Oh, dude. My Funny Valentine is my favourite jazz ballad EVER. I have so many different versions of it...With my all time favourite being JJ Johnson and Stan Getz. Just amazing, that is.
Anyway...Yes, it's a bassoon at the very beginning of The Rite of Spring. It starts on the C above middle C and goes up to the D (or E, I can never remember) just above that. It's incredibly hard to play...Which sucks because you have to play it for every stupid freaking audition.
According to Stravinsky, later in his life bassoon players started getting so good he wished he'd written it higher.
Anyway, I just spent too much money on:
Beethoven - Missa Solemnis
Bartók - Divertimento, Dance Suite, Two Pictures
Stravinsky - Probably about 10-15 small works, including the Concerto in D
Elendil on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Oh, dude. My Funny Valentine is my favourite jazz ballad EVER. I have so many different versions of it...With my all time favourite being JJ Johnson and Stan Getz. Just amazing, that is.
Anyway...Yes, it's a bassoon at the very beginning of The Rite of Spring. It starts on the C above middle C and goes up to the D (or E, I can never remember) just above that. It's incredibly hard to play...Which sucks because you have to play it for every stupid freaking audition.
According to Stravinsky, later in his life bassoon players started getting so good he wished he'd written it higher.
Anyway, I just spent too much money on:
Beethoven - Missa Solemnis
Bartók - Divertimento, Dance Suite, Two Pictures
Stravinsky - Probably about 10-15 small works, including the Concerto in D
You'll love it. I'm going to listen to it right now. Thanks.
So, right now I'm in the middle of getting all the Chopin I can from classiccat, and it's taking bloody forever because of all the recordings. What are some suggestions for who I should get next off of them? The more recordings available the better, since I like to have complete collections.
So, right now I'm in the middle of getting all the Chopin I can from classiccat, and it's taking bloody forever because of all the recordings. What are some suggestions for who I should get next off of them? The more recordings available the better, since I like to have complete collections.
So, right now I'm in the middle of getting all the Chopin I can from classiccat, and it's taking bloody forever because of all the recordings. What are some suggestions for who I should get next off of them? The more recordings available the better, since I like to have complete collections.
Of Chopin, or new artists?
New artists. I've finally finished getting everything of his I could; right now I have a ridiculous 129 tracks of his.
Pianosociety.com has an excellent list of his compositions, incidentally. Has year, key, and opus numbers, all organised by type.
So, right now I'm in the middle of getting all the Chopin I can from classiccat, and it's taking bloody forever because of all the recordings. What are some suggestions for who I should get next off of them? The more recordings available the better, since I like to have complete collections.
Of Chopin, or new artists?
New artists. I've finally finished getting everything of his I could; right now I have a ridiculous 129 tracks of his.
Pianosociety.com has an excellent list of his compositions, incidentally. Has year, key, and opus numbers, all organised by type.
I'm a big backer of Mahler. If you haven't checked him out, do so. His 5th Symphony's a nice introduction.
Listening to Elliott Carter's cello sonata right now. Surprisingly lyrical considering the other Carter work I've heard.
Elendil on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited January 2006
As a pianist, I am in love with both Chopin and Rachmaninoff and would probably suck their dicks if they were still around. Multiple times. Chopin's Ballade in G Minor is a special one for me, also Rach's Prelude in G Minor. I think I just like G minor.
As a pianist, I am in love with both Chopin and Rachmaninoff and would probably suck their dicks if they were still around. Multiple times. Chopin's Ballade in G Minor is a special one for me, also Rach's Prelude in G Minor. I think I just like G minor.
It pains me that I don't listen to enough classical music, because pretty much every time I do, I end up loving what is recommended to me, but I'd usually just rather play it. I just started to realize that Kuhlau is a really fun composer to play - I'm in a flute quartet playing his Grand Quartet in e minor and I love it (a group I was in last year did the grand trio last year, just as awesome).
I also really love the more modern wind band stuff with a lot of dissonance, I'm thinking right now of one the UVic Wind Symphony is rehearsing right now, Babi Yar by Morton Gould. It's from an old TV special about the holocaust and when you play/hear it you can imagine these poor people being marched to their deaths, it's a very moving piece.
