/classical/

Why do you hate Karajan edition

>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=yLGS4nJy070
youtube.com/watch?v=GJ1wKzdWo4g&list=PLJZmNwgUPr6_Kiega3zBfEGiyfo4YS3Z6
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Cause he's a populist nazi faggot.

jelly little bitch

>found out the largo from the new world contains parallel fifths
>tfw have to hate it now

Because he actively ruined tons of recordings by either meddling in the mixing process
Or just muddied up the orchestral sound way too much and removed any edge from recordings

See: his AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWFUL Rite of Spring
8's the only good one he wrote

Implying 7 isn't god tier

could you post some music with non functional harmony?

yeah 8 is the best dont let anybody say otherwise

bump

bump

bump

Just contribute to the thread. Upload, request, or discover something new here.

I've decided to start listening to classical by listening to the three biggest names I know first, Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven. Should I include other stuff in my initial listening? I'm trying to find the best interpretations of their most important stuff as well.

Maybe some accessible romantic-era stuff like Debussy, Tchaikovsky, and the such.

So far I've really enjoyed Bach's stuff, do you have an recommendations on other good Baroque composers?

Why did the role of the conductor become more and more prominent as classicism began?

rip classical

Start here. I'll get to making the next part someday.

Thanks dude, I can't wait to dig into this.

>Why do you hate Karajan?
Classical doesn't like him because they haven't heard his Madame Butterfly recording.

>Madame Butterfly

Post your charts for the best new compositions for each decade since the 60's

Unless you're too pleb?

Huh? I don't understand. Is this a meme?

Replace Mozart with someone good, like Brahms or Haydn.

...

Poly, please abscond from here.

Because ensembles got bigger and needed someone to keep them all together

FURTHER

Fact: Karajan was a hack
Fact: Celibidache was the greatest conductor of all time


>Celi: Karajan was an elegant but superficial conductor
>Interviewer: But Karajan is known everywhere in the world
>Celi: So is Coca-Cola
>Interviewer: Karajan, Bernstein, Mehta, Muti?
>Celi: They do not live in my world. I have nothing to do with them. Muti has an extraordinary talent but he is an ignorant, as Toscanini was
>Interviewer: Solti?
>Celi: A fantastic pianist, a musical man, but not a conductor
>Interviewer: Ormandy?
>Celi: How could such a mediocre conductor succeed Stokowski?


You have no right to post here if you don't own his Bruckner cycle.

But why?

youtube.com/watch?v=yLGS4nJy070

Because with 50+ people it's hard to stay in time because music from across the stage takes time to reach you. So if you look at the conductor he can keep you in time.

No I mean why did the ensemble got bigger? More instruments invented?

I like his Tchaikovksky and Beethoven. That might be an unpopular opinion idk

Partly yes, but also because composers wanted to write bigger stuff and because it became viable. Remember in those days most musicians and composers were in the service of a noble so the size of the ensembles and as a result the compositions were limited by how many people the noble could afford. But as public concerts became more common because people could afford tickets it meant ensembles could be bigger.

Now I want to hear that.

That makes sense, but since when did conductor become just "conductor"? Most conductors/directors before the classical era were also virtuosos

That's because most conductors were usually the first violinist or the soloist or something and didn't need to actively conduct as much. There probably wasn't a set time when 'conductor' became separate, it happened gradually starting in Beethoven's time as he and the other proto Romantics started enlarging the orchestra and making bigger stuff.
I hope this isn't your homework.

The fuck was the point of making bigger ensembles? It just obfuscates the harmonies.
>I hope this isn't your homework.
Nah I'm a STEM grad, my homework'd probably go on math.stackexchange. Just interested in art music in general.

Not really, Beethoven couldn't have achieved the sound he did in Eroica with only strings a flute and basso continuo. He needed what he needed, including that third horn. He couldn't have achieved the sound of the 9th with the smaller baroque groups, but despite the orchestra's size the harmonies remain clear as ever, remember not every instrument has to be playing all the time.

Yeah but what does that achieve? What is actually the point of having different timbres in the same piece?

Not him but, textural variety and richness I'd imagine.

Pleasure. Are you autistic? Can't you appreciate the textural differences between instruments?

I just don't see the appeal.

>Are you autistic?
>I'm a STEM grad

Already answered.

