Mozart violin sonatas editionhttps://youtu.be/fgmdiWkjX-AThis thread is for the discussion of music in the Western (European) classical tradition, as well as classical instrument-playing.>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://rentry.org/classicalgenPrevious: >>128193068
>>128219675Early thread
>>128219675Went to Copland 3rd yesterday. It was pretty good, I especially liked Trumpet and Bass clarinet parts. What's the best recording?
Russians create the most dark and brooding music ever, and are like "this piece is supposed to represent happiness and optimism"
>>128219833>What's the best recording?You just heard it. The best recording is always hearing it live
>>128219879Harsh winter conditions will do that to a society, it's not like
>>128219879kek. Love 'em.I like that Rach 2nd concerto was written after a major depression and dedicated to his psychiatrist. Is there a piece as genuinely and honestly depressing as the 1st movement of the concerto?
What are some good tonal german composers after mahler?
>>128219536Boring bullshit
>>128220000Hindemith
>>128219899Well, sure, but now I want to listen to it again. Also I had a bad seat for it - I bought first row tickets because there was also Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No. 2 on the agenda, so I was sitting as close to soloist as possible. That was great, but the seat was not very suitable for the symphony.>>128219879> this piece is supposed to represent happiness and optimismWhich pieces? Lots of Russian Romanticism is dark and brooding yes, but it's usually advertised as such.>>128219935It's more like ideas of "all good thing come to an end" / "it will get worse" / "a person cannot defy their fate" are very central to Russian culture. Tchaikovsky 6 is probably the most obvious example where a lot of melodies start if not cheery, than at least not too gloomy, but inevitably end in death or despair.
>>128219833All of them, they’re all equally good
I still think no one was as melodically inspired when composing a single piece of work as Rach when he composed the 2nd concerto. He melodic shapes, progression and structure, textures, accompaniment, orchestration - it all sounds literally perfect. Maybe it's just my mind that's hardwired to like the specific kind of emotions associated with it, and there is some bias to my judgement. I just listened to it and I haven't felt better in weeks. It's the most depressing and at the same time uplifting piece for me. Maybe I'm just really autistic.
>>128220253>Maybe I'm just really autistic.>in love with one of the most emotional and romantic pieces in all the repertoireAnon, I...But yes, there's no denying it's one of those moments of divine artistic creation, where the artist is completely in their element.
>>128220253so true slaveslopper
>>128220045Thanks, I'll check him out. Any others?Main reason why I'm asking was just because I listened to Schoenberg's orchestration for Brahms' piano quartet, loved the big orchestra with all the bells and whistles (literally and figurateively) and I just thought "Man, I realize that I know basically no tonal composers of this era" and wanted to hear more big orchestra works
>>128220253>He melodic shapes, progression and structure, textures, accompaniment, orchestrationTalking like a cartoon Native
Mozarthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfG-LVZxWIA
>>128220045He wasn't tonal
>>128220266I don't know how those two contradict each other desu, you keep saying that but I've never read anything like that about autism. Autists don't feel less emotions, they are bad at telling emotions of other people, that has nothing to do with music
>>128220290Just check Neoromanticism.
Thoughts on this?
>>128220336??
one could do a lifetime of exploring recordings of Bach's Cello Suites and Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin, there's hundreds of each
>>128220499oh and same with the Goldberg Variations. It's impressive to create such seminal, universal, ad eternal works of the repertoire
The 12 Greatest Composers Who Were NOT The Greatest MelodistsJ.S. BachHaydnBeethovenSchumannMendelssohnLisztBrahmsBrucknerMahlerStravinskyJanáčekShostakovichhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8s57aIeymoWell?
>>128220515Mendelssohn has the violin concerto, c'mon.
>>128220515Half of these are really quite stupid.
>>128220499I think the CIA uses that to break prisoners
>>128220578Which half?Captcha D00MY
>>128220674>>128220674hehe
>>128220515>you may like them but that doesn’t make it true>I’m being objectiveI’m out. After reading his bio I was approaching with an open mind, but it’s his opinions dressed as truths.
now playingstart of JS Bach: Suite 1, BWV 1007https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TsdhXBMcSY&list=OLAK5uy_msEHafke5L4uJ0hqTOczzOZ5LPDbLjbzQ&index=2start of JS Bach: Suite 2, BWV 1008https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDRhXrz06s&list=OLAK5uy_msEHafke5L4uJ0hqTOczzOZ5LPDbLjbzQ&index=8start of JS Bach: Suite 6, BWV 1012https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiW14GAzUzQ&list=OLAK5uy_msEHafke5L4uJ0hqTOczzOZ5LPDbLjbzQ&index=13https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_msEHafke5L4uJ0hqTOczzOZ5LPDbLjbzQAn exciting, exuberant cycle. One best suited for daytime.
>>128220721Ever fuck with Jean-Guihen Queyras’s cello suite recordings?
>>128220515Which Janacek piece has the best not the greatest melody?
>>128220757Absolutely! His are fantastic too. Both of his also fall under the "exciting, exuberant" and "best suited for daytime" descriptions. Consider his the masculine side of the coin to Gaillard's feminine Bach in that first cycle of hers (her second cycle is much more mellow, meditative, and introverted).
>>128220693They're always, that sounds legitmately hellish to me. The Goldberg variations wouldn't be so bad, although it would quickly get boring listening the same piece over and over again
>>128220787I get what you mean, when I first tried listening to them, I thought they sounded way too harsh, severe, dry, even academic. The entire time I kept wishing they sounded more like Beethoven or Brahms, with the softer, more expressive tones of the romantic classical I was familiar with, and that they simply weren't for me. But I kept revisiting them periodically, and over time they eventually clicked, and now I recognize them for the brilliant musical masterpieces they are.The Goldberg Variations was love at first listen, that's a work that's appealing to everyone I think.>although it would quickly get boring listening the same piece over and over againThat's kinda the domain of classical. This isn't like modern pop/rock/hiphop genres where you get heaping multitudes of new albums every year.
Lute Suite E minor Sarabandehttps://youtu.be/gOEL1UGRlzE?si=ifDoaFoC5TlvVEdh
>>128220787>>128220820I wanna note that every time I'd revisit them, I'd try with a different recording, and this allowed me to hear the pieces in a wide variety of colors, not to mention find performances which were more amenable to my tastes. That's what I'd recommend doing if you ever feel like trying them again in the future.
>>128220779I like your taste, anon
>>128220886Thank you, and likewise :)
Berglund!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3lHIEMkyHo&list=OLAK5uy_mKPFSgABjGBtWQ6ZgtLbdF_71AIthG4W0&index=12
Rate my drip bros Also I heard Bartok's 6 String Quartets for the first time and realised how much I've been sleeping on him since it basically sounds like proto Vienese School shit
>>128220775maybe the andantino from "in the mists"https://youtu.be/gFCpQIsMJmM?si=EJndRmt42qb4Nw2Dor the ballada from the violin sonatahttps://youtu.be/Mc1jsqRGJo8?si=so0Z0bSV57t9HH6A
>>128220820Brahms is just as bad > This isn't like modern pop/rock/hiphop genres where you get heaping multitudes of new albums every year.But there is classical still being made and in the past there’s 100s of composers with 100s of pieces
>>128221102I think maybe it would be better without the staves But Schoenberg has a very striking iconic look. It’s really cool y til you remember he’s Schoenberg
Standard repertoire alone is big and diverse enough for a lifetime, but lifetime isn't enough for them.
>>1282211024, 5, and 6 are fucking awesome. Thanks for reminding me of them.
>>128220837Lute is lowkey the goated instrument after viol in the baroquehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCt1lF4kZ-o&list=RDiCt1lF4kZ-o&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAZukcPeCI&list=RD2OAZukcPeCI&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENBj8_X34MQ&list=RDENBj8_X34MQ&start_radio=1
>>128221332What about the viola de gamba?
>>128221387Viol and Viola da Gamba are the same thing
>>128221420I looked up Viol and the first result was for a 24/7 rape and sexual assault helpline
>>128221446Well it does have its roots in the Arab world and North Africa, so its does make sense
now playingRachmaninoff: Symphony No. 2 in E Minor, Op. 27: III. Adagio (Transcr. Trifonov for 2 Pianos)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yumXgK72CEQ&list=OLAK5uy_l02KaxRhw0K6vrm3eNvASng5WGiyS98do&index=2start of Rachmaninoff: Suite No. 2 for 2 Pianos, Op. 17https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOCOALeujc&list=OLAK5uy_l02KaxRhw0K6vrm3eNvASng5WGiyS98do&index=3start of Rachmaninoff: Suite No. 1 for 2 Pianos, Op. 5 "Fantaisie-tableaux"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWZRGk3-KHk&list=OLAK5uy_l02KaxRhw0K6vrm3eNvASng5WGiyS98do&index=7start of Rachmaninoff: Symphonic Dances, Op. 45 (Version for 2 Pianos)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw1ib9gUApI&list=OLAK5uy_l02KaxRhw0K6vrm3eNvASng5WGiyS98do&index=10https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l02KaxRhw0K6vrm3eNvASng5WGiyS98do
Any thoughts on this recording, RachAnon/ChoFan?>>128221536
>>128220000Schreker, Zemlinsky, Schmidt, Pfitzner, Marx, the list goes on.