If you wanna go into older music, I really like Telemann, his 12 Fantasias are really good. I also liked Carl Reinecke's ballade for flute and orchestra. (Sorry this is so flute centered, it's just what I play so it's what I mostly hear) I'm sure there's a lot of other composers I've really liked when I heard/played them, but this has gone on long enough.
John Williams is the new classical. Come 200 years from now he wiil be the new king of symphony.
I think he's likely to still be known for a long time, but he won't get mixed in with classical, he'll be whatever they choose to call this era (it can't be "modern" forever). He's a good composer, but I don't think he'll stand out above and beyond everything that came before him. There are obviously a lot of prolific composers from long before John Williams and I don't think they'll just fade into obscurity.
Anome on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
As a pianist, I am in love with both Chopin and Rachmaninoff and would probably suck their dicks if they were still around. Multiple times. Chopin's Ballade in G Minor is a special one for me, also Rach's Prelude in G Minor. I think I just like G minor.
No Liszt?
Unfortunately I haven't gotten to play much Liszt yet. I just broke into Gershwin though, and am liking him a lot. I'll put Liszt on the top of the list (HAH! pun).
John Williams is the new classical. Come 200 years from now he wiil be the new king of symphony.
No, because people will, eventually, realize he just is "inspired by" Holst's The Planets for about every single score he ever did. See Mars, Bringer of War.
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
Any music that lasts for centuries is probably very good. Therefore, it stands to reason, that yes, you probably won't run into much truly bad music.
And yes, good composers sometimes wrote terrible music. Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is a great example of this.
More recent music is a bit trickier: what exactly does one make of say... John Cage's 4'33", which is literally 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence?
In short, most of it is good, some of it is bad, and a lot is terribly difficult to judge.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
If you just look at all classical music that has ever been written, you'll find a whole lot of stuff that sounds similar. On the other hand, I would guess that the bulk of classical music that has been written has never been recorded and has probably been forgotten by now, for exactly that reason. Within the bulk of classical music that still exists today and is widely regarded as good, there is a huge variety in style. Think about the level of variation in, say, rock music. There is way more variation in style in classical music.
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
Any music that lasts for centuries is probably very good. Therefore, it stands to reason, that yes, you probably won't run into much truly bad music.
And yes, good composers sometimes wrote terrible music. Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is a great example of this.
More recent music is a bit trickier: what exactly does one make of say... John Cage's 4'33", which is literally 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence?
In short, most of it is good, some of it is bad, and a lot is terribly difficult to judge.
Urgh, I've heard about that 4 minutes of silence bullshit. What a joke.
DynamiteKid on
www.rockmidgets.com
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
If you had never heard Rock music, most of it would sound the same as well. The key is that you hear it every day. You live in your life to a rock soundtrack. The more you listen to classical music, the more you pick up on the differences.
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
If you had never heard Rock music, most of it would sound the same as well. The key is that you hear it every day. You live in your life to a rock soundtrack. The more you listen to classical music, the more you pick up on the differences.
You know, originally I was going to type a snippy riposte, because my music tastes are not limited solely to rock - I'm into basically everything except classical, 'world' and reggae, really; yes that includes country - but you're right. Originally I thought all rap was exactly the same, but as I listened more carefully I found that it's actually a rich pantheon of different styles and forms.
DynamiteKid on
www.rockmidgets.com
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
If you had never heard Rock music, most of it would sound the same as well. The key is that you hear it every day. You live in your life to a rock soundtrack. The more you listen to classical music, the more you pick up on the differences.
You know, originally I was going to type a snippy riposte, because my music tastes are not limited solely to rock - I'm into basically everything except classical, 'world' and reggae, really; yes that includes country - but you're right. Originally I thought all rap was exactly the same, but as I listened more carefully I found that it's actually a rich pantheon of different styles and forms.
Yeah, that's what I was implying. I wasn't saying you as in "you don't like classical music, LOL! MUst like RocK!!1!" I should have said we. Sorry.
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
If you had never heard Rock music, most of it would sound the same as well. The key is that you hear it every day. You live in your life to a rock soundtrack. The more you listen to classical music, the more you pick up on the differences.
