Please recommend some Wagner recordings in modern sound, I already have Furtwangler but I want to improve the sound quality without losing much of the feel and drama
>senseless perversion and mixing of irreconcilable elements for egotistic purposes
hmmmmm
HMMMMMMM
Jack Brooks
schoenberg?
Brody Rogers
Chopin desu.
Grayson Barnes
Why the hell aren't Josquin's other psalm motets recorded more often. Memor esto and Qui habitat are pretty central to his canon and just as fine as the more well known Miserere and De Profundis a 5, yet I really struggle to find more than one decent recording of the former.
the first post usually speaks more truth than other, and in this case i won't argue
if it wasn't for that fat lard debussy he would have a chance against bach AND beethoven
Elijah Clark
What non-classical music do /classical/fags enjoy that has classical elements?
Alexander Young
Is it wrong that I have the artist tag as "John Dunstaple" for the Missa Caput.
Similarly, I keep all of the questionable attributions under "Josquin des Prez". Why wouldn't you want the best of a period under one place?
Blake Hughes
>Is it wrong that I have the artist tag as "John Dunstaple" for the Missa Caput. Yes, the composers goes into the composer tag. The artist should be the performer.
>I keep all of the questionable attributions under "Josquin des Prez" Absolutely scandalous
>Why wouldn't you want the best of a period under one place? The point is that many of these spurious works are of questionable quality. This triggers purists because these works do not seem to conform to our image of Josquin the musical genius who is incapable of putting out bad works.
Chase Rogers
The majority of popular music has "classical elements", so it's an ambiguous question. I find things like "classical sounding" instrumentation or orchestration to be secondary. When people focus on them they make mistakes like calling Amon Tobin more "jazzy" than electroacoustic improvisation.
A better subject might be to focus on other art music traditions. I find it shocking that they are no more discussed than the folk music from the same places, which would be less refined and less well documented by definition.
Another subject could be to discuss the tensions between classical aesthetics and the aesthetics of other genres. Wouldn't focusing on the former cause a composer in another tradition to compromise their music on its usual terms? An obvious example might be that certain compositional tools would only enrich a work but in the process would severely restrict the opportunities to improvise. The question becomes more interesting when we privilege classical aesthetics as "better" than the others, because only then would it make so much sense to ask "does it matter if they compromise on the usual criteria?". A holistic answer would probably say it still matters, there is more to gain from the combination and revaluing.
Jackson White
>Yes, the composers goes into the composer tag. The artist should be the performer. But I have a performer tag as well. I use the artist field for the most important figure related to the recording. So if it's a Mozart arrangement of Handel, Mozart goes in artist and arranger, Handel goes into composer, and then some HIP faggots go into performer.
>The point is that many of these spurious works are of questionable quality. This triggers purists because these works do not seem to conform to our image of Josquin the musical genius who is incapable of putting out bad works. So basically it's better to under-attribute since there is already a core of brilliant works that can only be soiled by other additions, and mis-attributing would be the most disastrous case since these soiling works might not even really be from that person yet their reputation is slighted?
Hunter Williams
[spoiler]Chopin is shit
Gavin White
Chopin could've written music for right hand only, and it still would've been better and more sincere than grandiose post-Wagnerian orchestral firetruckery.
>I use the artist field for the most important figure related to the recording. Which should really be the conductor/performer right, since they are the ones who realise the score into sound on the recording.
>mis-attributing would be the most disastrous case since these soiling works might not even really be from that person yet their reputation is slighted? Josquin is quite a special case because of his immense posthumous reputation. This affects him more than any other composer in history since if we were to accept every work bearing his name in one source or another as his, then there are at least 300 works. The composer generated by this image would be an incredibly inconsistent one, and also one with such versatility that it seems as if he continued composing for several decades after his death. Scholars can't really work with that, so the work-list have to be trimmed, particularly fanatical ones would admit less than 1/3 of the 300 works to the Josquin canon. The image of the composer then emerges much more clearly, though admittingly this image is somewhat artificial and rather different from his 16th century image. There's also the problem of circularity because you're generating your conception of Josquin based on (mostly) internal evidence from a group of pieces which you more or less arbitrarily designate as "secure", but then you're throwing music out because they don't conform to the style of those selected pieces. It's a rather thorny issue.
Jordan Lee
>Which should really be the conductor/performer right, since they are the ones who realise the score into sound on the recording. If it's about "realisation" then the listener should go into the field. There's no sound if there is no one to play it.
In classical the composer causes more variation in the recording than the performer does. Varese and Bach by the same performer will sound more different than Beethoven by any number of performers.
Jordan Peterson
>If it's about "realisation" then the listener should go into the field. There's no sound if there is no one to play it. Inasmuch that the sound of the performance is the phenomenon being captured by the recordings, the ones responsible for that are the performers, not the composer, in this sense they are the artist since they directly produce what we hear.
>In classical the composer causes more variation in the recording than the performer does. But we're not discussing what causes the most variation in the recording, otherwise we might as well put tempo or instrumentation or era into that field. Of course the composer is important, but it is information that is tied up with the composition that will never change. And if the title is full enough you can always immediately identify the composer anyway. I want to be able to distinguish between the recordings of the same work, so having performers in the artist field is more important to me.
Debussy did NOT invent Impressionism for this faggotry.
Aiden Garcia
>in this sense they are the artist since they directly produce what we hear. Not even the sound engineers produce *directly* what we hear.
>But we're not discussing what causes the most variation in the recording, otherwise we might as well put tempo or instrumentation or era into that field We're discussing what is most important, and those things you list are not artists. In most cases we only know of a performer because they are performing the works of composers we would listen to anyway. Would you listen to a brilliant musician who only performs pure kitsch? Would you listen to a brilliant composer who is far from being properly realized? People do the latter. It is less common for someone’s listening to be orientated around the performer than it is the composer.