Wagner was Mozart's successor.>In the last years of his life Wagner liked to call himself the 'last Mozartian'. He played Brünnhilde's E major passage from the last act of Die Walküre, 'Der diese Liebe mir ins Herz gelegt', and lamented the general failure to appreciate his sense of beauty which, he believed, made him 'Mozart's successor'.
>>128220000seconding Schkreker, Zeminsky, and Franz Schmidt >>128221620
This may be a myopic, momentary opinion I'll come to regret later, as sometimes happens when I get overly excited about a recording and/or piece I'm listening to, but:Listening to Bolet's and Arrau's recordings of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes really demonstrates just how poorly other pianists, particularly modern ones, play the work. Or at least not to my taste. Too often it's all virtuoso showmanship and no poetry and emotion. You don't ever get the sense Bolet and Arrau are trying to show off, whereas with lots of modern pianists, that seems to be their primary concern -- or if not that, rather, it seems they're too in love with their technique, that's a better way of putting it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne9Jg06F95o&list=OLAK5uy_kWu_YDCuSf5eMVT3eo-e9rnD_CagDdd40&index=4
>>128221536>>128221617Never listened to piano arrangement of thes, nice. To say anything substantial about it I'd need something for reference. Sounds pretty good so far though. Not a big fan of Trifonov, but he's not bad by any means. It does take away a bit of the magic there imo, the string swells give that adagio its character that's missing here, since piano is a percussion instrument. Have you listened to Bruckner's 7ths adagio for piano? That was really goodhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zVQvvvX9pU
>>128220515is this retard (the Anon, not Hurwitz) ever gonna off himself?
>>128221795They're posting classical content, chill the fuck out. I appreciate their posts if anything, helps generate some discussion.
>>128221772I hadn't heard that before. Listening now but just from the first few minutes I can tell it's lovely. Which is no surprise, since the Adagio is one of the most divine pieces of classical music ever written!
>>128220515Reasonable enough. Off the top of my head, don't find myself humming to any of these composers.
>>128220715You should've listened to what he said right after that, dummy.And yeah he's being objective. The quality of the "melody" is determined by its singable, catabile quality. For example, Beethoven was not a good melodist, not because he couldn't write good melodies, but because he chose to write small, unremakable, catchy motifs to properly develop them instead. It's harder to develop long, bel canto melodies and Chopin, Schubert, Tchaikovsky had their own unique approach to that.
>when its time for the daily reminder
>Today I will remind themBABAB>DAILY REMINDER>DAILY REMINDERIAAAAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyWOIKCtjiw&list=RDKyWOIKCtjiw&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLugJIWdpCM&list=RDtLugJIWdpCM&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-utT-BD0obk&list=RD-utT-BD0obk&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxx7Stpx7bU&list=RDcxx7Stpx7bU&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCoOqsxLxSo&list=RDkCoOqsxLxSo&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgjwiadze1w&list=RDSgjwiadze1w&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ44z_ZqzXk&list=RDOQ44z_ZqzXk&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGyBRbbHpno&list=RDpGyBRbbHpno&start_radio=1 [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed] [Embed]
>average BABIAA listenerWe will disarm and subdue every 18th-19th century heretic that would put on a Mozart Piano concerto or Chopin NocturneWe are the Mockers of MozartWe put a chokehold on classicismWe are the Cuckolders of ChopinWe are the Rapists of RomanticsWe are the murderers of MahlerWe strike fear in every pretentious and neurotic writer of 1 hour symphonies
>Listening to Bach>not listening to Mozart>Listening to Marais>Not listening to Haydn>Listening to Ravel>not listening to Mahler>listening to Stravinsky>not listening to Schoenberg or ShostakovichIs there a better feeling in this world?
>Your Romanticism>My Foot>Your Classicism>My FistI will crush the Mozart enjoyers, and liberate the Chopin listeners with Vivaldi, Josquin, and Perotin
>Bach>Machaut>Ives>Marais>Buxtehude>Stravinsky>Reich>BartokNo Mozart, No Brahms, No Haydn, No MahlerNo Autistic Teutonic spirit shall oppress or taint the Gallic, Latin, and Slavic soul
>>128221828>since the Adagio is one of the most divine pieces of classical music ever written!I agree. I love how the chromaticism and counterpoint intensifies in each reprise of the first theme, and every line makes perfect melodic sense, it's not added just for the sake of counterpoint, which is IMO unique. Something truly inspired Bruckner there, they say it's Wagner's death.
Mozart gives me the ick,As does Brahms, Mahler, early-middle Beethoven, Bruckner, Chopin, Schumann, Strauss II, Hindemith, Schoenberg, Reger, Berg, Tchaikovsky, Boulez, Stockhausen, Haydn, Bruch, Salieri, Shostakovich, Clementi, and ProkofievThat is all
Stop flooding archives and making it harder to search for composers fucking imbecile.
>when they listen to Mozart and Haydn concertos and completely neglect the Sun Kings court>When they listen to vocal works by Verdi, Rossini or Puccini, but not Palestrina or the Franco-Flemish School>When they don't listen to Marin Marais more frequently than Beethoven or Brahms>No Perotin or Medieval Music
>>128221940>Is there a better feeling in this world?Scriabi's Diner
>If it ain't BAROQUE, don't fix it>I dumped her because she BAROQUED my heart>I had to go to the doctor because I BAROQUED my leg in a gondola accident>I would go to the concerto with you, but I'm BAROQUE>The Baroque BAROQUED the renaissance mold
Remember not all Romantics are bad but all bad composers do tend be Romantic, except for Classical, all Classical composers are shitBelow is a list of acceptable Romantics:>Field>Chabrier>Franck>Tarrega>Wagner*>Any of the Russian 5>Grieg>Alkan>Late Beethoven
NO MOZARTNO CHOPINNO MAHLERALL ROMANTICS SCRAM!ALL CLASSICISTS EAT SHIT AND DIETHIS THREAD IS FOR MARIN MARAIS!SONATA FORM SHOULD DIEONLY CONCERTO GROSSO FOR I!HAYDN IS LIKE A ROTTEN WHEATWHAT I NEED IS A BACH CELLO SUITEBACH AND BEFORE, IVES AND AFTER
>>128222091Scriabi's deli is pretty good too
>>128221873I listened to the whole thing. As a counter to your argument about melodies being singable and cantabile, he even lists Prokofiev as a great melodic writer. Prokofiev, as a generalization, wrote incredibly disjointed, leaping melodies (that I still find incredibly beautiful - the opening cello line of his Sinfonia Concertante is a great example of this to me). I’d also argue Tchaikovsky didn’t write long lines typically. He often wrote small melodies and used compositional techniques like repetition and sequencing to elongate them into phrases - I think his 6th symphony 2nd movement is a great example of this.A large part of my issue lies with the use of blanket statements in music. I think pigeonholing great melodies into just what’s singable or what’s memorable is overly limited. And honestly Beethoven 5’s opening is incredibly memorable as a melody, and is singable as well. Yet he says it isn’t called a great melody because it’s an incredibly short melody that gets developed throughout the course of the movement. I’m partially playing devils advocate with Beethoven 5, but I guess I’m trying to offer the idea that the interesting parts of music for me lie in the grey details, not in black and white “objective” statements. Not for me personally, but if others get something from it that’s cool.
>>128220515>Beethoven>not a melodistLMAO
>>128222207>Prokofiev, as a generalization, wrote incredibly disjointed, leaping melodiesEvery composer wrote both long, cantabile and short motivic phrases, but that's not the point. The point is where these composer excel at and how they approach music. Prokofiev's melodies can be chromatic and unstable, almost like Rachmaninoff with dark irony thrown in there, but that's why they're so unique and gorgeous.>Tchaikovsky didn’t write long lines typically.Yeah, many of his big tunes are actually short, but they are cantabile, something you'd hear in songs, folk, art or pop songs, or arias, that's my point. Writing vocal music is a different approach entirely, in counterpoint for example, jumping major sixths is forbidden because singers can't do it. That's just a small detail, there are natural rules that can't be put into academic terms, but they are always recognizable as something 'cantabile' e.g. Beethoven's pathetique 2nd movement, it's even marked cantabile.>Beethoven 5’s opening is incredibly memorable as a melody, and is singable as well.It's not "melody" in proper sense, just a motif. There's a fundamental difference. The line can sometimes blur, sure, but the 5ths motif is definitely not a "good melody", that would naturally occur in folk music for example.>in the grey details, not in black and white “objective” statementsWhat's the difference?
>>128222302The Prokofiev melody I mentioned is long and legato, though I’d argue not cantabile because it hardly features any stepwise motion. I wouldn’t call it motivic either - it’s rather wandering imo and doesn’t get developed. I think his melodies are unique and gorgeous too, and are often chromatic, so we’re on the same page in that sense. I think he’s a great example of the grey area I’m talking about. If we expect something like a Schubert melody from him, 9/10 we’re going to call it garbage because it’s vastly different in its structure. The difference between black and white vs grey thinking to me is the rigidity of the framework by which one approaches music. A melody is one way of conveying an emotional idea, and calling one better or worse because it follows standard rules of melodic writing isn’t emotion-centric. I have no issue getting intensity and fury from Beethoven 5’s opening melody/motif. I think that makes it an effective (and affective) melody. I think we agree about Tchaikovsky - I think what we’re discussing now is closer to the grey area (cantabile but not long motifs). I would argue we should approach all melodies like this. What makes them work? Not are they cantabile or do they fit this particular description.I think being aware of general rules or guidelines has its place.
