All pre-20th century classical is obsolete for non-historical reasons as there's always one shortcoming or another in some aspect of the music whereas 20th century and afterward offers music that's good at everything.
Dominic Lewis
>Br*ckner
Jace White
Third for
>the virgin listener: listens to mp3 files >the greatest maestro of one's own century: whenever you want to hear a piece of music other musicians will immediatly come and play it for you; a small philarmonic ensemble is sleeping in your basements, and multiple string quartets are playing all day long in different part of the giant house that was bought for you by Deutsche Grammophon; also for the copyrights over one new recording every 10 years Sony has agreed to send to your bedroom a young Martha Argerich look-alike (trained to be able to play a great deal of Ravel's and Schubert's repertoire) every single night (she is willing to have sex with you, but most night will be spent talking about your lives, playing piano 4 hands and cuddling tenderly: she loves it more than you do)
Gavin Davis
spotted the pleb
Xavier Ortiz
5th for Beethoven's 6th is the most underrated overrated symphony ever
Daniel Morris
6th for beethoven's 3rd is the most underrated symphony ever
Gabriel Thomas
7th for actually its his 2nd
David Hall
8th for actually it's his 1st
James Hughes
true, but I listen to it because of its sentimental value
Your notion of historicity and musical progression is fallacious, as it oppresses the composer and the musician with the volatile desires of those people of his own time. As far as the composer is concerned, he is the only one who is right. Fake historical jusgements of this kind bear no aesthetical prescriptive value whatsoever, nor do they account for the fact that 20th and 21st century music does not truly contain 17th-18th-19th century music (which is to say: by listening to Webern you are not listening to Haydn+something more, for Haydn's music is not contained in Webern's music, nor theoretically nor aesthetically).
Luis Perez
>responding to new threadly pasta pls
Anthony Myers
Better safe than sorry. I don't want my fellow /classical/ dweller to go around spouting opinions as worthless as this one.
Hey /classical/, we're making a chart () with the essential Italian music, and we need some classical and opera album recs. We would be glad if you helped us! We already have: domenico scarlatti - the keyboard sonatas (scott ross) antonio vivaldi – le quattro stagioni (herbert von karajan) claudio monteverdi – vespro della beata vergine (jordi savall) arcangelo corelli – 12 concerti grossi op. 6 (trevor pinnock) carlo gesualdo – tenebrae (the hilliard ensemble) goffredo petrassi – magnificat; salmo ix (gianandrea noseda) giacinto scelsi – quattro pezzi per orchestra; anahit; uaxuctum (jürg wyttenbach) ottorino respighi – festi di roma; pini di roma; feste romane (eugene ormandy) luigi nono – orchestral works & chamber music (swr symphony orchestra) musica futurista: antologia sonora (cramps records)
Zachary Moore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Karajan Replace that with this. For operas, I say go with >Monteverdi - L'Orfeo; L'incoronazione di Poppea (Cavina for both) >Verdi - La traviata; Otello; Falstaff (Giulini, Carlos Kleiber, Toscanini) >Rossini - Il Barbiere di Siviglia (Galliera? I dunno I don't listen to Rossini very often) >Bellini - Norma (Bonynge) >mozzart (underrated) - all the Da Ponte operas.
Ryan Adams
>antonio vivaldi – le quattro stagioni (herbert von karajan) Are you fucking kidding me?
Colton Bennett
Besides Deutsche Grammophon and Odyssey, what labels are trustworthy when it comes to quality of recordings they release?
Zachary Miller
wrong recording?
Sebastian Myers
Karajan with anything written before 19th century is a huge no-no some will argue that Karajan himself is a no-no, but non-Romantic Karajan is an even bigger no-no
Owen White
First of all 4 seasons is overrated as fuck and Vivaldi has written much better stuff than that corny shit and second of all post-Wagnarian romantic interpretations of baroque and earlier works are huge piles of trash. Absolutely unlistenable. Put Vivaldi's L'Estro Armonico by Academia Bizantina.
>Bellini - Norma (Bonynge) The best Norma recording is the Maria Callas one from 54. Also I Puritani should be on the chart.
Jace Robinson
No fake historical judgments here. You can hear the lack of interesting rhythms/dynamics/harmonic choices in Baroque, the lack of complex melodies in Classical, the overt reliance on "emotional" cadences in Romantic, etc. It's just as formulaic as pop music is, just in sonata form.
