Saviour of classical music edition
This thread is for the discussion of music in the Western classical tradition.
How do I get into classical?
This link has resources including audio courses, textbooks and selections of recordings to help you start to understand and appreciate classical music:
pastebin.com
very based edition, schoenberg was a conservative
Disliking Schoenberg is a sign of low musical intelligence.
There's a reason why every major (good) composer for the past hundred years has absolutely adored Schoenberg and been deeply inspired by his work. And that reason is because the music that Schoenberg created was simply brilliant.
If you don't Iove the dodecaphonic style compared to other syles thats one thing. But you have to respect the ingenious of Schoenberg’s work.
Disliking Schoenberg is like disliking Wittgenstein or Nikola Tesla. It comes off as ignorant.
The perfect Beethoven Piano Concerto cycle
Dubs of truth
"As for Wagner, Heidegger despised him. In the Notebooks, Heidegger condemns Wagner and his effect on mass culture, excoriating his swoon-inducing compositions as part of the modern role of art as fulfilling the ever-hungrier cravings for excitement and raw feeling as a distraction from the ever-increasing emptiness of the age. [11]."
perfectly mediocre
Name 1 flaw
I've noticed parallels with other types of music. People say Schoenberg is just random garbage with no rhyme or reason and that he was a fraud. They say the same thing about free jazz, too.
All perceive is meaningless dissonant chaos which to them sounds like unrefined noise. However, when you understand the evolution of the music then you can understand, at the very least, that there is in fact some meaning embedded within the music. It isn't random - it is carefully constructed and is in fact communicating something.
With Schoenberg, you have to understand that the music still contains patterns. There is still form, themes, development, etc. It has all of the details normally found in music, except it is lacking in one: the conventions of tonality.
Schoenberg might require many more listens than other composers before it "clicks." This is primarily because it is so different from what we are used to. The lack of tonality makes form harder to recognize and melodies harder to remember. But eventually - it can be comprehended.
Schoenberg also recommended that you become familiar with his early works before moving on to his later ones. Then you can see how the transition might be somewhat gradual and logical.
mediocrity
perfectly shit
the main one is that it sounds awful
Try to image a name that goes harder than Arcangelo Corelli.
You can't.
no argument
no one is arguing, it’s pretty self evident that hogwood sucks hog.
Speaking of free jazz,
I fucking love Sun Ra.
Bet people would say similar things about Sun Ra in particular.
not /classical/, try instead
You have not given a single flaw, Hogwood is best beethoven interpreter confirmed
HIPtards fighting over which pile of shit is the stinkiest rofl
i gave one back here
thrilling discussion. truly this general is a meeting of the minds.
as if I couldn't find Heidegger any dumber
now playing (D. 845 & D. 850)
start of Schubert: Piano Sonata No. 16 in A Minor, Op. 42, D. 845
youtube.com
start of Schubert: Piano Sonata No. 17 in D Major, Op. 53, D. 850 "Gasteiner"
youtube.com
More like, as usual, Heidegger was on point and powerfully insightful.
what does the phrase meeting of the minds mean? responses that rely on a search engine will be subsequently ignored.
I feel that.
Heidegger was already outdated at his own time
Holy based
Anon, that's not only incorrect, it's nonsensical. Heidegger's philosophy is revolutionary, paradigm-shifting, its own entire distinctive way of doing philosophy with unique concepts and method, it literally makes zero sense to call it 'outdated,' it doesn't work that way. Ask on Anon Babble or Anon Babble to found out more.
Heidegger's philosophy was revolutionary for a generation of egghead obscurantists, maybe
Ah, the comfiness of early music
This isn't entirely accurate. You can read Heidegger's Nietzsche lectures to see what he really thought of Wagner. He agreed with Nietzsche's categorisation of Wagner as a decadent, but also thought that Wagner preserved a vision of Greece and the significance of art in a low-period of German culture.
And to be fair to Wagner, Heidegger knew practically nothing about classical music and thought Carl Orff was a good composer. For him, words lent music its higher significance. So the Ode to Joy and Carmina Burana were great works of music because they supported great literary works. As a side consequence of Heidegger's critique of Wagner, any aesthetics that elevates music to an equality with poetry, or to any sphere beyond the merely diverting, is by necessity decadent and inextricably bound up with metaphysics. So the writings of Hoffmann, Schopenhauer and so many others on music become void. Heidegger particularly hated Schopenhauer.
Heidegger was such a godawful philosopher christ alive
That's like saying Brahms was a bad composer, embarrassing and clueless.
And now, some Spanish fellas singing
feels like a Swan Lake night
start of Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake, Op. 20
youtube.com
Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake, with it's story of magical transformations, love and deceit and it's irresistibly melodic score, defines Romantic ballet. It is no coincidence that conductor André Previn has described himself as "a complete romantic" and that this recording has become a classic of the catalogue. When it was made in 1976, Previn had spent the best part of a decade as Principal Conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra. With their combination of show business flair and deep sensitivity, he and the LSO's players proved to be the ideal team for Tchaikovsky's glorious ballet music.
And now, some more awful and ugly cover art
?
They look fine, and even pretty good for custom-made, personal use. Stop being an asshole.
Heidegger thought Carl Orff was a good composer
thanks for letting me know, I will now disregard everything he ever had to say
*correct and self-evident
question mark
enter
The ensemble is staring off into the distance not because they are reflecting on a matter of importance, but rather that intent is what they want captured on camera. In other words, they are deceitful fakers pretending to be something they're not. They are dressed in modern clothes, and the picture itself is overly saturated which is hard on the eyes. The man on the far left has his crotch spread wide as the ocean behind him, which is probably why anon chose the image. There's too much open space on the left, right and bottom of the picture. This practice of copy pasting a picture with huge margins is so ugly and awful. Where is the production or distribution logo? The font type used is the same throughout. The choice of blue in the album title is embarrassing. While it is true the cover is acceptable for those with lower standards, it remains to be an issue precisely because anon thought his process was acceptable enough to share another custom made cover. Meaning that, he's not only unaware of his surroundings, as was expressed yesterday, but he is also stubborn enough to ignore criticism when it had been generously provided.
thank you schizo.ai
retard zoomer
Where is the production or distribution logo?
Of unnoficial recording
mfw
I dont care about the bios of composers or performers, but its a shame that so many beautiful music works of old is from anonymous authors.