Or maybe fullness?

think about the difference between a flute and a violin, why would you want to use a violin over a flute, or a flute over a violin? (disregarding the fact that a violin can play chords/stops and a has a different range etc)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCydQm83cJQ
Can you not see why the melody at :45 is better suited for the english horn than say an oboe? If not then maybe music isn't for you

This post really sums up why most people have a difficult time taking Classical aficionados seriously.

Stop giving us a bad name, you utterly pretentious faggot

>taking a post with Celi in it seriously

I can't take a single post in this thread seriously.
>Mozart wasn't "good"
>Karajan was a hack
>why are there conductors
Lol

>anons of Sup Forums, please tell us why one of the most venerable conductors of the 20th century was a hack

I'm guessing you don't know who Poly is. Let me tell you, you're in for a fun ride.

>it's a "newfag comes into the thread uninvited" episode

>I'm guessing you don't know who Poly is.
I do not. Is he the resident Classical snob who makes broad, scathing generalizations about composers whose turds were more important than his entire existence?

Actually yes! He loathes Mozart.

He generally doesn't know what he's talking about at all.
Though /classical/ at large usually memes against Karajan, at least in repertoire before like, Strauss.

Yeah I see what you're saying, but you don't need dozens of each of the instruments to have the sort of variety in timbre you're looking for.

I figured. I used to feel the same way about Mozart until I learned that not all of his pieces were bouncy and jovial. His symphonies tend to sound very monotonous to me, but I enjoy many of them -- for me, it's all about the chamber music... and his Requiem of course.

They don't have dozens. Most classical and romantic symphonies had only 2 each of woodwinds and brass, with 4 horns. Only strings had 12-16 players, and even then only the first violins had that many, but that was necessary so they could be heard at all. Some of Mahler's symphonies have 8 horns and other larger amounts, but his symphonies are some of the biggest in the repetoire.

>memes against Karajan
It makes people feel more erudite and important when they criticize esteemed individuals. I accept that everyone has their preferences and criticisms, but I have a hard time taking someone seriously when they make such hyperbolic statements as "Karajan was a hack"

I actually like Mozart. The only composer I truly loathe is Applebaum, but he's essentially a non-composer anyway.

I'm just a trained composer who lurks these threads. Some people dislike that I enjoy the musica antiqua koln version of art of fugue over the cold, lifeless renditions on modern piano, but that's pretty much the most exciting thing that happens when I post in /classical/
Also I suspect I introduced a lot of 20th century music here, Ferneyhough, Rautavaara, Schnittke, Auerbach etc.

I want to get into some more modern classical stuff. Do you have any suggestions?

Lol. I can't tell if this is a troll post -- I really hope it's not.

Depends what you mean by "modern"
I would start with Stravinsky, Debussy, Strauss and Schoenberg in the early 1900s, then work my way through to modern music via Bartok.

This documentary is great for the discovery of 20th century music, starts at late romantic and works through all the main works and phases:

youtube.com/watch?v=GJ1wKzdWo4g&list=PLJZmNwgUPr6_Kiega3zBfEGiyfo4YS3Z6

Would highly recommend for anyone interested in modern classical.

Thanks man. Why do people hate you? You seem pretty nice in all the threads I've been in.

eh this is Sup Forums. anything people can name, people will hate. I often ditch the trip to cause less strife, but I kinda stopped caring. It's also pretty funny to see the torrents of "fuck off poly" whenever anyone disses Mozart or mentions Schnittke, Martinů or Ferneyhough.

kek.

Kleiber wrote a letter in reply to this:

Telex from Toscanini (Heaven) to Celibidache (Munich):

Dear Sergiu!
We have read you in the Spiegel. You get on our nerves, but we forgive you. We have no choice anyway: forgiveness is in style Up Here. Potato-sack Karli made some objection, but after Kna and I had a heart-to-heart with him, he stopped whining.

Wilhelm now all of a sudden insists that he has never even heard of you. Papa Josef, Wolfgang Amadeus, Ludwig, Johannes, and Anton all prefer the second violins on the right and claim that your tempi are all wrong. But actually, they don’t really give a damn about it. Up here, we are not supposed to care a damn about anything. The Boss does not allow it.

An old Zen master who lives next door says you got it all wrong about Zen Buddhism. Bruno is totally cracked up by your comments. I have the suspicion that he secretly shares your views about me and Karli. Maybe you could say something mean about him for a change; otherwise, he feels so left out.