Owen Rodriguez
Ferrucio Busoni - Late Piano works
Justin Martinez
>tfw tchaikovsky's music gives me the feelsies >i can't listen to him or will be a pleb according to /classical/
Eli Wilson
don't really care for his interpretations most of the time, but hot damn Koussevitzky could get those Boston players to soar
it lends itself nicely to both enjoyment and appreciation
Xavier Thomas
once you mature you won't be satisfied listening to top40 crap or Sup Forumscore anymore. Like how adults don't want to eat Mcdonalds daily, while as a kid that would have seen like the ideal diet
Andrew Foster
I rarely comment, but this thread brings me joy. Thank you OP.
Nicholas Lewis
It's more harmonious and beautiful than pop music.
>You can hear the lack of interesting rhythms/dynamics/harmonic choices in Baroque, the lack of complex melodies in Classical, the overt reliance on "emotional" cadences in Romantic, etc. So stylistic determinism is a flaw per se? For example you tell me that Baroque music lacks in interesting rhythms, dynamics and harmonies: what you are actually saying is that rhythms, dynamics and harmonies are organized under specific principles (the rhythm is supposed to be perpetuus, the harmonies are derived from strict counterpoint and the dynamics are homogeneous): said principles are not contained in comtemporary music, but at the same time you can't say that contemporary music operates under no principle. A fan of New Complexity for example could say the same thing you said about Baroque music, but this time about the XX century serialists. What also is missing in contemporary music is the sense of coherence that is derived by stylistic determinism: Messianen and Boulez were incapable of writing pieces such as Handël's Concerti Grossi due to the fact that the musical tools they were using simply could not replicate such a personal use of diatonicism, and such an inherently istinctive use of musical effects.
Basically you're comparing apples to oranges, and you reach the conclusion that oranges are better due to the fact that they have pores on their peels, even though the presence of said pores was not the point of the music in the first place. Your preferences and value hierarchies are arbitrary.
>It's just as formulaic as pop music is, just in sonata form. If anything contemporary music is MORE formulaic/formalist than baroque music. Boulez, Stockhausen, Webern and Messianen used formulae extensively, and barely tweaked them afterwards. Compared to these compositional methods, Baroque music becomes basicslly improvisional
pic related: Webern and Schoenberg composed most of their serial pieces using ONLY rulers such as this one. Talking about formulae...
Holy shit, we get it, he is wrong Stop writing long posts, no one is taking him seriously here
Jordan Bennett
how will shitposters ever recover
Justin Martinez
Nothing wrong with Tchaikovsky. Miles better than Bruckner
Its written by highly trained composers who actually know what they're doing, compared to popular musicians who only know a few chords and don't know dick about form, counterpoint or how to write for anyone other than themselves.
Anthony Bell
I like it more.
^only valid answer
Brody Robinson
Why are people just allowing this?
Colton Clark
Read
Jacob Gutierrez
I mean he got btfo pretty hard and it was probably bait anyway
Ayden Martin
You mean ignoring? That's the only way to deal with shitposters.
Jace Myers
rather get shit-posted than posted to shit
Adam Flores
>writes entire movement in awkward compound time sig instead of figuring out to just add another note to the beginning of the melody
This dude is a fucking idjit
Landon Parker
which?
Samuel Bailey
If his editors and engravers haven't corrected it, chances are that he wanted you to count around that weird tempo. If this is the case, you are the idjit. Regardless, post the specific piece.
Daniel Garcia
>thinks tempo and time sig are the same thing >doesn't know the piece
no John, you are the idjits
Levi Collins
i'm guessing youre referring to pictures promenade and its derivatives
its odd but the choice of meters makes it more interesting rhythmically due to the offbeat accents
David Bell
Its entirely innappropriate to the overall character though. Its just this stately theme lacking in any rhythmic syncopation or even rhythmic complexity. I always found it quite jarring. I am a fan of Tchaikovsky's 6th though, so its not that I am against the use of odd time sigs, even in a romantic milieu. However there needs to be a good reason to use such a thing and it takes finesse.
Dylan Brown
You know what he was going for. You were wring and you know it: you were to stupid to realize that Musorgsky had his own editors and engravers, which means that odd choices such as this one are deliberate.
>I'm a fan of Tchaikovsky's 6th >calls other people idjit
God, you're such a failure.
Wyatt Brown
pls don't bully us Tchaik 6 fans because someone haets Mussorgsky
Christian Reed
>Its entirely innappropriate to the overall character though. Pictures at an Exhibition is meant to represent the impressions that Mugorsky experienced while looking at paintings at an (you've guessed it) exhibition. As such, only he knows what's appropriate and what's not, for he is merely describing his interior experience, musically. Your critique is meaningless.
Cameron Parker
Pretzan und Pretzölde
Carson Flores
>there needs to be good reason to use such thing
Such as??? Something completely arbitrary depending on your own personal taste???
autistic performance also i hate his whole pedo style
Matthew Perry
>pedo style Pedos do not dress like that. By the way what is up with his outfits? What hats and shirts are those, and why is he wearing them?
