hallo, I never listened to XX century because of your shitty memes, now I have to learn one piece at the piano and don't know what to choose any recommendation? intermediate level
Can anyone recommend me other stuff like schoenbergs solo piano pieces? Ive just started getting into classical and i really like dissonant/atonal piano stuff.
Has anyone listened to the Jordi Savall recording of Bach's viola da gamba sonatas? What are these weird groaning noises in the left audio channel? youtube.com/watch?v=HayeiZb5CUA
>Haydn Third-rate composer. I'm sorry, but it's just true. That doesn't mean he's bad, but he's nowhere near the first tier, consisting of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart), inferior to the likes of Chopin, Schubert, Handel, Mahler, Verdi, Wagner, and Brahms, and he should ranked alongside the likes of Debussy, Vivaldi, Ravel, Sibelius, Dvorak.
So much of what he wrote is, at best, a less cultivated, less polished version of Mozart's output. In his vast, vast output, it's very difficult to find things that compare well with that of Mozart, and it is in many ways like comparing Bach's works to that of his best contemporaries, like Telemann, Scarlatti, and Handel, but that actually makes Mozart look better, for while there are numerous beauties, perhaps of an inferior kind, found in the works of Bach's contemporaries compared with that of Bach, (especially valuable and unique are the sonatas of Scarlatti, which are excellent, yet totally different in character from the keyboard works of Bach), very little valuable is found in Haydn not found in Mozart. Exceptions I would say are the sonatas, (which some pianists have, I think rather tastelessly, esteemed higher than those of Mozart), and a handful of movements scattered among his London symphonies, (though you might as well listen to them all). I would also recommend the entirety of Symphony No. 97 in C major, which is in a style very unique and really captures a playfulness and provincial quality that is simply not found in Mozart, yet is quite musically solid.
I can't recommend for or against his string quartets, having little appreciation for them, bu I have little to no taste for chamber music. As for his applauded two oratorios, I can't recommend them either, and while I have little taste for choral works as well, I know what I like, and compared to the best masses of Mozart, Bach's Mass in B minor, and Beethoven's masses, (which I think I fair comparisons), I do think Haydn's best efforts compare well.
I don't know what three you are referring to. I put, in a second-rank of composers, far more than three. You could be referring to the three which I put in the first-rank, in which case, if you truly think Debussy, Vivaldi, Ravel, Sibelius, Dvorak are better than Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, I really don't know what to say, except I find it far more probable you are baiting than you are in possession of contrarian and awful taste, and I doubt you could give any indication you actually believe that. It's like speaking and arguing in favor of flat earth theory, in which, no matter how cogent or apparently sincere are the arguments, the person is almost certainly trolling.
Gavin Flores
Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are all overrated. They are not any better than the rest; they just have the most fans.
Julian Green
Moving the goal posts. It's one thing to (wrongly) think that, but another to think that Debussy, Vivaldi, Ravel, Sibelius, Dvorak are better than those composers. If anything, this is worse than the person in the previous thread who outright said Bach sucks, (which was from an obvious troll or retard), because you get more specific, indicating more thought is being put into such an absurd opinion.
Ayden Cook
>that friend who prefers midi to actual instruments
Ok I'll respond. I LOVE Bach and Motzart. Beethoven is like The Beatles (fucking overrated). And no matter how much I love ST. John's Passion, I always gravitate to Debussy and Ravel. They are far more interesting musically and emotional for me. Every time I hear a piano chord in a Debussy piece It's like I'm there (same with Rachmaninoff).
Your top three lack emotion for me personally. It's pretty music that is cool to analyze and learn from when starting to delve deeper into your instrument. But the so-called lower-ranked composers are the geniuses for me. Claire De Lune can be replayed 50000 times for me, and it will still be the only Classical piece to ever fully make tear up every time. I never cared for Austrian and German composers personally. Much more into Italian, Russian and French (and some Norwegian here and there).
