The only good WTC - Samuil Feinberg edition.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sjbM3T4S08&list=OLAK5uy_l59-njpgbFCFkHbIUDzHpH6OJYhDn0dL4&index=21This 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: >>130261740
>The point on which I believe I have surpassed past and present composers could be summed up in a single word – clarity. That everything should be heard just as it sounded in my inner ear is a demand I seek to meet by exploiting all the resources at my disposal. Each instrument may be used only in its rightful place and according to its own distinctive qualities. I even go so far as to have the violins, for example, play on the E string in cantabile passages or in those involving the greatest momentum, while the G string is used for sounds expressing anguish or being intensely sonorous. I never use the middle strings when I want to express passion, as these do not produce much sound. But they are ideally suited to quiet, veiled, and mysterious passages. It is no good forming abstract ideas in such matters if they are not then being realised.>When modem composers claim that art does not require supreme mastery in the way in which it is executed, they are talking nonsense. Rather, such a tremendous amount of artistic resources is necessary, from the first main draft to the very last detail, far more than our friends the naturalists – impotents! – have ever dreamt of! A work that is not permeated by this supreme artistry in each and every detail is doomed to perish even before it is born!
>>130284411interesting, however:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ehvhP_jvI
Where do I get that Soviet pin from the OP
>>130284340Hey, the video you linked already was deleted.
>>130284486What do you mean?
>>130284486They just live in Europe so it's not available for us. Here, try this one,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbKaUCv9hsE&list=OLAK5uy_lW6EGgdxeyJTB4q3MIB4rcVrW5u-Xi_ec&index=41https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmpsqfxei0c&list=OLAK5uy_lW6EGgdxeyJTB4q3MIB4rcVrW5u-Xi_ec&index=42
Nikolayeva's Bachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWBTTONbQ2U&list=OLAK5uy_nE57a5TrrE-WvwBqbCHyqpd1YQTpCE5MA&index=1
This is worth it for the Glen Gould introduction https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2v6cFVnYJeE&pp=ygUbZ2xlbm4gZ291bGQgcGllcnJvdCBsdW5haXJlThe actual music is just horrible
>>130284976>The actual music is just horribleI will find you and I will kill you.
Over the past couple weeks I have listened to three complete sets of Haydn's symphonies. My conclusions are1. most of his slow movements are painfully boring2. most of his symphonies have one movement where he tries out one unique new thing, while the other movements are just classical era slop3. every once in a while there's some quite impressive counterpoint
>>130285555shut your hole, slut.
>>130285603
>>130285603Rofl ever read The Eye Of Argon?
>>130285555Wait, wait all 900 of them? Are you insane? And three times
>>130285784Grignr. more like Grindr.
>>130285835He does wear a g string
>>130285827He only wrote 104 actually, total runtime per cycle about 36 hours. So a bit longer than two Ring cycles.
>>130285866yes, there are 104 in his first volume of symphonies but there are 900 volumes in total. Haydnlore goes deep.
Samuil Feinberg: The 1929 RecordingsThe earliest records by Feinberg were made for Deutsche Grammaphon in 1929. The few short performances are of mostly his own music, original and transcribed. Listening to them is the only chance we have to hear Feinberg close to his prime as a pianist, being aged 39 at the time. The closing transcriptions in particular must be three of the greatest Bach recordings ever- and quite refreshing compared to the modern (post-Gould) standard.Feinberg: Suite (Four Etudes) Op. 11Stanchinsky: Canon-Prelude No. 2Scriabin: Etude Op. 42 No. 3 Scriabin: Fragilité Op. 51 No. 1 Bach/Feinberg: Organ Concerto in A minor, BWV 593 - I. Bach/Feinberg: Chorale Prelude (Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr)Bach/Feinberg: Chorale Prelude (Ach, bleib’ bei uns, Herr Jesu Christ)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oouDYToxj7s
>>130284224One of the worst recordings of Bruckner 5 that I've heard. Impressive.
>Bach>on piano
>Bog>on bogzichord
>>130285971Yeah I'm rather fond his transcription of Bach's transcription (BWV593)It's a shame he didn't do the full thing. One of his students did, though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze_iPLO5Bms
>>130285555I assume this is your vague impression of them overall and allowing for the existence of some exceptional symphonies where you love every movement, like 88 or 6? If not, then my impression is that you just don't like him
Let him Cookner
>>130286327Yeah this is my overall impression, and to be fair after a while they did blend into each other a bit. After listening to something else the next couple weeks I think I'm going to listen to some recordings by big name conductors who only did a select few of the symphonies to get a better sense of what people think the good stuff is.
>>130285979Whats bad about it?
I have always liked this album even if Sting whispers into your ear for some of it. I also have a collection of sheet music by Dowland and other English composers that is fun to play through on the piano. Does anyone else like 'early music' on this board, if that's the right term for music of Dowland's time and earlier?
>>130287046Metronomic pulse (straight beats constantly), extremely generic sound from the orchestra, and an utterly rolled off sound resulting in it sounding far too soft
>>130287241I'm fond of William Byrd and John Bull. If you enjoy Dowland you might like them. This album is a very accessible entry point.
>uhh wagnuh i wrote another sympony wagnuh
>>130285979I don't know how I continually get suckered to try Nelsons recordings.
Glen Gould is like a mad scientist hunched over making potions or building a monster
And if the snow buries myMy neighborhoodAnd if my parents are cryingThen I'll dig a tunnel from my window to yoursYeah, a tunnel from my window to yours[Verse 2]You climb out the chimney and meet me in the middleThe middle of the townAnd since there's no one else around, we let our hair grow longAnd forget all we used to knowThen our skin gets thicker from living out in the snow Maisie Peters “My Regards” Lyrics & Meaning | Genius Verified[Chorus]You change all the lead, sleeping in my headAs the day grows dim, I hear you sing a golden hymn[Verse 3]Then we tried to name our babies but we forgot all the names thatThe names we used to knowBut sometimes we remember our bedrooms and our parents' bedroomsAnd the bedrooms of our friendsThen we think of our parents, well, what ever happened to them?[Chorus]You change all the lead, sleeping in my head to goldAs the day grows dim, I hear you sing a golden hymnIt's the song I've been trying to sing[Outro]Purify the colors, purify my mindPurify the colors, purify my mindAnd spread the ashes of the colors over this heart of mine
>>130287711One of Mahler's most moving Lieder
Und wenn ein Doppeldeckerbus uns überfährt,an deiner Seite zu sterben,ist ein himmlischer Tod. Und wenn ein Zehn-Tonnen-LKW uns beide tötet,an deiner Seite zu sterben,nun, das Vergnügen, das Privileg ist ganz meinerseits.Oh, da ist ein Licht, das niemals erlischt.Wagner-Tristan Und Isolde
>>130287443Kek
>>130287443
>>130287443lmao
>>130287267>Metronomic pulsesold, gonna listen to it now
>there is only one good WTC>hey listen to this fucking Glenn Gould recording>haydn? who is that?>renaissance music sucks>[entry-level saloon tier piano composer] is the greatest artist who ever lived!!this general is populated by 16 year olds, fuck
>>130288000>saloon tier
Siegfried morninghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T0ViMdK89E&list=OLAK5uy_kW-alwDLnzRkqd1RpatnS1mipjGU52je0&index=1>The Hallé completes it's highly regarded Ring cycle, with the live recording of it's acclaimed Bridgewater Hall performance under Sir Mark Elder. "Roaring jubilation and radiant beauty from Elder and the Halle... Elder is a superb Wagnerian, acutely conscious of the complex relationship between tempo and pace, and immaculate in his judgment both of the span of each act and the ebb and flow of detail within it. Thrilling climaxes alternated with moments of astonishing beauty and quiet, almost exquisite terror." (The Guardian on the Halle's performance of Siegfried) The third element of Wagner's Ring cycle contains humor, drama and a concluding ecstasy as the eponymous hero meets his heroine Brünnhilde, setting up the explosive finale of the concluding opera. With enormous orchestral forces and dramatic use of leitmotiv themes the music portrays the full gamut of emotions and provides a perfect vehicle to display the heights of the Hallé's powers under Elder. This production was recorded at the Bridgewater Hall, capturing all the drama of the acclaimed live performance.Zwangvolle Plage! Muh ohne Zweck!