You know, originally I was going to type a snippy riposte, because my music tastes are not limited solely to rock - I'm into basically everything except classical, 'world' and reggae, really; yes that includes country - but you're right. Originally I thought all rap was exactly the same, but as I listened more carefully I found that it's actually a rich pantheon of different styles and forms.
Yeah, that's what I was implying. I wasn't saying you as in "you don't like classical music, LOL! MUst like RocK!!1!" I should have said we. Sorry.
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that the only truly good piece of music Mozart wrote was his Requiem?
Well Twinkle, Twinkle isn't bad.
Seriously though, are you mad?
Prove me wrong.
(I'm trying to think of a smiley to demonstrate the lightheartedness of that statement.)
Well aside from the fact that The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute are clearly far and away the best operas ever written, not to mention other minor compositions like Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutte etc etc, have a go at the C Minor Mass (in fact, even just the Kyrie of the C Minor Mass should prove the point), slow movement of the A Major Piano Concerto (KV 488), Adagio from Serenade for Thirteen Wind Instruments (KV 361), Concerto for Flute and Harp (particularly slow movement again), oh and, I don't know, everything else he ever fucking wrote.
The man was one of the true bona-fide geniuses in the history of Western civilisation, the total number of whom I could probably count on one hand, don't be so weak-minded to think that the popular is always worthless.
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Well I have also studied and played music for most of my life and been working in it to some capacity for a few years, I just haven't given much scrutiny to classical because I don't really play an instrument of classical merit to a competent enough standard. And when I have tried - I have an organ which I can use to synthesize strings or piano - I often find an orchestra will be tuned to an out-of-tune piano.
Okay, I'm gonna pose a question here and risk getting my nuts torn off:
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
Any music that lasts for centuries is probably very good. Therefore, it stands to reason, that yes, you probably won't run into much truly bad music.
And yes, good composers sometimes wrote terrible music. Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is a great example of this.
More recent music is a bit trickier: what exactly does one make of say... John Cage's 4'33", which is literally 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence?
In short, most of it is good, some of it is bad, and a lot is terribly difficult to judge.
Urgh, I've heard about that 4 minutes of silence bullshit. What a joke.
That's what I thought at first, but it's actually a pretty thought-provoking idea.
BTW, am I the only one who thinks that the only truly good piece of music Mozart wrote was his Requiem?
Well Twinkle, Twinkle isn't bad.
Seriously though, are you mad?
Prove me wrong.
(I'm trying to think of a smiley to demonstrate the lightheartedness of that statement.)
Well aside from the fact that The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute are clearly far and away the best operas ever written, not to mention other minor compositions like Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutte etc etc, have a go at the C Minor Mass (in fact, even just the Kyrie of the C Minor Mass should prove the point), slow movement of the A Major Piano Concerto (KV 488), Adagio from Serenade for Thirteen Wind Instruments (KV 361), Concerto for Flute and Harp (particularly slow movement again), oh and, I don't know, everything else he ever fucking wrote.
The man was one of the true bona-fide geniuses in the history of Western civilisation, the total number of whom I could probably count on one hand, don't be so weak-minded to think that the popular is always worthless.
Oh man, I am actually offended by this. How are Mozart's opera the best ever written? They have talking in them. Talking! That completely defeats the purpose of Opera. Wagner beats Mozart any day of the week, about sixhundred times every day. And sevenhundred on sundays. He wrote some nice, melodic music, but most of the Romantics and Baroque artists blow him away in terms of symphonic beauty.
Urgh, I've heard about that 4 minutes of silence bullshit. What a joke.
That's what I thought at first, but it's actually a pretty thought-provoking idea.
It was originally, but it's not very funny when people `copy' his `work'.
uh guys i can't think of any more idiot songs so i think well just make a blank track and say its metaphysical and a challenge to pop culture
Well, yeah. It certainly never needed to be done more than once. You really don't even need to actually hear it to get the point. I certainly wouldn't pay to see it performed. But I do think it brings up interesting questions about how we view sound, music, and art.
