Suite edition. Post your favorite suites, cello, violin etc

Suite edition. Post your favorite suites, cello, violin etc.

>inb4 how do I into classical

mega.co.nz/#F!mMYGhBgY!Ee_a6DJvLJRGej-9GBqi0A
mega.co.nz/#F!lIh3GRpY!piUs-QdhZACFt2hGtX39Rw
mega.co.nz/#F!Y8pXlJ7L!RzSeyGemu6QdvYzlfKs67w
mega.co.nz/#F!kMpkFSzL!diCUavpSn9B-pr-MfKnKdA
mega.co.nz/#F!ekBFiCLD!spgz8Ij5G0SRH2JjXpnjLg
mega.co.nz/#F!4EVlnJrB!PRjPFC0vB2UT1vrBHAlHlw
mega.co.nz/#F!ygImCRjS!1C9L77tCcZGQRF6UVXa-dA
mega.co.nz/#F!il5yBShJ!WPT0v8GwCAFdOaTYOLDA1g
mega.co.nz/#F!DdJWUBBK!BeGdGaiAqdLy9SBZjCHjCw
crudblud.sjm.so/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=WHFV0rxg2Mg
youtube.com/watch?v=YY5hlw0-EgA
youtube.com/watch?v=eDTGfBV6aEY
youtube.com/watch?v=jQOn96SNPL4
youtube.com/watch?v=H1xEq1V66H0
youtube.com/watch?v=R8UX7bzU_rc
youtube.com/watch?v=SRJJut7FvUo&index=19
youtube.com/watch?v=nm-0XONJUTw&index=193
youtube.com/watch?v=lvzpUGUQBto
youtube.com/watch?v=7PzsyZR6Jt4
youtube.com/watch?v=aB2eNVAnQDI
youtube.com/watch?v=SCKDG7w2S9c
youtube.com/watch?v=uCFCUFTudz8
youtube.com/watch?v=IemxsBikA70
youtube.com/watch?v=jaBmbGywp88
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYFc7PBlSI
youtube.com/watch?v=UfIpl0cbTeM
youtube.com/watch?v=sgZ8z7Ztn10
youtube.com/watch?v=HraiPCOEXUA
youtube.com/watch?v=vPR4791zwz0
youtube.com/watch?v=BxgmorK61YQ
rbt.asia/mu/thread/S63359179#p63368601
youtube.com/watch?v=oNrM37AYxfc
youtube.com/watch?v=QaLqS3WYW7o
youtube.com/watch?v=ugSXVymv6b8
youtube.com/watch?v=ha5hYKNfFN8
twitter.com/AnonBabble

FIRST FOR CUTE ANIME COMPOSER BOYS

does anyone have that image of a bunch of moe composers?
also /r/ing any moe modern composers. i want a cute lil Webern

English suites are the best, perfect blend of unbelievable intellectual depth and emotional musical exploration

>preludes from 2, 3 and 6
>gavottes from suite 6
>that fucking gigue at the end of 6
Best parts for me


Quick question relating to this, in Bach's music, and in these suites particularly, he seems to build tension and then release it all in sort of cascading scale runs through several modes, why doesn't anyone else do that? He just seems to have so much control over the tension in the piece and then it all crumbles apart in those lovely patterns he does, I haven't heard anyone else do that yet

A good composer in the OP? What a surprise...

My favourite suite.
youtube.com/watch?v=WHFV0rxg2Mg
Scram, Poly.

I think Bach may just have the most control over music, but I haven't listened to him enough to say for sure.

composition general, anyone?

RESIST poseurs. RETRACT poseurs. Knoe the trends. Classical and blues are current surface level poseur genres in a race for eclecticism with no legitimate knowledge or merit behind it. Have YOU set a poseur faggot in his place recently?

are you actually retarded?

How is there no merit behind a musical tradition that has existed for hundreds of years? How can someone be so disgustingly ignorant? Fucking kill yourself.

bump

How's Pfitzner's Beethoven recordings?

A bit too old and slow for me.

Interesting but pulled back and forth like taffy, often in an overtly obvious and unconvincing manner (think of Bernstein at his worst). Still worth hearing since I believe it was part of the first electric Beethoven cycle, put together with Strauss, Kleiber, and Fried.

Weingartner is a pretty good early Beethoven conductor. Quite classy.

...

Pippo uploaded all those recordings a few days ago. I'm getting the Fried 9th and disc with E. Kleiber, maybe the Walter too. I only ask since I'm running a bit low on room.

