/classical/

All pre-20th century classical is obsolete for non-historical reasons as there's always one shortcoming or another in some aspect of the music whereas 20th century and afterward offers music that's good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.

File: 1505329039460.png (278KB, 407x396px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 407x396px

>Br*ckner

File: image.jpg (39KB, 304x411px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 304x411px

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)

>>75155628
spotted the pleb

5th for Beethoven's 6th is the most underrated overrated symphony ever

>>75155679
6th for beethoven's 3rd is the most underrated symphony ever

>>75155734
7th for actually its his 2nd

>>75155777
8th for actually it's his 1st

>>75155624
true, but I listen to it because of its sentimental value

Listz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hko1TNkgUUE

>>75155624
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).

>>75155867
>responding to new threadly pasta
pls

>>75155958
Better safe than sorry. I don't want my fellow /classical/ dweller to go around spouting opinions as worthless as this one.

File: __remilia_scarlet_touhou_drawn_by_monrooru__19ea5364e35ef8cd6df7c49b55a71a0d.jpg (114KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x1131px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIwikV3PbXA

>call and answer
What is this cringe shit?

Hey /classical/, we're making a chart (>>75150884) 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)

File: cover.jpg (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>75156309
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.

File: 1504866460693.jpg (339KB, 1451x2048px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1451x2048px

>>75156309
>antonio vivaldi – le quattro stagioni (herbert von karajan)
Are you fucking kidding me?

Besides Deutsche Grammophon and Odyssey, what labels are trustworthy when it comes to quality of recordings they release?

>>75156518
wrong recording?

>>75156562
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

File: 1499339801283.jpg (54KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 240x320px

>>75156562
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.

>>75156581
How is Karajan's Nono though?

>>75156309
Verdi- Rigoletto - Pavarotti
Leoncavallo- I Pagliaci
Nino Rota - symphony 1

>>75156492
>Bellini - Norma (Bonynge)
The best Norma recording is the Maria Callas one from 54. Also I Puritani should be on the chart.

>>75155867
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.

File: $wm1_0x700_$_CDA67951-3_cov.jpg (110KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 600x600px

>>75156309
Ferrucio Busoni - Late Piano works

File: flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg (77KB, 584x800px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 584x800px

>tfw tchaikovsky's music gives me the feelsies
>i can't listen to him or will be a pleb according to /classical/

don't really care for his interpretations most of the time, but hot damn Koussevitzky could get those Boston players to soar

Bartók

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJCBPp-BH78

https://youtu.be/SGWYbkXCcGU?t=2m38s

literally the best moment in all of music, ever

>>75157364
its ok bb just cry to his piano trio some more

pls give patrician classical recs

>>75157831
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJWLU1ja_1Y

>>75157831
the video 2 posts above

>>75157831
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_c2zRGPB1M

>>75156903
everyone's Luigi Nono sucks by necessity

>>75157364
I like Tchaikovsky too. Stop worrying about being called a pleb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8zKkvGB7Rw

Why should someone listen to art music?

>>75159289
it lends itself nicely to both enjoyment and appreciation

>>75159289
once you mature you won't be satisfied listening to top40 crap or /mu/core anymore. Like how adults don't want to eat Mcdonalds daily, while as a kid that would have seen like the ideal diet

>>75155591
I rarely comment, but this thread brings me joy. Thank you OP.

>>75159289
It's more harmonious and beautiful than pop music.

Bellini
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRNyUw52dDE

File: image.jpg (67KB, 600x394px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x394px

>>75157209
>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...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwnWt2qF37Q
I love Romanticism and I'm proud

>>75160767
Holy shit, we get it, he is wrong
Stop writing long posts, no one is taking him seriously here

>>75160767
how will shitposters ever recover

>>75157364
Nothing wrong with Tchaikovsky. Miles better than Bruckner

>>75159289
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.

>>75159289
I like it more.

^only valid answer

>>75155624
Why are people just allowing this?

>>75161256
Read
>>75155867
>>75160767

>>75161256
I mean he got btfo pretty hard and it was probably bait anyway

>>75161256
You mean ignoring? That's the only way to deal with shitposters.

>>75161373
rather get shit-posted than posted to shit

File: Musorgsky_1874_b.jpg (13KB, 200x278px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x278px

>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

>>75161411
which?

>>75161411
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.

>>75161445
>thinks tempo and time sig are the same thing
>doesn't know the piece

no John, you are the idjits

>>75161411
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

>>75161543
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.

>>75161482
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.

>>75161629
>I'm a fan of Tchaikovsky's 6th
>calls other people idjit

God, you're such a failure.

>>75162045
pls don't bully us Tchaik 6 fans because someone haets Mussorgsky

>>75161629
>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.

Pretzan und Pretzölde

>>75161629
>there needs to be good reason to use such thing

Such as??? Something completely arbitrary depending on your own personal taste???

my waifu
dont steal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AMUQCLhorQ

File: shes huge.png (3KB, 194x81px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 194x81px

>>75163067
>for you

Mozart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2aQjyDvfCw

>>75163764
autistic performance
also i hate his whole pedo style

>>75163941
>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?

Così fan Petzold -Petzold Amadeus Metzold

File: Mozart into the trash it goes.jpg (71KB, 958x598px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 958x598px

>be me
>orchestral conductor
>lurking my favourite thread of /mu/
>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

>>75165005
>become an orchestra conductor without havung ever read a Mozart score
>has to discover Mozart on 4chan, of all places

File: u mad.jpg (7KB, 303x276px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 303x276px

>>75165084
>taking seriously my obvious bait

File: just fuck my shit up.png (163KB, 392x324px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 392x324px

>>75165005
>>75165112
take this

>>75165145
mmm... how about no?

>>75165253
But how about.... yes?

File: aUrI8iI.jpg (24KB, 1174x880px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 1174x880px

https://youtu.be/P2wNAWBPFiI?t=627
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly5ThGlqfEk
---
Rip Cassini

>>75160767
>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?

>>75160767
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.

>>75165740
>but it's not Baroque music that implemented actual improvisation in composition
nigga do you even partimento?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partimento

>>75165847
Those aren't compositions, but exercises.

>>75165923
that remains to be seen, it was a fluid transition.
baroque organists were able to improvise, but it became a lost art by 1750

>>75165984
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.

>>75165984
Organ improvisation still exists, but organists are the only ones who care about it, unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOQvxK813J0

>>75165145
aaah, not the pit, it burns

Bach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDhS3ry_BC4

Haydn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP4y1CsiADk

Cherubini
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIXOxpYlAbc

>>75165621
>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]

>>75165621
>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

>>75165740
>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.

>>75165984
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.

>>75161543
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]

>>75169082
>>75169194
>>75169284

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.

>>75169628
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).

>>75169082
>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.

>>75169877
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.

