I never said he wrote serial music, though the work most definitely was dodecaphonic. The point is that he wrote music in a similarly strict, atonal style without necessarily being philosophically modernist.
Bentley Harris
how can you say music is "dodecaphonic" if its not serial? Even Mozart is "dodecaphonic" to the extent it uses all 12 pitch classes in a single movement.
Carson Evans
>dragged along to a degenerate party >the music's clipping and is far too loud, the playlists are terrible indie rock, electronica and hiphop >everyone's drinking, doing drugs, or having premarital intimacy with each other >run to the toilet to puke >tell them i just had too much to drink >still feel disgusted after puking >head down to the music room >glare at one of the guys doing the music >he moves away >they're using spotify but it's good enough for my purposes >queue up one of Jean-Baptiste Lully's ballet suites >skip to the gigue >show people how to dance properly and traditionally rather than decadently >they laugh at me and call me awful names and shove me out the door >get my headphones out my bag and queue up "Anima" by Sasu Ripeatti >walk home with my head down and tears stinging my eyes in the freezing cold night >want to die
I can't believe I'm spending all night listening to Rachmaninoff just to find the weirdest thing he ever composed so a composer at least as modernistic as Vaughan Williams and Sibelius can MAYBE be classified as a modern composer.
Julian Lee
How do I into classical? What are some entry level composers?
Elijah Perez
All composers are entry level until the turn of the century. Then a few of them aren't (and by the 1950s most of them aren't). But basically you can start wherever you want. What kind of music do you like anyway?
Easton Peterson
Wow so hardcore you show them normies right
Thomas Martin
Beethoven considered this his best youtu.be/pA4_FnH49tA Is it not a Symphony is it not a Piano sonata this is what got me into classical if you do not like this you can go fuck yourself
>Five days before Schubert's death, his friend, violinist Karl Holz, and his string quartet visited him to play for him. The last musical work he had wished to hear was Beethoven's String Quartet No. 14 in C-sharp minor, Op. 131;
Lmao I did that, why so butthurt tho? The link died so I thought it would be a funny irony
Isaiah Lopez
Had Bach's Cello Suite 1 playing in my dream this morning, what does it mean?
Jayden Morris
your future should be beautiful and auspicious
Jaxson Hill
Being offended by "12 year old behaviour" is what said post referred to, retard. At least offended enough that you had to call it out. Go be butthurt somewhere else. Nobody wants to hear your opinion about edgy jokes.
>Sounds like you're an expert on what happens there Because I need to have been in Salzburg to know that there is a castle. Fucking brainlet.
Also: >n-no u God, do I hate your guts.
Blake Nguyen
>I thought that place was more for anti-semitism he clearly wanted to refer those who are anti-semitic to /pol/ because in /classical/ "jews are le based", you illiterate faggot
Daniel Howard
I'm not really offended, I make plenty of jew jokes when they're funny. This just feel immature in a classical OP. keep /pol/ in /pol/. No one wants edgy lame jokes in a classical OP
Landon Morales
Okay, next thread I will put "passed in the oven".
>the final quartets, 13-17. There was a break of a dozen years between the 12th and 13th quartets, and these final works occupy a territory not found in the earlier quartets. By this time Weinberg had accepted the fact that because of his Jewish identity, his works were not openly accepted or regularly performed during his lifetime. >And in fact, he was imprisoned during Stalin’s anti-Semitic persecutions of Jewish intellectuals and writers. Shostakovich appealed to the head of the KGB for his release, and in 1953 shortly after Stalin’s death, Weinberg was released. Later in life Weinberg wrote to a friend that composing was now purely an end in itself, as he was no longer invested in how the works were received or even if they were performed. >Some have seen this as an admission of apathy, and has caused them to dismiss the later works as being written in a casual or offhand manner. But I see this as evidence that Weinberg used the fact of being on the margins as allowing him complete freedom of expression in the late works. It is in these late works that some of his most sublime music is found.
>queue up one of Jean-Baptiste Lully's ballet suites based
Xavier Myers
Wagner: youtube.com/watch?v=SRmCEGHt-Qk&ab_channel=RichardBrittain He was right to want to revisit this work. The overture has a sublime theme, and is quite good overall, but the texture is far weaker than those found in his later works.
This I suppose Bruckner taught him, so there's that.
The two obvious influenced in Mahler's music were Wagner and Brahms. The two most similar composers to Mahler are Richard Strauss and Hugo Wolf in a way. These three are basically the beginning of musical modernism and all share an important desire to speak to the listener through their music and their works are closely related to literature (stories, themes, ideas). Also check out Hans Rott's symphony.
>Sanctus: Up until the Benedictus of the Sanctus, the Missa solemnis is of fairly normal classical proportions. But then, after an orchestral preludio, a solo violin enters in its highest range—representing the Holy Spirit descending to earth—and begins the mass's most transcendently beautiful music, in a remarkably long extension of the text.
What would be the closest thing to Wagner's operas, with similar music and types of stories, but good? I am really fascinated by such unique works, with music that perfectly adapts itself in emotional character to every scene, along with works of such grand scale in fantastical scenarios.
The problem is twofold, with the music being just too inconsistent and too connected and dependent on the story that comprehensible and coherent music is rare, and this is in service of stories that are quite silly and don't live up to their grandiosity.
For instance, if I asked what would be great music for waltzes, works those of Liszt's best waltzes, (principally the first Mephisto Waltzes), those of Chopin, Blue Danube, Valse Infernale, (excellently elevated by Liszt in his Réminiscences de 'Robert le diable'), Waltz No. 2 from Suite for Variety Orchestra, and the Swan Lake waltz. Contrary to what people might say, they are great works of music.
If somebody wanted the greatest treatment of a Polish style, I would recommend the mazurkas and the polonaises of Chopin, and of the Hungarian style, Liszt's rhapsodies. If somebody wanted the greatest treatment of religious themes, I would recommend the B minor Mass of Bach, the Great Mass in C minor, Beethoven's Mass, Verdi's Requiem, etc.
These are probably easier questions to answer, but I am thinking of what sort of answers would be given to similar questions.
Isaiah Campbell
>Wagner and Brahms. >Richard Strauss and Hugo Wolf I am not familiar with Bruckner, and am not fan of Mahler, but these composers are hardly that similar to Mahler.
Juan Garcia
Sorry sir but we only post about music here.
Henry Taylor
Even so, this kind of whining isn't based. Its just a joke that the folder is dead.
Jose Green
I always have music, the likes of which I've never heard before in my dreams. Does this mean I secretly have the makings of a composer?
>Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, and Rossini sound the same If you mean the obscure and deservedly obscure ones, yes, this is true, but the least interesting composers are the least original. If you looked into romantic composers that are obscure, the same really is the case, where in any single period, only a handful of composer stand out.
Rather interesting interpretation, like it is done in the style of a Beethoven concerto.
I am not sure how successful it is, but I wish this approach was taken for Mozart when feasible; for instance, the sonatas should be played like Beethoven sonatas, especially something like the fourteenth sonata.
Ryan Powell
I don't want obscure romantic composers, it will just be a treatment of some slightly different folk-music most likely. I specifically asked for Classical era composers who are distinguishable and obscure (Like Reicha, Cherubini, Gluck, the list goes on) because of how subtle the differences can be to make a composer stand out. Hearing a little chromatic dip at the right time can push a Classical piece into the next century. With romantic and modern music composers really have to be entirely different in order to stand out. Baroque is a good era but I know of Zelenka and Scarlatti and I just don't expect much else to stand out. I also found this composer who prefigures mature Beethoven, some half a century in advance. I believe there are obscure composers in just about any era worthy of investigation.
>I don't want obscure romantic composers, I did not get that impression, especially since you said, you were "asking for unique composers of the Classical era." >it will just be a treatment of some slightly different folk-music most likely. It depends what you mean by obscure. For my tastes, I would recommend Alkan, (who was not very consistent or prolific whose best works are easily comparable to the best works of Chopin and Liszt), Godowsky, (whose arrangements of the Chopin studies are at least very interesting from the point of view of technique), Czerny's studies, specifically, the Op. 740 etudes, and Medtner, (who I have never been able to love, but has a very devoted following to those who understand him). So it would not be accurate to say there's little variety among obscure romantic composers except in what folk themes are treated. >I also found this composer who prefigures mature Beethoven I certainly do not get that impression from that piece, and he is much closer to Haydn than Beethoven.
Chase Murphy
>I certainly do not get that impression from that piece
Nobody cares about your uneducated, uninformed impressions, dillweed.
Brandon Morris
Is there really need to being as contradictory as possible, especially when it's incoherent? He specifically asked for Classical composers, and then mentioned saying he didn't want romantic composers, which I implied was not surprising, as he clearly did not ask for them. Are you going to argue that he was asking for that? It's one thing to dismiss or disagree with everything I say, but it would much more interesting if you actually gave reasons such such dismissal.
Brandon James
I'm not even speaking on the specific conversation. But by your own admission you are not educated so you need to STFU about what you hear in the music or any technical aspect of it. You, by your own admission, don't know what the fuck you're talking about. So stop trying to say "I don't get that impression" or "poverty of invention" or anything like that. You don't even know what the fuck to listen for.
I explicitly told you what common ground and connections these composers have. If you want to find a composer that sounds like Mahler, then you're going to be disappointed. Only Mahler sounds like Mahler.
James Allen
Even though you're fucking FLAT (learn to play), I can tell it is the melody from Carmen by George Bizet. I don't listen to that plebshit, so I have no idea what part its from but it will probably be the first thing from a youtube search of "Bizet Carmen".
Cooper Garcia
Mahler wishes he sounded like Mahler but he sounds like Hans Rott. Also, Korngold sounds like Mahler.
Bentley Brown
Reminder to NOT to reply to the paragraph autist because he's 1. baiting (he confessed it) and 2. genuinely disturbed in the mind.
Jonathan Torres
thanks chief
Connor Jackson
He thinks he is baiting but he's not pretending to be retarded, he actually is that way.
Aiden Butler
Hans Rott's orchestration was subpar and Mahler vastly improved it with the material he borrowed from his symphony.
Jack Wright
Whichever interpretation you take, it's important to not communicate with the beast.
Jack Gomez
It seemed pretty good to me. Admittedly though, orchestration is one of those things I don't have much comprehension of, other than obvious things like Debussy under-utilizing brass and such.
The redpill is that actually Berlioz was a protoMahler
Adrian Lee
That's definitely true. It explains why I hate him so much as well. Neuroticism has an unpleasant sound, whether it be Jewish or French.
Henry Howard
it probably sounds much worse if you write it out, music always sounds worse when i do
Christian Hill
He would have improved a lot, I'm sure, but sadly he died too young.
Adrian Evans
>Neuroticism And how does this translate to the actual music? What are the musical elements that make it sound "neurotic"? Chromaticism? Dissonances on the wrong places (for your ears)?
Adrian Baker
Well of course, because I don't know how music works. But if I hear an unfamiliar modal fugue in a dream (which I did two weeks ago) that's still music that my own brain produced, right? It just takes learning to fundamentals to break it down and notate it, I'm assuming?
Playing involves dexterity. I'm pretty sure at my age I don't have much hope at this point of learning to play an instrument. But luckily there are DAWs
Thomas Hall
you should absolutely learn to play piano if you want to and have access to one, don't compare yourself to people who starting learning at age 4
Andrew Adams
I think I'll move onto that once I can fluidly can read a score, train my ear for recognizing different intervals and chords and have a good grounding in theory. All those seem more relevant to composition than playing an instrument. Both Wagner and Schoenberg weren't proficient with an instrument.
Isaiah Collins
*prepares a long paragraph containing no coherent thoughts*
I couldn't say for sure, except I would term it as a kind of irony or symbolic microcosm in the music. In Mahler its definitely mostly of a kind of very Jewish irony (like the dark treatment of Frere Jaques; almost Kafkaesque). In Berlioz its not ironic exactly but its still representative. For instance the last movement of Symphony Fantastique which ends with the Familiar Dies Irae and many obnoxious sounds meant to represent witches cackling, the rattling of chains and other hellish imagery. This differs from Impressionism or the Tone Poem in the sense that the representations aren't so amusical, the musical aspects are being utilized as pure music to represent the pictures in a musical form.
Kayden Turner
if you get a teacher, which i highly recommend, they will help you with reading sheet music, and learning an instrument, especially piano, will help with learning theory because you can apply it more easily
also being able to play melodies in your head immediately on piano instead of a daw was super helpful for my limited composing
Eli Allen
kek. But are the writings of Hans Pfitzner really as incoherent and obtuse as the autists? If so, I wouldn't mind reading them for the lulz.
see this shit in the previous thread and I'll let you decide
William Turner
Listening Pettersson Symphony No.7 meanwhile I'm masturbating to trap porn. >yes, I am that mad
Sebastian Peterson
Its bizarre he went after Berg in particular. A lot of Berg's music is explicitly beautiful.
