He actually didn't accomplish that. The blatant awfulness of Shoenberg's works made that unnecessary, resulting in Shoenberg being little known to the public outside a handful of tonal works and having a created a system that resulted in music few care for.
Jack Cox
If there's Hans its only fair that we have Shlomo, who represents the opposite beliefs
: ) youtube.com/watch?v=VF0LDt1JAYU I adore the way he uses chromatic ascension of fifths to outline six tetrachords and deny the harmonic palette from being purely quintal despite using only fifths throughout the entire piece. I also think his quite subtle use of hemolia to create polyrhythms works genially to mystify the imbricated chords that would otherwise sound horrifically dissonant. The contrapuntal elements are also quite deft with his use of disjoined registers while simultaneously chromatically shifting so as to imply a compound melody. Hope this helped explain my adoration of it, much love
Well, I suppose it's a matter of opinion how blatant is the awfulness. Some people I suppose are blinded by pretentiousness, so it's not blatant to them. It is, however, obvious enough to the vast majority of people, which is why Shoenberg is known largely for his method than his actual music. I would allow that is a legacy worth undoing.
Luke Price
Read Schoenberg's "Fundamentals of Musical Composition" and Wallace Berry's "Form in Music". Those will help you understand the 2 topics you're struggling with.
Gabriel Martinez
I know that feel. I wish I'd had tiger parents. Or that I didn't grow up with low-class parents, so I was at least introduced to the great music of the past much earlier. I'll never have the skills of the great composers. I'll always be a mediocrity, if even that.
Seems like you're blind to great music. Schoenberg is known as a fantastic composer, and greatly respected by pretty much every 20th and 21st century composer, and performer of 20th century music that came after him. His legacy is mostly for composers; the common pleb doesn't really understand what's going on with tonal music, let alone atonal music.
Aiden Martin
none of those are true tho. He's worshipped because he excelled at all of those aspects, and more.
Isaiah Jackson
any books on MODERN orchestration? i already have the rimsky book
>I know that feel. I wish I'd had tiger parents. Or that I didn't grow up with low-class parents, so I was at least introduced to the great music of the past much earlier. I'll never have the skills of the great composers. I'll always be a mediocrity, if even that. literally describing my life right now user. i hate the fact i grew up poor and i will fully admit i am extremely jealous of jacob c*llier and his right royal academy of music family who coddled him with the most advanced musical education since birth. i've been listening to classical since i was 13 and just never had someone teach me harmony and orchestration and stuff. i have a bunch of little naive snippets of music from 5 years ago when i was 14 in sibelius, riddled with errors and it just makes me so sad i thought i had a chance.
Samuel Adler - The Study of Orchestration. Make sure you get the audio files too as they're vital to understanding the kind of sounds you're working with in the orchestra. The whole thing is on rutracker.
Jonathan Barnes
Strictly speaking he's probably an even better melodist than Mozart. Every work sounds complete distinguishable from the next. Doing that in the classical era is quite a feat. His harmony is often rather lazy (moving from V-I-V-I incessantly) but ultimately it is also very ambitious, unprecedented really. Beethoven being bad at counterpoint is the biggest myth in the entire history of classical music and its probably only perpetuated by people who hear the Hammerklavier fugue and the Grosse Fuge, and just assume they are an example of Beethoven's limitations as a contrapuntalist. The orchestration is also revolutionary.
First accomplishment means little, as it is equivalent to accomplishing more than expected by needless limitations, and I would not compare this piece to other that rely on fifths, but all pieces, or at least all other pieces.
While the piece is certainly less horrifically dissonant, (which naturally, the modernist calling card), this is hardly an accomplishment, as I demand more from the music generally than that it is merely not "horrifically dissonant." This mystification results in making the piece seem more minimalist than it actually is. This is no more sensible praise than if, in a piece of music where one hand were quietly forming "horrifically dissonant" chords, and the right was playing a melody so loud, while relying on pedal, that that the accompaniment of the left hand was drowned out, I congratulated the composer for concealing such hideousness.
What would constitute the compound melody in this case escapes me. The standards for melodies are so low in modernism that whether there a compound melody is irrelevant. Compound melody assumes a perceivable relationship to the listener based on what it understood to possibly be melodies. Otherwise, any series of notes between two lines could be thought to be melodies. It goes without saying, but "implying a compound melody" is redundant.
So, there we have it. It's a simply a matter of standards. You value accomplishing something of little worth if there are arbitrary constraints, while I do not. You find it an accomplishment that music is not horrifically dissonant, while I do not, (though, it does make him uncharacteristic as a modernist, which is something). You have such low standards for melodies that the mere implication of a implication of one is of value to you, while I do not.
Jack Campbell
what are some good examples of works displaying Beethoven's skills at counterpoint?
I took piano lessons since i was 8 but i'm poor too, but i dont really understand what you guys are complaining i literally dont get any enjoyment from composing music whats the big deal for you guys? Do you really think you're going to get any kind recognition or something?
I have big ideas. Musical cubism. dodecaphony that is heroic, morose, passionate, joyful. dodecaphony that imitates the styles of particular composers. Stuff like that.
Ayden Jones
The difference is the one could be "blind" only to "great" music of Schoenberg's sort, in that it's "greatness" lies only in what cleverness is perceivable in what relationships exist between the notes according to his absurd rules of composition. This would be similar to how one might hear a play where the players spoke almost utter nonsense, and the defense of it is that there was something rather clever that's only perceivable when you read the script, perhaps a sort of serialism where the players made certain to say words of a certain number of syllables lengths before saying a word of syllable length that had already occurred, which really is not less ridiculous than serialism.
The common pleb, ultimately, is what determines the lasting legacy of music, and it's necessarily a defect of Schoenberg's music when compared to works of undeniably great composers, who were perfectly willing to conceal profundity in appealing and accessible music. I'm not convinced Schoenberg had a valid excuse for dispensing with this. >pretty much every 20th and 21st century composer, A lot of which I generally do not have a high opinion. You can mention names, but these are generally artists who, whatever degree of labor they put into their works, pursued corrupted, vicious, and ignoble ends in music, far worse than shallow virtuosos who composed music only to display their technical skills, who at least pleased the public and expanded the technique of their instrument, as well as occasionally writing good music. There is nothing meritorious about the music written a la Schoenberg. It is nihilism clothed in formalism.
Grayson Gray
Are you the guy who tried to make a 12-tone Fugue? lmao i remember you
It's two sides of the same coin of bad music: one side being reactionary and sentimental mediocrity, and the other being progressive and formalist nihilism.
James Hill
Nobody wants to hear that rubbish. I don't even have to tell you to keep it to yourself, and however obscure and unheard your wretched tunes would be, try to be comforted that the world is slightly better off by your compositional impotence. I mean, if you did write , just don't write any more. It was terrible. I don't know what music you could have possibly heard that would suggest that was worth sharing, or making, or even imagining.
Parker Kelly
Beethoven youtube.com/watch?v=wbgInLJ81eY Watching this makes me sympathize with suicide bombers, or jihadists. I think I essentially feel the same they do when I see things like this, but I'm not mentally unbalanced like they are, and if I were, this might really unnerve me to do something drastic and violent.
Gabriel Carter
Damn , drinking tea while watching the rain with this music on makes me feel like the final villain, just waiting for someone to challenge me
Luke Robinson
It is not strictly dodecaphonic, but did mention the chromaticism in regards to the tetrachordal harmony. Hahahahaha Like I said you will not find most of these things in Scriabin but it is nonetheless a beautiful piece that handles atonalities in a brilliant manner, which was your request after all. The use of fifths is not a constraint as Ligeti's études are exercises in subtle harmony and rhythm, not pointless complexity, and I'm sure you understand that in the piece the fifths are divided by different amounts in each hand, so the usage of them is not so much a constraint as it is a harmonic choice. Besides, you did say that you enjoyed such music when you said that scriabin accomplished similar things in his works The music is clearly beautiful however you are just a dilettante who cannot even read of complex harmonies (that you so love in scriabin) without associating it with your twisted perspective of modernism that is no doubt based on an assumption that it is ontological rather than purely epistemological. You are not clever for being so uninformed and unlearned.
Isaiah Jackson
Between the good and evil parts of our being sits the transcendent part of our soul on a throne of ecstasy and despair. Reaching into our ancestral past and looking to the far future it holds untold secrets and our true potential nascent and yet dormant.
I stood on a windswept, snow covered mountain in Afghanistan. I was at once a god and a demon, yet I was nothing. In my hands I held the instruments of life and death. My heart holds hate and love in equal measure.
I am destined to burn away before my time.
