Edwin Fischer editionThis thread is for the discussion of music in the Western classical tradition.>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/NBEp2VFhOld: >>124188696
zarthttps://youtu.be/HkUTuXcLEPc
>he listens to classical music but doesn't even play piano or violin
first post mozart nice
Mozarthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OtZahjtcj8
>>124214840>fartwranglerLOL>>124214958>>124215014average gould ghoul>>124215073yes, even a shitty upright is better than a digital piano. digital pianos feel nothing like real ones even with weights and they sound absolutely nothing like real ones regardless.
>>124216614>yes, even a shitty upright is better than a digital piano.Well, okay. Gonna try to get one with candleholders.Is there actually a good guide to upright pianos? Which ones are highest quality, what their sizes are etc
>>124216715>Is there actually a good guide to upright pianos? Which ones are highest quality, what their sizes are etcanything between 1-5k from a known brand will be decent
>>124216841Why not get an old one second hand?
>>124216888that's also an option obviouslymight take more maintenance though since it might detune faster
>>124216614>even a shitty upright is better than a digital piano. digital pianos feel nothing like real ones even with weights and they sound absolutely nothing like real ones regardless.You impress me with your stupidity
do you think mozart would have had the capacity to figure out his murderer's plot before it had occurred if he had a higher intake of vitamin d?https://files.catbox.moe/dlextd.mp3
>>124216315Greatest pianist ever.The c-minor on that set is superb.
>>124216715if you have to ask, you probably don't have access to actual good upright pianos. just figure out what your options are and pick the one that sounds and feels the best to play. >>124217031we get it, you've never played a good acoustic piano in your life. let adults talk please.
Schoenberg https://youtu.be/BTAjosr1gSE?si=lXLA3kri_eco60PQ
>>124216487maho sexo
George Walter Selwyn Lloyd (28 June 1913 – 3 July 1998) was a British composer.Listen to Symphony #5.
>>124217469>a good acoustic pianoBut you said even a shitty one is better, dementia sister. And we get it, you haven't played on Roland Kawaii Casio hammer action keyboards, you also haven't played them with plugged on to latest VSTs. The difference between is so slim no one will be able to tell besides someone who spent their entire lives around pianos, and even they are impressed by latest models, they sound just as good as any piano. For concert halls it's different matter.
>>124218161the famous "i cant breathe" symphony
>>124218202kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cH8j9LfF0kWebern performed by Richter
>>124218201>But you said even a shitty one is bettercorrect, the range of dynamics and timbre you can get from the shittiest upright are still more analogous to a concert grand (which is really what any serious pianist should be practicing for) than any digital piano. >And we get it, you haven't played on Roland Kawaii Casio hammer action keyboards, you also haven't played them with plugged on to latest VSTs. except i have, and they still don't feel and sound like the real thing for the reasons stated above. you can never capture the precise effect and nuance that touch has on any analog piano with digital keys.
>>124218161Lyritally who?
>>124218161Just for you I shall.>>124218332Lyrically whom
>>124218289>to a concert grand (which is really what any serious pianist should be practicing for)A pianist can be practicing for his own pleasure, or to write pieces of his own. All of which can be done in a room with a good digital piano just as good. Not everyone is practicing for recitals and concerts.
>>124218488if you’re practicing just to dick around then you can practice on literally any keyboard, up to and including those shitty touch based roll-up pianos with no action whatsoever. but i seriously doubt someone with that little intent in mind would go out of their way to ask if they should invest 4 figures on a piano.
Gonna ask this question one more time: I've noticed on a lot of recordings, especially more recent ones, that the main work comes before the auxiliary pieces of the program, like overtures or short orchestral pieces or what have you. I understand why this would be done for CDs you wanna market and sell, but this can't be how it's done in an actual live performance, yeah? Surely the 10 minute piece from whoever comes before the hour-long symphony by famous composer that everyone came to see, and not the other way around?
>>124218539yes
>>124218539yes, music no one actually wants to hear like overtures and new music usually come first in a concert in that order.
>>124218577>>124218588Okay, thank you, thought I was going crazy. Like why would you perform, I don't know, Schumann's Manfred Overture after Beethoven's 3rd? So here's the real kicker then: on recordings that were of live performances, this means the track ordering doesn't necessarily have fidelity to the actual program of that concert? That's real whacky. I even once heard a recording where there was only applause after the overture/orchestral piece -- I suspected it was either cut from the main work and added, or they audience applauded at the end of both and they just cut the one from the symphony, but I digress.
>>124218161>Listen to Symphony #5.It's pretty great, albeit with the typical sentimentality which characterizes a lot of English classical. I myself don't mind.
>>124218619>on recordings that were of live performances, this means the track ordering doesn't necessarily have fidelity to the actual program of that concert? That's real whackywait until you find out that most live recordings are actually stitched together from multiple performances, typically over 2-3 nights.>or they audience applauded at the end of both and they just cut the one from the symphonyaudiences always applaud at the end of each individual piece. frankly, i think it's overdone; they should boo more often.
>>124218719>>wait until you find out that most live recordings are actually stitched together from multiple performances, typically over 2-3 nights.Ah now it makes sense, much appreciated, you've answered and solved my neurosis regarding this. I almost always just move the overture/orchestral piece to the front and listen to it that way, so I just wanted to make sure I wasn't actually doing something in opposition to how it would really sound live.>frankly, i think it's overdone; they should boo more often.lol
i can't be the only one who frequently mixes up Berlioz and Boulez when trying to write one of their names
>>124218782both were french, both were conductors, both were hacks, really, what's the difference?
>>124218719Also when you say 'stitched,' you just mean they'll pick the best and most cohesive performances of each movement and combine them together, or they go even further and will edit and cobble together separate performances within a movement itself?
>>124218809>both were fr*nchanon pleased, there are children around...
>>124218810>they go even further and will edit and cobble together separate performances within a movement itself?yes, this is the standard for classical music recording. virtually every recording you've ever heard is cobbled together from the best takes of each section of the same piece of music.
Life without Chopin would be completely and utterly meaningless in a literal sense.
>>124218837What would be the non-literal sense of this?
>>124218835Well, for a studio recording that makes sense, but for live, that seems both fraudulent and even a mistake!*cue that Markevitch or whoever quote on this subject
>>124218873the reality is that there's very little difference between a live and studio setting for classical recordings other than that studio settings are more forgiving of mistakes in takes. it's just the nature of the industry and the genre.
