/classical/

How about now? voca.ro/11ziHGyTXqtC

Attached: 1648901485909.png (758x564, 368K)

>anglo
>romantic symphony
ew

Rheingold! Rheingold! reines Gold!
O leuchtete noch
in der Tiefe dein laut'rer Tand!
Traulich und treu ist's nur in der Tiefe:
falsch und feig ist was dort oben sich freut!

But it's gud!

To take a stand regarding Schoenberg? To do so is urgently necessary, certainly; it is nonetheless an elusive problem, defying wisdom, perhaps a search without satisfactory result. It would be vain to deny it: the Schoenberg "case" is irritating, above all because of its freight of flagrant incompatibilities. Paradoxically, the essential experience is premature in the very direction in which it lacks ambition. That proposition could easily be turned around to say that it manifests the most demanding ambition where the most outdated symptoms appeal In that major ambiguity resides a misunderstanding full of discomfort over the origin of more or less conscious, more or less violent reticences, which one resents in a work of which, despite everything, one feels the necessity. For with Schoenberg we attend one of the most important revolutions that has ever affected the musical language. The material, properly speaking, certainly does not change: the twelve half-tones. But the structural organization is altered: from tonal organization we pass to serial organization. H ow did the idea of the series materialize' At what exact moment in Schoenberg's oeuvre did it occur' From what deductions did it result? It seems that by following that genesis, we shall come very close to uncovering certain irreducible divergences.

Attached: 1512776513792.jpg (1200x1600, 360.88K)

HERR
Herr höre meine Stimme
HERR
Herr höre meine Stimme

Attached: bach chad.png (480x591, 190.91K)

Perhaps even, likewise and such as.

Let me say, before anything else, that Schoenberg's discoveries were essentially morphological. That evolutive progression started from the post-Wagnerian vocabulary and reached "suspension" of the tonal language. One can detect very well defined tendencies even in Verklärte Nacht; the First Quartet, opus 7; and the Kammersymphonie ; but it is only in certain passages in the scherzo and the finale of the Second Quartet, opus 10, that one can watch a true attempt at revolution. All the works just mentioned therefore are, in a way, preparations; I believe that today we may be all owed to regard them chiefly from a documentary point of view. Suspension of the tonal system is achieved effectively in the Three Pieces for Piano, opus 11. Thereafter, the experiments become more and more penetratingly acute and lead to the renowned Pierrot Lunaire. I note three remarkable phenomena in the writing of these scores: the principle of constantly efficacious variation, or nonrepetition; the preponderance of "anarchic" intervals- presenting the greatest tension relative to the tonal world-and progressive elimination of the octave, the tonal world par excellence; and a manifest attempt to construct contrapuntally.

These three characteristics already diverge, if they do not contradict. In fact, the principle, of variation can he accommodated only badly with rigorous (read: scholastic) contrapuntal writing. One observes a sharp internal contradiction in the exact canons in particular, where the consequent textually reproduces the antecedent-both the sound-figures and the rhythmic figures. When, on the other hand, these canons are produced at the octave, extreme antagonism ensues between a succession of horizontal elements ruled by a principle of abstaining from tonality and vertical control placing the strongest tonal constituent in sharp relief. Nevertheless, a discipline is outlined which will prove very fecund; let us keep in mind very particularly the possibility, still only embryonic, of a series of intervals passing from the horizontal plane to the vertical and vice versa - the separation of the notes a thematic cell from the rhythmic figure that has given it birth, with that cell thus becoming a series of absolute intervals (using that term in its mathematical significance).

Let me revert to the use of the intervals that I have called "anarchic." In Schoenberg's works of that period we often encounter fourths followed by diminished fifths, major sixths preceding major thirds, and all the reversals and interpolations that one can bring to bear upon those two patterns. Here I observe a preponderance of intervals if the unfolding is horizontal, or of chords if it is coagulated vertically, which are least native to the classic harmony based upon superimposed thirds. On the other hand. I note the great abundance of wide intervals, resulting ,in a stretching of the register, and thus giving the absolute pitch of each sound an importance never before dreamed for it.
Such an employment of sound-material provoked some estheticizing explanations that have since been used as an indictment or, at best, as a benevolent defense speech, which has not, however, included any general formulation, Schoenberg himself expounded on this subject in a way that permits us to speak expressionism: "In the formal elaboration of my first works in the new style, I was guided above all by very strong expressive licences In particular and in general, but also, and not least, by a feeling for the form and logic inherited from the tradition and well developed by application and consciousness."