Michael Reed
why so bitter user? not him but thats pretty harsh
Alexander Hughes
Kek Daily reminder in /classical/ we play rough and is nothing personal
Xavier Gutierrez
Now that i think of sometimes it can get pretty personal
You ever see modern """"""""""art"""""""""" and think it not only no good reason to be made, but any attention or labor given to it is an immense waste, and it's only by some inexplicable delusion that seems to engulfed some segments of the world that any notice is given to that which is at times indistinguishable from trash?
This is roughly the opinion I hold of modernist music generally. If the modernists are so indifferent that the world long ago has decided to ignore their music and prefer continue listening the classics continuously, I don't see why I should be less indifferent the reactions towards my opinions. (I personally find this sort of music much more offensive than many people might find my opinions.) In this regard, being indifferent to what others think, I am equal to the moderns, though, as far as opinions go, I am right, and, as far as music goes, they are wrong.
>Like I said you will not find most of these things in Scriabin What is here and not heard in Scriabin is not of value. >The use of fifths is not a constraint The harmonic pallete would certainly not be quintal if it were not composed purely of fifths, meaning this effectively is a constraint, the supersedence of which is of no value, as it still does not sufficiently relieve the monotony present in the piece. >not pointless complexity I never used that phrase, and "complex" is the last criticism I would give of this piece, though "pointless" is apt. >so the usage of them is not so much a constraint as it is a harmonic choice. This is besides the point. You mentioned something the piece accomplishes in spite of having such a quality, and my answer to that is I see no value in the quality, and thus of not value. If I ambulated everywhere on my knees, and eventually could get to a speed of two miles an hour, this should impress nobody, as it could not be described as quick, and what I accomplish with an arbitrary constraint is valueless. > you did say that you enjoyed such music Nope. I'm not splitting hairs. I think Scriabin got worse as he grew as a composer, not better, but I at least hear the originality, while Ligeti's music is neither original, nor good. I only mean that if there is anything good or unique in this music, it would have been found in the works of Scriabin I don't even like. >The music is clearly beautiful It's as "clearly beautiful" as this sort of line is "clearly persuasive," and your argument is "clearly convincing." >you are just a dilettante Oh, goody, personal remarks, and I thought your post couldn't get any worse. >(that you so love in scriabin) Not really. >associating it with your twisted perspective of modernism I generally don't care for these works by Scriabin, which I thought I made clear. I don't have an issue with labeling Scriabin as a modernist, and there is modernist music that I enjoy. It's just mostly trash.
Thomas Ross
Just got back from a Mahler 2 concert. Never heard the piece before as my main preoccupation is with renaissance-era music.
Impressions: >1st movement A bit repetitive. Not a huge fan of funeral marches, honestly, so this was a bit much. The themes were nice at least. >2nd movement Rather pleasant if very simple. >3rd movement Not a fan. Felt rather banal. >4th movement Great. >5th movement Interesting. I'm not a huge fan of the first half, as it was a bit too episodic for my tastes, but once the chorus came in I was very hooked. Quite sublime and sensitive - I wish the rest of the piece was this fantastic, I especially liked the little fugue.
Overall I would rate the piece on the whole "so-so," but maybe the performance wasn't the best. However that final movement, and especially the vocal writing, was great.
Aaron Wright
>I think Scriabin got worse as he grew as a composer, not better
>my main preoccupation is with renaissance-era music Based Favorite works? I was going to ask favorite Composers but that would probably go Josquin,Palestrina,Tallis the list goes on...
Nolan Carter
He didn't get better, he just got more insane, but the modern cult of "genius" fetishizes insanity so it's mistaken for growth and brilliance.
>Wall of text that is anti-Schoenberg didn't read. You're the paragraph autist so I can be safe in the knowledge you don't know what you're talking about, as well as your opinions being fairly common since atonal music was first written. Essentially you're a pleb even for someone from the 1900s, let alone today.
Colton Cruz
I will allow it's possible that I sense more value in Scriabin's works from a bias, but that would be due to considering his early works to be great, not because I despise modernists and thus, despise this work. I could post modernist works by Scriabin I enjoy, but I don't think there's a point. >ontological rather than purely epistemological. It's an aesthetic judgment, holy fucking shit. I have no fucking idea what the fuck you are trying to say here. Why an epistemological assumption would be more valid than a ontological one is beyond me. And you have no doubt about this? Please, share with us what is my "ontological assumption." I'm dying to know. I'm just going to double down and call you a retard at who at some point resorted making a word salad instead of a coherent post. I welcome you to call my bluff and try to defend the verbal diarrhea that is, "no doubt based on an assumption that it is ontological rather than purely epistemological." This is name-calling, but it can't be said you don't deserve it for writing that nonsense. Again, prove it's not. Consider your intelligence on the line.
>You are not clever for being so uninformed and unlearned. I believe my cleverness lies in making those who at least pretend to have so much more knowledge look like utter fools, as they are reduced to blathering, insults, and basically show how useless is their supposed knowledge for actually persuading other people of anything but their impotence.
Gabriel Edwards
>5 movements take that, standard symphonic form.
Liam Foster
>didn't read. You're the paragraph autist so I can be safe in the knowledge you don't know what you're talking about, as well as your opinions being fairly common since atonal music was first written. Essentially you're a pleb even for someone from the 1900s, let alone today. thanks for tacitly admitting you base your opinions on music on groupthink and politicking rather than any actual honest assessment of the music
Brandon Wood
Might be a generic answer but Josquin's Missa Gaudeamus is probably my favorite work.
I've been exploring Isaac's output, or at least what's recorded of it, recently. It's kinda a shame a lot of it is performed rather poorly.
Hunter Russell
Knowing what one is talking about apparently makes a person's opinions less and less convincing when shared with other people. It seems to be a weapon of too great weight to handle, and when one is defeated by those more skillful and cunning, despite professing more ignorance, (largely, due to lack of interest), you have no better reason to be satisfied than the man who knows he could have won if only he could have effectively used his weapon.
I've already seen your post when you thought were talking to somebody who wouldn't call you out on your bullshit based on shallow knowledge. was a pathetic attempt, something that anybody could have made having read the hack's Wikipedia page. >as well as your opinions being fairly common since atonal music was first written Atonal music has not become much more popular since then, so if you suggesting that somehow, I'm some philistine not having embraced music loved by all, you're kidding yourself. I suppose somebody had to say it. I think it's simplistic to suggest that much of what Scriabin wrote after a certain point was due to insanity, but it an argument against there being some profound worth in his music, and not merely the gestations of a deteriorating mind.
Connor Moore
Nice choice What do you think of Gesualdo and Gombert? Also renaissance polyphony recordings/performance is a really interesting thing to investigate i read a bunch of stuff of how Different probably the works sounded back then because of technique and medieval/renaissance accents Do you know about this? My example of a good Renaissance vocal performance/recording would be the Madrigal books of Gesualdo by Marco Longhini Delitiae Musicae
>Atonal music has not become much more popular since then Its in every single horror film, and most game soundtracks that feature suspense. It certainly had a massive impact on music.
When you start coming to terms with 20th century music, you will start to understand what's going on. For now, just stick to common practice, no one cares what you think about a period you have no understanding of.
Carter Hill
>harmonic pallete Hahaha this dude has to learn terms to describe music from his opponents Hahaha this dude got this buttmad at Debussy mate do you know what these words mean? what modernism is? modernism is a revolt against the normalizing functions of traditions, and developed the scientific method as a way of providing an objective platform for assessment. Ligeti's studies in harmony and rhythm are scientific, which does not cohere with your belief that music must be more than a study, "[as you] demand more from the music than that it is merely not 'horrifically dissonant'", and that you see deliberate scientific study (which is what the usage of fifths in the piece is) in music as the equivalent to "ambulating everywhere on [your] knees" which I can only assume is because you judge music from an purely perceptive and thus ontological perspective rather than an analytic epistemological perspective; your error is attempting to use non-technical perception to analyse a piece of music that is only interested in examining complex harmony and rhythm.
You seem very intent on arguing with theoretic terms that I use for someone that thought the piece "sounds like a imitation of Scriabin" before I showed you wrong and you backtracked into nitpicking me for calling you a dilettante and relying on the one real criticism you had which basically amounts to "I don't think fifths sound good".
Mason Rodriguez
I feel bad for paragraphautist because he literally just has the Classical And romantic period
He can't claim to like the Baroque era since he just likes Bach And Scarlatti like the good Pianocuck he is and I can understand hating atonal Music but he dismissed the whole 20th century outside of a few late romantic zombies And the worst of his sins is not appreciating renaissance polyphony this is just wrong
Anyway how is my ""'''''''''""""" punctuation"'''''''''''''''' fags??? I'm getting better?