>>124218912Well from now on I shall listen and enjoy only in protest.
now playingstart of Bruckner: String Quintet in F Major, WAB 112https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-JwG16mqsM&list=OLAK5uy_mX8pkQtlewQHxY8iKskw2bweLApRiipq4&index=1https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mX8pkQtlewQHxY8iKskw2bweLApRiipq4
>This is a CD of Mazale Brookner (1824-1896) all songs twicles that have been released in the market just a moment as a "limited self-owned production board". In a contracted time of two months, he took on the contracted tradition of Oigen Yochhm, and then he interpretation of this playing, is a shimmering record of the Bavarian Symphonic Orchestra.Recording: January to March 1999 live recording filharmony gas tique.What the fuck... who wrote this? How?
>>124219051looks like google translate from another language that transliterated the names bruckner and eugen jochum.
>>124219145and combined Maazel and Bruckner into one person named 'Mazale Brookner.'
>>124218837I take it up the ass btw, forgot to say
Will AI soon be capable of editing and improving recordings? Like, I could give it one and prompt it to "give this recording a faster tempo" or "add vibrato" or any number of things, all with the addendum of '"while making sure it sounds good and natural."
>>124219232delusions of grandeur
>>124219232i bet you masturbate to slop created by algorithms
>>124219256Nah I outsource that part to AI as well, and merely spectate the entire thing.>>124219250Hey, don't get me wrong, I hope not, just asking as it doesn't seem too out of the realm of possibility.
>>124219232AI will not only edit but write entirely new material according to your tastes better than any composer would.Yes, artists had hard time believing this too an now they're crying that an AI has replaced them. Now, we're not there yet, but in 10 years, maybe much less or a bit more, we'll be there.
>>124218161>>124218686>>124218475>>124218332Then English critics at the time kind of swept him under the rug. His music wasn't "progressive" enough (because it actually had some memorable tunes and enjoyable moments). They thought he was "regressive" which is just so unbelievably stupid.Number 7 and 11 are also masterpieces.
>>124219312I don't have faith in AI's ability to create novel and sublime art. When it comes to editing and combining and reconfiguring existing material, however, which is what my original question was on, I do, and as an aspiring writer it greatly worries me.
What you guys think of Leibowitz's Beethoven symphonies?
>>124219388Your faith and wishes are of no matter. AI's is progressing exponentionally and it's only a matter of time (and luck, a war could slow down the progress). If you weren't living under a rock it's quite evident, the progress AI made in just 4 years is massive. There already was an 'AI' (or rather a bot, BachBot I believe) that could write countrapuntal (sheet) music a decade ago, now we have an actual AI that is trained on various recordings to produce actual music. So in a way we're already close to something groundbreaking, however no one is working on music AIs as hard as text generating AIs currently. So again, it's all matter of time.
>>124219518n-no, please, s-stop it....Neo-Luddism NOW
>>124219312>>124219518delusions of grandeur>>124219420generally quite good, but lacking some excitement.
>>124219420Excellent as a set, but individually only a few of the performances, namely the 7th and 9th, rise to the level of my favorites. The 3rd and 4th are quite good as well, but the lack of the repeat in the Eroica really bothers me. I don't think there's another set of Beethoven symphonies that I would readily recommend on the whole, other than Schuricht's maybe.
>>124219518i bet you masturbate to slop created by algorithms
>>124219619Been listening to the Herbert Kegel set as my first listen of the complete symphonies, am I making a mistake?
>>124219743Kegel is one of my favorite conductors but I've never been super fond of his Beethoven cycle. It's fine but if I'm going to listen to slower Beethoven I'd rather just listen to Markevitch, Schuricht, Monteux, or even Furtwangler. I Kegel's Missa Solemnis, which is also outside of my tempo preference, but nails everything else IMO.
>>124219518Again, if I asked one of those AI's to, say, compose a 5th Brahms symphony, I don't doubt it would be able to create something that both quite Brahmsian and of some quality. It would, however, be something derivative and lacking in any kind of artistic progression and formal innovation which a real Brahms 5th would possess.>>124219743For your first, as far as complete cycles go, I'd recommend starting with either Karajan (preferably the '63 or '77 cycles but the '84 is fine) or Szell.Here's a playlist of Karajan's '63, the link starting with the 3rd:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKUkquBHRWg&list=OLAK5uy_nhN2Yat-dAC08OfZn3tg16DTkXr__iEcE&index=5and here's Szell's cycle, also with a direct link to the start of the 3rd:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5tbDMDmgZU&list=OLAK5uy_kCztGtNSK88V3G5VapKgP6nkGlFS0WBEA&index=11
>>124219822you should refrain from recommending recordings to people, this is just fucking awful.
>>124219743Oh and for someone like Kegel, I'd only stick to his recordings of choral music.>>124219832I suggested one of your favorite cycles too. The fact of the matter is, for someone starting out, it'd be a massive disservice and disingenuous to not recommend Karajan's, one of the most beloved, critically acclaimed, and popular of all Beethoven recordings and conductors, regardless of your own opinions on the matter; anon can make up his own mind from there, hence why I recommended Szell's as well.
>>124219904>it’d be a massive disservice and disingenuous to not recommend Karajan'sit’d be a massive disservice to continue to perpetuate bad recordings just because they’re popular. that’s how we ended up with barbirolli and horenstein as cornerstones of mahler conducting despite being some of the worst recordings ever made.
>>124219743>>124219788But to answer your question I think it's fine to listen to whatever cycle as your first one, but I do think Leibowitz is a very good cycle to start out with since it gives you the appropriate expectation in regards to Beethoven's tempi, since for most of the symphonies he follows the metronome markings close enough (except for the 6th)>>124219904>I'd only stick to his recordings of choral music.Kegel has excellent recordings of orchestral repertoire, though. SVS especially. And three excellent opera recordings.
>>124219822>It would, however, be something derivative and lacking in any kind of artistic progression and formal innovation which a real Brahms 5th would possess.Source: my ass.The "progress" is inherent to any pattern recognizing entity. Why would Brahms make a progress, and not the AI? Was Brahms trained on a dataset that is no longer available? Why do you think humans operate differently from an AI? Not to mention that Brahms didn't have access to as much music as AIs do now. Newest models of AI are now even "thinking", they're literally talking to themselves before responding. Also, recent studies show that language is not essential for thinking and problem solving, but AIs are thinking with words, so a new approach will be used in the future most likely. There's nothing stopping AI to replace everything and everyone in art&music.
