/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6262399]

Does the Vatican have good taste in art?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/15/pope-top-10-albums-vatican

[Anonymous No.6262433]

>Oasis

[Anonymous No.6262439]

>>6262399

>Beatles.

[Anonymous No.6262445]

>rock music
>ever good
the list is fine I suppose, I really hope that holy men don't waste too much of their time with pop-culture.

[Anonymous No.6262478]

>>6262433
Oasis is objectively the best band on that list.

[Anonymous No.6262494]

>>6262445
They really, really don't. This is a terrible puff piece by the media trying to portray Francis as cool, and hip.

On a /lit/ related note, Francis' favorite writer is Borges. They actually met once.

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/borges-borges-borges-francesco-francis-francisco-30459/

[meow meow No.6262498]

>Albums

Cute.

[Anonymous No.6262499]

The pope is a pleb

[Anonymous No.6262515]

In twenty years, we'll have a hipster pope.

[Anonymous No.6262527]

>>6262515
Soon we'll have a pope that listens to Death Grips.

[Anonymous No.6262562]

>>6262527
Where the fucks my true ones at
Wavin high burnin freak fuck flags
Takes one to no one knows how fucked i am
If i showedem theyd just run like hoes
Fuck these pussies on hella zeros
Two heavens is all i know

[Anonymous No.6262581]

>>6262399
>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/15/pope-top-10-albums-vatican

For some reason I expect that Benedict would have listened to patrish Shoenbergian and post-Webernisn art music.

I really just want to go to francis and introduce him to some good music of high auditory value

[Anonymous No.6262613]

>>6262399

>morning glory over definitely maybe

Christianity must be exterminated

[Anonymous No.6262637]

>>6262581
Francis has excellent taste

>Among musicians I love Mozart, of course. The ‘Et incarnatus est’ from his Mass in C minor is matchless; it lifts you to God! I love Mozart performed by Clara Haskil. Mozart fulfills me. But I cannot think about his music; I have to listen to it. I like listening to Beethoven, but in a Promethean way, and the most Promethean interpreter for me is Furtwängler.

>"And then Bach’s Passions. The piece by Bach that I love so much is the 'Erbarme Dich,' the tears of Peter in the St. Matthew Passion. Sublime. Then, at a different level, not intimate in the same way, I love Wagner. I like to listen to him, but not all the time. The performance of Wagner’s Ring by Furtwängler at La Scala in Milan in 1950 is for me the best. But also the Parsifal by Knappertsbusch in 1962.

[Anonymous No.6262663]

>>6262399
>Oasis
>U2
>Beatles
UTTER HEH

Also, Michael Jackson is wildly appropriate.

[Anonymous No.6262679]

dadcore to the max

PROTESTENTS RULE CATHOLICS DROOL!!

[Anonymous No.6262737]

>Rumors
I'm very OK with this.

[Anonymous No.6262778]

>>6262679
sola scriptorum more like sola dick-torum you faggots

s. Francis

[Anonymous No.6262812]

>>6262399
Who /mu/ here?

That list is fucking terrible. Entry-level as

[Anonymous No.6262820]

>>6262812
fuck off pleb
all rock music is shit, no matter how few copies it sold

[Anonymous No.6262832]

>>6262820
This. If the music you listen to was created and performed by a "band" then it's pleb music.

Patricians listen to classical music and jazz and nothing else.

[Anonymous No.6262834]

>>6262399

>good taste in art
>art

trying to sneak a non lit related thread into my /lit/ by using the word "art" instead of "music" not on my watch. sneaky fucker. bumping for maximum mod visiblity.

[Anonymous No.6262836]

>>6262778
go back to listening to you fleetwood mac grandpa frank

I'm surprised Eagles greatest hits wasnt your no.1 album lel

like go buy an indulgence or smth

[Anonymous No.6262840]

>>6262832
this

[Anonymous No.6262847]

>>6262820
>Implying that we can categorically invalidate a series of abstract sounds based on their historical categorisation.

Any music made with artistic fulfillment rather than the music as a means to a material end (i.e. money and fans) is valid, as long as it manages to arrive at an ultimately confronting and thematically nuanced conclusion.