>>130288000>>[entry-level saloon tier piano composer] is the greatest artist who ever lived!!For the last time, in classical, the best stuff is entry-level, entry-level is the best stuff. I'd be more concerned and baffled by someone who tries claiming a less famous composer is the best.>mfw I walk out of the room when anon tries telling me Hans Pfitzner is the greatest composer of all-time
>>130284340>The only good WTC - Samuil Feinberg edition.In seriousness, how many different WTC sets have you even listened to?
True, there ain't many of them Claviers in this saloon, but if I see you fixin to listen to any of em but Feinberg then there's gonna be trouble.
ahemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Eb3vdK-0wM&list=OLAK5uy_n4UH1qlsMerJbFTAMH4v3yS9erlodBXZM&index=26
>>130288000WTC always reminds me of that terrorist attack that occurred in New York City, September 11th 2001 when Al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Centre in the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history
>>130288161The history of modern western civilization is bookended by two different kinds of WTCs.
Spring Symphony Michael Woltershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnSmoG3CDZY
>>130288084I've heard at least 10, and none of them are even remotely likeable. It's all modern crap.Feinberg is the closest we'll get to how the real musicians of the 17th-19th centuries would perform these pieces
Haydn? Not in this here saloon. We only listen to Chopin and Feinberg's WTC here, pardner.
>>130288212>It's all modern crap.Never a good sign when someone sincerely uses this phrase. But fair enough.
No Wagner fans here have Apple Music Classical and can try out the new Luisi Ring and report to us their impressions?https://classical.music.apple.com/us/album/1885975796>"I don't want to make it sound any bigger than it is," Fabio Luisi tells Apple Music classical. "But performing the Ring is a spiritual journey. It really changes you as a person."... "This was a once-in-a-lifetime project for everybody--for the orchestra, for the musicians, for the community, for the audience," says Luisi. "And if we were going to do it, we had to do it well."... "The Ring is indeed the theater of life."
>>130288238Whose Chopin? We don't like all Chopin in this Salon
>>130288398If it ain't Cortot, it's got to go, pardner.
Tearoom Trash that's what Chopin is
Chopinhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLGlVsZdIsY&list=OLAK5uy_l56ekZ1o8S2X-c-DWhYV4xMNE0vVNzJdM&index=7
I don't think you can listen to Chopin and not become a pretty little girl fond of nostalgic memories.
Beethovenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gVlRurtl4I&list=OLAK5uy_nnGkkuJ4lQTqShj3fWwz8RjEOICSW9RF0&index=18I think I might revisit this cycle. It's perfect for a grey, overcast day. Did the anon who posted and asked about it the other day give it a try? Hopefully you enjoyed it. It's very good. There's just such steep competition with so many cycles by great pianists. This one might be only worth one listen-through in my opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't a highly enjoyable and worthwhile experience. And who knows, it might come to grow on me eventually. I do love Scherbakov's gorgeous, comfy piano tone.
>>130288440You find little girls pretty anon?
>>130288474How many of these have you listened to?
>>130288504Beethoven piano sonata cycles? idk. 40? 50?
>>130288474https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQPzOefDrlw&list=OLAK5uy_nnGkkuJ4lQTqShj3fWwz8RjEOICSW9RF0&index=59Beethoven for the gentle, romantic soul. Definitely not for those who like their Beethoven fiery or straightforward or virtuosic or jaunty.
>>130288412Correct.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdZu5z5u_jM
what does /classical/ think of older recordings (pre 1940) ? For me, the "fuzz" in the background gives it a certain charm.
>>130288600There's undoubtedly a pleasurable warmth and charm to hiss and other auditory artifacts on historical recordings, and it can be especially nice when I'm in the mood for it. That said, ultimately I think the compromised sound quality makes them intrinsically inferior to modern stereo recordings with clean production. https://litter.catbox.moe/4mpjbg9w3qj0hvpi.flacI mean maybe if it were a circumstance where a piece only had two recordings, one historical with a great performance, and one modern with a poor interpretation, but in classical, where the masterpieces and standard repertoire are recorded constantly, this simply isn't the case -- you will always, always be able to find a modern recording with flawless production and a satisfactory interpretation.
>>130288665 >you will always, always be able to find a modern recording with flawless production and a satisfactory interpretationNot once you start noticing the subtle nuance and detail.>>130288600 Definitely preferable to anything modern, always and without exception, unfortunately!
sigh... I was born in the wrong generation... I wish I was born in 1907 so that I could listen to old recordings when they were still new... alas!
>>130288719>Not once you start noticing the subtle nuance and detail.yeah yeah yeahyou might have a point if clean production didn't exist until 2010 or so. if you wanna dismiss most recordings after that point, saying conductors and musicians these days lack a certain something, fine. but we're talking ~1960, and to suggest there's been no one good for these standard repertoire pieces since then is simply ridiculous. to each their own, I suppose.>>130288743>tfw will never be Proust listening to opera in bed on your théâtrophone in 1911I wonder what the audio quality was like.
>>130288758There were good ones, but much less.
>>130288758>I wonder what the audio quality was likeI don't think it mattered back then. Wav, flac, mp3, ape or whatever else doesn't matter either unless you have a good hi-fi system. I still can't tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and a flac file lmfao.