They have talking in them. Talking! That completely defeats the purpose of Opera. Wagner beats Mozart any day of the week, about sixhundred times every day. And sevenhundred on sundays. He wrote some nice, melodic music, but most of the Romantics and Baroque artists blow him away in terms of symphonic beauty.
Well done, on being...
a) Completely Wrong; opera emerged from spoken-word medieval plays with music and dancing in them, and in the 20th century has largely returned to a balance of music and speaking word with modern opera, but moreover its heir in the 20th century musical. Besides, so many aspects of even through-sung opera are based on or imitating the spoken word (ie recit or singspeil) that it is and always has been entwined with the form. In fact, the numbers of opera with spoken word and without are roughly equal, given that the first two centuries of opera were not through-sung. As for modern scholars, anyone still defining 'opera' as meaning 'through-sung' (as opposed to 'operetta' for containing spoken word) is considered something of a dinosaur. Congrats on parroting the exact same thing that Mozart's (long forgotten) contemporaries used to criticise him for though.
b) Yes yes, you've just discovered that some music doesn't have guitars in and are all excited because you know who wrote 'Ride of the Valkyries', but try considering that opera in general is broken into pre- and post-Mozart. That's how much of an effect he had on the form. Wagner, for example, is almost entirely built on Mozart's shaping of the dramatic and melodic in opera, not to mention the fact that Mozart irrevocably altered German music; listen to the difference between Wagner and Bach - that difference isn't Wagner, it's Mozart.
c) ...and finally, because I just know you read the above and are wanting to spout some pearl of wisdom about Wagner being the student who outdid the master, if you actually cannot hear the difference between sheer perfection of music in Mozart at his best and mere vast romantic soundscapes a la Wagner, then there is little I can do to help you. I have nothing against Wagner and the Romantics (I'm a pianist and like nothing more than a good bit of Rachmaninov), but here's a tip: volume doesn't equal quality.
PS If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Mozart & Bach are still the twin foundations of any serious musical training (both classical and otherwise) instead of your pal Richard. For centuries musicians have used Mozart, not Wagner, to teach music...but I'm sure you know better. :roll:
Sarastro wrote:
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Well I have also studied and played music for most of my life and been working in it to some capacity for a few years, I just haven't given much scrutiny to classical because I don't really play an instrument of classical merit to a competent enough standard. And when I have tried - I have an organ which I can use to synthesize strings or piano - I often find an orchestra will be tuned to an out-of-tune piano.
Er, not sure what that has to do with what I said exactly, but you are clearly playing with the wrong people: orchestras tune to an oboe, not the piano.
Mozart's very teachable because he almost always boxes himself strongly within tonal harmonic structures, melodies, and even embellishments. Clearly he was a highly skilled composer, easily is within the top 5 of all time in his understanding of music, and had great musical ability. But his music still lacks emotional depth most of the time; he usually wrote for other people or for money, not for himself, and it shows in his music. Mozart is a good foundation for learning music not because he's awesome, but because he stays within strict tonal structures. He almost never leaves his tonal palette unless it's an obvious modulation, and even his runs are generally either arpeggiations or stepwise. His harmonic structures are straightforward and therefore good to learn from. There is elegance in his simplistic style, but it is inarguably simplistic and inherently limited emotionally.
Sarastro wrote:
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Well I have also studied and played music for most of my life and been working in it to some capacity for a few years, I just haven't given much scrutiny to classical because I don't really play an instrument of classical merit to a competent enough standard. And when I have tried - I have an organ which I can use to synthesize strings or piano - I often find an orchestra will be tuned to an out-of-tune piano.
Er, not sure what that has to do with what I said exactly, but you are clearly playing with the wrong people: orchestras tune to an oboe, not the piano.
I'm not sure what it had to do with it either actually.
And I meant recordings, I don't play in any orchestras. Maybe my organ's just screwed up. :shock:
DynamiteKid on
www.rockmidgets.com
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
They have talking in them. Talking! That completely defeats the purpose of Opera. Wagner beats Mozart any day of the week, about sixhundred times every day. And sevenhundred on sundays. He wrote some nice, melodic music, but most of the Romantics and Baroque artists blow him away in terms of symphonic beauty.