Speaking of Weingartner, are the Naxos masters any better than these?

I've heard both and the Naxos is better.

So... is Bach the only one who wrote solo cello suites? Like Jesus Christ, I can't find shit by any other composer.

Although in a case of the Naxos not beong better than than official release, the DG set of "Strauss conducts Struss" has his Beethoven/Mozart recordings on there as well and they sound better than the release on Naxos. That is if you absolutely need to be autistic about it. Dunno if it is entirely worth grabbing since they are early electric/acoustic recordings and you can honestly only get so far with them.

Who's this

me

Bloch wrote some

It could be Heitor Villa-Lobos. He always had cigars sticking out of his mouth. Him or Milhaud

which bach compositions are essential and which recordings of said compositions are the best?

Boy do we have a chart for you!

>Classical music
>no legitimate knowledge
Try harder next time. 0/10.

clown without jest

after listening to the major names like bach, beethoven, and mozart, where should I go from there?

Ignore Get pic and also Suzuki for the cantatas.

it's Prokofiev

>no goldberg variations

>Art of Fugue
>by Musica Antiqua

which interpretation of the brandenburg concerto's should I go for if that chart is bogus?

What did you like about each of them?

Pinnock/European Brandenburg Ensemble or Scherchen.

which of the mega links is the best for a beginner who knows a lttle bit

i enjoyed the intricacy of bach's music, i'm not trained in music theory but listening to his fugues sounded like being lost in a very beautiful hedge maze. for beethoven it was the incredible amount of passion that i felt listening to my favorite stuff of his. mozart's playfulness was really fun. i'm not an expert in music theory or anything so these are just the most general, cursory observations I can offer.

Can mu throw some good solo piano composers/works at me? I'm currently learning some of Liszt's Transcendental Etudes and would like similarly music with more substance. I've gone through most of my favorites by rach, chopin, and scriabin. I know it's pretty mainstream for classical and I've heard mu gets a little elitist, but I'm going to have about 6-7 hours a day with a grand over the summer to pick up some new songs! I don't study music on an academic level (I've never taken theory or a course or anything; I picked most of it up back when I still played jazz so I think I'm set). If not I guess I'll just go do the dante sonata and the spanish rhapsody so I can do a liszt recital.

My favorite composers to play are Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Prokofiev, Chopin, Stanchinsky, and Liszt. Also, does anyone know good ways to practice piano concertos on your own? I want to perform Rach's 4th or Scriabin's 1st (I've not quite decided but I think these are too underplayed and lack good recordings) with my school before I graduate in 4 years.

this is totally me lol

Haydn, Schumann, Brahms, Liszt, Schubert, etc.

Also, Chopin if you feel like rebelling against the picky faggots that shitpost here.

Grieg, Schumann, Ravel, Khachataurian, Leopold Mozart, Dvorak, Webern.

Oh, I guess you guys are more into strings and stuff. That's cool and all; just posted here because there's no piano general/thread. :/

Ah, finally a thread where I can have intellectual discussion with people more up my speed (at least I presume so).

Bach is one of my favorite composers, minuet in G major is one of my favorite complex pieces to drink scotch too. If i'm up to it I may even tackle the piece if I get the itch.

7/10 subtle bait

the scotch portion was a bit much but i like your style.

They're just etudes, painfully boring even for Bach pieces.

I think you should explore more composers than the standard Romantic-virtuoso conservatory repertoire. Try Bach's Art of Fugue, or the more complex pairs from the WTC, Schubert's late sonatas, Mozart's concerti, Scarlatti's sonatas (lovely miniatures), Bartók's 1926 works or even Beethoven (can't believe he's not on there). Once you work up an appreciation for the music of these composers, I hope you'll realize that guys like Rachmaninoff mostly wrote showoffy fluff (not to belittle Chopin, Scriabin, and especially Liszt since he often gets grouped with Rachshit and then underrated; and to be fair, Beethoven wrote his fair share of fluff *cough*the concertos*cough*)

Why are people memeing minuets and gigues? That G major minuet in particular is pretty good, it has articulated phrases beyond the the requirements of functional jigging and even some subtle mood changes with those minor dissonances - which is more that can be said for A LOT of Bach's music.

Indeed I agree completely, the music theory behind this piece is ahead of it's time, particularly the use of the oddball time signature of 3/4 compared to the popular (at the time) 4/4 and 6/8 time signatures.

1) Bach didn't write it
2)
>even some subtle mood changes with those minor dissonances - which is more that can be said for A LOT of Bach's music.
are you serious?