Also, most classically regarded art music is a fucking waste of time. Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Mahler, Gesualdo, Vivaldi (especially) and Bach's compositions are all accessible, sweet background music that doesn't demand any kind of serious analysis or attention from their listener.

[=^.<= No.6262850]

>All these plebs who will never experience anarchy at a camping drug festival because muh rock music

Thomas Pynchon is laughing at you

[Anonymous No.6262856]

>>6262847
Remember, if you tolerate plebeians, this is what you are allowing to post on your board.

[Anonymous No.6262857]

>>6262832
>Patricians listen to classical music and jazz and nothing else.

I know that it's useless telling you this, but classical music & jazz are a pleb's notion of patrician music.

[Anonymous No.6262859]

>>6262856
This is just fucking intellectually lazy.

[Anonymous No.6262861]

>>6262859
yeah whatever
rock music is dominate on /mu/, go on out

[Anonymous No.6262888]

>>6262847
>Bach and Beethoven don't demand serious attention.
Never have I encountered such a truly plebeian opinion. but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given that most high schoolers (I'm assuming you are one) think Kanye is the epitome of artistic endeavor. The type of person who rejects Bach as "background music" most likely thinks Shakespeare and Milton are also irrelevant. Stay plebe bud.

[Anonymous No.6262893]

>>6262847
>Mahler
>doesn't demand serious analysis
Pick one mate.

[Anonymous No.6262895]

>>6262888
It's a shame that you are fooled by his accessibility, superficial artsiness, and good marketing, but you seem pretty set in your ways so I ain't going to bother convincing you. I don't at all think Kanye is the epitome of artistic endeavor, I think almost exactly the opposite. Throughout all history, the best art has been the art that has never entered into the mainstream public consciousness. The likes of Drudkh, Current 93, Zero Kama, Rome, and Skagos are the best of semi-recent rock music.

[Anonymous No.6262899]

>>6262847
7/10, you got actual replies

[Anonymous No.6262902]

>>6262893
I enjoy plenty of Mahler's pieces, it's just that similar joy and value can be gained from them if you're listening while browsing the internet than if you devote your entire focus to beholding the music. It's for this reason that plenty of art music has been used during dances throughout history.

[Anonymous No.6262924]

>>6262895
You really think Beethoven or Bach is superficial? No way you can listen to his violin partidas or mass in b minor and think this is not genius and an artistic wonder. Look at how he blended Italian French and German baroque styles into a lasting artistic synthesis. I'm not saying I dissaprove of all rock or popular music. I find some rock and pop to be very interesting from a music theory perspective. But to reject some of the names on your list as "background music" is just beyond me. Also look up the rediscovery of Bach in the 20th century. His works survive and regenerate interest because they are undoubtedly genius.

[Anonymous No.6262925]

>>6262888
>The type of person who rejects Bach as "background music" most likely thinks Shakespeare and Milton are also irrelevant.
>>6262895
>Throughout all history, the best art has been the art that has never entered into the mainstream public consciousness.

Incredible, that guy actually predicted right. A hipster whose contrarian "philosophy" about what makes good art has led to real shit taste.

[Anonymous No.6262929]

>>6262902
Fair enough. There's something to be said for seeing a live performance though. Mahler 2 live brought me to tears tbh.

[Anonymous No.6262940]

>>6262895
>t's a shame that you are fooled by his accessibility, superficial artsiness, and good marketing, but you seem pretty set in your ways so I ain't going to bother convincing you
I never said I liked Kanye. I think it's disgusting that most high schoolers think he's literally Shakespeare of the 21st century

[Anonymous No.6262976]

