Favourite classical composers?

ew dude, are you fucking serious?

>Ryo Fukui
Jazz? Classical? I mean, what's the difference, right? Haha.

Attached: me.jpg (300x300, 20K)

sawano hiroyuki /s

Bach
Vivaldi
Rameau
Chopin
Tchaikovsky

Attached: 1550780640358.png (1010x937, 395K)

Beethoven
Liszt
Bartok
Shostakovich
Mahler

Rachmaninoff
Beethoven
Tchaikovsky
Dvorak
Wagner

Reich
Dvorak
Borodin
Martynov
Pärt

Schoenberg
Reich
Penderecki
Feldman
Ligeti

Attached: 1549812141058.png (400x333, 91K)

Handel
Elgar
Holst
Tchaikovsky
Beethoven

Rachmaninoff
Debussy
Schnittke
Shostakovich
Bach

Honourable mentions :

Mozart
Beethoven
Stravinsky
Scriabin
Mahler

Bach
Beethoven
Bruckner
Scriabin
Messiaen

Debussy
Ravel
Scriabin
Medtner
Chopin

I have literally never heard of any except Mozart Bach and Beethoven

Sad

Ravel
Berlioz
Fauré
Gounod
Debussy

Bach
Gorecki
Reich
Messiaen
Mahler

Vivaldi is my favorite by far. If anybody could recommend composers with similar energy I'd appreciate it. I really liked la Folia and L'Estate.

Attached: Vivaldi.jpg (220x263, 14K)

By no means the absolute best but

Schoenberg
Mozart
Panufnik
Dallapiccola
Goehr

Attached: image_normal.jpg (198x198, 7K)

Stravinsky
Mussorgsky
Tchaikovsky
Prokofiev

Attached: file.png (640x426, 125K)

and Satie

Based pleb. I'd just swap out Dvorak and Stravinsky for JS Bach and George Antheil.

>Schoenberg
>Cage
>Bach
>Rachmaninoff
>Debussy

Stravinsky
Tchaikovsky
Shostakovich
Scriabin
...
Bach

>all this entry level
damn.

>Cage

Bullshit. Even people who like Cage don't listen to his """"(((((music)))))""""

Attached: 1553266542755.jpg (500x375, 34K)

Well this isn't /classical/. We're all unpretentious plebs here, fren.

>ctrl-f "paganini"
>no results

I meant his early work. Most of his late work were statements about art and music in the form of compositions to be enjoyed intelectually, but not as music is usually enjoyed. I really just listen to the most straight-forward of his music.

youtube.com/watch?v=hyNGCHImlEk

Webern
Reich
Penderecki
Andriessen
Feldman

no order
shostakovich
ravel
debussy
JS bach
G mahler
subject to change

Based

>Villa-Lobos
>Shostakovich
>Mahler
>Debussy
>Ravel

I see Reich pop up a lot in this thread, do you guys not get bored after a while?

Bach
Beethoven
Saint-Saëns
Tchaikovsky
Janacek

Mahler
Beethoven
Sibelius
Adams (John)
Prokofiev

>putting Cage in your top 5 because of In a Landscape and Dream.

Stay pleb

Attached: 1552554281339.jpg (456x549, 108K)

Cage revolutionised music more than Bach did

Ravel
Debussy
Scelsi
Bach
Stravinsky
-----
Monteverdi
Hildegard of Bingen
Handel
Chopin
Liszt
Shostakovich
Penderecki
Lutosławski
Szymanowski
Ligeti
Norgard
Rachmaninoff

Oh, Messiaen too

I like your top 5, especially Bach and Ravel, and a lot of your lower ones. I'm interested in Scandinavian literature, but I don't know much Scandinavian music (besides the Finns I guess). Can you recommend something by Per Norgård?

