any appreciation beyond one of face value and it just having a sonic and aesthetic appeal.

You just don't like music, why did you became a professional musican?

depends who's playing the flute

Why do autists hate aesthetic so much?

>Appropriation art wasn't huge in the 80s

It's the only thing I can do and I've joined something that I can't quit and I wouldn't do that to my friends/bandmates/clients. I also like to play pretend and think one day I can actually find something that would qualify music as an actual art form. I think electronic music brings us closer to it, as it does remove the technical from music, but I also think it brings a lot of fags like to think they have the mettle and ability to make music and think they're hot shit after they downloaded Reaper of any comparable DAW with Massive and Steven Slate Drums attached or-- fuck it-- a cymatics package and think they've got a touch for "aesthetic".

Also, I don't hate aesthetic, I think when it's your only purpose for your music to exist it doesn't have any merit to stand out on it's own. It'd be like having a potted orchid in a shitty house. It requires context to have some sort of actual weight to be applied to it.

yep!

>I think electronic music brings us closer to it

Not in the way that electronic music seems to promote having an objective, pure sonic experience directly from sound to ear.

At least not if it wants to keep up with the plastic arts.

> It requires context to have some sort of actual weight to be applied to it.
You sound like a really spooked person.

I think context is incredibly important for a piece to have gravity. There's a reason why people have made the saying, "It stands on it's own two feet." It has created a context by it's own existence and indeed, stands on it's own two feet.

I'm not sure what you're referencing when it comes to the plastic arts, so I'm not going to try and talk out my ass at you because you seem to have a really cogent point in regards to electronic music. I think what I've come to like about electronic music is that I can better translate what's in my head to the page. I spent the better of six years writing music on a tape recorder where I would be on the road or in someone's house, where I'd write all my parts acapella and from there I'd go home/to studio and actually apply instruments. In fact, I think acoustic/physical instruments are one of the greatest hampers to self-expression, as they can be a restrictive medium. That's not to say I don't like them, I like how they sound a lot. I think they're pretty coolio.

>believing that most people in life like what they do.

pre-teen confirmed

And you don't think music can stand on it's own two feet?

They both provide experiences that the other cannot.

I don't think I've ever found music that stands on it's own two feet. The best bodies of work often have a visual aid to them which really enriches the experience.

Of course not, but music doesnt give any money, if you are doing something you think it is empty and shallow just get a STEM degree so it is at least worth it in money

That's not true. You make good money from producing and ghostwriting. I work literally 1/3 of the year and I can pay rent and travel. It can be grueling stints of long work, but it pays. If I found a way to do it 365 a year, I'd be far more affluent.

>pomo art retard: the post

Most fags don't make money because they don't put in the work required.

I've been dancing all day to "With That". Shit is fire yo.

Thoughts on people like Tom Waits?

Tom Waits is for "le lonely bohemian mane" posers
Have you listened to f cancer? great track by thugger

If you can listen to Bach and say that he's not artistic I don't know what to say

Maybe you just can't into emotions

I think songs like The Great Gig In The Sky create their own visuals very well

>emotions = art

yeah thats pretty accurate

No it isn't you Romanticist shill

what is it then, do you think you have the right to say what is art and what is not art?

Even so, how could you not be intellectually impressed by Bach?

It's not any one thing other than itself. There is no unifying condition of art other than it is created.

Yeah I have a right to say things? What the fuck kind of question is that?

>intellectualism = art

Define art.

Art is like, a concept, man. You can't just like define a concept.

Check this out, man, it's a trip.
ribbonfarm.com/2007/06/21/how-to-define-concepts/

I don't come to Veeky Forums to read.

no

youtube.com/watch?v=LNZKqhXCv5c

no. literature is more important, more informative, and will make you wiser than music, but music is far more beautiful.

I might as well go take drugs if I just want an emotional rush, my dude. What's the point of having to listen to something?

What style music do you make?

>Trust me guys, music simply cannot be good, t.musician - plays the forks against the ribbed side of a can of beans in a nu bright medal pagan folk screamo disco dub psych jam band

I see what you're saying but there are a lot of shitty artists in every art form.. so what.

you're going to critique my opinion based on what kind of music you like-- what an excellent metric of whether or not I've got a cogent point. If I answer that I am classically trained and that I continued my career in working in chamber ensemble/orchestral, you'll just say I'm jaded or something. If I answer you as anything else, you'll call me a philistine. Attack my point instead of my personage, jackass.

