Viola Bastarda-edition>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnoZkK0Hyghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf5HBTmURCM&list=OLAK5uy_ksirf4H6UIKLAnR-i9vG-GDw-C-FG5Y0c&index=17 [Embed]This 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>>129102975
Thinking about Timberly's paw mitten rawrjobs again.
can we have one thread where you people don't try so hard to be funny/obnoxious?
>>129123161Ok. Let's discuss what musical instruments everyone plays.I play the viola da gamba and the baroque violin.
>>129123079The 20th Century classical charts image is midwit to the point of trolling. Whoever made this is not in a position to guide other people into appreciating classical music.
now playingstart of Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 2 in C Minor, Op. 18https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mGVRF8LNfY&list=OLAK5uy_lgt8NFzmgeW00wiLhhWhNgKrB8HPUQvWM&index=9start of Rachmaninoff: Piano Concerto No. 3 in D Minor, Op. 30https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JG34r6KWTM&list=OLAK5uy_lgt8NFzmgeW00wiLhhWhNgKrB8HPUQvWM&index=11https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_lgt8NFzmgeW00wiLhhWhNgKrB8HPUQvWMCharming set so far. Now we get to the two masterpieces and most important pieces.
>>129122940While we like Debussy, we do not find him worthy of in-depth familiarization, as so often his pieces lack form and offer very little structural direction. Many times his pieces seem to have no climax, ending, or even a journey at all; instead it is just a slow wash of ideas that begin and end at any reason. We enjoy Debussy as background music, like ambient.
>>129123204I play the piano. Learning Brahms's Op. 118 right now. Got the first movement down.
>"Many people think that Brahms should go just so,'' he said, waving his arms in rigid time. ''But when I was conducting in Aachen as a young man, I was told by a pianist who had heard Brahms himself conduct that his tempos were very free, that you could never predict what would happen from concert to concert.>''I find these fluctuations of tempo one of the most fascinating sides to music. And with long years of experience - it really comes only with old age - you develop an inner tempo, one that you can change slightly throughout the performance without people knowing it.
>>129123236How Wagnerian.
>>129123220Impressive. Very nice. I'm working on both 17th century french pieces mostly those by Sainte-Colombe.
Luv me Purcellhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1CpzSORmEY
>>129123284We often wish that the main shining star of Britain was someone who wasn't an Opera/song writer.
>>129123204Piano for 12 years, hiatus during college mostly. I started late and only had some on and off instruction through school and didn’t have a piano at home because my family was poor so I suck ass but online resources have really improved for amateur musicians in the past decade. normies think I’m really good when I play Chopin waltzes for them and I like that they enjoy it and ask me to play for them when I have company. Thanks for reading my blog.
continuing with Craig Sheppard's marvelous Beethoven piano sonatas cycle15th, "Pastorale" (4 movements)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs9JuHNlWmc&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=5616th (3 movements)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoSZl7aJFV0&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=5917th, "The Tempest" (3 movements) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxiU-C33Lo0&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=6218th, "The Hunt" (3 movements)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnBHlu472Sk&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=6519thhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZKgDx69Kc&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=2320thhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Uw_aT4JYY&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=26warning: the tags for some reason are super jacked up around this point, but I made sure those really are the 15th-18th (the 19th and 20th are labelled correctly).Anyway, like I said I'm really loving this cycle so far, and I might honestly end up having it at minimum in my top 10. Lots of warmth and heart, and while on the whole the interpretation is idiomatic, there are some unique ideas which are wonderfully executed, providing a refreshing and often illuminating new perspective.
Schumann or Schubert?Chopin or Liszt?Wagner or Brahms?Mahler or Strauss?And, who is the best composer whose name begins with b?
>>129123328very close, Schumannvery close, for a long time I said Liszt but I've come around to Chopin in this debateBrahmsMahlerBeethoven
>>129123328SchubertChopinBrahmsMahlerBach
>add Grieg: Complete Solo Piano Music set>8 and a half hours of musicwtf. who knew?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9gr4x0XoX4&list=OLAK5uy_nfA5EpNko5OO3OPHMDepl45oQs5q2x9FA&index=23
>>129123307That's great anon. I know how could it feels when people will take time to hear you play.
*good
>>129123436Medtner speaks highly of Grieg, and I've been meaning to check out his piano works. >Every artist has his own limits of choice within the limits of art itself. The genuineness of the artist shows itself merely in the fact that his individual limits of choice are indisputable and that he has not encroached on somebody else's limits or any limits alien to him. >Beethoven is infinitely bigger than Grieg in this sense of the limits of choice. Bigger means, of course, deeper, and broader, and higher, all at once, since the limits of choice have also their depth, and breadth, and height.>But the genuineness of Grieg is just as indisputable as that of Beethoven: he never encroached on limits alien to him. His primitive form is just as typical and hallowed in its artistic genuineness as the unheard-of gigantic constructions of Beethoven.
>PENDERGAST: Do you think that the music of composers like Boulez and Webern will be easily understood by the musical public of the next generation?>KARAJAN: I am quite certain that the next generation will have no problem in understanding most of the music of today. Think of the Bartók Concerto for Orchestra. Twenty years ago it was considered inacccessible; today it is a classic. Think of the Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta. When we perform it today, it sounds like a concerto grosso of Handel. With the decline of melodic inspiration in music, the serial techniques of today are a necessary self-imposed discipline for the composer...>PENDERGAST: And those who listen to this music must impose upon themselves a discipline as great!>KARAJAN: One is not born with an understanding of Beethoven, either!
>>129123597>One is not born with an understanding of Beethoven, either!Karajan is an idiot, show literally anyone Moonlight Sonata or Waldstein and they will enjoy it. The past 100 years show that no matter how much the schlock is peddled, no one is going to enjoy serialism unironically. Of all the modernists, the only ones who made anything borderline listenable are the sonorists, because at least they composed with the human perception of sound in mind. Atonality is the opposite, and rejects any sort of idea that MUSIC (something which is intrinsically linked to human perception) ought to consider humans at all. The complete mathematical abstraction of serialism away from human ears is why it was a failure and will forever remain as such, unlike dissonance or chromaticism.
Reminder, this is what the GOAT harmonist has to say about the GOAT composer:>Chopin is the greatest of them all, for with the piano alone he discovered everything>>129123328Schu - both (I seriously can't decide)ChopinBrahmsMahlerBrahms.In general? Chopin.
>>129123328Schubert LisztWagnerMahlerBach
Whose Waldstein do you prefer, Moiseiwitsch or Hofmann? I don't think there are better contenders:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0jN-gl4ryohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lH6H4ksPnc
Classical for ordering Ukrainian food and realizing the slavs have an even worse food culture than the British?
>>129123990Out of these two extremely poor options, Moiseiwitsch, since at least his doesn't have random dynamics caused by the volume shifting due to the utterly dreadful recording quality. Both play far too quickly and we prefer giLELs here.
>>129123995Peak of human creationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4rpd2NUcNE
>>129124038>we prefer dumbed down, retarded temposNo surprise, this general ain't bright.
>tfw no chopin cello concertosad
>>129124055>faster tempo = more intelligentLol.
>>129123990Both sound like the pianist is tryna' finish before the last train of the night. I guess Hofmann's of those two. Actually, listening to more of it during this post, it ain't bad aside from the hiss/snake in the background surely slithering on the piano.
>>129124064>>faster tempo = more intelligentAnd also better.
>>129124038>>129124055did either of you even try the Craig Sheppard cycle I've been posting? :/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCQ41CKtOyE&list=OLAK5uy_n2jjRQ6eHQb2GjQEtvFyV__iwdDKurx7c&index=69
>>129124097Glad we agree that most of Chopin's works are shite then since hes usually playing in some absolutely sloth-like conditions. Objective proof that Alkan is greater than Chopin and Liszt once and for all (which we do actually agree with unironically).
>>129124197Not only Chopin, but also stuff like that Bruckner adagio you love so much, now that must be the worst pile of shite ever (Correct.). >And the second movement of Waldstein is slowMust mean that its bad then.Luckily we have more refined and better music for your exquisite palette:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVGcjBB3UlM
Not even worth a reply desu. Mind-boggling dunning krugery. Truly disgraceful.