Oh yes, those are masterpieces. For similar energy, i'd look to other Italian composers from the same era, such as Albinoni, Pergolesi, and Marcello. I'll send a piece by Albinoni, Pergolesi, Marcello, as well as another piece by Vivaldi you may like.

youtube.com/watch?v=TOjUKg9yXGY (Albinoni Oboe Concerto op 9 no 2, 3rd movement)

youtube.com/watch?v=KA4KIZ1YO_Q (More laid back and depressing, or maybe satisfactory, however you want to see it)

youtube.com/watch?v=vE2O_yfgtBU (Marcello, this piece was also transcribed by Bach onto harpsichord and the 2nd movement got famous, just search Bach adagio)

And a sexy Vivaldi piece:
youtu.be/T8_cLqMhZL4?t=495

Remember, however, that if you don't think you like Bach, you're missing out. Listen to his choral music and harpsichord concertos. Go for harpsichord concerto no 1 for now. For choral, here's a sexy piece. youtube.com/watch?v=6K7-cl7Ynf0

Please dont put Webern with those hacks

You literally had zero reasons to think I put Cage because of that piece. You're just an idiot.

Bach
Vivaldi
Chopin
Marais
Sainte-Colombe

>composers with similar energy
I understand you're talking about Vivaldi's signature jumping agility.
Mozart and Haydn had it too.
Steve Reich has it too.
Charles Mingus has it too.

>list your 5 vaf composers
>I´m gonna post some obscure composers just to show them

Bach
Chopin
Debussy
Webern
Dvořák

Generally prefer guys whose works are shorter or exist in shorter sections. Can't stand how long winded most western classical music tends to be. Dvořák is an exception because he's got quite a few compositions that I adore end to end.

You're the idiot. At least I can recognize Cage as the charlatan he is.

>I certainly had no feeling for harmony, and Schoenberg thought that that would make it impossible for me to write music. He said, "You'll come to a wall you won't be able to get through." I said, "Well then, I'll beat my head against that wall." I quite literally began hitting things, and developed a music of percussion that involved noises.
-John Cage

They could also be referring to Vivaldi's signature harmonic progression consisting of fifths.

youtube.com/watch?v=M03fBpg1VYk
youtube.com/watch?v=LClWvYN6Ucw

Thank you. I'm going to give all of these a thorough listen.

No problem.

Monteverdi
Vivaldi
Bach
Scarlatti
Puccini

Attached: image.jpg (1003x800, 194K)

Busoni > Schoenberg

Bach, JS
Brahms
Rachmaninoff
Mahler
Schnittke

Care to expand on that or are you going to play console wars with composers like a faggot?

YES. Baroque.

I will after I finish laughing

I've only heard his Bach arrangements, rec something

Attached: boi.jpg (220x212, 11K)

Xenakis
Ligeti
Debussy
Satie
Reich

Not him but definitely this
youtube.com/watch?v=BMVLBzseJgY
youtube.com/watch?v=4T-gWQH4V2Y

Attached: Fzmd1t06hqzo.gif (850x1335, 535K)

>Xenakis

Attached: 1550629358128.jpg (461x461, 34K)

How does that make him a charlatan, other than by the incredibly conservative standards of a farmer who calls bullshit all modern art? He was a composer of his times, not Schoenberg's

youtube.com/watch?v=WXa9VbIpfR4
youtube.com/watch?v=1Uah0IgRBGY
youtube.com/watch?v=S9Iq9myu3hE

He's just more enjoyable than Schoenberg, mate.

>He's just more enjoyable than Schoenberg, mate
>enjoyable
Okay so you have nothing of substance to say, just your personal opinion. I'll respect that. I prefer Schoenberg.

Attached: 53910553_2153316748118565_425325736534999040_n.jpg (455x602, 38K)

Ye but then again, saying "Busoni > Schoenberg" could be a pretty subtle way of saying "I like Busoni more than Schoenberg". He may have never been exclaiming objective superiority in the first place.

>Anime girl

criticize my taste absolutely wrong

I'm not a scholar, so my opinion is based on what I've heard. However they're usually paired together even in academic contexts.

Yeah, also that's what everyone does on Yea Forums.