>>130288600By default I prefer higher quality recordings and pre-1950 is kind of my cutoff point where I'm bothered by it, but that's just preference and not a dealbreaker.. I usually don't like them for orchestral recordings but there are exceptions. https://youtu.be/32uH2OMgT38?t=623Here's an example of a pre-1940 recording I actually quite like
>>130288046"entry-level" doesn't mean "popular" you retard; it means simple enough for someone who knows nothing about the subjected to grasp. it means lacking in complexity in a way that attracts dilettantes.
>>130288971Kill yourself you actual dilettante.
>>130289042>no u!back to the playground
>>130289138Meds.
>>130288971Right. We all know that the best entry level pieces that get people hooked on classical are Czerny Etudes, don't we?
Here's a real criterion to determine whether a piece is "entry-level:" has it ever been used in a commercial?
>>130289180wrong. just because it's popular, doesn't mean it's entry level.
>>130289213yes it does actually.
https://youtu.be/YTpSX2so0ss?si=Dc9gRTAMCmqK2O6f58 minute Hurwitz kino
Beethoven's piano sonatas may get better over time, the more late the work, but I personally find the earlier ones much easier listening. For any sonata after the 16th, I generally have to be in the mood for it. That one and earlier, I can listen to them at any time. Anyone else feel me on this?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jr0zujDvpwo&list=OLAK5uy_nnGkkuJ4lQTqShj3fWwz8RjEOICSW9RF0&index=10This I could listen to and enjoy at any time of the day while in any mood.
>>130289531Yeah, I've noticed 3 is really popular and I like it too. 1, 3, and most of 8-15 are sonatas I really like
I've been getting into Mahler the past year, it's crazy how I end up loving every single symphony, even if I don't like it at first several listens. You just keep listening to it and then suddently it clicks one day; it's a really rewarding experience. I've "processed" the first 7 symphonies (only the adagio of the 3rd remains), currently listening to recordings of the 9th. The 8th, 10th, and DLVDE remain.
>>130290918Mahler rabbit hole is always a good time. That recording is terrible, btw.
>>130290952Articulate your position. I like all of Jurowski's Mahler I've heard.
>>130289268You don't see Dave make high effort videos like that anymore.
>>130290968I don't mind him in Mahler generally, but that 9th is a pass. Audio quality wise I feel it overemphasizes the lower strings, which allows you to hear some rarely heard details, but overall it just comes across as incredibly blurry in the more dense passages (the first movement climax comes to mind, which sounds very inarticulate), but the worst part is the rubato, which is very off/on hard contrasts which isn't really idiomatic or interesting at all, and just comes across as attention seeking rather than an attempt at organic tempo rubato.
>>130290918Mahler 9 is peak. I suggest the best interpreter who has not been topped: Walter. The 1961 Columbia (avoid the random youtube remaster) has great recording quality anyone can enjoy. His earlier Vienna one is for the top elite classical connoisseurs.
>>130288000>>hey listen to this fucking Glenn Gould recordingI take it this is because you are already too familiar with every single Glen Gould performance, having heard all of them several times and consider it to be too obvious?
Glenn Gould's version of Mozart no. 11 is just so fucking good. I will always stand by ithttps://youtu.be/mox6VdYXJo0
I started listening to Bruckner's 5th symphony but just thought 'no this is just stupid I'm not having this'
How did he do ithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEQy5bxOkSI
>>130291163I wish orchestras still played with this level of string portamento, it's so soulfulMahler especially needs it
>>130291182It's not just portamento, but dynamic range, the singing quality, rhythmic pulse and every little expressive nuance that's so rich in these recordings. Mahler needs as much expression as Mengelberg showed was possible.
>>130291152Couldn't they have just gagged him? I knows it's kind of demeaning but if he really genuinely couldn't stop singing maybe it was the only way.Or created the Glen Gould box where the keys of the piano where in the same room, but the strings where in a separate soundproofed room
>>130291162It's certainly structurally and melodically weird.
>>130290918Glad to hear you've joined the club, anon :)And yes, I feel you on the acclimation. First few times I listened to, say, the 3rd, 7th, and 9th, I had zero idea what I was hearing, my brain could not grasp the musical architecture of what I was listening to. Until one day it did, and I fell in love.
anyone learn to appreciate Beethoven's Diabelli Variations, Op. 120 yet?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cohum3Tum8Y
>>130291465I learned to hate it properly.
Does anyone else find variations kind of an annoying form? It's hard to follow when the melody is greatly transformed and too repetitive when it's not
>>130291532I'm too stupid to follow it as a proper variations form, so I just treat it like it's, I don't know, an extended Rhapsody or Ballade or whatever you wanna call it, and in that case, they're fine, but outside of Bach's masterpiece Goldberg Variations, there aren't any I listen to on a regular basis, from Beethoven to Brahms to Rachmaninoff.
>>130284411>The point on which I believe I have surpassed past and present composers could be summed up in a single wordLol stopped reading there If only he could have surpassed his ego.
>>130291604Greatness recognizes itself, anon.
>>130291636Bombast is only greatness in the ears of buffoons
>>130291647Arrogance blinds your inner Mahler from freeing itself
>>130291761>inner Mahler I gassed it a long time ago
>>130291828Anon, that kind of attitude won't help you in life.
>>130291836Spoken like someone with a superficial notion of success.
>tfw patrician gf says I have two days to learn the words to Durufle's Motets or we're DONEO_Ohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBvHUMP3D8Y
Huh, turns out there is one more modern Ring cycle I hadn't discovered till now, performed by Alex Kober/Duisburger Philharmoniker. Exciting stuff, more to try!I haven't sampled it yet, so I have no opinion for now. Here's a part from the Die Walkure,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeyNj1CNi0M&list=OLAK5uy_l2rQxjNgUNL5Jjmn61V6O5M2AOz4uCrAA&index=4All four operas parts are on YouTube Music, so I'd assume they're on other streaming services as well. So this brings the modern set count to... 7? Thielemann/Bayreuth, Thielemann/Vienna State, Zweden/Hong Kong, Simone Young/Hamburg, Mark Elder/Halle, the upcoming Luisi/Dallas, and now this one, Kober/Duisburger.
>>130292107Oh, forgot to mention that it appears to have been performed from 2017-2019, and released in 2020. Surprised I hadn't heard of it till now. That usually doesn't bode well for the quality, but hey, we'll see.
>>130292107>>130292124One more oversight: I forgot one cycle, the Janowski/RS Berlin set. So that makes 8 modern Rings. My bad.
>>130288395Enjoy https://am-dl.pages.dev/
>>130291465if you get rid of all the variations in major modes it becomes a pretty good and enjoyable work
>>130292398I thought the emotional contrasts was part of the genius. Or so I'm told.