What are your favourite works from the Medieval period? I am keen to discover more since hearing "Sumer is Icumen in" for the first time. What a banger
Jonathan Morgan
Replying to the user that posted in the previous thread Scriabin never wrote atonal music. His later pieces are definitely centred around some sort of scale or chord i.e. the Prometheus (which was created by taking notes from the 8th to the 16th in the harmonic series) most likely or some variation. But arguing whether something is atonal or not might be down to analytic interpretation and/or semantics in certain cases so let's just agree that his late music really is atonal in a broader sense. Even though there are arguments to be made in light of his sketches for the Mysterium which feature 12-tone blocks, similar to those used by Yefim Golyshev and Arthur-Vincent Lourié later on at the beginnings of 12-tone techniques. But that work is unfinished. Although no matter how weird, unnerving and supposedly atonal it sounds, Scriabin's music always has a sense of sweetness and stability to it. He was very bound to the classical-romantic tradition his whole life (up to the last piano pieces) in the sense that his music is absolutely periodic (phrases of 4 bars, 8, 16; one phrase is the question, then he transposes and repeats it as an answer etc.), even when there's no clear "tonal centre" or cadenzas to be seen. He keeps the periodic structures simply by motivic development, almost by force in a way. The other reason is in the upper voices: even though there may be a lot of tritones around the bass and middle tones which gives the feeling of a floating (a)tonality with no real anchor, the uppermost voice is mostly sliding by half steps in Wagnerian style and is usually grouped with the closest/second/inner voice in thirds, fourths and sixth intervals and this sounds pleasant and sweet to the ears.
>Schoenberg >progressive >nihilism Ahem, he was a very religious man who described himself as a revolutionary traditionalist.
Evan Flores
Agreed. He won't find a way out of this rut though because his ego is too big and he's too far ahead in the autism spectrum. Also left-hand side of Dunning–Kruger etc. you know how it goes.
He's made the sonata cycle into an instrumental musical drama. You are absolutely correct in that his themes are boring because his pieces are always based on motivic development. It starts with a shitty fragment of a motive, absolutely nothing. But that's not the point. The point of Beethoven isn't a beautiful melody or the exposition but what he does with that nonsensical and useless material and turns it into giant structures where every bar is important and holds it together. It's basically just a million different ways to write tonic-dominant-tonic progressions, moments of extreme tension and instability and moments of meditative relaxation and stability. user here explained is good as well
A good example of what I mean is the Tempest sonata obviously. It starts off like nothing, absolutely nothing, but if you keep a close eye to how and where these useless starting fragments of motives start to appear and transform, it truly is a well structured and beautiful piece. Just appreciate the drama. youtube.com/watch?v=fXDWRm-PU1Q
Easton Carter
>paragraph autist >can't even read music >can't into renaissance or 20th century "music" >thinks he can be an authority >mfw
I really don't know why I was bothered to do this when I've never really used a chart myself. Now that I've come this far, please add or remove something by posting album titles/covers here so that I can finally move on.
Also inb4 for >no Zelanka >no orchestral Scriabin >etc. It is most likely that the search engine didn't find the exact "good" albums, although usually it can find the obscure stuff just fine. Just keep posting and let's do something about those recordings later.
>he genuinely thinks he's superior to us Fricsay's version of Don Giovanni is the best, Argerich's version of Ravel's Concerto in G surpasses the other Ravel works you've listed and Cziffra plays the best Liszt imo. You ought to listen to Gould's recordings of Schoenberg and expand your familiarity with Richter, especially his recordings of Debussy works, though I think your best plan of action is to just listen to every recording you can find of your favourite piece and determine who your favourite conductors/players are from there because this seems list a bit all over the place.
Josiah Myers
Here's a faster Missa Solenis by Klemps
Also Try Derzhavina - Haydn Piano Sonatas Scherchen - Haydn syphonies Ristenpart - Bach cantatas
>Scott Ross-Scarlatti Based and Blackpilled, the first musician to record all 555 sonatas and it was a Harpsichordist!!
Have you heard alots of WTCs? do you really like Schiff?
Nathaniel Clark
Whats the Best Missa Solemnis with modern audio quality? Meaning 1970+
Ryder Butler
Thanks for the recommendations, I will be occupied with listening to this stuff for a while.. I also think Cziffra plays the faster and "wilder" Liszt the best without a doubt. When it comes Arrau's style, it may be a bit dry, but it is very approperiate for the more contemplative and cantabile pieces of Liszt. I'm amazed at how I haven't heard of these. Thanks. Heck yeah, Scott Ross is really damn underrated and his control of the tiniest details is almost like hearing fine dynamics. Scarlatti isn't bad when played on piano, but the harpsichord does something special with it.
I'm not a real connoiseur on the subject, but along with Schiff I've listened to Tureck, Richter and some lesser known ones like Samuil Feinberg and Evelyne Crochet. I don't really have a favorite since I'm yet to go full autistic with studying the music. I chose Schiff mainly because I'm most familiar with it and it's definetly not a bad recording.
That Schiff WTC really is superb. I listen to it all the time.
Kevin Phillips
m.youtube.com/watch?v=T_OwMA4PlJs Another recording of the same work i can't listen this since its says not available in my country but i'm going to listen to it in spotify
Eli Lee
Tremendous! The brickbats of this general are but hot jazz blown into the brisk storm: their spifflicated tongues will never touch such severe beauty, less their ears press against it!
Isaiah Watson
anybody have a bach chart?
Caleb Powell
Thanks m8, i hope you are not being ironic Last thread a schoenbabe got pretty pathethic complaining that Reger was not ""''''''''""''""""''''''''''catchy enough""""""""''''"''''""'''"'''''''''''' And put the SQ4 Schönberg as Example of something being catchy can you believe it!!!?
And Reger was even in the trinity of Schoenberg with Mahler and Strauss
SQ4?! The buffoonery indeed! There are some inveterate fools amongst us, may we strive to palm off their besotted, tenement opinions like braying imbecility it is!
Yup, I still don't think that's becoming much more popular, and tonal music is still the only pure music that people care about, bitch. If you really think atonal music is to justify itself on how common it is as incidental music, you're basically admitting how much of a failure it is. My standards are simply much higher.
Andrew Cruz
>Hahaha this dude has to learn terms to describe music from his opponents No, I'm just showing even using your terms, your darling music is still terrible. Apparently, you don't even know how to your these terms, as you think a "compound melody" is to be implied, which again, is still redundant. The methods used are not more scientific than for other movements of musical periods, and to the extent that they are, they are arbitrary and totally irrelevant to producing beauty. Nothing in the history of art is more ridiculous and arbitrary than serialism. > studies in harmony and rhythm are scientific The merits of which seem to have escaped you, as you attempted to expound upon their merit in manner utterly exploded by me. > "[as you] demand more from the music than that it is merely not 'horrifically dissonant'" Again, if this is your standard for music to be met, that is merely not horrifically dissonant, you are admitting how low your standards are.
Jack Morgan
Having a listen to Widor's 10th Organ Symphony "Roman." Any recommendations based off that?
Noah Cruz
>and that you see deliberate scientific study (which is what the usage of fifths in the piece is) You failed to demonstrate this. What was actually accomplished using these limitations is still based on the incredibly low standards for modernism, which is how you perceived the implication of an implication of a melody when the lack of standard of modernism imply it would be impossible to determine when a melody would be implied, as any notes could be thought to have that relationship, so to infer that there is a melody between two lines is utterly arbitrary. >I can only assume is because you judge music from an purely perceptive and thus ontological That's not what ontological means, dumbass. > someone that thought the piece "sounds like a imitation of Scriabin" >showed you wrong Dead wrong, buddy. I allowed there were distinct differences between Scriabin and that Ligeti piece, only I allowed none of it was good. You are going to have to split hairs harder than that >relying on the one real criticism And your only real praises comes for immensely lowering your standard for the music because it is modernism, and marveling with little is accomplished using constraints. That you think it's an accomplishment that the music was not "horrifically dissonant" proves this.
Eli Gomez
Wrong. I've posted several 20th century modernist composers who have composed music I liked, including Scriabin, Prokofiev, Stravinsky.
Right now, when it comes to me, you're on the left side of Dunning–Kruger.
Aaron Cruz
Irrelevant. Warhol was also very religious, and actually strongly admired classical art, but was still a nihilist in his particular field. I would actually strong admire Warhol more than the Schoenberg and his disciples because he had no pretentious that he was making anything meaningful, while Schoenberg was really delusional enough to think he was writing music that would reestablish German dominance.