Charles Roberts
I don't think he went for Berg in particular but he attacked modernism in general because it wasn't pwetty enough for him and he was too much of a brainlet to understand what was going on. Just like our dear paragraph autist. And I agree, Berg's music is very beautiful. And he was the one who replied to his shitposting, absolutely BTFOing him in the process.
Colton Hill
>But by your own admission you are not educated I said no such thing. Feel free to quote me and make a reasonable case that such an estimate of my own knowledge was implied or explicitly stated in something I said.
Joshua Lee
True.
Owen Cruz
>the beast lmao, why don't you say what you really think?
Nicholas Davis
You said you didn't know music theory. You've more than demonstrated it. Shut the fuck up and die okthxbye.
Landon Green
>You said you didn't know music theory. No, I don't believe I have. >You've more than demonstrated it. Can't agree with you there. >Shut the fuck up and die okthxbye. Nah.
Parker Sullivan
You said you wouldn't bother learning music theory to understand modern music.
Ethan Turner
Why don't you suck my cock?
Liam Jones
That's not what I said. I said it's unnatural to try to appreciate music like that. I could easily see myself toiling away learning theory when I am more interested in appreciating music, and I would have no stronger love for modernist music than somebody like Chopin, if not an true intellectual in regards to music theory, no doubt learned as much as I could possibly hope to become, who had little love for the music of Bethoven, Schumann, or really any of his contemporaries.
Christian Gray
prove that you know some theory. Analyze a score. Everyone here knows you're full of shit because you constantly misuse technical terms.
dawg you should learn to lucid dream so you can tap into this shit
Charles Jenkins
cringe and serfpilled
Levi Howard
Forgive me if this is a stupid argument but how is what you hear in a dream relevant? I mean you can dream about flying around but it doesn't mean you can actually learn to fly just by jumping into the open air. Am I wrong here?
That really doesn't seem like a reasonable request. People here very rarely make any technical or analytical comments about music, meaning I am no more less rigorous in my approach that most here. >you constantly misuse technical terms. Can you provide an example?
Noah Powell
Not at this point I can't. Do you think I have a fucking Rolodex of your comment history? Not to mention you fucked off for a couple weeks,(so I can't even find these instances of misused jargon) and unfortunately not longer than that.
>Not to mention you fucked off for a couple weeks No, I didn't. I just started posting less, and a little less conspicuously. There are times when I'm not identified, or when somebody misidentifies someone else as me, and I either ignore it, or pretend that I made that comment and defend "myself." Not sure if I can find an example, though.
I came across Palestrina recently and it's totally gripped me. I feel like a lot of the classical music I tried to get into was too show-offish and skill-based when all I really care about in a song is a feel and a mood, not a show of virtuosity. Palestrina is choral too so perhaps that's just more my style.
Any other choral recommendations in a similar vein would be highly appreciated.
Eli Phillips
I'll add to this that I never felt like voices could be like currents before, that could carry you and take you places. Music has made me think and feel before but it's never moved me before. I didn't know what being moved meant. It feels like moving when I hear this.
Daily reminder that Metal is the spiritual successor of Classical.
John Bennett
You're absolutely wrong and retarded as well. There is a much closer correspondence to the sound of music in a dream and the sound of that same music realized in reality than the correspondence between flying in a dream and the FUCKING MECHANICS AND AERODYNAMICS OF FLIGHT, YOU FUCKING MONG!
Aaron Rodriguez
I suppose if we're continuing in the spirit of John Cage, Philip Glass and other such blighters pissing on the tradition of classical music.
Leo Butler
Not at all. Contemporary Classical is the spiritual successor to Classical.
Metal is a bunch of guys using 1% of what classical composers were doing 300 years ago, and even then the 1% is mostly just the minor scale
Nathaniel Allen
>implying Bleeps aren't the true inheritor of the classical tradition of the masters
Jason Sanders
Classical composers pioneered bleeps in the late 50s. youtube.com/watch?v=KwtAMGXyTI4 >1958 >All meticulously scored out before going into the studio >All recorded with magnetic tape - having to physically cut and reconnect them to make edits and combine parts >Still more interesting than any electronic music written today.
You have to listen to more than the drum part at the beginning. Jeeze. But I'm genuinely curious, how do you even process something like Kontakte? I mean its like if you thought the background noise in a war movie was music.
Jayden Baker
What does the president of China have to do with this?
Jaxon Robinson
Are you saying solo-piano is not Chamber repertoire?
Thanks. I think I found another composer worthy of looking into. Got this rec from Talkclassical of all places. That's right, I'm down there in the shit every day to bring you fags the best and brightest in overlooked classical.
I am indeed. Like if you asked somebody for chamber works by a certain composer, you're not going to be inclined to post any solo keyboard works, probably not even something like Syrinx. That's a separate category altogether.
I think I can see why he was overlooked. This feels like a throwback to CPE Bach even if it has some interesting dissonances and gestures.
Michael Perry
You're a total idiot. You think it sounds like CPE because there is a harpsichord, that's literally it. This music is very much in a contemporary idiom for its place and time.
No. The work is in the dock, and he is conducting a trial by posterity.
Christian Gray
Moar
Anthony Hill
Of course it isn't, retard. Solo instrument =/= chamber.
Ian Morris
Based.
Cringe.
Adam Martin
>If somebody wanted the greatest treatment of religious themes, I would recommend ... Beethoven's Mass, Verdi's Requiem, etc. It's good that you're enthusiastic about /classical/, but stop referring to subjects you clearly know nothing of if you want to be taken seriously around here.
>Hungarian style >Liszt's rhapsodies You've no idea what you're talking about AGAIN, Hans. These are gypsy tunes, not exactly the most Hungarian of Hungarian music. You disappoint Bela.
> These are gypsy tunes And some of them were composed by professional Hungarian composers and adapted by Liszt, meaning they are no less Hungarian than music by American composers based on music from Negro slaves was American. The rhapsodies are arguably no less Hungarian than Jazz is American.
Really, it's possible that I am guilty of far more ignorance than I pretend to, but if you hone in an offhand comment of the rhapsodies being of a Hungarian style, and object to that by saying they are gypsy music, you haven't a very strong argument of ignorance on my part. You say that they are "not exactly the most Hungarian of Hungarian music," this may be literally true, but it's not an understatement, as while they represent more a gypsy style, and are still part of the Hungarian style. If I said I loved Hungarian music, and referenced the Hungarian dances from Brahms, that would be questionable. Here, it is music written by a Hungarian, Liszt, based on music that was most likely from Hungarian gypsies, or by Hungarian professional composers based on music from Hungarian gypsies, or music written in the style of the aforementioned sources is not Hungarian.
