Why aren't you listening to Schoenberg right now?
You forgot the links OP, again.
How the hell are Bartok and Debussy avantcore?
Their music has more in common with the music of (late) Chopin or Scriabin than with Stravinsky or God forbid Schoenberg. Are we being real right now?
>anything remotely dissonant not made by germans = AVANTLOLXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
the avant-garde died today, with only poor old-fashioned wuorinen still trucking through in the spirit of the time no matter what (my guess is: he's an ai stuck in 1965)
rip in pieces boulez, nvr 4get
man i hope we get to see and hear the gajillions of unfinished and unperformed works he has lying around in his flat. there's certainly opera sketches hiding in there :^)
Ready for some cringe?
TIL David Lang's an all right guy
I mean it's wikipedia mang just delete it.
still my favorite boulez picture
We /Boulez/ now.
What works of his are you listening to? What works are you listening to him conduct?
I like this a lot.
But I also agree with this.
But yeah, Stravisnky, Schoenberg, Ligeti...
--I mean, they're fine. They're fine. Honestly, though, Rite of Spring sounds like the a Michael Bay score. And speaking personally, I went through a lot of my life shunning Romantic music and listening pretty much solely to more "experimental" contemporary composers.
And I realize now that I didn't really like orchestral music back then. I liked the idea of liking it, but mostly I was in it for the bragging rights, which is why I gravitated immediately to the supposedly "difficult" experimental stuff.
I've come back around to Schoenberg, and he's fine. But the real fun for me is the late Romantic composers. Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Smetana... that shit's just good.
penderecki and part but they actually died soon after the 60s
wuorinen's my pick for the composer who's stayed truest to the spirit and who's still active. there's cerha too but i think he's sick and not composing anymore.
otherwise there's also the brits who came to age towards the very end of that era so i'm not sure that they really count.
Whoa, first time in this board and I already love it.
>go on rutracker looking for a good bruckner comp
>find what i want
>it's in fucking lossless
>end up downloading a "best of romanticism" boxset
well with the Schoen listen to
-string quartet 1
-string quartets 2, 3
-string quartet 4
in that order
for the Berg
What are the top three string quartets by shostakovich?
depends on your musical background but if you're familiar with late romanticism (esp. mahler and wagner) you can start with the early works and basically go at it chronologically. schoenberg's output is one of the more coherent when approached that way
for a somewhat quicker foray i'd go through
kammersymphony no. 1
string quartet 2
5 pieces for orchestra
suite for piano
ode to napoleon
and moses und aron somewhere in there (best orchestra/oratorio/whatever of the 20th century IMO). Either way, i don't think there's such a thing as a wrong starting point in schoenberg's music because it's all golden (and i mean it, there's little to no duds in his entire published output).
15 then 15 and finally 15
just to make sure, these are for his string quartets right? i havent listened to his symphonies but apparently symphony no. 15 is widely regarded as the best one. just wanted to make sure you werent mistaking string quartets for symphonies
Trying to get back into composition
I'll probably pack it in again in a few months but I want to make a serious go of it this time
Are there any books about composition that you would consider essential? I've read a lot on certain composers but never any more general guides
>sorry i havent listened to it yet
I just don't understand where if not from Scaruffi you got the idea that it is WIDELY considered to be his best.
Not even close. 4, 5, 7, 10 are all considered better symphonies (though personally I would say 4, 5, 14.)
>implying the sound of bartoks 9 inch jumbo hungarian penis slamming on the low end of a piano is a bad thing
Ravel is my favourite composer. Who else should I listen to?
Though the whole Schoenberg gimmick is about arranging all 12 notes in random ways. Doesn't work as string music. Something like Tristan und Isolde's chromaticism is based.
Death metal has the harsh timbre to make good use of controlled anarchy and harsh chromaticism.