>>129124254>Mind-boggling dunning krugeryTrue, anyone who said:>>>faster tempo = more intelligent>And also better.is a profound moron who walked himself straight into the easiest verbal lashing I've given out in some time.
>>129124111Terrible Waldstein. Hofmann is 10x more expressive at 10x the tempo. How in the fuck. And I almost feel asleep on rondo. The finale at that tempo is especially bad.
>>129124111Missing the volume cutting in and out like with Hofmann, simply unlistenable.
>>129123328SchubertLisztWagnerMahlerBach
Is Mangelberg simply the greatest stringist (conductor for strings) ever?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1bLGS6A64ENo, Karajan doesn't come even close.
>>129124254Winston in a nutshell.
>>129123696these threads have fully convinced me that all fans of mainly-piano, French composers are mentally ill
>>129124984Most people who visit this website are mentally ill. Most people who engage in these types of conversatios are mentally ill. Most people that have the patience to listen to classical music can be classified as mentally ill by today's standards.
>>129123995>slavs have an even worse food culture than the Britishdepends what kind, South Slavs influenced by Italian cuisine are alright
Classical music is something to put on while working, not real music.
>>129123328>And, who is the best composer whose name begins with b?overall? Bachto actually play for fun or with friends (e.g. quartets)? Beethovensymphonic? Brückner
>>129125051Exact opposite. Classical music is the only type of music that truly requires attention from the listener. Popslop is not real music in any shape or form.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_-P13Yf40&list=OLAK5uy_nDMRAjrCkCyUCxHGPrMLuBeu33aXMcE1o&index=23
>>129125078Garbage that does not require a brain in all honesty.
>>129125092>>129125078>>129125051chill out my niggers, there were classical pieces explicitly written to accompany secular things which you best use while working... then there were those which you have to pay attention to and would actually harm efficiency
>>129125092>Garbage that does not require a brainYes but we weren't talking about popslop.
>>129125138Pop requires more effort than classical, that's why it has more composers than one. Classical is very limited and thus paletable for low IQ morons that think they are smarter than they actually are just because they put on old music while playing MInecraft.
>>129125171>>129125138>>129125092>>129125078>>129125051Thank you for the obvious bait, and thank you norseposter for falling for the obvious bait.
>>129125187Thank you for sucking farts.
Lutosławski https://youtu.be/Sc1Z7JuNhaU
>>129123079Interactive timeline for classical music https://chronologue.app/
>>129125495It peaked at around 1840 - 1910, and after Bartok it's all gone downhill.
Chopinhttps://youtu.be/8Q3wKq3y_T8
>>129123079a little irrelevant but does anyone know the artist behind that sketch?
>>129126033Godowsky has some great Chopin, but I'm not fond of this particular interpretation. A bit cold.
>>129125957indeed
brahms' horn trio
>>129125495actually impressive. thanks.
>>129123597>With the decline of melodic inspiration in musicAnd what caused that?
>>129126958thank you brother
I see a lot of 19th century people criticised Chopin for writing 'salon music' because he literally wrote some of it to please people in salon's. Is there any distinction between Chopin's more or less salon-oriented works or is that just slander?
>>129128500Chopin? women's music I say.
>mfw i hear a professional musician say they don't like opera
>>129128706I really like that image
Has anyone here seen any choral work performed live? I never see it mentioned. How was it?
>>129128889fuck off, kike.
>>129128831All yours my friend
>>129128706I'd imagine this is quite common. In fact I wonder what the % of professional musicians who don't even listen to classical most of the time in their own free hours.
Need some HIP Bach, gentlemen…
>>129129581https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udBKPGcW52I&list=OLAK5uy_liRUebivbIbuqkIwxvW7Wh5Qk-yi9tAik&index=21https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUzcbciSyQk&list=OLAK5uy_nSAwEoHKldGD8wvxZ2RDMIhE0JTm0kK7M&index=25https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2d-P94_c50&list=OLAK5uy_lk5AK5aCO9adxKnUbkZzp4rnxUFE6HYWc&index=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIUnoz4qPRM&list=OLAK5uy_kQ_8G6GN80C2j1qxM8eaIoLH_qXOYKgpc&index=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxf2fzaxYR4&list=OLAK5uy_lCLS_9n0QKCm-wq-RwV70jeTtDkNA6kuM&index=16https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19tTsxKCQvc&list=OLAK5uy_kAtGwGkqRX_B89JwdaU_VcTfU8RDdKAB8&index=1HIP HIP Hooray!
>>129128500>is that just slander?Unironically? It is jealousy. Chopin composed music for the highest European aristocracy. He was one of the very few composers to do so. Rothschilds were his major patrons and some of the greatest piano works are dedicated to them as a result. In comparison, other major composers had cattle for an audience, and their music is audibly lowbrow. With few exceptions, most music is lowbrow. Chopin is the peak of pristine.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5bKJCeInYw
'salon music' lol>oh mozart and bach? that's just court and aristocratic party music
>>129129760Most of Bach is audibly lowbrow, as there is nothing more vulgar and plebian than the church. Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue however, are aristocratic. Likewise, Mozart's piano and chamber music is his purest expression of art, but he too has lowbrow issues.Chopin has no such issues except for the concerti, he quickly realized the problem and abandonen the concert hall altogether, and instead performed to his wealthy patrons instead, as everyone should.
>>129129745my grandmother had this recording on phonogram
>>129129745Wealth doesn't equal refinement. There can be billionaires with the emotional predisposition of a salon attendee.
>>129129932Wealthy salon attendees, on average, have higher functioning nervous system than the public.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftGk1LRbIBE
>>129129986That's a rather low bar, isn't it?
>>129130018No, as far as the audience/critics go, that is the highest bar. The only better option is to perform only in front of other composers and avoid non-musicians entirely.
>>129130119The average person at a 19th century salon could just as easily be not musical at all and only desire sentimental and vulgar impressions from music. The lifestyle and intellectual vapidity of salon culture was regularly criticised. A genius like Chopin was not typical of salon music.
>>129130196Again, an average salon aristocrat has higher functioning brain than average concert/opera lifestock. They can perceive more nuance, subtlety and musical coherence. If a composer is to perform his music at all, it should not be for the lifestock, but a circle of respected musicians, or at the very least, rich Parisian salons.
>García was also able to master falsetto vocal phonation to such a point that, in a tonadilla of his, El poeta calculista, he could perform a duet with himself, where he sang both the tenor and the soprano parts.What the fuck does this mean?
>>129130222You have a much higher impression of 19th century salons than was the reality.
>>129130242You have a much higher impression of the public lifestock than the reality is.
>>129130248I never gave an evaluation of the 19th century public's taste.
>>129130255And initially I compared those two, your bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkHwFoew-Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHHdsVFb-jM this is regression. the terrifying thing about being a master is that your decline will be masked to yourself as a maturization of your sensibilities.
Imagine being so stupid you can't even enjoy classical music, let alone understand it. Couldn't be me, lol! I pity these "people".
>>129130326imagine being so stupid that you think the ability to enjoy classical correlates with intelligence
Schubert's music stands above all. His music was reserved only for the few high-functioning minds of the Vienna, including his family, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, e.i. composers/musicians. In no conceivable manner are his sonatas less rewarding than Beethoven's. Only to lower-functioning brains would it appear otherwise.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF98xTzCbWM
>>129130326Only farm animals cannot enjoy classical music.
>>129129837>Bach is audibly lowbrow>there is nothing more vulgar and plebian than the churchThe organ was literally the most advanced and complicated machine that existed until the invention of computers (look it up), and the church was a bunch of educated and wealthy "aristocrats" that funded music across Europe. Chopin meanwhile never managed to create a single none embarrassing orchestrated piece and his counterpoint remained of poor value till his death, both of which Bach mastered, while also creating the finest organ (a more difficult and higher quality instrument than piano) works to have been heardAmong the more low quality posts you have made recently norseposter.
>>129130333>Only to lower-functioning brains would it appear otherwise.Considering his Piano works were mocked and ignored during the romantic era, I'm glad that you've come to understand that either Shubert wrote poor piano music, or that the romantic era was of a lower IQ nature. Based.