Caleb King
Bach is the foundation of all modern understanding of counterpoint. Know your founders mate
Grayson Flores
Surely, there are instances where engineering can ruin a performances. Rare, indeed, but they do happen. The first comparison that occurs to me is Hamelin's live versus his first studio recording and poorly engineered version of Alkan's Concerto for Solo Piano, where the live version has a greater range of dynamics, and, perhaps more importantly, has more passion, (something that is wont to happen with pianists in their live performances versus studio performances) Engineered version: youtube.com/watch?v=OQz5tWzVQiA&ab_channel=OrangeSodaKing Live version: youtube.com/watch?v=OuxcI7nyKl0&ab_channel=RafaelCaterina
Watching Hamelin play, also, has a hypnotic quality, even if the angle and video quality is inferior. This is a tangential thought, but I wish there were more instances of polished recordings being produced along with video, so as to give a model instance of how a piece should be played, not only on an audio level, but also that of a visual level as well, some like Valentina Lisitsa's series on the Chopin studies, (but by pianists who had skill beyond mere technical capacity).
Austin Nguyen
> I always gravitate to Debussy and Ravel. They are far more interesting musically and emotional for me. Every time I hear a piano chord in a Debussy piece It's like I'm there (same with Rachmaninoff).
>perhaps more importantly, has more passion, (something that is wont to happen with pianists in their live performances versus studio performances) wut
Jackson Lewis
>I always gravitate to Debussy and Ravel. They are far more interesting musically and emotional for me. Ia also have several composers I listen to far more often than Beethoven. For one thing, I can count the number of pianos sonatas of his I love on one hand, and I have virtually no taste for chamber music, almost all of his other solo piano works I think have very little merit, (especially compared to non-sonata solo piano literature after Beethoven), meaning that of what little Beethoven produced compared to Bach and Mozart, I enjoy a smaller proportion, meaning perhaps Beethoven provides not even a tenth of enjoyment compared to those other I place in the same rank. Yet, just as Socrates said when he was presented with the writings of Heraclitus, a philosopher famed for involution and obscurity, (quality that could be said to be found in much of Beethoven's most lauded works), and when it was inquired afterwards his opinion of their merit "What I understand," said Socrates, "I find to be excellent; and, therefore, believe that to be of equal value which I cannot understand," I could say the same of Beethoven's works, and not only that, but I what I do understand and admire I think alone places him in the first rank of composers. Quality over quantity.
>Your top three lack emotion for me personally. This wasn't really my top three. I might place Virgil, Homer, and Milton in the top three of epic poetic writers, but I can't help but enjoy Ovid more than Homer and Milton as an epic writer, (even if classifying him in that way is questionable). Even more so, I might place Shakespeare at the top of all English playrights, yet I have never managed to finish a single play of his, while there are others whose plays I enjoyed from beginning to end. I am speaking, (as much as one can), of what might be an objective ranking of composers, regardless of which I might enjoy most. >It's pretty music that is cool to analyze and learn from when starting to delve deeper into your instrument. From this, I can't strictly deviate, but the implication that this is sufficient praise is I think very false. The merit of those three composers is that their music pleases not only the public, and the classes of the connoisseur, the critic, and the artist, but, (excepting the first, who are usually most attached artists whose works that simply will rarely outlast their decade, much less their century), the music of these immortal genius please said classes the most.
Leo Sanchez
y'all need more scriabin
Alexander Rodriguez
>Claire De Lune can be replayed 50000 times for me I have a high opinion of that piece, but I think it shares a certain quality with Pachelbel's Canon, Carmina Burana, the Minuet from Boccherini's String Quintet in E major, Op. 11, No. 5, Barber's Adagio for Strings, Offenbach's "Galop infernal," and Debiles' "Flower Duet." If you understand me, you might think I'm being a little unfair to Debussy, and the reality is that I was placing him in the third-rank of composers in rather charitable manner if I went purely by my preferences.
Jose Turner
I agree with this guy
Luis Hughes
everything prior to the art of fugue was simply a preparation for that apotheosis of music itself whereas everything afterwards is merely a postscript
Nathan Harris
I like Dvorak.
Any similar composers like him that I should look out for?
