/lit/ - Literature

I thought 4chan would know all about this question

pynchon?

Neutral milk hotel is irredeemable trash and so are you

>>9236379
>being this pleb

Zappfe?

>>9235032
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'anti-intellectualism""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'
Just academic bourgeois faggots who are butthurt because not everyone fits into their constructed definition of "intellectual." Anti-intellectualism is anything you don't like.

>>9236379
>implying ITAOTS is a bad album
Stop falling for /mu/ memes.

>>9236558
What is ''good'' when Beethoven is out there?
Just discard that meme trash.

>>9236560
You are the core definition of a pleb. Stop talking.

>>9236560
classical autists are the worst.

>>9236678
Please explain how your garbage that is LITERALLY derived from nigger music is better than classical music.

>>9236693
>nigger
triggered.
go back to pol you fucking autist nobody likes you, even on the internet.

>>9236703
That's not an explanation.

>>9236693
> tfw only enjoy best music and have no concept of genres providing different experiences.

You're the poster child for anti-natalism.

Also...

> nigger

Stop being so obsessed with black people

>>9236712
>explaining things to an autistic cunt
think i'll pass

>>9236703
>>9236733
>>9236753
>OMG he said nigger! Like, I literally can't right now.

Now, now, girls. No need to get your panties in a twist.

>>9235032

Why exactly is it shit? The reason why they say that is because "intellectuals" often deny the very concept of reality. Sometimes you do have to state "well yes, a man is a man and a woman is a woman", because intellectuals are strangely fond of twisting the most basic aspects of reality in the name of postmodernism

>>9236765
show me where on the doll tyrone touched your imaginary girlfriend.

>>9236560
>>9236693
>implying it being derived from "nigger" music makes it bad
>implying ITAOTS and Beethover can't both be good
>Implying Beethoven is even the best classical composer

ok senpai

>>9236827
not him but itaots is really overrated
try this instead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8VLdOGtG1g

>>9236842
See >>9236558

>>9236765
> complains people won't explain things to him
> gets annoyed when they do

>>9236847
not a meme when its true :)

>>9236854
They didn't explain anything, though, f a m a l a m.

awful thread. not a single post addresses the question in the OP

>>9236959
he asked a dumb question tbqh

>>9235032

Isn't materialism the reply ? Epicurus, Marx and their friends. Maybe guys like La Mettrie and Helvetius, not sure though.

>>9236959
lol I don't even know what he's fucking asking

>>9236876
See >>9236558

I'm this guy >>9236560 the other racist guy was just impersonating me.

>>9236650
Expand on this.

>>9236678
Using buzzwords to mask your own ignorance is worse than appreciating the best music there is.

>>9236827
>implying it being derived from "nigger" music makes it bad
I'm not that guy.
>implying ITAOTS and Beethover can't both be good
Beethoven is sublime, ITAOTS is... Eh.
Like every good non-classical album, ITAOTS is the bets music that could have come out of 3-4 fairly stupid, musically deficient random dudes.
Not that interesting after all, and not good and insightful enough for people to listen to it for years.
>Implying Beethoven is even the best classical composer
Beethoven has reached his artistic peak, wich means that comparing him with other great composers is ultimately useless. You should stick to those composers, instead of giving in to /mu/core trash.

>>9237321
Do you believe all music is directly comparable to all other music? Do you believe that artistic quality exists on a linear spectrum?

Comparing music that are in completely different genres is so redundant it makes my head spin. It's like saying Ulysses is better than Lord of the Rings. It may be but it doesn't even remotely mean anything because they're completely different things with completely different intentions.

I don't even know why you care that Beethoven is better than Neutral Milk Hotel. What does it do? What has been gained?

>>9235032

>>9236379
This

>>9236558
The meme is that ITAOTS is good

>>9237369
>It's like saying Ulysses is better than Lord of the Rings

It's more like saying that Dante's Inferno is better than the first book of Game of Thrones, wich is not a far fetched statement, nor a unreasonable one.
Your inability of making any meaningful distinction between Beethoven's 138 opus' and an album of songs based on 4 chords and only decent lyrics is just a sign of intellectual cowardice.

Rise above it and own your own judgments, especially when they're this obvious.

>I don't even know why you care that Beethoven is better than Neutral Milk Hotel. What does it do? What has been gained?

That post stemmed from this one (which is not mine) >>9236379
Beethoven was just a great composer everyone know of I could mention,min order to show how lacking and almost pathetic ITAOTS is, and how far is /mu/'s collective taste from being respectable.

If ITAOTS is a good album in your book then I can only assume that you're completely lacking in any sort of sophistication

>>9237195
not a meme if its true

>>9237400

>Your inability of making any meaningful distinction between Beethoven's 138 opus' and an album of songs based on 4 chords and only decent lyrics is just a sign of intellectual cowardice.

I can make distinctions between them. That's the point. I'm not comparing them to each other at all because I feel it's a pointless exercise.


