Frank Bridge editionhttps://youtu.be/gg25_Z43sW8>How do I get into classical?This link has resources including audio courses, textbooks and selections of recordings to help you start to understand and appreciate classical music:https://pastebin.com/NBEp2VFhPrevious: >>122776564
Judge R. Strauss on his best works, that is everything with a soprano in it.https://youtu.be/Nz8wt98tZHQ?si=PDhllx66QWEoc7Ag
>>122809004Barenboim with the Chicago Symphony Orkestra convinced me Linz Version is the best version of Brückner's first. It does sound more powerful and moving. Why did he change it in Vienna?
People actually listen to Bruckner's first symphony? In different versions no less?!
>>122809168The Brucknerpill is a gateway to a world of... different versions and endless debate
>>122809004Why there is so few love for Villa-lobos here? His Tupi choral in Floresta da Amazonia is genius stuff
>>122809207I like Villa-Lobos and have posted him before. I've seen others post his music too. He's just not that well-known compared to many other composers.https://youtu.be/0_bJD9VCmFs
>>122807819There's plenty to dislike about Richter's late period. He was at his best in the 50s-70s.
>>122809316His Schubert is simply too slow for me
>>122809342It's really only the 21st Sonata that he's particularly slow. And, yes, I agree as far as his interpretation of that sonata is concerned.
>>122809004This oldest Italian opera must be absolved from the censure that Wagner pronounced upon the later one. It was not a loose collection of arias, but really what it claimed to be—a dramma per musica. Monteverde, of all composers, perhaps has the closest affinity with Wagner; there is some truth in Guido Adler’s remark that the creator of The Ring should really be regarded as a representative of the Renaissance, and more particularly of the Renaissance opera. The creators of the stilo rappresentativo, as the new kind of music was called, had the same ideals as Wagner. For them, as for him, music was not an end-in-itself, but served only to express the drama, and it was their desire that the orchestra should be invisible. Their melody, however, took the form of dramatic declamation, the inherent expressiveness of which can still move the modern hearer most profoundly. Monteverde’s lament of Ariadne (Lamento d’Arrianna) may be cited as an example.The music of a Monteverde had been a re-birth from musical declamation. Being in essence the negation of song, it could not employ any song-text that was compressed into an artificial or monotonous verse-metre; what it demanded was a free rhymed prose, in which rhyme and metre existed only as servants of the music. With this aversion to rhyming lines of the same length, that broke up the musical tissue in an obviously unnatural way, music entered the path that was to lead it, after a ample of centuries of wandering, to the style of Wagner.
>>122807193>But for you to be incapable to see what sets apart a Beethoven melody from a Beetles melodyif the beatles took a beethoven melody and set it to a beatles song, it would still be pop rock. plenty of popular musicians quote melodies from mozart, bach, tchaikovsky, paganini, rachmaninoff et al, but no one here considers blackpink to be classical music. on the other hand, if beethoven were alive in the 1960s and used a beatles melody (which, as funny as it sounds, is not terribly far off from his usage of folk melodies, which he did fairly often) in a piano sonata, it would still be classical music. the reason for this is beyond your comprehension because you are a midwit whose only argument is MUH FEEWINZ and MUH SENSITIVIEZ and is incapable of comprehending the objective facets of music that differentiate their conception and therefore intent. >>122809168brucknerites are a special kind of mentally ill. the rest of us know that only the symphonies from 4 onwards warrant repeated listening.
How many of you play a classical instrument/ are have been in some kind of band or orchestra? Can you all read music?
>>122809342Where does it fall on the Richter Scale?
>>122809207Wolf House?
>>122809537I would certainly include B3 myself.
>>122809537>if the beatles took a beethoven melody and set it to a beatles song, it would still be pop rock.Except they could never create that melody. That's the point, it would just be a Beetles song that includes a classical melody; the melody itself, and its artistic value, remains classical. You have a total insensitivity to the true meaning of art, like you genuinely thing Beethoven chose or thought up a melody in a mental state of academic analysis. The academic criteria established for the comprehension of an artform does not, and never will, ensure a real understanding of art or why it is made. One sees it all the time, academic mediocrity breaking down the formal conception of a Madonna, but somehow forgetting the significance of its religious subject and why the artist is using any technique at all. And it can be demonstrated almost psychoanalytically, the 'feeling' remains in such a state of regressive underdevelopment, that calling 'feeling' into art is assumed to only mean the most primitive response possible. Feeling is quite literally dead for them, there is no such thing as supreme subtlety or originality in feeling, because feeling -- and this plays into their superiority complex -- is only for the least intelligent individual when they react to art. That is how little they know art! And it is easiest in music for this particular type of vulgar personality to arise, because music exists as pure form, and can be analysed in that way apart from its living tones. The objective facets of music exist for feeling, and this will only strike a person as an extreme statement if they know absolutely nothing about artistic feeling.
>>122809537Parts of Here Comes The Sun sound like parts of Prelude in D from book 1 of the WTC(The Beatles did it better though)
>>122809734lmao. What?
>>122809795Aesthetic experience includes feeling. What's so confusing about that? Autists who obsess over theory and want nothing to do with human feeling should be banned from studying art. They'll just pervert the entire definition of what art is.
>>122809734holy mother fucking exercise in missing the goddamn point. do you not know what a quotation in music is?https://youtu.be/wNOXu_yoDYI?si=I0YwR6OUt3_NKJVNexplain why this quotation of the primary subject of the slow movement of the pathetique sonata is somehow not a classical melody in “feeling” in spite of being THE EXACT SAME MELODY.
>>122809867Calm down autistic sister
>>122809681I am self-taught on piano but never been a part of band or orchestra unfortunately. Maybe in the future I will.Yes of course I can read sheet music. But I don't know theory well, so I'm studying that, slowly.