Aiden Thompson
Così fan Petzold -Petzold Amadeus Metzold
Ethan Myers
>be me >orchestral conductor >lurking my favourite thread of Sup Forums >people say Mozart is severely underrated >decided to look his works >start with the symphonies >read the first 25 >they are absolute garbage >into the trash all it goes >mfw
Jacob Hughes
>become an orchestra conductor without havung ever read a Mozart score >has to discover Mozart on Sup Forums, of all places
>So stylistic determinism is a flaw per se? It is. The "oh that was just how things were" isn't a good enoygh excuse for music being inferior to what came afterward. >Baroque Well, when these are almost universal in observation of Baroque music, it's true. >contemporary music works under no principle I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that contemporary music doesn't work under restrictive principles and rather chooses to work based on concepts that the composer has thought of rather than strictly trends and what should/shouldn't be played no matter what. >New Complexity vs Serialism If the person is criticizing twelve tone serialism, that's completely valid as that's even more restrictive than common practice crap. I definitely agree that twelve tone serialism is the one blemish on the greatness of 20th century art music. But they would be totally wrong when it comes to integral serialism as the purpose of it is to not be limited in expression. >Messianen/Boulez vs Handel's diatonicism This is because they don't want to make music strictly adhered to diatonicism. It's not because they can't, but because anybody can. See Stockhausen's quote on how anyone could do a fugue at his school but people wanted to not do that same old boring shit (I think it's the same one where he talks about contemporary electronic pop guys.) >apples to oranges Not at all as can be seen by what I have said above. The newer stuff built on top of the older stuff to make it more interesting. >was not the point of the music Wtf is this even supposed to mean? Who the fuck are you to determine that? >contemporary more formulaic than Baroque The latter literally could only allow Harmonic progression in one way and that's it. Strict reasons for key changes, dynamics, etc. >Boulez, Stockhausen, Messianen Oh you mean the guys who took a completely different aprproach on a work by work basis whereas Bach stuck to muh common practice on everything?
Blake Martinez
It's absolutely ridiculous that you would say a guy like Boulez who made these technical dissonant works early in his career to later transfer to very repetitive stuff whose point is to see how it reacts to the environment around it is somehow more formulaic than a form of music that was always under strict rules.
You call Baroque improvisation, but it's not Baroque music that implemented actual improvisation in composition, it was 20th century stuff like Terry Riley's In C.
Ayden Sullivan
>but it's not Baroque music that implemented actual improvisation in composition nigga do you even partimento? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partimento
Kayden Thomas
Those aren't compositions, but exercises.
James Cooper
that remains to be seen, it was a fluid transition. baroque organists were able to improvise, but it became a lost art by 1750
Isaiah Barnes
That's again, more from the perspective of the players than compositions. It would be absurd to say there was no improv at all in any era.
Luke Hall
...
Zachary Nelson
Organ improvisation still exists, but organists are the only ones who care about it, unfortunately.
>It is. The "oh that was just how things were" isn't a good enoygh excuse for music being inferior to what came afterward. But Boulez being a serialist is instead a fully original stance, and Schoenberg inventing the 12tone system by imitating Mahler is totally something outside of tradition, right? And let me guess, I should pretend that Bach invented nothing? You're a terrible musicologist.
>Just that contemporary music doesn't work under restrictive principles Oh boy, you know absolutely nothing about the hsitory of contemporary music (and how these principles were FORCED on young composers, especially between the '50s and the '70s), nor do you know how strict these principles are.
>rather chooses to work based on concepts that the composer has thought of rather than strictly trends and what should/shouldn't be played no matter what. Sure, after WWII you could compose whatever you want (given that you rejected tonality, melody, diatonicism, yadda yadda yadda). Totally not a tradition in which people say "oh, that is just how things are now". Sounds familiar?
>But they would be totally wrong when it comes to integral serialism as the purpose of it is to not be limited in expression. Gotcha, you're not a composer.
>It's not because they can't, but because anybody can Anybody can try, but only a handful of people succeded. Boulez was not able to write a tonal counterpoint as good as a Reger one, and Reger did not know how to compose serially: they were doing different things, but you are too dense to understand it.
>See Stockhausen's quote on how anyone could do a fugue Stockhausen studied counterpoint as an undergrad for about 2 years. Do you realize how shitty are student fugues? Do you realize how hard it is to write a fugue such as the ones in the Art of Fugue? You can't hack it out, it takes decades, but since you have no experience in composition, you obviously can't know that. Stockhausen has never composed a good fugue.
