Dvorak edition
youtu.be
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
hear an aria from opera
hate it
hear the same melody on piano
oh wow, what a beautiful melody
Why does the human voice suck so much?
I don't even hate the "normal" singing in every other genre (folk, rock w/e), but when I hear vibrato on every note I just get irritated
Official GOAT Mozart conductors (at least when they were in good health)
Blech
Kleiber sr.
Markevitch
Busch
Klemperer
Fricsay
Beecham
Monteux
Lehmann
Vegh
It's amazing that people with opinions this embarrassing have no self awareness to hide their plebianism
Opera is a degenerate genre which could only be explained by the lack of taste found in Italy.
If I was alive when it was actually relevant I’d hate the over the top subversiveness of it. A few centuries out, it’s just quaint old timey people doing quaint old timey things.
I really love the economy of storytelling in opera. So much stuff happens in every scene, but not really because it’s just a lot of conversations with music behind it to give it emotional weight. I’m always impressed by how entertainingly a story can be told even when breaking the cardinal rule of “show, don’t tell” so flagrantly.
Puccini
Germans made kino with the form though
Are the lyrics to opera music easily intelligible to people who speak the language it was written in?
Why are the greatest Beethoven symphonies all numbered in multiples of 3?
I generally can understand bits and pieces of German opera but still need subs or a libretto.
Granted, I'm Dutch and never learned German. But people always call my language swamp German so it counts.
Those are the A-tier symphonies. 5 and 7 are S-tier
5 and 7 are A-tier, 3 6 and 9 are S tier.
I like woodwinds alot and I really like when composers make the woodwind section do wild stuff in symphonies. What are some composers that agree with me and make very woodwind-oriented symphonies?
8 > all.
It's not really as good as the one before or after
Based
Love me Christmas carols. Does anyone know a good recording of O du Froliche or
In the Bleak Midwinter?
youtube.com
What's special about 8?
dvorajak has a fair presence of woodwings in his earlier symphonies. mahler more so.
nope. it's still not december.
woodwings
whimsical typo
Why was Wagner such a Chad?
Wagner had already seduced Bülow's sister, when he got tired decided to try with his wife, who was known to be an easy woman. Then Cosima had two daughters from him which Bülow had to cover up with his surname, to save his image. Bülow kept conducing Wagner's works, until Wagner fired him and run away with his wife. Liszt later called this "a moral homicide".
Wagner was a complete sperg generally, how did he score so easily?
Dvorak wrote the best requiem.
Not quite what you're talking about, but when I listen to choral music that's in English I can barely understand it.
damn thought the Barbirolli Brahms cycle would be quite interesting and dynamic but it's pretty plain jane. not bad, but not the usual Barbirolli treatment
When did continuo stop being used? Seems that Haydn tended to use continuo in his symphonies, though at a fortepiano.
It's pretty good, but I disagree. Favorite recording?
spends entire life shitting on classical conventions
disrespectful to Haydn, cutting class even though he had a rich benefactor paying a full stipend for him
goes into a midlife crisis or some shit and decides to write a symphony in honor of Haydn and the classical era
I hate this symphony on principle.
that's probably because he had a competent orchestra with him (vienna)
Being rich and famous helps.
having a euphoric aesthetic experience listening to Stravinsky's Apollo musagete rn like never before
youtube.com
side note: as much as I love Karajan, his Rite of Spring on this release is no good; in one ear, out the other type of performance, but the Apollo is an all-timer
how can you claim to have a euphoric aesthetic experience, whatever that means, when the recording you're listening to is no good?
Because the recording contains Rite of Spring and Apollo, and the Apollo is the amazing listen.
okay but can you define what a euphoric aesthetic experience is?
Fancy way of saying the music is really good and makes me feel really good, as almost all music reviews are :)
where in your body is this euphoric aesthetic experience taking place?
Also Stravinski here. Hope it is good.
Incorrect, name ones you find better then. Herreweghe.
Brahms, Berlioz, Mozart.
And alright will give that one a try, thanks -- I usually listen to Kertesz's, which is indeed really great.
im considering my options. delete stravinsky now or later when the accumulation of stravinsky posts become too much for me to bear...
you listened to a bad singer
Colin Davis is usually a safe bet, haven't heard his Stravinsky though. I also hope it's good for your sake!
Süssmayr's requiem
Opinion disregarded.
over half of it is Mozart and the supposed "Sussmayr" portions (such as the Benedictus and Agnus Dei) are still good.
vaughan williams' 3rd 'pastoral' into his 2 war symphonies, the 4th and 6th :)
youtube.com
In the same parts of my body where pleasure from sex, love, and drugs take place: my limbs, chest, and heart.
