Whats The Best Type Of Music?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

It's scientifically proven that Mozart wrote the best music because it literally can make you smarter to listen to it (Or something like that). He is probably (Though Beethoven is my personal favorite of those old classical artists) the most critically acclaimed classical musician of all time.

But other than him, classical music can neither be called superior or impossible to reproduce.

What I basically mean to say is that Mozart does not justify the impotence of Classical Music.
(Even though Mic Jagger justifies the immortality of Classic Rock)

---

I like classical music, but this kind of crap is just spread by snobs
who want to prove their superior taste in music.
The whole "get smarter by listening to Mozart" theory is just pathetic.
People don't seem to realize that music is something you listen to because you like listening to it.
You can judge someones ability to play an instrument,
but not someones talent when it comes to composing.
How talented a composer is depends on nothing but who is listening to his music.
If you say Tupac is a way more talented composer then Mozart,
there is nothing making your opinion less valid then mine.

People who think they can scientifically prove how musically talented someones is,
is only analysing the music using their own standars of what music is supposed to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

I like classical music, but this kind of crap is just spread by snobs
who want to prove their superior taste in music.
The whole "get smarter by listening to Mozart" theory is just pathetic.
People don't seem to realize that music is something you listen to because you like listening to it.

---

I listen to rock music. The fact is that Mozart's music produces brain activity in a way that no other music has yet to produce. Not rap artists, not pop artists, not rock artists and not other CLASSICAL artists. Only Mozart.
And guess what? I don't listen to Mozart. I listen to the Smashing Pumpkins!
I'm talking to you about factual information so you can understand this and use it for whatever purpose you like in the future.
(And if Mozart was a rapper, maybe his rap would be what you call snobbish!)

Quote:

---

You can judge someones ability to play an instrument,
but not someones talent when it comes to composing.

---

Think through what you're saying, because you can't possibly believe this. Of course you can judge the composer. If somebody is particularly ingenious at creating music for others to play, then that person has a genius. The ability to play music is a great talent, but it takes two parts. The ability to play AND the creativity to generate good music. The best guitar player in the world sucks if nobody likes his tunes.

Quote:

---

How talented a composer is depends on nothing but who is listening to his music.

---

Objectively, yes. Mozart is the only case where there seems to be superiority in the composing. But it's probably the same as saying that broccoli is better than cake.
Heh, you forget that I'm reciting facts to you for your personal sake. We all listen to what we like no matter what, I imagine. Especially since I never heard of music that is scientifically proven to mak you dumber. (Actually, it's been said about rock, but I haven't looked into it personally. I don't want to.)

Quote:

---

If you say Tupac is a way more talented composer then Mozart,
there is nothing making your opinion less valid then mine.
People who think they can scientifically prove how musically talented someones is, are only analysing the music using their own standars of what music is supposed to be.

---

WRONG! People who study brain activity and activities in controlled environments according to the overwhelmingly successful concept of the Scientific Method have determined Mozart's superiority!
If you don't like his music, then that's perfectly acceptable. It doesn't change the facts.
This crap doesn't get into books if it's just opinion from biased scientists. Not all scientists listen to classical music.
Tupac's music didn't produce the same outstanding effect, and, therefore, has not produced that effect.
You can appreciate his music over Mozart's! I encourage it! It doesn't make you a worse person to do so!

But don't throw a damn tizzy fit when you get afraid that your music is making you dumber. Especially when nobody said so! (Which I assume is your problem. Though the Smashing Pumplins probably hurt my brain far more than Tupac hurts yours. That particular bit, however, is my unscientific speculation.)

Well, I don't really listen to music to make me smarter.
You can maybe prove that one type of music stimulates your brain more then another,
but does that make it "better" then the other?
I just don't think it is possible to decide that one type of music is "better" then the other.
Music is not created to make you smarter.
It's created either to sound good/entertain or to make money.
And what exactly makes Mozart's composing any better then anyone elses?
How could you ever judge it scientifically when music isn't a science?
You say you can judge someones composing technique,
but could you describe how?
However you decide to judge it it will be by your standards of what you think music is.

Quote:

---

Tupac's music didn't produce the same outstanding effect

---

Are you sure about this or are pulling facts out of your ass?