>>128222560>I wouldn’t call it motivic either - it’s rather wandering imo and doesn’t get developed.Yes, that's another aspect of a "melody". It's not motivic, it stands on its own, a singable tune, not necessarily a building block (although sonata forms force composers to somehow twist those melodies into building blocks, and they often struggle with that). And yes Prokofiev's melodies are much quite different from Schubert's. So there is a huge diversity in approach to melody-writing. If you take away chromaticism from Prokofiev, it will start to sound like Rachmaninoff, which itself isn't *that* far from Schubert.Black and white, binary thinking is indeed flawed in this case, and no one is arguing for that. It's more like a spectrum, as most things are in life. And there is a lot of nuance. It's also pointless to approach it academically with pure logic and empiricism, some things are best left to the ear alone. > I think that makes it an effective (and affective) melody. To some degree it is obviously subjective, but Beethoven's 5th really isn't great as a melody, it's great as a motif that builds the rest of the movement. As a standalone melody, it has very little to offer.
>>128222778>not motivic I’m going to repeat myself, but Tchaikovsky had tons of motivic melodies, which I know you previously agreed with. And I think we both agree that we enjoy Tchaikovsky and Prokofiev’s melodies.>no one is advocating for binary thinkingThis discussion started because I was repelled by the posted video in response to what I consider a binary statement - “we’re going to be objective” regarding something I believe is subjective. If someone loves all of Bach’s melodies and considers him be their favorite melodist, that’s true for them. If Schubert is a worse melodist for them, I can’t argue that. I don’t agree, but it’s subjective at a certain point. I think this gets at the point you’re making, which is that the ear reigns supreme.>beethoven 5I mean it’s not my favorite tune by any means, but man have I heard a lot of people humming just the opening couple bars in my life. I think it’s fair they might consider it a great tune.
>>128222966He did, but he seldom treated them like motifs. Especially in the ballets, there's barely any 'development', just restatement, because they can stand on their own. Beethoven's 5th certainly wouldn't stand on its own, it would be painfully boring and repetitive without the variations and development.>we’re going to be objectiveObjectivity doesn't imply binary, especially in music. I think Hurwitz implies that and Mendelssohn has to be the biggest outlier in his list, because he wrote tons of great tunes unlike Beethoven.
>>128221840I mean I think Beethoven wrote a couple of catchy bangers
>>128223083They are indeed bangers, Grosse Fuge has to be greatest of all time collection of bangers, but not quite as melodic as Tchaikovsky's bangers:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pcOl59jZdQ
Hi. I'm a casual listener to classical music but I enjoy it 90% of the time (except English language operas). Can you guys recommend a piece or a composer that is heavily drenched in the melodic minor scale? I really want to get those mode's sound in my bones, specially the altered scale. Thanks
>>128223079I think in the context of musical melodic preferences, calling ones preferences objective can imply binary. I could see arguments to the contrary. At the very least, I feel strongly that subjectivity is more honest a description of what he came up with than objectivity. I’m not sure if this difference comes across as pedantic - to me the difference between subjective and objective in music is important. Recognizing everything is subjective to some degree helps develop a more personally interesting musician. This may be a comment on where I come from though. I learned the standard idioms and interpretations of cello rep at a young age, and it took work to break away from the strictness that existed in my head. But I love music so much more now as a result.So obviously I’ve got a personal stake in the matter. I’m not particularly interested in hearing “objective” statements at this point, but I do recognize that classical music is built on tradition both compositionally and in interpretation. And I still think it’s relevant and important to learn the traditions, I just feel like I’ve had plenty of that (and honestly from people I trust a little more than Dave - not because his opinion is wrong or bad by any means).
>>128223188Melodic minor is usually used in ascending minor scales, rarely on purpose, I think. So when you see ascending melody, it's probably in melodic minor, and descending, natural minor. Harmonic minor is the standard however, since it's what functional harmony demands (leading tone). And most minor music is predominantly in harmonic minor. Chopin's 1st ballade has a small section of melodic minor, notice 6th and 7th are raised (bars 200 onwards, before the coda)https://youtu.be/VmFmAvwO1pE?si=C6Uwg_fTJH5JMl2c&t=442It's unusual and exotic, but this a moment of huge tension, right before the climactic coda and culimation of the piece. Op. 62 no.1 and heroic polonaise have some melodic minors as well, I can find and timestamp them for you if you want. But I don't know of any piece I listen to that's exclusively in melodic minor. Have you tried asking AI? If you can read sheet music you'll track them down easily
>>128219486Obvious samefag is obvious
>>128222662It's newbie and a bit immature but understandable.
now playingstart of Beethoven: Violin Sonata No. 7 in C Minor, Op. 30 No. 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3zcpcoctqE&list=OLAK5uy_lHIZWlM7Oy00EEsc98itTS-YMl_i1S8tE&index=2start of Beethoven: Violin Sonata No. 10 in G Major, Op. 96https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-4vcf-QgEs&list=OLAK5uy_lHIZWlM7Oy00EEsc98itTS-YMl_i1S8tE&index=5https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lHIZWlM7Oy00EEsc98itTS-YMl_i1S8tEGonna go through these guys' entire cycle of these works. This felt like a good starting place, despite being the last in the set to be recorded and released. Should be good!
>>128223083>>128223176Prokofiev's themes in his cello sonata already tops anything Beethoven ever did, melodically speaking. But hey, maybe that's just me.
>>128219675Bach Partita No. 1 in B minor, BWV 1002 is as close a human can get to God as possible. It's transcendental. How could Bach conceive of such a beauty? I kneel!Here it is by Itzhak Perlman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16eLsa8tQww&list=PLd6wzPury_f7ZABd1zknWGvVTeCH95Ug_&index=2I'm listening to this version: https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=497027
>>128225166Yeah, once they click just about every other violin sonata (piano duo included) begins to pale in comparison. Their sublimity is a monument to the highest peaks of human creativity, no doubt. And I'm not familiar with that Schroeder set but the rest are among the best of the best for the works. The Cello Suites are similar in both greatness and style too when you want more.
>>128225238This November I'm listening to Yo-Yo Ma performing Bach’s complete Suites for solo Cello for the first time in one evening, in Boston. Very excited. I think I heard The Cello Suites but without very involved listening on my part. Do you listen to a recording before going to see it live (if previously unheard) or wait for a live performance to make a definitive impression?
>>128225330Very exciting! I'd love to go to that if I could.>Do you listen to a recording before going to see it live (if previously unheard) or wait for a live performance to make a definitive impression?I-I've never been to a live classical performance/concert... don't tell anyone tho. Anyway, personally I'd treat it the same as how people treat rock/pop/hiphop shows, which is get acclimated with the pieces beforehand if possible.
>>128221626this is true, mozart would have written tristan und isolde had he lived twenty years longer.
>>128223501Ok some Chopin pieces then thank you. Unfortunately I can't read music, but I can recognize the melodic minor sometimes when it ascends with the whole tone thing or feels very tense with the raised 7th before resolving to the root - but this is only when it's played mostly straight. I'd appreciate if you could anon, these pieces are quite dense and I might miss the certain trees in the forest. And no I haven't since the last times I've tried it can't really think and recognize patterns - it will even churn up incorrect answers confidently. I treat it these days as a slightly better search engine. Thank you
What are some recordings that just ruin every other performance of a work for you?https://youtu.be/ldWaO4sWots?si=PZsmagGQIUAOqd0_https://youtu.be/5BaLVjoLUAQ?si=FsZflxwOle-yLLEe(Moravec might have the best Chopin Nocturne cycle on record)https://youtu.be/UlhPYOlo_b8?si=eJx3SwNNrJDT8gPF
>>128217770>So does Leslie Howard's!Just took a look at the more obscure assorted discs from his set and goddamn, it's too comprehensive lol. There are some discs where I don't even know what I'm looking at in terms of recognizing the pieces, and it might sound silly but I don't like to listen to a piece without a firm grasp of its context and its place, lest I end up listening to a bunch of pieces that are, say, recreations and mashups of outtakes and discarded compositions and arrangements and rough drafts, etc., without knowing it.
