>>99265>Everybody implicitly understands these already. Even if not by name, the layman still understands these concepts and recognizes them when they see them. These really aren't as esoteric as you think they are.The layman does not implicitly understand these, you are overestimating the musical knowledge of the average person. To most people, they don't even understand harmony is there. All they focus on is melody, you can take out the bass and chords in 90% of music and it would be the same experience to the layman
>Not what I meant.It is quite literally what you said.
> It's moreso a matter of aesthetic connections made and emotions elicited as a result of this.Okay? This is a byproduct of listening to literally any music, if it is your primary enjoyment, you might as well be listening to other music.
>There of course is also the natural pattern recognition going on, which is what ultimately makes music pleasurable in the first place.You realize that most people call classical music "boring" exactly because they cannot naturally understand the patterns in the first place? That is why the pastebin even exists
>You frame works of classical music as though they were academic papers meant to deliberately contribute to the progression of their field, to be later cited and built upon themselves. I did not say that, good job at having the reading comprehension of someone with down syndrome. Let me make this as simple as possible for your lizard brain:
Classical music is (Largely) a medium of narrative storytelling through the use of themes and motifs and their development. Due to this, enjoyment necessitates at least a base level of understanding of what a theme is, what counterpoint is and how these themes can be developed.
>This is simply a soulless perspective, and not one that any great composer of the past had.You do not strike me as someone who believes in the soul, and even if you did, belief in the soul necessitates every human being to have a soul in effectively every religious tradition. The very concept of "soulless" is flawed and reeks of cuckchan brainrot (Which you likely read more than any actual book)
>It's a fashion statement to say that the music is inherently enjoyable on its own, It is, because music is not a universal language. It is another method of communication that is differs greatly among civilizations as would languages. And classical music is a language that is now antiquated due to african influence on western music leading to simpler, less developmental structures. The average person now is used to music as a collection of discrete melodic sections that have little musical variation. Because of this, a person who primarily listens to african-influenced western music is going to have a harder time understanding classical music on an intuitive level. This does not even begin to touch on cultures who work even more opposite to classical music like Indian Raags. Some people are not used to the same language and due to this need a bit of learning before they can understand it. Just because you are a special boy does not change this fact.
>and that its stupid to pretend that its gatekept behind a thick stack of books? The pastebin has a short youtube series as well, retard. You could have just looked instead of assumed what was there. You CAN read a thick stack of books, or you can just listen to a quick explanation to get the basic knowledge needed to start enjoying the music to a degree sufficient enough that you can understand the strengths and weaknesses of different composers and listen to them with a critical lens.
The thick stacks of books are for people who would naturally also get interested in writing their own works and want to gain a deeper understanding, while these stacks are not 100% necessary to enjoy it, they are definitely an aid in appreciating composers beyond "they nice".
>This just seems like you going "no u" after I accused you of having to have convinced yourself to like it. No, this is just me being realistic. You want to listen to music uncritically and not but even the tiniest bit of effort into understanding it. This is treating it as a fashion statement rather than art.
>It is only insofar as a work of literature is just individual words, which is to say not at all. That is the point I was making. There is simply no analogue in classical music to the language barrier in your example of French literature. There is, actually. As said, how we represent ideas in music has changed over the years in the west, and is entirely opposite sometimes to how other cultures represent ideas in music. An indian raag, for example, is not going to use the same techniques and same methods to put the emotions of the words into the music as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner or Bruckner would. It's an entirely different language and form of expression from western classical. A different language, as said.
>The "high level of thought" does not go unnoticed to even the average person.Again, you are overselling the average person. This is not the 1930s, we are living in 2025. This music is largely alien to most people now, even the focus of time is entirely shifted. Classical music expects you to put your full attention to the beginning, where the themes that will be utilized for the rest of the movement are going to be stated (This counts for any of the classical forms, not just sonata form). The only departure is if there is a formal introduction, which often still hints at themes that are going to be utilized later on.