>>124219934With someone like Horenstein, a lot of his praise and supporters is the result of, as you've correctly stated many times, an era of limited availability and being the proverbial only game in town. A better comparison for Mahler recordings would be Bernstein; a question of "what are your favorites" or "what do you think of Bernstein's Mahler" is vastly different to "where should one start?" and to that latter one, regardless of your own feelings on them, Bernstein's recordings should be mentioned as one of the first to try. This same applies to Karajan for Beethoven. Plus I do love his, and someone's gotta balance out you guys who don't :^)>>124219953>Kegel has excellent recordings of orchestral repertoire, though. SVS especially. And three excellent opera recordings.Fair enough. Perhaps I'm unfairly lumping him in with other choral guru conductors, of whom I maintain my position of generally disregarding their non-choral recordings, and if so my mistake.
>>124220090>>>/g/
>>124219822Karajan sucks
>>124220090Listen. This is /classical/, not "plebbit". We only discuss patrician refined music here. You are on the wrong bus stop, but instead of being a civil individual and leaving, you are instead creating a "ruckus" for the other waiting passengers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMw0EjLFPXw Wagner showed us the dangers of being a "faustian" man, not with long essays and tedious literature, but with elegant sound and smooth instrumentation. You are the devil, "Mephistopheles" trying to seduce us poor souls into degeneracy.W.
>>124220128That's your opinion, which I respect, and also which I and many, many others, including those who know their stuff, disagree with, so anon should be given a chance to make up his own mind on it. If he dislikes it, fine, no problem, but he should be given the chance to try it, and given the acclaim, suggested that chance early on.
>>124220157lol. I can already see good AI models cutting down Wagner's long ass operas and significantly improving them.
>>124220157lol quality post>>124220189:O
We had a Mahler symphony thread, now let's do Beethoven symphonies.>Best recordings of each Beethoven symphony
>>124220189You can't improve "Perfect Art".
>>124220216karajan, klemperer, bohm. gimme dat gloriously weighty and profoundly majestic Beethoven over the taut and vigorous
>>124220090>Was Brahms trained on a dataset certified AI slopper moment>>124220107>A better comparison for Mahler recordings would be Bernsteinhis mahler was also popular because of availability and marketing, as was karajan's beethoven, so the realistic fact is that all of the above are popular because of extremely similar reasons. >Bernstein's recordings should be mentioned as one of the first to try.no, actual good recordings should be mentioned as the first to try. DG having a bigger marketing budget for bernstein than decca for chailly does not magically validate bernstein's horrific tempi choices. >someone's gotta balance out you guys who don'tso in other words you're deliberately recommending bad recordings. got it. >>124220320garbage
>>1242202163: Van Kempen, Schuricht, Kletzki5: Concertgebouw/E. Kleiber6: Concertgebouw/E. Kleiber7. Karajan '779: Boston/Munch (meme)
>>124220464schuricht and kletzki are just so slow in the eroica, i can't stand recordings that drag that first movement anymore.
>>124220421>DG having a bigger marketing budget for bernstein than decca for chailly does not magically validate bernstein's horrific tempi choices.Except most people disagree with you and like Bernstein's choices. So odds are the person new to the works might too. Feel free to toss in your own favorites when making a recommendation, of course, but let's not forget the ones someone should still try even if you don't like it is all.>so in other words you're deliberately recommending bad recordings. got it.I'm saying, and this is really the crux of the point, that you oughta be able to separate disliking something from it being outright bad.
>>124220494But they're not.
>>124220500>Except most people disagree with you and like Bernstein's choices.most people are uninformed retards who have never heard any mahler other than bernstein and karajan, so it doesn't matter. >So odds are the person new to the works might toofalse presumption>the ones someone should still try even if you don't like it is all.which don't include karajan in beethoven or bernstein in mahler. >you oughta be able to separate disliking something from it being outright bad.i can. i dislike fartwrangler, but i wouldn't hesitate to include his beethoven or brahms as required listening at one point or another. this is not the case for karajan, who is simply bad. >>124220532they don't follow beethoven's metronome marking, so they're too slow. sorry.
>>124220464>9: Boston/Munch (meme)I wish it didn't sound like compressed asshole otherwise it would absolutely be a favorite. Basically Toscanini in stereo
>>124220542Schuricht: 14:11Kletzki: 14:14Szell: 14:46Seriously, what kind of time would satisfy you??
>>124220542>most people are uninformed retards who have never heard any mahler other than bernstein and karajan, so it doesn't matter.Oh come on. Are there plenty of people who think Bernstein, Karajan, and Abbado are the end-all-be-all of Mahler because they haven't heard any others? Sure. Doesn't change there are plenty of informed people who do adore them as well (less so Abbado's, of course), and you know that.Anyway, if you genuinely think Karajan's Beethoven and Bernstein's Mahler are outright bad even when trying to view them from outside your own particular preferences and tastes, and that generations of classical audiences and respected, knowledgeable critics have just been wrong or, worse, bamboozled, cajoled, and seduced into praising them by marketing, peer pressure, flashy style, and otherwise, then fine, I vehemently disagree but it is what it is and I guess I gotta respect that. However, I still think anons approaching the works for the first time or looking to expand their listening into deliberate and superior recordings than whatever they've had on hand or the first results on YouTube or whatever should be told about them in order to give them a listen and make up their own mind on the matter. Unless you worry they too might be seduced and corrupted by giving them a taste, I guess.
>>124220671And my main man Paul van Kempen: 14:22
>>124220671you’re forgetting that they don’t take the exposition repeat. with the repeat they’d be closer to 17 minutes. >what kind of time would satisfy youi already said, beethoven’s metronome markings. >>124220747>Doesn't change there are plenty of informed people who do adore them as well (less so Abbado's, of course), and you know that.there are lots of boomers who are married to the recordings they grew up listening to, yes. still doesn’t make bernstein’s mahler or karajan’s beethoven legitimate. >generations of classical audiences and respected, knowledgeable critics have just been wrong or, worse, bamboozled, cajoled, and seduced into praising them by marketing, peer pressure, flashy styleliteral generations of beethoven interpreters have been fooled into believing that beethoven’s metronome markings are wrong because they grew up under wagnerian pretenses, to the degree that there are groups of people forming literal bullshit theories about beethoven’s metronome being wrong or that every metronome marking is actually intended to be played at half speed. how is this any different? people are easily convinced, especially when they don’t care that much about the subject matter to begin with. >anons approaching the works for the first time or looking to expand their listening into deliberate and superior recordings than whatever they've had on hand or the first results on YouTube or whatever should be told about them in order to give them a listenso they can be given faulty pretenses with the works? retarded.