>I want to be able to distinguish between the recordings of the same work, so having performers in the artist field is more important to me. But that's what the performer tag is for.
Brandon Allen
Doesn't impressionism date back to the classical fantasia?
Dominic Diaz
see Couperin's harpsichord pieces
Owen Adams
>Not even the sound engineers produce *directly* what we hear. There may be variations in equipment to reproduce the sound, but what is recorded, the 16-bit number that records the amplitude at that instant, repeated 44100 times a second for however long the recording lasts, that sequence of numbers is at least consistent across all copies of the recording. And those numbers bear a direct relation to the performer.
>Would you listen to a brilliant musician who only performs pure kitsch?Would you listen to a brilliant composer who is far from being properly realized? People do the latter. The latter is actually much rarer than you realise. In fact, it's one of the primary reasons why much new music struggled to gain recognition in the 20th and 21st century. Those pieces are far more demanding to perform than earlier repertory, but because of time and budget constraints they never receive the rehearsals needed to get them up to par. And a bad performance leads to negligence, which deprives audiences of a second chance of hearing them and gain a better understanding. Schoenberg himself said that: "My music isn't modern, it's just badly played".
>It is less common for someone’s listening to be orientated around the performer than it is the composer. I never suggested that putting performer in the artist field implies this. Though I do wonder how you can orient your listening if there were no performer involved. Composer info is simply redundant when I have the title.
What do you guys think about this? Did he rip someone off when he wrote this?
Eli Cruz
Furtwängler honestly is pretty variable in Wagner anyway. I don't really care for his super-late Wagner which he is known for, like the Legge Tristan or the '53 Ring. It's very well sung of course, but the conducting is pretty stodgy. His La Scala Ring is better in that regard, but it also has that top-tier Italian aesthetic going for it as well; chamber-like balances, vicious strings, biting winds. Among all the Wagner recordings out there it probably has the most uniformly unique sound to it. It's this unique blend of Italian and German sound that you simply wouldn't be able to reproduce today. Even in spite of the crap sound there's so much transparency to the balances, and I imagine this is where Boulez got his ideas for his more chamber-esque approach to the Ring.
As far as stereo-era Wagnerian conductors go, Böhm might be the overall best pick since his Tristan and Ring recordings have good singers, fast paced conducting, and relatively good sound quality (Philips did a really good job on the sound-staging, only the crunchy brass really tips you off that it's shitty Bayreuth). For a Parsifal try Kegel. There are other conductors worth mentioning, like Boulez and Janowski (the latter which probably has the most consistently enjoyable Ring and a deliciously recorded one to boot) but honestly I doubt so many people would be as autistic as I am to listen to so many performers when it comes to opera, let alone Wagnerian opera.
Kevin Bennett
this is the most beautiful music i've ever heard
Nolan Powell
For a good composer some people are even fine with MIDI. In regards to performers, there is no equivalent.
Evan Wright
>For a good composer some people are even fine with MIDI. Very few composers can withstand that kind of abuse, the Divine Sewing Machine notwithstanding.
That's the fault of the one arranging the piece, not the fault of the MIDI. You can control dynamics and tempo almost as good as a real person an on a real piano. Pedaling might be a bit odd but whatever. A terrible MIDI maker would make an equally terrible real instrument performer.
Elijah Morales
>Beethoven 132 meme magic
Hunter Turner
bump
Charles Wright
Rec extremely complex shitty pieces.
Oliver Jenkins
>complex shitty oxymoron
Henry Cruz
>yur bird is nott aes raf as I imagyned >i hef yused th sham-poo in antisipashon of interview
I don't see many people mention this piece, or this movement specifically. What are your opinions on Beethoven's 29th piano sonata, opus 106? Personally, it is one of my favourite piano pieces and I like the third movement the most. I've listened to all of Beethoven's piano sonatas multiple times but this specific movement will always be a favourite. Perhaps even one of my favourite movements of any sonata or symphony.
I have a few recordings in flac (and a couple in mp3 that couldn't find uncompressed) of this sonata and I love how different small changes in dynamics or tempo can make this sonata sound. More so the first movement: András Schiff gave some lectures on the piano sonatas, and the first movement of the 29th focuses on tempo and dynamics of the introduction. theguardian.com/music/classical/page/0,,1943867,00.html
Ayden Richardson
...
Tyler Russell
>mfw other people are starting to bogpost
Ethan Rivera
The final is one of my favorite fugues of his Bogmemer pls go
Xavier Watson
It's probably one of the better slow movements in the romantic repertoire.
James Williams
It has all the subtlety of a gorilla pianist wearing boxing gloves.
Noah Lewis
He didn't write many fugues, but I love the finale of op. 106 too. I read this analysis a while ago and I thought it was pretty interesting. I wonder how much thought and time Beethoven put into looking at the score and the written music over the sounds, after he became completely deaf.
I think Beethoven composed two of my three favourite slow movements: this one and the second movement of his 3rd symphony. Often I feel some of his better works are underappreciated, at least in the mainstream.
How does it feel knowing the biggest pitchsperger composed simple, sensuous music and payed a lot of attention to timbre and sonority?
Luis Morris
i dont feel anything
Parker Hernandez
Gould was really something. I have mixed feelings about the piece you posted, but I do not dislike it. I suppose it'd take me a while and a few listens to warm up to it more.
Jordan Reyes
he was a better performer than composer, that's for sure
Austin Lee
Thats not saying much
Dylan Martinez
...
Jason Harris
same goes for horowitz
Evan Richardson
>tfw glenn gould has transcended matter and is not shitposting in the ethers