>>75169877
in terms of keyboard, fugues are the hardest thing to write besides strict interval canons

>>75169194
>The newer stuff csn't replicste the older stuff.
Why would it want to? Like this whole time my point has been that the older stuff is shit and not impressive.
>Do you think that the merely theoric aspects of Webern's music wre the point?
For the sake of how the music sounds like aurally. I have no clue why your head's so far up muh written theory's ass. I never strictly have talked theory here.
>Then you have never written a fugue, nor have you ever worked with a tone row.
I have done both. If you think the earlier doesn't require adherence to common practice or the latter doesn't require adherence to having to use all twelve notes, you have no clue wtf you're talking about.
>even MORE to contemporary music
You keep saying this, yet haven't mentioned anything even vaguely about why it's like this. I have mentioned repeatedly that it's not this way in contemporary due to completely different approaches regarding the nature of sound itself. Microtonal music, spatial awareness, and repetition related to time are totally different spaces of music that all entail contemporary music.
>Oh, so you have never studied Bach's scores?
Adherence to common practice, lack of variation in dynamics/harmonic progression/rhythms, Bach style cadence ends, BACH progression, etc. are there in most if not almost all of them.
>He was following the academic mainstream. He wasn't making it up.
He was following the academic mainstream by being more experimental. But the academic mainstream didn't tell him to create a work like Repons because Boulez is the one who came up with the idea/concept.
>Boulez LITERALLY always composed through formulae. It's not an opinion. By the way I'm not designing it as a flaw.
Whose formula did he use Repons for?
>What is Basso Continuo?
>Baroque was inherently imrpovisational
Yes, but these were one part things that gave a very limited approach to freedom to the player as it's figured bass.

>>75169877
>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.
You are making a musicological argument, you just don't know it because you don't know anything about musicology.

>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.
You know nothing of the history of those years, nor you know that composers were ostracized on the basis of wether they were following the avantgards or not.

>Didn't have to wait till then, it was already happened before WW2.
Before WW2 in Europe only a handful of students cared about serialism, and the Russian avantgards were already crushed by Stalinism by the time Boulez started composing. The majority of these composers reached fame and eminence only after WWII.

>someone like Sofia Gubaidulina
you're mentioning sn exception, I am mentioning those composers who served as model for the European post-WWII avantgards.

>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.
I haven't used the term dissonant not even once. Check it. As usual, when you don't know you invent.

>Apparently so isn't Boulez who has talked of this aspect this particular way.
Boulez is an authority only when it comes to his own music, for, as I have said other times, his music does not contain the music of the Common Practice composers. If Boulez felt more at ease with this or that method is irrelevsnt for all of those composers who are not Boulez. You should also notice that Boulez pretty much retracted on literally everything he said in his enfant terrible years, ending his life by saying that the entire XX century had been wasted cause of radical pseudo-dictators like him. Using him as a source, again, just disrupt your own arguments.

[1/2]

>>75169877
>Fugue are easy shit to write though.
Holy shit, you're truly clueless.

>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.
So, you have never studied Bach's fugues, nor do you know how to analyze a fugue in general, right? Have you even ever studied counterpoint? I knew it, you have no formal education.

>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.
Exactly. As I've said, he has never composed a good fugue, can't you read?

>>75169928
>>75170026
See, your definition of hard is because of the almost seemingly mathematical approach required to write this stuff. But at the same time, the mathematics, combined with so many predecessors whose work to look at, make it a very straightforward thing to do. It can be a bit time consuming if you don't know your shit, but certainly not actually hard. Anyone who thinks these are esoteric super hard things are either just performers with little theory knowledge or in their first couple years of learning music theory.

>>75165740
what about concerto cadenzas

>>75170126
>You are making a musicological argument
Not one that depends on history though, retard. Musicology splits into many different things.
>You know nothing of the history of those years
Sounds like you know nothing as you haven't read up on either of those two and their personal reactions so long after the fact.
>Before WW2 in Europe only a handful of students cared about serialism,
That doesn't mean there weren't examples of people already displaying serialist inspired ideas before hand.
>you're mentioning sn exception, I am mentioning those composers who served as model for the European post-WWII avantgards.
Stravinsky, Messiaen, Shostakovich have also all taken such an approach. You should probably do more reading into this.
>I haven't used the term dissonant not even once. Check it. As usual, when you don't know you invent.
>I am mentioning those composers who served as model for the European post-WWII avantgards.
You know what I am talking about, stop trying to win an argument for the sake of it.
>Using him as a source, again, just disrupt your own arguments.
But what I used him as a source for isn't based on opinion you fucking idiot. Pay attention

>>75170109
>Why would it want to? Like this whole time my point has been that the older stuff is shit and not impressive.
That's an opinion, not a claim. By proving that that music is not contained in the composers we have mentioned, I have proven that those are fundamentally two different objects operating in different contexts. A close minded idiot hung up on Baroque would say that Boulez lacks in coherence, that he knows virtually nothing about functional harmony, that he has no control over any sort of tonal counterpoint, that he has no sense of rhythm and that his music is fundamentally immoral. Of course whoever is not an idiot can see how these criticisms simply miss the point of Boulez's music, just like yours miss the point of Bach's music.

>I have done both. If you think the earlier doesn't require adherence to common practice or the latter doesn't require adherence to having to use all twelve notes, you have no clue wtf you're talking about.
That's my point: they are fundamentally different things, yet grounded in a completely arbitrary traditions, from which florished great music. You're comparisons are mental.

>You keep saying this, yet haven't mentioned anything even vaguely about why it's like this.
You have not realized yet that literally all the composers we've mentioned so far were formalists?

>Microtonal music, spatial awareness, and repetition related to time are totally different spaces of music that all entail contemporary music.
So?

>Adherence to common practice, lack of variation in dynamics/harmonic progression/rhythms, Bach style cadence ends, BACH progression, etc. are there in most if not almost all of them.
Gotcha, you've never studied formally fugues.

[2/3]

>>75170182
I have done my fugue and counterpoint stuff a long time back, and what I said >>75170192 still stands in terms of how easy they are to write and that outside their contrapunctal aspects they offer nothing engaging at all.
>Exactly. As I've said, he has never composed a good fugue, can't you read?
I said he never officially composed one. Meaning that he has done so before. Like, we can't say whether it would be good or bad. One thing we do know is that it was easy mode.

>>75170380
>By proving that that music is not contained in the composers we have mentioned
And I have already disproved this. My example of Boulez going with trends vs what he actually made, along with the example of someone like Igor Stravinsky who just gave a middle finger to conventional western art music harmonic/rhythmic conventions, shows that it's not just about muh academic trends.
>That's my point: they are fundamentally different things, yet grounded in a completely arbitrary traditions, from which florished great music. You're comparisons are mental.
But your comparison is also disingenuous when I have already mentioned that I DON'T like Twelve tone for the same reason I don't like Common Practice garbage.
>You have not realized yet that literally all the composers we've mentioned so far were formalists?
Not only is this untrue, but formalism itself doesn't have one strict approach to music either.
>So?
How can you just lump contemporary stuff into one lump of following formula when it takes often unique approaches made different on a composer to composer basis?
>Gotcha, you've never studied formally fugues.
Even if I didn't (which I did) it wouldn't make any of what I said false.

>>75170192
cossonance, dissonance and chromaticism are real anon. Sorry but music is math and inspiration without craftsmanship is a mere reed shaken in the wind.

>>75170109
>But the academic mainstream didn't tell him to create a work like Repons because Boulez is the one who came up with the idea/concept.
Sure, but you are also not realizing, due to your ignorance, that Bach's fugues are all different, and so are his Cantatas, his solo Suites and Partitas, his Passions, his Concertos and so on.

>Whose formula did he use Repons for?
I have not analyzed musicologically every single Boulez's composition in my conservatory years (neither have you), yet this is something he was willing to admit: all of his music was written through formulae and then adjusted locally in specific istances according to his taste. Every piece of Boulez is essentiallly mathematical, although they are meant to be appreciated mistically.

>Yes, but these were one part things that gave a very limited approach to freedom to the player as it's figured bass.
To you everything is limited, for you choose to ignore the qualities that were valued by Baroque composers, which were NOT present in the music of the aforementioned contemporary composers.

>Not one that depends on history though, retard. Musicology splits into many different things.
Musicology has to account for historical context once one decides to formulate a critique.