>>122809903i can’t think of anything more autistic than insisting that the only thing that differentiates classical music from popular music is some vague indescribable FEEWINZ and then going on a thousand word sperg tirade on why MUH FEEWINZ is the supreme comprehension of art or whatever the fuck that retard was trying to say in that wall of text i skimmed through.
>>122809537If the world is ill, being sane is considered a disease. Brückner's first 3 symphonoes are filled with beautiful moments and vitality. He already sounds like himself, with his own, majestic voice, from the start, as he had spent 40 years preparing to begin his compositions. There is no sudden leap of quality on the forth; his symphonies, instead, are all part of the same conversation, of Brückner with God, with the listener being free to join from the moment he is inserted in his life
>>122809933putting an umlaut in bruckner’s name doesn’t suddenly make his first 3 symphonies any less amateurish and laborious.
>>122809933I'm with you.>>122809955kek
>>122809867I explicitly said if a song exactly quotes a classical melody then the melody remains classical and of the same value, ignoring any questions of performance (which are obviously not insignificant). Any idiot will tell you the Billy Joel song is not classical in feeling, that it completely ruins the original feeling of the melody, not least by it certainly not being performed classically. This is an obvious sign of your own underdevelopment in this area, and you should take this as an injunction to better yourself. I mean, even in just the instrumentation, can't you see the all important difference between a jazzy pop orchestration and a pianoforte?
>>122809918>the only thing that differentiates classical music from popular music is some vague indescribable FEEWINZNo one said this. You're the one sperging out because you're been shown to be an unfeeling autist.
>>122809955>According to widespread opinion, the Third can be regarded as Bruckner's artistic breakthrough. In it, the "real and complete Bruckner" comes into expression for the first time.[12] According to Rudolf Kloiber, the third symphony "opens the sequence of Bruckner's masterpieces, in which his creativity meets monumental ability of symphonic construction."Who to believe? Sisterposter on /mu/ or a serious critic? Mmm...
>>122809964>that it completely ruins the original feeling of the melodyit’s the exact same goddamn melody. explain to me exactly how billy joel ruins it without using the word FEEWINZ. in fact, explain literally anything you’ve said without resorting to “i-it’s just subjective and you wouldn’t get it!”, because that’s basically the summation of every waste of breath you’ve uttered on this hellhole of a general. >even in just the instrumentationexcept i asked about melody, which you seem all obsessed with. orchestration has nothing to do with melody. they’re still the same notes in the same contour and even the same register. arguably, the only real difference between the two melodies is key. not that you would know this, since apparently you can’t differentiate orchestration from melodic content. >>122809974you did, tourist sperg. don’t try to deny it, we’ve all seen your gay fucking spergfest over the last 12 hours. >>122809979since we seem so concerned with “serious critical” opinions, should i start quoting hanslick reviews of bruckner symphonies?
>>122810019The point is that there seems to be a general consensus about Bruckner getting good from #3 onwards whereas you completely arbitrarily choose to exclude the 3rd from his great works
>>122810109>arbitrarilyperhaps it’s because i don’t really like the 4th or the 3rd to begin with, and i find the 4th to be a much better symphony than the 3rd, so it serves as a logical cutoff point for me.
>>122810019>it’s the exact same goddamn melody.Which no one is disagreeing with, you mentally ill autist. But next time you want to hear a beautiful classical melody performed, please go ahead and put a retarded saxophone and love song lyrics over it, and get a pop singer to play it, and change the tempo accordingly, and then tell me it's just as beautiful. You cannot, and that is what you are denying, I suppose to excuse your sappy musical sensibilities.
>>122810202>But next time you want to hear a beautiful classical melody performed, please go ahead and put a retarded saxophone and love song lyrics over it, and get a pop singer to play it, and change the tempo accordingly, and then tell me it's just as beautiful.you’ve just described the changes made that disfigure its beauty; the orchestration, the performance, the presentation and context of the melody in the structure of the piece. none of these things have to do with melody in and of itself. there are no “classical” melodies, there are only melodies in classical contexts and melodies otherwise. this is why beethoven can quote german folksong and stravinsky can quote lithuanian folksong without being folksong. you can clearly comprehend now the idea that the same contour of notes can take on a different affect based on context and presentation, so why is it so difficult to comprehend that context and presentation is precisely what defines classical music as a practice of composing and performing music?
The Pathetique melody is beautiful for its restraint, and a swaggering Jew comes along and turns it into a headlong expression of pathos.TYPICAL!
Ravel Bartok Ligeti
>>122810251but bartok isnt a talentless hack
>>122810238Maybe he should of called it The Restraint Somata instead then?
>>122810129What are your thoughts on Bruckner 5? I know it's a fan favorite but I always have the hardest time enjoying that one.
>>122810257neither are the other two
>>122810288one of the strangest romantic era symphonies in conception, but fundamentally genius. >>122810302evidently they are.
>>122810236This is absolutely imbecilic. You can never fully extricate melody from instrumentation, performance or structure, but this in no way shows that classical melody, or any particular type of melody, DOES NOT exist. That is beyond stupid and the most disingenuous argument I have ever read in this general. The melody of a Mozart is just as uniquely classical. And we could certainly have an extensive study of the difference between classical music incorporating foreign types of music, and then later types of music bastardising classical music. That's an important distinction. Beethoven is at one with the original intention of a folk melody, it is that feeling which he desires; while Billy Joel is not being authentic to classical melody, he's wrenching it for his own close minded pop idea of music. All you have shown me is that, as expected, your conception of melody is utterly abstract and detached from the living art of music.