That citation obviates the need for any gloss, and one can only agree on that, first trajectory, in which Schoenberg's manner of musical thinking manifests an interdependence of balance and experiments considered entirely from the formal point of view up, esthetic, poetic, and technique are in phase, If I may again be permitted a mathematical comparison, a flaw that one can pi ck out in each of these realms (I deliberately abstain from any consideration of the intrinsic value of post-Wagnerian expressionism.)

It even seems that in the sequences of Schoenberg's creations that began with the Serenade, opus 4, he found himself outridden by his own discovery; the no man's land of rigor can be located in the Five Pieces for piano, opus 23.
The last point of equilibrium, opus 2 clearly is the inauguration of serial writing, into which the fifth piece -a waltz- introduces us: each of may be permitted to meditate all that very "expressionistic" meeting of the first dodecaphonic composition with a type-product of German romanticism ("Prepare oneself for it by serious immobilities," Satie might have said) .
And there we are, in the presence of a new organization of the sound-world. A still-rudimentary organization that will be codified with the Suite for Piano, opus '5, and the 'Wind Quintet, opus 26, and will attain conscious schematization in the Variations for Orchestra, opus 31.
That exploration of the dodecaphonic realm may be bitterly held against Schoenberg, for it went off in the wrong direction so persistently that it would be hard to find an equally mistaken perspective in the entire history of music.
I do not make this assertion gratuitously. Why?
I do not forget that establishment of the series came, with Schoenberg, from ultrathematization in which, as I said above, thematic intervals could be considered absolute intervals released from all rhythmic or expressive obligation. (The third piece of opus 23, developing o n a succession of five notes, is particularly significant in this respect.)

It behooves me to acknowledge that this ultrathematization remains the underlying idea of the series, which is only its purified outcome. In Schoenberg's serial works, furthermore, the confusion between theme and series is explicit enough to show his impotence to foresee the sound-world that the series demands. Dodecaphonism, then, consists of only a rigorous Iaw for controlling chromatic writing; playing only the role of regulating instrument, the serial phenomenon itself was not, so to speak, perceived by Schoenberg.

What, then, was his ambition, once the chromatic synthesis had been established through the series, or in other words, once this coefficient of security had been adopted? To construct works of the same essence as that of those in the sound-universe he had just left behind, works in which the new technique of writing should "prove its worth." But could that new technique produce convincing results if one did not take the trouble to explore the specifically serial domain in the structures? And I understand the word "structure" as extending from the generation of the constituent elements to the total architecture of a work. In short, a logic of engendering between the serial forms, properly speaking, and the derived structures was generally absent from Schoenberg's preoccupations. And there, it seems, you have what led to the decrepitude of the larger part of his serial oeuvre. The preclassic or classic forms ruling most of the architectures have no historic link to the dodecaphonic discovery; thus an inadmissible hiatus is produced between infrastructures related to the tonal phenomenon and a language in which one again perceives the laws of organization summarily. Not only does the proposed project run aground-such a language was not consolidated by such architectures.- but also the opposite happens, which is to say that those architectures annihilate the possibilities of organization inherent in the new language. The two worlds are incompatible, and Schoenberg had attempted to justify one by the other.

One cannot call that procedure valid, and it produced results that could have been anticipated: the worst sort of misunderstanding. A warped "romantico-classicism" in which the good intentions are not the least unattractive element. One certainly gave no great credit to the serial organization by not allowing it its own modes of development, but substituting other, apparently surer ones. A reactionary attitude that left the door ajar for all the more or less disgraceful holdovers.
The persistence of accompanied melody, for example; of counterpoint based upon principal part and secondary parts (Hauptstimmeand and Nebenstimme).

We are in the presence of a very unhappy heritage owed to scarcely defensible scleroses of a certain bastard language adopted by romanticism. Nor is it only in the limited conceptionist but equally, in the writing itself, that I see reminiscences of a dead world. Under Schoenberg's pen. in fact, there abounded- not without producing irritation- the cliches of redoubtably stereotyped writing representing, there too, the most ostentatious and obsolete romanticism. I refer to those constant anticipations, with expressive leaning on the key note; I mean those false appoggiaturas; Or again, those formulas of arpeggios, of devices, of repetitions, which sound terribly hollow and deserve to be called what they are: "Secondary parts." Finally, I indicate the morose, disagreeable use of " derisively poor- call it ugly: rhythmic, in which tricks varying the classic rhythmic are disconcerting in their credulity and ineffectuality.