>That doesn't mean there weren't examples of people already displaying serialist inspired ideas before hand.
I haven't implied that.

>Stravinsky, Messiaen, Shostakovich have also all taken such an approach. You should probably do more reading into this.
That approach was not a corrispective of the Common practice one, nor it contained it, that's the point. You can tell me that Messianen used melodies, but from the point of view of Mozart Messianen REJECTED melodies. You can't account for this, nor you can't account for the fact that Mozart reached excellence in ways never displayed by these composers (the opposite applies as well).

[3/4]

>>75170529
I never said that music isn't or shouldn't have any mathematical aspect though. What I am saying is that there are a set of straightforward formula at play in this fugue case we are talking about, and while a lot of it can be time consuming to understand, it's not hard at all.

There is LITERALLY nothing wrong with Mozart

>>75170552
>that Bach's fugues are all different, and so are his Cantatas, his solo Suites and Partitas, his Passions, his Concertos and so on.
On a very surface level they are. Not much outside that as I have already mentioned the cliches of his music that is there throughout his career.
>all of his music was written through formulae and then adjusted locally in specific istances according to his taste
Citation needed.
>To you everything is limited, for you choose to ignore the qualities that were valued by Baroque composers, which were NOT present in the music of the aforementioned contemporary composers.
Maybe if Baroque didn't suck ass, the music wouldn't have aged like shit.
>Musicology has to account for historical context once one decides to formulate a critique.
Only when looking at it for the sake of history. We are talking historical development here.
>That approach was not a corrispective of the Common practice one, nor it contained it, that's the point.
Sure, but the idea is that aspects akin to common practice cliches show up when needed rather than having to follow those or muh atonality strictly.

File: late night frogs.png (13KB, 198x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 198x200px

>>75170558
>there are a set of straightforward formula at play
none that can create an acceptable fugue or universal enough to contain most fugues even by the same composer like JSB, thats still an unsolved problem.
professors came up with "school fugues" because there was no other way to create systematic examinations about that topic without directly imitating existing model fugues.
real fugue writing takes decades, the learning curve of the best composers illustrates this.

>>75170370
>>But what I used him as a source for isn't based on opinion you fucking idiot. Pay attention
It is an opinion, and if you can't see this is not due to a musical problem rather it's due to a epistemological one (you don't know how to think).

>I have done my fugue and counterpoint stuff a long time back
Post a fugue of yours that is as good as a Bach's fugue then, since it's so easy. Even a fugue as good as a Handël one will do.

>Meaning that he has done so before.
You have no proof for it. As far as we know he studied strict counterpoint for 2 years as a undergrad and that was it. This means that as far as we know he was only able to write student fugues. You are the one who is making up a Stockhausen who was a master of tonal counterpoint, even if there's literally no evidence for it.

>Anyone who thinks these are esoteric super hard things are either just performers with little theory knowledge or in their first couple years of learning music theory.
Anyone who thinks that writing Bach's fugues is easy has never studied Bach's fugues. Simple as that.

>And I have already disproved this.
You have proven that these composers have composed different music, therefore you have proven my point.

>I DON'T like Twelve tone
Who cares?

>Not only is this untrue, but formalism itself doesn't have one strict approach to music either.
Literally using formulae is not strict, but fugues are totally a closed automatic system. Sure.

>made different on a composer to composer basis?
We have talked about specific composers, of which all of them were, for most of their careers, formalists. If you haven't got it yet, serialism is an inherently formalist technique.

>Even if I didn't (which I did) it wouldn't make any of what I said false.
It would make it reductionism (and you clearly didn't)

[4/?]

File: 1468190037218.png (463KB, 1070x601px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1070x601px

>teacher said i am about 6 months away from having good enough technique to play PETZOLDs minuet in g

File: Beethoven.png (79KB, 298x180px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 298x180px

wtf is going on here
I left you for a couple of hours and you've written a damn book

>>75170688
Wait, are you saying Bach naturally followed the method and it was reverse engineered? That's fucking phenomenal.

>>75170754
and not even a good one

>>75170754
2 people arguing about nothing while failing to see The Truth that Mozart is underrated

>>75170655
>On a very surface level they are. Not much outside that as I have already mentioned the cliches of his music that is there throughout his career.
let's leave this here, so that whoever will read this exchange later will be able to laugh out loud.

>Citation needed.
Read "Pitch-Class Set Multiplication in Theory and Practice" by Heinemann.

>Maybe if Baroque didn't suck ass, the music wouldn't have aged like shit.
This is merely your opinion.

>Only when looking at it for the sake of history. We are talking historical development here.
Historical development implies accounting for the historical context.

>Sure, but the idea is that aspects akin to common practice cliches show up when needed rather than having to follow those or muh atonality strictly.
This is a prescription based on your taste, it does not bear universal significance, and anyone might simply disagree with you.

>>75170796
Hey, my part is at the very least coherent.

>>75170805
>2 people arguing about nothing while failing to see The Truth that Mozart is underrated
I'm not failing to see it, my dear friend.

>>75170735
are you 3 years old?

>>75170698
>It is an opinion, and if you can't see this is not due to a musical problem rather it's due to a epistemological one (you don't know how to think).
I never said it's not an opinion. Why would you think I am so selfish as to think it's fact?
>Post a fugue of yours that is as good as a Bach's fugue then, since it's so easy. Even a fugue as good as a Handël one will do.
Finding flash drive gimme a moment.
>You have no proof for it.
Neither do you. But we know as much about how the prevailing thought was at the time.
>Anyone who thinks that writing Bach's fugues is easy has never studied Bach's fugues. Simple as that.
Anyone who thinks they are hard just hasn't been exposed to theory much and probably just got into it as a performer.
>You have proven that these composers have composed different music, therefore you have proven my point.
But you were saying that contemporary music is more formulaic. It's not.
>Who cares?
Because it's the only viable argument you have made so far for how formulaic 20th century got, and it's the one thing I don't include based on my original statement as the first reply to this topic.
>Literally using formulae is not strict, but fugues are totally a closed automatic system. Sure.
There's a difference between using a particular formula for one piece vs having all your shit go the exact same way based on rules EVERYONE has adhere to.
>It would make it reductionism (and you clearly didn't)
Perhaps, but one that is also true. Again, still doesn't make it false.

>>75170763
On the contrary, Bach followed different leads in every different fugues. After his death many of those leads were approximared in a series of exercises. Those exercises won't make you write a great Bachian fugues and, more importantly, those exercises can't lead you to Bach's contrapunctual innovations. His fugue writing was fluid and creative, and it took him 3 decades of costant practice to become slightly proficient at it, 4 decades to become an absolute master and 5 decades to puzzle every composer that came after him with his sheer intelligence and creativity.
Had that guy studied Bach's late fugues, he would know that to even the greatest composers they are almost incomprehensible, given how impossibly well crafted they are.

>>75170813
>Read "Pitch-Class Set Multiplication in Theory and Practice" by Heinemann.
Reading the stuff on Boulez. It talks of Le Marteau sans mai tre, not everything Boulez has ever done.
>This is merely your opinion.
Never said it wasn't.
>Historical development implies accounting for the historical context.
Not at all. For example the early smartphones sucked, and the new ones are better. There is context in that the original smartphones didn't have the tech/knowhow to be that good, but that doesn't change the fact that they sucked.
>This is a prescription based on your taste, it does not bear universal significance, and anyone might simply disagree with you.
Well, if they just read it on a Ugandan Asshole Smelling Forum, then yeah. It can be otherwise heard in the music, and the scores analyzed for it as well.

