>meticulously subverts rhythmic expectations in the listener, setting them out at sea so to speak >result is an eliminative zeroing in on the formal element of intervallic relationships between sets of pitches independent of traditional thematic development
Was he the first minimalist?
Julian Perez
Anyone else feel an extreme desire to compose but feel unable to produce anything that's both aesthetically interesting and theoretically sound?
I wrote tons of 5 and 10 minute pieces in college by ear, when I barely knew what an interval was. But after studying classical forms and theory for a year I feel too caught up in technicality and structure to compose organically.
Grayson Brooks
By whom? He's just Wagner for grownups
Ayden Martin
>Wagner for grownups >Frere Jaques funeral march
Consider my macadamias massacred
Josiah Barnes
You will have to compose inorganically, and keep doing it until you are composing organically. That's literally what it takes for any art form. Discipline. Channel your inner autist.
Henry Clark
>Never before has a man put so much love, so much passion and power on a single piece! Janáček, through his suffering of want, delivered an exact portrait of his beloved: An image much more real than what any words might convey.
>he doesn't realize that Mahler's use of song was a direct development off of Brahms and Beethoven
Henry Carter
>implying Brahms and Beethoven can't be enjoyed by children as well >implying anything pre 1900 isn't entry-level (and that's okay because music doesn't need to be a sekrit klub)
Asher Garcia
Weird how you uphold modern music but can't respect Mahler, who hugely expanded our understanding of tonality and was the chief influence of the second Vienna school.
Why is the third movement of most mid 19th century symphonies a dance? Was this the first time dance music was written solely for musical value and not functionality?
Carter Murphy
Did you even read my post? Did you even read my preceding posts? Can you actually even read?
Jordan Nguyen
>Was this the first time dance music was written solely for musical value and not functionality? Most of Bach's cello suite is not really meant to be danced to, either. Here's a guy that chronicles his attempt to choreograph them; he concludes that most of them really don't fit very well. cello.org/Newsletter/Articles/mansbridge/mansbridge.htm
As far as dance movements, I went into The Wiki and it seems that symphonies evolved from overtures and interludes in operas/plays, these interludes commonly calling for a dance:
"When the insert was intended only to shift the mood before returning to the main action, without a change of scene being necessary, authors could revert to a "play within a play" technique, or have some accidental guests in a ballroom perform a dance, etc. In this case the insert is a divertimento (the term is Italian; the French divertissement is also used) rather than an entr'acte.
In the French opera tradition of the end of the 17th century and early 18th century (Jean-Philippe Rameau, for example) such divertissements would become compulsory in the form of an inserted ballet passage, a tradition that continued till well in the 19th century. This was eventually parodied by Jacques Offenbach: for example, the cancan ending Orpheus in the Underworld.
By the middle of the 18th century, a divertimento had become a separate genre of light music as well. These divertimenti could be used as interludes in stage works, many of the divertimenti composed in the last half of the 18th century appears to have lost the relation to the theatre, the music in character only having to be a "diversion" in one or another way." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr'acte
Elijah White
Fuck off Richard.
Nicholas Morales
Maderna or Walter.
Easton Sullivan
>implying enjoyment of any music takes any intelligence and isn't entry level
Why is there no japanese composers with the style of western classical we are used to? Every single country on earth has at least notable classic composer, but I can't really say the same for the japanese
Connor Nelson
Why would you say this youtube.com/watch?v=CLnUhitm0w4 >Every single country has at least notable classic composer post the notable Tongan and Samoan composers pls
Wyatt Evans
speaking of Berg, which recording of Lulu is best?
I feel that creating new pieces for orchestral / acoustic instruments is anachronistic now. Its like trying to create another rock band x100 in terms of playedness. The only way to be original, whatever that means, is to at the bare minimum create new timbres and perhaps disregard systematic polyphony
Owen Flores
I'd argue that there's still room to write concertos for new instruments or instruments that have a small repertoire. Composing a piano concerto in the style of Mozart will turn nobody's head, but writing a double bass concerto or a saxophone concerto in that style will probably get you a few eyes
Nolan Fisher
What many people don't realise is there were a lot of people writing music similar to Mozart in his time. We know Mozart today because he did it so much better and innovated.