Nothing about it is random though you moron and if you had studied Schoenberg's music at all you would see that he doesn't even completely adhere to the rules that the twelve tone technique implements. You can see prominent examples of this in his wonderful violin concerto.
You're talking an awful lot like someone who can't read music/understand theory.
Even if I was musically illiterate like you say, it only takes a brief listen to realize that some things are avant garde just for its sake.
He's unlistenable crap, and any music which requires you to fucking study dodecaphony or whatever in order to "appreciate" it is fucking garbage.
Music is for your ears. If it sounds good, then you can derive further pleasure from analyzing it.
Someone like Scott Walker is infinitely more enjoyable than Schoenberg.
>He's unlistenable crap, and any music which requires you to fucking study dodecaphony or whatever in order to "appreciate" it is fucking garbage.
But you don't need to. Fuck, I know more than a few people here who don't know shit about theory, and they like Schoenberg. Because he's good music.
He isn't anything like what you say he is. His music was a logical progression from the strides that Wagner, Beethoven, Mahler, and especially Brahms had made in the years before him. He's far closer to being a romantic than to being avant garde, One listen to Verklärte Nacht or Gurre-lieder and you can instantly realize how deep his roots were in that.
Wtf this is Schoenberg? It's beautiful. Thanks anon.
When did he fuck himself over with the 12tone? I distinctly remember listening to his compositions and they were utter random shite.
It's boring, monotonous and over dull music. When you've heard 10 minutes of a Wagner piece, you've heard the entire 2 - 4 hours. I don't understand why people like him so much.
The same problem applies to Mahler and Shostakovich.
His tone, the way he talks, just makes me cringe. Doesn't matter the content.
Imagine Lil Wayne rapping Dante. Kinda an approximation.
Well that's probably the most emotion you're going to get out of a narrator in this piece.
That Schoenberg piece is the only Sprechgesang piece I know honestly. Rec me something
well, that's not true. the themes/leitmotifs set up in Das Rheingold are built and expanded upon throughout the rest of the three operas and there's endlessly interesting counter point to be found there, not to mention various other leitmotifs being set up throughout the rest of the operas. the way that they interact and interchange with one another--especially in Gotterdammerung, makes the entire ride utterly worth it.
most people play Wagner really badly. overly grandiose, slow, dull. the bad static acting present in a great deal of recordings makes things worse. it makes the experience seem homogeneous, as you're saying, rather than something that's really quite organic like the Ring can be (not to mention the utter romp that Tristan und Isolde is).
honestly if you listen to a recording that is played fast, has convincing acting, and excellent diction, then it's really quite enjoyable in my opinion.
when i started with Wagner my first recording was Levine's i think, and i thought it was garbage at first.
i wouldn't really say that a similar problem occurs in Mahler though, if anything i think that many of his symphonies sound very different from one another. i mean, you listen to the 4th symphony and then the 9th and then the 1stand you think each one is written by a different composer.
there's the superficial similarities that are present--the length of his symphonies are usually pretty similar. and perhaps the bombast that usually accompanies his later works like the 6th and 8th, but other than that they usually tend to vary greatly in terms of their overall output.
Much as I like Schoenberg that is comically awful. Some ridiculous actor hamming it up over such a serious subject. Cringy is exactly what I would call it. At least this Ode to Napoleon is a little more light-hearted.
ode to napoleon is in the same style, as in that the notes aren't notated explicitly but the relations between them and the articulations are. that makes it a lot easier for the speaker than earlier works like pierrot (also sprechgesang, but all of it notated this time).
best performance is gould with the juilliard IMO
you have to listen to historical memes to get good Wagner. no one has really sung it properly and very good since perhaps the 60s. the 70s and 80s have some good singers still, but not as good as the previous generations. and these days you can barely find a singer worth his own salt able to even sing a Tristan properly.
my favorite recording of Tristan is probably this one:
GOAT singers. fairly good conducting, a bit slower than i would like but still pretty good and faster than most.
the utter delirium in Act 3 from Lorenz's Tristan is unmatched by any other singer
Dodecaphonic rows are not random. Especially in the case of Webern. Schoenberg/the second Viennese school are all about harsh timbres. Sul ponticello, flutter tongue, and sprechgesang are all different extended timbral techniques that Schoenberg and other composers use extensively. There are many ways of achieving a harsh, distorted string sound without copious gain. Over pressure and tremolos and muted strings are not unique to death metal.