It's also questionable how much the music would be called gypsy. No 15 is based on the Rákóczi-Marsch, which can hardly be called gypsy. Rhapsodies 16-18 are were wholly original works written by a Hungarian, Liszt.
You can review the sources Liszt used here hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA67418/9, and once that is done, it's very debatable that what Liszt was writing was not in a Hungarian style. You may ultimately disagree, but what I'm saying makes me no less wrong by various musicologists, and a darling fascination with Bartok, or whatever is your motive, does not an unanswerable argument make.
Hudson Miller
Feel free to demonstrate the ignorance, as opposed to merely quoting me and thinking my ignorance speaks for itself.
William Barnes
rude
Mason Parker
or music written in the style of the aforementioned sources, none of which makes it Hungarian apparently*
I also don't see the objection here. More authentic religious music, perhaps could be offered, something like Gregorian chants, or various medieval pieces. In my opinion, the best "religious" works are hardly in a academically religious style. I would be interested in what good music would be suggested, perhaps plain chants like Dies Irae.
Still, even if the works I mentioned were not in a conventionally religious style, and sometimes borrow too much from popular styles, (like Rossini's Messa di Gloria), there is still a definite, religious aspect to these works, and the works I mentioned are still written in a very different style from that of other works, or even compared to other works of the respective composers of those works, and if they are less district religious compared to music more strictly written in that tradition, it's a fair trade-off for excellence.
To reiterate, if somebody wanted music of a religious character that was excellent, I would recommend those works in particular without hesitation. If you cold recommend equal or superior works that are more authentically religious, (though in reality, they would only be more religious by drawing less inspiration from secular music), I would be open to it.
Jason Martinez
I have to assume this was your objection: that I was recommending music that was too secular in nature, (even if the subjects were as religious as can be, and the style should be distinct enough from those which are purely secular). This mentality reminds of the following excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia of Mozart:
>Mozart's individuality was of an exquisitely delicate, tender, and noble character. His operas, "Don Juan", "The Magic Flute", "The Marriage of Figaro", "Cosi fan tutte", "La Clemenza di Tito", on account of their melodic beauty and truth of expression, have as strong a hold upon the affections of the musical public today as they did at the end of the eighteenth century. His instrumental works continue to delight musicians the world over. As a composer for the Church, however, he does not, even artistically, reach the high level he maintained in other fields.
This is undeniably true, but the same could be said of all other great composers after the Renaissance period, who largely made their best music in a secular fashion, which could be said effectively of all art as well.
(1/2)
Isaiah Cooper
>Americans can't compose (with the exception of Ives) all it took was a female composer to proof the opposite youtube.com/watch?v=U2xTaHNWlV0
Lmao this is just Dvorak's style, nothing really american about it bro
Ethan Bell
(2/3) It continues: > In his day the music of the Church, Gregorian chant, was practically ignored in Germany, and sadly neglected in other countries. Mozart had but little knowledge of the masters of the sixteenth century, and consequently his style of writing for the Church could not have been influenced by them. The proper of the Mass, which brings singers and congregation in intimate touch with the liturgy of the particular day, was rarely sung. The fifteen masses, litanies, offertories, his great "Requiem", as well as many smaller settings, most of them written for soli, chorus, and orchestra, in the identical style of his secular works, do not reflect the spirit of the universal Church, but rather the subjective conception and mood of the composer and the Josephinist spirit of the age. What Mozart, with his Raphaelesque imagination and temperament, would have been for church music had he lived at a different time and in different surroundings, or risen above his own, can easily be imagined.
Mozart, had he lived in an earlier age, might have written more Church music, or it would have featured more prominently in the best music he wrote. However, I am not convinced he would have been a better composer, or that even the Church music he would have written would have been better.
Music simply did not reach its most perfect and refined state, (in some respects), compared to painting and sculpture. This is not to say that painting after the Renaissance period was necessarily of a degenerate and inferior form, (though I would say that to be the case of sculpture).
David Johnson
@86076605 SHUT THE FUCK UP
Matthew Young
How the ages of music would be divided is debatable, but few would consider that it reached a peak in the Renaissance age, and far more of the best paintings and sculptures of a religious character because they reached summit in some respect when religion was much more prominent in society, while, (in my opinion), while the 18th and 19th centuries could not be called unpious, (certainly, compared to our age), religion had less prominence compared to that of previous ages where virtually all of the greatest artistic works were religious.
In my opinion, the best religious works of Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach can easily stand besides their best secular works, if only because they are so unique. However, if the best works of music are not on the whole religious, or at least not to extent as found in sculpture, (especially, since the greatest works of sculpture in the Ancient world were and largely essentially religious in nature), this is not to imply that music is less suited to depicting religious works than that of other art forms, only that music simply reached a state of relative perfection, (which I would hold the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic to be, and later aged to be a lesser character and of music's decline), later than those of arts, being perfected in more secular ages.
Justin Hernandez
In conclusion, I recommend those works as the best of those in a religious nature, even if they depart from the most strictly religious character established by early ages, or even if they are from composers who are not primarily known for their religious works. However, they are undeniably religious in nature, and they are, at least in my opinion, the best works of a religious nature. If I were to recommend sonatas to a newcomer in classical music, among the most popular and accessible sonatas by Beethoven, Mozart, and perhaps Schubert, I would recommend that of Chopin's, as deficient as it might be in many respects as a sonata, (especially in unity), if only because its merits are absolutely undeniable, and it would be I think misguided to suggest more "correct" and conventional sonatas, even by greater composers such as Mozart and Beethoven, that are very much inferior in artistic worth. I would also recommend Chopin's concertos over some of Mozart, however deficient they may be in orchestration, (something I never really perceived), as they are excellent and deservedly popular, which is why I suggested the music I did of a religious character.
Juan Jones
Actually not quoting me defeats the purpose, and I don't look at any responses while I'm writing something, so if you want to catch my attention and give the impression that I'm being obnoxious, you should actually quote me.
I actually get responses as desktop notifications, so to really get my attention, you should composer responses in the following format:
SHUT THE FUCK UP [pointers and quote number]
Putting the text before the quote number actually makes sense, as I will see the text telling me to shut up first, which might be pushed down by the quote number. This would even go farther than just quoting me, as I sometimes don't look at quotes until I am done writing something, and there's a better chance I will see it if I can see the whole message to begin with.
