The Classical Music Thread: Scriabin Edition

CheerfulBear

It's weird when I agree with Asiina.

Asiina

dun dun dun DUN!

Chen

less arguing more impossibly technical etudes

Spoiler:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ-NAgDpRVs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfN7xf6JymQ

Khavall

Chopin 10-4 is some fun-assed shit to play, let me tell you.

Khavall

Asiina wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

I just mainly don't understand why you are the universal decider on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Wait no, there's another thing I don't understand about your point: Why some time, effort, and training to listen to music is ok, but any more than what you have put in it pretentious tripe.

Did you read my post at all? The concept of something being aesthetically pleasing is not arbitrary. There are basic rules about some intervals being more pleasing than others. It exists, there's science! Whether a note "belongs" in a key is more arbitrary. And if parallel fifths make you scream then that's even more arbitrary (and requires a tonne of training to even know about).

None of this is the point though. The point is that claiming that someone not liking something (not finding it aesthetically pleasing) just doesn't get it is ridiculous, pretentious bullshit.

If you want to train yourself to think tritones are the bees-knees then go for it, but saying that someone who says it sounds terrible just doesn't get it is pretty insulting and shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how music is encoded in our brains. Which is why I list dissonant pieces in the "intellectual exercise" column rather than "aesthetically pleasing music".

Yeah, that was to the other guy who used no other qualifier than "Well... SHUT UP IT SHOULD BE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING(TO ME)"

You however haven't addressed the problem that for about 500 years or so music wasn't organized in this totally natural way, and that there is plenty of music from outside of the western tradition that also isn't organized by the obvious science.

And you seem to ignore that there is plenty of music that plenty of people enjoy that is against traditional structural tonality, and that tonality has been constantly evolving since pretty much ever. But no, it's all science and there is absolutely no learning involved in music, right? We'll just ignore the entirety of fucking history.

By the way, you know the simple explanation for why infants probably respond better to traditionally tonal sounds that doesn't ignore everything about the world?

Musical intervals that have been acceptable to be listened to have, over time, progressed up the harmonic overtone series. The simplest musical sounds to hear are Octaves, then Fifths, then Fourths, then Thirds.... amazing! As we have become more accustomed early on and been trained to hear more complex intervals through our lives, simply by being exposed to structurally tonal music, we start finding it easier to listen to the next steps up in the harmonic series. This doesn't mean that tonal music is any more natural than atonal music, it simply means that tonal music is simpler in structure than atonal music. In fact, I'm sure you'll find that it will also only explain certain intervals sounding consonant, with only slight carrying over to specific progressions sounding consonant, and I bet those progressions that sound consonant are also following the curve of the harmonic series.

Hey look, tonal music is no more or less artificial than atonal music. In fact, it looks like, by taking an explanation that doesn't just ignore the entirety of existence, atonal music is simply taking the next step in sophistication!


Oh and you know what? Everyone thinks tritones sound really pretty. Or has at some point, if they've ever seen West Side Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpdB6CN7jww&feature=fvw

HEY GET THAT UGLY SHIT OUT OF HERE, SCIENCE SAYS I'M WRONG, RIGHT?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that what is aesthetically pleasing isn't universal. How the hell do you have the gall to say that I'm spouting pretentious bullshit when you're applying your own tastes as a universal? Goddamn.




Oh and one final thing. If I look at any advanced physics equation it looks like meaningless scribbles. If I look at any advanced chemical formula it looks like meaningless letters. If I look at any blueprints they look like really uninteresting drawings. I don't claim that Physicists are all pretentious because they would say I just don't get it, because hey, I don't!

EggyToast

Ah, crazy shit. I personally like double bass placed prominently (or as a solo instrument) in music because, in my opinion, it has a sort of otherwordly sound to it. Even playing the same notes as a cello, the deep resonance gives it a quality that I just don't hear in other instruments.

Here's François Rabbath, who plays double bass. Two pieces in this clip are solo, the middle has piano accompaniment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyqe_TBitz0&feature=related

He's not the only crazy one -- this guy's actually somewhat known for playing virtuoso violin pieces on double bass. This is Catalin Rotaru playing a Paganini piece. The whole thing is pretty impressive but at 3 minutes+ is where it's really nuts (in the music and seeing it on this instrument).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rLscZEgu5Q

Incidentally I play double bass, arguably as a beginner. I'm learning this Koussevitsky piece now, but have a ways to go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJRwuK_zt_g

But there's a fair number of very entertaining modern compositions for double bass, too. One of my favorites is "Failing":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTW5UVZPqOk&feature=related

Khavall

Oh Failing. Tom Johnson, if I'm not mistaken. We once studied that in class. That class basically focused on "Fun shit". We also covered Cobra, which is a game with a huuuuge rule list with all sorts of moves that musicians can make. It can be really shitty, but it can also be really fun and make some interesting music.