I could get that if he didn't reply to everyone saying that they like Schoenberg. It's like he was trying to tell them they're wrong.

>Beethoven
>Schubert
>Bach
>Chopin
>Pärt
Absolute plebeian here. Enlighten me

He was never a composer of any kind. a composer must have an understanding of harmony and counterpoint to be a composer. Cage did not have one, therefore he is a charlatan, instead of a composer.

Attached: notwebp.jpg (1270x720, 67K)

Okay
Bach and Brahms are obviously god tier, I don't like Rachmaninoff and think he's a lame in-between version of Tchaikovsky and Scriabin, Mahler is based and you should check out Bruckner if you haven't already, Schnittke is better than Shostakovich (naming him because he's seen as the torch-bearer of Russian modern composition) and is very based.

Overall very decent taste, sir.

Chopin
Mozart
Bach
Bach again
Uhh peter gynt

>a composer must have an understanding of harmony and counterpoint to be a composer
[citation needed]

What do they have to do with each other?

Attached: 1552695660717s.jpg (250x250, 5K)

*peer

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.png (1188x1174, 2.05M)

Since I no longer believe in wasting my time:
>Mozart
>Mozart
>Mozart
>Mozart
>Mozart

citation: random guy with 90+ IQ I asked about it in a public washroom while we were both taking a piss at the urinals

When Busoni died, Schoenberg got his job at the head of music Prussian thingy or something and they both wrote essays on aesthetics and music and shit

i only listen neo classical
holst
grainger
tchaikovsky

fair enough

Did you mean Grieg? Peer Gynt is the eponymous character of a play by Henrik Ibsen, for which Grieg composed incidental music.

Attached: Edvard_Grieg-1200x793[1].jpg (1200x793, 52K)

>tchaikovsky

patrician

That is a very good list, you even choose the best minimalist (not Reich)

Oh thanks I just really like suite No. 1

>It's like he was trying to tell them they're wrong.
But they are, user.

>peathoven
>bog
>chopin
>good list
Top pleb

Busoni was pretty deep into atonality by the end of his life

then I shall redirect you to my original post

Yeah but one is postromantic and the other is an expressionist serial composer.

Attached: 1553125041927.jpg (700x700, 99K)

Kek

Both are dodecaphonic artists.

I've tried Bruckner, but he never seems to have the same level of focus that Mahler has

Well obviously their music is very different but if you would actually read their thoughts and essays they had a lot of things in common, specifically their thinking outside the tempered system and tonality.
Busoni wasn't post-romantic, he was late romantic and was gravitating towards neo-classicism. Schoenberg started out as late romantic, then modernism, then expressionism and finally dodecaphony which in his case was basically just neo-classicism (a new language using old baroque/classical forms).
So they're very similar in this context, not to mention geographically as well.

show me one 12 tone work by Busoni.

He's wrong. Busoni never wrote 12 tonal music because he died before that was even a thing. But he was definitely moving towards that direction, even with works such as Fantasia Contrappuntistica.

Correction: he died one year after Schoenberg shared his idea with the world. Either way, he died before he could really dive into it. His essays speak for themselves, he even talked about microtonality.

As far as I can tell his Sonatina Seconda is even more chromatic but so what? 1912 was the same year Debussy's Jeux came out.

Nothing wrong with that list. You don't have to listen to disgusting fucking atonalists who make their music sound bad as an excuse to be original, in order to listen to original music.

What does Debussy have to do with anything?

>if not triad chords = bad!
>if not pwetty wittwe mewodies and easy-to-follow cadences = bad!
>too many disonances = icky!
>old = good! (but not too old!!)
>modern = bad!

Attached: LU0PKhz6-e1538639274711.jpg (626x375, 39K)

>then modernism
I understand what you're referring to here (Op. 7 and 9 and "extended tonality") but "modernism" is such a dumb term for it.
Anything stylistically post-Mahler can be said to represent modernism. This includes expressionism and dodecaphony.
While we're on the subject of terms, "neoclassicism" means different things depending on whether you're talking about the music of Stravinsky, Busoni, Hindemith or Schönberg.