>>128217770>>128226412doublepost: man, the Liszt at the Theatre and Liszt at the Opera and New Discovery volumes are especially daunting lol. Obviously I knew some of these pieces existed but this is extensive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr1jfTy-c6Q
>>128226407https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deEK3deSURg
Look at that, the young French conductor who looks like a black Mahler has come out with a Berlioz Symphonie fantastique. Will it be better or worse than Makela's recent splashy release? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ule2jaHx8YQ&list=OLAK5uy_mkqMjNpi5kxKhZvMvCAb-B2gcV-BD7Ig8&index=2
Bach after 3 days of Scarlatti
Listen to Chopin
As I followed daily reports from the Chopin Competition, I was perplexed to hear several respected commentators claim that Vincent Ong’s performance of Chopin’s Etude Op. 10 No. 2 in the first round was too slow and overly careful. Yet, among all the contestants who performed the piece (five, if I counted correctly), Ong was the only one who actually played it at the tempo indicated by Chopin himself: quarter-note = 144 (originally, he had indicated half-note = 69, which would correspond to quarter-note = 138).One may object to other aspects of Ong’s performance – and that is of course their prerogative – but this reaction to tempo is curious. It seems to reflect a broader confusion that often surrounds the notion of speed in performance. Consider Kevin Chen’s superhuman rendition of the same etude, taken at roughly quarter-note = 188. It was undeniably thrilling. But have we now decided that 188 has become the new standard? Is this what we expect from every performer? And is Vincent Ong's 144 a problem because someone plays it faster? How about the originally intended 138?We are often adamant about honoring the score and respecting the composer’s intentions, yet in this case, the one pianist who actually followed Chopin’s metronome marking was faulted for being “too slow.” After all, Ong was following the Ekier edition, as required by the competition, doing what the score asked for. We can of course get into ontological discussions as to whether 144 manages to portray the spirit of the etude, etc. But this is not the point of this post.This paradox is not unique to Chopin’s 10/2. Glenn Gould’s breakneck tempo in Variation 1 of Bach’s Goldberg Variations in 1955 has, over time, come to define the piece for generations of listeners, even though its writing clearly suggests a polonaise – a slow, stately dance. Yet few modern pianists dare to play it that way; the precedent has become a kind of mythic benchmark.
>>128228474Good post.
>>128228474The real issue is that you're playing chopin instead of a better composer
Never properly listened to scriabin, what's his essentials?preferably ones without any occult stuff...
>>128228835>preferably ones without any occult stuff...just don't listen to Scriabin then
>>128228835the only essential scriabin are his piano sonatas.
>>128226298I realized the nocturne modulates a lot and uses heavy chromaticism, even though the passage is there (in middle section, in two different minor keys), it's much easier&clearer to analyze Bach:https://youtu.be/2DQYGOiaZVI?si=OycQqcB17qf-it_3&t=1019Chaconne has a clear D melodic minor scale run right there. But this is the kind of thing you can hear anywhere, just play it on the keyboard lol. So my question is what exactly are you looking for and why? And yeah, AI does hallucinate a lot when you ask such questions, that's why you should use its search tool, it'll read through several threads. Even then you should confirm it because right now it gave me tons of wrong examples and wasted my time. It's better to use search engine yourself in this case desu.
>>128229293his Op. 54 and Op. 60 are absolutely essential, and i would say all of his symphonies are essential, also the Etudes and Poèmes.
>>128228835Start with the glorious 8/12 etude:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ClDFmFmr0kFantasy in B minor, *the* Scriabin piece:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL3E5aCQlG0Pay attention to the second theme - one of the greatest melodies ever composed.And sonata no.4 (before you move to the rest of the sonatas):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MFrX8yWhsPerhaps the GOAT coda, only behind Chopin's 4th ballade and appassionata codas really, there's nothing more satisfying than those 3, I'll die on that hill.As for orchestral stuff, of course, Le Poème de l'extase:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YnsbmSGHJsTry to keep up with the subjects, development and overall texture, you'll drown in its beauty.
>>128229374Oh and also, try different recordings, that goes without saying. The 4ths coda comes in many different shapes and forms, Hamelin has an incredibly fast onehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqOicJVsEbAPogorelich is not very expressive and not authentic, but his coda is brutalhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9BZWNBFV1UIn the fantasy, some pianists pay closer attention to the polyphony than others, which is imo essential. For example, Hamelin's is kinda weak, but still worth checking out, but Sofronitsky's is essential:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvc2K_5JWho
>>128228474>Glenn Gould’s breakneck tempo in Variation 1 of Bach’s Goldberg Variations in 1955 has, over time, come to define the piece for generations of listeners, even though its writing clearly suggests a polonaise – a slow, stately dance. Yet few modern pianists dare to play it that way; the precedent has become a kind of mythic benchmark.So what recordings play it as a slow, stately dance? Gould wasn't the first to play it very fast.
>>128220515Ode to Joy is one of the greatest melodies ever written.
>>128222239>>128230335He borrowed that one from Mozart, lol.
>>128230365Proof?
>>128228835>what's his essentials?Scriabin Recital by Vladimir Sofronitsky. First half is mostly earlier Romanticism/Impressionism, second half is later stuff.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K27VtLCyT6UThe Richter Warsaw recital is also very good.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nf0_goimek>preferably ones without any occult stuff...But that's the best stuff, mainly the late piano sonatas and Vers la flamme. If you insist, then just listen to everything before Op. 57. I'd simply recommend not being a pussy and listening to it all because it's all fantastic music.
>>1282303850:56https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5dGgwydwG4
>>128221332Weisschad, I want to discover the composer you constantly shill. Is there a complete set of his sonatas anywhere? Did Barto record them all?
>>128230335meh? they make children sing it with different lyrics before summer break in my country. it's a bit creepy and forced. no one is enthusiastic about it.
>>128230335No, it is not.>>128230396Mozart was one of the greatest melodists, Ode to Joy is a throwaway melody for Mozart. It is not shame to admit that Beethoven was a terrible melodist. I value melody above all else, and still prefer Beethoven to Mozart.
Again, the only composer in Hurwitz's list who can be considered a good melodist is Mendelssohn. Rest is a cope.
>>128229324Ah now this Chaconne by Bach is easier to follow along as it sounds more linear to my ears than the Chopin pieces which have a lot more twists and turns. As for the why, I'm just an uneducated pleb electric guitarist trying to learn new sounds to add to my palette. Didn't have musical education in our 3rd world shithole and grew up with limited dial up internet so my first introduction to the diminished scale was Yngwie Malmsteen and jazz via Cowboy Bebop lol. I dislike hearing the common banal pentatonic stuff from the local dive bar players some years back so I've etched it into my head to have a wider sonic palette to draw from, and to internalize these sounds I need to hear them in different contexts rather than just rote drills of scales. I hope Roko's basilisk ain't reading; and I appreciate your elucidating responses anon, lord umbasa bless you.
>>128230396Are you kidding?>>128230460>consistency
>>128230460>Mozart was one of the greatest melodists, Ode to Joy is a throwaway melody for Mozart. It is not shame to admit that Beethoven was a terrible melodist.This is mostly accurate. I do like the slow movement's theme of the 8th piano sonata, and I wouldn't call Beethoven a "terrible" melodist; he just wasn't one at all. Germans in general weren't. Mozart's interests and (consequently) music are, let's be honest, basically Italian. I don't know if there's a single German composer who wrote particularly melodic music that you remember and can sing from memory.I personally don't value anything above all else, I just value good music. Sometimes that includes melodies standing out, sometimes it's harmony, sometimes it's form, etc.
>>128230561>Are you kidding?Are you deaf? Beethoven clearly borrowed and developed it.
>>128230588>Mozart's early sacred musicBeethoven never listened to that work.
>>128230490I don't think you really "need" to internalize specific minor scales like that. I can't usually hear it unless it's a smooth ascending passage like in the Chaconne or I'm reading the score. But I'm not a composer so I can't say for sure.If you just want to interalize it for some reason, you can just play melodic minor scales on guitar in different keys, 3, 4, notes per string etc. But if you want to learn to compose, that's not the right way to do it. In that case you'd need to learn voice leading first, then major and harmonic minor harmony, chords etc.>>128230561>>consistency?>>128230578>the slow movement's theme of the 8th piano sonata,Ironically, this theme is famously from a Mozart sonata LOL. Handel was German, and one of the greatest melodists of all time. Schubert was technically Austrian, but likewise. R. Strauss too, and so many others. It's not necessarily about country.When I say I value melody above all else, I don't mean that I don't value form, harmony, counterpoint etc. The sum of it all is what matters.
>>128230617Firstly, you don't know that. Secondly, if only there was some other way of, possibly reading music...>>128230661>Ironically, this theme is famously from a Mozart sonata LOL.That one too? Which one?>Handel was German...What I've heard from Handel (chamber music, keyboard works) isn't particularly outstanding in the melody department, but I'm sure his oratorios and operas are. Somehow I forgot about Schubert, and I'm not that familiar with R. Strass apart from Salome and Elektra which obviously aren't melodious. Fair enough though, you got me there.
>>128230738>Which one?https://youtu.be/hKHfRV19hw8?si=YDiX4NtOv5I14hL5&t=512
i think even the top gear theme has a more memorable melody than ode to joy and the top gear theme is very cheap slop, the guy who made it got paid a few hundred bucks
>>128230895What matters is what Beethoven does to that melody and how he gets there, which is mindblowingly brilliant, not the melody itself, which is decent at best.
>>128230738>Salome and Elektra which obviously aren't melodious????
>>128230661Being a retard in my case I feel that I need to be familiar with licks/motifs stemming from those chord scales as otherwise I tend to default with very scalar or sequential playing. I find improvisation to be my greatest joy in music. Ok I'll look into voice leading, my chord chops and sense of harmony is also quite poor as I've spent far more time in widdly diddly single notes. Thanks anon. You guys are breddy knowledgeable and helpful thanks. I guess classical appreciators and IQ are positively correlated, compared to the average retarded guitarist who take pride in ignorance and technical inadequacies lol.
>>128230984yeh, proper bel canto, innit?
>>128231067If your idea of melody has been confined to Italian opera then unfortunately your ear has been severely impoverished.
>>128230984My point is that, while there are a few lyrical moments, overall they clearly aren't about melody in the traditional sense. They're driven by dissonance and psychological intensity. They're hysterical and shocking, not tuneful. What's confusing you?