> Beethoven was just a great composer everyone know of I could mention,min order to show how lacking and almost pathetic ITAOTS is

I don't even like the album I just don't see how someone else being better at a different kind of music has any bearing on it.

Forget I'm talking about Beethoven or Neutral Milk Hotel. Why do you feel the need to compare two forms of music that have no similar intention or structure to each other?

In fact tell me how any classical composer is better than NMH at everything NMH attempts to do? Do you believe that NMH set out to do something that classical music does better? You literally can't because they are different fucking things and are incomparable. You can tell me how Beethoven is better than Bach or how the Pixies are better than NMH because they're similar enough to compare. You're quite literally comparing apples with fucking potatoes in an attempt to appear cultured.

>>9235032

philosophers dont take anti-intellectualism seriously. not because they dont think common reason can be valuable, not because they sneer down their noses at those outside the academy (though some certainly do), but because "intellectualism" itself is nonsensical, and so too must be its abstract negation.

>>9237466
>I can make distinctions between them.
You can make a distinction between the subject (Beethoven is different than NMH) but you can't make a distinction between the value that one could attribute to them.
Yet, no matter how hazy and feeble the art discourse may be, I refuse to think that saying statements as obvious as ''Dante is better than GRR Martin'' and ''Beethoven is better than NMH'' is anything but reasonable, if not even truist.
>That's the point. I'm not comparing them to each other at all because I feel it's a pointless exercise.
So saying that Dante is better than GRR Martin is a pointless exercise, even if it fits the topic of discussion? Because to me it's a banal statement, something so obvious that should not even be uttered.

>You can tell me how Beethoven is better than Bach or how the Pixies are better than NMH because they're similar enough to compare.
The systemic differences between these 4 artists are less radical than you may think, in fact it is fair to say that they are all doing the same thing, using the same language, varying only in intensity and orchestration.
There is no difference between the tonal and harmonic system Bach, Beethoven and NMH are using, and since there is no objective distinction between these artists it s fair to say that this distinction is purely metaphysical, therefore human.
Since we're not talking about cold, hard facts it is fair for me to compare these artists, who all belong to the same theoretical and compositional tradition.

That said, I'd rather shift this debate from a musical to a literary point of view, since we're here on /lit/. So far I've mentioned Dante and GRRM, but feel free to use other examples to prove your point, if you feel that these ones are too limiting.

>>9237321
>muh art music
Pop music has the potential to be literary/high culture. You're like the people who called Monet shit because he didn't conform with the high culture movement. Stop waiting academia to tell you that it's okay to like things and form your own opinions.

Now, I'm in no way saying that ITAOTS is some sort of glorious 10/10 masterpiece, but it's an evocative, well structured and influential album that's unfortunately the subject of a /mu/ meme.

>>9237567
>You're like the people who called Monet shit because he didn't conform with the high culture movement.
Then why don't I have any problem with impressionist musicians? Do you really think that it is either Beethoven or 4 shitty chords with angsty teen-ish lyrics?

>Stop waiting academia to tell you that it's okay to like things and form your own opinions.
No one has mentioned academia here. That said ITAOTS won't ever be part of it.

>but it's an evocative, well structured and influential album that's unfortunately the subject of a /mu/ meme.
>ITAOTS
>well structured
>I always settle down for what is ''good'' :)

>>9237591
It wasn't a direct comparison. It was more of an example of you heralding a mindset of conformity.

With that said, once you argue that art music is somehow superior, you're clinging to an outdated notion very prevalent in today's music academia. I think Adam Neely's electronic music project illustrates this very well. He wrote a piece mostly utilizing computer generated sounds, and his professors didn't really like it. Once, and only once he wrote down the really complicated sheet music did he get recognition from his teachers.

And yes, ITAOTS is well structured and paced. Discounting it just because of it's genre and relative accessibility is moronic and elitist.

>It was more of an example of you heralding a mindset of conformity.
Yet I haven't mentioned any critic/popular thinker, in fact I have only talked about radical individuality and the acceptance of arbitrariety in one's judgement.
You're not being that charitable.

>today's music academia.
First of all, this notion is not prevalent at all in contemporary academia.
Secondly, I have mentioned academia once, and only in response to your remark on it.
Again, you're just putting words into my mouth.

>I think Adam Neely's electronic music project illustrates this very well. He wrote a piece mostly utilizing computer generated sounds, and his professors didn't really like it. Once, and only once he wrote down the really complicated sheet music did he get recognition from his teachers.
Does this have anything to do with what I've said? Have I praised the contemporary academia as a completely prejudice-free institution? Have I praised it at all?
Also, have I said that contemporary music can be compared to common practice period music? I've said that NMH (not people like Ferneyhough) can be compared to Beethoven, since they're both using the same exact musical system and they're both responding to somewhat similar requests, moods and philosophical pursuits. None of them were trying to advance the theoretical aspect of music at large, unlike the example you've presented me.