I hate to break it to you, but everybody up here is totally crazy about Herbert. In fact, the other conductors are a little jealous of him. We can’t wait to welcome him up here in fifteen or twenty years. Too bad you can’t be with us then.

But people say that where you will go the cuisine is much better, and the orchestras down there never stop rehearsing. They even make little mistakes on purpose, so that you have a chance to correct them for all eternity.

I’m sure you will like that, Sergiu. Up here, the angels read the composers’ minds. We conductors only have to listen. Only God knows why I’m here.

Have lots of fun,
In old friendship,
Arturo

>Papa Josef, Wolfgang Amadeus, Ludwig, Johannes, and Anton all prefer the second violins on the right and claim that your tempi are all wrong
BTFO

Karajan is not above criticism simply because he was esteemed. He was a talented conductor but simply not the super-conductor which he was marketed out to be.

He had his repertoire that he excelled at, and he had quite a bit of repertoire which he did not do well with (like most other conductors).

In truth, his biggest enemy was probably himself. There are dozens of DG recordings with him which are significantly undermined by his own obsessive manipulation in the post-production of the recordings. In just about every instance, when a live recording from him is available, it is probably vastly preferable to that of his studio recordings simply because the latter is often drenched in so much artificiality (this is especially true in the 70s-80s era recordings from him. less so for the recordings that came before, but it is still applicable in some cases)

Funnily enough though, that exact criticism can be applied to Karajan in some instances in regards to tempi, and ALL instances in regards to orchestral seating, since Karajan never put second violins on the right.

The positive relationship between Carl and Herbie is pretty interesting. Their styles were very different in my opinion.

Is celtic considered classical?

>there are dozens of DG recordings with him which are significantly undermined by his own obsessive manipulation in the post-production of the recordings
So do you feel the same way about Glenn Gould's records?

If something is written by a trained composer, and intended for live performance from a written score in the concert hall, it is classical. If not, it aint.

I don't listen to much of Gould, but I remember his recordings being incredibly dry. And, uh, that's about it.

I completely agree. Although his Goldberg Variations are undeniably one of the greatest recordings of all time.

I like his early stuff the best. Mostly the live. There is a fierce BWV 1052 with him and Mitropoulos. And also the Moscow/Salzburg performances are great.

Listening to the Gould/Mitropolous right now -- "fierce" is definitely how I'd describe it.

does anybody know of some early cello recordings? i've listened to many early violin recordings by joachim, sarasate, etc which i've enjoyed, and i've listened to a few cello recordings but they were made a bit later (20's~)

bump

Casals made some acoustic recordings I believe. Dunno where they've been issued on CD.

Pearl has a set for early recordings of cello as well but I'm not sure how far it goes back.

what the fuck was /classical/ doing to have not heard of Ferneyhough and Schnittke before you?

He's lying to inflate his massive ego

you have infinite time to name a good British composer

britten

White, Browne.

how are parallel fifth 'forbidden'? I'm sure Dvorak knew about the effect of parallel fifth and used them carefully. You can do everything if you're knowing what you're doing. If you like the special sounds of open parallel fifth, why the hell would you not play them just because of a counterpoint suggestion?

I think there's Heinrich Schuetz missing, he's one of the greatest

Fayrfax, Tallis, Tavener, Byrd, Gibbons, Holst, Purcell, Bax, Delius, PMD, Ferneyhough, Tippett, Rutter, Elgar, Finnissy.

David Bowie

Sullivan, Purcell, Britten, Sorabji, the list could continue forwards..

why is it that the baroque period is superior to every form of western art music that succeeded it? everything else is either faux-avant garde or glorified lounge music.

Is classical good music? And where should I start in those mega links?

It's the best music I've heard. I'd start with the first mega link and find your favorite recordings among that one before moving on to the others.

Handel

good one, more like Händel
But there's still Purcell and Dowland, and The Planetes by Holst are very good too

JC Bach

>is classical music good music

the question should be, if music is defined as art of forming sound aesthetically, is there any other music?

Wow that's dripping with buttmad and impotent squeaker rage.

I've heard Metalheads say more emotionally mature things.

I thought it was a tongue in cheek response to a ridiculous assertion. Which is about all it deserves.

Yeah, it's pretty good music.
I would also recommend starting with the first mega link. Go for the big names, Beethoven, Mozart and Bach first.

these threads just go to show why i don't listen to classical music. if you pretentious faggots like it there must be something wrong