>I must have listened to Tristan und Isolde a thousand times and not enjoyed one of them.
you may as well give up. you don't like wagner, so what? why should anyone care exactly? go listen to something else.
It is interesting how Birtwistle and Rihm, the only two composers of true merit following Boulez, sound so antiquated. Repons sounded like Andromeda, like some ultrafuture machinated civilization. Nobody else sounds like it because nobody can sound like it - no one is Boulez' equal.
here's a Golovanov/Scriabin cover
yup. he's really really good. great winds especially, which you dont hear too often very well in those Bayreuth recordings due to the balance between the pit/singers usually obscuring a lot of the orchestral detail
honestly, it's one of the better conducted Wagner sets. the thing that really brings it down is some of the singing, but none of it is particularly bad, and it's much better than anything these days.
bohm is one of the better ones too, his tempi are swift. bit unfortunate about it being recorded late into Windgassen's career though (well, most of the singers in that set were starting to fade). he was never, ever a heldentenor. just a surrogate heldentenor, but he really benefits from a more youthful sounding voice, which you can hear in the earlier live bayreuth recordings.
and sometimes he shagged and dumped the wrong girls
>Scriabin arrived in New York in 1906, having abandoned his wife in Russia, and was soon joined by his mistress. But he discovered that his amorous wrongdoings would have career repercussions, as Mrs. Scriabin certainly had her revenge. From 1906 to 1909, Vasily Safonoff, her husband’s former piano teacher and a good friend of hers, conducted the New York Philharmonic. Safonoff took her side and banned Scriabin’s works during his tenure, thus curtailing the composer’s success in America.
Looks like Scriab had the last laugh though because he's popular as fuck now.
i've only heard the tannhauser but i liked it. generally you cant really go too wrong with bayreuth during the 1950s though. the singing could be variable but it was always at least good, and most of the time it was very good. cluytens is a good conductor, i'd say it's worth grabbing.
>and with not very notable singers for the most part.
Künstler: Kieth Engen, Sandor Konya, Leonie Rysanek, Astrid Varnay, Orchester der Bayreuther Festspiele (Lohengrin / 1958), Josef Greindl, Wolfgang Windgassen, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Gre Brouwenstijn, Orchester der Bayreuther Festspiele (Tannhäuser / 1955), Gustav Neidlinger, Josef Greindl, Fritz Uhl, Elisabeth Grümmer, Orchester der Bayreuther Festspiele (Meistersinger / 1957)
I guess just he would bear his influences in a less obnoxious, more mature kind of way. A lot of the noise and drone pieces and even most of the ambient passages just sound incredibly elementary and FL Studio level. There's no real focus I see any of the pieces arriving at. It sounds like some kind of rehearsal session.
>I mean were you expecting something like true classical music?
By no means. I listen to a lot more drone and noise than classical and I guess was just disappointed by how it translates to a classical medium is all. I mean, he counts Glenn Branca and Rhys Chatham among his influences while a piece like The Soul is the Arena is note taken straight from Dimensions of Time & Silence and it's so passé and cheap sounding. The metal and rock tags got my hopes up as well.
i dont really have one i guess, too many of them have elements that the others lack. it will never be performed perfectly.
the most consistent one is perhaps Janowski's. he has good stereo sound and a natural acoustic. tempi are well paced. not as fast as i'd like though. singers are all 'good', but they don't really rise to any extreme heights, but there are a few good highlights. consistency counts for a lot in the Ring though, so it's a very good set.
