There is a predisposition among certain (mostly academic) circles who disparage “romantic” era composers (namely...

There is a predisposition among certain (mostly academic) circles who disparage “romantic” era composers (namely Liszt, who is the greatest composer of all time) for being “melodramatic,” bombastic and superficial while continuing to worship the propaganda of the “big 3” (in Bach, Beethoven and Mozart). This is likewise amusing because the “big 3” are NO LESS humanist than even EARLY-Liszt never mind approaching anywhere near the vicinity of profundity that is Late-Liszt.

Other urls found in this thread:

illicitfifths.tumblr.com/post/165727582413/the-holy-grail-parallel-fifths-in-bachs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I listen to Fauré.

t. butthurt firetrucker

I like to listen to KUSC on IHeartRadio when I am cleaning the kitchen and doing the dishes because it relaxes me

And you can suck a pretentious dick

t. Bach

In spite of “institutional truths,” I dare to proclaim Bach as being far less profound than Liszt (though of course personal taste is certainly your prerogative). Bach is the face of a flourishing era in ornate, polyphonic intellectualism but no amount of flesh-constructed complexity in fugal scientism will ever approach the inexhaustible, paradoxical, open-ended simplicity that embed in works like ‘Nuages Gris,’ ‘En Reve,’ ‘La Lugubru Gondola,’ ‘Unstern!,” etc. And as much devotion as Bach lived through the church, his works still seem distantly and communally secular compared to Late-Liszt, which was truly spiritual in cultivation of the soul and of an objectively uncompromised lone journey towards death (and thus, usurping beyond religion and to the crux of being). Bach was undisputedly a historically and politically significant pillar of the west altogether, but even on influence I would not sell Liszt short for he is easily responsible for impacting the two most prominent figures towards modernism: Wagner and Schoenberg (and additionally influenced Impressionism in Ravel/Debussy, Black Metal, Electronic Trance, etc).

Neither Listz, Mozart (you probably meant Brahms though) nor even Bach are anywhere near Beethoven. He is above shitty top lists like that. Otherwise you have a point.

Very true, Liszt is far above Beethoven. Appreciate your contribution.

Honestly, I think March of the Three Kings is fantastic-- but I don't think it can ever compare to Beethoven's 7th mvt 2.

implying anyone is actually better than grimes, have you even hear how complex her compositions are ?

It's a good thing there's 19 Hungarian Rhapsodies, La Lugubre Gondola, Nuages Gris, Totentanz, Transcendental Etudes, Unstern! Sinistre, Disastro, and Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen then.

I'm not of the camp that's disparaging Liszt, seriously. I just don't find his work to have the same gravitas. I think Liszt tends to rely on dated baroque tropes-- while this isn't bad-- it in fact works well with some of his more provincial sounds, a la Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. I also think Liszt has a bit of a hard-on for call and response as a end motif. Just not my taste.

dude looked like kurt cobain

Your personal taste is certainly your prerogative but Liszt is the greatest composer of all time. The thematic, stylistic and harmonic motifs found in late Liszt are unprecedented and irrefutable proof of his greatness. ‘Années de pèlerinage’ is a masterwork through and through (though I’m more partial to year 3 myself. ‘Marche funébre’ and ‘Sursum coda’ mark the catharsis/transcendence of the suite, which probably dukes it out for “best ever” in its genre along with ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’). I can’t say I advocate everything he did, but really, you can’t go wrong with almost any Liszt. Hell, ‘Letters from an Unknown Woman’ likely wouldn’t have made a quarter of the same impact without ‘Un suspiro.’ I even consider the Transcendental Etudes to not only be a technical benchmark (‘Mazeppa’ is a fucking bitch to play well at any level never mind at >120 bpm) but also a spiritual one.

Beethoven's last piano sonata shits all over ALL of Liszt's masturbatory keyboard sessions. The Hungarian twat was a showoff and average composers and it's a shame that he of all people lived a million fucking years.

Honestly though, the "Romantic music sucks because muh firetruck muh melodrama" needs to end. Y'all are stuck in the 18th century and not in an interesting way either.

If you don't mind me bringing up Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 again-- I think you should hear it against Beethoven "Moonlight" Sonata, op 27 2# Mov. 3, as it does bear structural similarity and I find the actual technical skill required behind the piece to be far more demanding and rigorous than Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No 2. I also believe Beethoven, even midcareer, had a much stronger grasp of creating flowing and indistinct motif change while still providing the listener with cogent and recognizable points.

As for your opinions on late Lizst, I can't say I can give a strong refutation to that. I can say without a doubt that Lizst was simply far less Western European sounding, incorporating more Eastern European provincial motifs. Which, does hold significance all it's own, it does not diminish and remove the fact that Beethoven is easily, and without doubt, the single greatest composer in the Romantic period, as he was the very father of it.

