>wanna play Handel's passacaglia >start practicing since we live in an era were we can get music sheet online for free >can now play Handel's passacaglia a little better every day Feels good to not be a brainlet
I think you probably misinterpret all three of those men
Grayson Williams
Nietzsche's music is shit though
Robert Johnson
What is it about him, boys? There's something I don't get but it makes me shudder
I've been around the block. I've studied classical theory and counterpoint for years. I've trained classically, I've trained contemporaneously. My favorite composers span everything from Monteverdi to Messiaen. But Bach... there's something weird going on here
I WALKED THOMAS ADÉS UP ON STAGE IN 2005, YOU'RE NOTHING
Landon Thompson
Actually I was unironically at a concert for a premiere of one his works in North America maybe around 7 years ago. At the time I was like 13 and I had absolutely no appreciation for contemporary classical music. I remember trying to force myself to still not like it, but I ended up enjoying it. If I remember, it was the Dances from Powder Her Face.
>Also introduced to the court was a list of as many as 88 men with whom the Duke believed his wife had consorted; the list is said to include two government ministers and three members of the British royal family.
no shit, cello's aint cheap. you can get a cheap violin from China if you really must have some kind of stringed instrument to play. You won't be playing anything beautiful for the first 5 years though - just be ready for that grind.
Juan Martinez
i was saying it's pathetic to feel "guilty" about it. i just listen to whatever the fuck i want
Robert Rogers
Dude you're so cool
Cameron Powell
dank you
Brody Turner
Actually I just posted that to piss off the Rachmaninoff fans. I don't listen to that gooey crap.
I knew Strauss' Don Quixote of course but it sounds too serious and heroic if you ask me. I think Don Quixote needs to be captured by modern comic voice such as you'd hear in some Stravinsky.
>Chvrches what the fuck does that mean? also, if you're going to address me, please attach a bvll image/video to your comment. if you fail to do so, i will NOT answer
Hey guys, classical pleb here looking for some more music to listen to. If I like loud, bombastic oeuvres like the finale of Beethoven's Ninth, Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries and Holst's Mars, what would the tasteful folk of /classical/ recommend?
Oh and you'll also probably like Carl Orff's Carmina Burana which I'm sure you've heard parts of already but /classical/ will call you plebeian so watch out youtube.com/watch?v=Gj-tBVq61as
Based, checked Most people will think that you're just namedropping Medtner but this trinity makes sense to me A journey through Counterpoint and personal style
Bach perfecting counterpoint in the strict style
Then Beethoven trying to do new things with it(he sometimes failed but he succeeded)
Then finally Medtner at the end feeding himself from both Bach and Beethoven and adding a very dangerous tonal ambiguity
Jaxon Powell
Glad you liked it
Colton Johnson
Post a good fugue of Medtner to see if you're larping or you're serious
Landon Wood
My Holy Trinity: Handel Rameau Shostakovich
Robert Adams
youtu.be/9E3reaOoLA0 Fugue at 15:28 I suggest listening to the whole sonata since medtner plays a little with the theme before the fugue, its some kind of demonic (bass) theme that gets exorcised with the fugue
Joshua Ward
I'm having hard times with French baroque music. I adore Haendel, Telemann, Bach, Schutz, Palestrina, Vivaldi, Pergolesi and so on, but I cannot say that I enjoy listening to composers like Rameau, Lully or Charpentier. Am I the only one? Can you recommend me some good French baroque concertos/operas?
>people use words like "nostralgic" "lively" or "dark" to describe music >you know that actually music is a mere sucession of vivrations transmited by the air that analized by our brains, which likes what is harmonically and dislikes what is not.
Ofc you're not gonna find anything for under a 100$, either rent a instrument, find a teacher or buy one for 300$ (which is still incredibly cheap). I bought a Thomann cello two years ago. It sounds fine and the construction is decent. I played it a lot during the first year, but later became more interested in 12-string guitar so haven't played so much in the last year. Still don't regret the investment though, I still play it from time to time, and if you're a pianofag, (like I was), learning the basics of a string instrument is really fucking useful for understanding music, even if you at some point decide that cello isn't the thing for you.
many autists are extremely eloquent, it's a characteristic of autism (many autists), not speaking like a normal person in a normal register. a young autist may refer to his pee as urine for example. many also speak in an unidentifiable accent, to the point that people ask them where they were born.
Matthew Richardson
Its worse
Colton Adams
he was scared shitless of dying
Xavier Smith
have the most famous conductors like Karajan, Kubelik, Boulez, Mehta etc composed something good themselves?