I'm assuming ! is left associative here.

I don't think we agree on what atonal means. I've heard plenty of music that isn't atonal, that is plentifully complex and original. e.g. Spem in Alium by Thomas Tallis.

lmao only like 20% of Mozart is worth listening to (better than Haydn though)

I'm sorry, my bad. I was unconsciously referring to something I read about him, that he basically prophesied 12 tonal music. He isn't a dodecaphonic artist, but he did switch from the 7 tones to the system that Schoenberg was building. That's why they're often paired together in musical history. However I'm not a scholar, so I can't really delve into theoretical shit too much.

Tbh man I take back what I said. I'm just being a faggot and I felt bad for the guy who called himself a plebeian just because he had some of the bigger names in his list.

>no Rameau

What level of contrarianism is this

Also, Busoni is the only one who tried to combine modernism/atonal sperimentalism with neoclassicism. And that's exactly why his music sounds great.

The fact that Jeux is well known as a work without a "tonal center".

a) Wrong
b) Even if that were true, there is literally not a single other composer actually worth listening to. Perhaps a neophyte could benefit from surveying Monteverdi, Lully, Gluck, Bach (J.S. and J.C.) for context, but to delve deep is unnecessary.

>Sperm in Alien by Thomas Tallis

Attached: 1551688020796.png (894x773, 48K)

>but "modernism" is such a dumb term for it.
Modernism is the accepted term here in Central Europe and there's good arguments in favour of it. It started with Strauss, Mahler and Wolf and tried to break with romantic tradition while never really achieving that (mostly because it's just escalated romantic aesthetics with different techniques). Schoenberg's early works, notably the symphonic poems, fit in here nicely. Expressionism finally brought that break that modernism tried, it brought new forms and aesthetics and not only the techniques. Expressionism is absolutely not modernism in this context. Dodecaphony gave the 2nd Viennese school the option to compose in "old" forms again, thus making it a version of neo-classicism which is in itself a very wide term but ultimately it could mean composing in old forms using new techniques and musical languages.
This is generally a simplified version of what is agreed upon here in Central Europe. Anglos have different interpretations but I'll accept what the Austrians and Germans say as closer to "truth" because these composers actually worked here.

Schoenberg had begun to describe his Method by 1924, but I don't believe he did so publicly until 1925. Not that it was some great revelation of formerly unimaginable combinations of tones. It's not only conceivable, it's demonstrable truth, that composers used each note in the chromatic scale before Schoenberg had done so, a fact of which he was well aware. The revolution was that of the variety of modifications to the row Schoenberg's method allowed. I can't speak to Busoni, but Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern had all begun to experiment with the full breadth of notes in the chromatic scale by 1910. Indeed we find that Herr Hauer had developed a quite similar system to Schoenberg's by 1919, but without those characteristic transformations in the forms of the inversion, the retrograde, the retrograde inversion, and all of these as beginning at the octave, fifth, minor third, major sixth, or any number of intervals. This is not even to mention the remarkable attention to antecedent-consequent relations, nor to the possibility in Schoenberg's method of row-division. To remark that "Busoni never wrote 12-tonal music because he died before that was even a thing" is, of course, therefore, a preposterous misapprehension of and something of an insult to the precise significance of Herr Schoenberg's achievement.

The definition of "atonal" isn't a matter of opinion.

Dumbfuck

You're nice, that guy reacted a little harshly to an admittedly kind of reactionary attitude to music. I felt a little for that guy too, it sucks that people treat people like they're stupid for not knowing every single composer. Then again I don't feel bad for him because he has top-tier taste. This guy () is who I feel bad for. Jesus.

>The definition of "atonal" isn't a matter of opinion.
It actually is, there's very different interpretations and some people use "atonical", while others use "atonal". It differs between the German and Anglo spheres for example.