>>6262929
Eh, that's perfectly fair enough. Music is something that is largely dictated by emotional responses, and if that particular music is the one that elicits a powerful emotional response from you then that's perfectly fine. My initial comment was only in response to the notion that art music has some hidden depth or thematic complexity that rock music is immune to.
>>6262924
>No way you can listen to his violin partidas or mass in b minor and think this is not genius and an artistic wonder.
I've listened to both, and while I enjoy them a little, I find neither to be particularly mindblowing or artistically challenging.They're just accessible, nice music that while it's largely inoffensive, is also largely unimpressive. Also, the notion that music taste is objective and that critics reinforce and find objective quality is just a lazy and unanalytical way of asserting one's own taste as something greater than it is. (Especially since confirmation bias is a thing) Also, in most cases, critics ultimately work for a profit, so unquiveringly trusting cfritical consensus as something valuable is kind of stupid.
>>6262925
I don't think that lack of poplarity is a direct, it's just that with a few exceptions, my tastes tend to fall outside of what is mainstream, and I think that by and large, there is a lot more creativity, confronting and inaccessible art, and unfettered, uncompromised realisation of artistic aims outside of the public consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6262983]

>>6262940
I was talking about Bach, but all that I said equally applies to Kanye I guess.

For the record, I've worked as a schoolteacher for 5 years and have come across a lot of avant-teens who exalt entry level art music composers as well.

[Anonymous No.6262987]

>>6262976
>I don't think that lack of poplarity is a direct,
*I don't think that lack of popularity is a direct indicator of qualityy

[Anonymous No.6263002]

>>6262983
The St. Matthew Passion has far more artistic merit than all of your favorite trendiest underground albums combined, no matter how entry-level Bach may be.

Unlike /mu/, I doubt few people who read literature actually believe "most great art is not mainstream" because the greatest works are those that have lasted the test of time.

[Anonymous No.6263007]

>>6263002
>Unlike /mu/, I doubt few people who read literature actually believe "most great art is not mainstream" because the greatest works are those that have lasted the test of time.
Are you seriously claiming that the 'test of time' is an accurate indicator of objective quality, and claiming that your favourite easy listening piece has objective artistic merit without any argument whatsoever? Jeez, someone call the assertion police.

[Anonymous No.6263017]

>>6262976
>largely unimpressive
Having studied at a conservatory it's extremely impressive and influential. But if you weren't raised to appreciate fine art or haven't had a rigorous study of theory and music history you are holding back your listening experience of not just jazz or classical but of tons of different music

[Anonymous No.6263020]

>>6263007
That's the wonderful mystery of art. The objective vs subjective. There's a matter of taste but there's also a cannon.
Also I don't go on /mu but if they think Bach is entry level they should kill themselves

[Anonymous No.6263026]

>>6262976
>>6262987
No one is arguing popularity is the main factor. Telemann and Weiss were much much much more popular than Bach in the German baroque period at the the time but Bach was more of a genius and more people today recognize his art (not to diss Telemann or Weiss)

[Anonymous No.6263029]

>>6263017
>Having studied at a conservatory it's extremely impressive and influential.
I never denied it's influence. It is certainly technically impressive, but so is death metal, that doesn't mean it's innately good or bad. I was saying that it was largely unimpressive in terms of its emotional content,and the level to which its themes were challenging and nuanced. It is largely pretty thematically shallow perhaps because of how inoffensive and easy to deal with it is.
> But if you weren't raised to appreciate fine art
Eh. I don't exactly know what this means, but I certainly grew up in an educated household.
>or haven't had a rigorous study of theory and music history
I don't know about 'rigorous,' but I've certainly learned about both music history and theory pretty seriously. This whole part of your post seams pretty appeal to authorityesque to be honest.

[Anonymous No.6263034]

>>6263007
Why don't you take your own words to heart?
>*I don't think that lack of popularity is a direct indicator of qualityy

Why is Bach's popularity somehow a mark of inferior quality? The cream rises to the top. There will always be great unrecognized works, but you seem to be fetishizing art based on its relative obscurity and difficulty, like someone arguing Joseph McElroy is so much better than Chekhov because he's so "challenging" while Chekhov is too appreciated by the unwashed masses. This is a stupid mindset based on the shallow contrarian impulse to define "good taste" as "this deep art only a few elite connoisseurs know about" vs. "overexposed shallow undemanding art for plebs." That only makes you a shallow pleb.

>your favourite easy listening piece
Also you have absolutely no sense of musical appreciation or breadth of judgment if you're seriously going to argue your favorite niche rock album from this decade is less of an "easy listening piece" than the St. Matthew.