Also, nice as Dvorak's Requiem is, I think his Stabat Mater is his real choral masterpiece. Again though, I'll check out Herreweghe's Requiem after I finish what I'm currently listening to.
wrong. pleasure from sound is stimulated by your brain. the not knowing of this is more evidence in my assessment of your chraracter, that, you are no different than a base animal who thinks only of sex twenty four seven.
It obviously starts and processes in the brain, but the resulting pleasure takes place in the rest of the body, at least for the kind of euphoric pleasure I'm talking about, which is separate from a cerebral, contemplative aesthetic experience.
everything begins and ends with your brain. that is what you just stated. vulgar and repulsive are the only words that come to mind when i think about what you do when listening to compositions.
kek, you always crack me up, anon, nice chat, looking forward to the next one :)
I can't take it seriously if it doesn't carry his pen authorship.
no amen fugue
The orchestral writing in the requiem makes it so good. I like the drama a lot. And uniquely it has beautiful uplifting moments that I usually don't find in requiems. I never really got into the stabat mater.
Let me tell you how you feel
I never really got into the stabat mater.
Try Kubelik's or Shaw's recording if you ever feel like giving it another go; the former for lush, romantic orchestration, the latter for choral clarity more akin to Herreweghe.
everything begins and ends with your brain
well yes, obviously.
thank you for backing me up on the matter. i knew i was right, but your validation puts me above the rest.
We feel for anon's trap card
fell*
uh you're welcome
On a first listening I got the impression that a standalone (audio only) experience is not optimal.
Can't say I've ever watched any of Stravinsky's ballets; hell, I forget they're ballets and not just orchestral suites or tone-poems or whatever. I should get on that...
Woods, women and wine
youtube.com
Living Stereo is so good brehs
extremely wise
honestly, the rest are so bad that this may be correct just through process of elimination alone. truly a second rate genre.
brahms
not an actual requiem
mozart
not actually by mozart
berlioz
lol
if only munch were faster, this is just too slow.
extremely wise
Oh, thanks insomniac.
zoomer retard wants things to go fast
if only munch were faster, this is just too slow.
its already faster than most recordings ive heard, dafuq?
oh, you were just parroting the one thing tchaikovsky was right about. explains a lot.
no, i just respect and agree with beethoven’s metronome markings.
not up to beethoven’s metronome markings, not fast enough.
Really? Based Tchaikovsky.
yeah, tchaikovsky claimed that the finale of the 8th was beethoven’s masterpiece as far as orchestral music goes; makes you wonder why his own music isn’t half as good.
that is the same thing as wanting things to go fast, zoomer retard
respecting the composer = retarded
LOL, why play beethoven at all if you think he’s so stupid?
Oh come on, I wouldn't say Beethoven isn't half as good as Tchaikovsky, that's taking it a little too far. But, I would say all 9 and Tchai's 5&6 are of equal worth as far as symphonies go.
i realize that syntax is very difficult for you, so allow me to elaborate. the phrase zoomer retard was used to describe your character, not beet's. you are, and always have been, a zoomer retard.
nah, tchaikovsky isn’t half as good as beethoven’s most irrelevant ditty and his last 3 symphonies are formally lopsided, contrapuntally incoherent messes that scrape by on virtue of their (very bare) melodic content and the extramusical homosexual tragedy of their composer alone.
if agreeing with beethoven’s instructions makes me a zoomer retard, then beethoven must have been a zoomer retard too, since he gave those instructions in the first place. but really, i shouldn’t be bothering to explain this to someone who hasn’t taken their pills.
no, you being a zoomer retard is mutually exclusive to wanting things to be played fast. i have referred to you as a retarded zoomer on multiple occassions, for instance > i shouldn’t be bothering to explain this
that's not something i expected to read from the likes of you. when pressed on what you mean by things, you always deflect and repeat ad nauseam. pills this, pills that. schizo this, shizo that.
is mutually exclusive to wanting things to be played fast.
no, i just want things to be played to beethoven's metronome markings. nothing more, nothing less. they're not fast to me because they're what beethoven instructed, anything more would be fast, and anything less (the vast majority of performances) would be slow. does this help your schizophrenic brain comprehend this very basic concept?
i have referred to you as a retarded zoomer on multiple occassions
don't care, take your pills.
As long as it's coherent, formality doesn't mean a thing. It is very much coherent enough, in its own way, and melody is the soul of music. Good luck proving Beet's melodies are superior to Tchai's.
justify it all you'd like, but if you want a bpm to be played faster, that means you want it more fast, retard zoomer.
As long as it's coherent, formality doesn't mean a thing.
except it's precisely because it's formally imbalanced that it's incoherent.
in its own way,
like saying that the voices in your head "are real in their own way", ie. they're not.
and melody is the soul of music.
just listen to pop music at that point then. the point of classical music is that the written nature of compositions allows them to have long scale formal and motivic development; if all you care about is contours on a staff, then stick to radio music.