Messiaen
Beethoven
Stravinsky
Schnittke
Ligeti

Attached: 1326855124039.jpg (689x708, 52K)

Holy fuck, this is based taste.

Attached: WEB_CHEMIN_31239_1463144104.jpg (1024x1154, 784K)

Thanks, friend.

Attached: 1337647857539.png (400x400, 103K)

>Even if that were true, there is literally not a single other composer actually worth listening to. Perhaps a neophyte could benefit from surveying Monteverdi, Lully, Gluck, Bach (J.S. and J.C.) for context, but to delve deep is unnecessary.
I'm cringing like never before

>Stravinsky

Based

Oh yeah, fuck, I gave myself away after putting all that effort into my pseudograph. The way that post phrased it put me off but of course there's all kinds of debates about all kinds of words and I'm going to self-flagellate now

Nancarrow
Takemitsu
Monteverdi
Bach
Mahler

Attached: 1510b79a-d9b6-46c5-a8d7-a37c61734586.jpg (1460x821, 332K)

I am sorry about your critical lack of taste.

>To remark that "Busoni never wrote 12-tonal music because he died before that was even a thing" is, of course, therefore, a preposterous misapprehension of and something of an insult to the precise significance of Herr Schoenberg's achievement.
You're right. In my defence, I'm grossly oversimplifying things on purpose because it's Yea Forums.

fuck off poly

i'm sorry about your critical lack of appreciation for anything other than V-I

Gesualdo
Petzold
Pfizner
Sorabji
Ferneyhough

Attached: grand fugue.png (427x576, 310K)

The point was that using dissonances, not just using triads, not having pretty melodies with predictable cadences is not what sets atonal and tonal music apart. Music that has a tonal center can still be harmonically interesting, for example there are plenty of dissonances in baroque music. Look at Bach's fugue no 21 from WTC book 1. You'll find major 7ths, 2nds, and other obvious dissonances. All I'm saying is that your post is more describing the galant style of classical rather than tonal music as a whole.

>there are plenty of dissonances in baroque music. Look at Bach's fugue no 21 from WTC book 1. You'll find major 7ths, 2nds, and other obvious dissonances.
Imagine being this uneducated on the function of dissonances between different eras. Why don't you go ahead and say Bach played jazz for that matter?

I don't know who that is.

>Nancarrow
BASED

Attached: 1325806626116.jpg (257x212, 15K)

Typical underrater, only able to assess music in the most rudimentary fashion possible.

Nah of course. I'm working with my professor right now on this precise subject w/r/t Mann and Doktor Faustus so I had a little fun

Still though, his post is nonsense.

Brahms
Dvorak
Mahler

too much of a pleb to mention 5

Busoni was fully aware of the 12 tonal innovations – in fact he had a long-term correspondence with Schoenberg – and he experimented on the same path. However he did not leave dodecaphonic works because he believed in the necessity of musical classicism for the future.

lmao this pleb hasn't even read schenker

I'm sorry about your closemindedness and lack of taste.

>all I did was make a pun
>he thinks I even know what the fuck they are talking about

Attached: 1552951139378.jpg (590x442, 42K)

Aren't you forgetting somebody?

youtube.com/watch?v=5L7XO4N5hMU

Attached: 1546262532801.jpg (200x200, 19K)

Schenker was no doubt obsessed with autistic minutiae because of his own lack of ability as a composer, he became a chronicler of the microscale due to his small-mindedness and inability towards perceiving in the macro-scale. If he wrote on architecture, he would have been cataloguing bricks by texture and colour.

i'm illiterate but

Bach
Scriabin
Ravel/Debussy
Chopin
Schubert

Yeah, it's retarded that someone has to apologize for having boring picks because of dumb Yea Forums avant-teen culture.
You do have to understand that the whole "atonality ruined music" narrative is intellectual cancer and it breaks my heart everytime someone says Schoenberg is "meaningless noise" (then again I get mad when someone describes Boulez' 2nd Piano sonata as sounding like a cat on a keyboard; because he really does have some pieces devoid of any musical meaning and they're not that).