Plus the other reason I like to constantly rotate recordings, rather than listen to the same one or few even if they're the best, is because it simulates attending live performances -- every concert, you'll gonna see someone different than you did the previous night. So having 10+ WTC or Beethoven piano sonata cycles or Bruckner symphony cycles or Mahler symphonies or Tchaikovsky symphonies on hand just helps approximate a similar experience at home.
>In his analysis of the Études, André Boucourechliev emphasizes this point: "Chopin is contradicted at every moment. Looking back through history, one stops at Beethoven, and even more at Gesualdo, that prince of continuous discontinuity...". According to him, Debussy's antecedents "are not Franck or Mussorgsky, but the anonymous composers of the Middle Ages, Monteverdi, and Gesualdo".>Harry Halbreich adopts the same perspective, seeing in Debussy "a liberator, as only Claudio Monteverdi had been before him". Marguerite Long confirms this link forged by Debussy between the Baroque aesthetic and the postmodern perspectives of the 20th century, based on her personal recollections:Adulthood is realizing Debussy's late period was the apotheosis of the Classical tradition. It started with the French and it ended with the French, just like poetry.
>>130292215:OThank you very much. I feel bad for stealing but I can't help myself, I'm very excited for the new release.
>>130292691you need to try branching out. obscure romantic and soviet era Russian composers is a good place to start.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YJXymOU0M
>>130292735I did the whole explore all the lesser-known and obscure composers and pieces phase already. Currently I'm content listening to a diverse rotation of a handful of masterpieces I love. I'm sure it'll shift again in the near future.
>>130292747or you'll wind up in a padded cell. whichever comes first.
>>130292708Pirating from a company worth 4+ trillion $ is a morally good action, anon. Donate a fiver to orchestra if you want to feel better.
>>130288395It's time...https://litter.catbox.moe/b0xybf.m4ahttps://litter.catbox.moe/igfpw1.m4ahttps://litter.catbox.moe/rb6suo.m4ahttps://litter.catbox.moe/k1oufl.m4a>>130292215thanks again!
>>130292881rule 1.
>>130292881Ouch. Horrible start, that singing is dreadful. That fucking Alberich wtf
>>130292910True, anyone not already under the spell of Wagner should stay away from the links in that post. However I really want to hear the opinion of the other Wagner fans here, even if it's just the first four parts of Das Rheingold (that said, I'd be happy to upload any requested part).
>>130292910Bait should be believableDogma should be defensibleRitual should be repeatableLiturgy should be legibleBelief should be beautifulWhat fulfils these conditions in the decadent modern world in which "God is Dead"? Answer: the holy poetry of Richard Wagner and his "Sacred Festival Stage Play" which transforms and supersedes religion.https://youtu.be/yF0pwSC7qWg?list=PL_Cf5Xxn5OZY1gE9zsWHAjXz6MVz9IZYS
>>130292936The voices are certainly... histrionic. I've always wondered in cases like this, are we to assume every voice is to the conductor's liking and vision, or are they forced to occasionally compromise because of budget or availability issues? One would like to think a conductor would just refuse the project if they didn't feel everything was up to their standard, but, of course, the paycheck, plus should they really cancel the whole thing if it's only one or two parts they're unhappy with? Point is, we can never really know.Anyway, thanks for trying it and your input.
>>130292864I deserve it because yesterday my YouTube Music subscription increased one dollar to $15.99 a month. So I'm allowed to steal from Apple this one time.
>>130292881I should have uploaded and included the famous, pivotal fifth part too, my bad.https://litter.catbox.moe/bwryd8.m4a
Beethovenhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V1ua3p9LkY&list=OLAK5uy_kp-FttKau2UpE-GKf8-h4lvOJDZXUbFxs&index=1
>>130292881>>130293050I like it. A lot of power, which is no surprise since it's Luisi, and that's how he conducts everything (Solti-esque). It works well here. The voices, well, the voices sound like how I'd expect any modern Wagner recording to sound. It's not like Luisi was gonna find the only cast of singers who still sing like it's the 1950s.
>>130291636>>130291761>>130291836Mahleranon please kill youself>>130291604>>130291647>>130291828>>130291869All firetruck plebs need to listen to this anon.
>>130293597>>>130291636(You)>>>130291761>>>130291836>Mahleranon please kill youselfyikes
>>130293597>firetruck musicAs opposed to what? Icecream van music?
It seems the Reference Recording dude has a remaster of Edwin Fischer's WTCRRhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRReFSRlmsA&list=OLAK5uy_mFZ72HpxM2DKOqZ5D_43YGOjKjoi6eTeU&index=1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slNxGWlrmP8&list=OLAK5uy_mFZ72HpxM2DKOqZ5D_43YGOjKjoi6eTeU&index=2EMIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmFwQL-rhJ8&list=OLAK5uy_mnpvWlaSPm2AEOnvaaTAX_VQop923bXRM&index=1I know some of you hate anything to do with this guy. How did he do here?
>>130294332They're both from the same source, it's just the RR applied some EQ, applied reverb, and called it a day. Dude was lazy he didn't even bother applying wow correction (she the wobbly pitch of the keyboard in my image)
>>130294448like this shit is so easy to do and takes no time at all (pic is from my collection)
>>130294448>>130294459rip, thanksI am really curious if he gets money from plays/listens on his releases. Seems scummy.
>>130294522I would assume Warner would be suing his ass for stealing their transfers if he wasn't licensing stuff from them. Which, maybe he is. But the whole affair seems strange.
>>130294536I used to think he chose old recordings that have an expired license or were always public domain (ex: Furtwangler's Rings, Casals' Bach Cello Suites) but then he also has stuff that absolutely cannot be (ex: Kempe's Lohengrin, Bohm's Magic Flute, Kna's Parsifal). So I really don't know. If he does make money, then he's like one of those dudes who steals people's content on YouTube or uploads AI books on Amazon en masse, just the pure dredge of the disgusting hypercapitalist post-modern world. But then maybe he's just a noob who's simply passionate.I will say, I did come across a post on another classical forum, either TC or GMG, and from what the posters said, it seemed like they actually paid for his recordings from his site! That really baffled me. Again, I'm not sure though.
>>130292773do I get to have my computer in there so I can continue to explore classical recordings?
>>130292706so the babiaa guy was right? damn...
Fuck babiaa cuck. German romantic and Chopin is the only worthwhile music.
What is the most romantic interpretation of Mozart's symphonies?
>>130295449get help.
>>130295810The best Mozart is by Strauss, Walter and other 19th century mastershttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SQkZS7gNuI
>>130294448>>130294459Just so lazy. I can do this in foobar in real time. Who buys this except gigs boomers and retards?