Nathaniel Morgan
I think I'm an authority compared to you, as none of you have been able to trounce me an argument, despise all your attempts. Feel free to post a single time when this happened. I think I was wrong once because I said something wrong about the Second Viennese School, but as far as nihilist, formalist hacks go, I'm not really concerned about the details, so I did not find that blunder very embarrassing.
Colton Wilson
Can you recommend a good album with the essential Eric Satie pieces? If possible with an interpreter that is not too bombastic.
Sebastian Ward
So, you still apparently don't know what ontological means. Did you look up "compound melody" yet, or do you still think that it makes sense to say it can be implied. Do you can you can go farther and say you can imply the implication of an implied compound melody?
Christian Baker
I just like the good autism of Scriabinfags Here's a (you) m8
>mfw atonal-loving cretins STILL can't defend their darling noise Just accept that with all your knowledge, you still can't provide an objective argument that all the modernist garbage is unpopular because it's somehow above the common pleb. You clearly tried very hard, and perhaps that is admirable, (not really), but it just wasn't good enough. I have my opinions, and you have yours, and if yours are more intelligent, profound, and learned, you simply can't demonstrate this.
When somebody shits on composers I adore, I don't bother to contradict them because I know I can't prove to any degree of certainty that that person is expressing a wrong sentiment, as much I might believe otherwise. I at least have the sense to not pick arguments I can not win, unlike the hordes of modernist cretins who are still assblasted I maintain that, compared to all previous movements of classical music, modernism is inferior, pretentious, and deservedly obscure. ("Obscure" is a relative term, in that almost nobody outside connoisseurs gives a shit about atonal music. That somebody mentioned that it's apparently slightly more popular in horror films and such is a pathetic defense.)
The defense that, "Well, paragraphautist is just too stupid to understand our arguments," is a rationalization for failure. You tried to defend the music, and you failed. It might have worked with somebody less certain about their opinions, or perhaps less able to cogently form arguments, but it clearly didn't work with me. There isn't a single instance where you managed to demonstrate that there was one iota of worth to this music. That you didn't realize this would happen reflects an arrogance on your part that your knowledge would sufficient to win any argument, while it has resulted not in a single victory thus far. >inb4 muh Dunning–Kruger >inb4 Hans, or his last name >inb4 pleb >inb4 pathetic posts written at an eighth-grade level or below None of the above, really. It's just getting so tiresome.
>pleb So predictable, unfortunately >degenerate music Yes, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Liszt, Schubert, Scarlatti, Haydn, Bizet, Tchaikovsky, Borodin, Alkan, Mussorgsky, Rossini, Taneyev, Brahms, Waganer, Scrabin, Rachmaninoff, and Verdi are all composers of degenerate music under this perverse view. There is clearly not enough good music before the 20th century to last a lifetime, which is why one has to resort to the earsplitting muck of the modernists, just for variety, or, at least some do, namely, modernist cretins.
Obligatory pasta for you, I'll keep posting it until it gets inside your head for good and you realise what kind of an ass you're making of yourself: 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.
I am really enjoying this lovely early piece by Schoenberg lately; I really do like and appreciate the way he tries to compose a symphonic work (in typical Liszt-Straussian fashion with a single movement combined sonata form and sonata cycle synthesis) while simultaneously attempting to stay true to Maeterlinck's dramaturgy (this phrase may be lost in translation) and combing it with Wagner's leitmotif logic: a symphonic work and musical drama in one! youtube.com/watch?v=5ChHR8tT8cQ
Well, if I tell you not to write terrible music, and you compose music anyway, you are indeed flouting my advice. Perhaps you could write decent music, or not write music at all, or, in your stubbornness, you could write music that will inevitably be terrible just to contravene what should be clearly sensible advice, just because it proceeds from me.
Dylan Brown
This music is mediocre, (though perhaps not much more so than Liszt's symphonic poems or almost all of Strauss' oeuvre). Liszt, however, was being original, and the forms he pioneered were at least put to good use by the Russians.
Schoenberg here is being neither original, nor good. He is, however, at least tolerable, a quality he forsook in search of originality, which gave birth to his precious 12-tone row.
Falls under "pathetic posts written at an eighth-grade level or below." Again, try to be less predictable.
Being able to read music seems to make you totally incapacitated to articulately talk about, resulting in making personal attacks instead of intelligently defending the music you so love.
Otherwise, I would be refuted by now, but it apparently can't be done, despite the numerous opportunities I have given. Just accept that all you knowledge is useless for actually persuading people of anything, and whatever opinions you have of music are no more cogent or convincing than that of any pleb.
Really, feel free to actually provide any arguments that is remotely persuasive instead of muh dawning kroger, muh i can read music (trust me), muh pleb, etc., etc. Consider that it's far more plausible that you actually can't produce such arguments than that I am somehow could not understand them.
Justin Edwards
they were not degenerates because tonality was still a live, now that it's dead, atonal music is better
Jonathan Johnson
>Hans throws a Pfit edition
Jason Howard
>Yefim Golyshev and Arthur-Vincent Lourié
Interesting. Thanks
Hunter White
Isn't it rather ironically Freudian to put music in quotations like that?
Utterly moronic logic. This is like saying because music was largely homophobic after the Baroque era, Bach's works were somehow inferior to the legion of vastly inferior homophonic, if trendy composers that succeeded him, and that polyphonic music that resembled Bach was somehow degenerate.
Really, this is perhaps the most delusional post yet, and the closest I've read to somebody saying that modernist music is actually superior to that of the classics, which even the most delusional modernists here have been want to say explicitly.
These are sort of posts I would expect from this point: either worthless posts like this , or those revealing the utterly tortuous logic modernist cretins have to use to justify their perverse preferences.
Still waiting for actual arguments. It's quite possible all this musical education trained you only in acquiring knowledge that is utterly useless, as you neglected your rhetorical skills. Any other supposition would be quite invidious to you, as it would suggest you have neither persuasive ability, nor any knowledge. Had you been able to combine knowledge with a capacity to cogently utilize it, I might have been defeated, but nothing of the sort has happened. If anything, this knowledge not only makes your argumentative skills worse, as you don't even know how to use it, but must frustrate you, as somebody who you are convinced is clearly your inferior in this subject easily demolishes anything you provide that even resembles an argument. Yup. Basically admitting they know their favorite "music" can only questionably be called that. Good catch.
Landon Myers
>mfw someone who can't even read music thinks he can talk music
Considering nobody else can "talk" music here either, this at least makes me equal with you, only you claim, (without any evidence), that you can read music as well, even though this does not assist you in the least.
Jayden Martinez
I wasn't complaining about Reger, I was complaining about user's choice of "melody" from Reger's catalog. Anyone is going to remember that motive from the Schoenberg quartet unless they forcibly excise it from their mind. Nobody is going to remember some diatonic rambling that sounds overmuch like the Bach Cello Suite anyway (and thus would probably be supplanted by it in when trying to recall it).
since music is not objective in itself, it can only be valued objectively in regards to a system, like 18th century counterpoint or a 12 tone system, late romantic works were not written in any system there for are objectively trash
Cooper Wright
>not written in any system lol
Mason Sullivan
name the system`
Nicholas Morales
Who the fuck would want to write romantic pastiche in the year of our Lord 2019, except memeloli?
Jaxon Baker
Define "system". Are you saying counterpoint is a system and works of Mahler and Scriabin don't feature counterpoint?
Lincoln Clark
At one point, I somewhat regretted that I admitted that I couldn't read music, but considering how it's reduced my opposite to parroting the same point again and again, I'm glad they are reduced to this, as it removes any pretense of being rational. >it can only be valued objectively in regards to a system This calls into question the value of objectively valuing music, as it means the most worthless art written according to a system is more valuable than undeniably more valuable work written less systemically, which is an absurdity. >late romantic works were not written in any system Prove this claim. If you did, it would be good to know Mahler, Strauss, Reger are objectively trash, which I think you find few would agree with you here, even the most delusional and devoted modernist cretins, unless you can explain how those composers wrote their works according to a system. The same, of course, applies to the early works of Shoenberg.
Really, this is I have to respond to when my opponents are not reduced to being idiots parroting the same personal remarks. It takes slightly more work to refute them and show what little to no claim they have to intellectual superiority, so the reliance on personal attacks actually reduces the labor on my part. The same sort who wrote Bach and Brahms pastiches: those who want to write good music. The whole of Reger's output is just about worthless, but on the few occasions he did write something decent, it at least shows there was a value to so much compositional obsession that resulted in almost nothing valuable. The same could be said somewhat of the handful of decent Saint-Saëns, whose output is almost totally worthless and mediocre, but it was at least training to write simple, decent pieces.
