Saying this album is a masterpiece is a music inside joke right?

I meant to write that in question form. every LULZcore album has some kind of meme shit in it, there aren't any just normal good albums like Kind of Blue in the "essential LULZ albums" charts.

what's memeable about loveless

Holy shit that's fucking sad,sorry to hear that.

The fact you're still this pathetic at your age really is quite something. Not sure where the bluff would be.

>Beefheart improvised on the piano for hours, and the best parts of these were pieced together and recombined to perform the compositions
That's not what I remember reading but I'll concede this point since Beefheart lore isn't anything I care for learning all that much about.
>That process is the "writing" of the compositions, which is very different from simply "memorizing improvisations."
I don't disagree, but the point is that the origin of the songs is in improv, not conventional compositional methods that typified 60s and 70s rock.
>And do I have to point out the obvious that the lyrics were not improvised?
Who cares, my argument never had anything to do with the lyrical content.
>I never compared them, you illiterate retard.
Wasn't talking about you, was talking about

If you have trouble understanding this album, get familiar with Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman and Schoenberg. Learn to enjoy free jazz and atonal music, then come back to the album and see if you can understand it.
The album is unironically catchy once you get used to it. Kino instrumentals. Kino vocals. Kino compositions.

. I know this is LULZ but not everyone here is trying to argue for argument's sake. Relax.

>But the origin of the song is not improv if a person is then selecting among the improv and combining it based on their tastes.
I don't see how this makes any sense in any world if the origin of the songs was, in the most literal sense of the word, improvisational exercises.
>By your understanding, all composition is improv in some sense.
No, you're conflating improvisation with anything impromptu or ad hoc. I don't buy into the whole Wayne Shorter idea that "composition is just improvisation slowed down". Though there are specific situations where that's sort of true, there's more criteria than just speed or timing.
>That's also me
Explain how listening to free jazz would help anyone understand TMR better then, because it sounds like the kind of thing I hear way more often from people with a big rock background and minor connection to jazz, not vice versa.

>Because a person is selecting the subsets of the song and combining them. That's composition.
It must be a wonder why I used the term "pseudo-improvisation" then, wouldn't have used it if it was going to spawn this much pedantry. We're talking around in circles at this point because we're both just using different terminology to explain the same phenomenon.
>These are synonyms.
Wrong. Tons of improvisations have loads of rehearsal behind them, anyone with the most basic understanding of jazz knows these distinctions intuitively. That doesn't mean they're memorized or the instrumental equivalent of being lip-synced, but timing, pacing, structure, chord progressions and whatnot are often rigorously practiced. You can have a finely well tuned improvisational performance like any Miles Davis quintet or something completely made on the spot without turning into free form or free rhythm music like any miscellaneous Keith Jarrett live performance. Obviously there's a good deal of overlap, but to say they're synonymous isn't accurate one bit.
>At this point you're just spouting semantics.
It's not semantics, it's basic definitions. Semantics is just the colloquial term for conflation or equivocation fallacy. If you can't point to where I've done that, this is a meaningless quibble.
>You already admitted that you thought they were collective improvisations which couldn't be further from the truth.
Yes, I already said my memory failed me on one point, probably mixing up something about how Beefheart was an admirer of Coleman or something. Why are we going around in circles about this again? What does this have to do with "semantics'? What does this have to do with the core issue about how the compositions were born out of, not exclusively but heavily, improvised techniques?

if you can't use the words literally or semantics correctly, why should anyone believe you're using improvised or ad hoc correctly

did you reply to the wrong homosexual, homosexual?