Attached: 1616296886177.jpg (340x480, 29.86K)

How could we, without weakness, relate ourselves to an oeuvre manifesting such contradictions? If only it manifested them within a rigorous technique, the only safe guard! But what are we to think of Schoenberg's American period, during which the greatest disarray and most deplorable demagnetization appeared' How could we, unless with a supplementary - and superfluous - measure, judge such lack of comprehension and cohesion, that reevaluation of polarizing functions, even of tonal functions? Rigorous writing was abandoned in those works. In them we see appearing again the octave intervals, the false cadences, the exact canons at the octave. Such an attitude attests to maximum incoherence- a paroxysm in the absurdity of Schoenberg's incompatibilities. Ought one not to have pressed forward to a new methodology of the musical language instead of trying to reconstitute the old one? So monstrous an uncomprehending deviation leaves us perplexed: In the Schoenberg "case" a ruinous "catastrophe" occurred which doubtless will remain cautionary.

idiot

Could it have been otherwise? To answer in the negative now would he naively arrogant, Nevertheless, it is possible to see why Schoenberg's serial music was destined to defeat. In the first place, his exploration of the serial domain had been carried on unilaterally: it was lacking on the rhythmic level, even on that of sound, properly speaking- the intensities and attacks. "Who ever seriously dreamed of reproaching him for that' On the credit side, I put down his very remarkable preoccupation, in timbres, with Klangfarbenmelodie, which could lead by generalization to the series of timbres. But the essential cause of his failure resides in his profound -misunderstanding of serial functions as such, functions engendered by the very principle of series- without which they remain more embryonic than effective. Here I mean to say that Schoenberg employed the series as a smaller common denominator to assure the semantic unit of the work, but that he organized the language elements thus obtained by a preexisting rhetoric, not a serial one, I believe we can assert that it is there that the troubling lack of clarity of a work without real unity becomes manifest.
Schoenberg's failure to grasp the serial domain as a whole has caused enough dissaffectations and prudent Rights to make full description of it unnecessary.

No hilarious demonism, but rather the most ordinary common sense, leads me to declare that since the Viennese discovery, every composer outside the serial experiments has been useless. Nor can that assertion be answered in the name of a pretended freedom (which could not mean that every composer would be useful in the opposite direction), for that liberty has a strange look of being a surviving servitude. If the Schoenberg failure happened, disregarding it will not aid us in finding a valid solution for the problem that the epiphany of a contemporary language has posed.

At the very beginning, perhaps one should dissociate the serial phenonemon from Schoenberg's oeuvre, The two have been confused with obvious glee, often with poorly dissimulated bad faith. It is easy to forget that a certain Webern also labored; to be sure, one never hears this discussed any more (so dense arc the screens of mediocrity!), Perhaps we can say that the series is a logically. historical consequence, or - depending upon what one wishes - a historically logical one. Perhaps, like that certain Webern, one could pursue the sound-evidence by trying to derive the structure from the material. Perhaps one could enlarge the serial domain with intervals other than the half-tone: micro-distances, irregular intervals, complex sounds.
Perhaps one could generalize the serial principle to the four sound-constituents: pitch, duration, intensity and attack, timbre. Perhaps... perhaps... one could demand from a composer some imagination, a certain dosage of asceticism, even a little intelligence, and, finally, a sensibility that will not be toppled by· the least breeze.

We must keep ourselves from considering Schoenberg as a sort of Moses who died in view of the Promised Land after having brought down the Tables of the Law from a Sinai that some people obstinately want to confuse with Walhalla. (During that time, the dance before the Golden Calf was in full swing.) We certainly owe him Pierrot Lunaire... , and some other very enviable works. This will not give offense to the environing mediocrity that wants, very speciously, to limit the ravages to "Central Europe."

Nonetheless, it has become indispensable to demolish a misunderstanding that is full of ambiguity and contradictions: it is time to neutralize the setback. That rectification will be accomplished not by any gratuitous bragging, much less by any sanctimonious fatuity, but by rigor free of weakness and compromise. Therefore I do not hesitate to write, not out of any desire to provoke a stupid scandal, but equally without bashful hypocrisy and pointless melancholy:

SCHOENBERG IS DEAD.