>>128231268Traditional melody can be dissonant and psychologically intense.
I'm not convinced by Yo-Yo Ma's third and latest cycle of Bach's Cello Suites.
let this be a lesson, kids. a person can become so contrarian, he will claim salome and elektra as treasure troves of sumptuous melody.
>>128231010Improvisation is indeed very fun. And for that, you definitely need to learn voice leading first and foremost. Then move to intervals, and finally 4 part harmony (you'll need to learn to read sheet music, trust me it makes everything much easier). You can go with any standard theory textbook, I recommend Goetschius' Theory and Practice of Tone-Relations, it's free on internet archives. Every concept is explained in detail, nothing overwhelming, or underwhelming. Tons of exercises, and it's also encouraging students to harmonize on the keyboard too, you can do as many as you wish and progress quickly.>the average retarded guitarist who take pride in ignorance and technical inadequacies lol.Yeah, rockists aren't the brightest people around.
Shumsky's Bachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wucmiFXAlcI&list=OLAK5uy_lKY4pnnup3mROpL6brq87M-E2NNFUL_3E&index=26
Classical orchestral works with the energy of the opening of Also Sprach Zarathustra by Strauss.I'll be honest slow classical pieces sound more like sleep music to me, so I want bang on loud and stuff that'll make me alert instead of putting me to sleep
>>128231531hi dave!
>>128231531Are you asking for recs? To be honest, most orchestral works are roughly in that vein, especially when compared to symphonies.eg the rest of Strauss' tone poems (especially Ein Heldenleben and Till Eulenspiegels lustige Streiche and Der Rosenkavaliersuite), Stravinsky's Ballets, Dvorak's tone poems and Slavonic Dances, Brahms' Hungarian Dances, Liszt's symphonic poems, Tchaikovsky's ballets (suites if you really only want the energetic stuff), Elgar's Enigma Variations, Shostakovich's orchestral stuff and jazz suites, Mendelssohn's Hebrides Overture, the list goes on...just peruse the Recommended Orchestral Works list on herehttps://www.talkclassical.com/threads/compilation-of-the-tc-top-recommended-lists.17996Some symphonies have the energy you want too but they tend to have a more fleshed out structure, ie you get all of the build-up and slow parts too, even if the opening might be energetic like Beethoven's 5th and 7th and 8th, Brahms 3rd, Schumann's symphonies, Mendelssohn's 3rd and 4th, Langgaard's symphonies (actually most post-romanticism is this way now that I think about it), etc etcthat'll be $2 to my cashapp pls
>>128231384I originally said "melodious," which means a pleasant-sounding melody in the forefront. This somehow confused you. Salome and Elektra CLEARLY aren't about that, and it's dishonest to argue they are.
opening line of a review,>Fantasies, paraphrases, potpourris and virtuosic piano transcriptions of opera numbers are usually dismissed by the "serious" classical listener... and it's their loss. I am an avid explorer of this music territory and am intimate with the many fantasies of Thalberg, Herz, Czerny, Pixis and even Leybach and Ketterer....who?
Liszt... at the Opera!Liszt: Der Freischütz Overture, S. 575 (Arr. for Piano After Weber)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MB4gCQSzJs&list=OLAK5uy_l2J8iddsjQieQ7meTM4OuMS6BrdOAD7tQ&index=1Liszt: Réminiscences de Don Juan, Grande fantaisie, S. 418 (After Mozart)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksAXFrGnbW0&list=OLAK5uy_l2J8iddsjQieQ7meTM4OuMS6BrdOAD7tQ&index=2Liszt: Aida. Danza sacra e duetto finale, S. 436 (After Verdi)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GIbkF3Udtw&list=OLAK5uy_l2J8iddsjQieQ7meTM4OuMS6BrdOAD7tQ&index=3among others. the recording is 2 and a half hours of music, and Leslie Howard has five volumes of these Liszt opera arrangements!
>>128231599Thanks.>>128231548Who's dave?
>>128231531Y'know what piece always reminds me of the opening of Strauss' ASZ? The opening of Brahms' Violin Concerto. Pretty sure it must be a quotation or at least an homage it's so similar.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTzdJ-9USwk
>>128231496Thanks man I'll dig into that book rec. Been stagnant for some years now and feeling too lazy to transcribe Guthrie Govan's tunes. My musical retention is very poor, figure if I can write down licks I've learned I don't have to re transcribe them again. Gonna bury my nose and learn some fundamentals that are sorely lacking in my skill set. Thanks a lot, all the best
>>128231731Happy to help.
I disagree with Hurwitz’s T shirt
>>128231840he'll take it off for you.
Schuamnnhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1ygPNOkXJA&list=OLAK5uy_lBLZefCs_70VEJfr2TQKdiuoLDVXlkDX0&index=23
>>128231840>>128231876Here
>>128231599Most energetic symphonic openings?All of them
>>128231937I didn't say all of the orchestral works, just that they'd find more there. There's plenty of works on the list which don't fit the description. And for symphonies, most don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik--5vNvSOghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnHeCuj6RjYEerily similar, and similarly eerie.
>>128230335Not according to the sisterposter. Just shows what they know about music
Are there any string quintets that have a contrabass as opposed to another viola? Same question about piano sextets with that kinda setup for the strings
>>128228835All of them
>>128232030Not sure. But did you take the Scriabinpill yet?
>>128231452I’m not really convinced by any of them. Great guy, great ambassador for classical and cello, not my favorite cellist.
>>128232058Havent had the time to sit down and listen to stuff yet, its sunday you know.
>>128232096Sunday is the Scriabinday.
>>128219675Are there any solo Rachmaninoff Vocalise performances? Is it possible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX20-4QAA3w
>>128232087I can see the appeal of his first two cycles, primarily because of his silky smooth tone and vibrant, earnest playing -- they're the kind of cycles someone new to the works can listen to and immediately enjoy on first listen. But yes, neither rank among my favorites either, though I can see why they've sold extremely well.Or you don't like any of his recordings for any work? I guess I can see that too.
>>128230738It’s theoretically possible Beethoven might have read it and it sounds a bit like Ode To Joy therefore Beethoven did hear it and did adapt it?
>>128232123I agree, I can see the appeal of his first two cycles as you described. I’ve known a lot of students who gravitate to Maisky’s recordings when being introduced to the cello suites as well.I think the only recording of Yo-Yo Ma that I would go out of my way to listen to is his Elgar, which I think he plays beautifully.
>>128232177Oh? Maisky's is really nice and unique. It somehow manages to be both tonally sexy yet retain profundity, which are two things often diametrically opposed. Not a bad choice for a desert island cycle, certainly. Good for all time of day and moods. Fug, now I feel like listening to it right now...
>>128232030Yes for quintets but I don't remember which ones off hand. Not sure about sextets.
now playingstart of Brahms: String Quintet No. 1 in F Major, Op. 88https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTU79akmTao&list=OLAK5uy_k7_HkdhrnUmGijy99NXBJy0y9RwDXqopE&index=2start of Brahms: String Quintet No. 2 in G Major, Op. 111https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4weXVIZRZ4&list=OLAK5uy_k7_HkdhrnUmGijy99NXBJy0y9RwDXqopE&index=4https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k7_HkdhrnUmGijy99NXBJy0y9RwDXqopE
>>128232203>no RostropovichNice job.
>>128232228>I would contend that Rostropovich may have struggled with his performances of the Cello Suites. The evidence I would present include:>This 1991 recording was the first studio recording of all 6 Suites issued at the age of 64. There is a studio recording of the 2nd&5thSuite from 1959 approximately and a live recording of the 6 Suites from 1955. In the notes to the release reviewed here Rostropovich himself states of his earlier releases: “I cannot forgive myself-I acted rashly”. He does not go on to explain.>Although this recording was made in 1991, it was not released until 1995. Surely, if the performance was felt to be of the highest standard by both performer and record company there would not have been this delay.>A further quote from the interview with Rostropovich: “ I know my interpretation is not perfect-we’re a long way from playing Bach to perfection. From my many friends I have learnt that I must search for a golden medium between a romantic, rhapsodic interpretation of Bach and scholastic aridity. It isn’t easy of course. It’s hard to find something the heart responds to and which is not artificial to one’s own nature.”>Conclusion.>I suspect that Rostropovich may have been somewhat overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task. Perhaps others lacking his intellect may have blossomed through innate musicality unhindered by doubts? At the end of the day I fear that scholastic aridity won through.ouch. I like the cycle quite a bit but seems they do not.https://bachcellosuites.co.uk/bach-cello-suites-home/list-of-reviews/mstislav-rostropovich
Brahmshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NqJRHauFg0&list=OLAK5uy_lKEy_eiJ65BVlBoGvQQzMbxIyce469T2A&index=6
came across this lil' guy's recording, lol
>>128232378Hahah this is adorable, put a smile on my face. Hope he goes on to do great things.
Well, /classical/, did you peep the Bach release of the season if not year yet?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg7M2jCEOcA&list=OLAK5uy_n4NWjgpNX1J7BnOKgSB7kySQLRAHoHQz0&index=17I'd say it's tonally and interpretively similar to Koroliov's cycle, only a bit more analytical, as can be expected from Aimard and other similar pianists of the modernist mold, but it doesn't lose anything in the expressive, emotional facets. Highly recommended.