>Because a person is selecting the subsets of the song and combining them. That's composition.
It must be a wonder why I used the term "pseudo-improvisation" then, wouldn't have used it if it was going to spawn this much pedantry. We're talking around in circles at this point because we're both just using different terminology to explain the same phenomenon.
>These are synonyms.
Wrong. Tons of improvisations have loads of rehearsal behind them, anyone with the most basic understanding of jazz knows these distinctions intuitively. That doesn't mean they're memorized or the instrumental equivalent of being lip-synced, but timing, pacing, structure, chord progressions and whatnot are often rigorously practiced. You can have a finely well tuned improvisational performance like any Miles Davis quintet or something completely made on the spot without turning into free form or free rhythm music like any miscellaneous Keith Jarrett live performance. Obviously there's a good deal of overlap, but to say they're synonymous isn't accurate one bit.
>At this point you're just spouting semantics.
It's not semantics, it's basic definitions. Semantics is just the colloquial term for conflation or equivocation fallacy. If you can't point to where I've done that, this is a meaningless quibble.
>You already admitted that you thought they were collective improvisations which couldn't be further from the truth.
Yes, I already said my memory failed me on one point, probably mixing up something about how Beefheart was an admirer of Coleman or something. Why are we going around in circles about this again? What does this have to do with "semantics'? What does this have to do with the core issue about how the compositions were born out of, not exclusively but heavily, improvised techniques?

>Because free jazz has dissonance, complex rhythms, etc. Lots of stuff that mainstream listeners would find harsh. Same with TMR.
See, this common appeal right here tells me you don't listen to a whole lot of jazz, because a lot of jazz that isn't free-form or free-rhythm at all has loads of dissonance & loads of rhythmic complexity. "Progressive big band" jazz of the 1940s in the tradition of Stan Kenton was highly dissonant for its time and deliberately used tons of bizarre polyrhythms and whatever, but still had tonal centers, time signatures & the type of stuff you don't often hear in free jazz.
Speaking of which, free jazz isn't just extra dissonance & complex rhythms, it has a specific set of criteria that easily helps separate it from experimental dissonant rock, classical or whatever. There's no functional harmony, there's no tonal centers, there are polymeters, etc. Even the whole atonal thing you mentioned earlier is a common misconception, free jazz is just as likely if not more so to be polytonal. And of course there are infamous techniques, particularly piano-based techniques, associated with free jazz like using tone clusters, which i don't remember ever hearing on TMR at all.
You can't just go around throwing vague terms like dissonance when those labels were already being applied to Monk way back when. I mean, your argument just basically boils down to "complex and dissonant" but that's such a vague umbrella grouping. If the way they handle tonality, harmony, improvisation, time & key signatures (or the lack there of, as is usually the case for free jazz) then who cares if they have dissonance in common? Doesn't TMR prioritize chords and chord progressions over solos, except for maybe some of the vocal solo stuff? You yourself reiterated how TMR isn't collective improv-based at all, which is the basis of most free jazz.
>I mean, honestly, is this not self evident?
For the reasons listed above, no. Please feel free to explain.

>I don't like Jazz at all but I do enjoy Funk and Soul Music as well as Classical.
That's fine, jazz vocabulary isn't for everyone but your taste is still based. But yeah, I've noticed a lot of genres that only have superficial similarities get compared all the time on here. First it was symphonic metal and classical (still the dumbest one of them all lol), then prog rock with jazz fusion, now avant-rock and free jazz? Why is it always the rockists and the metalheads who say stuff like this

I like metal too, and prog rock and whatever, I just think people make these arbitrary connections because they want their favorite music to seem more important by association. I'm ambivalent on TMR one way or the other, I don't care if people like it, but it does seem to attract a disproportionate amount of pseuds.

>More something people say they like to look smart then actually enjoy.
Exactly. The other guy I'm arguing with right now clearly doesn't know a lot of musical knowledge, he ignores the musicians I use as evidence and he uses no music theory whatsoever. It's all just dissonance this, complexity that. No one actually understands why they *think* the thing they like is intellectual, so they just compare it to something else that they understand even less.

I'm in the same boat. I used to take music class so i know a lot about the very basics of music theory, but not enough to really follow any overly technical conversation. Still, sporkcore to me usually comes off contrived in some way. I can kind of appreciate some of it in a novel roller coaster sort of way, but it doesn't end up being repeated listening for me, nor does it ever change the way i think or feel about music in any serious manner. it's just junk food you might get cravings for once in a while.