Yeah, you're definitely right as well, there's always supreme shitters in every form, but there's two things music lacks:

1. Perpetuity: While all things are finite and doomed to be destroyed by whatever exists out there. The nature of sound is transient and hyper-momentary, it ceases to exist the moment it stops playing. (inb4 I can listen to it in my head. My contention with this is that you have now made something completely new, it is nearly impossible for any layperson or dilettante at best to actually reproduce the music in a form that is nearly indistinguishable from the original)

2. Cannot exist without a context: Music alone without a context is just sounds associated with other sounds in (a usually) aesthetically pleasing manner. In it of itself, it often does not apply anything more than being paint on a wall or a flower in the vase. Few bodies of work create context alone. Visual arts can create contexts based on things we see, attempting to make ties to the phenomenon we witness (or have assumed to have witnessed). Music cannot do this.

forgot response image to you.

No.

You're not a professional, you're a turd.
I swear the most fucken retarded shit about modern society is that people get told they are professionals just cause they make money doing some shit.
Why don't you tell me some of your favorite music so I can know exactly how gay you are instead of having to approximate? Come on do me a favor.

SMELL MY ASSHOLE!

After you buy my fucken mix tape.

Refer to my post.

my favorite music is the the tune of your mom eating out my ass.

>professional musician
>probably a shitty guitarist/bassist/drummer and not an actual classical and contemporary music concertist who only listen to scaruffi-/mu/core trash
>think that his opinion is actually relevant

Adorno was right.

>Emo
>beautiful
stay in your shitty board, pleb

The whole point of all good music is that there is no big drama in it, if it's structurally secure enough (as in bach) then it seems to have come from somewhere else, like a tree comes from the dirt, seemingly on the command of causality itself.
If you don't see any artistic merit in music then it's because of one of two things:
1.) You have shit taste and/or are brainlet
2.) You have never encountered good music
Considering that your profession suggests extended exposure to music, I think I have an idea about which one it is.

I never said there wasn't artistic merit. I said it was quite a bit lower on the "art" rung than visual arts.

Fuck Digiorno. Your mom's ass is a culture industry in the sense that I'm going to shoot my man milk in it and it'll make baby yogurt.

fucking kill yourself you edgy retard

no you kill yourself

Sure thing kiddo. Keep using those neat chord progressions (no modulation allowed!), meaningless ornaments and repetitive drumlines and basslines :)

Wow nice memes did you read up on some music theory before you stopped by here? Seriously, my point still stands. All you did is drop some poor-man's Baudrillard man on me and said, "wew he must play shitty music don't actually address the points." I'm also a Navy SEAL with 300 confirmed kills and I'm gonna fucking find you, kid.

Pls, the same logic applies to visual arts too, as well as literature. The artistic element is always, regardless of medium, the clash of universals and particulars; combining strict geometrical integrity with spiritual or poetical expression. For example I would much sooner call crivelli a master painter than rembrandt. And much sooner call shakespeare a master poet than any romantic or enlightenment era author.

At the very least, objectively considered, the three mediums are equal, separate depictions of the same whole; visual arts pertaining to sight, music pertaining to hearing, and literature pertaining to the medium of intellectual conception.

>Music is the most transient, empty and aesthetic art form in existence. Literature is far more beautiful.

You haven't explained your argument. You've just said that. The only thing you've done is appealing to authority (yours, wich I reasonably questioned), even when most thinkers, writers, poets, composers and philosophers have disagreed with you (in a tradition that spans 1 thousand years). You're dense.

>source: I made the mistake of becoming a professional musician.

And that's why it makes sense to question your professionality. Since you haven't answered yet I'll just assume that you're a guitarist/bassist/drummer with no real experience in art music.

>muh Bach

Clueless pleb?

>b-b-but muh Bach!

Not him but
>Bach
>Clueless pleb?

Here you're literally going against the opinion of every respectable critic and composer who came after Bach. You're alone on this, not even people on /classical/ are this retarded.

>the medium of intellectual conception.