Well done, on being...
a) Completely Wrong; opera emerged from spoken-word medieval plays with music and dancing in them, and in the 20th century has largely returned to a balance of music and speaking word with modern opera, but moreover its heir in the 20th century musical. Besides, so many aspects of even through-sung opera are based on or imitating the spoken word (ie recit or singspeil) that it is and always has been entwined with the form. In fact, the numbers of opera with spoken word and without are roughly equal, given that the first two centuries of opera were not through-sung. As for modern scholars, anyone still defining 'opera' as meaning 'through-sung' (as opposed to 'operetta' for containing spoken word) is considered something of a dinosaur. Congrats on parroting the exact same thing that Mozart's (long forgotten) contemporaries used to criticise him for though.
b) Yes yes, you've just discovered that some music doesn't have guitars in and are all excited because you know who wrote 'Ride of the Valkyries', but try considering that opera in general is broken into pre- and post-Mozart. That's how much of an effect he had on the form. Wagner, for example, is almost entirely built on Mozart's shaping of the dramatic and melodic in opera, not to mention the fact that Mozart irrevocably altered German music; listen to the difference between Wagner and Bach - that difference isn't Wagner, it's Mozart.
c) ...and finally, because I just know you read the above and are wanting to spout some pearl of wisdom about Wagner being the student who outdid the master, if you actually cannot hear the difference between sheer perfection of music in Mozart at his best and mere vast romantic soundscapes a la Wagner, then there is little I can do to help you. I have nothing against Wagner and the Romantics (I'm a pianist and like nothing more than a good bit of Rachmaninov), but here's a tip: volume doesn't equal quality.
Wow. I think that I've found someone even more pretentious than myself.
A) Wrong. Opera emerged out of the camerata's attempts to revive the Greek drama. As it evolved, it took influence from everything, from passio plays, folk drama, etc. Dance was not a major part of the first opera. It became a part because the French had a love for ballet, and the only way the "Italian" music could be imported was with dance. Of course Opera use imitation of talk, especially in verismo. However, that does not vindicate it. The more Opera delves into music, the better it is. Just becuase critics now do not hold this view view doesn't make it correct. I am well aware that modern opera has gone to a more operetta based format, and I have no problem with that. I love the Rake's Progress. But Wagner still surpasses them in musical beauty and dramatic power.
Change in German music was well underway before Mozart came along. Handel was composing masterpieces in the classical style, and Mozart came on to perfect it. BTW, nice ad hominem. You do not know who I am in any way. First off, I do not know about Classical music as much as you, for you have studied it for millenia seems. But saying that "I just discovered music taht doesn't have guitars" is just complete douchebaggery. Yes, I play guitar. I've been playing jazz guitar for about eight years now. I've been listening to Jazz for as long as I can remember, and I have a great grasp on it. For you to make such an assumption completely invalidates your opinions to me. I cannot fathom it. Seriously - that is such an arrogant statement. Talk to me about jazz. I can talk you down too. Stop being so sanctimonious. Are you going to say "if you cannot hear it, I cannot help you" with every post? I started this thread so we could have an open discussion, not have the messiah of classical waltz in and lay down the holy law. Asshole.
Sarastro wrote:
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Well I have also studied and played music for most of my life and been working in it to some capacity for a few years, I just haven't given much scrutiny to classical because I don't really play an instrument of classical merit to a competent enough standard. And when I have tried - I have an organ which I can use to synthesize strings or piano - I often find an orchestra will be tuned to an out-of-tune piano.
Er, not sure what that has to do with what I said exactly, but you are clearly playing with the wrong people: orchestras tune to an oboe, not the piano.
I'm not sure what it had to do with it either actually.
And I meant recordings, I don't play in any orchestras. Maybe my organ's just screwed up. :shock:
That's significantly more likely. Although some orchestras are getting into the nasty habit of tuning to A442 or higher intentionally.
Posts
According to Stravinsky, later in his life bassoon players started getting so good he wished he'd written it higher.
Anyway,
I just spent too much money on:
Beethoven - Missa Solemnis
Bartók - Divertimento, Dance Suite, Two Pictures
Stravinsky - Probably about 10-15 small works, including the Concerto in D
You'll love it. I'm going to listen to it right now. Thanks.