[1/2]
Thomas Martin
>The newer stuff built on top of the older stuff to make it more interesting. The newer stuff csn't replicste the older stuff. As I have said earlier, listening to Webern is not like listening to Haydn+something more. If I wanted to listen to music like the one of Haydn, I would find no corrispective in contemporary music, ergo they were doing essentially different and uncomparable things. What matters is that the successes are not shared: what is great in Webern is not what is great in Haydn, and viceversa.
>Wtf is this even supposed to mean? Who the fuck are you to determine that? Do you think that the merely theoric aspects of Webern's music wre the point? If you think so, I can rest assured that that Stockhausen interview is the only document you've read about contemporary music. All the serialists and post-serialists wanted their audiences to treat their music only aurally. Even an academic like Boulez would tell to his pianist vsgue advices such as "follow the sounds". You are obviously too ignorant to be aware of the self-admittedtly mystical elements of these composers.
>The latter literally could only allow Harmonic progression in one way and that's it. Strict reasons for key changes, dynamics, etc Then you have never written a fugue, nor have you ever worked with a tone row. You don't know what you are talking sbout, nor do you know that the criticism you're formulating against Baroque applies even MORE to contemporary music. Basically you are destroying your own argument, and this is happening because you have no idea of how these pieces are composed. >Oh you mean the guys who took a completely different aprproach on a work by work basis whereas Bach stuck to muh common practice on everything? Oh, so you have never studied Bach's scores? This means that you are not even an amateur. Imagine being so stupid and tone deaf that You can't pick any difference between the AoF, the Passions, the Violin Partitas and the Cello Suites one can only say
Ayden Morgan
>It's absolutely ridiculous that you would say a guy like Boulez who made these technical dissonant works early in his career He was following the academic mainstream. He wasn't making it up.
>to later transfer to very repetitive stuff whose point is to see how it reacts to the environment around it is somehow more formulaic than a form of music that was always under strict rules. Boulez LITERALLY always composed through formulae. It's not an opinion. By the way I'm not designing it as a flaw.
>You call Baroque improvisation What is Basso Continuo?
>but it's not Baroque music that implemented actual improvisation in composition, it was 20th century stuff like Terry Riley's In C. Objectively wring, Baroque was inherently imrpovisational (the predominance of the aforementioned basso continuo is a proof of that), the same can be said for Classical and cadences.
You guys are absolutely ignorant in theory, music history, aesthetics (look at how many attributes you guys have designed as "inferior" without not even a single justification), composition, and musicology, yet you are still willing to be as much of a tryhard as possible.
Luis Robinson
Regardless, harpsichordists and fortepianists were still imrpovising extensively well into the 20th century. Virtually every great composer/virtuoso we know of was a great improviser.
Anthony Scott
Its meters are actually the meters of folk melodies he used in it. [spoiler]Stravinsky based his supposedly original rhythms on folk song meters much later[/spoiler]
Levi Butler
STOP TAKING HIM SERIOUSLY. He is just baiting, and he will keep coming at you with no argument whatsoever. Seriously, don't waste your time.
Alexander Scott
How can you read that mental wastage and stay neutral? I know he is baiting and I know I'm getting baited, but someome had to do it (at least newbies won't mistake it for a actually serious post).
Adrian Bailey
>You're a terrible musicologist. Again, I'll say it again, none of this historical context stuff has anything to do with the argument I have presented. Stop being fucking retarded. >how these principles were FORCED on young composers This is objectively bullshit, and not only my Stockhausen interview that I cited, but also Boulez' approach for example are also examples of why this is completely false. And again, fuck off with this historical shit. Lets talk music. >Sure, after WWII you could compose whatever you want Didn't have to wait till then, it was already happened before WW2. >Totally not a tradition in which people say "oh, that is just how things are now". Sounds familiar? This is bullshit because if you have actually given some integral serialist stuff a listen (eg. someone like Sofia Gubaidulina) you can hear aspects of tonality and melody often working together with rejections of those. You obviously don't listen to anything 20th century and after if you believe it's all overtly dissonant super experimental sounding stuff 24/7. >Gotcha, you're not a composer. Apparently so isn't Boulez who has talked of this aspect this particular way. >Anybody can try, but only a handful of people succeded. It's easy to succeed writing old as shit ideas that honestly aren't that impressive compared to today's stuff. >Fugues and Stockhausen Fugue are easy shit to write though. Bach wrote a fuck ton of them, and they are all very samey, very basic, lacking the very same things I have mentioned while adhering to the same old bullshit. Also what citations do you have of Stocky not making a good fugue? Oh wait you don't because he never officially composed one in his professional career. Fucking retard.
Kevin Thompson
Not him but >Fugue are easy shit to write though. Dude you don't know the first thing anout composition, nor you have ever tried to write a fugue. Seriously, it's obvious.