>Hungarian Rhapsody
>Moonlight Sonata

What is this babby's first classical thread

buddy I'm not trying to dickmeasure here I'm just bringing up what comes to mind and what can be distinctly recognized SHIIIT

sry m8

>Bach is the face of a flourishing era in ornate, polyphonic intellectualism but no amount of flesh-constructed complexity in fugal scientism will ever approach the inexhaustible, paradoxical, open-ended simplicity that embed in works like ‘Nuages Gris,’ ‘En Reve,’ ‘La Lugubru Gondola,’ ‘Unstern!,
No shit, complexity is the opposite of simplicity.

Bach still has more emotional impact than Liszt though, and can do simple when he wants to. Liszt can do complex when he wants to as well.

>as much devotion as Bach lived through the church, his works still seem distantly and communally secular compared to Late-Liszt
Has the person who wrote this even listened to Bach's music?

>Bach was undisputedly a historically and politically significant pillar of the west altogether
not really, he was known as a great organist in his time and then was largely forgotten until 1829. The idea of Bach as a master composer is a more recent 19th and 20th century thing.
Composers generally always appreciate Bach if they are familiar with his works, but outside of that he isn't really a large figure with the general public. There was no "Bachamania".

>thematic, stylistic and harmonic motifs found in late Liszt are unprecedented and irrefutable proof of his greatness

>Motifs
>irrefutable proof of greatness

You're deluded and/or baiting hard but you got nothing to back it up.

Disappointed in you, I would be willing to argue Bach vs Liszt but when I see you say things like Beethoven is the greatest composer of the Romantic period I see that you are yet another canon slave.

Josquin Des Prez is superior to Bach in almost every way.

And John Deere tractors are better than Ferraris

Philistine. Have you even listened to ‘Missa La Sol Fa Re Mi’ or ‘Missa Pange Lingua'?

>Philistine
>thinks a poor-man's Ockeghem copycat is better than Bach
See I can act like a retard too and make edgy reddit posts, but at least my comparisons are somewhat grounded in reality since I'm not comparing apples and oranges.

Palestrina, Lassus, Tallis, Victoria, Fayrfax, even Gesualdo > Josquin

Byrd, Ludford, Taverner > Tallis

And bach is superior to them all.

Renaissance composers may have great voice leading and pure beauty, but Bach blows them out of the water harmonically and with emotional impact.

You're not grounded in reality. You're just yet another canon slave that can't think for themselves and justify your own opinions or aesthetic taste.

I am to attracted to the way Bach unified intellectual density, emotional depth and holiness in his work, but late Liszt surpasses Bach in spiritual profundity (I mean I when I said Années de pèlerinage is masterful stuff – Sposalizio is one of the most disarming pieces ever) not to mention Liszt's impact on later genres and other composers (especially Wagner).

Anyway, the point here is not really a Bach vs Liszt dialectic (and really, some of Liszt’s best works were inspired by Bach, see ‘Weinen Klagen Sorgen Zagen’) but about perspective via propaganda of canons and mainstream/learned ignorance plaguing audiences.

Also, 'Missa La Sol Fa Re Mi’ and ‘Missa Pange Lingua' by des Prez are better than anything Bach ever composed.

And S700 series John Deere combine harvesters are way more useful on a farm than a Ferrari

Go back to worshiping the propaganda of the Big 3.

This. Stop name dropping these faggots and bow down to your lord and saviour and daddy.

Who does the best Liszt interpretation? I have few different pianists, but I can't say I am satisfied with either of them for 100%.

Bach more like WACK
illicitfifths.tumblr.com/post/165727582413/the-holy-grail-parallel-fifths-in-bachs

>“big 3” (in Bach, Beethoven and Mozart)
>humanist
more like big 2 of mozart and haydn
beethoven abandoned the "humanistic" style, whereas Bach didn't know anything about it yet

>masonic propaganda music
>humanistic

Brahms belongs to Bernstein's "Three Bs", I think OP meant what he wrote

heh, romantics were much more masonic

>Being this butthurt and idiotic.

>illicitfifths.tumblr.com/post/165727582413/the-holy-grail-parallel-fifths-in-bachs

Yes we know Bach used parallel fifths, how does this make him a bad composer?

Chopin has the edge on them all anyhow.

>pretty much all the great composers used parallel fifths
There's nothing wrote with parallel 5ths as long as it sounds good. Counterpoint rules are almost never "followed" but instead describe an ideal.

>Only wrote for piano
nah, you have to be able to competently write for more than one instrument to be a great composer.

Fair criticism, even though he's one I personally disagree with - however, in that case, Schumann takes his spot.