The fuck are you talking about lol

No, you don't understand how memes work and you should just kill yourself.

>muh Bach

isn't saying that Bach is bad.

Using Bach as a paragon of excellence is perfectly reasonable.
You're not mocking him for his arguments, you're just assuming that he only knows Bach's music only because he picked one of the 5 best musicians that have ever walked on this Earth. But since he was defending music as a whole, it makes sense to pick the best example of art music we've got in our repertoire.

Stop being so pretentious, you're not above this.

No, picking one example is picking the exception that proves the rule. A medium is not the best example of that medium.

This is some weird mystic shit rather than solid historical analysis.

>The whole point of all good music is that there is no big drama in it, if it's structurally secure enough (as in bach) then it seems to have come from somewhere else, like a tree comes from the dirt, seemingly on the command of causality itself.

Bach is not an exception in this. In fact you can make the same argument for every pre-1920 great composer in the Western canon.
Again, you're not disputing his argument, you're just throwing assumptions based on the fact that Bach is famous.

Oh jesus christ.
Let me clarify, I take bach for what he is, I don't say that he's the best, only that, when it comes to musical structure, his is the definitive kind, bach may be good or bad but at the very least he is undeniable, and that's what makes his music so delectable.
Personally, as far as contemporary goes, I like james macmillan and olivier messaien best. When it comes to bach's period I prefer zelenka to bach himself, but with this said, I still say that bach is the most authoritative.

Historical-critical would only weigh me down senpai, for the point is not one of historical extraction.

Maybe you're unsure as to how 'if' functions in an argument.

>In fact you can make the same argument for every pre-1920 great composer in the Western canon.

But he did not. This is my point.

Muh Bach!

I can invoke Bach without listening to a second of his music and still I will get idiots like you defending my argument.

>if it's structurally secure enough (as in bach)

Doesn't mean that he's talking specifically about Bach, that's just the example he picked (and it is a great example, considering that he was talking about musical structure).
He didn't need to make that point for a simple reason: he wasn't talking about the historical context of music, instead he was talking about the properties that can emerge from music through craftmanship and inspiration. It's not a historical claim, it's a musical one.

Focusing on the fact that he mentioned Bach just proves that you're intellectually dishonest. What if he mentioned Saint-Saens? Brahms? Boulez? Palestrina?

Since art has not remained the same throughout history it's dishonest to talk about it like it has a singular goal -- one of using form to express the formless.

I'm not the guy you were initially arguing with but compare the proliferation of theory for the plastic arts with that of music and either the plastic arts are a far more flexible medium or music just doesn't cut it in terms of the same kind of 'advanced' art practice.

Maybe you haven't listened to Bach? I mean really listened to Bach.

I'm a concert pianist, I have studied, analyzed and performed most of his main keyboard repertoire (GV, WTC, half of AoF, the French and English Suite and a plethora of minor fugues and chorales). If you're talking with a classical concertist you can be sure that he's well versed in the works of Bach, since most of his music is also used for didactic means.

That said, you can make the same argument for structure with all the composers I've quoted there. You're still throwing assumptions without a) substantiating them and b) linking them to actual aguments.

At this point you're basically on a pleb-hunt only because a guy quoted Bach when talking about properties of music. Yet you still can't understand that what that guy said can be applied to most composers of the Renaissance, Baroque, Common Practice and Romantic period, wether you're talking about counterpunctual or homophonic music.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the concert pianists, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret keyboard repertoires (GV, WTC, half of AoF, the French and English Suite and a plethora of minor fugues and chorales) on Bach, and I have over 300 confirmed concerts. I am trained in didactic means and I’m the top pianist in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Gotcha, I'll ignore you from now on. You've got nothing.

They go hand in hand in good music

>A medium is not the best example of that medium
Yes it is, what the fuck?

Whatever, I've been ignoring you from the start since you have nothing.

Case in point:
youtube.com/watch?v=NkKOeeYko7w

No it's not. If you pick a big fat formalist to prove the rest of your formalist garbage is good then you don't have an argument. Please kill yourself as soon as you have the opportunity.

youtube.com/watch?v=oeHNkg0L9Jw

rec me literature like this

only genuine retards will ever say that something is aesthetic but not art