>>124220835>so they can be given faulty pretenses with the works? retarded.I'd say "faulty according to you" but that just leads back to everything else we've said again. That's the reason I suggested Szell's cycle as well by posting a link to a recording of the same symphony I did for Karajan, so they can make up their own mind with two distinct approaches. You saying they should avoid Karajan's like it's the plague, a literal mind-virus of misguided music taste (inb4 "yes, you're exhibit A")? lol
>>124220671For the first movement of the Eroica, Beethoven states a tempo of dotted half note = 60 bpm, Leibowitz takes it at about 54-58 bpm without the exposition repeat, and he times in at 12:47.
>>124220956>>124220835Ya'll gonna take the directions of a deaf man!?
>>124221011said the guy talking about music written by the same deaf man.
>>124221011>Even when he was completely deaf, at rehearsals he used to “scan” the movement of string bows with his eyes with keen attention, “to judge the smallest fluctuations in tempo or rhythm and correct them immediately”.>Beethoven specified metronome marks for the Eroica and the rest of his first eight symphonies in 1817,40 thirteen years after Eroica’s composition. By that time, he was already completely deaf but Eroica had already seen multiple performances under his direction, including when Beethoven could only partially hear. Therefore, for this symphony, he still could have some memory of the practical challenges associated with the physical realization of the symphony from the time of earlier rehearsals and performances.>Although it is certainly possible that in 1817, when he specified metronome markings for the Eroica, his ability to remember the tempo of earlier performances would be impaired, it is hard to imagine that the metronome indications he then specified could be more than 3-4 BPM slower or faster from what he actually heard in earlier rehearsals and performances that he directed.I like plenty of performances that take it at a much slower tempo than Beethoven's indication, Monteux is a long standing favorite of mine for its superb orchestral sonority and minute attention to balance and rhythm, but it's still objectively slow compared to what Beethoven wanted.
i've heard the work dozens of times but it just hit me how brilliant, gorgeous, and emotionally and dramatically stirring the third movement of Mahler's 4th is:https://files.catbox.moe/zpyx53.flacdamn!
>>124221084>>124221027I was just joshin'. In seriousness, I believe music ought to be performed in whatever way best brings them to life and deeply resonates with the audiences of the era. For much of the 20th century, and most of the history of recorded media playable at home by the average consumer, it seems this was best achieved by slower tempos, among other things. Perhaps in our current time, in our digital age of near-instantaneous information transfer, it is time to swing the pendulum back in the other direction toward faster tempo performances.
>>124221184schizophrenic extramusical nonsense. the eroica was played slowly in the 20th century as a result of 19th century wagnerian conducting practice, it has nothing to do with “information transfer”.
>>124221274?You don't think art and tastes in art are shaped and influenced by the lived experiences of artists and their audiences? Laughable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you didn't understand my point or didn't think it through.
>>124221299>the lived experiencesjesus christ you sound like such a fucking faggot lol holy shit
>>124221311well said sister
>>124221311I thought /classical/ was a general solely for smart people informed on culture, philosophy, and the nature and practice of art, my mistake.
>>124221336it’s not a general for faggots talking about “lived experiences” like a black tranny, no.
https://youtu.be/ANUAtij5D-gI listened to this on shrooms and it felt like I was ascending
>>124221361Ah, so you're a bot and not a living person, why didn't you say so at the beginning?
>>124221373Like I always say, Liszt's music is transcendent. Didn't know Stokowski had a recording of those pieces, thanks for sharing, should be good listening.
>>124221374i’m a human interested in music, not humanitarian sociological bullshit.
>>124221392No problem. I'm just now getting into classical. I never really cared much for it but this piece stood out to me when a piano performance of it got recommended to me on YT.
>>124221408So you don't think how people liv-- y'know what, this isn't /lit/, this isn't worth it, let's just stick to talking about classical music then.
>>124221448yeah, fuck off back to /lit/ or /lgbt/ if you want to talk about how gay rights apply to beethoven, faggot.
>>124221447It's very lovely, both the piano and orchestral versions. Definitely check out more of Liszt's orchestral stuff, from the tone-poems to the other orchestrated Hungarian Rhapsodies to the symphonies, if you like that.
>>124221462I was talking about things like the structures of life, anon, not 'gay rights' or whatever the fuck, weirdo.
>>124221494i don’t care about why the structure of your gay sex position means that we should ignore beethoven’s metronome markings, faggot. either talk about music or fuck off.
>>124221511Do you like his markings solely because they were his vision for his own works? Or is it, in addition to that, because it sounds better that way? If so, why do you think you prefer it to sound that way versus all of the previous generations who preferred it another way? And not only you, but many other performers and conductors and classical music listeners active today? Pure happenstance, luck? Or maybe something about how life is today influences our modes of thinking, our philosophies, our preferences, the manner in which we express ourselves, and our tastes in art? If so, what about life today are the sources and factors of these influences?etc. But yes I'll keep it to /lit/, my bad.
>>124219312
now playingR. Strauss: Don Juan, Op. 20https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7TcY0d5NCI&list=OLAK5uy_kETJPFr_umTCefHWuP1oFKE8vVMs7YbkQ&index=2start of R. Strauss: Ein Heldenleben, Op. 40https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7but4bJs-q4&list=OLAK5uy_kETJPFr_umTCefHWuP1oFKE8vVMs7YbkQ&index=2https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_kETJPFr_umTCefHWuP1oFKE8vVMs7YbkQFelt like trying out an unfamiliar recording of these works other than the spectacular ones by Karajan and Kempe. As always, open to other recommendations. Also added Jansons and Previn.
>>124221676>Do you like his markings solely because they were his vision for his own works? Or is it, in addition to that, because it sounds better that way?obviously both, duh. >why do you think you prefer it to sound that way versus all of the previous generations who preferred it another way?because they grew up playing it that way and were trained to play it that way as a holdover from the 19th century, it’s not that deep. >And not only you, but many other performers and conductors and classical music listeners active today?because performances of beethoven’s symphonies at metronome marking only started to become more common at the end of the century, and now the internet has given every person in the world virtually unlimited access to every eroica recording in existence for comparison and critical listening. again, it has nothing to do with the gay sociological bullshit you’re interested in.
>>124221898And you aren't thinking about these things deep enough. You don't think your preference for faster tempi generally has anything to do with the pace and speed of life today? These things don't spring up out of a vacuum.