Of Chopin, or new artists?
Pianosociety.com has an excellent list of his compositions, incidentally. Has year, key, and opus numbers, all organised by type.
I'm a big backer of Mahler. If you haven't checked him out, do so. His 5th Symphony's a nice introduction.
No Liszt?
I also really love the more modern wind band stuff with a lot of dissonance, I'm thinking right now of one the UVic Wind Symphony is rehearsing right now, Babi Yar by Morton Gould. It's from an old TV special about the holocaust and when you play/hear it you can imagine these poor people being marched to their deaths, it's a very moving piece.
If you wanna go into older music, I really like Telemann, his 12 Fantasias are really good. I also liked Carl Reinecke's ballade for flute and orchestra. (Sorry this is so flute centered, it's just what I play so it's what I mostly hear) I'm sure there's a lot of other composers I've really liked when I heard/played them, but this has gone on long enough.
O_o
I think he's likely to still be known for a long time, but he won't get mixed in with classical, he'll be whatever they choose to call this era (it can't be "modern" forever). He's a good composer, but I don't think he'll stand out above and beyond everything that came before him. There are obviously a lot of prolific composers from long before John Williams and I don't think they'll just fade into obscurity.
Unfortunately I haven't gotten to play much Liszt yet. I just broke into Gershwin though, and am liking him a lot. I'll put Liszt on the top of the list (HAH! pun).
The only Paganini I have is Rachmaninoff's.
You've gotta pick up the 24 cappriccio
No, because people will, eventually, realize he just is "inspired by" Holst's The Planets for about every single score he ever did. See Mars, Bringer of War.
I'm not exactly a connosieur (that's blatantly horribly misspelled, I apologise. I took French after all >_>) of classical. But I find that, more often than not, there isn't really a great deal to set a lot of classical pieces apart from the rest of it, at least not to the passing listener who doesn't analyse the music.
I'm sure any of the classical fans in here would contend this, but without being ridiculous, apart from those pieces which are truly unique and brilliant, is there actually much of a difference in composition level, skill level, etc. in the bulk of classical music?
www.rockmidgets.com
Any music that lasts for centuries is probably very good. Therefore, it stands to reason, that yes, you probably won't run into much truly bad music.
And yes, good composers sometimes wrote terrible music. Beethoven's Wellington's Victory is a great example of this.
More recent music is a bit trickier: what exactly does one make of say... John Cage's 4'33", which is literally 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence?
In short, most of it is good, some of it is bad, and a lot is terribly difficult to judge.
Urgh, I've heard about that 4 minutes of silence bullshit. What a joke.
www.rockmidgets.com
Shit like that is why I never talk about art with anyone but friends.
If you had never heard Rock music, most of it would sound the same as well. The key is that you hear it every day. You live in your life to a rock soundtrack. The more you listen to classical music, the more you pick up on the differences.
You know, originally I was going to type a snippy riposte, because my music tastes are not limited solely to rock - I'm into basically everything except classical, 'world' and reggae, really; yes that includes country - but you're right. Originally I thought all rap was exactly the same, but as I listened more carefully I found that it's actually a rich pantheon of different styles and forms.
www.rockmidgets.com
Yeah, that's what I was implying. I wasn't saying you as in "you don't like classical music, LOL! MUst like RocK!!1!" I should have said we. Sorry.
No that's fair enough, I got your meaning.
www.rockmidgets.com
Well aside from the fact that The Marriage of Figaro and The Magic Flute are clearly far and away the best operas ever written, not to mention other minor compositions like Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutte etc etc, have a go at the C Minor Mass (in fact, even just the Kyrie of the C Minor Mass should prove the point), slow movement of the A Major Piano Concerto (KV 488), Adagio from Serenade for Thirteen Wind Instruments (KV 361), Concerto for Flute and Harp (particularly slow movement again), oh and, I don't know, everything else he ever fucking wrote.
The man was one of the true bona-fide geniuses in the history of Western civilisation, the total number of whom I could probably count on one hand, don't be so weak-minded to think that the popular is always worthless.