>>129130360Organ's origins are traced back to ancient Greece. Rest of your post is historically and musicallu misinformed.>>129130375His works were revered by the highest functioning brains. Not even the public of the romantic period (which was, by far, the most intelligent public) had the ability to appreciate Schubert, correct.
>>129130387>Organ's origins are traced back to ancient Greece.If you think the """organs""" of ancient Greece are in any shape or form comparable to the church organs, I suggest you look up a tour of a church organ. Technically I believe also it was China who invented the first thing that might vaguely resemble an organ, just like the Greeks it was nothing compared to the complicated church organ. Again you can look it up Norseposter, the organ was literally the most complicated machine that existed until the arrival of computers, in a way the organ was the first synthesizer. >Rest of your post is historically and musicallu misinformed.Not an argument, and clearly you are just stumped. Its ok to admit you made a dumb low effort shitpost that made you look stupid .>His works were revered by the highest functioning brains.They were so not revered by anyone that Rach did not even know they existed. Maybe you mean to say Rach was a lower functioning mind? Based.
>>129130417thank you misinformed copster sister
>>129130422You shouldn't emulate a guy who called you an Indian 16 hours a day. At least capitalize your posts instead of copying him so directly.
>>129130431excellent point misinformed copster sister
>>129130432
>>129130439my gratitude dunning krugster
best Beethoven 5th?
>>129130447https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX-Ay-w1cbc
>>129130331
>>129130453any that are from the 50s or later?
>>129130472https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcTuDKmZV4A
>>129130455mozart made lots of music for the everyman significantly below the modern 100.
>>129130447>>129130447Karajanhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyjOTK3XmdIBarenboimhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A0wS5g02UQ&list=OLAK5uy_njqcA33ssk2kQipLhtWXSkGsxjCFYSfFw&index=1Bernstein/Viennahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAIALQShJc&list=OLAK5uy_n-jO5APIL_q9quwfY7tAEEkDnD4KI0MPA&index=17any of these three I'd be happy to have to listen as my only 5th for the rest of my days.>>129130453>>129130473We're supposed to be getting people into classical music, not repel them from it.
>>129129615top stuff
>>129130577>We're supposed to be getting people into classical music, not repel them from it.So why are you suggesting him Karajan, Barenboim and Bernstein?
>>129130601It's my favorites in increasing scale of indulgence, hehe
>>129130606You're contradicting yourself and actively repelling people from Beethoven, good job.
>>129130634?The Bernstein is a very indulgent yet still wonderful recording.
Who is the most platonic composer?
>>129130656For a clear reason I have in my head but won't elaborate on, Bach.
Is it me or does some of Satie sound like proto-jazz? Never explored all of his stuff till now.
>>129130656>Who is the most platonic composerDo you mean that as in who shares Plato's views, or as in a non-sexual friendship composer?
>>129130661Yeah. Same with Ravel and Debussy. Jazz didn't spawn from nowhere.
>>129130643Karajan and Barenboim are not. I'll admit I haven't listened to Bernstein's, but I'm highly sceptical it's anywhere near Nikisch and Furtwangler.
>>129130656My thought was bach before I read >>129130659 and I think by definition that kinda proves the point>>129130663I think they mean a platonic ideal/theory of forms type thing. it's either beethoven or bach, but there's a purity to bach as a composer
https://litter.catbox.moe/1j87jlqqjfcv4mio.mp4
Who is the most Heideggerian composer? Beethoven? Something pre-Bach like Buxtehude?
>>129130745nice
Chopinhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxea0D0s4QQ&list=OLAK5uy_lqkeEWGC4g4A0QtVhwXdDKa5P7sXjgtPs&index=14
>>129130786https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZa4zE712g
>>129130447Cobrahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJvIFeyucg&list=OLAK5uy_nFldv4r2oxsTYgtblB0WYLljG1pgDBLlA&index=2
>>129130807
>>129130832Absolutely based and Cortotpilled. What's interesting is that, if Arrau had so much respect for Cortot, why does Cortot legatomog him so hard?I see why Arrau would say that Cortot's style does not fit Beethoven (although it fits Schumann since his Schumann is easily the greatest there is). Not only are Cortot's hands separate, his playing extremely vertical and tone exquisitely bel canto, but his left hand also plays rubato. This is very personal, almost no one does it as much as Cortot, and it goes against Chopin's teachings (according to Mikuli, but it:s worth noting that Koczalski's left hand is not completely metronomic either). Both of his hands SING, there is no such thing as accompaniment in Cortot's Chopin. That is why I place Cortot above all. Even though I acknowledge that Hofmann is objectively the greatest.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5X7LRYbrUU
noob here, can someone expleeen to me why is modern music shorter and always about the same length?>look it upi don't want the reddit karma farming or the AI made up explanation
>>129130900What modern music do you mean exactly?
>>129130900because it fits radio segments, music videos and the cultural palette. not to mention that it really isn't that slavishly adhered to.
>>129130900I'm assuming the modern music you're referring to are Pop songs (Pop in the largest sense of the word, so including all the indie rock, shoegaze, art pop, punk, psychedelic etc. that /mu/ likes which fits), in which case it's because it's what people like. Popularly. If you mean historically, well, it's based off of folk songs and lieder (classical songs), which are the same duration.I could just as easily say "hey, why are these lieders, no matter if from Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Schumann, Weber, Wolf, about the same length" because that's just how these kinds of songs work.
I could listen to Bruckner 4 and 7 forever I suspect. Forgive me my retardation
>>129131024For me it's the 4th and 8th. But yeah, totally understandable.
For today's opera performance, we listen to Wagner's Parsifal conducted by Daniel Barenboim and performed by the Berlin Philharmonic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb22OhA6SpE&list=OLAK5uy_k9x-nGpecofK3anJCF0ZYoKrKrhOF4Oxg&index=2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cfsjxAmlnE&list=OLAK5uy_k9x-nGpecofK3anJCF0ZYoKrKrhOF4Oxg&index=2
>>129131057Been meaning to listen to Parsifal, fate has decided it then
>>129131057>>129131078Appreciate it solely for its music and avoid the Christian propaganda themes.
>>129131103But Nietzsche explicitly said that the themes and characters were fascinating.
>>129131057Why would you choose Barenboim?
>>129131136YouTube Music didn't have Kubelik's, Thielemann's was tempting but I figured I should opt for an older classic recording in case Thielemann's did something to reinvent the work, which left it between Solti and Barenboim; on Amazon, Solti's recording has 34 ratings and Barenboim's has 70, so I opted for Barenboim's this time. Why not Karajan? I didn't want a Karajanized performance this time.Also, for others: another name I often see on the front page of Amazon when searching up Wagner recordings is Hans Knappertsbusch, how's his?
>>129131103This
>>129131136>>129131156Also, it seems to be a well-regarded recording when I looked it up to pull the album cover.>Kurt Moll remains my beau idéal of a Gurnemanz and therein lies the rub here with this recording:Matthias Hölle is undoubtedly a fine singer, grave and steady but clearly in the lighter-voiced mouldand in comparison with the greatest, he is, well, just ordinary, without Hotter's psychologicalprofundity and warm humanity or Moll's sheer, purring fluency of voice. Similarly, Jerusalem issinging to the limits of his voice and is somewhat dry of tone at climactic points, nor does he providethe impassioned involvement of Vickers or even James King at his best - but I have no real complaintabout him. Otherwise, this is still a first-rate cast, with a young Waltraud Meier providing a subtleand intelligent Kundry, von Kannen a rather hollow, dry-voiced but clearly psychotic and verydramatic Klingsor and van Dam repeating his peerlessly vocalised Amfortas, combining beauty ofsound with desperate anguish and perhaps even an enhanced maturity since his recording forKarajan.>Speaking of which, this is the BPO just post-Karajan and it retains the aureate glow he cultivated inthem over the years. The orchestral passages, especially the Transformation Music and Preludes, aresimply stunning and enhanced by the acoustic of the Jesus-Christus-Kirche being so roundly caughtby the engineers. I love Barenboim's trick of implementing barely perceptible rallentandos justbefore the climax. He has here shaken off the sclerotic tempi which marred his Bayreuthperformances and which caused controversy; this is a "normally" paced "Parsifal" and his manner isclosest to Karajan's hieratic treatment of this work as a combination of staged ritual and intensedrama.>It would be churlish indeed to denigrate to a recording which gets so much right and is clearly morethan the sum of its parts, even if it not my first choice.
isaac albeniz
>>129131156>Also, for others: another name I often see on the front page of Amazon when searching up Wagner recordings is Hans Knappertsbusch, how's his?Lol, in case you don't know Knappertsbusch is generally considered the gold standard for Parsifal and the universal starting point for those wishing to get into the opera. I thought you were intentionally avoiding it for being too obvious a pick.