>>128232502i don't like aimards playing too dry and boring
>>128232570Fair enough. Check out the performance of this Prelude though, it's incredible, and I hope changes your mind,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBlnUDIOmYc&list=OLAK5uy_n4NWjgpNX1J7BnOKgSB7kySQLRAHoHQz0&index=21
now playingstart of Mozart: String Quartet No. 14 in G Major, Op. 10 No. 1, K. 387 "Spring"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDQO_UzvGEk&list=OLAK5uy_k97p7mWR10dlF4SNSbqzftbb7s-x1XbSg&index=2start of Mozart: String Quartet No. 15 in D Minor, Op. 10 No. 2, K. 421https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N610pRXrWuk&list=OLAK5uy_k97p7mWR10dlF4SNSbqzftbb7s-x1XbSg&index=6start of Mozart: String Quartet No. 17 in B-Flat Major, Op. 10 No. 3, K. 458 "Hunt"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQyBOxl-G8Q&list=OLAK5uy_k97p7mWR10dlF4SNSbqzftbb7s-x1XbSg&index=9https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_k97p7mWR10dlF4SNSbqzftbb7s-x1XbSg
>>128232835a faster tempo fits better with that kind of playing, sounds pretentioushttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eEsZFV51lY&list=PLZfgA3XR7lOmoecB8J8rzdXAgRosWVhd9&index=25
>>128232835>>128232990fughttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBg7840OiD8&list=PLZfgA3XR7lOmoecB8J8rzdXAgRosWVhd9&index=24
>>128232896That's vaguely unsettling, it's like they are some kind of four headed creature
Who composed the best sonatas of the romantic period?
The 12 Creakiest Major Composer in Handling Form—Traditional or OtherwiseTchaikovskySpohrLisztRichard StraussIvesRachmaninoffBrucknerRaffScriabinRimsky-KorsakovSchumannhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e28EWHuBOSUOnce you listen, you can't disagree with this man, even if you initially did. Also that Finster intrusion made me LOL.
>>128233071Chopin, Schubert and Beethoven.
>>128233071They were all equally good
>>128232990>>128233006Well, like I said, Aimard's WTC isn't of the dance-influenced variety. That's why one ought to have multiple favorite recordings! Then again, Hewitt's, which is more dance-influenced, has a similar tempo to Aimard'shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BDA-tu5l-8&list=OLAK5uy_lKhQS1LR5MRfGddW5F3VCa1dLr6PxAjf0&index=69So might just be a generational thing, especially as Gulda's as the same tempo as Yudina's.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot4OBXZT_Jc&list=OLAK5uy_lTU7Y20sUpDXE89qyYXe1wXCT1xufESCI&index=69And it works, it's lovely as well, but so do Aimard's and Hewitt's. Great classical music allows for a multiplicity of interpretive expression.
>>128233071Depends if Beethoven counts. If not, Brahms. I'm assuming we mean sonatas of any variety? So we got his violin (3), cello (2), clarinet (2), and while not a masterpiece, his third piano op. 5 is solid.
>>128233237doggo rostropo :3
>>128233086>ScriabinFUCK I HATE THIS JEW FAGGOT RETARDThe one fucking time he includes Scriabin in one of his stupid fucking lists and it's fucking wrong.
Novak, Foerster, Dusik, Jezek, Kapr, Doubrava, SatraCan't say I've heard of any of these presumably eastern European composers I came across while browsing through the pianist Jan Panenka's discography.
>>128233289>it's fucking wrong.It isn't.
>>128233301It is. He can't even describe the form of the 5th sonata (his supposed favorite) when it's clear as day what happens; it has an intro, first and second theme, development section and coda. He fails to recognize what Scriabin is even doing with form and just calls everything he doesn't understand "chromatic sludge" and "flabby". Ironically, he calls his sonatas "concise" which is correct, so I've no idea why he includes him on this list at all. The 8th and 9th sonatas are incredibly concise and to the point and the thematic material is constantly evolving. But you'd need to bother and actually sit down with the music and listen to it closely to understand that.
Listened to Bolet's Liszt Piano Sonata in B minor and it's stellar, one of the best performances of the masterpiece I've ever heard certainlyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5tUUZzdC2E
>>128233301>>128233335This guy in the comment section knows>I will have to disagree with your take on Scriabin. Sorabji is a good example of a composer who couldn’t handle form. First let’s understand what form is. It’s not merely the “structure” of the composition, it is also the organization of the content of the composition. If you are a composer who throws 100 ideas at the listener and every bar is random, you are a bad composer of form. See Sorabji for a fantastic example of this. If your music is highly thematic (like Scriabin, where every bar can be boiled down to clear musical ideas that are actually identifiable) then you aren’t in that category. A bad composer of form has no understanding of a plan of the direction of the composition—because there are 300 different bars in a row. Again see Sorabji for this. As for the “structure” of form, Scriabin planned out the structure of the composition in advance of writing the piece. He knew how many bars they would be and he knew where the sections would be. This is a composer who planned out his forms, clearly. As to where he could be criticized or critiqued is that he wrote very short motives and these tend to be repetitive in his compositions but he combines his ideas with a lot of counterpoint and textures that develop organically. A bad composer of form cannot write sections that flow or musical climaxes for that matter since they cannot develop their ideas coherently to make logical climax sections. Bad composers of form can’t write good musical climaxes because they can’t develop their material properly or understand musical narrative and the elements that make a good musical climax.
>>128233301>>128233367>Mozart and Beethoven and many classical composers mostly used triads, does that make them a “one trick pony” harmonically”? No, because harmony is way more than just what type of chords you use, it’s how you arrange chords and develop your voice leading. Of which of course Scriabin was a master. And no he didn’t just use the mystic chord (that is a myth) if you study the harmony. He used different chord combinations and different scales in various pieces, he was always experimenting and innovating.>Chromatic sludge is not a good description of Scriabin’s harmonic approach because he did have a method to how he composed harmonies. It is actually very systemic, and he does some very fascinating things with scale collections to generate the chords. Composers like Sorabji and Szymanowski were way less systematic in how chords are selected.
now playingstart of Chopin: Four Balladeshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VwcACHqGHY&list=OLAK5uy_leF9eI14cWybzws_PB8CpB1cA3s8TQTX4&index=2Chopin: Berceuse in D-Flat Major, Op. 57https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRQsDTvxgi8&list=OLAK5uy_leF9eI14cWybzws_PB8CpB1cA3s8TQTX4&index=6Chopin: Barcarolle, Op. 60https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVA-bgNe27M&list=OLAK5uy_leF9eI14cWybzws_PB8CpB1cA3s8TQTX4&index=7Chopin: Scherzo No. 4, Op. 54 in E / E-dur / mi majeurhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cNSt_18-pw&list=OLAK5uy_leF9eI14cWybzws_PB8CpB1cA3s8TQTX4&index=7https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_leF9eI14cWybzws_PB8CpB1cA3s8TQTX4
>>128233086I too love ruining the generals I frequent by spamming garbage in an attempt to force a meme
>>128233409...how is that ruining the general or even spamming garbage lol. It's content meant to generate discussion, perhaps even teach someone something, chill
Dohnanyi!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JZo58fhGgs&list=OLAK5uy_mccyhOQBUxcsfM_PpWPxogTwGEpqsO7-A&index=26
>>128233335>Ironically, he calls his sonatas "concise" which is correct, so I've no idea why he includes him on this list at all.Poem of Ecstasy is kinda meandering. Not because it has a "bad" form, but because it doesn't hold up quite well relative to music that's formally most refined and sophisticated, the point of reference. His late sonatas have similar formal issues, whereas the mid ones are the most cohesive and some of the greatest ever composed. You seem to take it too personally. Bruckner, Liszt, Rach and Schumann are favorites of mine too, and I don't disagree with what he said about them. Bruckner is too blocky, his sections don't blend with each other seamlessly, and his symphonies each have like 5 versions, Rach's 2nd sonata has like 3 versions and 2nd symphony has cuts, and Schumann doesn't work well with traditional forms, they all struggled with form at some point in their life, but surpassed many great formalists in other ways.>>128233367>>128233378Scriabincels really can't hold it when Scriabin gets rightfully criticised. I'm somewhat of a Scriabincel myself, but I can recognize his strength and weakness at least.
>>128233501>Poem of Ecstasy is kinda meanderingI agree, but I'm talking about his sonatas. His orchestral music is obviously not as good.>Not because it has a "bad" form, but because it doesn't hold up quite well relative to music that's formally most refined and sophisticated, the point of referenceThis is vague.>His late sonatas have similar formal issues, whereas the mid ones are the most cohesive and some of the greatest ever composedWhat formal issues? You didn't name one, just some vague comments. And his best ones are the late ones.
>>128233501>Scriabincels really can't hold it when Scriabin gets rightfully criticised.But he's not "rightfully criticized". It's utter nonsense that's been correctly pointed out. Scriabin isn't a harmonic "one trick pony" like Hurwitz said. He doesn't "just use the Mystic chord"; that's a fundamental misunderstanding of how he used the chord, i.e. he didn't use it directly but derived material from its transpositions. The pitch collection is related to the octatonic scale, the whole tone scale, and the French sixth, all of which are capable of a different number of transpositions. Meanwhile, he makes it sound like every work has the same harmony because he "just used one chord" when it's far from that. The 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th sonatas sound completely different harmonically.Like that commenter pointed out, his form and choice of chords/harmony are well structured. Hurwitz is just a retard and never bothered to dive deep into Scriabin's compositional methods. Pretty sure he listens to subpar performances of his work too (like Lettberg), so no wonder he thinks it's all a mess.
