If Haydn and Mozart could see this future they'd at least be astounded by the machine-music of the krautrockers and intelligent dance™ musicians. This music would still relate to them with its impressionism (really, the ability to bring pleasure *despite* lacking compositional rigour), that it actually intends to be pleasurable.
Whereas the Varèse and Stockhausen schools might have rigour (at least, the latter), but they sacrifice pleasure to either futurism or even more ridiculous ideals (just listen to Stockhausen's rant against drug-music).
Aaron Price
I want to listen Dvorak what conductor do you recommend for symphonies
Carter Phillips
Anyone got any "essential" medieval vocal music albums? I'm interested in blokes like Machaut and Dufay but I'm not sure where to begin in terms of recordings
Colton Diaz
Fuck off, both Haydn and Mozart followed a musical philosophy (a apollinian one, which strived for the Greek concept of beauty) that is in complete contrast with modern music. These are still guys who, when reading scores, look for "errors". I'm pretty sure that they would get annoyed by the meaninglessness of the repetitions and the harmonic/melodic tribalism. Up until the 1950s there is really nonmajor composer who would have supported these movements.
>These are still guys who, when reading scores, look for "errors" Ironically, this is probably one of the big returns of electronic music, since it bypasses the modern notion of a creative artist being unable to produce errors per say, and instead finds errors with the hardware/software.
>I'm pretty sure that they would get annoyed by the meaninglessness of the repetitions Repetitions aren't meaningless if they help the enjoyment of the audience. The classical era knew this well.
>the harmonic/melodic tribalism Similarly, they themselves didn't discount instruments (which is how I imagine they would understand machine-music) which had narrow ranges. See: timpani, stromento d'acciaio. Hell, the strength or weakness of the *underlying* composition would be the last thing on their minds, after hearing centuries of technological and even artistic (if you can call Debussy and Russolo artists) progress in one work. On the level of possibilities alone they would be astounded even if they didn't like it. Stockhausen would be the same except even to their ears it would quite obviously be sacrificing pleasurable qualities, e.g. equality of pitches over tonality.
>Up until the 1950s there is really nonmajor composer who would have supported these movements. Well, naturally, since society was restructured after the enlightenment. My comparison was limited, merely comparing sounds-for-pleasure (rockers/DJs) to compositions-for-ideals (varese/stockhausens). Haydn and Mozart were for pleasure, instead of romantic notions of ideal artistry.
Ryder Sanders
>Ironically, this is probably one of the big returns of electronic music, since it bypasses the modern notion of a creative artist being unable to produce errors per say, and instead finds errors with the hardware/software. Not compositional errors, only technical ones, but that is still something present in modern music. Bad instrumentalists and bad instrumentation are still recognized as such, it's not really a return to anything.
>Repetitions aren't meaningless if they help the enjoyment of the audience. The classical era knew this well. Pre-Haydn galant music knew that maybe, but both Mozart and Haydn went against this convention, ending up being controversial, at least in the first part of their careers. Their serious music was considered too difficult for audiences of the time.
>Similarly, they themselves didn't discount instruments (which is how I imagine they would understand machine-music) which had narrow ranges. Which has nothing to do with harmonic and melodic primitivism. Is Mahler being primitivistic if he uses a cowbell in one of his symphonies? >On the level of possibilities alone they would be astounded even if they didn't like it. I'm not saying that they would keep writing common practice music even in the XXI century, what I'm saying is that in them there is still a certain, old-fashioned value for "good taste" which would certainly preclude from them avant-gardistic pursuits and non-dignified ones (such as pop music, EDM, IDM, etc.). Stockhausen may have done something new, but chances are that these innovations would be of no interest for these composers (who would also know that any sort of innovation in music is trivial to obtain, per se).
>Well, naturally, since society was restructured after the enlightenment. My point is that there is no continuum between academia and the music you're describing. I'm placing no academic agency to the mass, which was never involved with most classical music in the first place. (cont.)
Daniel Myers
(Cont.) >My comparison was limited, merely comparing sounds-for-pleasure (rockers/DJs) to compositions-for-ideals (varese/stockhausens).
Which doesn't really tell us much about this music, its public and its meaning.
>Haydn and Mozart were for pleasure
Sure, a sophisticated, timeless, academic kind of pleasure, a kind of pleasure which is nowhere to be found in our current musical landscape for cultural reasons.
Sorry if I told you to fuck off, I thought you were baiting.
Camden Bailey
Is he the greatest Jewish composer, besides Mendelssohn?
Nathaniel Mitchell
Is he the greatest black composer, besides Mozart?
Lincoln Young
...
Connor Edwards
Why commie composers were the best in the 20th c. Was Marx right
Isaiah Russell
when their freedom of expression was repressed, music was their only outlet for pouring their emotions into
Elijah Ross
>Liking Classical Music
Austin Williams
great post
Cooper Nelson
At least Mozart is still alive
Jace Clark
Scott Joplin is. Treemonisha is pretty good.
Ryan Nguyen
Post Beethoven
Caleb Powell
all are Schubert's
Austin Martinez
>Why commie composers were the best in the 20th c. Except they weren't. Unless by commie you mean Russian. And if by Russian you mean French.
