Greatest Austro-German who ever walked the earth edition.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj0iP_VWwPAThis 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/classicalgenprev: >>128914826
Sibelius is the worst composer in the world.
>«My two symphonies deal exhaustively with the substance of my whole life; what I have set down here I myself have experienced and suffered, truth and poetry in music. Anyone who is any good at reading is bound to find my life here, plain for all to see. With me, creativity and experience are so closely linked that if my existence were simply to flow along as peacefully as a meadow brook from now on, I — so I think — would not be able to produce anything worthwhile any longer.»>The music he composed each day was written not with ink but with his own blood. It contained everything he had experienced and suffered. Although the work poured from his pen with extraordinary rapidity, he felt that it was welling up from the depths of his emotional world, and he told Natalie that his works had always sprang up «only from suffering and the most painful personal experience.»>«I think it is the same with most people», he continued, «with the possible exception of the greatest geniuses of all, whose names you could write on a fingernail, but who don't need even that. But to me artistic creation is comparable to the pearl that, born of the oyster's utmost suffering, bestows its treasure on the world. Spiritual birth is very similar to physical birth. What struggles, what torments, what anxiety accompany it — but what jubilation when the child turns out to be healthy and strong. There are other ways, too, in which the artist represents the feminine element in relation to the genius that inseminates him and to which he gives himself in devotion and love, bearing his seed deeply within him, nurturing it, and bringing it to maturity, until it emerges into the light of day as the fully fashioned work!»
Mahler on his musical methods and ideals (direct quotation):>we moderns >get rid of the piano! Get rid of the violin!>we also have to make a lot of noise
>His two most listened to Baroque composers don't feature Bach or Vivaldi>His two most listened to Classical composers are neither Mozart nor Beethoven>His two most listened to Romantic composers are two people who are not Chopin or WagnerWhat kind of listener do you imagine?
Damn violins are dirt cheap compared to most other instruments. You can get a cheap beginner one for less than a hundred bucks. Kind of makes me want to get one just to mess around a bit.
>>128924565Someone who doesn't listen to baroque or classical at all except for a handful of pieces, none of which happen to be by Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart or Beethoven. Apart from that I can make no inferences.
>>128923732Listened to it when it was posted in these threads a few days ago. Yeah, it's great.
>>128924565>ChopinWhy did you include Chopin here as if he belongs? Surely I think everyone but the wagnerfag would agree its Brahms and Wagner.
>>128924625If anything it should be Chopin and Brahms.
>>128924651>romantic era without WagnerDoesn't make a lot of sense.
Bach and before Ives and after
>>128924424Sousa exists though
Thinking about wrapping Timberly's permed curls around my cock and finishing in her hair.
>>128924713feels like ages since I've heard those words...
>>128924565Guy listening to classocal for about a month
I think Romantic Era has more room for arguments, especially since the all-star of romanticism is stuck in opera form that most people don't want to bother with. Without Opera the two next best would be Brahms and... Shubert?Also I can't believe I missed this, but >>128924565>VivaldiYou mean Handel, surely?
>>128924625Chopin is way better than Brahms.
>>128924807In your dreams, probably.
I think its better like this:>Bach and Handel>Mozart and Haydn>Beethoven and Wagner (alternatively sub Brahms if opera is disliked).
>>128924791If you're going to include Schubert in romanticism, shouldn't you include Beethoven? I think the 1830s of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt and Schumann is generally a good starting point for romanticism.
>>128924713more interesting than good
>>128924839Yeah I kinda realized that myself, made this >>128924834 as my own list
>>128924834Liszt is both more stereotypically 'late romantic' and was also more important in the formation of romantic music than Brahms. I also don't agree with the general consensus that Brahms is somehow an effortlessly superior composer to Liszt.
>>128924861>Liszt is both more stereotypically 'late romantic'I mean is he really though? He had a load of interesting ideas I'll give you that, and certainly better of a representation than Chopin is. Still, I think Brahms is a far superior composer, while Liszt was just a forward looking idea guy. Liszt and Brahms would be a good combo if you placed Beethoven back into classical territory.