So you can mine music zones that everyone and his grandma has had a shot at or you can be avant garde like Mozart was and push music somewhere no one's done yet.
Even electro acoustic has had at least a half century now so yea. Composing any kind of concerto today is going to seem pastiche, ironic, pretentious, derivative
Juan Martin
can anybody post that BBC documentary on the origin of classical music
Cameron Gutierrez
yes, and?
Tyler Thompson
No that's idiotic, people have been saying "welp we're out of ideas" for the past several centuries
Cooper Allen
What exactly made Mozart better (not more novel, but better) than his contemporaries?
Jacob Moore
Its been a while since I studied and I can't remember details but it was stuff like; interesting withholding / delaying of resolutions (sometimes for comic effect, which btw isn't actually that funny but he was weird). Breaking rules of consonance / counterpoint. Generally expanding on what was considered correct say sonata form. Revolutionary / shocking harmony etc
Kayden Wilson
> name a composer with better études than Chopin.
you can't
Luke Reed
Its not a matter of we're out of ideas. Its more like, if you use contemporary art as an analogy. Its like doing sculptures of people or realistic portraits today. People would appreciate it if done well, but no critic's going to say this is the future 'cause it isn't. It's the past.
Luis Brooks
Opinions on Les Troyens?
Ayden Nguyen
I'm not sure you realize how hungry overlooked instrumentalists are for more repertoire; those were the eyes I was talking about. In this analogy it would be like if a famous artist did 500 portraits of old white nobles but like, 1 portrait of a peasant guy, 1 of a merchant, and no portraits of black people. If along came a guy who could imitate this artist, certainly he would not get the acclaim or recognition of that artist, but if he approached new subjects in that same style he would be expanding into new space and this would generate some interest in the people who wondered what would have been if the famous artist had done the same. The derivative quality is kind of the point.
Ryan Hernandez
Mozart was better than his contemporaries for several reasons. 1) His structure was really well proportioned, and he maintained that rigorously into his 20s. 2) His melodic structure was extremely efficient compared with his contemporaries, and this is part of the reason why his music is so difficult to play. Every note has a function, which means if you fuck up a single note, an entire phrase can go kaput. 3) Mozart incorporated many elements of other music styles, like elements from Baroque writing (as an example, the importance placed on harmonic progressions that are balanced), but also from contemporaries (he definitely understood Haydn's later style and built upon it, especially in the areas of harmonic expansion). 4) Finally, he had the good fortune of being born in a generation when the fortepiano was being perfected. This ancestor of the modern instrument we know today was capable of producing enough sound to be heard in rooms larger than a house, with extremely subtle differentiation made to areas such as articulation and volume control. Thus, he could write more complex and varied piano pieces, which he also performed himself, and this increased his name and reputation.
Noah Baker
On the topic of new music or new ideas: in recent years, has anybody done super heavy stuff with acoustic instruments and complex music? It seems like a lot of modern music is very focused on percussive or rhythmic things, and I wonder if you could blend that focus with a different sound and get something cool.
Ryan Collins
If you do that you're going to be like all the composers in Mozart's time who are literally forgotten, as in their music has been lost. Do it if you're heart's set on it. But someone's already done it better at this point.
I love it, but then again I love Berlioz in general. Les Troyens does suffer in the usual ways with Berlioz though...sometimes you have 'filler', but when he gets going, he REALLY gets going. The ensemble scenes are particularly awesome, and take notice of his orchestration as well (he uses harps in a really cool way); always experimental, and always 'Berlioz' in sound and scale. The Colin Davis recording is the reference recording, but there have been attempts to match or beat it in quality. One of my favorite operas, but only if I'm in a 'galactic' mood.