>I never cared for Austrian and German composers personally I could give my own thoughts on this at length, (concisely, that classical music passed in four stages of being dominated by composers of a certain nationality, those stages chronologically being the French, the Italians, the Germans, including the Austrians, and then the Russian, with the most substantial by far being the Germans, at which point, classical music died), but beyond stylistic preferences based on nationality, Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are the greatest.
Anyway, if you really were the same person, you are entitled to your opinion, but there was no need to come out with something so contrarian and then to moderate it.
That sentence is perfectly understandable when it's understood that I meant "want" but mistakenly wrote "wont." This point should be fairly obvious comparing live and studio recordings of many pianists, with Leslie Howard here youtube.com/watch?v=5qeJkWT5dek&ab_channel=MelanieSpanswick talking about the difficulty in ensuring the level of accuracy necessary and possible in studio recordings while retaining the spirit of live performances.
>Every time I hear a piano chord in a Debussy piece It's like I'm there (same with Rachmaninoff). Rachmaninoff is one of those composers of whom I the highest esteem based on his best works, which I am afraid are too few to make him a truly great composer, so I'm glad to meet somebody who also appreciates him, even if we would only agree in our taste on this point.
piano quintet is excellent and his violin concerto is brilliant too
Oliver Foster
>"waste your time trying to convince me of something I've already made up my tiny mind about"
Joshua Nguyen
Look buddy I've listened to his preludes and they were all were too long and boring so I'm asking for something other than that. I'm very open, it's just that his preludes have disappointed me.
Cooper Taylor
if you don't like Beethoven there's not much hope for you desu
Adrian Long
Not the guy you were responding to but I am of the mindset that canonic classical music is less listened to to be "liked" and more to be understood. I think you misunderstand Rachmaninoff and that's on you. You have the power of google and youtube to rectify your ignorance.
>one of his boring ass preludesI'm sorry you have such a low opinion of them, but I can't fault you too much. Overall, they are not very excellent, but those in B-flat major, the C-sharp minor, G minor, and G sharp minor compare to the best of Chopin's preludes, written in an undeniably unique style, (while most of the other preludes follow too closely, if not wholly unsuccessfully Scriabin), and, in my opinion, innovates on the idiom of the instrument and of romanticism itself, (while producing nothing resembling modernism, unlike Scriabin and Busoni), as effectively and ingeniously as almost anything Chopin wrote. Really, hearing these works, one hears something that is wholly new and wholly perfect in its own way, and a style and the expression of emotion that was never heard before, yet perfectly natural, which is my understand of that music which is great. I would strongly recommend both his sets of studies which compared to his preludes, like Chopin's own studies compared to his preludes, I think are overall of a far higher quality, with every piece concisely unified by a motif, clearly and naturally structured, with a style even more original compared to his preludes. I could recommend specific ones if you wish, but I think every one is meritorious on its own way. Aside from that, I would recommendMoment Musicaux Op. 16 No. 4, (which is comparable to his studies), No. 6, (not great, but still decent).
he's alright. Just learn that a man doesn't like him that much.
Jaxson Robinson
Among his other works not for solo piano. I would recommend the third piece from Op. 41, hisScherzo in D minor, (a work that would be remarkable for its quality from somebody so young if it were not a blatant, if very successful imitation of Mendelsson's Scherzo, the comparison to which becomes an interesting study), the last movement of hisSymphony No.1 in D minor Op. 13, (which, while containing "filler," has an intensity almost totally lacking in the prior movements). I would also strongly recommend his second symphony, which, even if it does not shine with a brilliant luster or originality genius, is remarkable for its consistency, unity, splendid melodic material, and pacing. Indeed, I think it is a highly underrated piece, and I would go so far as to say it's the only truly successful Russian romantic symphony, (I thinkTchaikovsky's attempts were almost wholly failures and I can't for the life of me see the merit in them). I can only speak for what I have been able to enjoy. I don't hear a bit of merit in his supposed masterpieces The Bells andAll-Night Vigil. I think the rest of his solo piano works bear the stamp of his original genius, but the same could be said for Liszt, and certainly, it would be very difficult to recommend the bulk of that later composer's works. The two sonatas are, like so many romantic sonatas, misguided attempts to adapt modern idioms to classical forms. If you want something light and various, the Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini might interest you, but I, while recognizing there being some merit in it , think it's one of the most overrated works in all of romantic music, and where the public has surely erred in its preference.