Contrast this to Second Viennese School, who insisted on music bold and original, and wrote nothing but noise, however much it conforms to arbitrary rules that are totally irrelevant to value in music.
Kayden Ortiz
No, for the simple reason that there are no essential Erik Satie pieces.
>Contrast this to Second Viennese School, who insisted on music bold and original, and wrote nothing but noise, however much it conforms to arbitrary rules that are totally irrelevant to value in music. 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.
Logan Bailey
Based
Joseph Lopez
Not a single fucking person in /classical/ can sight read an orchestral score and have an aural image of what it sounds like you fucking pseuds. Just knowing letters doesn't mean shit when you can't even read words or proper sentences in practice. And it's not like you can even analyze form, counterpoint and harmony just like that when reading a score even when there's just two voices either. And I swear to God only Poly might know by ear the difference of mezzo-fortissimo and fortissimo around here as embarrassing as that is.
t. not Paragraphautist
William Ortiz
It really is that easy to reduce the modernist to such levels of absurdity. They could just descend and allow that is a matter of opinion, but nope: they have to delusionally insist that the value of their previous and neglected music is practically syllogistically demonstrable, which actually resembles this post , perhaps in reaction to how little most people care about music in contrast to how warmly the classics have been adored for centuries.
It would be one thing if they could support their pretentiousness with arguments that wouldn't be so easily exploded, but as shown here, they can't help but make claims the so immediately show the ridiculousness of their confidence. >little with half thought out ideas Oh, the "merely pretending to be retarded" defense? That you put any thought, even half, into these posts is hardly flattering to your intelligence. However, this really isn't much stronger that the best arguments the modernist cretins have produced, which probably required the entirety of their thought, which, being ineffectual, they have been reduced to posts like , which are really a projection of their own stupidity. You failed to post anything but pasta with anything but "muh donnie kruugr."
It also shows the poverty of their taste that they pathetically think there is really something witty or trenchant in this pasta, when it's just a rationalization of the inability to put any of the knowledge they have supposedly accumulated to good use.
>wtf, this guy doesn't like my music and keeps refuting my arguments >he must be the stupid one then!
This is unironically what the modernist cretins here believe. Maybe "refuting" is slightly beyond the vocabulary of his internal monologue, but it is the thought process in essence.
Daniel Adams
Assumptions, assumptions. I literally perform and study music so I'm basically getting there.
FUCK Off mister conservatory we are bullying paragraphautist
Caleb Gutierrez
Okay, just don't make silly assumptions and accusations, buddy.
Hunter Howard
Frankly, I am only concerned with arguments and less with attainments, abilities, or authorities, but I welcome anybody to prove this otherwise. >basically getting there. Oh, so this is the skill set I'm dealing with, and what is supposed to replace actual arguments? Sorry, but I'm not impressed. This would be "muh Hans." Getting quite stale, really. The knock on containing no coherent thoughts is ironic, as if there any coherent thought contained in these sort of posts. What, do long paragraphs scare you, or something?
Nathan Edwards
>Oh, so this is the skill set I'm dealing with, and what is supposed to replace actual arguments? Sorry, but I'm not impressed. 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.
Asher Bell
How about seeding nigger?
Carter Ortiz
Right now, you're just parroting the same pasta instead of actually posting coherent thoughts, like the hapless idiot you are. Fair?
Full of confidence, but with minimal knowledge on the subject.
Camden Fisher
I personally made some assumptions about the skill that could possibly make people so arrogant that they could post such worthless, verbal diarrhea and feel self-satisfied. However, if describes most of you here, I'm very much overestimated you. Yes, that's a good way to describe yourselves. At least you admit it.
Logan Sullivan
is this thing on? *ahem* I already answered this before it was a pasta you modernist cretin. I could generate a new response, but there's no point. Repeating something does not disqualify the arguments against it. This would fall under "pathetic posts written at an eighth-grade level or below." Readying yourself seems to having horrendous taste. Again, I'm not convinced any of you can actually read music either. Saying that if one can read music, one automatically likes this music, is, of course, begging the question. It's not as if any reason is given why reading this sort of music is necessary, which never seemed to be the case with previous composers. Seems like a critical defect if a composer has to be read to be appreciated. This is Marxist levels of robotic parroting. The irony is that to to dodge arguments like this, it would take an absurd level of confidence in one's knowledge that's likely unjustified. Don't actually argue with people who disagree with you, just say they think they're right because they don't know what they're talking about. It's not like I'm going to be convinced this is the case by your saying that. You're just rationalizing your inability to have a discussion. If you really, really understood your subject and I didn't, you could easily dismantle every argument of mine, but it's just much easier to say I don't know what I'm talking about, especially since that's actually the case for you. This is unironically what the modernist cretins here believe. At one point, I somewhat regretted that I admitted that I couldn't read music, but considering how it's reduced my opposite to parroting the same point again and again, I'm glad they are reduced to this, as it removes any pretense of being rational. *drops mic*
I mean I don't agree with paragraphautist on a lot of things but it pisses me off when he's ridiculed for something you yourselves would be ridiculed over by professional conductors, performers, orchestrators, theorists and composers.
I'm not a professional - yet. It takes time and experience. You're missing the important fact that professional conductors, performers etc. are all much older than me, retard.
Then leave the fucking lecturing for when you're older and you actually know something instead of using your future plans as a justification you fucking moron.
Lucas Cooper
I'm actually feeling fatherly pride about how paragraphautist has learnt to meme against the frogposters.
Carter Harris
I'm older and more musically educated than everyone in this thread though so you can suck my shit, faggot. Go get rammed by your buddy paragraph autist's slimy cock.
Hunter Turner
>frogposter posts pasta >paragraph autist replies with new and unique paragraph containing no coherent thoughts every time Yeah he's really mastered it
Blake Nguyen
Okay, well, when you are professional conductors, performers, etc., consider then you can pull the bullshit of, "Well, I'm smarter than you, so don't know what you're talking about."
Until then, shut the fuck up and basically admit you can't defend any of your favorite music. >t. basically getting there. This implies you are bullshiting when you say I don't have enough knowledge to have a discussion, doing which is a form of estimating, you stupid fuck.
Really, there's an art to making pithy remarks that deliberately misinterpret what the other person says that is supposed to wittily dismiss and retort their points, and it seems what little musical education you've acquired has not made you competent in this regard at all.
I wonder what the rationalization among my opponents is, despite trying their very best, failing miserably time after time in trying to trounce me even in a single point. "Well, at least I can pretend I am pretending to be retarded," is not convincing, as you are clearly trying your best, and it's not working.
Brayden Russell
You failed to comprehend 19th century music. Don't worry, most people do.
Just remember that composers like Chopin and Liszt spend their entire lives fucking groupies and impressing them with music - expect to "get" or "like" what they're doing straight away.
It's fine to say you don't like 19th century music, or don't like certain composers or pieces, but calling them mediocre and trying to act superior to them ain't going to fly - you are massively inferior to them in knowledge and experience with women.
Right now you are on the right hand side of the Dunning-Kruger graph - full of doubt, but with knowledge on the subject. As you learn more, you will realize you already know what you're talking about, and then as you learn even more, you will be able to comprehend a serious discussion about 19th century music.
There isn't much point in us trying to "defend" these composers - you clearly aren't ready for them. Get comfortable with Brahms, Petzold and Pfitzner and then we can talk.
I wonder if my opponents know that in saying this, they are implying they are such idiots, they can't comprehend fairly straightforward English. It seems anything beyond high school is it too much for your comprehension.
Feel free to prove that what I'm saying lacks coherent points, though I recognize it's much easier just to figuratively plug up your ears and childishly pretend you can't understand what I'm saying.
Robert Morris
>implying I don't love 18th and 19th century music as well Oopsie
Connor Martin
There isn't much point in us trying to "defend" these composers - you clearly aren't ready for them.
And I like 20th century music, only it has to be good, something that just happens to be lacking in vast majority of modernist noise.
Really, it's just a preference. I want my music to be good, and those who excessively listen to 20th century music are indifferent to this. Really, I can accept. I am actually a very tolerant person, and I recognize that not everybody has to like the same music. Perhaps it's just my bias that insists that the music I listen to be good, and maybe if I spent enough time, longer than I would live, I would learn to accept music that isn't good, just like my modernist opponents.
I see now that insisting on my music being good actually limits me quite a bit, and perhaps I should broaden my musical tastes to the mediocre, the terrible, and the awful. Really, so many shades of bad music that I can't access because my standards are too restrictive. This really makes me think.
Jeremiah Hernandez
Okay, I accept your position that music has to sound good to your ears for you to like it because it's absolutely the same in my case.