Post 1940's Mozart is unbearable and unlistenable to me. That applies to most composers in fact, but Mozart especially was ruined and defiled by those HIP fanatics beyond comprehension. Here's the correct way to perform Mozarthttps://youtu.be/axcdYP9MinU?si=PzoPSu2GryPw51I5
>>130295810Depending what you mean by romantic, Klemperer and Karajan.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT326dxzfBg&list=OLAK5uy_kC_jdEwUF_P8KfkGuSEhg8CpyTcjMc-Pg&index=33
>>130296991The K-God and the K-Demiurge.
>>130296991Modernists disguised as romantics. Klemperer is somewhere inbetween, Karajan is barely romantic.
>>130295810Walter.https://youtu.be/Q5nQiZkXG4A>>130296991Not what Romantic means. Both modernist conductors.
>>130297077>>130297242do you think romantic means rubato and portamento or something?
>>130297242>Walter.My guy.
>>130297405No, romantic does not mean "rubato and portamento", but it essentially includes both rubato and portamento.
>>130297405Simplest answer is that Romantic interpretation means high emphasis on subjectivity. It doesn't 'mean' rubato but often involves it because shaping a piece towards personal expressivity usually involves it. Klemperer and Karajan both conducted in a much more objective style that stressed regularity and in Karajan's case, a very smoothed-over and consistent sound.
Bernstein for everything
>>130297460His Mozart isn't bad, actually.
>>130297460best Haydn
>>130297446I'd disagree. There's certainly a huge amount of personality in romantic interpretations, but they have stronger objective fundaments than modernists, specifically in regards to bel canto, voice/hand independence, attention to thr form.
>>130297600Not what I meant by objective. Romantic interpretation encourages hand independence because its object is subjectivity and expressivity. By objective I don't mean focus on technical fundamentals but on interpreting the music 'as written' or according to other extrinsic criteria besides expressivity, for example historical performance later in the century.
>>130297648>its object is subjectivity and expressivity. By objective I don't mean focus on technical fundamentals but on interpreting the music 'as written'I entirely disgaree with the idea that music can be written out in the score exactly as the composer intended its performance. The comments by Mozart himself about rubato and performance in general are very clear - ignoring that is going against the established, "objective" standards for what was intended by tbe composwr (and could not have been written out in the score).>“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.”- Mozart
>>130297648>>130297709Furthermore, shouldn't it be noted that it was the modernism in philosohphy that isolated subjectivity and began rejecting objective, universal truths?Why would it be any different in music?
A simple question: What are some of the best recordings of the Ondine movement of Maurice Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit?
>>130297709I agree and I also prefer Romantic interpretation. But again, I am using subjectivity in the narrower meaning of expressing personality than the colloquial meaning of 'relative' or purely personal without technical merits ('it's all subjective, man'). It's not that Romantic interpretation lacks fundamentals but that subjectivity is itself the *object* of value.>>130297802You have it the wrong way wrong. Modernism was ultra-objective, 'form follows function' etc. You're thinking of postmodernism.
>>130297826*wrong way around
>>130297811Wish I could help you but I don't even understand the work, so even though I've heard many recordings, I can't begin to compare them.That said, this one is recently very acclaimed,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vewtUPKz05o&list=OLAK5uy_mf8AKPBWF5KXmASboFLbIcqZsCW_4hrCc&index=13and another essential choice ishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew0d-hderKs&list=OLAK5uy_n4oXvP23jHFxWRyMuNV7rZcyWSBuI60DY&index=1Hope this helps!
>>130295957Was never a huge fan of Walter's Mozart amongst 19th century conductors. He was good no doubt but he doesn't really have my preferred sense of tempo and balance for the pieces (especially as far as wind color is concerned)
>>130297811https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQBDYoT5bzs
Another excerpt from the Luisi Ringhttps://litter.catbox.moe/ajmol2.m4a>>130292881>>130292936
>>130288600love emhttps://youtu.be/M_ryQa4Ozw0?list=RDM_ryQa4Ozw0&t=1148
new Annees de pelerinage set I just came across, performed and recorded by a Brian Hsuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaaTa_lDeG0&list=OLAK5uy_loU0mLndrlwqAQH7W1z-3DFV1N4Oj3xLM&index=1>Brian Hsu explains how the inception of the album came during COVID: "These pieces became a way for me to travel through music-to wander the mountains of Switzerland, drift along the canals of Venice, and encounter the art and architecture of Italy through Liszt's imagination. In a moment defined by isolation, this repertoire offered connection, motion, and emotional release.>"Hsu's performances trace these connections, bringing forth the vivid imagery, energy, youthful exploration, and outward discovery in Books I (Suisse) and II (Italie). His performances then underline how Book III unfolds as a spiritual pilgrimage-an inward journey shaped by reflection and acceptance.Brian Hsu was drawn from an early age to the imagination, virtuosity, emotional range, and expressive power of Liszt's music, and he took on the recording of this work as a "personal challenge".> Recordings of the complete Suites have been achieved in full by fewer than two dozen pianists. Hsu presents Liszt not only as the virtuoso whose technical brilliance reshaped the piano literature, but as a poet, philosopher, and artist whose musical language evolved alongside his professional and personal life. Liszt is deeply associated with dazzling virtuosity and showmanship, but this represents only one facet of a composer whose artistic voice grew increasingly reflective, restrained, and forward-looking over time. Hsu's interpretation of Annees de pelerinage presents the comprehensive view that each Book offers a distinct emotional world, and that together, they form a narrative that mirrors the stages of a life well-lived.
>>130298748>Anus de Penis large
>>130298981don't show your face in my bar ever again
Reminder no cracKKKer on Earth can compete with the original Black man when it comes to music. All this old ahh unc shit is trash
>>130298520lovely choice
Weekly reminder Tchaikovsky has lots of solo piano music and it's worth listening tohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzKWLTLrtck&list=OLAK5uy_mXe0PPUqjYuJvv8iEpKVNbAeH0_cmp8ss&index=6It's like the halfway point between Chopin and Rachmaninoff. Hope you check out and enjoy this recording, RachAnon!
>>130299145>Hope you check out and enjoy this recording, RachAnon!I can't even listen to Tchaikovsky's piano concerto without my mind wandering off in the first 5 minutes. As much as I love the VC and his orchestral music, Tchaikovsky couldn't write for piano at all. It's uninspired. Much like Brahms. Brahms still managed to churn out top tier PCs, but his piano writing is terrible. I leave piano for someone who actually knows how to use it (Chopin), to quote Fauré:>"In piano music there's no room for padding – one has to pay cash and make it consistently interesting. It's perhaps the most difficult genre of all."But yes I'll check it out, even if I'm not fan of the music nor its interpretation.