Good luck proving Beet's melodies are superior to Tchai's.
i'll take literally any melody in the missa solemnis over an entire symphony by tchaikovsky.
but if you want a bpm to be played faster
no, i want a BPM to be taken to beethoven's instructions. i don't care if that means playing it faster or slower. do you need me to repeat this extremely basic idea for a 4th time?
if only munch were faster, this is just too slow.
maybe it's because you're a retarded zoomer that you fail to understand the basic meaning behind words. websters 1913 dictionary defines as, adverb, "in a fast or rapid manner."
maybe it's because you're a retarded zoomer that you fail to understand the basic meaning behind words.
in this specific instance, munch was slower than beethoven's metronome marking, so i desired faster so he could match beethoven's metronome marking. if munch or anyone else were faster than beethoven's metronome marking, i would have said "if only X were slower, this is just too fast." am i going to have to repeat myself for a 5th time, you schizophrenic retard?
if munch or anyone else were faster than beet's metronome marking...
you seem to have a knack for irrelevant and meandering points of interest. why you wanted the bpm to be played faster is beside the point. you either did or did not want it to be played at a more fast tempo. what about this is too difficult for you to understand, redtarded zoomer?
why you wanted the bpm to be played faster is beside the point.
yep, it’s a certified schizophrenic moment. take your pills.
oh, here we go again. zoomer retard is unable to reason properly.
said the schizophrenic who's unable to differentiate between arbitrarily wanting everything to be played faster and wanting everything to match the composer's metronome marking regardless of result. what a sad state of existence LOL
it's incoherent
And I disagree. Western models aren't definitive.
just listen to pop music at that point then. the point of classical music is that the written nature of compositions allows them to have long scale formal and motivic development;
Yet I don't get the same enjoyment from pop music that I get from Tchaikovsky. Why?
For many reasons you're too stubborn to accept. If a small deviation in form is enough to lump classical with pop then you don't like classical music.
i'll take
And I won't.
said the retarded zoomer who is unable to admit that he prefers faster tempos on some compositions to the point where long, irrelevant walls of text are made to obscure his preferences. pathetic.
And I disagree. Western models aren't definitive.
read the OP: This thread is for the discussion of music in the Western classical tradition. if you're not following western models, then go to another thread.
Yet I don't get the same enjoyment from pop music that I get from Tchaikovsky. Why?
i don't know what goes on in the indian mind, i don't care to explain it.
If a small deviation in form is enough to lump classical with pop
well executed deviations in form are actually what differentiate textbook examples of form from truly great form. the difference is that tchaikovsky's deviations in form are not justified by his musical material, nor his skill in motivic development (which is practically nil), nor do they work in practice. even you implicitly admitted that his music is formally imbalanced "by western standards", aka the only standards that matter in this thread.
said the retarded zoomer who is unable to admit that he prefers faster tempos on some compositions
i prefer the composer's instructed metronome markings on some compositions. whether or not it's faster than the standard performance practice is totally irrelevant.
the justification doesn't matter when it is a question of whether you want it to be played faster or not. maybe you need a little refresher comma "if only munch were faster, this is just too slow."
the justification doesn't matter
LOL, apparently "reasoning properly" just means a mentally ill retard screeching "YOU CANT LIKE BEETHOVEN PLAYED FASTER EVER BECAUSE... YOU JUST CAN'T OK?", who knew?
no one ever said that it being played fast is a bad thing, retarded zoomer
if you're not following western models
Western models aren't just about form, but instrumental, harmony etc.
i don't care to explain it.
Then you would do well to mind your own business. "This thread is for the discussion" - see, if you're unwilling to discuss and instead throw shit at every given moment, maybe you should seek shelter someplace else >well executed deviations
Which is not defined by you.
From the last thread:
i just don’t slavishly adhere to production quality as my only metric for recordings
And yet you slavishly adhere to form as your only metric for good music. Lack of IQ seems to be the issue here.
I hate your pseudointellectual faggots so much.
Why are conductors put on a pedestal? Mozart is the real genius, not any of those fags on your list.
and i never said that anyone ever said that, mentally ill freak.
Western models aren't just about form, but instrumental, harmony etc.
but they are also about form, which is the topic at hand. try to stay on track, will you?
Then you would do well to mind your own business.
you're the one who started replying to me about tchaikovsky, pajeet. why don't you keep your nose out of my asshole and quit sniffing my shit?
