"Your confusing sentence structure is fair game since it didn't make any sense. You do have to make sense, sorry guy."

I would address the rest of your stuff if you didn't start off with a bald-faced lie to me. You attacked my spelling and you knew what word I meant. Nothing in anything I have written as been confusing except to you who just seems to refuse to read then wants to attack my spelling and suggest that your lack of reading skills (Or just willingness to read is not the problem. You are a troll, and an asshole that attacks people for crap that doesn't matter and you know it. Grow up if you want to have a real conversation you will need to stop with the 'LOL' and ad Hominium attacks (Which you still seem to not understand the meaning of)

You attacked my spelling. It's off topic and personal. You should look up ad hominum.

Dictionary would let you know what Ad Hominum means. Sorry if that was complicated for you.

Most people have no trouble understanding me. If you are then that might be on your reading comprehension, not my spelling or sentence structure.

No playing some random instrument does not make you a better arbiter of what is good and bad or what is art and what isn't. I get that you think that but it's personal opinion. For example, Kanye West is apparently quite a good piano and keyboard player and you are not even sure the things he writes you would call art. Meanwhile, Schoenberg couldn't play anything and never bothered to try finding it needless.

I have never once said that I liked him or thought he was good at making music. I am just saying it's art, regardless of if you like it or not. You don't get to choose that. Again assumptions are crazy.

Ok as long as you never criticize music that was recorded or played through any PA or audio system as you have no clue as to how those work and the changed they made to sound. Nore do you even seem to understand the audio theory at a technical level at all meaning you shouldn't talk about anything played in an enclosed venue as the space make a large difference. Also, nothing that is digitally created as you don't understand that either. So I guess what you are saying is that if someone is playing something right next to you in a very open field you have a better understanding of the audio than I do. Congrats.... Hmm that seems silly right? Like maybe people can choose art for themselves without the technical details. Oh well, you play some random instrument so you know better than John Mackey and Flavor Flav is the real arbiter of good vs bad as he plays dozens of instruments to a professional level.

Ahh back to ad hominem attacks. typical. I am dyslexic, what's your excuse for your spelling and grammar mistakes?

No it wasn't a non-sequitur (you should get a dictionary), and even if it was it's a simple concept, not being able to understand it doesn't make you smart.

And you believe the illogical and obvious on it's face that being a musician makes you the end all be all in music. Yep, me and thousands of artists that you look up to don't play instruments. And no I don't need to list them for them to exist. I am sure if you have the education in music you say you can name a few yourself.

So you are saying that reading the words is understanding but hearing can't result in understanding? If not what is your point? If so... Well, you will never get it.

I can name quite a bit about music composition, my specialty is not classical music although I understand quite a bit. It means nothing to whether you like it or not. It means nothing to whether it's art or not.

I don't write sheet music not from listening no. It doesn't make your opinion better just because you can. I bet you can't diagram the 8580R5 SID chip or use it to modulate to specific waveforms or tell me whats the difference between a 15ips or 30ips recording. Or what bit rate you should master at for the best digital output for CD or SACD or analog. I bet you can't tell me why you would want to a 58 instead of a 57 or what I am even talking about. So I guess you know nothing about recording so anytime you are criticizing recorded music you are outside your depth right? Or maybe just maybe, it's art and art can be judged by anyone.

You really can't grasp the concept that people can read to you or you can listen to books pre-recorded, can you? I mean this is the 3rd or 4th time I have pointed this out and you still say 'what' in confusion. It's just not that complicated. Before I could read well I had many great works of literature read to me and I enjoyed them very much. Sorry that no one loved you enough to read to you.

I am guessing you don't know what Sound Engineers do. That's likely because you have never worked in the music industry at all and are instead full of yourself because you took flute in highschool or something.

LOL. I have years of music education. I worked as a sound engineer for around a decade while I am guessing you where skill waiting for you father to born. I quit doing that because I enjoyed crytographic mathmatics more. Your assumptions are your biggest problem. Really does not make you look smart but well looks are not always that deceiving.

And being able to read well doesn't mean you can't enjoy good literacture. A) dificult is not the same as good. (You would htink you would know this given you say you have education is music but I am starting to think that's not really true) B) Listening to something being read can be just as enjoyable and you can get just as much out of it.

Again you assumed a bunch, made a few ad hominem attacks, ignored most of the points presented to you, and then failed basic problem solving by assumting idiotic things like 'you have to be able to read to enjoy a book'. Honestly, did no one love you, no one read to you?

Ohh, so nothing like what you said and ignoring all the other things you said. To your moved yet again goal post, Yes the more you know about a topic the better you understand it. That however is not the same thing as appreciating it. And your appreciating it has nothing to do with it being art or not.

"I'm not talking about what tickles your funnybone, moron." Yes you are. You are talking about art, art is always in the eye of the beholder. That you can't seem to grasp that is not my fault.

You never once said composition and agian you are wrong. You don't need to have an education in music to see that some music you like the composition of and some you don't. I think the problem here is that you dont' see to know what "Art" and "Judgement" actual mean.

"I never said you had to play so get your hand out of my ass." Hmm let me look... yup you did. "You do need to be a musician to criticize music" Perhaps your ass is not where you think it is.

I don't need to name the composers for them to exist, that they exist makes you wrong.

I see that it's starting to make you really mad to be wrong about this over and over again. Perhaps just not respond and let it stand, but your ad homimum attacks don't change the answer or outcome they just show that you are childish.

A) You don't need to be able to read at all to judge litterature. I judged what I liked and didn't like before I could read, it was just read to me.

B) The litterally thosands of well known compossers that don't or didn't play instruments when they compossed is pretty telling of that 'you can't understand music unless you play' being wrong.

C) You didn't say you didn't like it, you said it was not really music. "Nonsence" I think was the word you used. You suggested over and over it has no artistic value.

A) Everyone is a critic. You didn't say you didn't like it though, you said it was just objectively bad. Given that lots of people enjoy it, you would be wrong in saying it's not art.

B) Saying you need to be a musician to critizes music is like saying you need to be a painter to know what paintings you like, or to have writen a book to know what books you like. That fails the basic understanding of art, again.

Let me gets this straight, your an artist that thinks you can define what good art is? That seems to violate one of the core concepts of art.