>>129131200Nah, it was mostly because I stuck to the conductors I'm familiar with, with a mix of fear that the Knappertsbusch would have somewhat poor sound quality because I've always associated his name with an even older generation, so I assume his recordings are always the oldest, or at least close to, among the options. I have no personal problem with his conducting, I wouldn't know!
>>129131216He did many Parsifals over the years, he practically owned the opera, but the 62 is the gold standard and I think in perfectly satisfactory sound. Some people claim his earlier 51 is a better performance but as usual the sound quality is worse. After Barenboim the 62 Knappertsbusch is definitely the one to try out.
>>129131284Thank you.
>>129131057I hope one day I come to enjoy male singing in opera and lieder.
Mahler speaks the language of autism.
Maltempo's Alkan Op. 39 and the rest of his more famous pieces, so far I enjoy Gibbons and Hamelin more, Maltempo from my past experience seems a rather dry fellow, good articulation, but dry. Maybe I'll come around to it, who knows, haven't finished the entire thing yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5r8ttrxWb0&list=OLAK5uy_k7XUy72LM96QxckZeM4K7Fvn87UR2U0ZM>>129131103>implying anyone who posts the pseudo-philosophy linguist has read anything he wrote.
>>129131426Based.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu_GHSerZG8&list=OLAK5uy_lukgPtiEjsgpnzebMIh7uRFI0pEyuoTyg&index=5>BIM BAM>BAM BAM
>>129131472>Maltempo from my past experience seems a rather dry fellowThat hasn't been my experience from his Liszt, Scriabin, and Chopin, but I haven't given that recording a try. I'll give it a peep.
What The Bible of solo piano music means to me: Beethoven's piano sonatas for excitation, Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier to relax.
>>129130597Glad you liked it. It goes without saying that you should listen to the rest of Suzuki's choral Bach (cantatas, Mass in B minor, St Matthew Passion, St John Passion, Christmas Oratorio, and more) if you like what you heard.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axXBuLzNsng&list=OLAK5uy_mTglJoGA9YYiXTTe6g6vPEO6AzPuOQ9tk&index=1
now playingLiszt: Ballade No. 2 in B Minor, S. 171https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMFNtgHMq2Y&list=OLAK5uy_ku1qrxq1bpJbOoOzi8aQiWDpCEwuukq6I&index=2start of Liszt: Harmonies poétiques et religieuses III, S. 173:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7SNvhR0cE&list=OLAK5uy_ku1qrxq1bpJbOoOzi8aQiWDpCEwuukq6I&index=3start of Liszt: Lieberstraümehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NP31UkuEk&list=OLAK5uy_ku1qrxq1bpJbOoOzi8aQiWDpCEwuukq6I&index=12https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_ku1qrxq1bpJbOoOzi8aQiWDpCEwuukq6I>>129130656Some of Liszt's music is Neoplatonist, such as this. Probably not his Annees de pelerinage as that's more sensuality, perception, feeling, emotion, heart, world-through-subjectivity.
>>129131480I did not enjoy his Scriabin 4th at all, and his Alkan felt stilted for no 2 and 3, although his symphony was better where he takes a more proper pace for the march and minuet similar to Gibbons. I cannot speak for his Chopin or Liszt since I don't have any particular fondness for either composer.
>>129131700>Liszt's music is Neoplatonist>makes music with little concern for formDo I really need to repost the Plato quote about following musical forms over poetics that insult the Muse and the Lyre? The only real Platonist I've read is Medtner.
>>129131742You don't understand form nor Liszt. Speak less.
>>129131801The only good thing Liszt did was transcribe the Beethoven symphonies to piano.
>>129130417Rach literally recorded Schuberthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIBYFCbypTo
>>129131909Don't attempt to reason with the fiend, he is a tourist charlatan of the worst kind.
>>129131909>Schubert, to be sure, has not been neglected at any point in Mr. Brendel’s lifetime. But his piano sonatas, with a few exceptions, were and are. From Mr. Brendel’s 2015 essay “A Lifetime of Recordings,” one learns with incredulity that Otto Erich Deutsch, who cataloged Schubert’s oeuvre, first heard the C minor Sonata—today esteemed as part one of a valedictory 1828 trilogy—when Mr. Brendel himself played it in Vienna in the 1960s. Rachmaninoff, it is said, did not even know that piano sonatas by Schubert existed. Though I was myself once a habitué of piano recitals, I have never heard in concert the Schubert sonata I would most like to command at the keyboard: the 40-minute A minor Sonata, D. 845, of 1825. It simply is not played.Schubarf's effete and will-less sonatas would have been forgotten to time if not for the unfortunate mistake of Brendal bothering to bring them up again 150 years after everyone already decided they were of no good quality. As the IQ of the western world continues to drop, we can only imagine Shubarf's sonatas will become more and more well regarded, a tragedy for sure.
>>129130417I thought like medieval Crusades era Europe (or thereabouts) had them. Or was China before that too?
>>129131972Oh, I see.
>According to an anecdote, Bruckner and Wagner drank so much beer together that, upon arriving home, Bruckner realized he had forgotten which symphony Wagner had chosen. He wrote a letter back to Wagner saying "Symphony in D minor, where the trumpet begins the theme?" Wagner scribbled back "Yes! Best wishes! Richard Wagner.">After this, Wagner often referred to Bruckner as "Bruckner the trumpet" and the two became firm friends. In the dedication, Bruckner referred to Wagner as "the unreachable world-famous noble master of poetry and music".
>>129131819>The only good thing Liszt did was transcribe the Beethoven symphonies to piano.He made Hungarian folk music sound epic.
>>129132046>Liszt incorporated many themes he had heard in his native western Hungary and which he believed to be folk music, though many were in fact tunes written by members of the Hungarian upper middle class, or by composers such as József Kossovits,[1] often played by Roma (Gypsy) bands.Bartók was the true composer of Hungarian national music. Liszt didn’t even recognize the difference between traditional Hungarian folk music and urban gypsy-pop, and watered down his own nationalist Rhapsodies unknowingly.
>>129131977Schubert was studied by pretty much every major composer from Schumann to the late romantics, without his innovation romantic era would not exist. And Bach was largely unknown before Mendelssohn championed his works. Similar things have happened to other composers (including Alkan). This is only surprising if you're unfamiliar with history. Please stop fabricating narratives.
>>129132038that's just cute
>>129132104>Bach was largely unknown before Mendelssohn championed his worksnot this shit again
>>129132177>Look, I'm going to reject every single historian and historical source for no reason whatsoever
>>129131992China was pre-Greece, let alone all the way to medieval Crusades, Iass. In-fact for the majority of human history they have been our superiors in basically every regard, it was only really the brief moment of Athens and then the late renaissance that we surpassed them. And as history shows, all exceptions return back to the median, and the coming era of the Dragon returns to normalcy. That being said, the actual true church organs we know and love were still a very far cry away from anything in the pre-renaissance, none of them had multiple manuals, nor any STOPS. That did not occur until the renaissance, and there is no way anyone before then could have constructed such a vast and intricate machine. >>129132104Schubert's music was studied, but his sonatas were left forgotten for a reason, nor is the Bach excuse reasonable because Shubert himself was not a forgotten composer (I had already explained this in the previous threads), only his effete sonatas were. In regards to Alkan the difference is also the same, for it was that he himself was forgotten, not parts of his music selectively disregarded on purpose, and the main reasoning for his disappearence from public knowledge is because he himself disappeared from public spaces entirely. The famous quote upon his death was this:>It was necessary for him to die in order to suspect his existenceThat is how far Alkan went to avoid the public eye. Face reality, Shubarf was never an unknown composer, but rather always famous, and his sonatas were INTENTIONALLY ignored and left forgotten about for 150 years until Brendel went and shilled for them after classical had already begun to spiral into disaster.