Oh yeah I forgot about those. Can replace the french suites. No one really cares about them anyway, even if they are gorgeously written.

I'm curious to know why so many seem to think Rachmaninoff has no content. I've loved most of what he's written. The second piano concerto, the second symphony, and the solo piano works that I really enjoy going over like 39/5, 32/10, and 16/6.

I'm not really given to like a lot of the older works. I did quite like Schubert's A minor sonata when I heard Stephen Hough play it, though. Personally I can't stand Mozart. I've yet to hear anything I enjoy from him.

haha its funny because bach didnt even write it

Also Shostakovich and Reicha Fugues.

You might even like Schnittke:
youtube.com/watch?v=YY5hlw0-EgA
youtube.com/watch?v=eDTGfBV6aEY

youtube.com/watch?v=jQOn96SNPL4
youtube.com/watch?v=H1xEq1V66H0
not the best recordings, but this is what is on youtube

bump

The best Schubert piano works are the three last sonatas, D958, 959, and 960. The general consensus is 960>959>958, which I agree with. Don't be scared off by major keys. The old joke is that the only music more sad than Schubert in a minor key is Schubert in a major key. The B flat major is really one of the most somber piano works written, and one of my favorite piano sonatas period.

The criticism around Rachmaninoff is that his music lacks formal complexity and intricate development. His works are rife with stile brillante, which tends toward technical difficulty but not musical complexity. Etude stuff, and that's fine and dandy in context, but it's a hallmark of his style. Plebs eat his concerti because they are filled with attractive, moody, minor-key melodies polished with a flashy, extremely technical stile brillante piano accompaniment. To the ignorant listener, this gives the impression of artistic quality and complexity whilst actually constituting a fairly simple (and to the listener acquainted with the works of his contemporaries, including Bartók, Strauss, Mahler, Berg, fairly boring).

Contrast, for example, his famous G minor prelude with Bartók's Romanian Dance No.1.

(Here's a performance by the composer. youtube.com/watch?v=R8UX7bzU_rc )
Both are famous, short works, composed within a decade of each other, and of a very similar form (ABA, a dance melody followed by a slow trio and then the dance). (Yes, Bartók's work is composed in a more modern language but that's beside the point) the reason that the Romanian dance is considered a greater work among critics is entirely based in its use of development. When the dance melody in the Bartók returns, it is in a climactic recapitulation, supported by a continuous sense of motivic development throughout the piece (aided by techniques such as modulation, inversion, etc.) For Rachmaninoff, he simply allows the...

listen to a few of these
>rossini
youtube.com/watch?v=SRJJut7FvUo&index=19
>schulhoff
youtube.com/watch?v=nm-0XONJUTw&index=193
youtube.com/watch?v=lvzpUGUQBto
>grieg
youtube.com/watch?v=7PzsyZR6Jt4
youtube.com/watch?v=aB2eNVAnQDI
>ravel
youtube.com/watch?v=SCKDG7w2S9c
youtube.com/watch?v=uCFCUFTudz8
>kapustin
youtube.com/watch?v=IemxsBikA70
youtube.com/watch?v=jaBmbGywp88

you enjoy listening to dissonance like that? why?

"tango-beat" to return verbatim; although originally interesting, with each restatement the motif becomes increasingly banal, and by its climax the work is exasperated rather than energized. Again, classical plebs enjoy this repetitive structure, because that means they can be distracted for a moment and not miss out on anything. Rachmaninoff is criticized, essentially, as a composer of kitsch.

Do I agree? Well, his music definitely isn't complete garbage. He was a much better pianist than composer, so his etudes have a lot of didactic value. But at the same time, he can't compete at all with his contemporaries such as Stravinsky, Debuss, Bartók, who were innovating new forms, languages, and at time composing monumental essays in form while he was entertaining popular audiences with neo-romantic fluff. Not to mention the great composers of all time. Comparing Mozart with Rach is kind of a sin here; we tend not to compare anyone to Mozart out of respect, but this is particularly insulting. He's not bad, but he's mediocre: the very definition of "third rate". And in a musical genre containing over 600 years of the greatest artwork produced by mankind, I don't think neglecting or downplaying his work is much of a mistake.

I'm on my computer now, so I can give you more concrete recommendations.

As I said before, the Art of Fugue. Give this a listen. It might change your opinion on Bach.
youtube.com/watch?v=RWYFc7PBlSI
It's an enormously challenging piece (especially this fugue, in particular), but in an entirely different sense from a Liszt/Rach etude.