>>124222134no, it has to do with the fact that it’s what beethoven intended and it sounds more in line with the practices of the classical era, whereas the practice of slower tempi is a preference that stems from the romantic era and a romanticization of beethoven’s music as the progenitor of it.
>>124222285Yes, and their preferences were also informed by similar external factors such as the dominate philosophical paradigm, culture, social structures, technology, etc etc., just like ours are.
>>124222336their preferences were informed by romantic culture and ideology in music, particularly wagnerian ideology. nothing to do with gay extramusical bullshit.
>>124221749>sinopoliIs this guy actually any good?
>>124222344>romantic culture>nothing to do with gay extramusical bullshit.?>>124222375Hit-and-miss, often has idiosyncratic interpretations and performances, which sometimes work very well and sometimes not so much, but in all cases you can get the sense that it's a well-thought out and developed vision. For that recording it's pretty great even if it isn't the best. For similar stuff, I also really like his Scriabin 3 and Liszt's A Faust Symphony, and then you got his Mahler and Bruckner and so on.
>>124222344I'm done talking about this, take it easy.
>>124222462romantic culture existed as both an individual musical movement and a larger intellectual and artistic movement in europe. i’m talking about the former; goethe didn’t magically convince people to play beethoven at 2/3rds the tempo marking by writing faust. >>124222479you’re not done fucking off back to /lit/ though
https://youtu.be/q_gkGeCKLOU Coates was such a baller. Metronome markings before it was cool
>>124216315Very sadly Philip Glass's 12th Symphony doesn't seem to be on Youtube
>>124216315The Organ is such a wild instrument it such strange timbres that sound... I don't know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGIuuGRxJqQ&ab_channel=IddovanderGiessen
>>124222818the appropriate way to ascribe ownership is not s's but rather s' when dealing with an individual whose name ends in an s. not having Phillip Glass' 12th symphony on youtube is a good thing, for instance.
>>124222818thank sweet baby jesus
>>124218161Fiery but mostly peaceful
Bachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqW49VhaEbk
>>124222762https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngJR1VHuq5gthis is just shitposting
>>124219316The luting on this was tremendous
>French composer and conductor Pierre Boulez, for example, recalled that he had read 'with great interest what Wagner thought about conducting' and agreed with it. Like Wagner, Boulez argued that 'until one finds the right speed - not necessarily a constant speed, but one that fits the moment, and can vary with the context - until one finds that tempo, then even in one's own compositions the interpretation remains weak and prevents the music from swelling forth'.
>>124219316I'm sure I once posted this album because I thought his name was Floyd.
>>124220747you're wasting your time anon
>>124221374He might as well be a bot
Scarlattihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InZ_4CAcE78
>>124223316>>124223328thank you obsessed schizo
>>124222928No Glass's is acceptable. It's like Bridget Jones's Diary
Lol apparently Mendelssohn was a metronome marking enjoyer of Beethoven performance and Wagner seethed incessantly about it
Like so: posting the same copy pasted responses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBK3s-exDsonice sounding instrument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF6qIbP16gw&list=PLBrs-r77FPJLEwEMBuKKwwnQ_kVOFtcG1&ab_channel=HerbertvonKarajan-Topic
>>124223152Mendelssohn wasn't a metronome enjoyer, he was just retarded.>Mendelssohn himself once remarked to me, with regard to conducting, that he thought most harm was done by taking a tempo too slow; and that on the contrary, he always recommended quick tempi as being less detrimental. Really good execution, he thought, was at all times a rare thing, but short-comings might be disguised if care was taken that they should not appear very prominent; and the best way to do this was "to get over the ground quickly."
>>124223395no we are not snakes. we don't move like snakes.we don't eat like snakes. and we most certainly do not speak like snakes.
>>124223530Fuck, meant for >>124223431
>>124223530He is correct though
>>124223545Telling your orchestra to 'get over the ground quickly' is just about the hackiest thing I have ever heard from a conductor.
>>124223531Sounds like something a snake trying to fit in with humans would say
>>124223431>>124223530wtf i love mendelssohn now
Does anyone make playlists of parts of Classical music?
wagner vag vagner vagina
>>124223530>Mendelssohn wasn't a metronome enjoyer, he was just retarded.He probably wasn't exactly metronomic but he played Beethoven's symphonies fast, and Wagner was very butthurt about it.>Now, the late Capellmeister Reissiger, of Dresden, once conducted this symphony there, and I happened to be present at the performance together with Mendelssohn; we talked about the dilemma just described [in Wagner’s opinion, a misconception about the very fast rendering of the Eighth Symphony’s 3rd movement], and its proper solution; concerning which I told Mendelssohn that I believed I had convinced Reissiger, who had promised that he would take the tempo slower than usual. Mendelssohn perfectly agreed with me. We listened. The third movement began and I was terrified on hearing precisely the old Landler tempo; but before I could give vent to my annoyance Mendelssohn smiled, and pleasantly nodded his head as if to say "now it's all right! Bravo!" So my terror changed to astonishment. Reissiger, for reasons which I shall discuss presently, may not have been so very much to blame for persisting in the old tempo; but Mendelssohn's indifference, with regard to this queer artistic contretemps, raised doubts in my mind whether he saw any distinction and difference in the case at all. I fancied myself standing before an abyss of superficiality, a veritable void. Soon after this had happened with Reissiger, the very same thing took place with the same movement of the Eighth Symphony at Leipzig. Nigga was literally so buttmad about no one agreeing with his stupid interpretation of the third movement of the 8th symphony lmao
>>124220157Soon it will be too late with AI, we may be there already
>>124223897i fucking love mendelssohn now bros. trannies stay seething
Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Mendelssohn, who never sold much, and bloated messes like Wagner. At such a time, critics will study their history and understand which artists accomplished which musical feat, and which simply exploited it politically.