Brandon Hernandez
I don't even need to belittle everyone you mentioned (great composers, for sure) to say that if you even entertain the notion that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven lack emotion you have a severe lack of taste.
I forgot to add his concertos, in which I will not recommend the first or the fourth, and I hope recommending the second and third would be superfluous.
Rachmaninoff, like Alkan, was a rather uneven and unproductive as a composer, (unlike Liszt and Chopin), but I'm convinced some of the best of what he wrote is great music.
Jaxson Murphy
>I think you misunderstand Rachmaninoff and that's on you. I'm a champion of Rachmaninoff, but I will be the first to admit that much of what he wrote, certainly, most of the preludes, are perfectly lucid and written in a solid style, yet dull.
Noah Turner
That's the case for a very small number of piece that really can't be done justice by a human hands, or the composer has written something where where the labor is almost entirely execution and not interpretation. Examples would be Alkan's Le Preux, and No. 3 from his Liszt's Études d'exécution transcendante d'après.
Joseph Smith
Let me ask you Yea Forums, what do you think of Prokofiev?
James Mitchell
Thank you very much for the substantive replies. Before coming back to this thread I put on his Op. 33 Etudes and am enjoying them thus far. I'll go through your recommendations tomorrow. >perfectly lucid and written in a solid style, yet dull This is a perfect description.
Ayden Nguyen
I've not heard a lot from him so I have no real opinion, but I've heard that Shostakovich said that he's a complete moron for returning to the USSR and expecting stardom.
Jaxon Williams
A composer with an extremely original idiom. You only have to hear the first few notes to know it's something by Prokofiev, which is something that can be said of few composers. However, the idiom while original, is extremely harsh, (though nothing compared to the legion of modernists that followed him, whose music was not only ear-splittingly dissonant, but generic), which I think limits its expressive capacities. When I say the only works of his I have much care for are Peter and Wolf, Montagues And Capulets from Romeo and Juliet, his etudes, that surely indicates I really don't have much love for modernism except when it teeters on romanticism.
Here is an instance where I very much prefer a live version, even compared to Bernstein's studio version with its faultless sound quality. It might be tasteless on my part, but the explanation is that the live version was done in a more emphatic, romantic manner, with greater dynamics, which Bernstein might have felt was inappropriate for a piece like this, but he knew a more lively style would please an audience more, and I can say it pleases me more.
Eli Walker
>that live recording that is great until the more silent sections when you can fucking hear everyone stomping around on stage >I have little to know taste for chamber music Yes one can fucking see that, no need to point it out
Nicholas Torres
Really is good stuff. Decided im gonna up my piano skills to write stuff like this, i write using a lot of dissonance and stuff on guitar but its not the same.
Xavier Brooks
one of his best recordings
Aiden Bailey
Good luck, man. Yeah, it doesn't have quite the same effect on guitar.
Eli Howard
Something has to be done about all these "muh emotion" fags that rank Dvorak higher than Mozart and whatnot. How do these people even come to a classical music thread when it seems they do not know how to read music
Brody Allen
>Yes one can fucking see that, no need to point it out How was that visible?
I suppose that's a fair point. However, Beethoven, I am led to believe, had great chamber music as well, but wrote a great deal of other music that compares well with everything written before or afterwards, and I can not say the same for Haydn.
Eli Gutierrez
hahah fuck
Ian Miller
An unusually high number of views.
Joseph Walker
That's some merely decent Alkan you posted, and very poorly interpreted, (as if it were a Chopin mazurka), but I appreciate anybody who posts Alkan.
Luis Rodriguez
I realise that it's poorly interpreted, but it was sadly the only recording I could find that I was able to share here. I have a much better one in my personal collection.