>>129132227>China was pre-Greece, let alone all the way to medieval Crusades, Iass.I know China has been around, but they have multiple epochs. I was just asking about the period with organs. Thanks for answering.
>>129132212we have talked about this before just stop
>>129132227This is just gibberish non-response. No one wants to hear your metal-tier stupidity here >>>/metal/
>>129132252If you are actually interested the Chinese instrument is called a Sheng, which was then copied by people in the Mediterranean area into the funny little water "organ" that the Gayreeks used, which was very primitive still and contuined to be that way all the way up until like 11th century, although really was still not a proper organ with stops until as I mentioned previously, the renaissance. >>129132322Not an argument.
Schubert's piano music is good, actually
>>129130661>>129130672As much as I like Satie I wouldn't dare to say he himself influenced the emergence of jazz. It's more of a convergent evolution thing. Satie was definitely aware of, and influenced by the genres that would lead to jazz, like ragtime. He kind of created modern music alone, without anyone even realizing it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXmcar_3Z70&list=PLg-4Y_zhbkLQGfE4_HKMdj-N7IIwI7nNo&index=90
>>129132657Good is a hell of an understatement.
>>129132657Like Mozart's solo piano works, his sonatas are of a forgettable nature. We much prefer Beethoven, Haydn, Medtner, and Alkan here.
>>129132793Mozart's piano sonatas are one hell of a filter. nos. 11 12 15 and 18 are all masterpieces and the others aren't too far behind.
>>129132818If only all works of little interest or excitement were classified as filters in such a similar manner, then maybe we all might call people like Satie, Cage, and Webern great genius too.
Wagner is law.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-gjbxJsg8mYIt is my deepest regret that Wagner only wrote one piano sonata. In thirteen short minutes, we can hear his unfathomable ubermenschian genius put most of Beethoven's ouvere to shame. Who but Wagner could reach such heights with a mere 88 keys? Bach, whose music only sounds like complicated noise? Mozart, who wrote the same sonata 18 times? No! There is but one, and only one man who could ever hope to write such divine, such dramatic, such masculine, such ascendant, such mindbogglingly EPIC music.
Webern was a genius.
>>129132793Schubert's sonatas are objectively leagues ahead of Medtner's and Alkan's.
>>129133989Just like Wagner, Mahler and Schoenberg.
>>129134015Just Wagner and Mahler. Schoenberg and Webern are above average composers who just happened to le first serialists, which is not an accomplishment.
>>129134009Schubert wishes he wrote anything even 1/10th as memorable as Night Wind or Symphony for Solo Piano.
>>129134025D960 is leagues ahead of both.
>>129134038What can be said about Schubert's sonatas except that perhaps it reminds one of the lazy printed image of Beethoven should he have been both deaf and dumb, and also in a dress.
Wagner's genius was to apply the aleatoric motifs of Bach to the mystical transfiguration of the music drama. In the image of the German masters he dilates his soul to encompass the world-historical mission of ultimate musical expression.
If one were to take Schubert's sonatas and turn them into paintings, they would be an American culture kitsch painting, the kind that can only fill one with deep disdain and disgust at whatever soulless automaton created it.
Schubert's sonatas are what Wagnarians spent their lives accusing Brahms of being.
Schubert's sonatas are reminiscent of watching the mountains roll by on a road trip: beautiful. Very beautiful. And very dull.
Schubert's sonatas (and Fantasy in F, Wanderer Fantasy) are reminiscent of Lothlórien and Mirkwood. Ethereal beauty.
>>129134121Schubert's sonatas are filled with the same sort of feelings conjured up by the half rate Tolkien adventure series where the first third almost convinces you of promise, and then the last two are a horrid drag where the majority of text is dedicated to two effete midgets whining to each other page after page.
>>129134671If you're retarded, maybe.
>>129134800Lowbrow popfiction is not respected here.
Soanta romantica (Milne), his delicate touch is right for this piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJNhWkYaUMc&list=OLAK5uy_ksiBtWKYpsNChrCCOIn7p81A9ka3fH0b4&index=8
Which of the following should I listen to:>Das Rheingold >Die Walküre>Siegfried>Götterdämmerung
>>129134988Which one is shortest?
>>129134837Tolkien had a lot of linguistic and world building depth for mere pop fiction.
>>129128889I saw Bach’s chorale based on A Mighty Fortress at the big Episcopalian church in my city several years back. It was incredible. There were probably just as many performers as there were audience members and my friend and I were the the only audience members under the age of 60
>>129135024Fiction's main form of use is in its metaphor to relay philosophical concepts through lies ("fiction"). It is in-general a poor man's philosophy, but of that poor mans philosophy, the world building aspects are of use only to the stupid. If you care so much of the construction of a world, perhaps focus on the one you inhabit instead.
>>129135092>Fiction's main form of use is in its metaphor to relay philosophical concepts through liesOr it's just entertainment, like listening to music, like playing D&D.
>>129135092You can do both. I like the real world, but a little escapism is fun.. whether books or vidya or whatever.And don't knock vidya either btw. One of the places left employing classical musicians. kek
>>129135120only places left*
I want a symphonic chromatic-overdose, post something like prelude of Tristan und Isolde right now. I listened to Franck, so I'm hungry for more. No atonal shite. Something with a great melody. DO IT BEFORE I PASS OUT
>passes out due to hypochromaticism
Just discovered her, I'm really liking ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhxMrThFwCM&list=PLGA7IZDGlulKn-8E1-Jz9luC4tCYiF2yt&index=7
Found one myself. Chausson.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLb8AYsZ5_IMy craving has been satisfied. For now.
>He mentions an interesting and revealing story about the time Medtner was invited to perform Beethoven’s Fourth Piano Concerto in Moscow and St. Petersburg with the conductor, Willem Mengelberg. Apparently, they only had one rehearsal planned, and both musicians had major disagreements of tempi. According to Medtner’s account, he thought that Mengelberg took the first movement too fast, insisting that the orchestra should follow him since he was the soloist. But Mengelberg said to him with a condescending smile, “You just play, young man, and it will work out somehow.” After hearing this, Medtner loudly slammed the piano lid, stormed out of the hall, and refused to perform on the concert. The concerto was eliminated from the program.>At least to me, most musicians would relish the opportunity to perform a concerto with orchestra, let alone, one of the all-time masterpieces, Beethoven’s Fourth. Now the conductor was unreasonable, of course, but it seems to me that Medtner struggled with the art of diplomacy. This belief is further strengthened by his strong reluctance in performing music by other composers and his distaste for the business aspect of music. He loathed the concept of marketing, self-promotion, and appealing to the masses. In his mind, he thought that the artist was supposed to be loyal only to the craft. When he saw his close friend and Russian compatriot, Sergei Rachmaninov, reach the international fame and success that he craved, he remarked: “Rachmaninov prostituted himself for the dollar.”Correct. >>129135109>>129135120>Or it's just entertainmentIncorrect, for the written word can never be truly abstract unless writing absolute gibberish. The thoughts and worldview of the author are impossible not to leak out onto the pages, so too it is impossible not to pick up on them unless through severe lack of intelligence.
>>129135464>written word can never be truly abstractOkay, and?
>>129135464>fame and success that he craved, he remarked: “Rachmaninov prostituted himself for the dollar.”Damn, what a jealous loser
>>129135528>Damn, what a jealous loserIncorrect. Rachmaninoff often sold out to the masses, in the original fourth concerto (which was dedicated to Medtner) there are references to Medtner in thematic material, and when the concerto was not praised like his previous works he promptly cut out those references in a vain attempt to garner more popularity for the piece (which still failed). Rach reached fame, but prostituted himself to get there, Medtner stayed true to real artistry no matter how hard it was for him and his family. https://youtu.be/2MwY03hBHqo?t=1632>>129135503It means you are always forced to face it with a critical eye towards your fellow human, and can never reach the abstract sublime beyond the veil of the mind.
>>129135638>It means you are always forced to face it with a critical eyeIf you're schizophrenic, perhaps. I have no such issues while reading Tolkien.
>>129135712Thank you retard.
>>129135720You're mad.
There has never been a good musician or conductor that disliked opera singing.