31 posts 11 posters

>niches attract a low poster count but a high poster retention rate
Got any other revelations for us genius?

yeah, that half this thread is one guy spamming excerpts from an article about schoenberg that no one but him read.

Baroque suite but the order of the dances is reversed
Gigue
Gavotte or whatever
Sarabande
Courante
Allemande
Ouverture
Does it exists ?

Wagner is the best. Siegfried is some of the best music ever written.

Thee scene between Wotan and the Wala is the best in the Ring.

A scherzo with more than two contrasting sections (e.g. with more than one trio) is just a rondo.

I know you are

stupid

I know you are

fool

I know you are

scum

I know you are

trash

touch grass

I'm new. I listen to classical music compilations on youtube. I'm not gonna read the OP. how do I get started?

Attached: 1645177053450.gif (240x320, 234.87K)

by reading the OP

>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:
pastebin.com/NBEp2VFh (embed)

/Classical/'s choices for diabolical music.

youtube.com/watch?v=L-b0YXZsX7Q
youtube.com/watch?v=zqvK-YaJBLw
youtube.com/watch?v=2gl5uE47vU8
youtube.com/watch?v=hX8aYU3-CRc
youtube.com/watch?v=rdUdnDpnqFQ
youtube.com/watch?v=5n7qfRNzS3s
youtube.com/watch?v=7nVmFlSV1ok

dark academia classical for hopeless misunderstood romantics to listen to while scheming in your abandoned anime villain tower during the melancholic winter

Kek. Why are these videos everywhere now?

If you need to read the OP you don't belong here, you should have learned everything in the conservatory already.
If you have never attended a conservatory you don't belong here.

i like music that sounds nice

>he hasn't read Schoenberg is Dead
The habit of posting block quotes in these general is bad though.

The "Schoenberg Is Dead" essay is quite well-known though.

youtube.com/watch?v=kE2CNZOb6Vc
youtube.com/watch?v=gb1qDhsDI8U
youtube.com/watch?v=AEEfnmcqmYg
youtube.com/watch?v=85o9c6vEvFA
youtube.com/watch?v=BIvWjI4PrJw

dont care didnt ask

Does anyone else dislike this guy? He always states his opinions as facts and has this huge bias for romantic shit, he underrates classical and baroque all the time.

Attached: inside the score.png (178x87, 6.01K)

his mahler video is a garbagefire of historical inaccuracies and intentionally skipping his middle symphonies to suck off the 2nd and the 8th (why?).

Which piece should I listen to while I masturbate to anime boys?

youtube.com/watch?v=ud3hSOujOkQ

You are incurably gay.

That sounds in line with what I watched from him. This guy thinks only his taste matters and skips over important pieces and composers whenever he feels like it.

youtube.com/watch?v=bW3yGWVNGtM

anything by tchaikovsky, saint saens, bernstein, britten or sorabji. all gay pedophiles just like you.

>opera isn’t funny

Attached: 0858FC94-3451-4E6D-A999-99BA02C286BE.jpg (488x426, 94.34K)

wtf have you been secretly recording me

What composer do you think wrote the best masses?

youtube.com/watch?v=2s0Ujn91sjI
youtube.com/watch?v=EvH2CPEeIHU

>Wagner
>Liszt
>Schumann
Why are trannies attracted to these composers so much?

Liszt was a misunderstood genius
Schumann was very good but not great
Never liked Wagner but I respect him as a composer

Haydn
youtube.com/watch?v=OTRexu5CIL8

>Liszt was a misunderstood genius
um no

liszt was a hack with exactly one passable composition
schumann was a misunderstood genius
wagner is very good but not great

Yeah he was just a genius. Nothing to misunderstand

>Yeah he was just a genius
um no

Josquin

Liszt was without question a genius. First of all, if you like Schubert, thank Liszt, because Liszt is the reason he became so popular after his death. Liszt's transcriptions made many brilliant composers more popular because their pieces then only needed a very skilled pianist rather than an entire orchestra. Second, Liszt was one of the most original composers of his time, making melodic lines that could go on and on, invented the symphonic poem, mastered harmony, and pretty much defined Romantic virtuosity for the piano. If you think Liszt was a hack you're wrong. It's alright, we're all wrong from time to time

Liszt has some great works but his popular virtuoso compositions aren't among them.