>>75170977
heavenly dubs of truth hath anointed this post

Mozart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBFH6a3Dcvg

>>75170927
>Neither do you. But we know as much about how the prevailing thought was at the time.
Unlike you I know how shitty are student fugues, and Stockhausen wrote fugues only as a student, as far as we know.

>Anyone who thinks they are hard just hasn't been exposed to theory much and probably just got into it as a performer.
Composing the Art of Fugue is "easy as shit" and if you don't think so you are probably a performer. For those people who will come later: have a laugh.

>But you were saying that contemporary music is more formulaic. It's not.
We have mentioned Boulez and Stockhausen. I have mentioned my source for calling Boulez a formalist. Regarding Atockhausen, he literally used to say that he composed through formulae, using this exact word. All those composers that were influenced by serialism and derivstive texhniques were inherently formulaic.

>Because it's the only viable argument you have made so far for how formulaic 20th century got, and it's the one thing I don't include based on my original statement as the first reply to this topic.
No, I mean: who cares about your opinion?

>There's a difference between using a particular formula for one piece vs having all your shit go the exact same way based on rules EVERYONE has adhere to.
This is not what fugue writing is, though, therefore your argument is invalid.

>Perhaps, but one that is also true. Again, still doesn't make it false.
See? You're epistemology is all over the place: you don't know how to think.

>It talks of Le Marteau sans mai tre
Marteau is the kickstarter of the project, but it's not the only piece analyzed.

>For example the early smartphones sucked, and the new ones are better.
Early smartphones do essentially the same thing that new smartphones do, only worse. It's like comparing bad early Baroque composers with good late ones, rather than comparing Baroque and Contemporary music.
If Bach is a smartphone, Boulez is a refrigerator.


[6/?]

I wish /classical/ was like this everyday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbXVNKtmWnc
is this classical?

>>75171236
It's a really bad attempt at classical. The best part is the final final boss part which is pretty good rock desu

>>75171177
what, arguing over bait? Every thread we have someone who suggests Mahler is a bad composer.

>>75171256
with a rearrangement on actual instruments and voices do you think it would pass as "contemporary j-classical"?

File: image.jpg (159KB, 1983x1536px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1983x1536px

To the anon who thinks that composing great fugues is easy and fast: compose a little 4-voices fugue on this theme. 1-2 pages are enough. If it's that easy you might finish it in 30 minutes.

>>75171285
depends on your definition of classical
It would be a really bad organ concerto though. The first two movements are devoid of any decent thematic content and the third movement is a nice baroque imitation I guess.
As it stands, it's still probably the first vidja game boss music that tries to say something about the psychology of the boss itself through the music. Flawed masterpiece

File: bog.png (20KB, 1008x900px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 1008x900px

post some good bog

>>75171366
>what is giygas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYb9kSCkjE8

>>75171391
https://youtu.be/pI5Y_AVULf0

>>75171403
Didn't remember that one, thanks

>>75171352
Here's 14

>>75171455
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tro_gaczCxw

>>75171455
What?

>>75171476
>>75171455
Got it now.

>>75171352
>do my homework for me

>>75171425
Jesus Christ, the third section must be a finger breaker

>>75171522
Don't be a coward and write a little fugue on that majestic theme.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg (75KB, 800x645px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x645px

>want to learn piano
>staff notation is one of the most inefficient language systems ever devised and its complete lack of elegance or internal consistency triggers my autism

>>75171555
Let's see your superior notation system.

>>75171403
this is infinitely better than Schoenberg and Babbitt

>>75171555
>I'm not retarded - the problem must be with the form of notation that every great musician for hundreds of years has used!

>>75171555
>lack of internal consistency
how so?

>>75171391
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeng5TaWLsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D60-ObGd8Ag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDyHkja0SxE

>>75171567
well for one thing we could do a staff based on the Octatonic scale so we maximize the number of different intervals and triads while also maintaining that a note consistently appears on a line or a space.

>>75171593
>implying people don't go along with stupid traditions all the time

>>75171555
>inefficient
Who cares, you'll have to read so many scores to get good that it will eventually become second nature.
In one year from now reading a score will be an afterthought, the only limitation will be your technique.

>>75171599
In this case the treble and bass clef would not be symmetrical. Also the octatonic scale can be represented perfectly on a standard staff.

>>75171631
>implying we are talking about random people
>implying we are not talking about the smartest composers who have ever lived

>>75171599
What do you mean by this? Can tou doodle something on paint, just to give us an idea?
Also
>555
>77
You're on a roll.

>>75171124
>Unlike you I know how shitty are student fugues, and Stockhausen wrote fugues only as a student, as far as we know.
But that's just going off anecdotal evidence. You probs thinking of student fugues written by performer kids.
>Composing the Art of Fugue is "easy as shit" and if you don't think so you are probably a performer. For those people who will come later: have a laugh.
Yup, easy mode. Like there are some parts that require a lot of time to think up like Counter and Triples, but that's it.
>No, I mean: who cares about your opinion?
You do, for having written this much about it.
>This is not what fugue writing is, though, therefore your argument is invalid.
All fugues pre 20th century are still based in/consistent to common practice rules, so yes it is in the context of what we are talking about.
>See? You're epistemology is all over the place: you don't know how to think.
Your logic is all over the place for not realizing that you can call a statement whatever you want, but that doesn't make it false. Is my statement reductionist due to the fact that it labels so much music? Yes. Is it false? No.
>Marteau is the kickstarter of the project
Citation needed.
>Early smartphones do essentially the same thing that new smartphones do, only worse.
No they don't. Not only do newer ones do things better, but new features are also being added.

>>75171659
Well its not like having a staff based on the major scale is going to be the end of the world. I would imagine most of them didn't care or probably didn't even give it a second thought, having had that tradition inculcated from an early age. And I did clarify my own autism as the limiting factor here. I don't think we need to rock the boat. Having said that there is nothing especially good about the system. There could easily be many other ways of notating music that would involve less memorization of patterns and more heuristics.

>>75171777
The staff is not based on a major scale, rather it's based on unaltered notes. The discriminant is the presence of sharps and flats.

>>75171789
It is certainly based on the diatonic scale (colloquially the "major scale"). I didn't mean the ionian mode.

>>75171775
>But that's just going off anecdotal evidence. You probs thinking of student fugues written by performer kids.
Performers do not study counterpoint for 2 years in their conservatory years, and if they do it's usually extracurricular.

>Yup, easy mode. Like there are some parts that require a lot of time to think up like Counter and Triples, but that's it.
Then compose now a 1 page fugue on the AoF theme >>75171352

>You do, for having written this much about it.
I'm a very fast typer, it's not big deal.

>Your logic is all over the place for not realizing that you can call a statement whatever you want, but that doesn't make it false. Is my statement reductionist due to the fact that it labels so much music? Yes. Is it false? No.
Reductionism does not imply that it's false, it only implies that it's useless, and that it can't be used to support an argument properly.

>All fugues pre 20th century are still based in/consistent to common practice rules, so yes it is in the context of what we are talking about.
Forms=/formalism
To say that every Beethoven's sonata follow, in a way or another, the sonata form does not tell me anything sbout how similar the various sonatas are. In the same way, the usage of forms and structures do not imply anything about how said roms and structures are filled, cohordinated, ordered, nor does it tell you anything sbout the content of said forms/structures.

>Citation needed.
The introduction? The book was written initially as an analysis of Marteau and its usage of pitch moltiplicstion, whoch was then expanded as a general analysis of Boulez's compositional techniques.