Brody Phillips
Well post it on youtube my man
Oliver Price
>spending 4 hours listening to an entire opera when you can just listen to the highlights version
>which some pianists have, I think rather tastelessly, esteemed higher than those of Mozart Funny that you mentioned this because my piano teacher told me that he prefers to play Haydn than Mozart, that's why I wanted to check him out. I didn't expect such an extensive reply, it's a welcome change.
>Psalmus 147: Lauda Jerusalem H.210 5c. Antienne apres Lauda Jerusalem: Pulchra es et decora "Pulchra es et decora filia Iherusalem terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata"
I think versatility is often overrated against distinguishability and uniqueness. Lately this revelation has made me gain a new respect for Prokofiev. Especially compared to Shostakovich
Aiden Diaz
Really? One thing I wouldn't call Prokofiev is unique, even if this is owing to a diversity of compositional voices. It's hard to really nail down Prokofiev in a way you can with composers like Stravinsky, Scriabin, Messiaen or Schumann.
Morning, lads. >Matter no. 1: Recommend me some lovely, lesser known Mozart compositions. >Matter no. 2: Where do I start with this beast of a composer? All these symphonies, quartets, masses, oratorios, and probably some sonatas and concertos as well... Oh my dear. Underrated and courtpilled.
Christian Stewart
Pfitzner
Jose Murphy
not an argument
Evan Thomas
I don't say the lack taste, I'm saying that I find more emotion in the other composers. I even mentioned Saint John's Passion as one of my favorite works.
I was speaking specifically about his idiom, or rather, his immediate style. He has a peculiar with with dissonance that is makes it immediately recognizable.
Sviatoslav Richter was of the same opinion. I don't see the appeal. If you want works that presage Beethoven, they are Clementi sonatas. Haydn's sonatas have a spontaneity not found in Mozart's sonatas, but then you can find far more of that in the sonatas of Scarlatti, Cimarosa, and Soler. Maybe it's necessary to defend Mozart's sonatas more than to attack Haydn's to show which were better, but I can only see I hear the same characteristic perfection in Mozart's sonatas that I hear in his other works.
Nolan Sanders
this one relies on xylophone and marimba, so it sounds decent. All the new concertos that rely heavily on drums like Aho, Dorman and Say or whatever Grubinger plays is loud jungle shit for plebs.
Xavier Gray
The debt which Chopin owes to Field is widely acknowledged, less so for some reason in regards to Schubert, perhaps because Chopin drew inspiration from some of Schubert's significant works, (exception being the impromptus). However, whatever Chopin owes to either composer, it's clear he vastly improved whatever he imitated.
Jason Cruz
>contemporary classical music cringe. If one of the instruments were out-of-tune, would anybody actually know?
Mason Sanders
based retard
Anthony Cruz
for sure, i think it's cool to see where composers drew their inspiration from, i just found those schubert waltzes and it sounds a lot like chopin to me
Joseph Lopez
Not an argument, which was specifically the implication that the music was so awful and dissonant that people couldn't tell if any of the instruments were out-of-tune. Feel free to contradict that substantially, or accept that I have a different opinion from you.
Bentley Ortiz
>Feel free to contradict that substantially, or accept that I have a different opinion from you. you replied to me and presented your opinion as fact. rautavaara isnt even that dissonant either
Nicholas Jenkins
>presented your opinion as fact. That was merely your false interpretation. You recommended the piece by posting it, (unless you were posting something you didn't mean to imply was good), and I'm expressing the opposite opinion. > rautavaara isnt even that dissonant either It's specifically that sound that a large number of the instruments are out-of-tune.
Liam Turner
>It's specifically that sound that a large number of the instruments are out-of-tune. they aren't; no professional orchestra would play with out of tune instruments. also, you'd have to be a tone deaf retard to not be able to hear an out of tune instrument in any 20th century 12tet work. sorry you don't like dissonant music
Its good for percussionists, let them shine too, do you even know how fucking cucked is being a classical percussionist? There should be more of these concertos
> Its good for percussionists, let them shine too, do you even know how fucking cucked is being a classical percussionist? what's wrong with being paid the same for playing one single note in a Bruckner symphony.