Which is not defined by you.
you want an example? sure.
in the finale of beethoven's 8th symphony, beethoven ends his primary subject in a completely unexplained non-chord tone, a loud unison C#. this note comes up in every instance of the primary subject throughout the sonata structure of the work and goes totally unexplained until the coda, where beethoven uses it as the dominant of F# minor and as justification for modulation to a completely alien and foreign key, which itself is resolved back to F major, thus resolving both the traversal to a foreign key and the original disturbance created by the C# which instigated it. this is a perfect example of how beethoven used his motivic material as impetus for large scale deviations in form. can you name anything similar in any moment of tchaikovsky's music? probably not, because a): it doesn't exist and b): you're not musically literate enough to comprehend music in this manner.
And yet you slavishly adhere to form as your only metric for good music.
untrue. the point was that beethoven's 8th is a work of formal genius and tchaikovsky was clearly intelligent enough to recognize this, so it leads one to wonder why his own form was so weak. tchaikovsky obviously has other weaknesses, like his lack of motivic development and contrapuntal skill, but they're not relevant to this discussion. again, please try to stay on topic.
Anyone who uses their brain and thinks about things and debates others is a pseudointellectual! Searching for truth and mutual understanding is cringe!
yikes
woodwinds
Beloved here. Celebrated.
wpwgs
Anyone have a vinyl rip of the living stereo Munch Beethoven 8th Symphony recording? I can find plenty of the recording of the ninth on there, but none of the 8th on the same vinyl
but they are also about form
But also not JUST about form. Tchaikovsky's form is still rooted in the western traditions. It wouldn't exist without it.
you're the one who started replying to me about tchaikovsky,
No it was you who mentioned Tchaikovsky first right here Dementia seems to be kicking in, insomniac.
can you name anything similar in any moment of tchaikovsky's music?
No, Tchaikovsky is not Beethoven, thankfully. If I want a Beethoven symphony, I'll listen to Beethoven.
I could name something else, or better yet, this author already did:
bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com
you're not musically literate enough to comprehend music in this manner.
I do comprehend it, but not to that detail, at least not yet, maybe never if I choose so. But everything aside, I don't need to be able to put it intk words since I'm not a musicologist nor is this a musicologist thread.
so it leads one to wonder why his own form was so weak
Except that is just your opinion, so you'll have to answer that on your own.
again, please try to stay on topic
We are on the topic at this moment.
he's just sulking over how arguments that i get other people wrapped up in go nowhere. what he doesnt understand, however, is that my argumentative approach is central to my comedic perspective, and it's something that i've been consciously working towards (being more funny).
dvorak is my favorite black composer
But also not JUST about form. Tchaikovsky's form is still rooted in the western traditions.
yes, that's why we're discussing tchaikovsky on /classical/ and not on Anon Babble. the point is that tchaikovsky's forms are bad executions of the western tradition.
No it was you who mentioned Tchaikovsky first right here
i know literacy isn't your strong suit, but i never said you were the one who started mentioning tchaikovsky; i said that you're the one who started replying to me about him, like in here and here . why don't you take your own advice and mind your own business instead of bothering me about your opinion on second rate composers?
I could name something else, or better yet, this author already did:
so in other words, you don't actually understand what's being discussed and are unable to formulate your own argument, and therefore must parrot someone else's which you don't understand either. got it.
I do comprehend it
then post your own argument in favor of tchaikovsky's form, not someone else's.
I'm not a musicologist
neither am i; we're not discussing musicology.
nor is this a musicologist thread.
it's a thread for the discussion of western classical music, which includes musicology of western classical music. so even if we were indeed discussing musicology, it would be completely on topic.
Except that is just your opinion
which i've expounded on and provided evidence for with formal analysis, as opposed to you who is unable to do either.
We are on the topic at this moment.
yeah, because you had to be herded to do so.
What about Beethoven?
Brahms Cello Sonatas, this time with Weilerstein & Barnaran (my previous listening was with Rummel & Stroissnig)
don't think most people ITT own vinyls
That's funny, I tried that same recording the other day when looking up recordings released in the 2020s. I also listened to Muller-Schott/Piemontesi, which I'd recommend as well.
"If it's not at Beethoven's metronome markings it sucks," he said, with smugness.
"I recommend Schuricht's Beethoven 9th," he said, unironically.
schuricht’s 9th could be a lot faster in the slow movement and portions of the finale, but the reason i like his 9th has nothing to do with tempi and everything to do with sonority and phrasing.
So you get it. Tempo isn't everything.
Don't forget about Verdi and Cherubini
but tempi that wildly deviate from the metronome markings are extremely detrimental to the music, which is the case for most versions of the eroica. comparatively, schuricht’s 9th is not that much slower than the metronome marking in the first movement, for example; i’m willing to give up that last 5% for a far superior orchestral tone than any orchestra that’s taken it at the exact proper speed.
5%
Bit of a understatement.