>No they don't. Not only do newer ones do things better, but new features are also being added.
So, they're the same thing+something more. Yet we have already proven that Webern is not Haydn+something more, rsther it's something else, which serve a completely different function in a different context.

>>75171857
Most instruments are tuned in a way so that the diatonic scale is easily accessible (white keys on keyboards, open strings on stringed instruments, dunno about wind instruments). In this sense it's very efficient.
Still, I'm curious about your octatonic staff: can you doodle it? Even if there's some mistake it doesnt mstter, I just want to have a general idea about what you mean.

>>75171891
>Performers do not study counterpoint for 2 years in their conservatory years, and if they do it's usually extracurricular.
He did though.
>Then compose now a 1 page fugue on the AoF theme
Not gonna waste my time. Hold up I am uploading my fugue from the old days.
>I'm a very fast typer, it's not big deal.
>I-I don't care! I just type really fast
HAHAHAHAHAHA this fucking damage control!
>it only implies that it's useless, and that it can't be used to support an argument properly.
Not at all. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the term reductionist.
>Forms=/formalism
I already said this.
>whoch was then expanded as a general analysis of Boulez's compositional techniques.
But the dude doesn't use anywhere close to the same techniques through his career. What he did with that early pre WW2 stuff, Marteau, and something later like Repons is totally different.
>Yet we have already proven that Webern is not Haydn+something more, rsther it's something else, which serve a completely different function in a different context.
Webern himself isn't. Art music in general is.

Pisendel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh6mqfrVFaY

>>75171914
Western instruments are constructed to have partials matching the overtone series. The overtone series is constructed based on resonant frequencies that appear if you pluck an ideal string or blow into an ideal open ended tube.
There might be some equal temperament fuckery going on though.

Interestingly, non-western instruments such as gamelan instruments have partials at frequencies that don't correspond to the overtone series so they tune to different intervals.

If anyone is interested, check out Tuning, Temperament, Spectrum, Scale by William Sethares to get an idea how music is understood from an acoustic perspective.

can someone recommend me a good first book on music theory
i want to understand and better appreciate this music

>>75172029
>He did though.
Yes, as I've said earlier he was probably only able to write studenr fugues, since he studied them for such a short amount of time (in which he also studied every other aspect or common practice music, which means that he might have spent maybe 2 or 4 momths in total studying counterpoint, once you account for all the hours he might have spent studying theory, harmony, analysis, music history and composition).

>Not gonna waste my time.
Of course you are not willing to xompose not even half s page.

>HAHAHAHAHAHA this fucking damage control!
Believe what you want.

>Not at all. Perhaps you should look up the definition of the term reductionist.
Perhaps you should start thinking about and analyzing your epistemology.

>Art music in general is.
Weirdly (?) enough, none of the key figures we have mentioned can be described as Haydn+something more.
Regardless, you have already admitted that they are different things, and that your hierwrchies are merely based on your personal opinions, which are irrelevant.

File: mozzart.png (77KB, 752x612px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 752x612px

>Haydn+something more

>>75172261
Mozart forms were way less complex, yet they were organized more neatly due to his obsession for symmetries.

https://clyp.it/e31owxeb?token=1ccf5a6dfe6ae9b6e2a0d3519079e847

Well, I was finally able to upload it. See, fugues are easy to make.

>>75172237
>Yes, as I've said earlier he was probably only able to write studenr fugues, since he studied them for such a short amount of time
Why would he spend his college time going over the basics? He probably knew that stuff before that. I learned most of that common practice shit in high school.
>Of course you are not willing to xompose not even half s page.
I have a life, unlike you.
>Believe what you want.
>Damage control gets weaker
>keep replying to me

>Perhaps you should start thinking about and analyzing your epistemology.
I think you should as I already said, reductionist doesn't mean false nor useless.
>Weirdly (?) enough, none of the key figures we have mentioned can be described as Haydn+something more.
Not in exact style as nobody wants to be that boring, but I have already laid out examples of music that has aspects similar to the older stuff.

File: Screenshot 2017-09-15 15.55.55.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

what did they mean by this

File: 1200px-Retrato_de_Domenico_Scarlatti.jpg (285KB, 1200x1515px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1200x1515px

have an free Scarlatti, phams

>>75172335
I'll listen to the fugue as soon as I'll get home.
>Why would he spend his college time going over the basics? He probably knew that stuff before that. I learned most of that common practice shit in high school.
He studied a bit of violin in middle school, then interrupted during the war and started srudying again when he was 21, in a conservatory.

>I have a life, unlike you.
You are the one who was saying that composing fugues is trivial, I've just asked you to do something trivial while using a theme that you certainly already know (if you have studied counterpoint).

>>Damage control gets weaker
>keep replying to me
No damage control, I'm actually a fast typer. Wasting a minute or two on a post is nothing.

>think you should as I already said, reductionist doesn't mean false nor useless.
It certainly means useless, depending on the extent of the reduction. Is was your reduction: since Bach used the fugal form, evey single one of his fugues is the same. This reduction is both false and useless.

>Not in exact style as nobody wants to be that boring, but I have already laid out examples of music that has aspects similar to the older stuff.
You have mentioned no Haydn+something more avantgard composer. You have only mentioned composers who used in certain istincts melodies in serialist contexts. The existence of melody does is not enough to incapsulate Haydn's music, and if Haydn's music is not contained, the music you're praising xan't be aeen as a direct evolution of Haydn's music.

File: image.jpg (92KB, 600x536px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x536px

>>75172335
>https://clyp.it/e31owxeb?token=1ccf5a6dfe6ae9b6e2a0d3519079e847
>he thinks he is as good as Bach

>>75172335
god this fugue sux

>>75172517
>Haydn+something more avantgard composer
i did right here >>75172261

>>75172132
http://www.dmu.uem.br/aulas/harmonia/AldwellAndSchachter_HarmonyAndVoiceLeading.pdf
idk if its the best but hey its free

>>75172517
>He studied a bit of violin in middle school, then interrupted during the war and started srudying again when he was 21, in a conservatory.
He studied piano and oboe as well.
>You are the one who was saying that composing fugues is trivial, I've just asked you to do something trivial while using a theme that you certainly already know (if you have studied counterpoint).
I also said they are time consuming as well. If I wanna make something decent I'll spend time on it.
>No damage control, I'm actually a fast typer. Wasting a minute or two on a post is nothing.
Multiple times? Wtf are you doing with your life? You obviously care to continue responding. Wanna make out? Are you qt?
>It certainly means useless, depending on the extent of the reduction. Is was your reduction: since Bach used the fugal form, evey single one of his fugues is the same. This reduction is both false and useless.
That is clearly not the kind of reduction I made and now you're being dishonest.
>You have mentioned no Haydn+something more avantgard composer.
Why would I do that? I certainly didn't limit myself to only post WW2 avant garde composers in any statement I have made.

>I'll listen to the fugue as soon as I'll get home.
>More damage control since he didn't think I would actually post something

>>75172537
>>75172538
I didn't say it was gonna be good, but it is a fugue that follows everything that needs to be for a fugue. Easy as shit. At least there's more rhythmic variation than Bach's boring shit m i rite?

>>75172558
merci beaucoup

File: Paul-Hindemith-121x150.jpg (3KB, 161x200px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 161x200px

>>75172335

>>75172598
The point is that it's a shitty worthless fugue, and you have spent lots of posts railing about how fucking easy it is to write a fugue as good as a Bach one. You're not even an amateur lol

>>75172598
lol no, there's far less rhytmic variation than even the most stupid Bach fugue.