He was definitely misunderstood. As far as technique went, nobody questioned that he was a master, perhaps the best pianist in all of Europe at the time.But as far as composition went, many composers such as Chopin and Schumann saw his music as overly vulgar and show-offy (which is sad because Chopin was like a God to Liszt.) He was loved by some, and hated by others.

Liszt is overrated, there's more to composing than empty virtuosity and bravura.

Further proof Liszt is underrated

He's alright. His jokes are super unfunny (classical music teachers in general should never try to be funny), and I agree that he really undervalues great classical composers like Mozart and Gluck in favor of more modern and romantic composers. But he knows his stuff, and I respect him as a teacher. I just wish he would delve deeper in his counterpoint lessons. I remember once he was giving a lesson on Bach's well-tempered clavier, and glossed over like a solid 70 percent of the scores

i think i finally understand what nietzsche meant when he said wagner is the final struggle for a lover of music
it’s because once one has become acquainted with the spectrum of sounds and changes, one desires greatly
an experience often found but not satisfied in the works of the ancient masters, namely a transcendental one
one desires grandeur, majesty, sublime beauty, to be known as knower by the thing known
wagner tries this, it is his mission, his direct goal, he knows what we want and he tries very hard to deliver it
and with all his new sounds and grandiosity and symbolism he comes no closer than couperin or bach
and, unfortunately, while he brings somewhat novel and lovely experiences to the listener, he does not satisfy the ultimate desire to feel engulfed, and he falls far shorter here than his predecessors, delivering an almost purely cerebral experience of majesty during his most vivacious moments
in fact it points most towards an achievement, much as he tries to appear otherwise
it raises the question, can one deliver the music if one so explicitly attempts to deliver it?
it’s a very frustrating thing indeed, as it implies perhaps the only way is by unknowing, forgetting the idea of the sound and subjugating the self into something entirely without personality in the search for the universal music

Attached: AFC6CEE9-4FA1-48A1-A744-1D982ABC8F61.jpg (663x590, 258.09K)

youtube.com/watch?v=Hm-2NAX7jCo

>invented the symphonic poem
Into the trash he goes.

No closer than Bach is a tremendous compliment. Bach was the best composer of the Baroque era in almost every conceivable way (though I personally prefer Handel).

As for "enguling the listener" I think it's just a matter of personal taste when it comes to masters like Wagner. Many composers and musicians were moved at their very core from his music, while other composers thought that he was a firetruck hack,

Philip Glass
Composer, performer.
Underrated: Rossini. He is a composer whose importance has never been fully appreciated. I find his music full of wit, inventiveness, expressivity and style.
Overrated: Franz Liszt. It's plain that in his day he must have been a musician of enormous importance. By contrast, his music offers surprisingly little of interest. I find it vague, incoherent and barely listenable.

Attached: 1513265474264.jpg (600x527, 91.36K)

youve been classical your whole life

Attached: get out jew.gif (400x287, 1.04M)

I'd say the most underrated composers are Hummel, Smetana, and Rubinstein

Also I forgot to mention Bellini and Cherubini

Rossini was indeed brilliant

frankly it’s praising music itself for being so desirous of being formed into certain feelings that someone as cycloptically focused and incompetent as wagner could bring out such wondrous harmonies
there are too many notes

Try listening to something beyond Top 10 hardest piano pieces ever, for a change.

Liszt was an decent composer but is severely overrated. He may have been the first, but that doesn't make him the best; he was eclipsed by the people he inspired.

That's like saying Mozart was eclipsed by the people he inspired. In order to inspire great composers you yourself have to be great in some way.

Yes but Mozart is underrated actually

>he was eclipsed by the people he inspired
Such as?

Underrated now? Perhaps.
Underrated in his time? Hardly. Almost every great composer that came after Mozart's generation revered him.

Man likes choruses

youtube.com/watch?v=Zjyqg97lj3w

Attached: 1618055528857.png (422x670, 384.61K)

This was just on the conservative side. From Wagner on the war of the romantics:

>Regarded as individuals, there is not much to blame in these musicians; most of them compose very well. Herr Johannes Brahms once had the kindness to play a composition of his own to me--a piece with very serious variations--which I thought excellent, and from which I gathered that he was impervious to a joke. His performance of other pianoforte music at a concert gave me less pleasure. I even thought it impertinent that the friends of this gentleman professed themselves unable to attribute anything beyond "extraordinary technical power" to "Liszt and his school," whilst the execution of Herr Brahms appeared so painfully dry, inflexible and wooden. I should have liked to see Herr Brahms' technique annointed with a little of the oil of Liszt's school; an ointment which does not seem to issue spontaneously from the keyboard, but is evidently got from a more aetherial region than that of mere "technique."