>And yes, ITAOTS is well structured and paced.
In what ways do you think it is well structured?
>Discounting it just because of it's genre
not what I did
>and relative accessibility
That's something you've just made up
>is moronic and elitist.
I may have been moronic and elitist, had I said even 10% of the things you've attributed to me.

>>9237561
> I refuse to think that saying statements as obvious as ''Dante is better than GRR Martin'' and ''Beethoven is better than NMH''
These statements are completely pointless as is. They are true for a variety of metrics, and false for others. Your inane babble is literally /mu/'s 'objectively better'.
>creations that use same medium and techniques serve identical purpose and can be objectively compared
Fucking kill yourself.
>Then why don't I have any problem with impressionist musicians?
This is what you should ask yourself, retard. You're drawing lines in the sand according to your subjective taste and then try and pass it off as some objective decision. Le four chords. You are literally the arrogant philistine that goes 'muh 5 year old could paint this' in front of modernist paintings.

I'm not even a fan of NMH, but pretentious pseuds like you should definitely be fucking shot in the head.

>>9237616
>muh conformity
>implying conformity is inherently bad

Liberals, man.

>>9237735
>groupthink is good
>le libtards kekeke
Not surprised really. Try and reply with something about cucking and feminism for full effect.

>>9237733
>These statements are completely pointless as is. They are true for a variety of metrics, and false for others. Your inane babble is literally /mu/'s 'objectively better'.
They are pointless by themselves, yet there was a context for such a statement (which was about wethere it is worth listening to plain ''good'' albums).

>Fucking kill yourself.
I guess you're not that educated on the matter. That's why I told you to shift on a literary point of view, you may have any sort of education there (you may not know how to read a single note, but you certainly know how to read words).

>This is what you should ask yourself, retard. You're drawing lines in the sand according to your subjective taste and then try and pass it off as some objective decision. Le four chords. You are literally the arrogant philistine that goes 'muh 5 year old could paint this' in front of modernist paintings.

Nice strawman my friend. Instead of making these accusations you may quote those parts of my post that may actually support this abstraction.

>I'm not even a fan of NMH, but pretentious pseuds like you should definitely be fucking shot in the head.
Too many buzzwords to take you seriously.
What I can tell is that you're taste is as basic as it gets, and that there is no thought behind your judgement. Keep enjoying everything, and keep thinking that every idea is exactly like every other idea as long as you stick to it. Stick to your mindless absolute aesthetic relativism. That's how you end up with a worthless academia, by the way.

>>9237774
>there was a context for such a statement
There was no defined metric whatsoever, yet you said statements like "Dante is better that GRRM" are "something so obvious that should not even be uttered". Stop trying to shy away after uttering something this idiotic.
>I guess you're not that educated on the matter.
Solid pseud counterargument. If you can't substantiate your statements just shut the fuck up.
>Nice strawman my friend. Instead of making these accusations you may quote those parts of my post that may actually support this abstraction.
They are quoted in the post your replied to, imbecile. You mentioned "only 4 chords" twice in your ramblings. Which is absolutely equivalent to critique of modernist techinques as too easy by plebs. How are you this dense?
>What I can tell that you're dumb and stupid and I can't come up with a single argument to defend my shit positions. Enjoy being a pleb XDDD
To summarize: kys yourself.

>>9237848
>There was no defined metric whatsoever, yet you said statements like "Dante is better that GRRM" are "something so obvious that should not even be uttered". Stop trying to shy away after uttering something this idiotic.

Are you disagreeing with that statement? Is there ANY metric that would put GRRR over Dante? Would you equate the quality of the house of cards I'm building with pic related? Are all ideas equal? With no exception?
This is what I mean for cowardice and absolute aesthetic relativism.

>Solid pseud counterargument. If you can't substantiate your statements just shut the fuck up.
It was a consideraton, not an argument. In fact nothing was built upon that statement.

>You mentioned "only 4 chords" twice in your ramblings.

Too bad that when I say 4 chords I mean almost literally the same 4 chords (I'll give you that sometimes they switch key, but that's it) thorough the entire album.
This is not a deliberate, cautious choice, rather it is a product of cluelessness and complete ignorance on the craft that is being used (and that ignorance is not even being channeled in new, interested ways, instead they go for the 4 chords/song form route, wich is the most banal thing you can do with a acoustic guitar). Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.

>Which is absolutely equivalent to critique of modernist techinques as too easy by plebs. How are you this dense?
Not really, you obviously don't even get that point of view. Are you sure that you don't want to switch to literature? Because you're obviously oblivious to the field you're talking about.

>To summarize: kys yourself.
I say that you're using too many buzzwords, you respond by uusing even more buzzwords.
What a true intellectual.

>First of all, this notion is not prevalent at all in contemporary academia.
That's my impression from the top music schools of US eg. Berklee and Juilliard, Cleveland.
>Secondly, I have mentioned academia once, and only in response to your remark on it.
>Again, you're just putting words into my mouth.
Absolutely fair.

