>>124096472>Classical always uses the same old instruments so it fails at sound designOh look, it's the dumbfuck electronicfag. Newsflash, buddy: classical music has the widest range of instrumentation and timbres/colors of all genres.
>Classical is mostly 4/4 or occasionally 3/4, so it loses here too.You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Maybe shut the fuck up if this is way above your pay grade?
Anyway, I find it highly amusing how classical music mostly filters two groups of people.
The first group is the low IQ retards who only listen to pop, rap, rock or metal. That one is pretty self-explanatory. The second group is much rarer but their members always clearly make themselves known in a lot of the classical threads on /mu/, although it may just have been the same one or two people the entire time, who knows. This group is the electronicfags (ironic since classical composers either invented or influenced electroacoustic, electronic, and concrete music) who claim that classical music is either not "timbrally complex" enough or something along those lines (even though that's demonstrably untrue), or they say it lacks some oddly specific characteristic of audio production or "sound design" that's only existed for the past few decades or less than a century and that they need to get their fix and truly value the music. It's never about any other musical parameter (occasionally it's the "lack of groove" argument even though that's also demonstrably false, but form (and musical development that's based on motifs) doesn't exist for them, for one).
Basically, the first group is the retards who lack the required sensibility and intellect to understand and appreciate it, while the second group is the techfag turboautists who can only value music in terms of timbre or some shit and who make classicalfags look completely well adjusted and neurotypical in comparison.
In conclusion, kys you absolutely braindead dilettante philistine.