[Anonymous No.6263040]

>>6262832
>2015
>not listening to Shidaiqu and Guinee

[Anonymous No.6263050]

>>6263020
This post is so fucking dumb. How could you pack so many mistakes into such a small space?

>That's the wonderful mystery of art.
>Implying there aren't millions of 'wonderful mysteries' in art.
> There's a matter of taste
The canon is established by a whole lot of critics sharing the same taste and reflecting it into public consciousness. Also, I've already covered that even if critical consensus was in theory able to discern objective quality, its conclusions could not be trusted, as critics are in most cases doing what they do for money, so there's a considerable chance that the pursuit of money could cloud the reporting of these objective truths. If you want to claim something is objectively good, you should make a more serious argument than 'it's objectively good, everyone knows it is.'
> cannon
Wrong canon dickhead.
>Also I don't go on /mu but if they think Bach is entry level they should kill themselves
/mu/ is not one entity, it is a group of different people who have vastly differing views about just about everything. In fact, /mu/'s classical threads often echo similar sentiments to what people are saying now in this thread. I think Bach is entry-level, that's why I said it. It's got nothing to do with some vague /mu/ hivemind. If you can proovide a consistent set of rules as to what constitutes objective quality, (Not just 'whatever the general consensus elects') then that's fine, though it would still only ever be objective within that set of rules.
>>6263026
Inadvertently answered most of your asserted pseudo-arguments already.

[Anonymous No.6263052]

surprisingly decent taste

[Anonymous No.6263056]

>/lit/ board
>thread about vatican's taste.

Lit needs (new) moderation.

[Anonymous No.6263058]

>>6263026
Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

[Anonymous No.6263063]

>>6263040
What is Guinee, do you mean Guinean music in general?

[Anonymous No.6263066]

>>6263058

Revolver is a revolutionary work of art, pleb

[Anonymous No.6263078]

>>6263034
>Why is Bach's popularity somehow a mark of inferior quality?
I never said it was, it's just that inadvertently, the most confronting and thematically nuanced art rarely gets mainstream recognition, and usually stays critically hidden. It doesn't mean that all 'underground' art is necessarily good, it's just that the most nuanced art is rarely exalted in mainstream consciousness.
>The cream rises to the top.
Nice assertion. You've presented no argument as to why the traditionally regarded composers are good other than the fact that they are traditionally regarded.

>eem to be fetishizing art based on its relative obscurity and difficulty, like someone arguing Joseph McElroy is so much better than Chekhov because he's so "challenging" while Chekhov is too appreciated by the unwashed masses. This is a stupid mindset based on the shallow contrarian impulse to define "good taste" as "this deep art only a few elite connoisseurs know about" vs. "overexposed shallow undemanding art for plebs." That only makes you a shallow pleb.
That whole excerpt is just unfairly strawmanning me. Also, unironically calling someone a pleb makes you sound like an absolute moron.

>Also you have absolutely no sense of musical appreciation or breadth of judgment if you're seriously going to argue your favorite niche rock album from this decade is less of an "easy listening piece" than the St. Matthew.
I've heard all of the 'classics' of art music, along with a lot of the lesser-known composers, have written about both art and rock music in multiple contexts, have studied music theory at university. (The free tertiary education in my country is so great) and have generally surrounded myself in music and its study for my whole life. This doesn't make anything I say more valid, but invalidating anything I say because I'm apparently uneducated is just asinine. What you're doing is a classic circular argument.

>the St. Matthew is an objectively good piece.
How do we know that?
>Because all legitimate appreciators of music exalt the St Matthew
How do we know that they are legitimate appreciators of music?
>Because they appreciate the St Matthew, an objectively good piece.

It's an anti-intellectual line of thinking that only serves to preserve the status quo and stifle legitimate analysis.

Also, just for the record here's some really great rock music:
Current 93, Death in June, Nightbringer, Slint, and Boredoms, all bands that you've likely never heard of that make amazing, thematically difficult rock music that shouldn't be written off because of it's historical categorisation.

[Anonymous No.6263081]

>>6263058
Nice scaruffi pasta.