Elijah Baker
Go fuck him yourself. If there's one thing I've learned when being academically taught, it is that it doesn't mean shit. You're just a cog in a machine that's meant for giving mediocre music students mediocre teaching that focuses not on what you can learn and your musical ability, but on just teaching the required stuff. The one-to-one classes might be an exception when there's a really fucking good teacher, but I doubt that you even go/went to a prestigious music school where those types are present. You being oldest and more musically educated than everyone in this thread is just sad and pathetic really on your part. All it shows is how mediocre you are and on what level you work on you fucking scum.
David Miller
That's very convenient that you don't see the point, as you can't do it anyway. Despite how pointless it was, I can find instances where you clearly made more of an effort to defend this "music," and after I refuted every single defense, and you realized that your persuasive abilities were so ineffectual, you gave up, and just started shitposting.
I will allow that I am not ready for music this bad, so in that sense, you are right. Maybe you can recommend some composers that would dull my taste so I could appreciate bad music, as I am always open to expanding my taste.
Jace Walker
Nope, it just has to be good, which again, is perhaps a failure on my part. I'm glad I cleared that up. You might want to improve your reading comprehension because I just said "good," and never mentioned anything relating to ears. Perhaps less musical education and more general reading would do you nice.
Cameron Ramirez
Isn't there a difference between doing your best with the resources available to you, within your skill-set and choosing to remain willfully ignorant?
Tremendous! The brickbats of this general are but hot jazz blown into the brisk storm: their spifflicated tongues will never touch such severe beauty, less their ears press against it!
Being academically taught doesn't mean shit apart from being academically taught. It's just the beginning of learning, it's just the basics mastered and you've not done anything yet. So basically I agree with you. However I find it bizarre that anybody would be this triggered and bitter because somebody tries to educate and better themselves every day. And you're speaking out of your own experiences or anecdotes. I have great and free thinking teachers. Have a nice day.
So it applies to you, but not on paragraphautist and others here who don't read music? Go figure.
Michael Johnson
>Isn't there a difference between doing your best Is this shitposting here in response to my posts really "doing your best"? Wow, that's really self-depreciating. Truly, the most insulting things here are what you say about yourselves, and not what I say even at my most callous points.
Sebastian Ross
>it just has to be good Yeah, that's what I basically said; it's the same. Your perception has to be "this is good music". It's the same with me, no worries.
Camden Garcia
>because somebody tries to educate and better themselves every day. Not sure what implied this. Nobody is triggered, only the appeal to authority is getting very stale.
Kevin Watson
What I do in my free time (shitposting on the internet) has no connection with how I function in real life. Go outside my dude.
Adrian Bailey
Well I learned to read music. I read Hindemith's book. I watched a bunch of lectures on various pieces. I did counterpoint exercises. What else can I do?
Blake Foster
>it's the same. Oh, so you are admitting that this music isn't good? I'm glad we agree, but again, I don't know how to warm up to bad music, and not merely music that sounds bad, even though you just confirmed they are one in the same, (which I never said).
Nathaniel Hill
Being more educated on a topic (knowing more and being able to articulate it verbally) somehow doesn't make you an authority? This attitude in the arts, especially music, is really odd. It's the only place where you're frowned upon for knowing things.
Connor Allen
Based
Jonathan Price
I don't listen to bad music, luckily only good music that sounds good to me; the same as in your case. :) No worries, friend.
Isaac Harris
Yes, the issue is specifically about the idiots who are smug in their useless knowledge and keep playing damage control because I keep calling them out on their pretentious bullshit. It's fine to accumulate as much knowledge on a subject as you want, but when you use that as an argument, you have utterly failed, especially when it's a shallow as "basically getting there." Potential is not an actual, and even if it were, this would not amount to an argument.
>inb4 some barely literate retard says this has no coherent thoughts
Josiah Hughes
I'm only hostile towards egotistical cretins who think they know what they're talking about when they don't even know their basics or any history or context. I have respectful conversations with people who don't act superior.
>useless knowledge How is it useless? This is a music board and music is everywhere, how is knowledge about music useless? And "getting there" was meant in relation to the top professionals who are much older and wiser.
Jason Cooper
>barely literate Ironically coming from somebody who isn't literate in music.
Jose Turner
>Being more educated on a topic For one thing, I have to actually take your word for it, and since anybody can bullshit anything here, and do, personal claims amount to very little. >being able to articulate it verbally Well, this has yet to be seen, Buddy. >somehow doesn't make you an authority Again, if "basically getting there" describes your education level, your authority pretty much means shit, and you should raise your standards of what it means to be an authority. Furthermore, every posts amounting to, "I know more than you, so you won't understand what I say," is an appeal to authority, and an admission you can't actually disseminate in a persuasive fashion any of the knowledge you have acquired. >It's the only place where you're frowned upon for knowing things. Not sure what the fuck this refers to. Either you can argue what you believe, or you can't. If you believe something because your knowledge, and can argue it, it is rhetorically useful. If you can't, then you have to merely rest on your belief being an informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
Jaxson Davis
Well, then it shows how idiotic this pasta about not liking 20th century music is, as I like it when it's good, and I don't when it's bad. I'm sure I could mention works of the 19th century the generally aren't familiar here, and if people didn't like them, I would never have the arrogance to assume that people here aren't educated enough.
This level of arrogance probably proves the maxim that a little learning is a dangerous thing, as I've see the arrogance that results from the little learning people have that clearly swells their egos and makes them think their taste is superior, even when they they can barely begin to argue in favor of it, and when their arguments are refuted, they fall back on what little knowledge they have obtained, as if that should mean anything to me when they have shown themselves so incapable of having a rational discussion.
Chase Lewis
>Again, if "basically getting there" describes your education level, Again, you're illiterate. As you've proven it time and time again. Refer to my previous post.
>Well, this has yet to be seen, Buddy. I've spoken about several topics in great detail in these threads. It's not my job to spoonfeed you and my problem if you can't figure it out.
>Furthermore, every posts amounting to, "I know more than you, so you won't understand what I say," Wrong. It's not that personal; it's just an universal statement: "If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't talk about it" and that's it. Peace.
Wyatt Martinez
I can hear the music at least. I'm talking to such idiots that seem to have problems with the English language, and how would that ever be fixed?
Owen Young
>I can hear the music at least Vague impressions and associations (how amateurs listen to music) are only the beginning of understanding music.
Christian Watson
>Hans tries to pretend he's someone else he wishes he was, to defend himself from the bullying
Well, I am not hostile, (as that implies aggression and anger, which I don't have), but I am dismissive and contemptuous of those who think what little "basics or any history or context" makes them an authority on anything, or what little knowledge they have replaced arguments. Ring a bell? >how is knowledge about music useless? Perhaps I should have clarified. It's clearly useless in making arguments when their precious music is attacked. Understood?
>And "getting there" was meant in relation to the top professionals who are much older and wiser. It's also in relation to whatever level of knowledge could possibly exist to make the level of delusional self-satisfaction in rhetorical impotence remotely justified. I'm not convinced that exists, but if I'm going to restrain my opinions, it is certainly not for literal amateurs like you. If you find this excessively dismissive, it's only deserved when you laughably use what little knowledge in music you've obtained as an authority. I'm not impressed or convinced, and if you want me to accept your opinions, actually attempt to cogently argue them and not fall back on your "authority." It's really that simple.
Again, what little knowledge you've obtained clearly hasn't make your arguments impervious to objections. >I've spoken about several topics in great detail in these threads. I guess I have higher standards as to what amounts to articulation, then. >It's not my job to spoonfeed you and my problem if you can't figure it out. "Spoonfeeding" in this case refers to providing cogent arguments, and it's a good thing it's not your job, as you have utterly failed to do this, and it's my problem, it's only that I can not derive the truth from fallacious arguments. It's like if my said it's not my problem that you haven't realized how horrendously awful the vast majority of modernist music is from what I've said. > "If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't talk about it I'm not convinced any of you know what you're talking about either. If what has been posted is supposed to be evidence, know I have higher standards of knowledge, specifically, you should be able to easily and fundamentally refute something as ignorant as I am, but that has yet to happen.
Ian Miller
>amateurs Based on what I've heard of your backgrounds, you are all amateurs as well, and therefore, we are equal. >inb4 gaining a smattering of musical knowledge equivalent to "basically getting there" does not make you an amateur
Chase Stewart
Fuck this place. I'll go spend my time on music instead of sticking in here for any longer. What are people even doing here anymore now that the few interesting oldfags have been permanently replaced with what we're witnessing and the underrated obscure composers have been found? See you in the afterlife boys. Bye.
Sorry chief, you have to learn this sort of thing early in life.