>>128924861It's okay to be wrong.
>>128924916>>128924917I don't understand the Liszt dislike. Sure, you can not have him as one of your favourites, but his tone poems, Sonata in B, Années de pèlerinage, etc. are really perfectly constructed works and very far from just good ideas/bad execution or virtuosic fireworks. I just mean Liszt is always talked about with a slight tone of disrespect or underrating. People can dislike Haydn or Handel and still have admiration for him as a craftsman, but people always treat Liszt's skills as a craftsmen as second-rate and I just don't get it.
>>128924916>I mean is he really though?Brahms was trying to be a continuation of the classical period, Liszt was obsessed with creating new forms and expressing poetic ideas. Of course he's more stereotypically romantic.
>>128924995>>128925000Yeah but the tone poems are a terrible meme "form", just like ballades are. I suppose with the romantics its about your perspective, if you care alot about impressionism then maybe Chopin/Liszt matter more to you, while modernism would care a lot more about Wagner, and maybe a bit of Liszt. Brahms is just quality composition, no other big names keep the proper forms to such quality. Sure romantics were about shitting on the form half the time, but it wasn't totally throwing the form to waste.
>>128924651>>128924807you people are insane. chopin doesn't even come close to the variety of color of Brahms OR Wagner
>>128925066Maybe not, but he is way more popular with normies. That's probably also the reason why it's Vivaldi for baroque.
>>128925053>Yeah but the tone poems are a terrible meme "form", just like ballades are.We have a major disagreement here. I don't think these 'forms', or the forms used in them, are vague or impressionistic, I think they can be appreciated just as seriously as the form in Brahms piano concertos. Wagner is much more formless for the obvious reason that his music is expressing a dramatic story.
>>128925074>I don't think these 'forms', or the forms used in them, are vague or impressionisticLiterally one of the main form of writing for impressionists are tone poems, ballades, nocturnes, images, etc. Basically anything without a truly strict form, things that allowed them to essentially just do whatever they please with. Wagner is formless because hes an OST writer, sorry - Opera writer. Anyways, the people who mention Chopin and Liszt the most as an influence are impressionists, so even if you disagree with me, there must be some shred of truth to it. Also I am off to bed now, gnight.
>>128925072since when do we care about what normals thinkanyway it goes:Renaissance: Josquin and MonteverdiBaroque: Bach and HandelClassical: Mozart and HaydnRomantic: Beethoven and WagnerModern: Debussy and RavelPost-Modern: Schönberg and Stravinsky
>>128925180Bartok over Stravinsky imo.
>>128925180>Beethoven>romantic
>>128925239yes 100% undeniably
>>128925288
>>128925926
>>128925934
>>128924349Check out Hurwitz's Contemporary Wonders series.
now playingMozart: Fantasia in C Minor, K. 475https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQ3X5MTebc&list=OLAK5uy_l1TGZCnZmFNZMEiGDqpfESTDF8AVraw4c&index=2start of Mozart: Piano Sonata No. 14 in C Minor, K. 457https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF5_54mOZuI&list=OLAK5uy_l1TGZCnZmFNZMEiGDqpfESTDF8AVraw4c&index=3start of Schumann: Fantasie in C Major, Op. 17https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pJdwzkeHv8&list=OLAK5uy_l1TGZCnZmFNZMEiGDqpfESTDF8AVraw4c&index=6start of Schumann: Theme and Variations in E-Flat Major, WoO 24, "Geistervariationen":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5fW-lL6xI&list=OLAK5uy_l1TGZCnZmFNZMEiGDqpfESTDF8AVraw4c&index=8https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_l1TGZCnZmFNZMEiGDqpfESTDF8AVraw4c>“I can hear in the music of both composers a similarity in their processes of giving physical form to their inspirations. The cruel resistance of the blank page feels, in both cases, inexistent, ignored. And therein lies an important, precious connection between Mozart and Schumann: an unobstructed directness to their music, in which the purity of intention remains intact.” –Piotr Anderszewskia kinda pretentious quote by the pianist but they're really good so w/e, we'll look past it