[Anonymous No.6263085]

>>6263078
LOL

Naming bands like C93, DiJ, Slint, and Boredoms proves exactly that other anon's assertion of 'the cream rises to the top.'

[Anonymous No.6263090]

>>6263078
>Current 93, Death in June, Nightbringer, Slint, and Boredoms
you have all been tricked

[Anonymous No.6263094]

>>6263085
Eh, whatever. I challenge you to find any positive review of any DiJ release outside of allmusic, heathen harvest, or some fan-written blog. Also, I was trying to reference some more prolific and well-known artists on purpose so that it would be disproven that I like music merely for its obscurity.

[Anonymous No.6263145]

>>6263050
>The canon is established by a whole lot of critics sharing the same taste and reflecting it into public consciousness.

I can't believe it's the "it's just the critics' taste" argument, with a dollop of "money corrupts these critics to total blindness as opposed to me, who is detached from all such influences but my own superior judgment."

No, a canon is established by not only critics but dedicated enthusiasts, the public, and other artists who are influenced by it, all exercising the same faculties of mind as you are, and many of them evaluating things like difficulty and emotional/thematic depth. In fact, the question should be turned: why are you so special or more intelligent so as to be able to dismiss works with broad critical/popular appreciation out of hand as inherently "below" your refined taste? Many previously obscure artists and works were recognized and became acclaimed precisely because some people later saw these qualities in them, Bach being one of them. Your process of evaluation would have probably led to you saying in the late 1700s "Oh, how great this unknown Bach is!" but a hundred years later looking down on Bach because he was apparently too accessible to the masses after all.

>>6263078
>it's just that inadvertently, the most confronting and thematically nuanced art rarely gets mainstream recognition, and usually stays critically hidden
Hilarious. You're posting on a board for literature, a field in which works like Moby-Dick and Finnegans Wake are recognized for those very qualities. You keep speaking of "presenting arguments," but back everything with this unfounded assumption of
"the best, most sophisticated works are always obscure and unknown," which is being a hipster by definition.

(wordcount limit)

[Anonymous No.6263152]

>>6263078
>>6263145
(cont.)

>St. Matthew
From inference you seem to have not listened to this particular work, so if I should argue that it has those very qualities you seem to lift up, thematic sophistication and emotional power as well as universality and broad recognition, how are we to argue? As for me, the only artist you've mentioned that I am even vaguely familiar with is Current 93's Aleph at Hallucinatory Mountain which I listened to once years ago and was not impressed enough to remember or listen to again. If you like, please explicate a track and demonstrate how much "emotional content" it has compared to Bach, who you are arguing lacks such emotional content.

Both of us seem to agree that popularity has no bearing on quality, but I would say it makes more sense for the works recognized over time to be of great quality to actually possess it, while certain unknown works may be as great, than this unprovable backwards assumption of "the best works are obscure" rooted in a sense of smug satisfaction over some imagined cabal of money-corrupted critics throughout the centuries.

[Anonymous No.6263179]

>>6263145
>No, a canon is established by not only critics but dedicated enthusiasts, the public, and other artists who are influenced by it, all exercising the same faculties of mind as you are, and many of them evaluating things like difficulty and emotional/thematic depth.
A whole lot of people thinking something doesn't make it objectively true. Obviously I know it's not just critics that make up the public consciousness, but I was just using that as an example of how ulterior motives, broad mistakes, and other idiocies can move to shape the public consciousness in a wide variety of ways.
> In fact, the question should be turned: why are you so special or more intelligent so as to be able to dismiss works with broad critical/popular appreciation out of hand as inherently "below" your refined taste?
I never said that. The only thing I have ver been arguing against is that art music is objectively good and possesses some hidden nuance and subtlety that rock music is immune to. I tehn started arguing against the notion of objective quality. Never did I say that my taste reflects the objective truth or anything of the sort. (THough I did say that my taste leans towards more thematically confronting and inaccessible music, and I would be prepared to make an individual argument as to whether any particular piece is thematically confronting and inaccessible or not.)
>Many previously obscure artists and works were recognized and became acclaimed precisely because some people later saw these qualities in them, Bach being one of them.
You claim that people (Critics, the general public, musicians, disinterested lazy people) like something and use their influence in the world to exalt it to classic status with objective quality without providing any reason why the first statement proves he second. All it does is proves that all those people like it.

