Tfw pic related is accurately describing every single Cred Forumstant ever

I didn't know it was possible to project this hard.

...

Ahh I bet you're a non-STEM major too

I'll bite.
>Music is just soundwaves and nothing more.
Hm? Do you also think that visual art is just paint splatters and nothing more? Or that literature is just symbols on paper?

Music can spread messages and express emotions, it can matter. If you don't care about that then great, but I don't know why people want to half-ass their consumption and thinking of music on a fucking music board.

>why does it feel like music isn't worth a damn?

This is an interesting question. Could it be that recorded music had no real value to begin with? That whatever percieved value that has now been removed was only a mirage in the steam of the capitalist machine?

Then as the major labels monopoly and ability to control the market and direct the consumers has been toppled by the internet, and this mirage has lost its luster, what value remains?

>espouses an opinion different from their
>SO SALTY
You wanna know I can't tell you're underage?

Let's do this anyhow.
>It reflects the world and reflects ourselves back at us, popular music can and should MEAN something and STAND FOR something.
>It's not just noise, it's art.

Lemme blow your mind real quick; no piece or otherwise work of art has ever meant anything in an objective sense.

Don't believe me?

What would your favorite album be if there was nobody left to listen to it? What would your favorite painting mean if nobody had ever gazed upon it? Your favorite book?

Affection pathology and catharsis is relegated to your perception thereof. We can judge music in objective terms like the musicianship and production fidelity but those are just more rigid criteria by which we distinguish the music we consume.

It has no intrinsic value.

There's nothing you can point to that indicates futile reflections upon reflections are worthwhile or meaningful of anything beyond what they mean to you.
Prove to me that literally any message ever conveyed by any work of art means anything.

I'm sorry to tell you this but in the real world, art and artists are 100% useless.

Artists and their art are just expendable commodities for businesses and people to hang on their walls to seem cultured. Also many artists will be the first to do die when the day of the rope comes.

I suggest you get more redpilled on this matter

Take a loan and go on a vision quest ASAP

>Do you also think that visual art is just paint splatters and nothing more? Or that literature is just symbols on paper?
not him but yes.

>Music can spread messages and express emotions, it can matter.

no. any message or emotion is extrinsic. it is ascribed by the perciever

See

Oh, we're gonna have this again? The obnoxious teen nihilist who is convinced that nothing means anything so we should stop caring.

Objective value means nothing. Musicianship and production fidelity mean nothing objectively either. I never said that it did. As long as art means something to people, (I mean, that's what art is for, consumption by other human beings) it matters to us. Stop thinking in these universal terms.

i like to imagine what life i would need to lead to regularly visit a board dedicated to an art form, and expend energy attempted to convince people that said art form is useless and pointless

then i thank the lucky stars that i didn't lead that life

So, you're just arguing semantics? That's cool, but I'm not interested.

I'm sorry, I think you dropped this, user.

it just sounds like someone with mild depression projecting their inability to enjoy or connect with anything

I fucking love music and it is cool. having access to so much of it is a beautiful thing

How socially isolated are you? This is amazing.

His little brother seems chill. Enjoys different types of music. Not a douche like his big brother.

obviously he's right

no one gives a fuck about the music you listen to
it doesn't make you cool
it doesn't make you unique
and it doesn't make you smart

no one gives a shit
if any of that bothers you, you're probably underage

>This is amazing.

i kind of feel bad when i read posts like these

i've made so many friends and opened so many doors just because of something as miniscule as liking the same band

i'm sorry that never happened to you user but stop projecting

Except I'm human and my whole world is human along with all my endeavors so why should I give a shit that the universe doesn't care about what I like?

wrong
Literatlly got a raise at my job. shooting the shit with my boss about how godly pink floyd is(even tho i don't like the much)

same with my current gf where we bonded over chillwave

>retard projects his own insecurity onto others
nice

I bet you tell aspiring musicians that they'll never make it as artists and that they should go into IT instead.

So you're saying you would have answered my question in any other context?

>Music is part sound, part philosophy, and part spirituality
>Emotion comes first, technique second
>The theory behind music irrelevant. What it makes you feel is all that matters!
>Feelings and emotions are important!

Can someone please get these drug-tripping hippies out of here

The emotions I get from listening to music are unmatched by any other experience or drug. And I've tried a lot of them. This in itself gives music value, at least to me. Music is quite literally pleasure

see

I don't know why you used meme arrows, because you were completely right.

Art is not about technicality. Stop trying to figure out an objective system for measuring the quality of music. There is none. Embrace that.