>In what ways do you think it is well structured?
The album has a robust three-act structure (Introduction, rising tension, multiple climaxes, resolving the themes) that's executed well. There's also the matter of length (the album is comparatively short and most songs are interesting in one way or another).

>That's something you've just made up
It's just pleasant to listen to while being _relatively_ experimental within the indie genre. It's a reason it's considered one of the most entry tier albums.

>I may have been moronic and elitist, had I said even 10% of the things you've attributed to me.
Fair enough. You're in the right here.


I just think that the dismissal of the album as just "guy singing with mediocre folk-rock instrumentation" is missing the point. Just as it would be unfair to accuse Cubists of not using perspective well, it's unfair to accuse Jeff Mangum of not using complex music theory. It's charm lies elsewhere - in it's simplicity and personal nature.

Three questions - the works of Bob Dylan and John Darinelle are also guys singing to guitars strumming - would you consider them musically trash as well? And who would you consider the musical greats in the late 20th-21st century? Is rock music entirely without merit in your opinion?

>>9237928 here, want to add to my post with an answer
>Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.
The entire track of untitled, the lyricism, the raw energy and emotion of the album, Jeff's delivery, Jeff's vocals (which, as a hobbyist singer, I can tell you are impressive from a technical standpoint)

Now some of these are only not formulaic in the context of indie and some are just generally unique, but there's artistry involved in it.

Again, not saying that it's GOAT or even the best of """indie""" music, just that it's pretty good.

>>9237920
>Is there ANY metric that would put GRRR over Dante?
Of course. Their art has entirely different purpose. If we define the metric as a degree to which the works have fulfilled the intended function, both can be considered on par (though this is not my subjective view in case of GRRM).
>Are all ideas equal? With no exception?
Of course not. As you say 'you need to stop putting words in my mouth'.
>Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.
Yet ITAOTS is one of the most unique and outstanding albums of the time. Again, your whole critique is based on technical considerations, which is silly. It's akin to dismissing Raphael, because he used the same techniques as da Vinci.
>Are you sure that you don't want to switch to literature? Because you're obviously oblivious to the field you're talking about.
Are you sure you don't want to switch? Because it seems like you desperately try to substitute lack of factual arguments with ad hominems.

>you can't enjoy itaots because there is better music in another genre

>>9236765
>Kek, I'll throw nigger out there, and then people will truly see the might of Kekistan
> N I G G E R
> why aren't people outraged?
> WHY AREN'T PEOPLE OUTRAGED?!
> ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED?!?!
> REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
> Eureka!
> I'll just insist they were outraged!
> Praise kekistan

>>9236473
It's just a way for people who have done well within our educational system to talk down to those that haven't cared so well. Most, if not all, anti-inellectualism is completely justified.

>>9235032
I really like this album and listen to it a lot.

Can I please be insulted by strangers on the internet now?

>>9238499
Everything Is > Over the Sea > All the other dreck they put out

>>9238499
literally King of Carrot flowers and Ghost are the only good tracks on that album, and his Anne Frank fixation is just sad and lame

>>9238562
That is quite possibly the most pseud opinion one can have about that album.

>>9235032
Heidegger.

>>9238666
the album is bad, just admit it. they peaked with Everything Is, which is a truly experimental lo-fi artistic achievement

people like itaots because it's approachable and easily digestible, its songs are boring little narrative vignettes with a downgraded sense of noise and lo-fi, grow up please

>>9235032
Conservatism, when understood properly, is actually an inherently anti-intellectual ideology. It is only recently (think 1950s/60s) that there has actually been a noticeable and influential conservative intellectual movement.

I say this as a conservative, and I do not think anti-intellectualism is always a bad thing. I think Thomas Sowell, himself an intellectual, discusses this quite nicely in his book "A Conflict of Visions", where he describes the conservative outlook (what he calls the "Unconstrained" or "Tragic" vision of the world) as one based not on ideas produced by a small class of intellectuals, but rather knowledge generated and coordinated by the great masses of people throughout history (think "tradition", "common law", "rules of thumb", etc.). Roger Scruton calls this "social knowledge".

Steven Pinker (liberal atheist Jew) even discusses this distinction in "A Blank Slate", and has some positive things to say about the conservative "anti-intellectual" tradition.

>>9239316
This is retarded. Calling conservatism anti-intellectual is just a modern academic zeitgeist resulting from an utter inability to defend socialist thought on any level (this, of course, does not include the "but-what-about-the-poor-people-who-aren't-as-intelligent-and-therefore-not-as-successful argument"). The burden of "intellectualizing" an argument is on those advocating for some sort of inherent change. Conservatism is inherently simple, and that's the point, pseud.

>>9236712
>implying anyone gives a fuck what you want, you autistic piece of fucking shit

>>9237466
>You're quite literally comparing apples with fucking potatoes in an attempt to appear cultured

You hit the nail on the head m8. Classic autism tactic. Just ignore him, no one would give him the time of day outside of this chinese cartoon image board.