Jaxson Cruz
That is is the only talent I have and I was always picked in classes to do group presentations and whatnot. Since I'm autistic I don't feel nervous or embarrassed
Carter Powell
Nope
William Moore
It's okay for someone who hasn't even left the womb I guess
"There were only two things to do at the time, so it wasn't either conventional or unconventional: you could study either with Schoenberg or Stravinsky or someone moving in one of those directions. We didn't take Bartók seriously. And I chose the one that Schoenberg offered rather than the neo-classicism of Stravinsky, which struck me as not opening new doors but depending on the past. Later, I met Stravinsky, and he asked me why I chose Schoenberg rather than him, and I said something about the twelve tones and chromaticism as opposed to diatonicism. And he plainly objected. He said, "My music is also chromatic." And then he added, "What I never liked about Schoenberg's music was that it wasn't modern." And I've thought about that since then, and Stravinsky was absolutely right. Schoenberg would say, for instance, "Bach did such-and-such, Beethoven did such-and-such, Brahms did such-and-such, and Schoenberg did such-and-such," referring to himself in third person. So that he didn't think of himself as changing the past, but rather as one who continued the past."
Freedom from the cancer that was Post-War modernism, Serialism and neo-classicism.
Matthew Sullivan
>Stravinsky was such a hack
Fight me
Actually, he isn't bad, but Stravinsky was definitely a more innately talented composer and was probably more influential
Joseph Martin
this is actually very cool. I'd like to try one of these one day.
Levi Adams
Ligeti and Scelsi aren't spectral composers. Spectralism refers to a specific method of composition based on analyses of sound spectra. Saariaho is post-spectral, meaning she uses methods of composing derived from spectralism, but also incorporates more eclectic influences than someone like Grisey for example.
Carson Collins
Why does every post ww1 piece sound like a disjointed piece of shit. MUH DISSONANCE to represent the horrors of war, revolt against structure, modernism, etc. All devoid of any spirit, practically nihilism. When are we going to pick up where we left off?
Michael Cruz
They don't.
Kevin Sullivan
Found a good comment there
>I would even argue that it’s not necessary to understand it to appreciate Webern, and most of that mindset comes from deliberate post-war misinterpretations of his music (which served an important aesthetic purpose at the time, but which Webern would have been horrified at). Webern’s processes are either out in the open and immediately perceivable (like the palindromes and pitch mirror reflections in the piano variations, or the orchestral piece which ends as soon as all twelve chromatic notes are stated) or they’re deep processes hidden in layers of compositional work and not meant to be understood by anyone. Webern himself frequently used an image created by Goethe to illustrate how he perceived the twelve tone technique: you have a plant, with all different parts (stem, roots, bark, leaves, flowers, seeds, etc). They are all different from one another, and in many cases it’s impossible to find similarities on the surface, but you still perceive them as being part of the same larger whole because they’re all created of the same essence (what during and after webern’s time was discovered to be DNA) and thus have a unity far greater than does a group of leaves of all different plants. I.e., even though you can’t perceive why something has that kind of ultimate unity, you can still perceive the fact that it does have it, and you can still appreciate it on a purely aesthetic level (for instance, he compared the second movement of the piano variations to the famous Bach b minor badinerie)
Not even close to all. Just some guys experimenting with atonality. The biggest composers of the post-WWI era often were not exclusively or even primarily atonal
Shostakovich, middle period Stravinsky, Americans like Glass and Copland, etc.
That's the thing, it's either a dissonant PoS or a film score
Adrian Miller
Oh yeah, absolutely. Even more if we're including Scriabin and Bartok and co.
I wouldn't say that. You have purely atonal works but there's composers who use atonality sometimes and juxtapose it with tonality for effect, which I find really cool. Shostakovich does that in many pieces
It's not actually very disjointed nor is it often actually going for dissonance. That's the key to actually getting a grasp to all of it. Most people are often set up to enjoy music with the patterns they are used to based on common practice tonality, functional harmony, and forms. But contemporary music aims to think beyond that, and is employing very different systems where its set of patterns (sound, harmonic progression, note choices, form, etc.) are completely different. This often requires the listener to recontextualize the music completely as their prior contextualization based in common practice tonality and form doesn't fully explain what's truly going on in the music.
Parker Martin
damn
classical music knows no bounds
Juan Butler
Why not just compose tonal microtonal music?
Xavier Stewart
Oh but doood, don't you know? Music hasn't been concerned with notes for over 60 years! And that's a good thing.
>But contemporary music aims to think beyond that And by doing that fails to go beyond at all, but they still insisted on it
Parker Robinson
Common practice tonality isn't something we're conditioned by context to enjoy. It's innately pleasurable (round number harmonics, etc.). To enjoy atonal music doesn't require "recontextualization" but rather adaptation
I don't like Schoenberg because I don't like Jews. I think that Jews should stick to performing, not composing. Mahler is an exception and a convert.