You're not even taking a hard stance on anything, dude. You've argued literally nothing. You're just consumed in futile, crude emotional pathology and feelsy nonsense. I can't respond to hippy drivel with a valid counterpoint.

It's a question, human to human. Why are you so anxious?

>feelings is for hippies
you can't make this shit up

this is literally the stupidest thing i've seen in over 5 weeks

I'm discounting chops and the technical end because as far as I'm concerned that sort of thing has basically nothing to do with what's in a player's heart, and expression of passion was basically why music was invented in the first place. A lot of people don't see it in quite those terms, of course; their absolutism takes another form: they think you have to "know how to play" your instrument according to some preset and as far as I can see arbitrary standards before anyone can even begin to take you seriously. They further think that the more technically proficient a player you become, ipso facto the better music maker, or let's say maker of better music you become. Why do they nurse this curious notion? Probably because they have been brainwashed, but who picked up the first bar of soap? It seems to me that this kind of thinking is by definition quantitative rather qualitative: you can sling arpeggios all over the place, you can freeze the baby in the bathwater and mail the ice to Siberia, but the fact remains that if you take one note, any note, and let two different people play it, what comes out of one's axe just might be nothing more than the note, whereas through some magic the other's note might be just a little more expressive, probably because there was something, a kind of inner urgency and yearning, behind it. And all the conservatories and theory books and virtuoso chop-flashings in the world aren't gonna make one iota of difference in regard to that one humble note.

-- some fat faggot

tl;dr of youtube.com/watch?v=8vo_uh6LXf4

i really hope you're not serious because if you are holy fucking shit dude

A nuclear bomb explodes and flings radiation a thousand miles in every direction dissipating into futile nothingness.

Humanity is meaningless, same as everything.
>muh feels
is not an argument.

not him but your entire argument has just been 'but nothing matters.' In which case, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I would still like my favorite album if no one else did, I would still like my favorite movies, books etc. If I can get more enjoyment out of it by discussing it, how does that invalidate anything? Art is inherently subjective, so its value relies on what 'I' alone think of it. I know I bit the bait here, but it feels good to type out.

t. aspiring musician

Ah, I remember being 15, being upset that nothing matters, and convincing myself that I was a psychopath who was above emotions.

You'll grow out of it.

>the day of the rope
how many more times are you going to read the turner diaries before you commit a terrorist act? get help before you hurt someone

Listen to any art music?

yep, being 15 was fucking wild dude

>Art is not about technicality. Stop trying to figure out an objective system for measuring the quality of music. There is none. Embrace that.

Then what is percieved of music as subjective quality is merely the objective quality of the listener? The same is true of language.

(You)
>Ah, I remember being 15, being upset that nothing matters, and convincing myself that I was a psychopath who was above emotions.

Who are you quoting?

>Then what is percieved of music as subjective quality is merely the objective quality of the listener?
Could you expand? I'm having trouble parsing this language

archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename= 1403311123649&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_media_hash=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_res=post

Get a fucking load of this autist.

Carl Sagan

>autistic attitudes toward art
>frogposting

archive.rebeccablacktech.com/mu/?task=search2&ghost=yes&search_text=&search_subject=&search_username= Vaporwave Dave &search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_media_hash=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

S I D E S
I
D
E
S

>same pic / filename
>same person
Pick one and only one.

>accusing someone of projecting in a sentence explicitly written in the first person

are you really surprised?

>What would your favorite album be if there was nobody left to listen to it? What would your favorite painting mean if nobody had ever gazed upon it? Your favorite book?
well, that is not the case.
okay though, nothing means anything because meaning is a subjective concept, what else is new?

it's pretty obviously you, same stark autistic demeanor and lexicon.

I mean I listen to music because I enjoy it, if you listen to certain music because you think it gets you girls you don't really care about it.(following any interest for the purpose of getting laid is retarded btw) music also is a good topic to talk about like sport, I talk about german and us rap all the time cause I have knowledge about it
nothibg matters if you look at it like that, but it matters for you because of personal value

well, why wouldn't you want to at least try to like or find some sort of merit or appeal or interest in everything?
if this was popular opinion on Cred Forums it wouldn't be so contrarian all the time

Stop right there, user. You dropped your hat.

Child.

There is no shame in not enjoying everything. It's called taste.

>voice determines to whom it was in regard to

Objectivity doesn't apply to art and that's ok/that's why art is interesting

this

>same stark autistic demeanor and lexicon.