>>129135199https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb4H_9TKQ8I>>129136979I bet it's a generational thing. I'm sure of many younger musicians and conductors working today, it's true.>inb4 none of them are good
>>129123328Schubert, no contestHard to pick, I think Chopin is better on average but Liszt reached some higher peaksBrahmsMahlerBach
>>129135092holy fucking bases
>>129123328SchubertChopinWagnerStrauss (can't believe I'm the only person to say this)
>>129137853>Strauss (can't believe I'm the only person to say this)because you probably like opera. I'll admit, Der Rosenkavalier is on Mahler's level.
>>129123328so far:Schumann 2 - Schubert 6>(note: an anon voted for both)Chopin 5 - Liszt 2>(note: an anon said it was hard to decide but favored Chopin "in general")Brahms 4 - Wagner 3Mahler 6 - Strauss 1best composer starting with B:Bach (5) > Beethoven (1) = Brahms (1)
>>129137886I forgot to do the B part, my answer is Beethoven.
I'm starting to become kind of suspicious of the bel canto obsessives. Yes, it sounds good, but the Kempff in the video doesn't sound to bad me at all and is just another way of playing the piece.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p26qXU23l1w
>>129137876Elektra and Der Rosenkavalier are better than anything Mahler ever wrote.
I like Schubert’s impromptus.
Wagnerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HUW1gZtQMk
this set is much better than I expected. one of the best I've ever heard, evenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM9sIb0r4WA&list=OLAK5uy_nzMHSfj9pAttAQZdBZd47vZDzoDBjXp2A&index=15>Here's a version of the Beethoven Cello Sonatas as good as any in the catalogue, despite those by starry performers who have recorded them over the years. Perényi and Schiff play with rhythmic accuracy and drive, wide dynamic range, virtuoso flair, and, best of all, an improvisatory quality that brings out the strengths of these works. The first two early sonatas can seem slight, but here are full of humor and forward impetus. The Op. 69, a work of unsettling mood shifts and gorgeous melodies, is done with the passion it requires, and the duo plumbs the depths of final Op. 105 pair. The cello transcription of the Op. 17 Horn Sonata, a slighter work, is increased in stature thanks to the artists' conviction. And the sets of variations on themes by Handel and Mozart come off as more than simply salon music. Schiff's keyboard mastery, with clean runs and crisp rhythms, is a big plus, and Perényi matches him all the way, his lean tone easily conveying the coloristic subtleties that make the scores come alive. --Dan Davis
>>129138021I should hope so!
no recording of the mass in B minor comes close to being perfect to me, which is very rare with classical music
Listen to Allan Pettersson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBOkA3aZkts&list=OLAK5uy_lgfSKkvwA4o4VqCX4rVVucF2FTZqLiE6s&index=1warning: only recommended for those with a modernist sensibility
Best classical for lifting?
>>129138206I'd probably put on this recording and call it a dayhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJSLxJ2wA_Y&list=OLAK5uy_ma9fa1xAhUcd22YSPuyfRclvFJTKeRsJo&index=1Oh Mozart's late symphonies (35-41)would be good toohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_XUN6yh6Wc&list=OLAK5uy_nz2yTCNsfsPRdx9nHjcGtoIhwr_KluZDE&index=141
>>129138117Which are the closest for you? And is it more of a case of there are certain parts no one has performed in the ideal manner for you or no one recording does everything right?
>>129137941I generally enjoy a lot of the pianists that that channel trashes, even as a historical recording enjoyer.
feels like a Jochum's Bruckner nighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93UrKKeTuro&list=OLAK5uy_l439l6danM0LzDxHcS4sieHlwOlH1KbVo&index=9
>>129123328What am awful post, Wagner is obviously the best and late Liszt in close second, rest of them are trashAnd its Bach, it always will be Bach followed by Buxtehude
>>129138377you don't need to describe your own post at the start like that
I thought about listening to Bellini's Norma but then when I looked up recordings, I didn't recognize any of the conductors so I changed my mind.
>>129138474you don't know Serafin, Levine, Muti, or Pappano?
>>129138549I don't know Serafin, Bonynge, John Fiore, Giusuppe Patane, Georgio Morandi, or Carlo Felice Cillario
>>129138570well I can tell you the best recordings are Serafin 1960 and most of all Varviso 1967
>>129138592Thanks, maybe tomorrow I'll peep.
>>129138440You just did the same with your post, and you know I'm right.
>>129138698incoherent
>>129137988Elektra is just some woman talking the whole time while sad, barely audible music plays in the background.
For tonight's opera performance, we listen to Wagner's Gotterdammerung conducted by Sir Georg Solti and performed by the Vienna Philharmonic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhCdQW4_0I&list=OLAK5uy_nBRvBeW-oR09RQKwMBbRQojvfEXKzcOAA&index=1
Are there people who don't like opera in general, but rather only Wagner's? I'm still a novice but I'm noticing his have a unique sound and structure compared to the (few) others I've heard from different composers. I'm not saying I've only liked Wagner's operas so far, but the singing and symphonic orchestration is distinctively appealing, so I'm curious if this is a common opinion.
>>129137941>doesn't sound to badYou're deaf. Kempff is absolutely vulgar. They are both playing a percussive instrument, but with Cortot it doesn't even percussive, he's that good, Kempff doesn't give a shit, he's just hitting keys like he's playing on drums or bells. Cortot also knows which notes should be louder, and which ones should be softer, he knows how human sings.It couldn't be more obvious.
>>129138774People who don't appreciate dissonance disgust me. You are a PHILISTINE!
>>129138895People who can't appreciate Mahler disgust me. You are a PHILISTINE!
>>129138860If you genuinely think Kempff's playing is 'absolutely vulgar' then you must hate 99% of all piano playing. Something you have to learn is that just because you dislike a style of playing does not mean it is not carried out with the highest sensitivity and intelligence. Kempff and Cortot literally played together for Arno Breker's Paris exhibition during the Vichy government, and Breker just happened to create two very beautiful busts of these two outstanding pianists. Does pic related look like the interaction of two men lacking in mutual respect?It's time to punish the uneducated insolence of the bel canto schizos.
>>129138919Kempff's approach works for some music, for some style and some movments. It does not work for that piece, it sounds terrible. And even when his approach works, I still prefer any true old school approach, like Cortot's.>does not mean it is not carried out with the highest sensitivity and intelligence. It certainly isn't.
>>129137941Norseposter fell for a youtube/twitter podcast meme that aligns with his old good new bad philosophy that hes held even in other genres before classical, I wouldn't take it too seriously, if it wasn't this, he'd find something else old to obsess over. The overall idea that making every single note have swing ("rubato") and being overtly sentimental or in a singing manner is of course only ideal for people who want such a thing. The reality is that pianos are not suited for such ideas, they are not bowed string instruments with vibrato and such. What pianos do have, is to sound NOT like a voice, to make jumps and staccato noises that the voice is totally incapable of (or at least sound very poor at). Alkan has a piece where it is explicitly written to NOT play any sort of rubato or slur the notes togetherhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z9BG-hlYzA&list=PLLsr9s_7lqEGr8AZCc9WBqf3VNmTZsh2P&index=12The piano is not a human voice, and if you want a human voice then go listen to songs and Opera. The piano is a pitched percussive instrument, and we love it for its own nature, not as a half rate pseudo "belcanto" sentimentality machine
Why does classical never have an intense low end? Do acoustic instruments just suck for it?
>>129138969>>>/mu/
>>129138966>The overall idea that making every single note have swing ("rubato") and being overtly sentimental or in a singing manner is of course only ideal for people who want such a thing. And also every single composer from Bach to Mahler from their own letters and writing. But no, let's ignore the composer's intentions, your dumb ass knows better.
>>129138956>I still prefer any true old school approachKempff, the pianist born in the 19th century, taught by musicians who were intimate with Liszt and Brahms, and whose playing was approved of by Sibelius, is not 'old school'... I don't think you bel canto schizos have a coherent idea of the development of performance styles, I think you're freewheeling your judgements.
>>129138985>from Bach to MahlerBach never wrote a single piece for a piano, neither did Mahler. You are a complete moron.
>>129138988Yes, his approach is modernist. Not all old school pianists play in the old school tradition. DUH.
>>129138991You are a gigantic moron yourself for missing the point here.