Brayden Brooks
Consider Gerard Grisey...you might like him. I love his stuff; it's more about sound than it is about rhythm, though rhythm plays a role. The complexity you hear in Grisey comes from his use of pitch and elements within pitch. That's one reason he's referred to as a 'Spectral' composer, but the real reason is that his pitch selection is based in part on the harmonic spectrum, and thus when you play his works you are usually playing in microtones. He was probably the first to do this to the extremity, but there are many other Spectral composers out there now who focus on an element of the same thing.
Jack Gutierrez
I ddn't say intelligence was required but to geuinely enjoy Schoenberg or many other atonal composers requires a measure of maturity and patience. I don't knowmuch about what is happening in most of the music I listen to but if I don't defend myself against the music I can understand the composer has something meaningful to say and make a genuine effort to respect that. A lot of people, particularly children (e.g. Alma Deustcher) aren't willing to humble themselves to the composer and write off a lot of that kind of music. In fact many such people are in these generals.
Jace Stewart
It depends... The Ligeti Etudes are awesome, and just as difficult. The Liszt Etudes are once again, in a category of their own. The Schumann Symphonic Etudes are excellent, though perhaps not as focused, and the Scriabin are fucking awesome. I've never been a fan of the Rachmaninoff Etudes, but it would be unfair to say they're not good...they are, I just don't like the music.
I've got one for you:
>name a composer with a better Sonata for Two Pianos than Mozart.
Hell, his Concerto for Two pianos is the most perfect example in the entire repertoire...nothing comes close. Although for the Sonata, the Brahms F minor for two pianos (Op. 34 bis, which was later converted to the more often played Op. 34 Piano Quintet) is a VERY close second to the Mozart...followed probably by the Rachmaninoff Suite No. 2 in C minor.
Andrew King
I don't know but Christine Schaeffer is cutest Lulu
>you are a plebian and were ripped as such last time
>you will never have the fun of just autistically flailing about to conduct a Penderecki opus because that's how you do that properly
Isaiah Ortiz
To be serious I preferred most modern classical before I understood it. Now that I do I get little enjoyment out it it. I'm far more selective with it vs literally anything prior to 1900, where I'm a lot morr open. I respect some of what theyre doing but now, post-1970s, its almost all trash
Luis Long
Mozart is amazing, probably one of my favourite composers. I'm a pianist, so I have a strong dislike for Rachmaninoff. Liszt has amazing pieces, but La Campagnella is okay. I never understood why Totentanz is so likeable.
Mason Young
Who gives a shit about what is or isn't the future? Mahler was stylistically conservative when compared to his immediate contemporaries but he still pushed the symphonic form to its absolute limit.
As far as I can tell, what's "in" right now is the synthesis of common practice compositional technique with 20th/21st century innovations in timbre and rhythm
James Garcia
An orchestra would look at your strangely and probably stop playing if you just flailed around.
To be a conductor you have to know the specific piece inside out. You need to be able to hear 1 wrong note among 100+ players, determine exactly who made the mistake and call them out about it. Not even joking, I've seen this happen in a rehearsal. The note was 1 semitone flat and it was the 2nd trombone player.
Grayson Richardson
In my experience, the difficulty many people have with modern music is that they do not have a frame of reference within which they can listen to it. From Schoenberg onwards, tonality as we know it in TV shows, Pop and Jazz, and even elevator music was thrown out the window. The focus was shifted, and the thing we rely on the most with music (a melody over harmony and rhythm) is suddenly no longer present. This absence is VERY difficult for lots of people to deal with, because it's usually the main reason why they listen to music in the first place.
You can't sing along with modern music...you can't predict the harmonic sequences...sometimes you can't even determine what the rhythm is, and if you do, then it changes abruptly beneath your feet.