And a CLT-approved performance of Schubert's most beautiful sonata.
youtube.com/watch?v=UfIpl0cbTeM
It forsakes technical virtuosity for the sake of musical integrity.

youtube.com/watch?v=sgZ8z7Ztn10
And Beethoven's 'Hammerklavier' sonata fugue, just for shits and giggles. This piece doesn't forsake technical virtuosity for musicality--it was considered virtually unplayable for the first 50 or so years following its composition. But it makes every bit of its incredible difficulty meaningful.

How can you enjoy Scriabin, yet accuse those Schnittke pieces of "dissonance"? Do you ignore everything he wrote in his last ten years?

And what about Liszt? Surely La Lugubre Gondola and Nuages Gris are more dissonant than those.

I hate Shittke as much as the next guy, but your reasons seem absurd.

I agree that a lot of the notes are superfluous. Minor melodies can give you that cathartic-melancholy effectively. Okay, I get that.

But how can you say it lacks complexity and development? Take his second piano concerto, then. It lacks development? The whole concerto basically chronicles his depression and recovery.

And formal complexity? Compare 39/5 to chopin 48/1,16/6 to 's first song by Rossini. If anything, I would contend that without the "fluff" that clearly represents, to me, a backdrop, most of his solo piano works have much potency behind few notes.

One of the big culprits here is probably rach 3/2. It's got everything you've mentione, right? A slow depressive movement, followed by this excessive thematic movement, and then huge notes with little substance. Strip away much of the left hand, like Gilels does so often in Rachmaninoff and especially in this prelude, or Richter in Liszt, or Rubinstein in Chopin, and the music is easily comparable.

Addressing the concerto: I mean motivic and thematic development--formal structures--as opposed to a narrative structures a la tone poems.

Hate to use Bartok again, but his second concerto is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

youtube.com/watch?v=HraiPCOEXUA

He produces so much out of so little. His manipulation of the first melody is spectacular. There is a continuous drive to this piece, fueled by the intense piano, that then transfers to the orchestra, resulting in big, loud brassy canons. Then it hits a sudden crescendo, and it returns to that same motif, changed ever so much (he inverts it the third time for variety). The melody that develops at around 3:30 is the crux of the movement, and a spectacular moment in the music. Only to collapse back into that same original motif. It's this formal and developmental tightness that I search for in music--its aesthetic value, per se. And I don't get that out of Rachmaninoff. He can take me on an emotional journey, sure, but I won't find a great deal to appreciate along the way.

i do, actually, ignore a lot of what he wrote over the last 10 years, sue me. i think the latest i've done by him is 42/10, with my earlier favorites being 12/2, 8, 2/1 (though i dare not admit it in serious company).

The first work on the Rossini album is from "Album pour les enfants adolescents," ("album for adolescent infants") book 5 of his "Péchés de vieillesse" ("sins of old age"). Which is a satire of poorly-written salon music.

You're citing the Onion here. And it seems that Rossini made fun of Rachmaninoff long before he was even born.

salon music? you mean like liszt or what?
i don't know man, i wanted to highlight the similarities between a composer someone just linked and rachmaninoff's fluffy stuff. why are we so opposed to it?

>you enjoy listening to dissonance like that?
yes
>why?
It pleases my ears. I aint gotta explain shit, its music. Music I enjoy and other do as well. Schnittke is certainly an acquired taste, probably the same with Auerbach, but they're the next step from late romanticism without completely abandoning traditional harmony like the serialists.

You might like Arensky:
youtube.com/watch?v=vPR4791zwz0
There's fuck all of his music on youtube though unfortunately

clown without jest etc.

Scriabin was a great, visionary composer. Neglecting his late work is like listening only to works by Beethoven written before the Eroica.

Rachmaninoff's music, to me, is like wading through a puddle of thick mud. Yes, Chopin did stile brillante too, but he was an innovative revolutionary, also managed to retain a keen sense of form and proportion. Rachmaninoff took Chopin's eccentricities almost a century later, amplified them, and created a caricature of archaic styles. There's a reason you identified that satirical Rossini piece with Rachmaninoff's music. And that Rach etude compares very poorly with that Chopin nocturne. Chopin demonstrates a masterful sense of proportion, providing us with variety. A dark, brooding opening. A beautiful chorale in the center. He then lets virtuosity in, but the chorale returns and shines above all. Whereas, in Rachmaninoff, the virtuosic bass is constantly there, clouding the melodies at the beginning and eventually dominating at the work's climax in a very pianistic mess. Part of that is the very nature of an etude, though, and I'll give Rach that.