>>9237920
Someone please screenshot this for cringe threads.

>>9240366
Why are you so fucking buttblasted, dude? Why does the word "nigger" trigger /lit/ so much? I have to be honest, your responses are very confusing and inappropriate. Almost autistic.

>>9237400
>only uses 4 chords
>lyrics make no sense
>singer off key
>makes people feel transcendental religious experience
Beethoven sucks. Accomplishing the same thing takes him a billion complicated things. Clearly aeroplane is better.

>>9240584
Someone here has never listened to the Missa Solemnis. I'm feeling bad for you :(

>>9237561
>Since we're not talking about cold, hard facts it is fair for me to compare these artists, who all belong to the same theoretical and compositional tradition.

Fine, explain to me how Bach has created a better lo-fi indie rock album than NMH.

Or explain to me how Dante's created a better fantasy epic with dragons than GRRM.

You appear to have zero understanding of the importance of intention in art and compare things that have zero relation other than their sharing a medium which is much less relevant than content. In fact it would be less nonsensical to compare the Beowulf to the Twilight movies than it is to compare classical music to fucking indie rock.

>>9237920
>Too bad that when I say 4 chords I mean almost literally the same 4 chords (I'll give you that sometimes they switch key, but that's it) thorough the entire album.
>This is not a deliberate, cautious choice, rather it is a product of cluelessness and complete ignorance on the craft that is being used (and that ignorance is not even being channeled in new, interested ways, instead they go for the 4 chords/song form route, wich is the most banal thing you can do with a acoustic guitar). Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.

This isn't the argument. The argument is that classical music has no bearing on the album being shit.

Lots of music is shit. It is shit on it's own merits or because it does not achieve something it intended to or because others have done the same thing better before. It is not shit because a completely different style of music exists and is superior technically.

The fact that one is technically more complex than the other means nothing because at no point during the creation of the piece was there an attempt to achieve this.

What do you feel is achieved by comparing two things so completely different?

>>9240425
Stop trying to pretend anybody is offended by the word nigger. It just makes you sound like a teenager when you say it.

>>9236788
Fucking kek!

>>9235032
Check out Jung and Frankl for non-fiction.

Under the Wheel by Hesse for fiction.

>>9236899
See:
>>9236733
>genres provide different experiences

And
>>9236827
>both genres can be good

And
>this post
>FUCK OFF YOU RETARDED CUNT

>>9240425

>>9241359
is that chest hair or a goatee?

>>9241435
If you have to ask, you'll never know.

>>9241442
Why not both?

>>9240625
I was just listening to that last week actually. NMH is better.

>>9237466
>You're quite literally comparing apples with fucking potatoes
underrated

>>9241354
Listen, classical music is just better you pseudopleb! The literal tears that steam down my face when I listen to Wagner are the tears of a soul's journey into the netherreaches of time's long forgotten halls, the tears you cry for NMH are like literal pseud emotions.

>oh no, daddy didn't love me enough!?

Have an true existential crisis, then we'll talk.

>>9241790
Do you know what pseudo means?

>>9241800
It means you have barely lived enough moons to gently stroke your beard with thoughts heavy as the core of Jupiter. The objective Forms of music are there for the Guardians to see, I'm sorry that you would be a literal slave in the Republic.

>>9241433
this is actually useful.

>>9241810

>>9241815
Not all who are retarded know God, but all who know God are retarded.

>>9241354
>The fact that one is technically more complex than the other means nothing because at no point during the creation of the piece was there an attempt to achieve this.

I haven't talked about complexity, I've instead talked about deliberacy and craft, which is a completely different thing.

>The argument is that classical music has no bearing on the album being shit.
Classical music has bearing on wether it is worth listening to that album, which was my first point.

>It is not shit because a completely different style of music exists and is superior technically.
Not what I've said, in fact I've even said this:
>This is not a deliberate, cautious choice, rather it is a product of cluelessness and complete ignorance on the craft that is being used (and that ignorance is not even being channeled in new, interested ways, instead they go for the 4 chords/song form route, wich is the most banal thing you can do with a acoustic guitar). Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.

>What do you feel is achieved by comparing two things so completely different?
You get a sense of priority, which was the point of this discussion.

>>9241335
>Fine, explain to me how Bach has created a better lo-fi indie rock album than NMH.
See? You're equating every idea, as if they're the same.
Too bad that I haven't taken the parameters of the genre to give a judgement, instead I've decided to look at the music itself, bypassing your beloved critics.

>You appear to have zero understanding of the importance of intention in art
Although I'm not the one spouting theory on how to critic art, you're the one that is being excessively naive here. Using your method (if we can call ''that'' method) you end up being able to compare only pieces of art that are built upon the exact same foundations, which is the death of criticism. It's cause of naive people like you that pseuds can make up arguments such as ''well, I guess that this scribble is as good as any Rembrant painting'': this happens because behind your judgement there is NO criteria, nor is there the ability of giving any sort of judgement.
Keep praising your moderateness, while forgetting that this is exactly what makes your opinion worthless.