but, really, my absolute favorites are individual picks, like the 1952 Keilberth Gotterdammerung, or the Elmendorff, or the Furtwangler.
and some of my would-be favorites are in god awful sound
seriously this fucking shit (pic related) makes me so sad. you can hear fantastic conducting and singing, but the thing has been denoised to shit, there are pitch problems fucking everywhere, and the original recording probably didnt sound that great anyway.
there are a lot of great underdog rings though like the Moralt set. impossible for me to get satisfied with just one set, however.
i think he just came at the right time. golden age of recording etc. great sounding decca albums, all the standard repertoire and of course well promoted.. he was decca's big star.
im somewhat convinced he wasn't entirely to blame for the overblown recording that is the Culshaw ring.
Culshaw is on the far side of the interventionist type of audio engineering and it was very much his baby, i think he had more than a few says in regards to the balancing and dynamics of that recording
but who knows?
some other conductors were considered... including Monteux. he didn't get the job because Culshaw said he was too old. but man. Monteux is really, really good at Wagner. a shame it never was.
right in the feels :(
yeah, that way you can listen to analog music the way it was always meant to be listened (in glorious pitch corrected, declicked and mostly unfiltered digital transfers)
Can you guys recommend a good book on the history of music that can double as an introduction on the history of musical aesthetic theory (in the broad sense) as well?
I want to read up on this because I have a question about the relationship between vanguards and technology. Like, of course, amongst the greats (Bach, Bethoven, Mozart, whatever) there were probably those more conservative and those more willing to push the limits of their respectives mediums. In purely abstract musical terms, no problem, but to push the limits of the instruments in a physical sense, in technological terms was impossible. They were constrained in the sense that, although innovations were incorporated along the years to the format of orchestra, in general terms it remained the same and these geniuses were constrained in physical terms because of the technological impossibility of creating more sounds. What if these guys would have had access to all the possibilities we have now with computers? What kind of music would they be doing?
Of course there were innovations along the years to perfect the instruments but classical music seems remain stuck to its XIXth century imagining, which of course achieved the highest and greatest things in music admittedly, no doubt about that but now it seems a really conservative genre that wants to just keep alive the XIXth century imagining of musical aesthetics.
>because of the technological impossibility of creating more sounds.
dunno mang they were pretty up to date when it comes to new instrument creation even in the days. beethoven's 5th is basically the first symphony with trombone in it, people like mozart were relatively quick to switch from harpsichords to fortepianos, wagner asked adolphe sax to create 'wagner tubas' etc . . .
also note how composers pushed the limits of instruments themselves constantly. take string instruments, between the expected 'legato', the 'pizzicatos' (and there's various types of it), and the 'sul ponticello' playing, there's tons of room for experimentation and for extending the palette of sounds available to the composer.
and nowadays composers definitely aren't shy about using electronics and whatnot. it's also a bit misleading to think that the invention of electronic music is really all that different than the invention of whatever other instruments. try to recreate the sound of a piano from scratch and you'll see what i mean. Yes, you can in theory recreate any sound whatsoever electronically but in practice, it's a bit different.
Can somebody recommend me a good album of some of Debussy's compositions? Any thoughts on pic-related?
I'd usually just use RYM, but it's pretty shit for classical music. Thanks in advance.
gieseking is good but my favorites are rather michelangeli and esp. paul jacobs. special mention to zimerman who's also great, and février for another interesting take.
you're not going too wrong with gieseking though.
>in music history class
>teacher (TA) discussing research project for semester
>"any person, movement, piece, etc. from 1750-present in the western art music tradition."
>student raises their hand
>"what's art music?"
>TA then gives vague non-answer and instead says that things like Jazz would qualify as art music
>"so basically we could do an album review"
>TA doesn't really shoot them down, says they could for something like Kind of Blue
>"Oh so then we could like concept albums from the 80's and 90's?"