>>130299263>Brahms still managed to churn out top tier PCs, but his piano writing is terrible.You don't even like his Ops. 116-119? The Hungarian Dances? The Ballades, Rhapsodies, and Waltzes!? Hmm. Missing out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRDqbNnBxCMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIqrWf3B_mIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI22zuymTMYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7JSs9rVX3UI assume you already have preferred recordings for the late piano works, so I linked the other great pieces I named. I mean c'mon, how can you not love those Hungarian Dances for piano!>Tchaikovsky couldn't write for piano at all. It's uninspired.I agree his solo piano stuff isn't first-rate, but it's still nice for a change-of-pace, something new and different to have on.>But yes I'll check it out, even if I'm not fan of the music nor its interpretation.Neat, enjoy :D
>>130299313I like them, but for exmaple I much, much prefer the orchestrated hungarian dances and I'd rather listen to the other works orchestrated as well, they don't sound good on the piano. I don't remember the last time I listened to the piano version, and it's actually one of my first favorite classical pieces.
>>130299354>I like them, but for exmaple I much, much prefer the orchestrated hungarian dancesFair enough.> and I'd rather listen to the other works orchestrated as wellWhat in the world are you talking about? Which other pieces have an orchestration aside from the Hung Dances?
>>130299370They unfortunately don't, at leadt to my knowledge, but if they were orchestrated it would've been great.I think the piano quintet or cello sonata no.1 have some nice pianistic textures, like the main theme in the quintet, it's not always that bad. But the ballades just sound ugly, I bet they'd work much better if someone orchestrated them.
>>130299414Ah, okay, I see what you mean. I thought there were perhaps some Brahms' orchestrations I was missing out on, in which case I was about to demand some links! Similar to these wonderful cello+piano arrangements of these Brahms lieder.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Nvj9TieSA&list=OLAK5uy_lByhyVivOcxDZfhv6p6fJoJwFzvqNglIU&index=11So good!
>>130299354Personally I agree with the orchestral versions of the Hungarian Dances being better (including the ones Brahms didn't do)However, if you watn to try and get into Brahms' piano work, I really recommend trying the Handel variationshttps://youtu.be/ZvyWYRQG6ZI
>>130299446Sounds very interesting, thanks.All this reminds me of the supreme Stokowski transcriptions, their quality can't be overstated!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEUYq5t-cCM
>>130299446Not that anon but I'll have to listen to that. Speaking of the Hungarian Dances, I'm really fond of Joachim's arrangement for Violin and Piano duet, so a Cello/Piano arrangement of some of his songs might be right up my alley.https://youtu.be/faMy8y1cWvA
>>130297826Forgot to respond to this: I don't think these interpretations are necessarily "romantic", I call them just authentic. If composer intended the piece to be performed with rubato in the right hand, then not doing so is actually what's more subjective, whereas by playing rubato you can remain both objective (play exactly what the composer intended) and express yourself in other, subtle ways.Think about it this way: a young composer who's taught harmony will likely produce better, more creative music than who wasn't taught anything. Sounds a bit pararoxical, but it's true. It's same for rubato, in a sense, it's a rule you have to learn, a restriction, from which far more and better creativity can emerge.>Modernism was ultra-objective, 'form follows function' etc. You're thinking of postmodernism.Modernism at the beginning, yes, even in music, but postmodernists didn't come up with their ideas all by themselves. The line between modernism and postmodernism is thin.
>>130299636I mean yes, if you insist on using the word subjective in a manner different from my intention, then of course it is more subjective. I have said twice now that by objective I mean the submission to extrinsic criteria rather adhering to expressivity, which includes what the composer intended. Karajan subjected much of his interpretation to the same objective model regardless of composer. This approach was itself a reaction to the extremes of Romantic interpretation in conductors like Mengelberg and Furtwängler, much as modernism was elsewhere.>Modernism at the beginning, yes, even in music, but postmodernists didn't come up with their ideas all by themselves. The line between modernism and postmodernism is thin.Not any more than Romanticism and modernism. Wagner is often rightly stated to have initiated modern music, in the same way as Baudelaire in poetry. Baudelaire was a reader of Poe and Tennyson, a creature of the 19th century as much as Wagner, but it didn't stop him from being appropriated by T.S. Eliot. The astringency and objectivity of modernism are its defining characteristics, against the highly wrought and subjective expressivity of especially late Romantic and Decadent art. But they lead into each other, as is personally evident in for example the career of Schoenberg. But to fold all these tendencies into each other strips them of meaning. The gradient between red, blue, and violet does not disprove the existence of the colours.
>>130299578I can't quite put my finger on why but this just doesn't work as well as either the solo piano or orchestrated versions. It kind of feels like the piano and violin merely happen to be playing at the same time without ever truly meeting.
>>130299722I understand what you mean, I was only elaborating on my position. I think it's nonsensical to say Karajan's modernist approach is "objective" when it's highly unique and strips away composer's intent from the music, much like Gould's Bach although that is an extreme case - Bach specifically outlined the importance of singing tone in his preface to inventions, yet Gould does the opposite, and some actually call that "objective" since it stripped away all semblence of expression from music. Being objective does not mean you have to be expressionless, it simply means your feelings shouldn't distort your senses>expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsBut the "facts" here are inherently musical and expressive. Without expression, it's no longer the "factual statement" by the composer.But again, I understand where you're coming from.>But they lead into each other, as is personally evident in for example the career of Schoenberg. Yes Schoenberg greatly illustrates this point, he was a romantic, his performances were respectful to composer's intentions, yet also a modernist.So modernist conductors like Karajan are closer to the postmodernism than they are to late romantic/early modernist. As you suggest, it's a spectrum.
>>130299888>I think it's nonsensical to say Karajan's modernist approach is "objective" when it's highly unique and strips away composer's intent from the music>expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsAgain, not the kind of objectivity I mean. I am talking in an almost grammatical or philosophical sense. Since you cited Merriam-Webster, I will point out the second definition:>existing outside of the mind : existing in the real worldWhen Karajan subjects every composer to the same interpretive treatment, he is subjecting them to an extrinsic object outside of expressive particularities. It isn't objective as pertaining to undistorted by personal feeling but as pertaining to being disinterested in subjective particularities.I think you are right to suggest that modernism's extreme adherence to following objective and formal models of aesthetic quality to the point of artistic perversity leads naturally into postmodernism. It's almost obvious to reframe Karajan or HIP as expressing an artistic particularism rather than an objective model. And I also agree that it's rather futile to subject inherently expressive artistic production to rigid, inflexible systems of interpretation. But the intentions of modernists were always to resist subjectivism and assert some new kind of universal system for producing and interpreting culture, like serialism in music, or Eliot's obsession with Dante and New Criticism in poetry.
>>130297446both Klemperer and Karajan were so subjective anyone can tell they're the conductors of a given recording in seconds
>>130300066Again, this isn't what I mean by subjective. Of course modernist performers have distinctive styles and are not just Kapellmeisters beating time. Actually, they can be some of the most mannered and particular performers. That is different from upholding subjectivity as a value in itself.
Brucknerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dlj6Z7q7gcU&list=OLAK5uy_m6KV7ODKa-7nqAtaUkjPhm5ZHmAOsuxZw&index=3
I hat Bernstein but I hate him on my knees
>>130300394For some reason his Mozart and Haydn hit just right but otherwise I'm not into him
>>130300106I don't think anyone in this thread quite gets what you have been trying to say (myself included).
Brahms is clams
>>130300555Just say you do so we can all move on with our lives
>>130300555It's not complex. This thread constantly posts quotations from modernists like Ravel and Stravinsky distancing themselves from Wagner and the straining for expression and authenticity characteristic of Romanticism in favour of form and structure. This is not so different. Modernists set up new, consciously artificial and formal standards for making and interpreting art. These standards are objective in the sense that they exist independent of the composer's expression or the performer's experience. Performers influenced by this at the midcentury peak of modernism, like Karajan or Gould, approach interpretation by imposing their ideas top-down systemically.You watch an interview with a HIPster and he'll tell you he's playing in this way because he's adhering to specific historical practices based on such-and-such treatises and instrument building techniques etc. etc. Compare this to Wagner describing Bach as a Sphinx who represented the human face and expression emerging from nature and elaborating on a gradual progression of ever more expressive music. Romantic interpretation upholds the idea that making that 'human face' more visible is the point. Modernists employ objective and artificial systems to which subjectivity is subordinated.
>>130300004 >but as pertaining to being disinterested in subjective particularities.This would make sense if Karajan was simply playing as MIDI would, but he's got a character, a style, so I don't understand how he would be disinterested in "subjective particularities".As I understand it, the reason modernists are usually referred to as "objective" is not that they lack character, rather that they meticulously follow the score. But here's an analogy, we can't read Sumerian scripture exactly the way it was intended, correct? So if you ignore the information we have about Sumerian language and instead read its transliteration as if it were Latin, you wouldn't be "objective" in the truest sense of the word, you would utilize a formal, "objective" system (Latin), sure, but you would not read it as it was intended to be read. It would hardly be "Sumerian". The same applies to music, scores don't tell you how to phrase melodies, musicians are supposed to know that intrinsically after rigid musical training. So when someone reads the score as if it were the only source of information about the music and they try to present that as "objective", I think they're just trying to trick me into thinking that's the "correct way" of playing it, not that they're relying on some abstract "formal system". Utilizing a formal system is not enough to call it objective, in my opinion.>But the intentions of modernists were always to resist subjectivism and assert some new kind of universal system for producing and interpreting cultureYes. The universal system existed since the baroque period, the modernists rejected it and tried to replace it. Not sure if they succeeded however.
>>130300694nope. brahms is god
>>130301314>This would make sense if Karajan was simply playing as MIDI would, but he's got a character, a style, so I don't understand how he would be disinterested in "subjective particularities".I don't know how to explain it in a way that you will understand then. His style is objective because it is an extrinsic *object* not strictly related to the composer's expression. He imposes top-down and its application is generalised across different pieces and composers. It isn't concerned with the particular human *subject*. To repeat the Wagner/Bach analogy here >>130300766, Karajan doesn't typically treat composers or pieces as different 'human faces' to be brought out individually. Same with your Gould example in which he ignores Bach's intentions. 'Objective' here doesn't mean just following the score, although that can be *one* expression of modernism (Boulez: 'The aim of music is not to express feelings but to express music').>you would utilize a formal, "objective" system (Latin), sure, but you would not read it as it was intended to be read.Yes, Latin is an objective system with formal rules, and that's precisely what I mean by objective, regardless of whether the system is applied appropriately. It's perfectly legitimate to disagree with the ideas of modernism, but I think it's important to understand things on their own terms, and I don't imply that they were correct just by using the word. I understand that people colloquially use 'objective' to simply mean 'correct', and that is not my meaning. As I said, I broadly agree with you that modernist efforts had at best mixed success. But that doesn't mean they weren't, in a very plain and literal sense, interested in making music objective.
>>130301585you think Furtwängler's style wasn't "an extrinsic *object* not strictly related to the composer's expression and imposed top-down with its application generalised across different pieces and composers"?
>>130300766>>130301585
>>130301358
>>130301707Furtwängler's style was nowhere near as polished and homogenised as Karajan's, although in fairness the latter has a very different relationship with recorded music. Regardless their whole interpretative approach to music is completely at odds. Merely possessing a style is not the same as being subjective. A Kapellmeister beating time is not taking an objective approach but simply a characterless one.
>>130301585I'm pretty sure you are the only person on this green earth who uses the word "objectively" to mean that.
>>130301821Given that it's in the dictionary, no.
1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretationsb of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum2a philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real worldcompare subjective sense 3ab : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomenac of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individualcompare subjective sense 4cd : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence—used chiefly in medieval philosophy3 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbsHuh, "imposing an extrensic object upon a work of art" is not on there. Weird.
>>130301847I had this conversation with my precious interlocutor. >existing outside of the mind : existing in the real worldThis is what I mean. This is effectively just grammar: there are subjects and objects. Subjects concern human feelings, human thoughts. Objects are extrinsic to the subject. Modernists wanted to purify music of Romantic subjectivity by re-systematising it. That is where imposing their ideas systemically comes in. None of this should be hard to follow.
>>130301918You lost me. What about the part regarding grammar, subjects, and objects?I kid, I kid.
Objective interpretation is an oxymoron.
>>130301985Yes but it's still a spectrum, of which you can be further down one side or the other, I think is what anon's getting at.
>...and that's when I replied, "Tannhauser? I hardly know her!">*laughtrack*
>"...so she asked if I wanted to go see a performance of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.">"And? What did you say?">"I said I'd love to, but only if we can get dinner first, because Me-sso Famished!">*laughtrack*
>"...so after their friend played a few pieces on the piano, they brought out some hors d'oeuvres from the fancy fridge.">"Tell them what you said, John.">"So I took a bite, and then I said, 'Ah, the Well-Temped Caviar!'">*laughtrack*
>>130301918Gonna need a brain training book to understand this post
>>130302005>Dan Hauser?
>>130302126I was looking around the Goodwill the other day, and when in the book section, which I always check out first, I saw a book either titled or written by "Millhauser". I thought, oh, is this a Wagner homage? I looked it up when I got home and turns out it's just the author's last name.
>>130301785So then that Kapellmeister would be taking a subjective approach, no? Since subjective and objective are opposites. Or would you argue that he is not interpreting the music at all?
>>130301585How do you know that Karajan wasn't treating each piece individually and simply came to the same conclusion every time?
https://files.catbox.moe/jkkuir.flachow did he do it, anons???