John Price
Based. "Modern man bad" faggots truly are the worst and most tone deaf of all classical "fans".
I had no idea he played classical too. Cool stuff user.
Lincoln Wood
There are a lot of rich liberals desperate to seem woke working in modern classical music. I'd be shocked if there aren't at least a couple of operas about non-binary people.
Samuel Miller
>I'd be shocked if there aren't at least a couple of operas about non-binary people. They are going for the classics... and Bach is the first one
Robert Jenkins
BWV 51 of course.
Joshua Rogers
Guys, what's a good book on music theory? And is it a good idea to teach yourself how to compose? I don't have much money for classes and courses, but if they're worth it I'll see what I can do. Some Busoni for your troubles: youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_nwNF1x68xq3PrSeB3ESBujmvklLHy2LQ8
>no professional orchestra would play with out of tune instruments. Well, the point is the audience wouldn't know it. >you'd have to be a tone deaf retard The defense of any cretin who can't begin to rationally explain the appeal of their darling, yet unpopular work. Not that you are such a person, but but your behavior is consistent with it.
Parker Anderson
>Schuberts waltzes are garbage compared to Chopins This.
Michael Moore
-ion
Brayden Green
practical theory - a self-instruction music theory course by Sandy Feldstein.
Kayden Allen
Who says that?
Lucas Williams
Only tasteless retards who generally say that classical music is either boring or emotionless and apply this dreck to a random composer's name.
Kevin Powell
Schubert waltzes were just throw away pieces to sell to beginnees6 he didn't take them seriously
His other piano works are better
Logan Ortiz
This, and to add to that >clASSicAL MusIC iS StuPId Because letting a computer write the same fucking beat pattern for five minutes is “genius”
Luis Jackson
I know the last three sonatas are god tier. I always thought his piano work in some of his songs are better than his impromptus or shorter works, but that's just me
why is Hauer so ignored and underrated? Is because he managed to make atonal music that actually sounds like music, instead of the dissonant garbage of Schoenberg and his ilk?
Adrian Jenkins
>only one good recording on YT >it's live >the half the audience is coughing and sniffling AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I can't believe they cancelled Vivaldi after only four seasons
Evan Perez
stop making bait threads niggers t. the rest of Yea Forums
Ayden Sanders
Nabbed it, thanks. And double thanks m8, those are exactly the kind of places I was looking for. I would love to have those books to read when I'm not by a computer, I've already got the ones from the op but few of them seemed instructional in the way I had hoped.
Ok, I uploaded the file to mega, here's the link:mega.nz/#F!2k9VgKob!5N3Kwf0RIQeayYcA4XvRyg (took me 9000 hours) It has a shitload of books, so take what you find apropiate. Every book is related to music theory or composition and I'm fairly certain that most are by respected musicians/theorists. Some are in spanish, but there's enough redundancy to cover it, I hope.
Start with the "Harmony, Composition, Counterpoint and Orchestration" Sub-Folder and move on from there. I don't think it's necessary to read absolutely everything, but it's definitely not a bad thing.
You should also have in mind that to learn to compose you need to actually compose, not just read about it. So pick a composer(s) you like and try to write in their style/form. It will be obviously crude and bad, but you'll start learning a lot of stuff. However, I'm not actually a composer, so you may want to ask Poly whenever he's around or I don't know if another composer browses this general, but I doubt so.
>why is this the best concerto ever nice choice, but wrong. see Moszkowski's e major for piano, Schnittke's 1st concerto grosso, and Mendelssohn's e minor for violin
Leo Jackson
I hate it when someone records a piece with a fucking potato. Worst when that's the only seemingly available recording.
My greatest pet peeve though is when a school or even a decently important conservatory have shit tier audio recordings. Don't they have fucking sound engineers or shit?
Jace Bell
mfw the best Grieg concerto is Michalangeli's, and it's only available as a live recording, complete with applause that starts before the last note is over