>using "herr'

Attached: fedora.jpg (480x360, 11K)

Are you honestly of the opinion that attention to detail isn't important in a composer?

That's awful.

>Bach
>Scriabin
>Schubert
Nah, you're doing absolutely fine.

no more awful than your mom's rank pussy

>Schenker was no doubt obsessed with autistic minutiae because of his own lack of ability as a composer
doesn't make him any less wrong

>he became a chronicler of the microscale due to his small-mindedness and inability towards perceiving in the macro-scale
lmao you're the one dismissing 200 years of innovation in art music because muh mozart

based

That clearly wasn't the point, though. Whether the dissonances are there for taste or to achieve resolution doesn't change the fact that it is dissonance and the guy who I was replying to made the assumption that all tonal music dislikes dissonance, otherwise he wouldn't have said that. That's what it seemed like, at least.

I think of Ives as being part of a totally different tradition, but yeah, fair enough.
I'm obviously screwing around, adopting a particular tone. Thanks for engaging, though, I always appreciate a meaningful contribution to a thread

No, but I am of the opinion that the actual generative materials are of minor importance and largely unimportant in the assessment of a musical work.

>Bach (J.S
oh I see you were a troll all along

I don't know man, I don't listen to much Schoenberg, but it clearly does, to quite a lot of people, sound like meaningless noise.

>I don't listen to much Schoenberg, but it clearly does, to quite a lot of people, sound like meaningless noise
these people have no criteria and their opinion should not be taken seriously in a meaningful discussion

take the 12tonepill and the path will be revealed

If it does sound like meaningless noise to you, I say follow these steps:

1. Listen more attentively
2. Listen to the whole thing
3. Follow along with the music
4. Read about the method

"Meaningless noise" is a really terrible description of Schoenberg, though I understand it can be surprising, even unpleasantly so, at first.

That's true. recommend me a piece by Schoenberg and i'll give you my opinion on it.

>actual generative materials are of minor importance and largely unimportant in the assessment of a musical work.
Okay, then I'm gonna have to vehemently disagree. Celebrated composers like Mozart get a lot of mileage from the strength of their "generative materials" and although they may have found these intuitively analyzing them seems like a reasonable course of inquiry to me

youtube.com/watch?v=TZleqbjwEuA
note that this isn't 12-tone

Don't worry, I wasn't speaking for myself.

Too easy to appreciate classical music when you're educated. How many people can say they truly love classical music even if they have never seen a pentagram? I can.

Attached: image.png (680x661, 289K)

If you're going to recommend him non-serial atonal Schoenberg, you gotta go with Hanging Gardens.

youtube.com/watch?v=9rGUov3Adlk

Bach
Mozart
Brahms
Mahler
Schoenberg

Then please spread the gospel. I'm just kidding. I appreciate Schoenberg, but I don't generally listen to him.

wtf does a pentagram have to do with anything? Also, literally who hasn't seen a 5 pointed star?

Pentagramma in Italian means score or musical sheet. Isn't it used in English? Wew

To me it seems like atonal music is a graph whose turning points are never curved, and it always seems to jump at you. I hear something and I'm expecting a smooth transition to another chord from the same tonal center. I've always wondered if it would be easy to create this kind of music. I can start with one note and develop something that sounds atonal from there, but I suppose to ensure that there is truly no tonal center I would have to use a much more methodical approach. The one thing that does bug me about that piece, though, is the rhythm and sudden silences. It's not just the notes that are insane. Here's another Schoenberg piece that I enjoyed a bit more, as it actually seems to develop quite a bit at times. youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc

no, it isn't
kys pizza nigger

hey man wanna have sex bro

No need to be angry, weenie

i'd recommend reading a bit about schoenberg's compositional process and theory from himself in order to truly understand his music. while he does develop a lot of material, he doesn't necessarily repeat it

Yes most words in italian are used in the English language. This is a well known benefit of the language.