In general, I think you should explore music outside of your comfort zone. There's nothing wrong with listening to Rachmaninoff (even some patricians sometimes defend him, like Taxes). But broaden your horizons. Listen to or play baroque composers, classical composers, and even modern composers (and while you're at it, explore the rest of Scriabin's sonatas. You won't be disappointed).

As for Mozart, I just have to ask. How can you not find this music to be beautiful?
youtube.com/watch?v=BxgmorK61YQ

What did he mean by this?

yeah, that prelude is outright terrible. I don't blame Rach for it though, since it was an early work. still, that essay adorno wrote shitting all over it is a hilarious read

rbt.asia/mu/thread/S63359179#p63368601

What is a good recording of the mass in b minor? also suzuki?

not him, but richter gives the essential performance

bump

That was an interesting read. Thank you for posting.

how do i learn to understand music like that senpai

You can't, untermensch.

essential works of mozart?

>Art of Fugue

What's the point of listening to this? It's keyboard mashing for its own sake from start to finish.

>no motifs
>no themes
>no phrasing
>no dynamics
>a single texture that was done to death decades before this was composed
>entire piece only exists as a vehicle for disparate individual pitches to collide with each other in the name of...?
>not even virtuosic
>not even "fun" a la Mozart
>not even furniture music
>not even egotistic

If there is a musical form lower than the etude it is definitely the fugue.

youtube.com/watch?v=oNrM37AYxfc

>:^)

disgustingly plebeian.

What would you say the highest musical form is?

more like

>1 motif
>Countless themes
>all phrasing
>dynamics from note density
>shfting textures with each fugue
>virtuousic
I'm not even sure why you would value the last 3 points, boohoo its not fun, eric satie or made by someone with an ego

no form

no form as in like free improvisation or there is no highest.

i'm just asking that guy cause if there's a lowest it would make sense for there to be a highest in his mind.

>fugue is a form
Stopped reading right there.

The best form is that which allows the musical idea to show itself in its entirety and to be comprehended at first glance. So I guess the best would be sonata form just by virtue of its freedom and lack of absurd requirements. Though I believe the entire Western approach to musical forms is wrong.

TL;DR: Orthogenesis lmao

>fugue

Stopped listening there.

>

don't boundaries create freedom in their own right?" by trying to place boundaries you can expand your understanding of something because you have to work within a specific framework. that's why i like fugue's, because the best composers make something compelling in a very rigid form by using ingenious compositional techniques.

Guys an SJW punched me for wearing a MAGA hat.

What should I do to get her back?
I can't hit her because SJW laws forbid me from hitting women

say you wouldn't even rape her

that'll trigger her good

I like music because it sounds good and true.

Why can't music be good and true while also being challenging and intricate? Bach's cello suites sound very beautiful and spiritual to me, intricate and bound to form as they are.

youtube.com/watch?v=QaLqS3WYW7o

>that's why i like fugue's, because the best composers make something compelling in a very rigid form
When will this meme end? The fugue is never a formal designation, there has never been any consensus on what constitutes a "fugal form", i.e. a structure to the unfolding of the music, and probably never will, since from its inception it took all conceivable meanings. To quote from Grove:
>there exists no widespread agreement among present-day scholars on what its defining characteristics should be
>If all pieces called fugue were collected together and compared, no single common defining characteristic would be discovered beyond that of imitation in the broadest sense.
>Formal structure, however, is not in the end a defining characteristic of fugue. As a result, there has been prolonged argument about whether fugue is a form at all (and, by extension, whether it is a genre) as well as whether any particular formal model should be considered necessary

Even if you were to restrict yourself to specifically, the keyboard fugues composed by Bach for the first book of the Well Tempered Clavier, you would find no two fugues in there having the same formal aspects.

i was being very general when i used fugue's as an example. no need to sperg out.

Sportive elements in music are the made by and for the ego. Take that however you like.

By the way, I don't hate Bach.

youtube.com/watch?v=ugSXVymv6b8

youtube.com/watch?v=ha5hYKNfFN8

Pieces like these are probably the best examples of Western music up until Chopin's op. 27 and beyond.

The ego of who? The composer or the listener? And how does that obstruct the ability to explore a musical idea when different forms necessitate coming up with different musical ideas in order to tackle them in unique ways?