>>9238090

>>9238090
>Of course not. As you say 'you need to stop putting words in my mouth'.

Yet you're the one here saying
>Of course. Their art has entirely different purpose. If we define the metric as a degree to which the works have fulfilled the intended function, both can be considered on par (though this is not my subjective view in case of GRRM).
While also ignoring that GOT may have completely fulfilled the platonic idea that GRRM had about this serie, making it as valid as Dante's Comedy.

>Yet ITAOTS is one of the most unique and outstanding albums of the time.
Is it? Is this album of songs that follow exactly the form song while using exactly band formations akin to the genre, while being banal to the point of clichè in literally every melodic and harmonic choice they make. Is this one of the most outstanding albums of our time? Why?
Beacuse of the lyrics, which are not that profound, nor well crafted in the first place?
Is this one of the most outstanding album of the time?

>Again, your whole critique is based on technical considerations
The critique is based also on technical considerations. Also don't think that when I mention harmony and melody I'm being a theorist. One thing is complaining about the lack of harmonic complexity, another thing is to complain about the sheer cluesness that lays behind literally every aspect of their music.
There is nothing that is original in that album.

>It's akin to dismissing Raphael, because he used the same techniques as da Vinci.
This has nothing to do with my earlier criticism, not even tangentially.

>>9241810

>>9236473

What? Anti-intellectualism is like soccer moms who refuse to vaccinate their kids because they spent 20 minutes online on some fake vegan website about how it causes autism, or flat earth retards.

>>9241359
>say the word "nigger"
>someone responds "FUCK YOU NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOU AND YOU"RE A FUCKING AUTUSTIC PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT"

I didn't say "nigger" to be provocative. Sorry it hurts your feelings so much, dude.

>>9242295
>be me
>be black
>move to a new town
>literaly the only black kid in the block
>get beaten up almost everyday when coming back from school
>people always yell "NIGGER" at me, openly
>no one gives a shit
>1 years in people start throwing rocks at my house
>get used to always having broken windows
>since 2012 there has been a giant NIGGER graffiti on my house

I'll be honest, reading that word even here on /lit/ hurts.

>>9242295
Why did you say it?

>>9242584
>be black
>move to a new town
>literaly the only black kid in the block
Here's your mistake.
Guess those people weren't so keen on being ethnically replaced.
Just like any other race is allowed to be except whites, and then it's the six gorillion all-over again.

>>9242584
Fuck off nigger

>>9242584
>be black
That's your main mistake.

>>9241917
>I haven't talked about complexity, I've instead talked about deliberacy and craft, which is a completely different thing.

Both of which do not transcend genre. You're comparison of classical music to indie-rock is pointless and redundant no matter what criteria you use to compare them because they do not occupy any of the same space except for the fact that they are both music.

> Classical music has bearing on wether it is worth listening to that album, which was my first point.

No it does not. It has literally no bearing on that because they are completely separate things that share nothing but a medium. There is no attempt by either piece to create even remotely the same output so nothing is achieved by comparing them directly with one another.

> See? You're equating every idea, as if they're the same.

Literally what you're doing.

> you end up being able to compare only pieces of art that are built upon the exact same foundations, which is the death of criticism.

Are you literally this dense? A comparison is redundant if two things are as completely separate and unrelated as these two genres of music are. Comparisons within genre or even within some stylistic criteria or even time period are comparable but to compare centuries old concert music with a few hipsters with guitars is not a comparison at all because there are almost zero criteria by which to compare them. it does not make nmh a good band or make that a good album by any means. that is not the argument.

Also you say you're talking about deliberacy and complain about my talking about intention.

> ''well, I guess that this scribble is as good as any Rembrant painting''

hur dur muh kid cud drawed dat. Do you think Picasso just couldn't get the hang of eyes and that Matisse just couldn't find the right coloured paints? I suppose Joyce just wrote down everything that came into his head without thinking and Beckett was lazy? I bet the only "modern" painter you like is Dali because he could draw the best.

> Keep praising your moderateness, while forgetting that this is exactly what makes your opinion worthless.

Do you legitimately believe that artistic quality can only be measured by technical ability and prowess? Do you think that hyper-realism is the pinnacle of painting? Moderateness is the complete lack of insight and ingenuity that comes from being obsessed with technical complexity and classically criteria rather than actually attempting to create something new.

>>9242758
>Both of which do not transcend genre.
Deliberacy does not trascend genre? Nor does craft, even when I'm identifying it into the limits of the genre itself?

>It has literally no bearing on that because they are completely separate things that share nothing but a medium.
So you can compare things that share a medium only if they're doing the same exact thing?

>Literally what you're doing.
I'm comparing the ideas, instead you're saying that since they're different they're equal in value, whch is exactly what I'm accusing you of.
You're putting every possible idea on the same plane.