>Now, how does the true Beethovenian Allegro appear with regard to this? To take the boldest and most inspired example of Beethoven's unheard-of innovation in this direction, the first movement of his Sinfonia Eroica: how does this movement appear if played in the strict tempo of one of the Allegros of Mozart's overtures? But do our conductors ever dream of taking it otherwise? Do they not always proceed monotonously from the first bar to the last? With the members of the "elegant" tribe of Capellmeisters, the "conception" of the tempo consists of an application of the Mendelssohnian maxim "chi va presto va sano [those who go fast, go safely] >I have, myself, only once been present at a rehearsal of one of Beethoven's Symphonies when Mendelssohn conducted. I noticed that he chose a detail here and there—almost at random—and worked at it with a certain obstinacy until it stood forth clearly. This was so manifestly to the advantage of the detail that I could not but wonder why he did not take similar pains with other nuances. For the rest, this incomparably bright symphony was rendered in a remarkably smooth and genial manner. Mendelssohn himself once remarked to me, with regard to conducting, that he thought most harm was done by taking a tempo too slow; and that on the contrary, he always recommended quick tempi as being less detrimental. Really good execution, he thought, was at all times a rare thing, but short-comings might be disguised if care was taken that they should not appear very prominent; and the best way to do this was "to get over the ground quickly." This can hardly have been a casual view, accidentally mentioned in conversation. The master's pupils must have received further and more detailed instruction for, subsequently, I have on various occasions, noticed the consequences of that maxim "take quick tempi," and have, I think, discovered the reasons which may have led to its adoption.Based Mendelssohn
>>124223897But did Mendelssohn really not notice that nothing had changed? Either he was legitimately retarded or he thought Wagner was a retard and wouldn't notice.
Wagner's music had never been particularly relevant but somehow the mainstream media realized it only after his embrace of racist, antisemitic and white-supremacist language. The fact that so many classical critics thought that Wagner was a great composer only shows how far Gesamtkunstwerk was from becoming a major art.
>>124223897>>124223946It sounds like it was a wink wink nudge nudge moment between Mendelssohn and Reissiger where they mutually agreed that Wagner was a retard and that they would just perform it in their usual way, and Mendelssohn tried to gas light Wagner
It's crazy how everyone goes on about Germans but the greatest piece of classical music was written by an Englishman
>>124223991Debussy was french tho
Central to Wagner's understanding of tempo modification were the speeds of the first and second subjects in sonata form movements. For him a meno mosso at the second subject was crucial, and when his disciple Hans von Bulow reduced speed at this section in Beethoven's overture to Egmont, he announced proudly that his disciple had 'brought about a new reading of the overture - the correct reading'.Having adopted Wagner's performance model, Bulow then modified it to meet the needs of his own distinctive Beethoven style. That style soon caught the attention of younger conductors, who embraced it enthusiastically. Richard Strauss was particularly impressed by Bulow's approach and recalled in maturity that 'the exactitude of his phrasing, his intellectual penetration of the score combined with almost pedantic observation of the latter, his analyses of the period structure and, above all, his understanding of the psychological content of Beethoven symphonies [...] have been a shining example to me to this day'.From the internal tempo relationships found in Richard Strauss's score and the recordings of Wilhelm Furtwängler and Otto Klemperer clear patterns emerge that suggest a consistency of approach. Not only do they all use tempo as a means by which to underline the architectonic shifts within individual movements but they also exploit pulse as a way of integrating points of architectural importance within the symphonic structure as a whole. This approach is a direct consequence of Wagner's thoughts on interpretation and can be heard in the readings of most conductors from the 1880s to the 1970s. It would seem, then, that when Bulow 'brought about a new reading of the [Egmont] overture - the correct reading', he sparked a revolution that swept away all previous notions of symphonic interpretation and established a school of performance that shaped the way in which music was perceived and played for more than a century.
>>124224138>and the recordings of Wilhelm Furtwängler and Otto KlempererWeird comparison. Those two could not be more different in approach.
PetzoldETZOLD
>>124217397I'm in the Fischer lineage and I love his playing but he's a few generations downstream of the goats
>>124218837dom quite
>>124224394https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsgq9Jj_B04time flies
>>124225006I just want to achieve my god damned goals and move on with my life already
Szell has some really nice Bruckner recordings; tender and warm without sacrificing vigor or impact, which isn't easy to pull off. Shame he didn't record more than the 3rd, 7th, and 8th.
Sibelius Valse Tristehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ls8-pk4IS4&ab_channel=AngeloVullo
Prokofiev: Symphony No. 5 IIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkN9x6d9NDA
>>124225718Great stuff. I feel I'm due for another listen through his symphonic cycle, always a good and unique time.
now playinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtD8C5Uetl0&list=OLAK5uy_n-DRos36zZydaTNVxBsWaCXuTAfGIaGVo&index=1https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_n-DRos36zZydaTNVxBsWaCXuTAfGIaGVo
>>124224199both slow
>>124226399both profound*
>>124223942wagner is still way better than Mendelssohn
>>124226406furtwangler is a "larghissimo and prestissimo only" meme and Klemperer wouldn't know subtlety if you shoved Mozart's Clarinet Concerto up his ass
>>124226532>Mozart's Clarinet ConcertoIs there anything more boring and overrated than Mozart's random-ass-concertos? Not to mention that they all sound the same. What sort of masochists listen to them?
Mieczysław Weinberghttps://youtu.be/2K1CU9i88wE
>>124216396I can play the kingdom hearts menu song on piano, but that's all.
>>124226827I get your point but his clarinet concerto and quintet are great. I've been hooked on the concerto ever since I first heard it in Godard's Breathless.
>the fourth movement of Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphonyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9QUseo5Ft8&list=OLAK5uy_kJFlkq0oOnRYBg41Nva-ZAJIg2sDpyAxc&index=4What the fuck was his problem!? Great work otherwise, and I'm not definitively set on never coming around on the final movement, but it seems like a common opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA2QvTi5fDA&list=OLAK5uy_k0kMh_gKFVDKEvvIkqqnsIIRjGygAriC4&index=1good night
Beethovenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrywBM8_aiA
>>124227579Why did the fifth specifically become such a staple?
Best overall for Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker? I'd like to actually get ahead on preparing my holiday listen list this year.
>>124227615See it at the Bolschoi theater, if you cant do that, idk karajan or something
Why are so many classical recordings so trebly? Bass always sounds so weak compared to how it does irl, have to eq it all the time
>>124227615Dorati. For a more recent one, Gergiev perhaps.
>>124227625I'll be in Munich. I doubt I'd be able to travel to Russia regardless.
>>124227641Id want to go there, only nutcracker in Netherlands is some gay looking satanic rendition.
>>124227666Fuck you satan stop invading my digits, i wasnt endorsing your ass
>>124227634Higher frequencies are generally perceived as louder and more attention-grabbing by human ears, so they naturally draws more focus. Bass usually provides harmony, whereas soprano provides melody - what you sing and memorize most of all.By EQing you ruin the quality and balance of recordings.
>>124227636Listening to some excerpts now, the Dorati LSO and the Gergiev trade blows hitting the right sound IMO. The audio quality is notably better for the Gergiev obviously.