Liszt is a great composer because he writes lots of notes and only really good performers can play them well.

Smetana, Bartok, Wagner, Debussy, and Berlioz just to name a few.

Liszt's best pieces are pretty anti-virtuosic actually

>no Scriabin
c'mon man at least put le Satanic composer in there

mozart sounds so good
it all sounds the same
what else did you expect good to sound like other than good?

fagner

schumann
youtu.be/OKNGMhmeyOU

I saw this kind of sentiment a few threads ago, I'm not sure if it was you. But thinking Wagner is trying to 'get somewhere' more than other composers and that this goal is present in his music, though interesting, comes more from your side than Wagner's. Many people, most Wagner fans, feel the exact opposite to what you say.

youtube.com/watch?v=AHvF0ROiJ8o

I think it may come from two things: a lack of sympathy for the forms of late romanticism, and being unaware of the dramatic meaning of his music, without which it doesn't make sense.

Handel

youtube.com/watch?v=GKHaawsOfo8

How the fuck does Glass dislike Liszt? Both Liszt and Glass wrote the most repetitive music in the canon, you would think Glass would love to listen to the same Liszt melody over and over again.

This is poorly recorded

Is there a guide for ballet?

There are only 3 relevant ballet composers: Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky and Mingus. Out of these three only Mingus composed music that wasn't gay.
Hence, this is the best ballet of all time:
youtube.com/watch?v=zFA0FYQo0Gg

Wagner, Fauré, Debussy, Ravel, Scriabin.

Glass is a tasteless hack who mistakes tickling Italian melodicism with expressivity and furthermore importance.

>forgetting Weber and Delibes

this is /classical/ not /niggers/

TOP 10 ROMANTIC COMPOSERS ACCORDING TO GRAMOPHONE

Hector Berlioz (1803-69)
Essential recording Les Troyens
Sols incl DiDonato, Spyres, Lemieux; Strasbourg Philharmonic Orchestra / John Nelson

Fryderyck Chopin (1810-49)
Essential recording Piano Concertos No 1 & 2
Martha Argerich pf Montreal Symphony Orchestra / Charles Dutoit

Robert Schumann (1810-56)
Essential recording Symphonies Nos 1-4
Chamber Orchestra of Europe / Yannick Nézet‑Séguin

Franz Liszt (1811-86)
Essential recording 'Transcendental: Daniil Trifonov plays Franz Liszt'
Daniil Trifonov pf (Recording of the Month, October 2016;

Richard Wagner (1813-83)
Essential recording Parsifal
Sols incl Jess Thomas, George London, Hans Hotter; Bayreuth Festival Chorus & Orchestra / Hans Knappertsbusch

Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901)
Essential recording Aida
Sols incl Anja Harteros, Jonas Kaufmann, Ekaterina Semenchuk; Coro dell'Accademia Nazionale Di Santa Cecilia, Orchestra dell'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia / Antonio Pappano

Anton Bruckner (1824-96)
Essential recording Symphony No 9
Lucerne Festival Orchestra / Claudio Abbado

Giacomo Puccini (1858-1924)
Essential recording Tosca
Sols incl Maria Callas, Giuseppe di Stefano, Tito Gobbi; Orchestra and Chorus of La Scala Milan / Victor de Sabata

Pyotr Il'yich Tchaikovsky (1840-93)
Essential recording Symphony No 6, Pathétique
MusicAeterna / Teodor Currentzis

Johannes Brahms (1833-97)
Essential recording Symphonies
Gewandhaus Orchestra / Riccardo Chailly

they did bruckner real dirty with that abbado recording

glass = jew
liszt = antisemite
simple as

eh

>Berlioz
>Chopin
>Schumann
>Liszt
>Tchaikovsky
God I hate normies and their shit taste

Tchaikovsky's good

>Kaufmann
>Yannick
>Currentzis
lmao plebs

>rutracker is gone
what the fuck bros

Currentzis' 6th is pretty good tho

Wow, this sounds epic and awesome. Thank you for posting it. It really is underrated!