>>128233663>This is vague.>What formal issues? One of the important aspects of form is inevitability and direction, which are clearly lacking in his late sonatas. I don't dislike them, they are just not great in that regard.
>>128233086Screakiabin
>>128233715>The pitch collection is related to the octatonic scale, the whole tone scale, and the French sixth, all of which are capable of a different number of transpositionsThat aren't as discernible as tonal harmonies. It's essentially chromatic sludge with little twists here and there.The interpreters don't matter as much as you give them credit for.Middle period Scriabin is pretty much as good as it gets formally, late Scriabin is questionable, as are all atonal/chromatic sludge composers.
Actually thought-provoking comment about our beloved J.S. Bach:>I don't agree but I've heard people say that the "problem" with Bach is that he rarely (outside of formal repeats) repeats anything; everything is contrapuntal development, but you don't have time to really absorb the material on one hearing. A sign of the best composers formally is that you hear the end is coming... and you don't want it to end.Bach wasn't a good formalist, he was a good contrapuntist. The idea that certain composers must never be criticised is absurd and unfounded. His son, CPE Bach invented the sonata form which dominated the music for generations. He was objectively a better formalist, let alone Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert etc.
now playingstart of Liszt: Piano Sonata in B Minor, S. 178https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njz2KIfBqoU&list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w&index=2Liszt: Berceuse, S. 174https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2Jp_QfAnnU&list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w&index=6start of Liszt: Années de pèlerinage (selected)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37DhdMfdjas&list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w&index=7Liszt: Réminiscences de Norma, S. 394 (after Bellini)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKTEoxBIKE&list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w&index=10Liszt: Ave Maria, S. 558 (after Schubert, D. 839)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unQVoNEG5bM&list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w&index=10https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nslsSv1Mx0P7gy6R-4WFfbew-WeshO92w>Hot on the heels of his 2020 Diapason d'Or and Gramophone Award triumphs, British pianist Benjamin Grosvenor presents his next album with Decca Classics. The album, Liszt, signifies Grosvenor's most substantial solo recording to date, centered around the works of the Romantic piano virtuoso and composer, Franz Liszt. The release marks Benjamin's sixth album on Decca Classics, following the award-winning Chopin Piano Concertos in 2020.In a huge Liszt mood. So gonna alternate going between listening to various CDs from Leslie Howard's box set and various recital (like this one) and cycle recordings. Might also take a gander at that Naxos Liszt: Complete Piano Music set too I've always had an eye on.
>>128233086>Raff>First name Riff
I'm going to listen to Szymanowski's oeuvre, he's Polish, Chopinesque and his violin concerto was quite good when I listened to it a long time ago - shouldn't have taken me this long. Should I go by M numberings (1 - 73) or would you recommend any other approach?
>Robert Satanowskikek. Best surname I've ever heard.
Wagnerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGDj0732NW0&list=OLAK5uy_nZnLjgRVMEJmntPINcc7YZZ8MrpCDGTRM&index=2
>>128234709That face
>>128233989people who like music to repeat just want auditory masturbation
This general should have more discussion, analysis and heated debates. Discussion about form and new things you notice in a piece of music over time, controversial opinions that aren't just "Bach sucks!" but more elaborate etc.
>>128234847Repetition is an integral part of any good music. Bach repeats his subjects all the damn time.
>Form>Structure
>>128235018This!
>>128235018if you don't like form and structure why even listen to classical
>>128233436it's giving attention to a clueless hack whom nobody here respects (and rightfully so). keep Hurwitz to his normalfag circles where he belongs and away from here.
>>128235103>implying classical music doesn't have superior melody writing, expressiveness, variety, harmony, color and timbreAnd I'm genuinely curious why You listen to classical.
How come people here respect Distler but hate Hurwitz. Is it because he's Jewish?
>>128235103>>128235118Not surprising these low IQ posts were made by the same anon.
>>128235176>DistlerWho?
>>128235118>it's giving attention to a clueless hack whom nobody here respects (and rightfully so).But enough about you
>>128233086Scriabincels btfo
>>128233791Scriabin has absolutely no issues with inevitability or direction, you just don't hear it. His phrasing is periodic, he loves sequences and motivic development, and his climactic architecture is pure Beethovenian rhetoric. That's precisely why his "weird" harmonies remain digestible, they're animated by clear directional logic. Scriabin's sense of proportion is taut, his climaxes are deliberate and inevitable. The formal scaffolding underneath is classical through and through. The way he piles energy through rhythmic and motivic intensification, then resolves it with a crushing downbeat, is as traditional and rhetorically clear as anything in Beethoven or Chopin. Even his most harmonically advanced works, like the 8th and 9th sonatas, follow a trajectory that’s easy to trace if you're not sonically illiterate.>>128233941Astoundingly retarded. "Not as discernible" clearly means "I don't understand what I'm hearing" in your case. You're admitting your own lack of ear training and harmonic comprehension. Scriabin's language is easily discernible, just not to you. His late works aren't atonal, they're built on centricity, not serial detachment (further proof you have no fucking clue what the fuck you're talking about), and they have a clear tension-release logic, just operating through symmetrical and synthetic scales rather than diatonic ones. Calling that "chromatic sludge" just exposes your total incapacity to perceive nuance.>interpreters don't matterLOL. That's how I know you're actually fucking clueless about classical music. Interpretations are incredibly important and some composers are more difficult to perform than others. Scriabin is notoriously difficult to play correctly, and most pianists butcher his balance, pacing and color. If your entire impression of his work comes from garbage, mechanical performances, no wonder you think it's incoherent. That's on you, not on Scriabin.
>>128233791>>128233941>>128235740In conclusion, the reality is that you don't understand late Scriabin, you don't know what "atonal means", and you lack the vocabulary to engage with it beyond the level of "sounds weird". You hear dissonance and don't understand it and dismiss everything as formless. Don't project your limitations onto the music, and don't bother replying because you clearly lack the required experience to understand this stuff.
>>128234909The more you repeat the better the music gets
>>128234847I like repetition but with different instruments. Or with octave shift. If it's the same without changes at all it's kinda boring.
>>128235740>you just don't hear it.No, that's just a cope. I can hear his subjecte and development. The harmony that drives inevitability is not there.>That's precisely why his "weird" harmonies remain digestibleThis sentence doesn't follow.>His late works aren't atonal,They are atonal. There is no sense of key in late Scriabin. It doesn't have to be strict serialism to be "atonal". Even theorists debate these stuff, you should've known that there is no conclusive agreement about this if you were literate, but you don't.>Calling that "chromatic sludge" just exposes your total incapacity to perceive nuance.Perceive what nuance? Where is it, hiding under your bed perhaps? Chromatic sludge and atonality is not normally as perceivable as tonal harmony. That's why tonality was "discovered" in the first place. It's why the canon consists of tonal composers. It's why Scriabin composed his greatest works in relatively tonal language, and it's why his late works fail to achieve the same amount of cohesiveness. They are interesting harmonically, but not so much formally.
scriabincel is absolutely seething
>another sunny Sunday>soaking in the sun and having my ears be graced by platonically moral music of Josquin, Bingen, Ravel, Vivaldi, Marais, Handel. and Chabrier>drinking wine and eating cheese>not being opressed by Jewish/neurotic noise of Mahler, Schoenberg, Bruckner, nor ShostakovichCould I ask for a better Sunday classical? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzw8gtqsvDM&list=RDDzw8gtqsvDM&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzeZsDfoLXUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhUkBw58kIM&list=RDbhUkBw58kIM&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd9-fRyCYf8&list=RDRd9-fRyCYf8&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRNmyj6cocQ&list=RDRRNmyj6cocQ&start_radio=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_aCpAcK4l8&list=RD0_aCpAcK4l8&start_radio=1
1190-17501874-1945All day every day baby
>>128235179I know form is the most important part of music and I know Hurwitz doesn't know anything about it considering he didn't include Mozart in his best form list
>>128233213>>128233113>>128233101Piano sonatasAlso beethoven is classical
What was the point of Beethoven and Mozart When there was Bach, Handel, and Scarlatti?
>>128237427Because Mozart and Beethoven are better composers?
>>128237427Wouldn't be anything for guys like you to complain about without them I suppose
>>128237427>MozartTo create the piano music. Dumb Scriabinposter.
>>128237456>>128237466>>128237508>rebuttals>no proofBaroque chads will keep wining until classishits provide evidence of the opposite.
>>128237565Be thankful to Mozart, none of these composers wrote anything for the piano.
I'll never get why some people have such a hateboner for Mozart. Genuinely starting to believe the "Mozart is underrated" meme with how often in classical discussions people try to downplay his work, influence and even character (the scat memes)https://youtu.be/KEdoehrFL30
>>128237565the proof is the music
>>128237640they have no ear for phrasing
what concerts have you guys booked for the 2026 season? right now I've bought tickets for>Saint saens organ symphony 3 + bruch violin concerto 1>tchai symphony 5 + shostakovich violin concerto 1>schubert symphony 8 + Mendelssohn violin concerto>Beethoven piano concerto 2 + 5>tchai piano concerto 1>brahms symphony 3 + 4undecided if I should get>Beethoven violin concerto>Mahler 5>brahms violin concerto>Mozart requiem
>>128237680>zero new pieces by contemporary composersGrim.