Quote:

---

The best guitar player in the world sucks if nobody likes his tunes.

---

So if the greatness of ones music is judge by how many people like it,
Rap and pop would be superior to all other forms of music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

Well, I don't really listen to music to make me smarter.
You can maybe prove that one type of music stimulates your brain more then another,
but does that make it "better" then the other?

---

You don't have to like it but it does make it better. You may like *insert fastfood burger* but it isn't better for you than say a homemade salad. You might not like the salad but it is better.

I'll stick with "other". :)

I have to go with other since I like every type of music up there, and I also like techno and classical, which aren't up there. "RNB" is actually R & B, by the way. Rhythm and Blues. I could never limit my musical tastes to just one labeled genre. And I might be one of the few around here who doesn't think all rap is crap. Tons of it is, yes, but not all. I'd have to say my least favorite "genre" would be the alternative/grunge/whatever you want to label it kind.

jrgen, maybe you should reread my post.

I think you're trying too hard to counter what I'm saying, and you're not allowing the information I'm giving you to sink in.

All I ever said was that Mozart is reknowned as the best composer. He was famous worldwide in his time, and now his particular music has been shown to be very healthy for people to listen to.

I told you that people have done tests to come to this conclusion. I can't answer your "whys" in any other way.

I'm not pulling facts out of my ass. That would be a waste of time.

Quote:

---

So if the greatness of ones music is judge by how many people like it,
Rap and pop would be superior to all other forms of music.

---

Here, you're taking what I said out of context and re-applying it. However, reapplied, you are correct. The most popular and most powerful art form is superior.
In case you didn't hear, Usher makes some 200 million bucks at certain concerts (Or is it over the course of the year???)
In any event, his music is pop/rap and lo! He is more successful. So yes, his music is superior over the masses. And if he had a different composer, then his music would be "not-superior." Because the perfrmance only does one part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martyr

Here, you're taking what I said out of context and re-applying it. However, reapplied, you are correct. The most popular and most powerful art form is superior.
In case you didn't hear, Usher makes some 200 million bucks at certain concerts (Or is it over the course of the year???)
In any event, his music is pop/rap and lo! He is more successful. So yes, his music is superior over the masses. And if he had a different composer, then his music would be "not-superior." Because the perfrmance only does one part.

---

His music is commercially superior, but that doesn't make it superior in all the other areas.
When it comes to music it really hurts me to see what money can do to it.
The bands create the kind of music that the biggest amount of people like,
and what the people like is decided by MTV.
The problem with this is that in the world of today,
what you need to be successfull hasn't got really much to do with the music itself.

There are IMO more to music then popularity.
There are other elements that are very important to me,
like inovativity, originality and how the music actually sounds.
And these things are getting destroyed by popularity.

If a person composes a song in the 80s,
but makes it a single today and it becomes a huge hit.
Was it a good song before it released as a single, when no one knew about it?

You can't judge how good music is by looking at the sales,
becuase the consumers today are really limited to what's shown on TV and aired on the radio,
which is nothing but a really small part of the whole world of music.

Btw, I read your post perfectly well.
I didn't say Mozart's music didn't stimulate your brain in a positive way.
All I said that you'll have to consider whether or not brain stimulation is a part of the definition of "good" music.
A definition which shouldn't exist in the first place.

So your argument isn't really against Mozart.

Your 1st post about Mozart was simply an unexplained denial of the authority of classical music over other types of music.

How about you tell me what you think the best kind of music is, since you now that I like rock best, but have greater respect for classical.

Then we can debate the question down to the molecules and determine what the "best" music is. Not our favorites (Pop/rap). Not what we think should be the best because it's the oldest (Classical/Final Fantasy 1 NES Soundtrack), but the actual superior form of music!

------

I say it's rock.
Theorists claim that if you play classical music near a plant, it will grow unnaturally better, and if you play rock music for a plant, it's growth will be unnaturally hindered.

However, rock has inspired people in ways that classical never has. In the 60s, when rock became prevalent, it was the rebellious voice of the youth of the nation. Rock screamed independance, and ever since then, it has been the rebellious rockers who play the large public musical role in swaying the opinions of a liberal audience.