I'm not saying it will work, but if you want to me actually see requests that I stop writing, you really should quote me. You could take this as vanity, (even though the idea that I've become so obnoxious, that people are actually resorting to quoting me in this indirect fashion should actually gratify my malignancy, if I am actually baiting, that is, which I will not confirm or deny at this point), but for your purposes, it really makes sense to quote me directly. Think about it logically.
>Americans can't compose (with the exception of Ives) Nobody said that. Also, if you want to embrace Ives, you might as well embrace numerous modernist hacks after him, who were indeed American and eminent as far as modernist goes. >all it took was a female composer to proof the opposite There are no great female composers, in any genre really, (there are maybe some good ones). That's not a sexist remark as much as an undeniable observation. There have been females that have obtained a large level of eminence in some fields, (Austin and arguably and perhaps undeservingly Rowling in literature, Thatcher and Merkel in politics), but composition strictly and undeniably is not one of them.
Among musicians, surprisingly, there have been a number of very eminent female virtuosos. Actually, just three that I know of: Argerich, Wang, and Lisitsa, who truly are or once were excellent and first-rate pianists, at least as technicians. Unfortunately, only one of those pianists achieved any level of greatness, (should be not hard to guess whom I mean), and I think she's somewhat overrated, and there are more than enough males that are probably their equals in skill, but don't have the same sex appeal, so they are less prominent.
So even among pianists, even as technisians, females haven't made a significant contribution, and the ones I mentioned seem more like aberrant exceptions, similar to the Polgar sisters in chess, (and even only one of them came significantly close to preeminence), and they still have achieved more here than in composition.
Lucas Rogers
And yes, I know much about Liszt does not make him Hungarian in some sense, (never learning the language, spending little of his life in Hungary, being ethnically German and living mostly among those ethnically Germans), but he was fervently proud of his Hungarian heritage, and he has arguably done more to propagate music in a Hungarian style, (however gypsy it might be), than any other composer.
Brayden Rivera
@86077076 call Ives a hack one more time, I dare you
Hildegard von Bingen. There are some great female jazz composers, and there are plenty of great female composers from non-western countries. To say that there aren't any in "any" genre is silly, although if you intended "any classical [genre]" you'd be slightly more correct but still disingenuous. Also come on man, no love for Mary Shelley? Or for any Queen? Doesn't feel like you have a very well thought out argument to me.
Christopher Edwards
>Late Liszt It's one thing to have this absurd devotion to modernist music, but if you look at the music of Liszt, (who admittedly was a very uneven composer), and think that his best music was in his Late period, which doesn't even include his Sonata, you've reached a delusional point of no return.
It would actually be somewhat difficult to try to compile the best of Liszt, since his output was so incredibly vast and various, but focusing on his late period just evinces a distaste for what is popular and not any real solid taste. Even the preeminent musicologist, (if not necessarily the preeminent interpreter of Liszt), who highly esteemed his Late pieces, admitted that Liszt after his Sonata didn't have much more to say.
(1/2)
Luis Walker
In my opinion, Liszt's best works would be the second and sixth rhapsody, the first Mephisto Waltz, Totentanz, the Sonata, (not really my cup of tea, but extremely popular and has an utterly arresting quality and I am still fascinated by it), the Transcendental Etudes, Liebestraum No. 3, Consolation No. 3, Un Sospiro, Les cloches de Genève. There are other original works worth listening to, but works that compare well with the best music literature are too few, and I think Liszt should have focused more on polishing individual works than having such boundless prolificness.
However, as a transcriber, Liszt was without equal. I would say with little doubt that his sole contributions to the genre are greater than all other composers combined. From the Pagainini Etudes, various fantasies, (the best of which being that based on Robert Le Diable, and the Don Juan Fantasy), numerous opera transcriptions, (especially that of Wagner's Tannhauser's prelude), superb transcriptions of some of Bach's best organ works, transcriptions of various orchestra works, (notably, Saint-Saens's Dance Macabre), Chopin's songs, numerous Schubert's songs, songs by Rossini, the rhapsodies themselves being great transcriptions and of various contemporary Hungarian pieces, and of course, the crown achievement of all piano transcription, the Beethoven symphonies. It was for these monumental works that Liszt reserved all his powers and all his knowledge, perfectly selecting exactly what aspects to retain from the symphonies and fully exploiting all possible piano technique all with the end of recreating the orchestral playing of the some of best orchestral work every made, with the impression never given that something is missing. Had Liszt wrote nothing but these transcriptions, his unmatched knowledge of the instrument would be set in stone.
I actually didn't call or imply Ives as a hack. If I meant that, I would have said, "other hacks." If there is anything insulting about what I wrote, it would be the comparison of Ives to later composer, but that would only be insulting if you had a much higher opinion of Ives than later American composers, which may be the case.
I didn't want to express such a harsh opinion of him by suggesting he was a modernist hack, but I do not have a such a high opinion of him that I would not place them somewhat in their company. I am open to persuasion, though, that Ives deserved to be placed in better company.
Kayden Stewart
Fuck off with that first pharagraph fucking brainlet
>There are some great female jazz composers For instance? Please give me examples. I am not implying you can give it, but I gave examples of eminent female authors and politicians, while you have given no eminent female composers. Really, I would welcome contradiction with solid knowledge. >no love for Mary Shelley Her best work was Frankenstein, which I do admire, but it's not sufficient to make her a great novelist. >Or for any Queen? I thought of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Catherine II, but estimating the merit of monarchs is difficult, as it's undeniable that a large deal of their greatness is based on luck of being born to a particular set of parents in a particular order. >Doesn't feel like you have a very well thought out argument to me. My argument was largely negative, meaning I have a lower standard to meet. Furthermore, I said there were no "great" female composers, not that there were not any good ones. You may contradict me by suggesting females jazz composers, but it remains to be seen, (at least for me), whether they are great.
As I side note, I question whether I was write to include Rowling as a great writer largely because of her popularity, as there have been numerous popular and great female musicians, whom I would not call great. I would say that Rowling's works do have merit, and I would suggest that people read Scruton's extremely fair treatment of her. I could also have mentioned Agatha Christie, who is easily among the five greatest authors in the detective genre.
Robert Allen
Personally I'm more of a fan of the aphorism
>Americans can't compose (especially Ives)
Chase Sanders
what's ur favorite Beethoven piano sonata?
William Rivera
Right, and that argument ultimately left off in a person vaguely referring to dissonance they found in an arrangement somebody made of Rachmaninoff's second symphony as a piano concerto, using that as evidence that Rachmaninoff was remotely close to modernism.
The closest Rachmaninoff came to modernism was what influence Scriabin had on him, influence that will still clearly based on Scriabin's more romantic works.