>>129138997The point being that you fallaciously deferred to authority instead of a proper argument, and yet failed that as well by somehow only mentioning two composers who never wrote a single piano piece. Congratz.
>>129139002>>129138988>“A sincere instruction, by which lovers of the clavier — and especially those eager to learn — are shown a clear method: not only (1) to learn to play cleanly in two voices, but also (2) with further progress to proceed correctly and well with three obbligato parts; and at the same time not merely to acquire good inventions but to execute them well — most of all, however, to attain a cantabile (singing) manner in playing, and moreover to gain a strong foretaste of composition.”Eternal BTFO of the century. Kneel.If you don't like Bach >>>/mu/We don't tolerate perverted Bach here.
>>129139034This is why Glenn Gould is objectively trash
>>129139034The clavier (keyboard) of Bach's time didn't even have dynamics, there is no possible manner in which you could make it truly "cantabile". Again, keyboards are not bowed string instruments, if the main goal of a keyboard was to be similar to a voice, it would be a SHIT instrument that ought to never exist. If you cares even half as much about this twitter meme as you did, you would like to cellos, not pianos. Go ahead, prove why you would enjoy piano over a cello or violin suite, lets hear it.
>>129139043Yes.>>129139049thank you illiterate deaf imbecile
>>129139034Kempff is famous for his singing quality. You're just playing havoc with the definition of words.
>>129139065>thank you illiterate deaf imbecileYou've become quite the coward these days Norseposter, all you're capable of is deferring to quotes, twitter podcasts, and other outside opinions. What happened to the guy who was actually capable of sustaining a conversation? Did sisterspammer really mindbreak you this bad over here?Come, tell us for what benefit a piano in your mind over a cello, better yet, explain how so for the clavier of Bach's time over the violin or other bowed string instrument. Evidently you can't do so, because then you would have to admit what makes a piano special is what makes it DISSIMILAR to a human voice.
>Now I must first of all start with Stein’s pianoforte.2 Before I had seen anything of Stein’s work, the claviers by Späth3 were my favourite. But now I have to give preference to Stein’s, for their [5] damping is even better than in those from Regensburg. When I strike strongly, I can leave the finger lying, or lift it, and the tone simply finishes the moment I choose. I can come at the keys however I like, the tone will always be the same. It will not jangle, it will not come out stronger or weaker, or even fail to sound. In brief, [10] everything is even>The Andante is going to give us the most trouble, for it is full of expression and must be played with taste (and accurately as written in the matter of forte and piano).>“They cannot at all comprehend the tempo rubato in an adagio, the left hand being quite independent. With them the left hand always yields to the right.”>>129139075That piece had no such quality. The melody was uneven.>>129139081thank you deaf imbecile
>>129139091Thank you for the quotespam, norsesister.
>>129139081>Evidently you can't do soYes,I can't prove to a deaf imbecile that Bach had clavichord and early pianofortes. I have given up trying to reason with fools.>>129139095thank you deaf imbecile
>quotespammerMeanwhile:>>129075017>>129135464Dishonesty off the charts. Shall not engage with this level of hypocrisy again. Sisterposter was right in one thing only.
>>129139099>Yes,I can't prove to a deaf imbecile that Bach had clavichord and early pianofortesAlmost nothing he wrote was for either of these, in-fact this >>129137941 which you like to post is written for a harpsicord, and yet Cortot and friends play it on modern instruments using dynamics which aren't even a part of the original composition. I know its hard for you these days since you've become more bot-like due to your wars with sisterspammer, but please do attempt to prove yourself rationally and answer the question: "what benefit does a piano in your mind have over a cello, when your goal is to sound like a human song?". Surely you have something to offer beyond quote spam and copying some guy who called you an indian 16 hours a day for two years straight?
The purpose of discussion should be to come to some kind of agreement or at the very least exchange knowldge. When you clearly see that that has never once happened before, no knowledge is share(not only because the other side is totally illiterate and ignorant), no concessions made, the discussions loses any and all purpose, it's a waste of time.>>129139135It's not written for the harpsichord. haprsichord can have singing quality (inferior to that of piano). thank you deaf imbecile
>>129139126We post quotes that we find interesting to the thread, but we do not spam quotes to someone when that someone is directly challenging our views and asking for answers to our viewpoints. We rely first and foremost to our own insights, quotes are just flavor and food for thought in non-serious engagements. The dishonesty is pretending posting a quote to no one in particular of Medtner's storming off in a rehearsal because he was disrespected is at all similar to simply dumping quotes on someone because you can't figure out why a piano would be preferable to a cello if "singablity" was what instruments were supposed to focus on.
>>129139161>It's not written for the harpsichord.It literally was. >no concessions madeI mean this is a bit ironic coming from you, of anyone on this general, the only person as stubborn and thickheaded as me is yourself.
>>129139135>what benefit does a piano in your mind have over a celloThat is self-evident. I'm not answering this kind of dumb question. You should get used to using your mind over expecting someone else to babby-bottlefeed you. Cello is objectively a more expressive instrument than a piano. I'm not even reading your posts fully, you don't have anything interesting to say. For example:>>129139171 This cope is not worth my time.
>>129139189>That is self-evident.You concession is accepted norseposter. You really should make the swap to cello btw, its a much better instrument for what you look for in music (melodies and lyricism). Piano is more conducive for the kind of highly rhythmic music I enjoy such as Beethoven or Medtner, it is a percussive instrument at the end of the day, its singing qualities are very poor in comparison to strings.
>>129139188No, it literally wasn't. Most of Bach 's concerti were originally written for the violin or double violin, then transcribed to keyboard, and sometimes performed on organ. Of course you don't know such details,but you keep insisting that you have anything worthwhile to say.>>129139207excelpent post deaf sister
>>129139214>then transcribed to keyboardAnd that keyboard was a harpsicord, or am I assume you believe they were pulling out the clavichord for a concerto? An instrument that mind you, can barely project its sound in a small room, let alone a hall with other instruments playing. No, let us not continue this silly game of excuses norseposter, you know as well as I do that it was written for a harpsicord, an instrument with no dynamics. Among the worst options possible for "cantabile" qualities.
>>129139239Going into such details is completely redundant when the quote here (a preface to his keyboard studies) ended any and all kind of arguments against the reality:>>129139034 - Bach wants us to play cantabile, when it's cantabile.>And that keyboard was a harpsicordHarpsichord was a flawed instrument, which could still initate cantabille phrasing and vertical approach (which is very baroque). Harpsichord can still play legato, but you have to be mindful of the sustain (it has no peda) and subtle fingering techniques. Furthermore, Bach had a preference for clavichord and more expressive keyboard instruments over the harpsichord. His letters reveal that he liked the expressiveness of pianofortes. This is of course ALL completely IRRELEVANT and detached from the original point I made (quote from his preface), so I won't discuss this any further.
>>129139284>Bach wants us to play cantabile,Bach can say whatever he wants in one off letters or random quotes, the reality is that it is impossible to play a harpsicord (or really any percussive instrument) in a "cantabile" manner, just as it is impossible (or at least highly unenjoyable) for a human to make rapid staccato chords in strange time signatures. If you were highly interested in a "cantabile" factor, then you would have strings, hell maybe even a harp itself, certainly not a harpsicord or even modern piano. >had a preference for clavichordSure, but you can't use one for a concerto, and no keyboard concerto was written for a clavichord because of its awful projection. Harpsicord was the main keyboard instrument of the time for chamber, no one thinks Scarlatti was breaking out the ol Clavichord for his performances, even as a solo instrument it doesn't have the projection for that.
>>129139341It absolutely does not matter that you're (stilll) wrong. Cortot is objectively closer to what Bach intended than Kempff, as per J.S. Bach himself.
>>129139354Cortot isn't even playing a harpsicord, Iass. How on earth can you be closer to what Bach intended while using extreme dynamics for a piece that was written for an instrument without dynamics? Whats even more interesting is that you pretend to care what Bach thinks at all, for it was just this thread where you wrote "Most of Bach is audibly lowbrow, as there is nothing more vulgar and plebian than the church. Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue however, are aristocratic." right here >>129129837With such quotes (of your own words, not others) in mind and total disregard for actual instruments of the period, one has to ask if you are really interested in how a piece is suppose to be played, or are just interested in promoting your youtube/twitter podcast meme.