The intellectual part of modern music is not about learning to compose...it's about learning how to listen. If you read poetry in Russian to me, it would mean nothing because I don't understand Russian....not only would I not understand the basic words, I wouldn't hope to get any 'meaning' out of it. This is what modern music is to the vast majority of people...a different language that is simply a collection of random sounds.
Hudson Morris
I'm not saying I'm going to do this, I'm saying there's room for people to backfill concertos for odd/newer instruments in the style of various musical periods precisely because the vast majority of composers at the time weren't doing that.
Bentley King
>2) His melodic structure was extremely efficient compared with his contemporaries, and this is part of the reason why his music is so difficult to play. Every note has a function, which means if you fuck up a single note, an entire phrase can go kaput. This is a really interesting point that I hadn't considered before. Mozart's melodies are exceedingly "clear", which is probably why he's so popular among normies.
Joshua Ross
>Composing any kind of concerto today is going to seem pastiche, ironic, pretentious, derivative Not at all. Serious composers still do it all the time and are well respected for these pieces. A concerto is simply a dialogue between a soloist and the orchestra. Beyond that there are no limitations.
I suggest you stop discussing things you have no idea about. You're at the ignorant end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Leo Nelson
What was Haydn's later style? I haven't been able to notice a difference across his oeuvre
Lucas Sanchez
He does sound interesting from the few minutes of what I've listened to so far. Even without any analysis or paying much attention to the pitch, he has a cool sound to begin with, which I think a lot of modern composers tend to miss.
Though, when I first said "modern music" I should have said "modern pop music." Take those rhythmic aspects of hip-hop, pop, EDM and others and combine them with an older sense of tone. The band Animals as Leaders is kind of in this vein, though they mostly use electric instruments and still have a drumset (vs. the percussiveness coming from the overall sound).
Aaron Barnes
There were I don't know maybe two composers doing similar stuff to Mahler really well, and it was different from what had happened before which is why they're remembered, studied, performed now.
Who gives a shit about newness? Like I said, that's fine, you can be like Paul McCartney doing Liverpool Oratorio, do what you want.
Tyler Cooper
>Serious composers still do it all the time and are well respected for these pieces heh
Chase Adams
Listen to his Symphonies; they give the clearest indication of his evolution of style. You can also go through the piano sonatas, which follow the same curve, though in all honesty the symphonies are perhaps more exciting unless you're a pianist.
Basically, Haydn's late style revolves around harmonic shifts that are further away from the home key than he would have done before. Furthermore, he throws away the idea of preparation of the key shift in favor of surprising his audience. He was a jokester, after all, and his music shows this kind of 'spontaneity' with regards to playing with harmonic and rhythmic expectation.
What you get in Late Haydn is essentially more unpredictability (in gesture and structure) and a widening of tonal limits. Mozart takes those elements, but in typical Mozart fashion he makes it his own, and puts it into his own formula that has limits on structure.
Sorry, misunderstood...this seems to be a classical thread, after all. What do you mean by 'the older sense of tone'? Pop music uses a very limited area of tonality...so I'm not sure what you're asking for. Help us out!
Jack Jackson
100 years from now, what will people think of classical music from 2000-2020?
What particular aesthetics will dominate their understanding of our era?
Jack Jenkins
sure but 20th century also has some of the most accessble music. I mentioned the milieu of atonality in particular. And there is a way to enjoy such music but in bad faith, treating it like a spectacle or revelling in its sheer uncanniness (the same reason people lisen to harsh noise). I'm talking about making a real focussed effort in listening to atonal music as you would any other piece, broadly speaking, That is listening for motives and their developments, following the dramatic contour and other such things. I will say that when all such signposts have been removed such as in Boulez I tend to tune out myself.
And there might be a certain type of composer who is even more inscrutable to the casual listener. Where serialism may be something alien and novel enough to at least arrest the interest of a non-serious listener, what about other composers whose music may evoke just enough of a sense of tonality to sound all the more preposterous to the untrained ear. I'm thinking here of composers such as Messiaen, Rautavaara or Ives. When I first heard Rautavaara's piano concerto 1 I was floored and immediately sent it to my friend; who out of hand dismissed it as a "concerto for elbows". I couldn't even understand this because I had previously introduced him to Schoenberg's Piano Concerto (and this was mostly just to troll him) which he said that he found interesting.