Schoenberg, Feldman, etc. Anyone who is fully Jewish I don't listen to as part of my broader BDS boycott against the imperialist white supremacist colonialist state of Israel
A lot of xenharmonic music is exactly this. There's nothing innate about its pleasure as its all we are grown and conditioned to listen to. You can find some studies about how like babies or w/e reacted slightly more pleasantly to tonal music vs atonal. But then you can find other examples of studies that show the opposite usually from like isolated people never exposed to civilization/society's music.
Yes. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. Only our exposure to the music makes it so. Just because we created an arbitrary pattern system mostly for analytical purposes that makes tonal intervals rational numbers doesn't make it innate.
We will always have a tough time getting used to something different, especially in music.
This is why people start with easier stuff in classical before tackling something like The Well Tempered Clavier if they weren't born around the music. Or why people start with trad and thrash metal before they get into the more extreme stuff for metal. Or really anything that's considered initially inaccessible to people that they later appreciate, because that thing is often just so different and alien from what they are used to.
This idea exists outside of music as well. Unlike appreciation of tonal vs atonal with its inconclusive studies, this idea of people being apprehensive and confused to the truly new/alien has had very conclusive studies.
Contemporary music in classical takes this idea to its furthest extreme musically which creates the most different and alien kind of music out there in every way possible. They exist and can be analyzed but there's zero objective truth to how dissonant it might sound to someone or how they grasp it.
Jaxson Jenkins
>You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true Why are you talking to yourself
Colton Watson
Jewish studies don't make your premise true either.
Mencke et al. (2019) show that appreciation of atonal music comes largely from mere exposure, conscious identification of the music as art, and the pleasure of uncertainty combined with the prediction of its resolution. That would run counter to your thesis of recontextualization as it implies that atonal music's enjoyability is explicitly within the context of juxtaposition to tonal music. I like (a lot of) atonal music personally but I find that their thesis characterizes my enjoyment of it very well. It isn't a different language, it's a subset of the same language. It's like how Finnegan's Wake is in English but it's still /different/, and the difference in fact is what makes it of literary interest.
The pattern system is not arbitrary by any means, scales were developed far before the idea of frequency was well-understood. It was /uncovered/ centuries later.
I'd be more inclined to believe you if any culture developed a fundamentally atonal harmonic system, but from Europe to sub-Saharan Africa to India to China, though scales may vary, tonal centers are ubiquitous.
Christopher Sanders
Nobody on Yea Forums has ever or will ever read Finnegans Wake in its entirety.
Isaac Myers
Yeah, I haven't even attempted it. I'm not a big Yea Forums guy but I just felt the analogy was appropriate
Maybe something like DFW is more appropriate because people actively enjoy and appreciate his work even though it breaks heavily from convention
Liam Collins
Link or at least the title to the work please? If anything, the "mere exposure, conscious identification of the music as art" support my point, with only the third one being otherwise as these show that 1. a person has to be more exposed to the music to appreciate that music and 2. music is art and art has several methods of expression
If it was true that it was just sheer unpredictability that made it interesting to others, then I don't think so much of it would be so pattern based. Hell, the sheer existence of Ligeti's micropolyphony works and Cerha's/Sciarrino's "atonal meets minimalism" stuff easily counters this idea that atonality is only interesting because of unpredictability as (the earlier drones on while the latter uses repetition.)
Personally I think looking at atonal music just from the context of tonal music rather than realizing that often each composer has their own completely different approach to atonality thus prescribing different meanings to notes/harmonies is selling the music very short. It makes it more of a gimmick rather than what it's truly capable of.
>The pattern system is not arbitrary by any means, scales were developed far before the idea of frequency was well-understood. It was /uncovered/ centuries later. Yes, but how we chose to create a descriptive analysis approach for having rational number frequencies being tonal is based on those scales and harmonies. You're talking about non-European systems but fail to mentioned that they often had different temperament systems of tuning with many intervals as a results that would not come off as even based on the ratio system of analyzing frequency.
Mere exposure effect is ubiquitous regardless of any qualities in the object being exposed to iirc. So I could get you to look at shit all day and you'd eventually learn to appreciate it. It's an evopsych mechanism for dealing with repetitive stressors.
And when I say conscious identification of the music as art, it really implies here that you're appreciating (not innately) the compositional mechanisms at play. So it doesn't mean reframing yourself to the point where atonal music sounds to you the same as tonal music might to most and can elicit the exact same range of emotional responses, for instance.
Regarding droning and repetition, I guess in that particular context the other factors are more at play. I'm not an expert.