>"the best, most sophisticated works are always obscure and unknown
I didn't say that. I think that a lot of the best works are obscure an unknown, and a lot of really bad things are critically regarded and exalted, but that doesn't mean that the best things are always obscure and unknown. All I was intending to say is that thematic depth and nuance (There's nothing objectively good about thematic depth and nuance) doesn't exactly thrive in the mainstream, and that my tastes, for whatever reason tend to lean towards more inaccessible and less mainstream things. Again, I would be prepared to make a content-based argument as to the thematic depth and nuance of any particular piece.

[Anonymous No.6263194]

>>6262494
But his favorite writer is also Dostoevsky, he particularly likes Demons.

[Anonymous No.6263213]

>>6263152
>universality and broad recognition
Those are not qualities to do with the content of the music, rather they are public responses to it in the societies in which it has been featured.
>thematic sophistication and emotional power
All I can say is that I find it to be a pretty emotionally flaccid piece, due in part to it's inoffensive nature. It's the sort of thing that I wouldn't mind having on in the background while I dick around on social media, but that doesn't reward me with much more joy or meaning when I seriously sit down and revere the music. As for sophistication, it's clearly very clean, educated, inoffensive (sorry to use it again but it just rings so true with this particular piece) music, but that does not mean it is thematically sophisticated and nuanced. It just has a pretty singular, monofaceted purpose in my opinion.

It's worth noting, I was never intending to make objective rulings about the quality of any music, (I've said this a million times but none of you seem to listen) as I think that is a fundamentally impossible thing to do, I was merely attempting to explain my thoughts about various music and discuss its content.

>Current 93
Aleph is one of C93's worst albums, so I'd rather take the track Locust off Imperium. the way that the whole thing is this... soft, feeble wall of pseudo-noise, while David Tibet sings apocalyptic lyrics over the top of said wall is a lot more of a commanding presence than the mere nice, sweet, easily understandable music that Bach created. When the only pleasing melody in the song comes in at the end, it is a truly victorious moment, where Bach (And many other composers of his caliber) almost overuses and cheapens 'nice sounding sounds' to a point where they are no longer anything special.

>
Both of us seem to agree that popularity has no bearing on quality, but I would say it makes more sense for the works recognized over time to be of great quality to actually possess it, while certain unknown works may be as great, than this unprovable backwards assumption of "the best works are obscure" rooted in a sense of smug satisfaction over some imagined cabal of money-corrupted critics throughout the centuries.
Earlier on, I was merely using 'best' as a synonym for 'my favorite.' My taste tends to align with that which I believe to be difficult, inaccessible, thematically nuanced (Not objectively good or bad qualities) music, and as I've said over and over again, I'd be prepared to argue for the thematic nuance of any particular piece based on its content.

[Anonymous No.6263224]

>>6263179
>A whole lot of people thinking something doesn't make it objectively true.

It doesn't, but neither is it a reason to dismiss something. No one likes everything popularly acclaimed, but art is an act of communication through mediums. Difficulty for its own sake is not an inherent virtue in art. To consider works that have affected many people, including critically attentive and educated people who are exercising the same powers of mind as you, and look down on them for their accessibility is a stupid impulse because there is little judgment involved but contrarianism. I mentioned enthusiasts because you (and I and many other people) are an enthusiast as well. Your regard for those bands you listed also in its way contributes in its miniscule way to the general evaluation of art. And then, apparently, if too many such enthusiasts, or enthusiasts who are too effective, manage to propel a work to broad popularity, I don't see how this seems to speak negatively to the quality or thematic value of that art.

>All it does is proves that all those people like it.
I was addressing your claim that difficult work is rarely recognized, when in fact a great many artists now considered canonical are recognized for the very thing you are saying is usually obscure.

[Anonymous No.6263233]

>>6263224
>>6263179
(cont.)