>music with a few hipsters with guitars is not a comparison at all because there are almost zero criteria by which to compare them
Apart from the fact that they're both appealing to the same human spirit while using the exact same musical tools?

>Also you say you're talking about deliberacy and complain about my talking about intention.
Because I'm not equating them? Deliberacy implies trascendence of the form, regardless of the genre.
I may have the intention of writing a shitty 4 chords songs, but chances are that my choice is not deliberate since I know virtually no other alternative route. NMH are banal even as modern songwriters, there's no need to put Beethoven into the equation.

>muh kid cud drawed dat. Do you think Picasso just couldn't get the hang of eyes and that Matisse just couldn't find the right coloured paints? I suppose Joyce just wrote down everything that came into his head without thinking and Beckett was lazy? I bet the only "modern" painter you like is Dali because he could draw the best.
You fucking retard. My point is exactly the opposite, which is that there are actually good reasons to defend artists such as Picasso and Matisse, which goes deeper than 'muh intentions' and 'mu they did something slightly different'.
It was a critique on your critique method, not on the artists themselves.

>Do you legitimately believe that artistic quality can only be measured by technical ability and prowess?
God, have you read even 1% of what I've wrote? Do you think that a band has only 2 choices, either 4chords in C major or modal counterpoint?
Let me quote something that I've wrote earlier, that my clarify where I'm coming from:
>This is not a deliberate, cautious choice, rather it is a product of cluelessness and complete ignorance on the craft that is being used (and that ignorance is not even being channeled in new, interested ways, instead they go for the 4 chords/song form route, wich is the most banal thing you can do with a acoustic guitar). Virtually everything in NMH music is formulaic.

Using 4 chords for a song is not universally wrong and cheap. Yet, every musical aspect of NMH is cheap and falls into the clichè. There is literally nothing original in their compositions, even when you look at their works from a indie-rock point of view. I've talked very few times about complexity.

>>9242746
you are like a little baby, now watch this

Classical music and all kinds of formalist music are irredeemable shit.

>listening to music at all
top fucking pleb

>>9243030
Nice prejudice you've got there.
Anyway no one here is arguing for formalism, nor is classical music necessarly formulaic.

>>9243561
I could argue for formalism if anyone was interested in rigorous debate.

>>9241790
>wagner

>>9242758
Your*

>>9243662
I disagree with everything the faggot you're responding to said, except I too cry when listening to Wagner. His stuff is p-good, definitely the best music any "alt-righter" could claim to appreciate (key word "claim," I doubt many could actually appreciate Wagner enough to weep). The Rhine March in Gotterdammerung gets me errytiem

>>9242945
>There is literally nothing original in their compositions, even when you look at their works from a indie-rock point of view
They were one of the very first bands that kicked off the lofi indie-rock and universally quoted as the most influential one by other artists in genre, you absolute dunce. Stop playing silly language games and repeating 'dats not what I said' without providing any clarification hoping it passes for an argument. The analogies with 'my child could do that' and modernists are perfectly correct. Both used unsophisticated techniques and decomposed older standards to bring about works of art defining new (sub)genres and having unique aesthetic qualities. Yes, NMH did that, my autistic friend. Though, I should compliment you on moving the goalposts of this shit argument by shifting from raw technique to innovation, really showing the objectivity here. And no, no one is claiming that 'all ideas are the same', retardo. Classical and baroque music in particular are immensely more culturally important than this particular flavor of indie/folk/rock and, yes, Bach is indeed a far greater innovator than Mangum, that still doesn't fucking warrant the general statement "Bach is better than NMH". Both excelled and achieved greatness in their respective domains. Difference in scope of influence of these spheres has absolutely no bearing on "worthiness" of artists or aesthetic value of their art. Your position is as stupid as "Tizian is better than Gauguin", or worse yet "Shakespeare is better than Escoffier". Just fucking own your opinions and say you don't like NMH or that you don't like the genre at all - there's nothing wrong with that. Right now you sound like an annoying clueless teenager that thinks a musical education and two chapters of Adorno make you an expert in the field of art with 'objectively right opinion'.

>>9243596

Not that guy, just a layman.

Still very interested in how you'd do it.

>>9243680
How can you possibly disagree with time's longforgotten halls, you pleb!

>>9238562
Do you judge a book by its individual chapters?

Its a concept album, the tracks all go together. That makes it pointless to care about individual song value.

>>9237561
Jeez. You strike me as the sort of person who covers up for his lack of friends/social grace by retreating into an insulated world of so-called high art so you can feel superior to all the girls who never wanted to fuck you. You know, you won't be welcomed into a some sort of cultural elite because you said you like Beethoven more than NMH on 4chan.

>>9242260
vaccinations do cause autism and the world is flat

>>9245755
Nice projecting my friend.

>>9243937
>They were one of the very first bands that kicked off the lofi indie-rock and universally quoted as the most influential one by other artists in genre, you absolute dunce.
This is what you call folk songs recorded badly, with a fuzz pedal every once in a while? Fuck, your standards are low.