Art is just pretentious consumerism; post-modernism has proven that. Your "meaningful" art is just as valid as literal pile of shit. Meaning should be a personal experience and trying to push it on others just highlights that you're as clueless and immature as those "soulless" consumers who treat art is it is, an expendable commodity.

>In which case, I'm sorry you feel that way. But I would still like my favorite album if no one else did, I would still like my favorite movies, books etc.
>didn't read the reply to which he's responding
Nobody would like them if there was nobody left to consume them and they would be devoid of intrinsic value.

Art is dependent on our perception to extrapolate meaning from vibration / pictures / symbols on a page and what not.

Again, it holds no intrinsic weight.

Concept ceases to exist without a mind for it to be processed and understood.

the problem i have with this review is that it is utterly soaked in rejective nostaglia. so what if everyone goes through a metal, emo, post-rock or whatever phases? who's to tell me how to participate in enjoying (or not) art? and then there's the word "soulless", which anyone can use to make their argument about music seem like it has any merit while it actually hasn't and it's just a lonely sad man past his prime years babbling about how not everyone's like him. for fuck's sake, let people have what they want

What I mean is that if there is no objective quality in music itself, then all music is inherently worthless and interchangeable. Thus the level of quality in any and every piece of music can be no higher or lower than the quality of the listener.

In short, music is merely a blank canvas or a mirror, onto which the listener can do nothing but project and percieve his own quality.

Of course, self-perception is subjective, but surely there are objective ways to measure the the quality of a listener? Such as hearing range, the amount of music he has listened to, knowledge of music theory and history (and perhaps other fields, such politics, in case a lyric deals with such a theme, for example), as well as general intelligence.

>2012 was 14 years ago
damn

>music isnt cool
>stop liking things that arent cool

Spiritual catharsis (regardless of vehicle) isn't valid in a post 2000s era period, gramps. But there's no need to fear; we will just become cum dumpsters for ailing media, topical discussions, and the hottest memes. It's sort of fun.

define "meaning"

I don't think 'spiritual catharsis' has anything to do with time, silly billy, it doesn't ask some pretentious faggots where and when to appear.

>Spiritual catharsis (regardless of vehicle) isn't valid in a post 2000s era period, gramps.
That's because it isn't confined to a dichotomy of validity / invalidity. It is because it is. It's a subjective experience.
Would gravity still exist if there was nobody to experience it?

>Would gravity still exist if there was nobody to experience it?
yes? the lack of presence of sentient life experiencing something doesn't necessarily disprove that thing's existence.
that still doesn't answer my question: what do you define "meaning" as?

when they don't share orange juice

>implying this dude has ever got laid

>yes? the lack of presence of sentient life experiencing something doesn't necessarily disprove that thing's existence.
It does in the case that it ceases to be an abstract concept.

A distinct object or form of particular mass will attract other mass. That's what gravity "means" and it's a fact of nature. You can travel anywhere in the universe and this is true 100% of the time.

Without sentience by which to extrapolate meaning from music, it's just vibration indistinguishable from celestial currents of radiation in deep space. Music doesn't exist without a mind to process and understand it.

I like music because I like the way it sounds and it sometimes makes me feel things :)

I'm sure Swans would have given me tons of pussy, had I listened to them in the 80s.

beyond taste, beyond music, yeah lack of understanding and acceptance, willingness to develop those, are "bad" for your inner peace and for anyone not like you. a narrow musical tolerance spectrum may arguably reflect that (i doubt it) but taste by itself it doesn't matter

last three are right

>but surely there are objective ways to measure the the quality of a listener?
Not him but your list of ways to measure the quality of a listener are immensely wishy-washy. While it's true that someone who has listened to 5000 artists will very likely get more out of a specific piece of music than someone who has only listened to 500, there's really no way to get results that will really mean anything. This is because the human mind is as complex and flawed as you want to make it. The more experienced person could just be daydreaming about >tfw no gf the entire time and miss some intricate details while the inexperienced person could be really listening their hardest because perhaps they haven't explored that genre yet, or they're just really bored, or they have a gf so they don't need to daydream about >tfw no gf. To really get a the best objective measurements, you would need a magical psychoanalytic machine that runs your mind through a computer while you're listening and plops out a number and technology has not reached that point yet I think.

>the day of the rope
Also
>implying when machines take over all labor art wont become the only thing left to stave off complete boredom

That's a hard fucking question because answering it requires you to define art and the value of it.

I could definitely see where you were coming from until that last point. Really? Emotions don't matter in fucking art?