>>75172335
Holy shit, that fugue. The mystery shitposter was Poly the whole time

>>75172728
even poly is way better than that garbage

>>75172683
Well it is worthless that's for sure. High school time stuff. But at the same time, if I could do that with year one music theory knowledge, imagine how piss easy it would be for these guys that study music theory whole lives?
>>75172720
Nah, crappy Bach fugues is just straight forward one rhythm only crap.
>>75172728
Literally who?

>>75172746
I thought it was pretty cool actually. His hot opinions are still poly tier though

File: hindemith.jpg (26KB, 658x358px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 658x358px

>>75172676
hindemith makes the best faces

>>75172794
pretty sure Poly worships Bach so there's a fundamental difference between the two in opinions

>>75172583
>I also said they are time consuming as well. If I wanna make something decent I'll spend time on it.
I haven't listened to your fugue yet, but at this point I doubt you are able to create anything decent at all. Hopefully that fugue will refute this doubt of mine... Hopefully.

>Multiple times? Wtf are you doing with your life? You obviously care to continue responding. Wanna make out? Are you qt?
Maybe I'm enjoying this?

>That is clearly not the kind of reduction I made and now you're being dishonest.
You've literally stated this multiple times.

>Why would I do that? I certainly didn't limit myself to only post WW2 avant garde composers in any statement I have made.
You limited yourself to XXcentury composer who rejected common prsctice techniques. It's in the first post of this thread. You tslk about common practice music being obsolete, yet you are not able to put any continuum between this music and the music you were praising, therefore common practice music is NOT obsolete compared to, let's say, XX century avantgardists.


>>More damage control since he didn't think I would actually post something
You love the term "damage control", don't you? As I said, I'll listen to it as soon as I'll get home. Promise.

>>75172808
the common thread is they are both retarded

>>75172764
>imagine how piss easy it would be for these guys that study music theory whole lives?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

>>75172335
*blocks you're path*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0RrT6hMOgI

>>75172855
>tfw Chopin's fugue is unanimously hailed as the shittiest fugue ever posted on /classical/ and it's still infinitely better than that guy's fugue
just give up mate. writing fugues is estremely hard, and you clearly have no clue about what actual good fugue writing is like
either shut up or lock yourself in a room and become great at counterpoint

Anymore whistleable twelve tone melodies like this?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7JVmrNwdh0

>>75172825
>Maybe I'm enjoying this?
>Changing his argument this many times
Lmao, you could've said that at first. But you couldn't.
>You've literally stated this multiple times.
Not at all. i give specifications to where exactly they are samey.
>You limited yourself to XXcentury composer who rejected common prsctice techniques.
I limited myself to 20th century and after who didn't LIMIT themselves to just common practice techniques who also lacked variation in things like rhythm, dynamics, approach to cadences, etc.

File: Bruckner.jpg (920KB, 1181x1947px) Image search: [Google]

920KB, 1181x1947px

>>75155591

>Throughout his life Bruckner searched for a woman with whom to share his life. He was 43 when he fell in love with a 17-year-old, whose parents put a stop to the relationship. He fell for another 17-year-old in his mid-fifties. Though the parents in this instance gave the relationship their blessing, the young girl tired of Bruckner and his passionate letters went unanswered. Later still he became infatuated with the 14-year-old daughter of his first love – that came to nothing and at 70 he proposed to a young chambermaid. Her refusal to convert to Catholicism ended that. Piety and pubescent girls are not an attractive combination. Bruckner died a virgin and was buried under the organ at St Florian.

Truly a patrician among patricians.

>>75172852
Not really applicable here at all. I didn't call myself some great composer, in fact with that statement I am calling the very people I have been shitting on great composers.
>>75172898
1. That's not even me you replied to.
2. I said fugue writing was easy, and posted evidence to show that. To try to go further and compare ME (the critic) to those being criticized is illogical and pulling the "well I don't see YOU doing it" form of bad counter criticism you often see in many places.

What is /classical/'s opinion on Paul Hindemith?

>>75173032
>I didn't call myself some great composer, in fact with that statement I am calling the very people I have been shitting on great composers.
You still think that writing the fugues that Bach wrote is easy shit. That's like me saying "yeah, winning the 100m Olympics is easy as shit ahahh, just run 30 minutes every morning xD"

File: dibujo-mozart-1.jpg (12KB, 254x164px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 254x164px

>>75172898

A challenger appears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNrM37AYxfc

File: doot doot.jpg (28KB, 465x660px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 465x660px

>>75173048
doot doot

>>75173066
It is still easy to do based on the parameters I gave earlier where there are a set rules for the particular style of fugues I call easy, as half the job's kinda already done. This is, again, relative to the other more obtuse and interesting works post-20th century (except twelve tone that's easy mode.)

>>75173032
>I said fugue writing was easy, and posted evidence to show that.
to use the other anon's analogy, if I cover a 100m track in 2 minutes (which as a result is beyond pathetic) have I proved that Olympionic running is easy? you've just demostrated that it is easy to obtain easy, mediocre results. there is no proof in the fugue you've posted, you have proven nothing.

>>75173048
Boring, but studying his scores is extremely useful.

>>75173021

lol, he was certainly a man of great contradictions.

Funnily enough, I appreciate him and Brahms much more than Wagner or his fans like Mahler. I'm no Bruckner scholar, but he sounds far more reverently 'conservative' to my ears than the crowd history groups him with.

>>75173113
Read what I said >>75173090
You guys clearly don't understand what it is that's supposed to make fugue writing hard. If you are comparing me to those I am criticizing for this case rather than actually looking at where I messed up in making the fugue, then you have no clue what you're talking about and have no place in this discussion.

>>75173048
Almost everything he writes is ugly but charming in its own weird, ugly way
I love it

>>75173160
>amateur babby is trying to defend his absolutely shitty fugue with teeth and nails
>although he has demonstrated no ability whatsoever, nor not even the most basic comprehension of the form he still thinks that he can assess how easy it is to write a Bach's fugue
>ahaha I swear it's not Dunning-Kruger Effect, just accept that fugue writing is easy based on my completely unsubstiated claism, for which I have demonstrated no affinity whatsoever
fuck, this is getting pathetic. the example I've made was right: you are a fat slob trying to prove that Olympionic running is easy because technically you can reach the end of the track.

>>75173222
Not at all. The more accurate analogy would be that "running 100m itself is actually easy because humans have the appendages to do such a feat". At no point so far have I admitted to being a good composer nor that my fugue is anything decent. Stop putting words into my mouth. I love how the argument has now gone from what we were discussing to now just my fugue because you guys know I am otherwise 100% right.

>>75173320
would you shit on Usain Bolt for being the fastest 100m runner? because you have shat on the best fugue writers in human history for fucking 200 posts. that clearly wasn't your point, since its so fucking stupid

>>75173352
>would you shit on Usain Bolt for being the fastest 100m runner? because you have shat on the best fugue writers in human history for fucking 200 posts. that clearly wasn't your point, since its so fucking stupid
You're comparing the physical talent to the creative at this point when talking "best", so you have officially gone full retard in terms of false equivalency.

>>75173078
Holy shit, JUST FUGUE MY SHIT UP

>>75173448
Fine. Were Petrarch and Dante retards because they were writing sonnets and poems in endecasyllabous meter?

File: wew.jpg (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

Thoughts on Tippett?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRXj2ka8iz4

>>75173078
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP0Lj41Kjno

>>75173562
wow that actually sounds quite a bit better

>>75173521
Nope, because the content of the poetry varied greatly from one another otherwise. There's a larger number of variables that Bach goes one way towards for me to make the criticism I do of him.