Really, I am made more, not less confident in my opinions, if this is the passage that my critics are pleased to condemn as nonsense, one that I still stand behind and can easily defend, not but I may sometimes write nonsense, though they have not the fortune to find it.
Once again, those parts of my writing are attacked in proportion to have much I esteem them.
Zachary Mitchell
You fucking idiot, it ultimately "left off" with a posting of the unrevised version of his 4th piano concerto which was highly modal, had spasmodic rhythmic phrasing and the revised version of which even featured instances of blue notes. Not to mention I pointed out that Rossini is outright called a "Classical composer" but Rachmaninoff is referred to as post or neo-romantic.
I mentioned Hildegard with the first word. But for the record; Dorothy Ashby, Alice Cotrane, Mary Lou Williams and Bessie Smith (although she's more of a blues composer) are all incredibly venerated and important to jazz. I suppose that regardless of what I offer you can just contend that they do not fit your definition of greatness, therefore I am uninterested with your response but will say this:
During the time these "great" composers were alive and writing they had patrons who liked what they did and who therefore paid them money or gave them a place to live so that the composers could stay alive by writing dots on pieces of paper. If any of the compositions these men wrote had not been pleasing to a church, a duke, or a king, they would have been out of work and their music would not have survived. There is a book called Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, with thousands of names in it. You have never heard of most of the people in that book, nor have you heard their music. That doesn't mean they wrote awful music, it means they didn't have hits. So basically, the people who are recognised as the geniuses of classical music had hits. And the person who determined whether or not it was a hit was a king, a duke, or the church or whoever paid the bill. The content of what they wrote was to a degree determined by the musical predilections of the guy who was paying the bill. Anyone with the ability to reason would suspect that women were not looked upon with an academic intent by such people.
Michael Bailey
Oh, I didn't see that part. I actually mentioned his fourth concerto as something I was not familiar with, and I think suggested that that might be a modernist piece.
To be frank, this is hardly among his most popular works, and it would no more appropriate to call Rachamaninoff modernist than Liszt impressionist, as his most popular and really his best works are clearly of a romantic character. > Not to mention I pointed out that Rossini is outright called a "Classical composer" but Rachmaninoff is referred to as post or neo-romantic. This is an argument against your case, as Rossini would have been a transitional composer, meaning his relationship to Classical and Romantic periods was very different from Rachmaninoff's relationship of Romantic to Modernist, as one would certainly never call Rossini a post-classical, or neo-classical composer.
Can someone just tell me the part with the band playing on the stage as the orchestra plays something in a different time signature? I don't want to listen to the whole thing because I don't really like Opera.
>Hildegard von Bingen. This music has not aged well. Furthermore, she I do not think she would be placed among the greatest composers even in her sphere. >you can just contend that they do not fit your definition of greatness, therefore I am uninterested with your response This is not logical. You suggest I could respond in such a way, and then conclude you are not interested in what I will say.
X is a possibility If X is true, Y is true. Therefore Y.
Totally invalid argument. > You have never heard of most of the people in that book, nor have you heard their music. Irrelevant personal remark. >During the time these "great" composers were alive and writing they had patrons who liked what they did and who therefore paid them money or gave them a place to live so that the composers could stay alive by writing dots on pieces of paper. If any of the compositions these men wrote had not been pleasing to a church, a duke, or a king, they would have been out of work and their music would not have survived. Irrelevant to whether their music was great. Mozart and Beethoven, and even Wagner were equally dependent on their patrons at some or all the points in their lives., as were many artists at the time. The difference is those two composers wrote excellent music. Whether they could have written better music had they not been do dependent on patronage is irrelevant. > Anyone with the ability to reason would suspect that women were not looked upon with an academic intent Once again, irrelevant to whether great music was made by them. If I had suggested the reason that women did not great music was due to their inherent inferiority in that way, these would be valid arguments, suggesting they did not write music due to prejudices and not inherent inferiority. But I said no such remark.
There may be debatable causes that provide valid defenses of women in their potential, but unseen capacity to compose great music, but this has yet to be shown.
Anthony Long
if you listen to it on 2x speed it will take roughly an hour on average
Blake Williams
Anyone who thinks memeloli is a great composer needs to listen to this by a twelve year old Busoni
This shitposting came to my mind while listening to Zelenka's Requiem ZWV 48
The Zelenka of The Medieval era: Anonymous IV The Zelenka of The Renaissance era: Nicolas Gombert The Zelenka of The Classical era: Anton Reicha The Zelenka of the Romantic era: ????? The Zelenka of the 20th: Luigi Dallapiccola / / /
>concerto for piano and string quartet Lmao what is this shit
Noah Sanchez
This is actually quite decent, certainly considering the age of the composer. Unfortunately, Busoni never even came close to greatness as a composer.
Jordan Perry
yes
Mason Bennett
Streichorchester is String ORCHESTRA dummy
Ian Thompson
> I think suggested that that might be a modernist piece. Actually, this is too strong, and I think hinted that there might be modernist influences, but I don't remember the exact language. You might want to post this every hour or so. It doesn't seem to be working at its current rate.
You failed to comprehend 20th century music. Don't worry, most people do.
Just remember that composers like Ligeti and Stockhausen spend their entire lives learning and thinking about music - don't expect to "get" or "like" what they're doing straight away.
Its fine to say you don't like 20th century music, or don't like certain composers or pieces, but calling them mediocre and trying to act superior to them aint going to fly - you are massively inferior to them in knowledge and experience.
Right now you are on the left hand side of the Dunning-Kruger graph - full of confidence, but with minimal knowledge on the subject. As you learn more, you will realize you don't actually know what you're talking about, and then as you learn even more, you will be able to comprehend a serious discussion about 20th century music.
There isn't much point in us trying to "defend" these composers - you clearly aren't ready for them. Get comfortable with Bartok, Penderecki and Lutoslawski and then we can talk.
The figures in the painting seem somewhat too cramped and indifferently placed, but the colors and sense of realism in this painting is extraordinary. I'm looking at other paintings by the same painter, and if he is obscure, the reason I could see for it was that nothing else he made approached this work.
Henry Thomas
Well Schubert is certainly more romantic than is Rachmaninoff modern (and of course Rossini is romantic as well ;^) )
Jeremiah Evans
Contemporary Zelenka?? >Inb4 poly
Cooper Hill
Well, it hasn't been a hour yet, but try again an hour from this post. It doesn't have to strictly be a hour, especially if I become less conspicuous, but still, remember to pace yourself.