Verse Chorus (The most common form most people are familiar with now), does not emphasize the beginning. It does the opposite, it is designed for the listener to wait for the chorus (The main section of interest) and functions as a buildup to it. Because of this, most people instinctively doze off at the beginning when listening to music as they are expecting a main section of interest. And this does not even begin to touch on the fact that everything besides melody is treated as texture. And even melody is getting less prominent in western pop music. An average person who listens to Charli XcX and Billie Eilish is not going to instinctively understand Beethoven and it is beyond idiotic to claim that this person will.
>Will they not? A child will be able to here four distinct voices, recognize when the same theme is presented in each one at different tones>(they might not know about different keys, but that is unimportant), will recognize that theme being varied, and the eventual reprisal as the piece is drawn to a close. There is no loss of coherence for not knowing the technical names of what is going on there. The child likely will not know how difficult it is to write a piece like that, but this has no bearing on the enjoyment of it.Arguable. If the child goes to Church often or generally has some familiarity with polyphonic music, maybe. But if the child only knows western pop music (Which he likely will as children are the primary target audience for western pop), he might only focus on the soprano voice and thinks the piece sounds like gibberish. I've seen multiple adults claim that they originally thought Bach fugues sounded like a "mess of notes" before they actually learned how a fugue works. This understanding is not instinctive, it's dependent on exposure
>Oh, so now you're not talking about theory again. Crazy how you retroactively change the topic of conversation back and forth on the fly like that.I was never talking about theory. I was talking about the fact that basic ideas are now theory.
>And my point is that knowledge of theory and the history of classical music is not important for this to get across.All depends on what you consider theory, if you consider the contents of the video series in the pastebin "theory", then yes, it is neccesary.
>Again, to insist that the average person does not know what a theme is, and that this is super esoteric knowledge that can only be revealed through academic study is hilariously egotistical.They very much might not, I've already illustrated this in this message. And of course not JUST what a "theme" is, but also how it is developed. Even if someone listens to film soundtracks, themes in those are often exact repetitions of a melody and very rarely even employ fragmentation or other basic techniques that a composer normally just expects the listener to already know about. And someone can certainly lose track of a development section because of this.
>As I told you before, I have studied the topics you advocate for. They certainly have value, but they are separate from how enjoyable the music is.Not neccesarily. I used to not be a big fan of unexpected harmonic shifts as a child. I always wanted things to resolve more easily. This is at a stark contrast to now where I am a big fan of harmony going in strange and unexpected directions, mainly due to realizing the skill and intricacy involved in doing that well. If I just went by my gut feeling constantly, I would never have learned to appreciate one of classical music's greatest strenghts.
>I told you that I like it the same way I do now as I did when I first heard it as a young child. Then you have intuitive knowledge due to childhood exposure. The pastebin is not for you, it's for people who are adults and only now have gotten an interest.
>That is convincing myself to like it? Unlike you, who had to have a book tell you it was good?I didn't need a book to tell me Beethoven was good. I did certainly gain a higher appreciation for his work after reading up on the history behind his work, the context of when it was composed and the techniques he employed. These are not neccesary for a base-level enjoyment, but I like to enjoy my art beyond the surface and dig deeper into works. If all I cared about was what art was like on the surface, I would just be watching action movies.
>Yes, they are. As I said before, it might not be by name, but they can understand and recognize these concepts.Again, the emphasis music places on certain concepts affects people's understanding of them. Someone in the west will likely not have a very intuitive understanding of harmony as most songs utilize the same pattern of 4 chords and often are more dictated by a repeating bass pattern than a chord progression, someone in Japan might have a more intricate intuitive understanding of harmony on average as JPOP tends to utilize more intricate chord progressions and modulates far more often. Might also be why Classical music tends to have a higher level of popularity there than in the west. All of this depends on previous exposure and the average person in english speaking countries have little to no exposure to anything remotely similar to western classical, and require at least a little bit of reading or general learning.
>And this was addressed too. Critical thought can absolutely occur on the first exposure without specifically being about the topics you mentioned, which again many of whih are implicitly understood anyway.I have seen on 4cuck /mu/ the sentence "nobody can tell the difference between good and bad classical" more than I'd like to count. Most people are not able to intuitively understand the difference between Beethoven and his contemporaries and why Beethoven is remembered by history more fondly than them. Most likely wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between Mozart and Haydn. This is far from critical thinking.