December 13, 20186 yr A big thank you to the band Slayer and @Stormbringer You've brought me joy and memories with this.= ❤️
December 13, 20186 yr 58 minutes ago, Prettyphile said: A big thank you to the band Slayer and @Stormbringer You've brought me joy and memories with this.= ❤️ 2 minutes ago, Prettyphile said: @Stormbringer YOU DID THIS! ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ You're very welcome!!!
December 13, 20186 yr 3 minutes ago, Prettyphile said: ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ Amazing song to have sex to BTW. @Stormbringer You're welcome
December 13, 20186 yr 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: First of all, it's not noise. It IS music, wether you like or not. In fact much of that kind of stuff I don't like it either but I won't go there denying it's music just because of a matter of personal taste. Even if not necessarily liking it, it's very interesting and it doesn't hurt to open the mind and ears a little to forms of music that differ from the traditional. It's not even John Cage's 4'33'' or works of that sort we're talking about here. The above isn't even a too "Avant-Garde" piece by Schoenberg. Art is not mathematics. Everybody is free to define what they call music and noise. In the Middle Ages, the tritone was considered as noise (they called it "Diabolus in Musica", the devil in music). Peremptory statements won't convice people that this atonal stuff is music if they don't like it. Art is essentially subjective. We are humans who are free to make our own choices. Being an artist is being exposed to be liked/disliked by people. The work of an artist is listenned/viewed by people who will inevitably criticize it. My main criticism to many of these "post modern artists" is that they have a totalitarian approach (their "art" is supposed to be uncritical... ) and their worshippers threaten, despise or disdain those who don't like this "art". That's the same with painters. I'm free to say that this crap painting below is not art, even if some guy bought it for $70M (!!) and even if the NY Times says it's "sumptuous". 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: These composers are all highly accomplished and skilled musicians - much more than me to start with - who pushed barriers and took music to new horizons, even if there's often a snobbish side to such a quest. I'm glad we share this point. Sociological analyses often show that postmodern arts are for the wealthy bourgeoisie. Sometimes, this "art" is used the upstarts to cement their position. 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: And, like it or not, Mahler and the such have A LOT to do with the atonal composers that came after them. Restating your point with capital letters is not proving it. 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: These composers are all highly accomplished and skilled musicians Sure, it takes some skills to create this "stuff" (as opposed to the painter guy who did some doodles on a blackboard), but it doesn't mean that it's art or music. They employed their skills to create noise. Skills are not enough. BTW, there are lot of highly skilled musicians who hate this atonal stuff, like Jérôme Ducros: https://www.college-de-france.fr/site/karol-beffa/seminar-2012-12-20-15h00.htm 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: Soundtracks from movies, video games, etc owes a lot to these guys and their new and different treatment of music. I don't think so. Ennio Morricone always said that he was nostalgic of classical music and that it inspired him. Same for Nino Rota. James Honer has been very inspired by classical music (which attracted a lot of criticisms BTW). Philip Glass has a minimalist style with a very regular music (rhythmically and melodically), there's no link with this atonal stuff. Actually, I can't find any skilled OST composers who's been inspired by these atonal guys. 19 hours ago, Stormbringer said: And that is quite the narrow concept of what music is or what should it be. Not every music seeks beauty. Music as every form of art seeks to express something, and that something doesn't have to be beautiful neither has to aim to be it. Feelings - or whatever else someone wants to express - can be unpleasant, can be violent, etc... music, and all art just expresses them. To claim that "real musicians" should always looks for "beauty in music" in terribly narrowed minded and even quite naive. You confuse Beauty and sweetness. That's a quite narrow-minded view of what Beauty is (thanks for your compliments BTW, and, this is mine in return ). Beauty can be violent, nice, tender, tough, wild, aggressive, etc. The definition of Beauty is actually "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind". The link between Art and Beauty has been discussed by philosophers for centuries. "Beauty" is defined by them in opposition to "useful/functional things". Nowadays, postmodernists deny the existence of Beauty, and, very often, they propose these as substitutes: political messages/agenda, tools to draw social lines, etc. That it is not my cup of tea. I think they are nihilists (and the way some postmodern artists make a very lucrative business out of their "art" makes me very doubtful of their "art" dimension).
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.