i dont like stravinsky
/classical/
I listed to the Boulez earlier this morning. I don't like it as much as the Bernstein or Markevich. It's a bit too soft in places, and the sound staging quiets several parts that should be very loud IMO.
we didn't. bad form exists
Yes we did, you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.
no, the topic of this discussion is form
Not really.
that would be correct
that sounds like your problem.
I accept your concession.
again, if i have two melodies in C major and one of them is transposed to F# major
Depends entirely on the context, the underlying harmony, rhythm, form, etc.
sorry, but no one here is interested in you parroting the words of people more intelligent than you.
You asked, and you recieved. And no musicologist, music theorist or anyone related is intelligent, the only exceptions are the great composers. The intelligent people are all in STEM (especially math, physics).
form can be fundamentally expressive
You admitted yourself: "the goal of form is coherence"
sorry, you don't get to decide what's on topic
I already did.
canonical composer
As in western canon? High culture rubbish.
a form chart of any given tchaikovsky work would look near identical to a hundred other nameless forgotten composers.
And his melody resonates more with the mind than any other composer's melody, which is exactly why he is cherished, listened to and played to this day.
proof?
Your posts disappeared twice. That's simply how it works.
had to change his tripcode
Already debunked pretty sure, but I'm not going to whiteknight him, you're being a hypocrite to everyone's eyes.
Rec for a good recording of Schubert String Quartet No. 14 (Death and the Maiden)?
Capet
Heutling
More like Peemann
Yes we did, you don't like it, doesn't mean it's bad.
no we didn't. bad form exists independent of my personal preferences.
Not really.
yes really. go talk to someone else if you want to discuss something else, or better yet, mind your own business.
I accept your concession.
indian illiteracy at its finest.
Depends entirely on the context, the underlying harmony, rhythm, form, etc.
i already gave you the context: totally unrelated. also, form doesn't apply to melodies LOL
You asked, and you recieved.
i asked for your analysis of tchaikovsky's form and i haven't received anything. still waiting btw.
And no musicologist, music theorist or anyone related is intelligent
and yet you're even dumber than mere music theorists, how embarrassing.
You admitted yourself: "the goal of form is coherence"
the goal of harmony is consonance too, but that hasn't stopped pages upon pages from being written on the proper handling of dissonance.
I already did.
afraid not. go talk to someone else or mind your own business.
As in western canon? High culture rubbish.
you're in a thread dedicated to discussing composers central to the western canon, maybe try instead if that's above you.
And his melody resonates more with the mind than any other composer's melody
sorry, but facts don't care about your feelings, or the feelings of any other indian citizen.
Your posts disappeared twice.
proof that either of them received bans or warnings?
Already debunked pretty sure, but I'm not going to whiteknight him
lol, indians are so spineless.
takacs is good
They're both among the top, depends on your own preference at that point. Why choose?
the missa solemnis is the better setting of the text, huge portions of the mass in B minor are reused from totally unrelated pieces and even within the piece itself.