>It makes it more of a gimmick rather than what it's truly capable of
See, this is where we disagree. Yes, I could see why someone would say that, and the argument certainly makes atonal music seem like a 'novelty' subset of music. But that doesn't have to be the case. Atonal music isn't kitschy or lacking in artistic merit. New innovations in composition are always interesting and pushing the boundaries of what they can express is possible and a worthwhile artistic endeavor. And you know, it being a 'gimmick' in that sense isn't a bad thing, in that sense
>Different temperament systems of tuning with many intervals as a results that would not come off as even based on the ratio system of analyzing frequency.
Fair enough, though they still rely largely on the rational frequency ratios of Western music from my understanding, and while they use irrational ones for dissonance more than was common in Western music before the 19th century, they still have tonal centers. I could be wrong on this though, again, not an expert.
Oliver Barnes
>creates your music notation system >GGGGGGGGAABABABABBAABAACCADACCEEEEEEEDADAADAADAACAFFFFFFFGGFFFFFH!
>Mere exposure effect is ubiquitous regardless of any qualities in the object being exposed to iirc. So I could get you to look at shit all day and you'd eventually learn to appreciate it. It's an evopsych mechanism for dealing with repetitive stressors. I don't disagree. At all. >And when I say conscious identification of the music as art, it really implies here that you're appreciating (not innately) the compositional mechanisms at play. So it doesn't mean reframing yourself to the point where atonal music sounds to you the same as tonal music might to most and can elicit the exact same range of emotional responses, for instance. None of this makes any sense. In order to understand all the compositional mechanisms at play, the listener does have to reframe themselves as what's going on musically from a harmonic and form perspective isn't what they are used to listening to. Also you can't determine what brings out what emotionally out of someone, that's purely subjective. >And you know, it being a 'gimmick' in that sense isn't a bad thing, in that sense It is a bad thing as pure tonal juxtaposition makes it all ubiquitous rather than giving each different approach its own identity. >though they still rely largely on the rational frequency ratios of Western music from my understanding 31-TET was used in Rennaisance era I think and has many irrational number frequency ratios for intervals. There's also weird shit like India's classical system where it's not even in equal temperaments although their music leans more towards monophony so it's not as atonal sounding.
Robert Sullivan
You see, he can't say anything because he's limited himself to 7 letters
I'd like to respond to this post but I have an exam in about 12 hours that I'm very unprepared for. I think we agree on more than I initially thought. Good night, user
> Gardiner is also well known for his refusal to perform the music of Richard Wagner; in a 2008 interview for Gramophone Gardiner said, 'I really loathe Wagner – everything he stands for – and I don’t even like his music very much.' Why are anglos such plebs lads?
What is the best interpretation of the Mattheus-Passion?
Lincoln Jones
kissin is an overrated meme hack
Chase Perez
Jesus christ. Currentzis' recording of Verdi's Requiem might just be the best I've heard. Dude is really reinventing modern conducting. But not just the conducting - the chorus is amazing as well, and the soloists, well not the best, are certainly up there and act the hell out of their parts.
You know, if Rachmaninov didn't write this stupid ass piece or the C-sharp minor prelude, people wouldn't even hate him. Most of his other pieces aren't nearly as bad, plus he had an outstanding reputation as a pianist in his time. He could've been remembered for something good.
Austin Hall
faganini
Gavin Cooper
hes a gay late romantic cuck. prokofiev and scriabin will always be better
Jaxson Morris
>many also speak in an unidentifiable accent, to the point that people ask them where they were born.
Holy shit, this has happened to me. Are you speaking from experience user?
lmao there are fags who post in this general check this >inb4 you're a fag too if you found this! Nope, I found this thread randomly on Yea Forums initial page
Medtner liked rach and chopin He even quoted that chopin piece in this sonataAnd Rach called medtner twice the greatest composer of his time seeIts no surprise Scriabin also liked chopin
Lucas Peterson
Wtf I hate Gardiner now t. Bach Mozart and Wagner trinity
Josiah Long
Yeah, I think dismissal of Chopin is ridiculous because of how innovative he was. But Rachmaninoff is really nothing special.
Colton Watson
" I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto {the Third Piano Concerto} much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!
I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies—these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission—his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works. " -Johannes Brahms-
I think when your biggest fanboy starts throwing shade low-key then you're out of the trinity for sure.
At first I felt bad about the current of Beethoven underrating I started but reading that quote has affirmed my position. Of course he's still a great composer any way you cut it.
Christian Clark
I feel like I prefer Beethoven not because he's explicity better than Mozart, but because he had a more consistent legacy There's just nothing like Late Beethoven in music my dude, i'm not the only one who thinks this
Carson Torres
>a march comes from literally anywhere Not this shit again...
Isaac Walker
Fuck off hill
Dominic Davis
who does he refer to as maddening at 1min 40, after work near (bruckner)