>>129139390>Cortot isn't even playing a harpsicordWe already went over this>>129139214+ it is irrelevant.Rest of your post is dishonesty and shitposting.
>>129139414>We already went over thisWe did indeed laugh at your idea of someone bringing a clavichord for a concerto.>Rest of your post is dishonesty and shitposting.Directly quoting your thoughts on Bach "Most of Bach is audibly lowbrow, as there is nothing more vulgar and plebian than the church. Goldberg Variations and Art of Fugue however, are aristocratic." is dishonesty? I would agree that writing that out and then pretending like you care at all about Bach's music is indeed very dishonest behavior.
>The neglect of Song in Germany avenges itself not merely on the singers, but even on the instrumentists, and most of all on the composer. Whoso knows not how to sing, himself, can neither write for the voice with full assurance, nor imitate Song on an instrument. How far each musician should take his share of vocal training, ought to depend on nothing but the limits of his vocal organ. Everyone, particularly when gifted with a musical bent, possesses in his organ of Speech a material which he should cultivate to the utmost of his ability, and thus develop his sense of the true attributes of Song — at least so far that they shall not be strangers to him, but intimate acquaintances. The human voice is the practical basis of Music, and however far the latter may journey on her primal path, the boldest combinations of the tone-setter, the most daring execution of the instrumental-virtuoso, will always have to hark back to the purely Singable, to find the law for their achievements. Hence I hold that elementary instruction in singing must be made obligatory upon every musician; and in the successful organisation of a Singing-school, upon the lines above-denoted, I consequently should also see the foundation of the intended universal Music-school.
>>129139436Just more strawman and dishonesty, nothing to see here.
>>129139475>can neither write for the voice with full assurance, nor imitate Song on an instrument.And yet Fagner worshipped Beethoven, whose writings for voice are among the worst of all composers, curious!>>129139489Boring reply.
>>129139496Beethoven could write some beautiful cantabile melodies and An die Ferne Geliebte is one of the greatest lieder cycles ever composed.
>>129139606Yep, not to mention Missa Solemnis
>>129139606>>129139653Anyone who has ever composed has written a cantabile melody. Beethoven was not even as skilled for vocal writing as lesser composers like Purcel, ask any singer their thoughts on performing Beethoven, none of them enjoy it. Fagner is just an idiot, the only thing of note with this latest quote is at least it was a coherent paragraph (if at utter ends with his praising of Beethoven because he doesn't think before he writes), a rarity for Fagner and his usual garble of nonsense.
>>129140094You're not actually contradicting anything Wagner said. Just seems like you're seething for no reason.
>>129140290that ain't mendelssohn
>>129140320I know you Fagnertrannies can barely read, but essentially what Fagner wrote is that you need a commandment of vocal writing and be trained in singing to be a great composer, neither of which Beethoven had. We would all be better off if every Fagner fan were slain on the streets like the dysgenetic failures they are, at least then we would be spared of reading both their hero and the subhuman's subpar and usually barely coherent thoughts on any subject.
>>129140345Rofl. Wrong link my bad
>>129140352Wagner didn't say you 'need' it and he was a prominent critic of Beethoven's writing for the voice in the Ode to Joy. Seems like you're extrapolating a lot and at the same time failing to grasp what Wagner is talking about. I refer you to a quote by Scherchen:>Singing is not just a prerequisite for shaping a melody properly, but also gives you the tempo in which it is to be performed (we here refer to Richard Wagner’s essay “Über das Dirigieren,” which explains the basics of a musical theory of tempo in a general fashion). The Italian and the French instrumentalist plays his music by singing, the German primarily with his instrument. In other words, instead of subordinating his technique to song, he burdens the latter with the habits of his technique.
>>129140372>Wagner didn't say you 'need' itThen we can agree that Fagner's paragraph was of a pointless nature, merely words spoken for the sake of listening to himself, or in this case reading his own text. >and he was a prominent critic of Beethoven's writing for the voice in the Ode to Joy.Irrelevant outside of being additional evidence for my own case that Fagner just writes garbage regardless of it contradicting previous statements or thoughts he's held in the past (usually he does so in the same paragraph, in this case he managed to make it through a single paragraph without such a thing, his personal record I am assured).>a quote by Scherchen:We find it of most hilarity that Fagner needs a thought translator who can pretend like he held any sort of actual coherent ideology or framework to his thoughts. We would prefer it however if you stuck to the actual barely-coherent source: Fagner himself, not his personal fluffers.
>>129140407NTA, Wagner didn't contradict himself, you're being deliberately obtuse.
>>129140407There's a difference between writing music that sings for instruments and writing actual vocal music. It is much less likely that you will be able to do the prior without the latter, but it is by no means a necessity. Although this all goes back to your mistaken and unbelievably retarded blanket statement that Beethoven was bad at writing for the voice. Sometimes he was, sometimes he wasn't. As for Wagner, he was just advocating for the pedagogical importance of singing, especially for German musicians. I think advocating for teaching reforms is a pretty important thing and I don't know why you're seething so much over it. You sound mentally ill.>his personal fluffersSo you have no respect for the musical knowledge of great conductors. Okay.
>>129140426Within the paragraph? No, thats why I congratulated Fagner on writing one of his first coherent paragraphs. However within the larger framework of who Fagner idolizes (Beethoven), the contradiction is so thick that one might just be able to spread it on toast. The only alternative offered by the Fagnertranny is that essentially Fagner didn't really mean it, and that actually you can just as well be a great composer without vocal training or mastery of vocal writing, which makes the entire paragraph a complete waste of time that says nothing at all. So its two options: 1) Fagner contradicts his wider views outside of the paragraph, or 2) Fagner wrote a paragraph with no real intention or thought behind it. Personally I believe it to be both, which is his usual modus operandi when it comes to writings, I have yet to encounter any other composer of lower quality writings.
>>129140460>you can just as well be a great composer without vocal trainingBut Wagner never said you couldn't...
>>129140458>There's a difference between writing music that sings for instruments and writing actual vocal musicAccordingly to Fagner, there is not, else we would indeed question the purpose of teaching vocal writing for people who were to compose non-vocal music. > he was just advocating for the pedagogical importance of singing, Indeed, unfortunately it falls to pieces and is contradictory upon the reflect that he favorite composer had no such training. >So you have no respect for the musical knowledge of great conductors. Okay.We do not respect appeals to authority or other blatant fallacious tactics here, correct.
>>129140460>is that essentially Fagner didn't really mean itHe did, but he never contradicted himself. Sounds crazy, right? (It actually doesn't)
It's Friday night, it's Chopin Nocturne time!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHXxWfSAxik
>>129140485The implication within the paragraph is to push for the importance of vocal training for composers, which falls to pieces when you realize that Fagner considered a person who no such training to be the greatest of all time.
>>129140486>he favorite composerhis*
>>129140494Beethoven didn't lack vocal training. He wrote an entire opera, are you literally retarded?
>>129140503He is.
>>129140503He is not.
>>129140503Anyone can write an opera, go ask the vocal performers for their thoughts about the magnificent skills of his vocal writing. How tourist is /classical/ to not even know about the issues with his vocal writing? He wrote as if the human voice were an instrument.
>>129140486>Accordingly to Fagner, there is notUhh, he never said that. so many assumptions. There being a strong relation between how one is written and how the other is does not mean there's no distinction. Try to put in more effort when you think.>unfortunately it falls to pieces and is contradictory upon the reflect that he favorite composer had no such training.Most of the quote is about the importance of vocal training for MUSICIANS you spaz. It has a very clear intention for reforming teaching in Germany.>We do not respect appeals to authority or other blatant fallacious tactics hereItYou don't respect simplified clarifications because you're autistically stubborn,
>>129140546>go ask the vocal performers for their thoughts about the magnificent skills of his vocal writing.And they can still sing it and it can still sound good. Bunch of complainers.
>>129140559>Uhh, he never said that. so many assumptions.Oh here we go, with the implication and meaning game, practically the only way you could defend Fagner's never ending lists of contradicts and subpar thoughts. >for musiciansYou mean like Beethoven who was known to perform and improvise for people?>you're autistically stubborn,Correct. We love autism here.
NEW>>129140621>>129140621>>129140621