>"any person, movement, piece, etc. from 1750-present in the western art music tradition."
>mfw this is supposedly a top25 music university
his mahler 6 is pretty famous though, probably the most famous of his set. different approach than most conductors
damn i keep forgetting about that work although i love it to bits. the boulez is also clearly the best recording around too, because the text is rightfully at the forefront compared to the others that i've heard
Okay I am just dipping my toes in classical music and I fell in love with new world by Dvorak
I need the most intense classical compositions, stuff that can be interpreted as a final boss battle
This is fucking great m8. This Boulez, seems like a p.cool guy.
got you senpai, here's some of my favorite, more intense stuff
>Shostakovich's 10th Symphony (especially the 2nd movement)
>Sergei Prokofiev - Battle on the Ice
>Frank Ticheli - Angels in the Architecture
>Modest Mussorgsky - Night on Bald Mountain
>Sergei Prokofiev - Suggestion Diabolique
>cool melody appears out of nowhere in my head
>go to jot it down
>imagining it played by some specific brass instrument, no idea which
>start skipping through Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra hoping to figure it out
>go back to jot it down
>all I remember are a few details about how the melody is structured
>realize now that the instrument I was thinking of was the euphonium
You gotta capture the notes before worrying about instrumentation. The melody is a hundred times more important than the instrument its played on, so write it down first. you can decide on a specific instrument later.
Art music has to be written by a trained composer, and primarily stored in a written score. Jazz usually doesn't count (unless its all scored out). "Albums" aren't the same as a written score, from which recordings and performances can be generated. That's the main definition of art music.
It fits better than most other descriptors. Its an art form, the majority of what we listen to is western (How many of you listen to gagaku or Chinese opera?) and its music.
People who get pissy about the definition of "art" must have missed the part where Duchamp signed a urinal and the word lost its meaning. "art music" doesn't imply that all other music isn't "art" its just a label for the highest tier of composition in music. All music is technically "art" ,but post post-modernism, the word has lost its meaning
>turn off staff lines
>obtain minimap mode
How have I not realised this before.
Ok I need some examples of classical death metal then m8
You're wrong about melody. Great Composers write melody while thinking about sound, register, color of certain notes in certain registers, possible articulations etc. So the instrument is very important
Great composers also very rarely restrict one melody to one instrument. Of course they hear everything, but the instrumentation details will usually be secondary to the actual notes, unless we're talking sonorism / spectralism
Anyone recognise this? Can't for the life of me think what it is
I really, really, really like Rautavaara
sry im high that made no sense. I mean like just find out about classical music, I know little to nothing about it. One thing that would be dope is stuff like greensleeves I love that
Downloading one of those folders may be a little overwhelming, why don't you try listening to the following links and tell me what you like? These are very "entry level" pieces IMO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGldgW6mDnY (Not entry level at all, but I like it. You don't need to listen to all of it to get a taste)
This isn't that thorough, but should give you some idea of classical music.
In between Purcell and Elgar, what happened to English Classical Music? Are there any composers between those two that are worth listening to, or were English composers just not worth listening to in between 1700 to 1870-ish?
Thomas Arne and William Boyce are probably the most popular proper composers from the 18th century, not terribly popular but still known
Broadside ballads were very popular in the 1700s, they're more like folk music, but ballad operas emerged out of these. Think light opera. It's pretty good, though, give this a listen when you have the time
As for the 19th century, if you're willing to count the Irish, you have John Field, Michael William Balfe, and William Vincent Wallace
And of course, Arthur Sullivan was pretty successful as well and completely English on top of that. On the whole, I think they just couldn't garner enough interest or patronage to stand up to the continentals.
tl;dr - 18th century english music was too folky to survive and the 19th century was too german
Try the other Czechs too;. Janacek, Martinů, Smetana.
There's more in the Czech appreciation section of the pastebin
I haven't even been posting. Busy doing things outside 4chan.