Colton Davis
can we just ignore him for like a few days i just wanna talk about the instrumentation in Shostakovich Symphony 4 in C minor, especially in the canon in the second movement following the fugue in the strings my friend said the woodwind combo (pic, flute, clarinet, bass clarinet) works well because of the pure waveforms at those pitches, is this true
Austin Gomez
So, I wish I didn't agree with myself on a lot of things ?
This is the sort of pathetic responses that I'm getting. Really, you are clearly beyond arguments at this point, so at least produce a non-argument that is witty and isn't easily dismissible.
Owen Davis
So you're griefing me over lacking an ability that I cannot even attain? What an asshole.
Jaxon Cooper
If you're wasting your time ineptly shitposting as damage control, you are not "doing your best." Really, maybe there's just one more piece of knowledge you need to acquire to finally defeat me, yet wasting time here instead of finding it. Shitposting until I am exhausted doesn't seem to be working, so you might as well actually "try your best," so your actions can more closely align with your pretensions.
If you have such low standards for yourselves that "doing your best" consists of defending so pathetically these modernist hacks, then we simply disagree on that matter.
Logan Sanders
You've been defeated so many times now. I mean that guy who posted the Ligeti performed a proper analysis on the piece and you just said "hurrdurr, it kinda sounds like Scriabin [it surely does not] and to the extent it doesn't it's irrelevant." That's your standard of argumentation, so go fuck yourself.
Xavier Bennett
No, "you" can't. It bothers people way too much that I'm expressing wrongthink. If they were more secure in their opinions, (a solace something their musical knowledge, if it were valuable, should provide them), I could be ignored, but they aren't, so they have to continuously shitpost as damage control.
Bentley Scott
Nope. It doesn't surprise me that you are incapable of understanding remotely complex arguments that you don't already agree with. Basically, after I totally exploded his argument, his response was to compose a word salad, consisting of absurd misuses of "ontological" and "epistemological," something you probably approve of as well, as again, you already agree with the conclusion, and don't care that it is utter nonsense.
Really, you just object to the standard of argumentation because it comes to a conclusion you disagree with, no matter how valid it might be.
Aiden Jackson
As expected from user who read Hindemith's book, did some strict counterpoint, watched youtube videos and now thinks he's made it. It may be inconvenient, but I'm not the autist.
Matthew Robinson
So I asked you, what's the next step asshole? Assuming is not you. Where do I go from here?
Eli Sanders
See, nothing. Its just Hans being a jerkoff.
Xavier Watson
>the difference of mezzo-fortissimo and fortissimo
every musician i know that has talked about dynamics says they are always relative
Nolan Brooks
>Its just Hans being a jerkoff. So, I'm blamed when I don't give you advice? Why don't you just go ahead and blame me personally for modernist music being so unpopular with the public, because that's equally my fault, and I imagine equally a source of frustration to you.
Zachary Myers
Kekel
Kayden Allen
Question: I'm a former pianist (intermediate. My best performance was Khachaturian's Tocatta over 4 years ago) and I'm going into the Organ. Been at it for a while, (on and iff for months, on for about 2 months straight now that I'm free in schedule) and might have a few short, expressive pieces ready to perform after services in a few weeks. I know basic registration, foot and hand work now in place of piano technique. I have afternoon access to a Church Organ in fairly good condition with two manuals & pedal, well balanced choruses. and a music library with a bunch of old "The Organist" magazines. What are some easy romantic (or even just expressive, legato) pieces for Organ and/or Harmonium I can pick up to get some songs under my belt? Composers? Preferably other than Lemmens and Rinck?
Chase Thompson
can you read sheet music? if not find a tutorial, then:
Sure, we can finally accept the obvious fact that he's either baiting or actually wants to fight. There's no other reason he would start shitting on perfectly good anons posting music that they like. What interpretation do you recommend of the 4th? I want to listen to it.
Thomas Flores
Nelsons recently released quite an energetic recording with Boston, but for some reason the outer 2 movements have been split up, that said theyre pretty fat even by symphonic standards dunno if hes recorded it, but i saw Ashkenazy live do an incredible performance with the LPO Gregiev is always a strong choice for Shosty too
Andrew Mitchell
Thanks
Jack Price
just do your homework okay
Wyatt Gray
And to the paragraphposter: stop caring about this place. As "autistic" as you are, /classical/ doesn't need nor truthfully deserve an enthusiastic presence such as yourself. I really have trouble seeing what you have to gain from posting here outside of some light entertainment or escapism from the real world. /classical/ isn't exactly a good option when you want to discuss classical music on an intellectual level. /classical/ is essentially a place for people who like classical music, but who don't want to go through the trouble of doing something constructive with this passion or try to feel like they're not betraying their passion being still associated with the subject of classical music. The social interaction is without a doubt also a big part of the appeal along with the trademark hidden superiority complex. As self-deprecating as this is, posting on Yea Forums is a lower form of interaction and the posts here must be judged from this perspective. Posters here shitpost, which is more enjoyable than reading a book here, hence the general is pretty much full of uneducated and lazy manchildren and no one's to blame for that but themselves. You can try to change them, but along the way you will be influenced by them, which really does no good. If you truly want to do something costructive, leave this place and perhaps even the whole internet for good, socialize irl with better company, listen (to music) instead of talking/writing and read books if you're bothered.
>I use big words in excess to make my sentences as jumbled and eye-straining as possible so I can feel smart about myself when nobody bothers to read my self-centered drivel. >Instead of actually being relatable and teaching or helping people, or providing examples with notayed images and samples, I'm just gonna lecture you endlessly.
I can see how doing this can get addicting after a while. It's like highschool atheists quoting Hawking and Nietzsche and nihilist philosophers to pretend they're smart and not just avoiding the possibility that theology is a deep, complicated philosophy of its own.
Thomas Green
I am always with you, /classical/.
Wyatt Peterson
Kekel What have you been listening lately?
Daniel Sanchez
Referring to me? I'm not a native English speaker so I don't exactly have that much vocabulary variety to choose from. It just happens that I tend to pick the edgy ones. I'm also unironically a devoted Lutheran if you want to go there and I explicitly stated at the end that I am definetly a projecting pseudo-intellectual.
>I use big words in excess to make my sentences as jumbled and eye-straining as possible so I can feel smart about myself when nobody bothers to read my self-centered drivel. This is literally what I'm required to do to receive good English grades in my country. Sorry if you don't like it but that's where I've got it from.
>Instead of actually being relatable and teaching or helping people, or providing examples with notayed images and samples, I'm just gonna lecture you endlessly. So now I am supposed to use rhetoric to prove my point? Supposing that you're the paragraphposter, your talk is all rhetoric if you ask me and not very easy to digest at that. Now even if you're not the paragraphposter, you didn't even touch the contents of what I said and just dismissed by making a broad critical rebuttal against my post as a whole.
Your rhetoric is so bad nobody bothers to listen to either. Your snobbishness says you both don't care to inform or illustrate, you're just here to show how big your heads are. If you can't relate to the laity, step out of the pulpit. Your conversations are nothing but two flies buzzing at each other at this point.
Gavin Brown
>referring to me? no, to paragraphposter
Evan Turner
You know, I used to dislike Classical era the most for seemingly being so simple relative to stuff before and after. But honestly now I think (the non-gallant stuff) it's the best because it focuses on just having good catchy melodies/composition. No stupid gimmick like Baroque's overly technical bullshit, the gallant formula of other Classical era stuff, the bombast of Romantic era, the muh feels of Impressionist stuff, and the various up-their-own-composer-over-listener approaches in 20th/21st century crap.
It's kinda like how pop music gets shit on, but most people can't write a good hook to save their lives.
Owen Rodriguez
Oh foul oaf! If only you knew the modern idiom of the propagation of classical simplicity lay in the lucubrated jazz... It would be bliss to ponder how you may judge your own thought now!
Adam Howard
Petzold
Austin Bailey
>I use big words in excess to make my sentences as jumbled and eye-straining as possible Five things should be pursued in writing, in order of importance: truth, precision, clarity, beauty, and facility. My fault as a writer is preferring beauty before clarity, and at times, I simply ignore beauty and clarity, and focus on truth, precision, and facility, (the last I achieve in writing the whatever thoughts come to my mind to match my writing speed). I do not think my sentences are generally excessively prolix or sesquipedalian, though I would say that I at least prone to this tendency.
I, (at this point), know precisely what I want to say that I could make my sentences clearer, but I continue in this fashion only because there are so many ways to say the same points again and again, so I rephrase for variety. >>>Instead of actually being relatable and teaching or helping people, or providing examples with notayed images and samples, I'm just gonna lecture you endlessly. I think I tried that at some point, but it wasn't effective. I'm not entirely sure. I think the music that is the object of my contempt is so far removed from what I understand as beautiful music that my musical knowledge is rarely useful.