This kind of raw, unadulterated power, that has only so far been channeled through rock music (To my knowledge), is definately a worthy point. No other music is actually persuasive. No other music has created legendary revolutionary figures that people speak about for years and years afterward.

Classical probably is the runner up. Greats like Mozart and Beethoven are in humanities books. They are legendary for making extraordinary music that has lasted through the ages. Classical music is known to stimulate the creative areas of the mind. Through musical alone (No lyrics), classical artists can ignite predetermined images in a person's imagination. Classical music is a proven environmental factor that can help children excel in their studies, creatively, and it doesn't sound too bad for old music.

Reggae may be another revolutionary voice, but I don't know much about it. I despise the sound. But it still might be worthy of debate, maybe. It could just be a weed revolution, following what's his name, and rastafarianism. Which probably isn't really all too important. But I won't shut it out extremely quickly, considering my lack of solid knowledge on the subject.

Soul and RnB make me think of black artists. I remember the Motown movement. The music that came out of that was excellent, and it did it's part to help minority artists break into the music industry. But I don't know if it degenerated into Soul and/or RnB. The fact is that I don't find the music appealing, and if it's still Motown residue, then it's unnecessary.
Unimportant stuff isn't all that great in the grand scheme of things. So that can probably be looped up with Pop and Rap. Pop and Rap don't seem to have done much at all. Some people claim that modern pop and rap has caused degredation in our society. Whether that's true or not, I don't feel the need to say. The only positive thing about it is thatadolescents seem to like it, and it doesn't last very long. I wouldn't call those the qualities of the "best" type of music.

^ Hip Hop.

Jazz and Country... I don't know. They seem to be styles that are either absoletly adored or absolutely despised. It's the kind of stuff that makes me say, "What else is on."
Maybe they were important in the past? I don't know. Maybe it was all there was, in the days of jazz and the days of old style country (Which had a much more original flair than the ShaniaPop Country we got today).


Alright. This post is probably long enough.
There's all my opinions!

Now, jrgen, now that I hope you've read all that, do you have any opinions at all?
Or are you going to try to debunk my ideas with abstractions?

Quote:

---

How about you tell me what you think the best kind of music is

---

If you would've understood my posts at all,
you'd understand that I wouldn't be able to answer such question.
I can tell you about my musical preferances,
but I can't tell what kind of music is the best.

I mostly listen to metal of various kinds,
but also EBM, Industrial, Folk Music, Classical Music and more.
Although my favourite band, Janus,
is impossible to put in a genre due to the huge variety in their music.

I don't really see how any of this is relevant though.
I read through your post and I found your opinions on the different genres interesting.
Although I don't know if I can express any opinions about them.
I don't really disagree with anything you wrote and I believe that everything of it is true.

Of course different types of music has their good and bad sides.
But the hard part is to choose which of these sides are more worth then the others.
People listen to music for different purposes and they want to gain different things from it.
This makes how you experience diffeent types of music very individual.
There can never be one correct answer to this question.

I'm sorry for the lack of actual opinions.
As this is only a matter opinions I prefer not including them
to be able to discuss this topic objectively.

Just take those old records off the shelf,
I'll sit and listen to 'em by myself,
Today's music ain't got the same soul,
I like that old time rock and roll.

Don't try and take me to a disco,
You'll never even get me out on the floor,
In ten minutes I'll be late for the door,
I like that old time rock and roll.

Still like that old time rock and roll,
That kind of music just soothes my soul,
I reminisce about the days of old,
With that old time rock and roll.

Won't go and hear 'em play a tango,
I'd rather hear some blues or funky old soul,
There's only one sure way to get me to go,
Start playin' old time rock and roll.

Still like that old time rock and roll,
That kind of music just soothes my soul,
I reminisce about the days of old,
With that old time rock and roll.

Call me a relic call me what you will,
Say I'm old fashioned say I'm over the hill.
Today's music ain't got the same soul,
I like that old time rock and roll.

Still like that old time rock and roll,
That kind of music just soothes my soul,
I reminisce about the days of old,
With that old time rock and roll.




not that i horribly like that song