>>124227720I like recordings to sound like a real orchestra, and the bass irl is far louder than in recordings
>>124227596I guess because its pretty short so it fits neatly in a setlist, it's very memorable and has one of Beethovens best slow movements.
What are some conductors who make extremely pronounced seperation between the sections of a Sonata Form movement for stupids like me to be able to follow along easily too?
>>124227596How is this even a question? The first few bars should give you a clear answer. It is extremely catchy, memorable and easy to follow.
Was rubinstein based or jewish
>>124228318Karajan>>124228439Both
>>124228439His recording of Chopin Nocturnes 1-19 is the standard so I'm saying based.
>>124216396I can play piano somewhat decently but I learn painfully slow for lack of discipline, i've been learning the BWV 543 fugue for a while and im only at the part where the organ pedals first appear in the original
>>124228439>has a hateboner for germany whilr building his career off performing german musicHe's a fag
>>124228710Probably should start with the Anna Magdalena Bach book
What are some good nazi performers who arent Böhm, Karajan and Fürtwangler?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXxk4SOVpicGeneral German Nationalist conductors are fine too, any proud german performing their country's greatest art I'd like to hear.
>>124229175Kabasta, Kna, Mengelberg
Strausshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0aQ5QiptOg
Why does Beethoven tend to only really have 1 memorable theme in his sonata form movements? I need to actively read the sheet music to know where the other themes are. Otherwise I'd just think that his movements had 1 theme
i do not celebrate halloween, and i will NOT register an email just so i can post on board
>>124229776Don't blame Beethoven for your inadequacy
>>124230854Mozart is fine, Haydn too, every composer after Beethoven too. It's just him where I have this.
>>124230863>Mozart is fine, Haydn tooIs that why I can't remember more than a couple of their works whereas everything Beethoven did (especially mid/late period) is highly memorable and interesting? (As opposed to Haydn/Mozart who wrote the same piece of trash 1000 times)
>>124230956>Getting filtered by fucking Mozart>Calls others inadequatelmao
>>124230956fptmiu
Disliking MOZART is a sign of low musical intelligence.There's a reason why every major composer for the past few hundreds years has absolutely adored MOZART and been deeply inspired by his work. And that reason is because the music that MOZART created was simply brilliant.If you don't Iove the classical style compared to later styles thats one thing. But you have to respect the ingenious of MOZART'S work.Disliking MOZART is like disliking JOHANN WOLFGANG VON GOETHE or GOTTFRIED LEIBNIZ. It comes off as ignorant.
can't stop listening to Bruckner, help!
What CD was she listening to?
>>>/hr/4930406>>>/hr/4930406>>>/hr/4930406
Any street meat enjoyers?
Mozart fucking sucks cock
>>124231316>>124231377>a fucking wang threadMy sides.
Is Simone Young an okay conductor? I'm suspicious of her because she's a woman.>Astrid Varnay: Then I worked with many great men... I never worked with a female conductor, I don't know if someone else....>Birgit Nilsson: No.>Martha Modl: (laughs) Sorry for my reaction. I stand on stage and there is a woman in the pit, and I feel deserted, not defended or protected. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel.
>>124231619who cares, the orchestras all sound the same now
>>124231156K.666>>124231377kek that's funny
>>124231688Why?
bartokhttps://youtu.be/QElT9KD4uX8scary!!!
>>124231763Halloweeny!
Chopinhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKZiaoIS58c
let's try<-----https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvMWQ1o-dg&list=OLAK5uy_nUYxNw1VDezRdWldMDq4ZZ0Q-U5m9tGl0&index=1
>>124231997actually such an awesome recording even if it’s compressed to the shithouse
>>124232015Yeah, I was immediately struck by the bonkers sound quality lol
>>124231619all this internalized sexism...
Bachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjPas97XZjU
>>124232123She's an expert, she knows what she's talking about. To be a conductor you need authority.
>>124231316>>124231377QUEEN
Mozarthttps://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nK9YG9QJmqThkFKB4LlJI-ya6tQoEyTJI
please do not post that women and her scandalous outfits and slutty personality it makes me contemplate things that are no good for my head
FUCK.Tell me she wasn't a literal perfection(in both ways).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23nQCUOXxH8ok this transcription is better
>>124233081now we're talkin'
https://files.catbox.moe/hrua27.mp3sorry i keep posting the wrong one
Good 20th century violin and cello sonatas?
>>124233682Rachmaninoff of course.https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=ML41ThvX7XQ&list=OLAK5uy_npvvZjmvU1s58Uk8p-OB66dy-bMhGWKz0
>>124233760he said good
>>124233774And I posted good.
>>124233760I do like that one, along with Shostakovich's and I love Prokofiev's. I guess I should have specified modernist, or post-romantic. Still, I appreciate it, wasn't familiar with that recording and that's a good duo.
>>124233793evidently not>>124233804all garbage
>>124233804>post-romanticWhat even is that? I don't listen to modernism much. There's also Debussy one
>>124233856Evidently yes since Rachmaninoff is never not-good.
>>124233877>rachmaninoff is never goodfixed
>>124233895Incorrect.
>>124233899evidently not
>>124233908Evidently yes
>>124233916incorrect
>>124233925Incorrect.
>>124233937incorrect
>>124233951Incorrect.
>>124233952incorrect
what's a recording you feel you should hate in theory (ie. You always hate that style or that performer's ideas) but you love for whatever reason?Mine's Currentzis's Mahler 6.
>>124232316women can have authority
>>124233967Factually inaccurate.
>>124234002incorrect>>124234006wrong.
>>124233868Sorry, not 'post-romantic' as in its own genre, just after romanticism because I'm familiar with the ones from that era.
>>124234016>t. Virgin-turned-to-sexist
>>124234016>wrong.False spamming lies.
>>124233988Forgot that one existed. You make me wanna revisit it. If I remember correctly, it's too clean and immaculate, and there's a dropoff in the final movement compared to the rest, but I guess I'll find out.
>>124234002so true sister
>>124234038who are you quoting?>>124234041evidently not
>>124234116Evidently yeah.