Cooper Gray
>Zelenka of the Romantic Era
Alkan
Luke Robinson
jews don't count
Anthony Lewis
Kalevi Aho
Josiah Ramirez
Is this supposed to be satire? It doesn't make sense. If you said that Schubert is certainly more romantic than Zelenka is Baroque, then, the satire would be valid.
Really, it's blunders like these that just make me think less of everyone here, as the attempts to best me intellectually have come quite short. Dismissing it as beneath one's care gives no indication that you are not merely contemptuously dismissing what is impossible.
Okay, this scherzo is great. This movement perhaps the best neo-baroque piece I have ever heard. Busoni, at age 12, seems to have understood Bach better than Mendelssohn did, and certainly, this work embodies the Baroque and makes it idiomatically romantic better than anything of Mendelssohn, with the exception maybe of Mendelssohn's choral works.
This piece overall might actually be Busoni's best work, which is almost disappointing, as he had all the opportunities to become a truly worthy composer, but he never really managed it, despite his immense success as a pianist, at his numerous attempts at composition, where I think he excessively pursued progressiveness, in which he wasn't even that successful even compared to some of his contemporaries.
Austin Evans
Please elaborate.
Cooper Cook
Last concert I went to see was a Mussorgsky opera. It was Gudunov I guess.
Here is are two very interesting performances, more than the piece itself, but how it is interpreted, and specifically, the differences in the interpretations. In this arrangement, Volodos was very clearly imitating Horowitz, (whom he probably saw as his pianist hero), in this arrangement of the Turkish march, which strongly resembles arrangements Horowitz has made, (though usually of romantic pieces), and Volodos breaks from his idol by arranging a Classical piece.
I would say on the whole, he performance of his own work is better, but Wang's interpretation of this same piece is interesting, almost because it seems to completely change the nature of the work. With Volodos, in his an almost exaggerated and stereotypically Russian fashion, is highly focused on the effect that the textures have when the pedal is so strongly utilized, while still maintain some clarity. Truly, Volodos might be the pianist closest to Rubinstein. Still, the model of Horowitz's arrangements could not be more obvious in his performance.
(1/2)
Adam Long
(2/2) Wang, however, stresses the clarity of the lines, and it becomes closer in character to a Godowsky arrangement, even though she is playing the same notes, which, while I think an inferior performance, reveals interesting aspects of the piece that were not apparent in Volodos's performance of his own work.
You might dismiss outright something so irreverent or even showy and shallow of Mozart's original, but I am trying to focus on how a piece could be played so differently and yet reveal interesting aspects in both performances. The aspects of Wang's performance being inferior, yet revealing details not apparent in the performance of Volodos, reminds me of how Gould's interpretations of Mozart's sonatas, as unusual, stiff, and frankly dry as they are, reveals details not heard in more conventional performances, and I would recommend them after one has heard other performances of the sonatas, because they are certainly the most unique interpretations, which could be said of so many interpretations by Gould: questionable and inferior, but unique, interesting, and worthy of your time.
It makes me think that once, even pieces as monumental and well-known as the Beethoven sonatas truly did not have "standard" interpretations, with Liszt probably being the first to play the Hammerklavier publicly, and probably, there were as many types of interpretations as pianists. This is the case in these two very different performances, and of different qualities, but still very valid and containing beauties the other does not. This is a far cry from the last century, where not only the standard repertoire has become very contracted, but also the interpretations of the standard repertoire.
This is why I have such high opinion of Horowitz and Gould, who, as deviant and irreverent as they might have been of some pieces, they were at least extremely original performers and were constantly interpreting pieces in new and interesting ways from what was conventional.
Jeremiah Campbell
FUCK Mozart FUCK Chopin FUCK your darling R*mantic era
Now go listen to my Recordings of Gibbons, Byrd, Scarlatti, Handel, Bach and Webern
Also Mozart should have died earlier and Electronic music is the future Also the piano is a Polyphonic instrument Non-polyphonic piano works are irrelevant
Just listening to this piece by both performers just makes me lament the death of the piano composer. This arrangement is hardly great music, but it is an effective showpiece, which does not inherently make it bad art, (probably it's biggest flaw it that it ends somewhat in a whimper, while in youtube.com/watch?v=0qG9PZNJI_k&ab_channel=GeoDimas, from 2:08 to 2:36, there is genuinely gripping music)
I would say this piece is certainly not inferior to so many operatic fantasies written by Liszt, where he was clearly writing pieces based on popular themes the listening audiences would be familiar with, and works in which he could display his revolutionary technique. In my opinion, these were fairly mediocre works, but they were necessary for Liszt to develop his style, and there are many aspects to these works that would eventually be used to great effect later in truly original and excellent pieces, such as the combination of different and disparate rhythms and themes into a single piece, (which were used to excellent effect in the Hungarian rhapsodies and the Sonata, and his best fantasies, such as that of Don Juan the Robert le Diable), and the thorough exploitation of the keyboard to reproduce orchestral effects, (which was used in numerous original works, but various masterful transcriptions, most principally, those of the Beethoven symphonies).
(1/2)
Hunter King
To think that it was once common for eminent pianists to feature their works that were actually contemporary and loved by audiences, whether it was Liszt, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Mozart, or Beethoven. The vast, vast majority of pianists, even those of the first rank, probably contributed little by their compositional output. Thalberg, for instance, Liszt's greatest rival, and who had a longer-lasting career as a first-rate pianist, produced numerous works, most notably several concert fantasies, which did gain prominence in his day, but his music has almost completely been forgotten, and I think deservedly so, as he never progressed past the level of what Liszt's produced as a touring virtuoso, and truly, did not even reach the best of what Liszt produced in that period.
Still, had every pianist, or even musician never bothered to compose, reasonably knowing with certainty that they would likely never produce anything anyone would rather hear than the classics, there would have been no Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Prokofiev, Alkan, etc. Rachmaninoff was a composer whose greatest flaw was that he dropped composing and became an incredibly successful pianist, which I can not help but respect less in comparison to Liszt's change in passion, who left his career as a performer the peak of his popularity from a fervent desire to compose.
This is what makes modern pianists like Horowitz and Hamelin admirable, who, as limited as their compositional output was, they produced works of some popularity and merit, which did not detract in the least from their excellent as pianists.
(2/2)
Lucas Taylor
brevity is the soul of wit
Nolan Ross
>I'm tired of just listening to Debussy, Ravel, Satie, Liszt, etc. If you have to include Liszt as an impressionist, I think you've reached the end of the line, as least for music that would be considered "good," (not by me, but by some).