>The analogies with 'my child could do that' and modernists are perfectly correct.
They may be technically correct, but they don't come even close to describing these pieces of art. There are STRONG reasons to appreciate artists such as Klee, but as soon as you adopt your line of reasoning the whole ''my child could do that duh'' becomes as valid as your opinion.

>Both used unsophisticated techniques and decomposed older standards to bring about works of art defining new (sub)genres and having unique aesthetic qualities.
The artists that you've quoted did NOT use unsophisticated techniques, they used experimental ones, which is completely different.
Your critique would make sense if Picasso, instead of going for the cubist route, just started painting traditional painting with very minor quirks. There is no deviation from the structural and formulaic norm in NMH works.

>Yes, NMH did that, my autistic friend.
Nope, they sticked with the 4 chords song form. You could talk about lack of sophistication, I'd rather talk about banality.

>I should compliment you on moving the goalposts of this shit argument by shifting from raw technique to innovation
I haven't done that. The excerpt I've quoted earlier was an attack of banality, which also included 2 major considerations: a) you can avoid banality while sticking to a tradition or genre and b) you don't necessarly need to be a erudite in your craft to do so.
What I was critizing in NMH music is that no good quality can be found in their music: it's not experimental, it's not well crafted, it's not brilliant. There's nothing in their music, thats the problem. What remains is the emotive side of their music, which, as I've stated multiple time, I don't find appealing in the slightest.
What's fun here is that my goalpost has never been centered on either raw technique or raw innovation.
>And no, no one is claiming that 'all ideas are the same', retardo.
You're not saying that every idea is equal to every other idea, what you're saying is that every idea is as valuable as evey other idea (where in this case idea stands for genre), and that those can not be compared: one can not be better than the other. This is what I'm accusing you of.
>Both excelled and achieved greatness in their respective domains
My point is that one domain is inherently inferior to the other.
>Just fucking own your opinions and say you don't like NMH
Own your opinion and say that the only reason one should like NMH is because they like them in the first place. There are strong arguments that can be made for Gauguin's art: those arguments don't apply to NMH.

>>9237369
>>9237400
>>9237466
>>9237561
>>9237733
>>9237774
>>9237848
>>9237920
>>9238090
>>9241944
>>9242758
>>9242945
>>9243937
>>9246621

>tfw these 2 anons will obiously never agree on anything
>tfw they will keep going on until this thread is deleted

>>9236560
Turbo /classical/ sperg detected

>>9246621
>Fuck, your standards are low.
Your personal opinion has literally no bearing on the fact that their aesthetic is unique and inspired a number of artists. But thanks for another inane 'that's so boring and easy comment'.
>The artists that you've quoted did NOT use unsophisticated techniques, used experimental ones
The absolute majority of modernists used same old techniques to produce new experimental modes of art, you fucking philistine tard. The actual new creation techniques invented in modernist era can be counted on one hand with pointillism/divisionism and action/drip painting. Picasso, who you mention, is a prime example, in that cubism is a new art style, not a new technique. I'm not sure how you can not understand the distinction, unless you're trolling.
>There are STRONG reasons to appreciate artists such as Klee
>There are strong arguments that can be made for Gauguin's art: those arguments don't apply to NMH
I think it's hilarious and revealing that you felt the need to repeat it twice, but couldn't even come up with a single one. The fact is that there are no reasons which would apply to those, but wouldn't to NMH. Even the criticism from 'classical standard' viewpoint would be exactly the same as yours: their art would be considered utterly simple, badly crafted and banal by Renaissance fellows. It is only in historical context that we can truly appreciate it for radical decomposition of previous artistic norms and unique """"intended"""" aesthetic.
>my goalpost has never been centered on either raw technique or raw innovation
>it's not experimental, it's not well crafted
>folk songs recorded badly, with a fuzz pedal
>was an attack of banality
It's literally all of your critique. "Four chords, badly recorded with fuzz pedal, banal". At least fucking realize what you're arguing for, cretin.
>what you're saying is that every idea is as valuable as every other idea
I've admitted exactly the contrary in the post you're replying to. I'm not sure whether this is some autistic trolling attempt or you're genuinely mentally challenged.
>My point is that one domain is inherently inferior to the other.
Again, as I fucking admitted in the very post you're replying to, YES, classical music is much more """"culturally significant"""" than indie rock. And NO it doesn't mean that one is "inherently inferior" to other, much like the generalistic statement that "X classical composer is superior to Y rock band" is completely pointless, because their art has completely different purpose, functions and artistic intent, which you seem to have no understanding of. If you want to discuss the finer points of art like a big boy, then learn to use precise statements and not vague 'superior patrishun' bullshit. Now fuck off, I'm tired of wasting my autism on feeding (You)'s to an oligophrenic.

>>9235032
>Starts /lit/ thread
Uses /mu/ bait pic for replies

>Why is this allowed