As for the bugbear of "objectivity," it is of course impossible to argue for any systemic or broad standards, but pure subjectivity ("everyone is entitled to his own opinion") is useless. And it is, I would say, possible to argue that say Paradise Lost is better, more masterful art in an objective sense than the Left Behind series. And if that is possible, it follows that evaluation is also possible beyond the extremes of comparing Milton to kitsch apocalyptic pulp. The canon is simply a group of works that have been defended and argued for in this manner. It is a requirement to like or agree with everything in the canon, but the mere fact that it is made up of general agreement does not invalidate it. To make an analogy, the top Google search results tend to be more relevant and useful than the ones on page 120, while at the same time there is a significant and almost certain possibility that there are great results far from the front page, since determining relevancy is also a subjective pursuit.

[Anonymous No.6263235]

>>6263233
It is not* a requirement to like or agree with everything in the canon.

[Anonymous No.6263259]

>>6263224
>I was addressing your claim that difficult work is rarely recognized, when in fact a great many artists now considered canonical are recognized for the very thing you are saying is usually obscure.
Eh, that's kind of fair enough I suppose. I don't think that the mainstream is entirely immune to thematic depth and inaccessibility, only that they rarely occur in the mainstream. Also, it's worth remembering that many composers who are exalted today were critically panned in the past for being too accessible, dumbed-down, and 'trashy.;' (I'm not saying those critics are necessarily right, just that it's worth remembering)

As for the rest of your post, I was not claiming it as a reason to dismiss something, merely stating the fact that my tastes tend to lean towards more experimental, non-mainstream territory, and that I think that particularly in recent times (i.e. the last hundred years) there has been a lot more creativity outside of the mainstream. Surely I don't have to defend the belief that non-mainstream music is generally (not always) more inaccessible than mainstream music.

Also, just for the record, some of my favourite musicians (Nick Cave, Mark Kozelek, Emperor) exist in or were born out of the mainstream.

[Anonymous No.6263266]

>>6263233
>it is, I would say, possible to argue that say Paradise Lost is better, more masterful art in an objective sense than the Left Behind series.
It may be possible, but you have to present a more serious, thorough, and historically informed analysis than really any critics have ever done. (i,e, a page by page analysis) We can choose in a discussion to take as read that one is objectively better than the other, but if that belief is confronted, then taking it as read is no longer an intellectually viable option.

As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree with it, but it largely fails to contradict anything I've said.

Also, thanks for discussing this with me civilly rather than just slinging ad hominems at me.

[Anonymous No.6263276]

>>6262399
Anyone else notice how shitty the actual article is?

[Anonymous No.6263293]

Wonder how they feel about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiNwZTOqj0M

[Anonymous No.6263293,1]

>>6263259
>>6263266
Well, mods deleted as expected before I could post, so I'll just copypaste my giant unposted stuff not to waste it.

>>6263213
I am obviously not familiar with the vast portion of C93's output, but given that Aleph was also apocalyptic in a way that did not compel me because it fit an unfortunate stereotype of "yet another self-important experimental band mumbles indulgent referential/allusive lyrics," I don't see how this is particularly notable. I mean I am listening to "Locusts" right now and it's not bad, it is effective at a certain atmospheric effect as you note, but neither it is particularly compelling or enduring.

>a lot more of a commanding presence than the mere nice, sweet, easily understandable music that Bach created.
Let's take this for example, the "commanding" presence. The "lalalalala" refrain could easily be perceived as not commanding but bathetic, vaguely amusing in its attempt to create mood with a device reminiscent of children's tunes, like those horror movies that try seriously to establish an eerie atmosphere with "Pop Goes the Weasel," or Mahler's not quite convincing use of Frere Jacques for a funeral march. Commanding is a strange term for a piece that seems to rely as you said on a vague cumulative effect.

In contrast, I have no idea how either euphony is inherently a bad thing, or how Bach's music could be generalized as "nice" and sweet" given the emotions he explores. Well, he like C93 riffs on biblical themes, but working and improvising within the structure of oratorio, and using antiphony for that development of tension and commanding tone into a triumphant finale. Take the opening of the St. Matthew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFHXWoawnt0)), calling for mourning, gratitude, and reverence of Christ in a contemplation of sacrifice.