PS
Having studied, played and worked in music for most of my life, can 100% guarentee you that classical music has more variety and styles than all other genres of Western music combined (after all, aside from folk musics, other genres have only been around for 100 years, classical music for millennia), and that 90% of all other genres are in fact taken from classical music in the first place. But if you can't hear that for yourself, not much I can do to show you.
Well I have also studied and played music for most of my life and been working in it to some capacity for a few years, I just haven't given much scrutiny to classical because I don't really play an instrument of classical merit to a competent enough standard. And when I have tried - I have an organ which I can use to synthesize strings or piano - I often find an orchestra will be tuned to an out-of-tune piano.
www.rockmidgets.com
That's what I thought at first, but it's actually a pretty thought-provoking idea.
uh guys i can't think of any more idiot songs so i think well just make a blank track and say its metaphysical and a challenge to pop culture
Oh man, I am actually offended by this. How are Mozart's opera the best ever written? They have talking in them. Talking! That completely defeats the purpose of Opera. Wagner beats Mozart any day of the week, about sixhundred times every day. And sevenhundred on sundays. He wrote some nice, melodic music, but most of the Romantics and Baroque artists blow him away in terms of symphonic beauty.
Well, yeah. It certainly never needed to be done more than once. You really don't even need to actually hear it to get the point. I certainly wouldn't pay to see it performed. But I do think it brings up interesting questions about how we view sound, music, and art.
Well done, on being...
a) Completely Wrong; opera emerged from spoken-word medieval plays with music and dancing in them, and in the 20th century has largely returned to a balance of music and speaking word with modern opera, but moreover its heir in the 20th century musical. Besides, so many aspects of even through-sung opera are based on or imitating the spoken word (ie recit or singspeil) that it is and always has been entwined with the form. In fact, the numbers of opera with spoken word and without are roughly equal, given that the first two centuries of opera were not through-sung. As for modern scholars, anyone still defining 'opera' as meaning 'through-sung' (as opposed to 'operetta' for containing spoken word) is considered something of a dinosaur. Congrats on parroting the exact same thing that Mozart's (long forgotten) contemporaries used to criticise him for though.
b) Yes yes, you've just discovered that some music doesn't have guitars in and are all excited because you know who wrote 'Ride of the Valkyries', but try considering that opera in general is broken into pre- and post-Mozart. That's how much of an effect he had on the form. Wagner, for example, is almost entirely built on Mozart's shaping of the dramatic and melodic in opera, not to mention the fact that Mozart irrevocably altered German music; listen to the difference between Wagner and Bach - that difference isn't Wagner, it's Mozart.
c) ...and finally, because I just know you read the above and are wanting to spout some pearl of wisdom about Wagner being the student who outdid the master, if you actually cannot hear the difference between sheer perfection of music in Mozart at his best and mere vast romantic soundscapes a la Wagner, then there is little I can do to help you. I have nothing against Wagner and the Romantics (I'm a pianist and like nothing more than a good bit of Rachmaninov), but here's a tip: volume doesn't equal quality.
PS If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Mozart & Bach are still the twin foundations of any serious musical training (both classical and otherwise) instead of your pal Richard. For centuries musicians have used Mozart, not Wagner, to teach music...but I'm sure you know better. :roll:
Er, not sure what that has to do with what I said exactly, but you are clearly playing with the wrong people: orchestras tune to an oboe, not the piano.
I'm not sure what it had to do with it either actually.
And I meant recordings, I don't play in any orchestras. Maybe my organ's just screwed up. :shock:
www.rockmidgets.com
Wow. I think that I've found someone even more pretentious than myself.
A) Wrong. Opera emerged out of the camerata's attempts to revive the Greek drama. As it evolved, it took influence from everything, from passio plays, folk drama, etc. Dance was not a major part of the first opera. It became a part because the French had a love for ballet, and the only way the "Italian" music could be imported was with dance. Of course Opera use imitation of talk, especially in verismo. However, that does not vindicate it. The more Opera delves into music, the better it is. Just becuase critics now do not hold this view view doesn't make it correct. I am well aware that modern opera has gone to a more operetta based format, and I have no problem with that. I love the Rake's Progress. But Wagner still surpasses them in musical beauty and dramatic power.