>>75173000
I'be listened to the fugue and... I'll ignore it. You've just proven that you don't know the first thing about fugue writing, and that obviously you don't have the musical tools necessary to analyze a Bach score.

>Not at all. i give specifications to where exactly they are samey.
In the form, and I have already exolained that the general form does not sccount for formalism, for it doesn't inform the composer about the local progression of melodies and harmonies. Bach fugues are a great example of it, but you have just proven us that you clearly do not have the ear nor the musical mind necessary to understand them. The other example I've made might be more up to your speed: Beethoven's sonatas. All of them follow the sonata form (the form is a bit tweaked in the later ones, but they are still essentially sonatas), yet very few of them are similar, and almost none of them follow the same musical logic.

>I limited myself to 20th century and after who didn't LIMIT themselves to just common practice techniques who also lacked variation in things like rhythm, dynamics, approach to cadences, etc.
At this point I don't really care about this opinion of yours, since you clearly do not have a basic understanding of baroque and common practice music. I mean, who cares? Ffs, you should have posted that fugue immediatly, so that I could have ignored you from the start. And with what courage do you fsthom yourself better than "performers"? I have taught to 12 years old kids who were more prepared than you.
Get a grip, and have a nice life.

Suggest me some Scriabin pieces.

>>75172989
Thanks to Rick Beato, I discovered this nifty little piece which has a few moments with distinguishable motiffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgSBs4Dq7Co

>>75173925
Also Stravinsky, but not the meme pieces (I have already seen most of them live)

>>75173925
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBwx_O08Jm8

>>75173875
>I'be listened to the fugue and... I'll ignore it. You've just proven that you don't know the first thing about fugue writing, and that obviously you don't have the musical tools necessary to analyze a Bach score.
>knows I wrote it exactly how it wassupposed to be written, thus won't analyze it

>In the form, and I have already exolained that the general form does not sccount for formalism
Neither account for what I am talking about though. Your structural example has no room here as we aren't talking structure.
>At this point I don't really care about this opinion of yours, since you clearly do not have a basic understanding of baroque and common practice music.
But you have to have cared enough to post since it's (my opinion) the very basis of all this posting you did.

This entire thread is basically one big argument about nothing. Bach perfected baroque counterpoint, music moved on. Haydn and Mozart perfected classical forms, music moved on. Romantic tonality became too chromatic to sustain itself, music moved on. Acknowledging that the old masters worked with limited toolsets and music moved on past it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be listened to or respected. Yes, you can imitate Bach, no, you won't be good at it. No, you shouldn't try to pass off a blatantly imitative fugue as a new composition (unless its purely a hobby in which case do whatever you want).
If your personal aesthetic sensibilities keep you from enjoying a Bach fugue, that's kinda your problem honestly. If someone thinks Bach's toolset is inferior to Stockhausen's toolset, it's not the end of the world. It's called having a subjective view.

>>75173981
Yadda yadda.

>>75173925
Poeme-Nocturne is beautiful, and it's extremely fun to play.

>>75173967
Have you ever listened to the Ebony Concerto?

>>75174044
>Yadda yadda.
Bach-fags btfo

>>75174033
>If someone thinks Bach's toolset is inferior to Stockhausen's toolset, it's not the end of the world
hol up lemme correct this

If someone dislikes Bach because Bach's toolset is inferior to Stockhausen's toolset, it's not the end of the world.

File: image.jpg (135KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1300x957px

>he deleted the fugue

>>75174105
t. Mentally disabled aborted fetus

>>75174158
really nigga you could've chosen ANY post in this thread at random and it would probably be a better fit

>>75172335
Okay it's gone, but I am certain this is an excerpt from Paul Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis. Like, listen to this shit, it sounds like the same thing

https://youtu.be/Sd3hvhnd7YU?t=28m4s

>>75174134
What I am saying may be why he did so. And I am guessing
>>75173048
>>75172796
>>75172676
guys already knew

>>75173967

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6EY50xnoyOA

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GfG5nAUczS0

If you ask me stravinsky was at his best when he was in this weird transitional state between his neoclassical and serial works. Too bad it was so short lived

>>75174213
It wasn't Ludus Tonalis.

File: csm_PH-Milhaud-Eiffelturm-Mai-1928_1412138da9.jpg (39KB, 423x660px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 423x660px

>>75174246
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTuOSwbho5Y

>>75174285
It wasn't from Hindemith's Ludus Tonalis, in fact it sounded nothing like that (although it had lots of short jumps too). I've composed it.

File: Portrait-New-York-1937-R-Hindemith.jpg (18KB, 729x256px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 729x256px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RthuLePDo3A

this is now a Hindemith thread

File: image.jpg (18KB, 300x180px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x180px

>>75174350
God no

This is now a Messianen thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2pwTP7g7xE

File: Hindemith-w-viola-200.jpg (33KB, 200x271px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 200x271px

>>75174390
*stares at u with disappointment*

File: image.jpg (48KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x495px

>>75174419
Hindemith, just stop. Look at me in the eyes. No, shut the fuck up and let me talk!
This is now my thread. Go playing your fucking tuba, or go compose some boring sonata or some Gebrauchsmusik, I don't care. The point is that this is now my thread.
Now let me play something sctually interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkwi3NxSk_8

>>75174285
I actually liked the piece and listened to it three times. So take it from me, it does seem like a blatant plagiary of this though not exactly the same

>>75174477
>Le ascension
Nice reddit composition

>>75174477
Hindemith can only look at ppl with bedroom eyes this is a scientific fact are you sure you want this (because I ship it)

File: rautavaara2-329cdf205fe4f848f54717232a31ec4722d7c444-s900-c85.jpg (111KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 900x675px

>>75174477
>>75174419
Step aside dummies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gwie4a3_zw

Telemann

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbOaufYd7ns

File: image.jpg (30KB, 314x333px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 314x333px

>>75174515

>>75174485
Does it sound like the time stamp that other anon provided for the whole thing itself?>>75174213

>>75174515
Dude I've composed it. It had similar jumps, but it was totally different.

File: harry potter.jpg (1MB, 1414x2193px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1414x2193px

>>75174528
*expelliarmus's u*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j54wZ0DK_Rg

>>75174564
save your excuses for the devil

>>75174552
of course, its the same piece

>>75174566
>bringing an A-lister to the B-list fight

That's not fair

File: 1438380661569.jpg (74KB, 927x685px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 927x685px

What did Hindemith mean by this?

File: 5aa5d6321cf7e5c16bef7f4ae6644980--super-funny-so-funny.jpg (10KB, 250x261px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x261px

>>75174646
Which ones Hindemith? Sorry but all bald dead white dudes look the same to me

File: 1446065081893.jpg (43KB, 395x470px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 395x470px

>>75174548
Fuck yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM0KCQKvlHw

File: csm_PH-und-Benn-beim-Eisenbahnsp_13dbbb488c.jpg (82KB, 684x660px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 684x660px

The Swiss harpsichordist Silvia Kind, who studied with Hindemith in Berlin, remembers the following:

>At that time he possessed 300 metres of track and the most sophisticated electric equipment with remote-control track switches and signals. On Sundays he could sit down and work out a meticulous timetable that would have done honour to any station manager. The hours in normal operation were represented in minutes, the minutes were in seconds. When the participants were together, the railroad was built up for a half a day through three rooms. Operation started in the afternoon; each person received a timetable and stopwatch, and had to operate a train that was required to adhere exactly to the indicated stops and passing places and arrive precisely at the right second. Mrs. Hindemith said that the men would often appear pale and exhausted at 2 or 3 in the morning and ask for schnapps, especially if Artur Schnabel, another railway fanatic, was present.