You might want to try Albéniz. I can't say he's a good composer, but I listened to some music of his that I didn't immediately feel compelled to turn off.
This seems tolerable. But then it gets becomes more impressionist than romantic, and that's when you realize this music is really far too shallow to maintain interest.
Impressionism really is just other side of the degenerate aspects of 20th century music. It's all shallow, aimless garbage, but while modernist music is shallow and aimless, (at least in respects that are actually observable by the listener, even if it, at least in the case of the Second Viennese School, is highly formalist), yet sounds horrendously awful, impressionism has the same fault, but seeks an excessively inoffensive and comforting idiom, which would be perfectly acceptable if there were a general development that was comparable to what was found in romantic and classical pieces, but that simply isn't the case. It sounds nice and comforting, and that's basically it.
However much work Debussy, Ravel, Satie put in their work is besides the point. It seems like comforting monotony is the starting point of all impressionism, (along with occasionally featuring various harmonies that are unusual, but certainly not unseen in romantic music), which doesn't make beautiful music impossible, but it is highly constraining, and does not allow for the highly comprehensible and intuitively sensible ingenuity possible in Baroque, Classical, and Romantic compositions.
That you feel confined in listening to this music and can mention only four composers, one of whom is very questionably included, should be rather telling.
Samuel Morris
Comfy alone at my parents home so I can blast Johannes Passion through my dads big speakers
Ayden Gray
Despite the brevity of your post, there was very little wit in that hackneyed quote, so I can not entirely agree with you.
Joshua Ward
It's just some friendly advice, no need to jump into a quarrel.
Angel Sullivan
This arrangement is as derivative as it could possibly be of Horowitz's Carmen Variations, (in structure, devices, and harmonies), yet the subject material is so different, as well as the inclusion of the polyphonic textures in a manner extremely different from Horowitz's style of arrangement, (but very similar to Godowsky's), that it's more of a very subtle and tasteful homage. I certainly prefer to this to outright quoting unrelated compositions, (like when Alkan quotes Beethoven's Fifth Symphony in his cadenza for the Third Concerto, or when Hamelin quotes Le festin d'Ésope in his study based on two of Alkan studies), which is rarely appropriate. In that case, I apologize for misguiding your intentions.
Isaac Rogers
Lmao fag, Baroque is gay for the exception of Bach, Scarlatti, and Zelenka, Classical is the same for the exception of Beethoven
Camden Diaz
Beethoven-Alkan youtu.be/m7n5w4SCCyw I'm glad this recording is such high quality, but Hamelin's approach really is too dry here. Hamelin is perfectly suited to most of Alkan's best works, (his recordings of the Concerto, the Symphony, the Grande Sonate, and Le festin d'Ésope, are faultless as one can find in music), but not Beethoven, and this piece certainly reflects Beethoven more than Alkan. Somebody who could interpret the Beethoven Symphony transcriptions well, (such as Howard or Katsaris), should have be the one to play this piece.
Basically, in playing a transcription of an orchestral piece, because so much of the texture is lost, or only approximately captured by the piano, one should attempt to play it an exaggerated manner, so the contrasts between the sections becomes more apparent, and people can better comprehend the structure of the piece. This is less necessary when the piece is played in an orchestra, because the various instruments give more variety and can better differentiate parts of the piece, and clarity in playing allows the textures to be better comprehended. This doesn't mean the more clear interpretation is always preferable, but I would say it's an option that, if chosen on the piano, makes the transcription compare very poorly to the original. Only by playing in unexpected ways, or by taking advantage of the fact that only a handful of the textures are reproduced in a transcription, no matter how exact, can the performance of a transcription possibly compare well to that of an orchestral performance, which is all the more necessary today, especially when playing a recording of a transcription is no more difficult than playing that of the orchestral original.
Why can't I manage to listen to more than one act of an opera a day?
Cameron Clark
Even if I allowed that, (which I certainly don't), Bach alone produced more works worthy of regard than every single impressionist put together, by a factor of about, oh, I don't know, four or five, ballpark figure. Really, I think a closer observation would make that ratio much less favorable to impressionism.
I don't care how much Ravel polished or crafted his works; they are immensely inferior to the least of those of Bach's. Whether Bach more diligently labored at his art, (and Ravel's output was scarce because he spent too much time whoring or chasing the respect of his colleagues), or Bach was of such transcendent ability, that his slightest and most cursory performances excelled all that labor and study could enable meaner intellects like Ravel to compose, I can not say.
However, I am still convinced that it is largely the forms of music that have prevented great works of genius from appearing, and why one should prefer to be second in the great cities of Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music, then first in the squalid villages that are modernism and impressionism.
Anthony Edwards
Beethoven-Alkan youtube.com/watch?v=Mv80YNC84lU&ab_channel=SpazioTeatro89 Frankly, a huge improvement on Hamelin, who was more technically accurate, and whose recording is much cleaner, but who made little attempt to add the necessary dramatic and emotional element of an interpreter.
Still, this performance did not go far enough. For a piece where so much of the textures are lost, everything has to be played in a dramatic, perhaps even unusual fashion, where the audiences should be constantly surprised how a part is played, even, if not especially those already familiar with the piece.
This is actually largely reflected in many, usually small textual changes Liszt's makes to Beethoven's symphonies as transcriptions, even when it's not a matter of compromise with the instrument, but trying to improve the symphonies on the medium of the piano, and naturally, it makes sense that if the text of the music should be changed, so should the interpretation on the piano change compared to how the orchestral original is generally interpreted.
We don't know because none of us listen to that crap.
Ian Davis
Reminder that you should not reply to the paragraph autist because he is baiting and/or his lack of knowledge and our based (and fair) criticism has lead him to become even more aggressive and delusional.
Did Gould ever specifically give his opinion on Chopin's music, maybe notes for his bafflingly awful recording of what is perhaps Chopin's least popular mature work, the Third Sonata, (maybe it's slightly more popular than the Second Ballade).
(I do agree there's no truly great female composers, though.)
Camden Kelly
>Scriabin is considered the first Expressionist [citation needed] But yes, he was an expressionist.
There's very obvious similarities between his musical language from his second period and the impressionists (quartal harmony, emphasis on colour, the horizontal melodies and vertical harmonies becoming balanced out).
Meh. These are much clearer. Well, my only defense is that I am honest. I'm also right. I hope that reduces your acrimony.
Gabriel Butler
New edition
Gavin Reed
I am going to destroy your body
Christopher Jones
Was it specifically about the impressionists? Can't you be perfectly honest and admit that Ravel is labored shallowness? Come on, it shouldn't be that hard.