I could mention works that are I think are dissonant and avant-garde for their time, but music with excellence and beauty that is totally separate from how progressive it was, and the dissonance was perfectly suited to the character it wished to capture.
Jaxson Reyes
Take the first Mephisto Waltz of Liszt. Early critics were shocked by the daring harmonies, especially at the beginning where a devilish pile of fifths is assembled, yet it's perfectly consonant with the rest of the piece which is largely tonal. It doesn't sound like it takes dissonance, or atonality as a starting point, meaning whatever learning or beautify is (supposed to be) contained in the works is hidden under outwardly earsplitting music. Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Chopin, Schubert, and many other composers were extremely progressive in much of their music, but progressiveness was rarely made an end in itself, (and where this happens, like in Liszt, the results are often very unsatisfactory). Another example would be the Prelude to Tristan, which was extremely progressive for its time, but was and is extremely beautiful.
Some actually spent the time to talk about the effect the Shoenberg piano concerto had on him, and while I didn't it convincing, I could somewhat imagine somebody could have genuine feelings towards this music. He also mentioned the defense that there something beautiful in taking something extremely hideous and beautifying it. My response to this that this technique was extremely overused by modernists, the results do not strongly recommend the practice and justify inverting the method by which beauty in all art up until modernism was accomplished, (which was concealing design, learning, and purpose in outwardly pleasing forms), and that I question whether the beauty contained in this music was worth effectively killing contemporary music as far as the public was concerned. No, the scant performances of modern or contemporary classical music, or the atonal music that comes up in horror films, does not a living art form make. Classical music is at its lowest point in centuries, and it largely has to do with how indifferent classical composers became to the outward impressions of their music.
William Murphy
Had Beethoven, from his inception as a composer, written nothing but works but those stylistically similar to his late quartets, how ever much more profound his works would have been to some, and however much more pleased a small fraction of the listening audience would have been, the musical world would be a great deal poorer, as it would have lost undeniably excellent music that the critic, the connoisseur, the dilettante, the enthusiast, and the public enjoys and recognizes as great music. Unless pleasing the "common pleb" is somehow a detracting quality, the modernists have sacrificed far too much in their pursuit of progressive beauty.
Going back to Beethoven, (using an argument I have used here before), if he wrote such obscure, profound, and inaccessible music, music which could never be sufficiently appreciated in his time, his legacy as a composer was long established before the late works were deservedly admired, as he at least wrote music that was profound as it was generally pleasing.
The modernist is attracted, it seems, to the legacy that can be established to writing music that appeals to few, with the hope that generations from now, their genius would be recognized. At least Shoenberg wrote many tonal works, so this mentality of writing obscure music couldn't characterize his entire career, so in this regard, he is more similar to Beethoven than other modernists. However, there is a significant difference, which is that Beethoven established beyond question his worth as a composer in his early and middle-period works, where he perfectly combined progressiveness with excellence and popularity, and if any composer could justify writing for themselves, it would be Beethoven. Shoenberg, in his tonal works, however, didn't even come close to that of Beethoven, and very clearly and undeniably pursued progressiveness as and end itself, even from a petty nationalist motives.
>I can see how doing this can get addicting after a while. It's like highschool atheists quoting Hawking and Nietzsche and nihilist philosophers to pretend they're smart and not just avoiding the possibility that theology is a deep, complicated philosophy of its own. This is actually a strong point. It's certainly much more trenchant than the numerous ineffective and scurrilous personal attacks I received.
I would say in my defense that at least I am relying on my own opinions instead of parroting that of others. Secondly, I really am open to being persuaded of the modernist mentality. Unfortunately, either the modernists never bothered to justify themselves artistically, (even though I think their music does not speak for itself very well and actually especially calls for defenses), or, what is more likely, few here have actually bothered to read what the modernists have said in defense of their own music, or aesthetic philosophy.
I have been frequently compared to a particular composer, (whose name I won't mention, as it might encourage people to listen to his mediocre works), in light of his attacks on modern music, and specifically, in an exchange he had with Alan Berg. Much better than engaging in name-calling would have been to actually quote what Berg said in defense of his own music, modernism, serialism, etc., or whatever was specifically the subjects of their correspondence upon which they disagreed.
Still, the comparison of me to some edgy atheist has some level of aptness, and I am glad I could read something remotely persuasive here that perhaps I should reconsider my approach.
Tyler Ramirez
Well, if we consider Beethoven classical, this is quite undeniable. Unfortunately, if we allow even a large number of works from Beethoven, a large number of works works split between Haydn and Mozart, the excellence of the movement is exhausted.
Johnson once said that it was amazing how little literature there was in the world, an art that, even in Johnson's day, was far larger than that of music. Still, it is conceivable that a man of Johnson's genius could have exhausted the sum total of literature which appealed to him, and I have to confess the something similar has happened to me, and perhaps this fellow: Perhaps the modernists are right to pity me, as did. However, if I had no standards, I could listen to all genres and all types of music, which in a single century, produced far more music than all previous centuries combined, certainly, if we consider what music has been recorded. Still, we have little choice in our objects of pleasure, and great deal of time could be spent forcing ourselves to run contrary to our own taste, to no avail.
The last composer to write great conventional symphonies. Probably, the greatest song writer. Largely invented the piano miniature, and Chopin owes a great deal to him, at least in pioneering various forms that Chopin perfected.
Henry Gomez
I'm not a Fucking modernist m8, like i said before i still LARP sometimes as a conservative atonal-hater I have cognitive dissonance with all this my taste is all over the place and I pity you because you're missing alot of good Music like I said your greatest sin is not appreciating Renaissance polyphony you just have to be more open minded and drop your ego a little nevermind you're not going to listen to me Fuck Off
>you're missing alot of good Music That's probably true, though not necessarily in the places you think. If I had time or the patience to look through great music, it would be in late-romantic Russian music, thoroughly exploring the master works of The Five, as what little I've heard I found to be excellent, and continuing the genuine romantic tradition that I think was stalled in Western Europe. > appreciating Renaissance polyphony you just have to be more open minded I could try it, but I just don't see the appeal. My "ego" might stop me from a lot of things, but not appreciating music. I would say that my biases affect me in how much patience I'm willing to give music if it doesn't immediately capture my interest.
But I'll bite: where should I start with Renaissance music? If somebody asked me that question for Baroque, I would say the Brandenburg Concertos, the WTC, the keyboard concertos, the Mass in B minor, the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, the Goldberg Variations, various sonatas by Scarlatti, the Four Seasons by Vivaldi, Vivaldi's concerto for two Violins, maybe a handful of works by Handel, you know, things that appeal to virtually anyone and are still excellent. These aren't necessarily my favorite works, only the pieces to which one should first listen if one is new to the period, and in listening to them, you'll develop an appreciation that will allow you to generally explore Baroque music.
If in the whole of Renaissance music, similar music that isn't equally appealing can't be found, that should be telling. Consider me shallow, but in music, unlike in life generally, I go not from hope to hope, but pleasure to pleasure, only at least I used to until I stopped finding music that pleased me to an extent that I found the search worthwhile. Believe it or not, I came here to get recommendations, and I can count on a single hand the works that appealed to me, the last being the Latin Requiem by Reger of all composers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hmm, let me see what I can do this with. I want to firstly say I respect how much civility is contained in this post, at least certainly relative to what is usually directed to me, and certain for personal remarks. >I really have trouble seeing what you have to gain from posting here outside of some light entertainment or escapism from the real world. I suppose this is true, but I would describe all my hobbies like this, and I don't know what anyone else would get out of this. >/classical/ isn't exactly a good option when you want to discuss classical music on an intellectual level. Well, I'm glad somebody said it. > something constructive with this passion or try to feel like they're not betraying their passion being still associated with the subject of classical music. In my defense, this describes me as well. >leave this place and perhaps even the whole internet for good, socialize irl with better company, listen (to music) instead of talking/writing and read books if you're bothered. Hmm, okay. >>>inb4 projecting pseud I would never suggest that.
All of this unirionically made me think.
Anthony Kelly
Just a few more posts Posts that go to my love. I have spent a great deal of thought in how I would correct this if I ever had childre myself.
Dylan Stewart
Richter kinda bores me? I like Walcha a lot, lot more.
Why the hate for boulez? Without him we wouldn't have a lot of the modern repertoire
Luis Clark
Just don't think he did anything particularly innovative, or anything that is emotionally inspiring in any significant way. I admire him far far more as a conductor, though