>>124234133evidently not
>>124234196Evidence points to yes.
now playinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jef04QCVXLY&list=OLAK5uy_lBT26kszlw7HG4VjF8WhCz3NbPbzltlLM&index=1https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lBT26kszlw7HG4VjF8WhCz3NbPbzltlLM>This set has been a favorite with critics since it was issued in 1979. Vlado Perlemuter studied Ravel's music with the composer. His approach is more colorful and dramatic than that of many other pianists. All the rigorous classical form Ravel used comes through, but so does a powerful musical personality. Just try, for example, the Toccata from Le Tombeau de Couperin, where Perlemuter builds up to a thrilling climax. The sound is more resonant than ideal, but this is still the best recording of Ravel's piano works ever made. Perlemuter's own Vox mono versions are poorly recorded; stick with the Nimbus edition. The reduced price of this reissue is a further asset. --Leslie Gerber
>>124234116I was quoting (You), schizo-incel-kun
>>124234211evidently not>>124234221evidently not, tranime sister
>>124234242Evidence points to the contrary. Every critic and good composer adores it. The melodies speak for themselves. It is a masterpiece. You are a spammer.
no matter how hard you try i'm still not participating in your party politics or should it instead be referred to as a uniparty yeah you wouldnt like that yowuld you fuck you mozart rulez
>>124234294(not true, by the way)
>>124234341Yeah whatever you said is invalidated by a single bar of the Rach's sonata.
>>124234358evidently not
>>124234214This is excellent stuff, highly recommended for anyone looking to get into Ravel's solo piano music or explore another recording of it.
How's Solti's Bruckner?
>>124234399>>124234470no thanks i prefer non jewish performers
>>124234390Evidently invalidated by a single bar of Rach sonata yeah.
>>124234470all flash, no substance. >>124234484evidently false
>>124234500Yes your entire rhetoric is falsified.
>>124234520incorrect
Rachmaninoff is terrible
>>124234541Proven false by the great Russian composer.
>>124234574correct>>124234575wrong
>>124234574terrible at making bad music, yes.
>>124234594Once again proven wrong by Cello Sonata in g minor.
>>124234598false>>124234616evidently not
>>124233081I thought she was a violinist.
>>124234622Evidently falsified by Russian romanticism, yes.
>>124234644incorrect
>>124234651Correctly falsified by late Russian romanticism, yes.
>>124234668wrong as usual
>>124234678Yeah falsified as usual.
>>124234712incorrect as always
>>124234733Falsified yet again lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UwwrSohmAg
>>124234741speaking of garbage
>>124234753Yeah, I'm replying to garbage right now lol
>>124234771not quite, but if you reply to >>124234741 you will be
>>124234780Nah I didn't make a mistake there.
>>124234789evidently you did
>>124234802You're mistaken.
>>124234805afraid not
new>>124234833>>124234833>>124234833
>>124234821Still mistaken.
>>124234850afraid not
>>124234864Still mistaken.
>>124234894afraid not
>>124234903Afraid that you're mistaken? Yeah I know.
>>124234927not quite, illiterate sister
>>124234957Yes quite so.
>>124234998seems unlikely, illiterate sister
>>124235007Sounds quite likely sis.
>>124235056actually not, illiterate sister
>>124235067In reality yes sis.
>>124235085fortunately not, delusional sister
>>124235109But in reality yes, sis
>>124235127doesn’t look that way, delusional sister
>>124235145Looks exactly that way sis.
>>124235249fortunately not, garbageman
>>124235259Not really.
>>124235277yes, i’m not really mistaken, that is correct. thank you garbageman.
>>124235281You are very mistaken though.
>>124235319apparently not according to you, which i heartily agree with.
>>124235326You agree with me? Thanks for the concession!
>>124235349i agree with this >>124235281, a quotation of you. i’m glad we could find common ground regarding slaveslop being abominable.
>>124235373You're clearly quoting the wrong person there.
>>124235415i’m quoting you, garbageman. what’s the matter?
>>124235438The matter is that you're flooding threads with shit and you have to be stopped no matter the cost.
>>124235477but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, garbageman.
>>124235494You have posted shit, on the other hand. Your sisterspamming was stopped, by me, now your general spamming shall end.
>>124235523but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235535You have posted shit, on the other hand, retard.
>>124235552but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235567You have posted shit, on the other hand, which is worse than anything classical-related.
>>124235580i agree that slaveslop isn’t /classical/, but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235587You have posted shit which is worse than any classical-related post.
>>124235599i agree that slaveslop isn’t /classical/, but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235613You keep posting shit which is worse than any classical-related post.
>>124235626i agree that slaveslop isn’t /classical/, but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235638Posting shit is what you do, which is worse than posting on-topic.
>>124235649i agree that shit (aka slaveslop) isn’t /classical/, but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235652You keep posting shit over and over though. No music. I post on-topic.
>>124235660i agree that shit (aka slaveslop) isn’t /classical/, but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235676Seems like all you post is shit.
>>124235688but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman.
>>124235692You exclusively post shit.
>>124235697but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235705You don't post any worthwhile content. You're literally useless for /classical/
>>124235718literally useless? but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman
>>124235722You are obsessed useless shit-poster.
>>124235738how can i be a shitposter if i’ve never posted slaveslop (aka shit)?
>>124235750Because you post nothing but shit
A fun thing to do is scroll through this thread quick enough to where the posts become kind of a blur, as the consistency of that blur, because of how similar all of the latest posts are, is amusing
>>124235776but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman.
>>124235802All you do is post shit so thread is filled with shit.
>>124235813but i haven’t posted any slaveslop, delusional garbageman. the thread is filled with slaveslop because of you.
>>124235845You exclusively post shit. This thread is filled with garbage (your input) and good music (everyone else's input)
>>124235861the thread is filled with garbage (slaveslop) because of you though, garbageman
>>124235873Again, this thread is filled with garbage (your input) and good music (everyone else's input). I only posted music until I got attacked by a feral faggot
>>124235885the thread is filled with garbage (slaveslop) because of you though, garbageman
>>124235895I only posted music until I got attacked by a feral faggot. Thread got flooded with shit because of you.
>>124235911but you posted shit (slaveslop), which is why the thread is filled with shit (slaveslop) now.
>>124235946No, I only posted good music until I got attacked by a feral faggot. Thread got flooded with shit because of you.
>>124235960but you posted shit (slaveslop), which is why the thread is filled with shit (slaveslop) now.
>>124235972No, I only posted great music
>>124235981sorry, i only see slaveslop (aka shit, garbage, feces, caca) in your posts
Have sex you two
Is this the /autism/ general?
>>124236533It's a sisterposter freak-out
>>124236661huh? all i see is the garbageman losing his mind
See what I mean?
>>124236711yes, i do see the garbageman going absolutely insane. in fact, i’m looking right at it!