>Only wrote for piano
composers don't write "for instruments" they write for the mind

retard

If a composer hasn't written an opera and symphony they should be discarded.

liszt are my favorite composers, but I'm biased becuase my grandfather would play them a lot back in the day.

melodramatic you say..I DO MY MAKE UP IN SOMEBODY ELSES CAAAAAAR

I'll give this theory credence, but you can hardly sit though 2 hours of Bach/Mozart where it's extremely easy to sit though Liszt, Chopin, Beethoven (though he's technically Classical Period), Greig, Wagner

People don't care for things to be perfect and have everything in their place, they tend to respond better to emotion vs the mathematical exactness and perfect configuration of Bach.

But I think people criticize things period. Like oh this is gimmicky, but let's be real. THey're jealous Liszt got more pussi than them.

t. Le I have never listened to classical.

...

>Liszt, who is the greatest composer of all time
wowie
Now THAT'S some patrician trollbait.

yeah I'll worship my lord and svior and daddy PETZOLD

t. enjoys stupid piano crap

Woah a /lit/ tier thread on Sup Forums
lol

I enjoy both. But I'm not retarded enough to discard every composer before 1600.

Underrated Bachnihilation post

What, even Liszt himself was aware he wasn't close to Chopin genius and you call him greatest.

Liszt is probably in the top 10 of "musicians who got the most pussy", let's face it.

>He has no non-pseud retort to the statement "PhilipGlass is better than Liszt"

I want to know if there's ever been written anything academic on Richard D. James. Surely, there must have been by now.

logged on my uni wifi just 4u
>Coryn Smethurst, Movement as Perception: Bergson, Deleuze, and Hybridity Between Electroacoustic and Intelligent Dance Music.
This paper examines hybridity between intelligent dance music and electroacoustic music. It uses the notion of movement explicated in Henri Bergson’s theory of perception, in his workMatter and memory, and its uptake by Gilles Deleuze in his work on cinema. The three levels of perception in Bergson’s account, namely affectivity, pure perception, and action image, are dealt with in some detail. The discovery of places where similar motivations have led to hybridity leads to a discussion of several works by Aphex Twin and Autechre, and connections being made to the works of Trevor Wishart. Extended treatment is given to the pieceGantz Grafby Autechre as a classic example of hybridity.
>Scott Wilson, Braindance of the Hikikomori: Towards a Return to Speculative Psychoanalysis.
This article takes its point of departure from late Lacan's meditations on the incompatibility of psychoanalysis with Japanese culture due to its non-European linguistic basis. The article argues that this emphasis on language narrowly conceived fails to keep pace with the interconnected, multi-media, all-encompassing nature of the unconscious today. Illustrating this point, the article focuses on the figure of the hikikomori: middle-class Japanese youths who have withdrawn from all conventional social contact to indulge exclusively computer-based interactions. Thanks to the overlap with the related figure of the 'Bedroom DJ', the analysis then moves on to the ambient music of Richard D. James, aka Aphex Twin. It argues for the validity of the concept of an 'audio unconscious' distinct from Lacan's unconscious 'structured like a language'. The final part of the article, however, examines one of James's music videos and discerns in it modes of jouissance that psychoanalysis can still describe.
too lazy to upload them though

I appreciate that. But I was hoping for a paper which would finally give him a place in time and situate him. This thread is about classic composers: I believe Richard fits the bill in every way. You might as well be talking about a genious footballer. There's a talent there to absorb everything and to throw it back at you in a way that makes you reconsider yourself and the way you define reality. Since I lack the education to explain why I find him to be so unique, I was hoping there was some stuff written on it already. I just have my intuition to go by. And my ear. And my gut. All of which he tickles.

I know, he was one lucky son of a bitch.

Also while he may be wrong, Phillip Glass is better to say than Hack Zimmzong. If he said that the thread should have been deleted.

Please respond.

I enjoyed Valentina Lisitsa's album where she plays Rondeau fantastique

Isn't Cziffra usually the consensus?

Thanks.

Shouldn't you be resting after swim practice Mia aren't you sore

There's no one great Liszt performer, he's like Chopin in that he has thousands of really fantastic performances, even a few of former pupils.
For more modern recordings, there's Argerich, Buniatishvili and Hamlin.

Yeah, I like Hamelin.

I wasn't talking about his capacity to evoke emotions through sound. His ability to adress unconscious content in other people with synthetic gear. I was more curious about the maths and the cultural appropriation in his more intricate works. Not only did he manage to make a summary of 'the music theorem' as a whole, he propelled it into a logical conclusion. A prophet of sorts. His analog noodlings, while getting more refined, are nothing more than the drawings of an old recluse. Ironically, his social life seems to be getting better.

True. But just look at the pk4 emo thread to see that this board is just as shit. Anybody know of any better places to talk about music? these threads are so low effort.