>>128237699there are very few premieres next year so it's not like im skipping them on purposeon top of symphonies im also going to a whole bunch of chamber orchestra concerts so time is limited
>>128237680Very cool
>>128231609I dunno I hear a lot of melodious sound that sticks in my brain from them. Don't know why people are so autistic about this subject.
AI Prompt: create orchestrations of all of Liszt's music, and then create a recording of said compositions performed by Karajan and the Vienna Philharmonic
Liszt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS2GXT0s49o&list=OLAK5uy_nW0XnYCTXAXWUfunVkNvtm9eTjXh5L8Qw&index=1
watching the NFL on mute while listening to classical :)
Had lunch with some family and someone asked me about my interests, and during my reply I said listening to classical music, followed by my explaining how interpretations in performances can widely vary, and how it is great fun comparing various interpretations, especially among the solidified 20th century masters up until today's contemporary acclaimed pianists, experiencing all of the myriad ways one can play the great musical masterpieces, and one of my uncles replies,>And how does this help you make money?;_;
>>128238602A family member asked me what 'modern music' I enjoy, and they specifically said that to preempt me saying classical music so I just awkwardly improvised 'yeah some of that new techno stuff on the internet, genres don't really exist like they used to, it merges together a lot' and then they said 'oh like tech remasters of 80s songs' and I said no and kept rambling and then they repeated 'oh like tech remasters of 80s songs' and I said yes.
>>128238632>A family member asked me what 'modern music' I enjoy,>Oh, y'know, Steve Reich, Boulez, Carter, Messiaen, Philip Glass, the list goes on...
Man, my usual go-to Beethoven symphony cycles just aren't doing it for me lately. Might to be time to dig into the Paul Kletzki and Konwitschny kind of cycles.a
>>128237640its all the part of the meme tranime poster, I think Mozarts a genius but I also think he sucks and is gay as fuck.I right but I'm also wrong and thats okay, because nothing will stop me from hating Mozart.
>>128237680>all those neurotic composersI don't think I would be able to function during the day listening to all of that emotionally unstable music
>>128240156You should be less emotionally reactive.
>X is a genius>therefore you are obliged to like X. OKAY?????
>>128237680>>Mahler 5>>brahms violin concertoYes, definitely. How could you miss those? Unless the conductor is really bad.>>Beethoven violin concerto>>Mozart requiemAvoid.
>>128242341>>>Beethoven violin concerto>>>Mozart requiem>Avoid.Why?
>>128242608Boring, inconsistent nonsense.Incomplete & cheesy.Why not?
For today's performance of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier, we listen to the recording by Pietro De Maria. For those who like their Bach to sound a little like Chopin.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0bwuJzeTa0&list=OLAK5uy_nn5EBReZSTvX9uoZtce3e8fHx0PeWzPWs&index=15
I love Bach's keyboard music
>>128242726Not surprised you're a Mahler and Brahms fan, TASTELESS RETARD.
>>128243125I'll admit there's a massive gap for me between the WTC, AoF, Goldberg Variations, and the rest. I wish I loved the French and English Suites and Partitas more. Everyone just plays it so fast and monotone.
>>128243131>Not surprised you have a tasteOh, thanks I guess. lmao
must be a trip to see Liszt's Faust Symphony live.
>>128243222Unpopular opinion but Liszt's orchestral work >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his piano work
>>128243280Is that because you really love his orchestral work or you think his piano work blows and is overrated?
>>128243312Both, shit like his sonata in B minor is just constantly repeating the same 3 themes in a loop with little to no alteration or even episodes between them. One of the most nauseating pieces I have ever listened to, I agree with Brahms on this piece, puts me to sleep.His orchestral work is far more engaging and well written, especially his symphonic poems.
>128243341>shit like his sonata in B minorStopped reading right there. Kill yourself you gargartuan retard and gtfo.
>>128243431Whenever someone says his sonata in b minor is repetitive, nobody seems to actually argue why it's not. The piece is just constant back and forth with little to no development.
https://vocaroo.com/1dninH59gOmu
>>128219675why are minimalist techniques so popular among contemporary and postmodern composers?
>>128243452Funny, because the opposite is true.Everything is repetitive. Bach and Beethoven are single most repetitive composers in history of music, and anyone who's informed will invariably agree. That is, if we do not draw a line between repetition and development/thematic transformation. Beethoven's 5th is 1st movement is based entirely on one single basic motif, with a contrasting theme that seldom appears and only gets developed in the coda. Liszt is one of the least repetitive composers actually and that's a fair criticism of his form, the premise is wrong, how can we even argue against it? The entire premise is a result of tone deafness and ignorance. Liszt uses 3 motifs and treats them in equal regards, transforming them in many different ways: keys, rhythms, textures. This is the Beethoven 5ths technique taken to its logical conclusion. That's why theorists (e.g. Schoenberg) consider Liszt as one of the most important composers in motivic development. Only Schubert did something similar (fantasy in F), he was pretty much the first composer to expore thematic transformations to this level.
>>128243537My lay, uninformed answer is because it's entirely different than the hitherto history of classical music -- it's unexplored terrain, essentially. But I'm sure there are creative philosophical reasons.
>>128236066>copeYour entire post is just "nuh-uh!" tier nonsense. You're just asserting things without a single example. It's not my problem you have shit in your ears and can’t hear the difference between different scales or comprehend the very obvious momentum and sections of tension and release in Scriabin's music.>atonalAll atonal music lacks a key, but not all music that lacks a key is atonal. Gregorian chant has no key. Is it atonal? Following your retarded logic, the answer is yes, you fucking moron. But it's not because it has a modal center. Schoenberg's early free atonal works lack both a key and a tonal center. That's atonality. Is this too nuanced for your pea-sized brain?Late Scriabin has centricity, clear harmonic fields and consistent intervallic logic, which is the opposite of atonality. The fact that you can't identify the tonal centers doesn't mean they aren't there; it just means you're incapable of perceiving them because you have shit in your ears.>Perceive what nuance?Exactly. You don't perceive nuance because you don't understand any. Everything that isn't diatonic gets instantly bundled into your lazy category of "chromatic sludge", which is a meaningless phrase you don't even understand. "Sludge" isn't an analytical term, it's just something you say when you're out of your depth and need to pretend you're making a point.>cohesivenessThe cohesion in late Scriabin is structural and thematic, not just harmonic; his motivic development, rhythmic intensification and formal arcs are masterfully controlled. They're extremely cohesive and, in fact, the later you go, the more cohesive and tightly integrated they become. If you actually listened instead of filtering everything through "is it tonal yes/no" you'd hear that. You clearly lack the knowledge and listening experience required to follow his logic, so you resort to vague clichés about "cohesion" and "form" that mean absolutely nothing.>>128236151Obvious samefag is obvious.
>>128243554only in the same way that the seabed is an unexplored terrain. minimalism fucking sucks.
Wagner made me pregnant.
>>128243561the term "atonality" only works when applied to symmetric scales which don't point towards a single key center by definition.
>>128243564Well, that's your opinion. Both of the same things could be said about atonality, and it being unexplored territory is almost certainly the reason why modern composers are so interested in it. If the historical greats hadn't putatively used up all of the regular, tonal ideas, I'm sure composers of today would be happy to compose in that form.
>>128222136What if I listen exclusively Bach and Wagner?
>>128243594ok, Terry Riley.
>>128243620in C
Wagner invented the wheel.
>>128243590That just adds the false claim that this condition only arises from symmetric scales, which is a faulty leap. Your logic goes>Atonality = no key centerFine, although you're using "key center" loosely. Atonality means no tonal center. Every key has a tonal center, but not every tonal center constitutes a key.>Only symmetric scales don't have a single key center?False premise.>Therefore, atonality only "works" with symmetric scalesFalse conclusion.Atonality doesn't require symmetry at all. Schoenberg's Erwartung, Webern's Op. 5, Berg's Wozzeck, etc., don't rely on symmetric scales. They use asymmetric, constantly changing pitch sets. And those are textbook examples of atonality.
Wagner freed the slaves.
should I sell chord sheets for Schoenberg's piano works?
>>128243551> Liszt uses 3 motifs and treats them in equal regards, transforming them in many different ways: keys, rhythms, textures.Except he doesn't and it just requires listening to the piece.Also yes, Beethoven is repetitive, but he also adds actual variation to that repetition. His fifth symphony's first movement has the main theme transform in a bunch of different ways. If Liszt did it, it would just be the first theme, a slightly contrasting theme, the first theme again, another contrasting theme, the second contrasting theme, the third contrasting theme, the second contrasting theme, the first theme, the third contrasting theme, the second contrasting theme, the second contrasting theme again, the third contrasting theme, the first contrasting theme, etc
Wagner (pbuh) invented sliced bread.
W.
NEW:>>128243718>>128243718>>128243718
>>128243718>>128243718>>128243718
Mozart invented musichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoiruTpmsMYM.
>>128243714>>128243795
>>128237640>https://youtu.be/KEdoehrFL30it's not obnoxiously bad per se but it's just a total bore compared to thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXGSPsDX-Ao