Sebastian Collins
Oh and I definitely agree that post 1970s is trash. But I would even push it back another decade.
Xavier Hill
I guess I mean melody, harmony, and counterpoint, with serious variations throughout a piece and (typically) only a moderate amount of repetition. These days, pop music is very repetitive with a simple melody.
Basically the idea would be to take the fast tempos and driving rhythms of popular music and stick that onto Bach, Telemann and Vivaldi. Not that those guys didn't have fast tempos or rhythmic complications, but most of what they wrote comes off as very reserved to the average ear (this might just be an artifact of how we perform it, though).
Forgive me for not being able to articulate this, I'm a mediocre violinist who's only got a scrabbling of theory.
Nicholas Martinez
Have you heard the recordings of Vivaldi's Four Seasons by Europa Galante (led by Fabio Biondi)? It's awesome, in the style that you're looking for. Ruckus, flexible, and completely unscholarly yet led by the heart.
As for pop, the problem is as you state. Pop music is absolutely repetitive with a simple melody, because that's what pop is: music to reach as many people as possible. In order for this to happen, it must be simple.
You can always find bad-ass recordings of art music (Chris Hogwood always seems to take relentless tempi in his recordings of Bach, for example), but in all honesty I don't know if you'll find a fusion with pop.
Kevin Gomez
>t. windbag
Ryder Wilson
why is this picture titled "Knowing"?
Nicholas Fisher
Because for the longest time I was unsure as to exactly how the makeup was done for old Salieri. His old look is fantastic...and now I know. Sometimes names don't mean anything except to the person who saves them.
Bentley Parker
>listening to random classical recs on Youtube >realize days later I heard something really cool and I don't have any hope of remembering what it was.
Ayone else?
William Adams
No that never happens to me 'cause I hit add to my playlist
Jaxon Rodriguez
use spotify and lastfm you fucking autist
Ian Butler
You don't seem to have understood that I was referring to Penderecki. It's odd, knowing that I know more about the appropriate circumstances at this juncture than you despite my admitted naivete.
Jacob Taylor
No its like my brain is so slow and indecisive that I don't even know I like something until it has had time to gestate in my subconscious. Anything I have an immediate affinity for I just download.
Adrian Reed
A tip is to have a playlist of maybes, as in you couldn't decide whether to add them at the time, but did anyway to be safe
Mason Parker
>I never understood why Totentanz is so likeable. Muh dark and edgy
Honestly to me Totentanz sounds clowny as fuck
Ethan Bennett
yeah, maybe I'll just start adding the names of everything I listen to to a notepad automatically. I was more wondering if my brain is full of fuck though because it seems like people ought to know if they like something whe they first encounter it.
Matthew Young
It depends. In my experience, I tend to find magical moments within a piece, and this is what makes me listen to the rest of the piece more than once. Then the magic area 'expands' to include more of the piece around the first magical part...ever expanding until finally I like the whole thing. That's how I got to enjoy the Ring Cycle of Wagner...or indeed, any of his operas. They're huge, but I started small like that, finding arias that I liked or orchestral interludes that I liked, and then gradually listening to all the stuff around them.
It's different for everyone. Some pieces really grab you from the beginning....and some pieces you'll come back to after 15 years and think, wow, I never used to like it before, but how could I have been so wrong? That's the beauty of art music...it always gives us far more than we give it.
Carter Powell
The conductor still has to know what he's doing, even in the Threnody you're probably referring to.
Trust me, if you get up in front of an orchestra with any Penderecki piece in front of you, you wouldn't have the first idea what to do. You would be completely out of your depth, probably freeze up, start sweating and want to die. It would be hilarious for the entire orchestra
