Before 1900, what kinds of music genres were popular? What did they call it? I am curious. For instance, what labels would have been given to the music of Mozart to define its style? Classical music is a poor label for what it attempts to describe.
Juan Bennett
Its sad that singing for men is now fruity as fuck instead of manly.
A better question would be "what kind of music was popular with whom?" What we call 'classical' music is music in the tradition of that made for the upper classes in the past (mostly aristocrats, but also rich burghers) and High Church music. The earliest name for the secular stuff was probably something akin to "court music". "Whatever the lords listen to."
Shit performance, as usual. Why do you think the orchestra completely covers up the piano when the più mosso section begins? Exactly, it's because Weissenberg can't play those passages to save his life. The cadenzas are even worse. The only one other than Rachmaninoff himself who could play this concerto is Horowitz when he was young (old Horowitz played it like rubbish).
Robert Russell
Here, this is a proper performance of the No. 3: youtube.com/watch?v=4CARUE500Zw (Unfortunately several sections are cut from the recording.)
William Richardson
It's called picking up a pencil and then writing notes down on paper
Nathaniel Roberts
take a course in music theory, the rest should be autonomous
Bentley Sanders
jesus christ this is some fucking good shit
horowitz is the kind of pianist who, when he plays a piece, it's so fresh and innovative that it's as if you're hearing the piece anew again
Jaxon White
Kastle please go
Bentley Rogers
Literally who? No matter: I'm right, you're wrong. End of story.
Not sure what you mean but Westhoff's suites have some of the ugliest manuscripts of all time but they sound really nice. youtube.com/watch?v=34iZsGgufmg >tfw you're so poor you have to copy your music yourself
Yes, I am peeved. Not only are Haendel and Wagner nothing alike, it's also that neither stinks. But that's not why this situation is vexing. No, it's because the thread needs bumping and I must do it replying to the most low effort shitpost I've read all week. (It was that or the P____ meme, and I hate that meme. Such is the plight of autism.)
Jaxson Price
Well, ok, I lied. I'm actually really upset that you managed to piss on two great composers in such a pithy manner. But you're wrong, just so you know. There's more to Wagner than just the tonal innovations dammit. And Haendel's body of work is not derivative.
>if I write more variations one of them is bound to be good!...
Levi Howard
I'm about one third of the way through. He's being pretty conservative with the treatment of the theme. It's more of an exercise in orchestration than an exercise in composition.
Jaxon Russell
i dont like chopin's mazurkas
Easton Taylor
The only Chopin worth listening are the Preludes, Etudes and Piano Sonata No. 2.
Maybe his Op. 60 and 61, and some of his Valses are also nice.
Joshua Fisher
>It's more of an exercise in orchestration than an exercise in composition. This ended up being the case all the way through. Both Corelli's and Vivaldi's variations do a lot more with the tune. I guess Salieri was experimenting with texture(?).
That was ok. The orchestra is my favourite 'instrument' though, so I'm not that entertained by this other stuff. And by the by, my comment was descriptive only* (all variations consist, more or less, of a copy of the theme used as the main melodic line, with flourishes here and there). I actually enjoyed Salieri's variations more than either of Corelli's and Vivaldi's, in spite of their changing the theme in more pronounced ways.)
(*) Contrast that with how Bach uses the theme in the Peasant Cantata: youtube.com/watch?v=sHK1Xhrh_sY Now THAT is a variation on the folia, not just ctrlc+ctrlv. >tfw you will never be this good
Sebastian Morales
all his* (Salieri's) variations consist
Adrian Cooper
Rachmaninoff's folia variations have the same problem (being mostly just a copypasta sequence with ornamentations). Few can develop a theme like Bach or Beethoven.
Sebastian Ward
There were military marches and folk music.
Connor Moore
Handel is way too soothing and not nearly grandiose enough for Wagner.
Joshua Peterson
Wagner can be very smoothing sometimes as well. Take Parsifal.
Honestly, it's a bit TOO soothing. I'm always ready for a nap by the end of the first act, not because I think the music is boring, mind you, I'm just like, "Ah...that's nice."
This is all the most entry level pleb shit from every composer. Prokofiev has countless better pieces than Dance of the Memes
You used whom wrong loser
Wagnuh is worse than Handel though
Adrian Thomas
Hey Classical
Nathaniel Stewart
>This is all the most entry level pleb shit from every composer. Prokofiev has countless better pieces than Dance of the Memes He should use Lieutenant Kije instead but what I think he is going for is entry level compositions for people interested in it.
Christian Cox
>He should use Lieutenant Kije instead No. That's not a beginners Prokofiev piece. I would probably rec Piano Concerto 3 to best show Prokofiev's style.
Andrew Robinson
he was fat therefore he sucks lol
Landon Gray
>You used whom wrong loser No he didn't, "what kind of music was popular with him?" is what you would say, if you can replace whom with him you've used it correctly.
Wyatt Bell
I've been struggling with Hidemith for a while. The guy be like >I don't give a fuck about nothing. His music is fairly traditional, except when it's weird as bats in your soup, and he has a total disregard for smooth transitions (his modulations, if you can call the that, are what-the-fuck-are-you-doing tier; I can't grok his harmonic system at all). It sounds like musical collage.
Jeremiah Flores
Didn't see his comment mentioned Mozart. Grammar is gay anyways
Wyatt Jones
Mozart being mentioned has nothing to do with it. >Grammar is gay anyways For whom? You and who else?
What happened to that guy that posted his stuff for string quartet a few days ago? Did he finish it?
Jonathan Wilson
Probably poly
His music is shit
Mason Rogers
So there was this asshole the other day saying this wasn't the best Mahler 5th performance, because there was a trombone sforzando that wasn't loud enough
Wow what a douche! s-someone please tell him to fuck off?
Levi Adams
>not Giulini >hmm.png >not Wiener Philharmoniker >worry.exe >not Concertgebouworkest >it's kaput.com Yes, that definitely isn't the best performance of Mahler's 5th.
Fuck I haven't slept in 27 hours. My mind is in a daze. We're talking Mahler's 5th? Yes the fifth. He didn't? God, I'm not sure. I really like his recordings of the 9th. He did those, I'm sure. I know it, this is the very best Mahler 5 recording: youtube.com/watch?v=gyF9M4V-xC4 This one is interesting too. It's closer to what Mahler would have performed it like.
not me. I've already finished 5 string quartets and haven't worked on one for a few years. Mostly keyboard fugues these days, and some other projects. Symphony needs scoring out too...
Thomas Robinson
>liszt >not good
Nathaniel Lee
>tfw you listen to Baroque-shit and the amazing relative minor-key 2nd movement ends and is followed by major key trash that sounds totally different JUST
Benjamin Carter
Those trombone notes (at 1:11 - 1:15) are flaccid as fuck though. Staccato block chords marked sf, and you can hardly hear them. Nothing asshole-ish about noting a conductor failed to accentuate sf notes. Sure it may be his "interpretation" but I don't like it, and by the look of the score, Mahler wouldn't like it either. If he had wanted those notes mp or mf, he would have marked them thus.
>Mahler wouldn't like it either. If he had wanted those notes mp or mf, he would have marked them thus. what do you know? mahler was notorious for never playing a piece the same way twice, he loved to change things around