>>130302155Yes, he doesn't have an interpretation, insofar as that's possible. Of course this is all a spectrum and no performance is going to be truly 'faceless', not only because of the interpreter but also the time and place, predominant performance practice, etc. But I'm talking here about interpreters who come to the piece with specific ideas about what music is and ought to be.>>130302165Obviously it's theoretically possible but this becomes pedantic when the result is what it is: highly regular and homogenised.
>Glenn Gould visited him at that time in Japan and as Penderecki met him at the World War II museum Gould looked up at the shocking pictures depicting the gruesome aftermath of the first atomic bomb around him only to be told: "No use looking up there, that’s all been composed by me," insensitively referring to his recently premiered piece, Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima. wtf????
>>130302181Let's say there's a young new conductor who releases his first recording. Would it be possible to determine whether his interpretation was objective, or would one need multiple recordings to see whether his interpretations use a consistent approach?
>>130302245NTA but 'objective' obviously refers to fidelity to the score and perhaps historical performance practice, stop being so dense.
>>130302245Good question. My intuition says that it's going to be trickier at the start of their career to be definitive because performers do change and take some time to settle into a consistent style. Marie-Claire Alain's first Bach organ cycle was quite different from her later ones and I would characterise it as more subjective. She became much more aligned with HIP later, although retaining certain quirks like the bright, reedy registrations typical of French organ-playing. Conversely I would say Haebler's second Mozart cycle was less objective and homogenous in style than her first. It's not impossible to judge, but it helps to have context.
>The young woman visited him at that time and as Chopin met her in his personal room at the inn, she rapidly undressed, only to be met with a disinterested composer; equal amounts dumbfounded and offended, she asked why he had no interest in her body, only to be told: "No use looking over there, that’s all been composed by me," as Chopin listlessly gestured over to the desk at the score for his new piece, Berceuse, Op.57.damn....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nj4fQrj-ik
>>130302039>>130302081:DDDDD
>The Third Symphony is Mahler’s hymn to the natural world and his longest work. It was largely composed in the summer of 1895 after an exhausting and troubling period that pitched him into feverish creative activity. Bruno Walter visited him at that time and as Mahler met him off the ferry Walter looked up at the spectacular alpine vistas around him only to be told: "No use looking up there, that’s all been composed by me.">The first String Quartet, Op. 7, is Schoenberg's hymn to modernity and the digital age. It was largely composed in 1897. Anonymous visited him at that time and as Schoenberg met him off the ferry Anonymous opened 4chan on his phone only to be told: "No use looking on there, that's all been composed by me."damn>The Nocturnes are Chopin's hymn to rank sentimentalism and dishonest emotionality. It was composed during a turbulent, solitary period when Chopin spent all day watching anime locked in his room, daring only to come out after dusk to stealthily steal a plate of cold leftovers. Jan Lisiecki visited him at that time and as Chopin met him outside of his garish Tesla cybertruck Lisiecki opened up reddit on his phone only to be told: "No use looking on there, that's all been composed by me."damn >The first fugue was J.S. Bach's hymn to the fugue-fetishism and fictional God he didn't believe in but lusted after. It was largely composed in the summer of 1703 after a sexually exhausting and troubling period that pitched him into erectile dysfunction. His daddy visited him at that time and as Bach met him at the church, daddy looked up at the spectacular organ pipes that resembled heavenly cocks descending from the heavens around him only to be told: "No use looking up there, that’s all been composed by me."damn
>>130302356>>130302307>>130302238it's such a good format, and the original, actual anecdote is so badass
>>130302251>NTA but 'objective' obviously refers to fidelity to the scoreDo you think Glen Gould shows fidelity to the score?
>>130302392What was the original anecdote?
>>130302406The Mahler one.
After thinking about it for a bit I think that a better word for this concept would be to describe interpretations as idiosyncratic or dogmatic.
>>130302422dogmatic, idiomatic
>>130301785>Regardless their whole interpretative approach to music is completely at odds.not really: late in his career Furtwangler mostly applied the same "take a fast tempo marking very fast and a slow tempo marking very slowly" to all music
>>130302434Dogiomatic
>Fleisher's Brahms piano concerto no.2 is Szell's hymn to profanity. It was largely recorded in the spring of 1962 after a medically troubling period that pitched him into dementia. Bruno Walter visited him at the time and as Szell emerged off the sewage Walter looked up at the spectacular fountain of feces pouring out of it only to be told: "No use looking up there, that's all been conducted by me."Damn.
>>130302170>Chailly's MahlerToo emotionally cool.
Huh, it was more popular than Barber in its time...
>>130302422My problem with those terms is that it is rejecting how they conceived of it themselves. Romantics conceived of themselves as participating in the journey of expanding human expression. Modernists conceived of themselves as rigorous aesthetes clearing away the pompous sentimental decadence of the 19th century. The characterisation of Romanticism as being more preoccupied with the individual subject vs. modernist formalism is well-established, anyway.>>130302457Even if this pretty undercooked description of Furtwängler were sufficient to describe him, it wouldn't matter because again, merely possessing a style is not what I'm talking about. My point is that Furtwängler did not approach interpretation from the same principles as Karajan, whose ultra-refined, practiced, and homogenous sound is legible as a rejection of Furtwängler's spontaneous and 'organic' conducting, not to mention his somewhat questionable orchestral discipline.
>>130297460Seriously though, is there anything he was objectively bad at? He's very good in the Romantics (early and late), he's great in the first Viennese school, he's terrific in modernist stuff, he's at home in American music. I guess I haven't come across him doing atonal music.
>>130302592No one likes getting their hair cut though
>>130302600>is there anything he was objectively bad at?Composing
>>130302666>*laughtrack*
>>130302518lol you really hate that performance huh>>130302592It's always wild how these things shift with time. Things we consider forgettable were the hot piece of their time, and vice versa for the ones we consider the obvious masterpiece now.
>>130302708https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNjuxWAt74Just listened to the first scene and it's great so far. The overture didn't impress me like his others I know, though. Might require more listenings
>>130302732I listened to it a year or two ago and enjoyed it a lot.
what’s the difference between a symphony orchestra and a philharmonic one?
>>130302600 Contrary to popular belief, his Mahler is mid. It could've been Walter-tier, hell, Mengelberg-tier GOATed with all the resources Bernstein had, but alas.Nothing particularly "bad" like Szell though, at least for me. I know there are reasonable people out there who despise Bernstein for valid reasons too, but I don't think he's really unlistenable. Either my ears aren't that well developed yet, or he's really not terrible.
Who would you rather marry, Clara Schumann or Fanny Mendelssohn?
>>130303629Mendelssohn. Kind of a sucker for the cute Victorian ringlets and I probably marginally prefer Fanny as a composer too.
Bachhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU4A8fGKjlA&list=OLAK5uy_l-XXfTW_bAAN4PWbfBO29zDw8Td4brLyY&index=46
>>130303629No different from the men. Mendelssohn ofc.