I've listened to both Modernist Era Classical Composers (The Early 20th Century Art-Classical Era) and 1970s and 80s Horror Movie/Science Fiction Soundtracks,both of which are known to be quite atonal. They also general have a better more deliberate sense of pacing and timing than Trout Mask Replica does,shit just feels like it was thrown together. Does pretending to like this crap make you feel smart or do you genuinely just not know any better?

I mean these are things people genuinely like. Do you want to hear my favorite ones or something? No woman is going to sleep with you because you pretended to like Captain Beefheart btw.

>these are things people genuinely like
no they don't name dropping modernist composer is the first thing pseuds do stop lying to yourself, also why would i care about what women think? i am not an incel who's whole world revolve around getting being validated by women.

ESL retard

What’s wrong with evangelion? I guess you’re more of a Lupin III guy

For a shorter answer I basically only watch like shit that would be playing at a bar or generic stonerbait shit. I also like The French Art Film "Holy Motors" and The Puppet Master Series aswell as Videodrome. I had a film phase in highschool but overall my opinions on it aren't nearly as fleshed out,I just know that i don't enjoy most anime and thought NGE sucked especially.

>So autistic and ESL he doesn't know what ESL means

>I'm not an Incel

I don't believe that.

>Wrong again.
>Maybe you should step back and self reflect about why you're so wrong all the time. I would if I found out I kept making so many mistakes.
If you do listen to a lot of jazz then it makes your generalizations and inductive approach to comparisons even more bizarre and unjustified. Who are your favorite jazz musicians?
>So what? Non sequitur. Irrelevant to anything I said. I never said anything to the contrary.
You compared free jazz and TMR on the basis of rhythm and dissonance and nothing else. It was an arbitrary and superficial point. It would be like saying Haydn and Daft Punk have so much in common because of their use of consonance and 4/4 time signatures.
>lol, exactly. Just like TMR haha
Interesting, can you timestamp where they are? Are they used all the time or only intermittently?
>Never said free jazz was atonal or anything like that. Again, who are you arguing with? Seems like you just like to hear yourself talk.
Is this whole fence fitting technique considered a viable debate tactic these days? Make vague implications so you have enough plausible deniability when someone calls you out?
>I just said, very simply, that listening to non-conventional music (with more dissonance and complex rhythms) might help a person listen to TMR.
And every time I ask you to explain why, you handwaved to vague terms like dissonance and whatever and never formulated a coherent explanation.
>Most of the songs do not have conventional chord progressions or functional harmony.
Not the point I was making, whether you have conventional or unconventional chord progressions is less a characteristic of free jazz as opposed to just pure, raw soloing. And I can't find any source on TMR using non functional harmony, to me it sounds like a mix of major and minor, like most Blues.

Yeah,Taylor Swift is exactly like Paperhouse. (No you just like tardbait shit I'm sorry,Trout Mask Replica is fucking terrible. Go listen to Henry Cowell if you want something avant gaurde. Similar because they did similar things with sound.)

I mean Blue Jay Way and Across The Unicerse are pretty Kino. Cream are way better to get high too though although tbf some of the more conventional blues rock tracks are a bit skipable save for White Room,Blue Condition,SWABLR,and Tales of Brave Ulysses. Hendrix,The Moody Blues,The Velvet Underground,The Deviants,Pretty Things,Small Faces,DOM,CAN,Quicksilver Messenger Service,Amon Düül ii,The Litter,NEU!,Nico,The Electric Prunes,Love,Funkadelic,and Magma also all occur to me as being better at least personally.

I could see that,I think Clapton was stronger in Cream than anything else though. Fujcing love Cream. Great band. Like I said some of the blues tracks were definitely fillery though.

I'm not a big fan of any of it tbh. Like I said I'm not a huge fan of the approach. I think it lacks the nuance or darkness some other artists in the Psychedelia genre had. Forgot to mention Pearls before Swine,WitthüserandWestrup,Ed Askew,C.O.B.,Mark Fry,and Brosselmaschine,I'm really big on all them aswell. I will say I can respect where Beatles Fans are coming from or understand it at least more than Zappa or Beefheart who I just think were flat out bad tbh,but it feels a little bland to me.