>>75174682
the one on the right I think

Hey artfriends, pop listener here. What's your take on Vulnicura Strings?

File: 1494435959555.jpg (76KB, 484x461px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 484x461px

>>75155591
>mp3

File: 1457889865295.jpg (46KB, 377x460px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 377x460px

>>75155591
>MP 3

File: 1467462161034.jpg (33KB, 480x405px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x405px

>>75155591
>em peg three

>>75175075
which composer is this

File: __maribel_hearn_and_usami_renko_touhou_drawn_by_ichiba_youichi__4b09a5edb8f76b87ee6597c9b4d4ea1f.png (680KB, 1023x723px) Image search: [Google]

680KB, 1023x723px

What pieces of music go well with pizza anons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GoX_rzHCY

genuinely curios if anyone can detect a difference between 320kbps mp3 and flac in a double blind test

>>75175146
extremely doubtful

an easy test is to do a frequency cut-off at roughly 15.5khz and see how loud the information above it is, and how loud you have to turn up your headphones/speakers to even make it out. in most cases the difference is so subtle you won't notice jackshit

>>75175144
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYSNJr4-1kk

>>75175119
thoven bee

hes a moor

>go to concert
>look at the program
>featured soloist is a violinist
>read his biography
>he got a phd in mathematics and music at age 18
Contemplating suicide here lads

File: 1494523453009.jpg (21KB, 332x298px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 332x298px

>>75175146
>>75175173
>he doesn't have golden ears

>>75175348
virtuosos make everyone feel like shit

>>75175362
practically everyone can hear above 15.5khz

File: 1501018980644.png (51KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 200x200px

>>75175348
Once you know math you can basically do anything.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3216

>>75175146

Yes, I could genuinely AB between the 2 while listening to orchestral music, the various instruments tend to clash together and become mud and the background 'fade' has an unnatural cut off. I've heard the encoders got better, but I don't see what the point is.

If you're looking for a lossy codec that really is a competitor to FLAC, it's OPUS. At 160kbps, it's already nearly impossible to pick out.

File: 1450690009792.png (141KB, 2020x1252px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 2020x1252px

>>75175535
>not just using flac
wew

>>75172385
Petzold lives.

File: audiophile-loves-music.jpg (23KB, 402x385px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 402x385px

>>75175590

...I do just use FLAC, but the guy asked about AB testing MP3s.

File: fumi_thumbs_up.png (169KB, 264x460px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 264x460px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eQTNYdc1cM

>>75175619
Why bother flac is better, you use flac then

>>75175734
Fucking ESL.

>>75175781
no ur just a cuck and a retard, flac is better

>>75175781
>trying to be elitist as an Anglo
Being an ESL is a privilege.

>>75176444
Apparently being able to parse English isn't included amongst those privileges.

>>75176463
The English language is designed to dumb down the expressive ability of the host. It's a slow, corrupting mechanism that turns you into a incoherent subhuman.
This is why being an ESL is a privilege.
>not being a Fench/German/Italian speaker
>still browsing /classical/

>>75176507
>It's a slow, corrupting mechanism that turns you into a incoherent subhuman.
Like >>75175941

>>75175379
Except other virtuosos

>>75176604
Depends on the level of the virtuoso, though.

I have never met a touring virtuoso who wasn't miserable. I guess life can be easy when you are Arturo Benedetto Michelangeli, living as a milionaire and being able to fuck up with any concert you want. Anything below thst is pure doom: costant overworking, justified by the fact that you are sure that in 15 years from now most likely people won't give a shit about you, since the next child prodigy will have popped up by then. And after that? A life of mediocrity, in which you are costantly aware of how, through aging, you are losing the greatest gift you've ever had, which, somehow, you've managed to waste by spending your entire life touring like a slave.

Now, composers who get commissions: that's a life I could live.

>>75176801
Nah, you only have to be insane, see Trifonov and Fray. If you aren't, why would you pick this career anyway.

File: 1501635874089.jpg (2MB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x1200px

>>75175535
.opus is sugoi

Let me just preface this by saying I am a complete and total philistine when it comes to classical shit

Can I get a rec for something similar to Rhapsody in Blue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH2PH0auTUU

I guess i'm looking for something playful and at times beautiful

>>75177105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZazYFchLRI

>>75176880
Because it's usually the best shot you've got, and because it is usually set by the time you are 15.
For every Trifonov there are 1500 soightly less talented Trifonovs who spend their lives prscticing 5 hours a day, teaching 2 and touring 8 months every year for shitty gigs, compared to what the top guys are actually getting.

Trust me, it's crushing.

How can I discern what enharmonic value an interval has? How am I supposed to know if a note is behaving as a diminished fourth or a minor third etc...?

/prod/ are absolute idiots and said I was overcomplicating things and being an autist when I asked this question.

>>75177842
major third I mean

>>75177401
I meant literally insane, though, as in barely able to function otherwise.

>piano virtuoso
>doesn't compose

Is there a bigger squandering of talent than this? I can't understand, if you've been playing piano your whole life and can create just about any musical effect and are versed in a wide variety of the classical repertoire how could you restrain the creative impulse to imagine a new piece?

>>75178063
A lot of piano virtuosi have composed. Many took up piano just to play their own works - sometimes they just don't get famous. Plenty of piano virtuosi with well known transcriptions, though.

>>75177842
when do diminished fourths even appear

>tfw learned sax instead of oboe as a kid

Oboe has to be superior in every single way Jesus Christ

>>75178063
Not everyone has the urge to compose. Of those who do, most suck.

>>75178091
I don't know, I told you I'm from /prod/ and they blew me off. So I don't even know how this enharmonic stuff is supposed to work except my best guess is the specific interval communicates something about the quality of the sound contextualized by the chord and surroundings. However all the material on enharmonics I looked at was just "hurr durr, da intervals da same" and not really elaborating on the point of enharmonics

File: 1438416737490.jpg (141KB, 543x405px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 543x405px

>>75178101
r u me
>realized I love the sound of oboe in 8th grade
>was the only alto saxophonist in the band so I had to keep going
>9th grade, sax section large enough to switch
>there already were two oboists who were actually good
>10th grade, one oboist graduated
>freshman oboist came in who is already godly at it
>11th grade, ANOTHER godly freshman oboist came in

>>75178063
Because they'll write fluff like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0UjvlV-_qY

Are there any composers who wrote in a truly classical milieu after the 20th century. Like just continued writing the sort of things Mozart Schubert or Beethoven would write?

>>75175348
Same anon
>before the concert starts, a guy sits next to me
>we start talking and he's really cool
>turns out he's friends with the conductor
>get to meet the conductor after the concert, first guy wants to stay in touch
>have a really awesome lyft driver home
Today was a good day lads. Felt like an episode of Frasier that went right

>>75178475
plot twist - you're a frasier screenwriter

>>75166300
I always liked this video and any of people improvising fugues. There is one of a guy getting a melody from the audience and improvising a very nice fugue on piano using the melody.

>Some bait about pop music becomes an argument over fugue writing
wow I really missed some shit.
I've been writing fugues almost exclusively for almost 2 years and I'm still nowhere near Bach's level. I may never get to his level - but this is an issue all post-Bach composers must deal with, either by trying really hard and studying the shit out of everything they can find, or by giving up and going in a different direction.
I will try to make my own path on the fugue, as one must write the music only they can write. Bach will always be a landmark of quality, charm, clarity and expression for fugue writing though.
My latest completed fugues are here, in chronological order with the most recent at the top:
https://soundcloud.com/psllbof

>>75178655
now Niles, that's simply preposterous.