Also we listened to a great recording of the piece where the guy continues to ramble on in an absolutely perfect speech pattern for a while into the improvised section until he finally broke off with "But I'm sure by now you've all noticed that I am well into the improvised part!"

It was pretty excellent.

Coinage

Asiina wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

I just mainly don't understand why you are the universal decider on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Wait no, there's another thing I don't understand about your point: Why some time, effort, and training to listen to music is ok, but any more than what you have put in it pretentious tripe.

Did you read my post at all? The concept of something being aesthetically pleasing is not arbitrary. There are basic rules about some intervals being more pleasing than others. It exists, there's science! Whether a note "belongs" in a key is more arbitrary. And if parallel fifths make you scream then that's even more arbitrary (and requires a tonne of training to even know about).

A lot of world music sounds very dissonant to Western ears because their scales are often completely different. Western tonality is not hardcoded into our brains.

Saying you don't get something is not pretentious! However, saying something has no value because you do not like it really is. It's fine if when you listen to free jazz you only hear noise, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

I just realized that nobody's posted any Penderecki.
Threnody

Tam

What no one likes Bach?

Lord Of The Pants

Coinage wrote: »

Asiina wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

I just mainly don't understand why you are the universal decider on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Wait no, there's another thing I don't understand about your point: Why some time, effort, and training to listen to music is ok, but any more than what you have put in it pretentious tripe.

Did you read my post at all? The concept of something being aesthetically pleasing is not arbitrary. There are basic rules about some intervals being more pleasing than others. It exists, there's science! Whether a note "belongs" in a key is more arbitrary. And if parallel fifths make you scream then that's even more arbitrary (and requires a tonne of training to even know about).

A lot of world music sounds very dissonant to Western ears because their scales are often completely different. Western tonality is not hardcoded into our brains.

Saying you don't get something is not pretentious! However, saying something has no value because you do not like it really is. It's fine if when you listen to free jazz you only hear noise, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

I just realized that nobody's posted any Penderecki.

Exactly. And with Schoenberg, how can deciding to create a piece of music that disregards 1000s of years of tonal development be anything other than an extremely creative concept? I understood it not to be "Oh, this tonality shit is wack." but "Everything being made at this time is derivative to music from Beethoven and Mozart's time." So therefore, I need to find away to create something completely new and fresh.

In addition, Stravinsky, after buggering around in France, moved to America where he started writing twelve tone pieces, which are quite nice. In fact, Stravinsky's music is modern, but very pleasing at the same time.

Just because you don't like the Mountain brothers (Berg is German four mountain right? And there was another guy, whose name escapes me because it doesn't have "Berg" in it.) doesn't mean that all modern music is noise and shit.

Apart from 12-Tone opera. That shit can die in a fire. (I jest)

And addition, don't give us the "Rules of dissonance", because without dissonance we wouldn't have the V7 chord which wouldn't give us the perfect cadence which wouldn't give us Western Music. The question is rather "Does dissonance need to be resolved?" not is dissonance bad. Because dissonance is in no way shape or form bad.

Scalfin

Coinage wrote: »

Asiina wrote: »

Khavall wrote: »

I just mainly don't understand why you are the universal decider on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Wait no, there's another thing I don't understand about your point: Why some time, effort, and training to listen to music is ok, but any more than what you have put in it pretentious tripe.

Did you read my post at all? The concept of something being aesthetically pleasing is not arbitrary. There are basic rules about some intervals being more pleasing than others. It exists, there's science! Whether a note "belongs" in a key is more arbitrary. And if parallel fifths make you scream then that's even more arbitrary (and requires a tonne of training to even know about).

A lot of world music sounds very dissonant to Western ears because their scales are often completely different. Western tonality is not hardcoded into our brains.

Saying you don't get something is not pretentious! However, saying something has no value because you do not like it really is. It's fine if when you listen to free jazz you only hear noise, but that doesn't mean that's what it is.

I just realized that nobody's posted any Penderecki.
Threnody

I just listened to five minutes of screeching. Did he really need to make that ten minutes long rather than, say, one?

saggio

There is a copious lack of Ralph Vaughn Williams in this thread.

Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7nJL1hpUU

Rhosymedre from Three Preludes on Welsh Hymn Tunes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttaIhugsIo

Also, everyone should listen to Vaughn-Williams' Symphony No. 5. The final movement is my favourite. Unfortunately I can't find it on youtube, so you'll just have to imagine how awesome it is.

RubberAC

Tam wrote: »

What no one likes Bach?

I lurve bach tam
i have a bach collection that i picked up on the way to go camping one year for about 4 bux
best camping music

Scalfin

So have any of you guys heard of Avner Dorman? He's good. This is his most famous work,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic23howPAoM

but I prefer some of the other works he has on his site.