/mu/ — /classical/

>>130631310 (OP)
cursed thread.

File: 71oRvh7OoJL._SL1200_[1].jpg (132 KB, 1200x1200)

now playing

start of Schubert: Sonata For Arpeggione And Piano In A Minor, D. 821
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEfmpGTc6uo&list=OLAK5uy_kbuKgEJOFl3HQKwgfLO_ZUtYL09ApKy44&index=2

start of Schumann: 5 Stücke im Volkston, Op. 102
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcM9K4rBBWM&list=OLAK5uy_kbuKgEJOFl3HQKwgfLO_ZUtYL09ApKy44&index=5

start of Debussy: Sonata in D Minor for Cello & Piano, L.135
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRRscX8a5VE&list=OLAK5uy_kbuKgEJOFl3HQKwgfLO_ZUtYL09ApKy44&index=9

>>130631299
>abstract and/or distant from what we understand as "meaning" itself
It isn't or no one would listen to it. The contrasts of sonata form are intended for emotional effects and were partly derived from Italian opera. For example, if there was no 'meaning' to the common tendency to make the first theme forceful, disjunct, staccato and the second lyrical, stepwise, legato, then why do it in the first place? If you admit that these different means produce different effects then of course they have meaning. These states are most often experienced involuntary in the listener, too. The *means* of music are abstract but they do not produce abstract ends. The ends of music are sensual and emotional.

Brahms himself once said, 'I speak through my music'. That implies that his music has something to say. Just because it is best said through music gives no credence to the modernist tautology of music expressing nothing but music.

>>130631398
*involuntarily

>>130631398
>If you admit that these different means produce different effects then of course they have meaning.
This is non sequitur. I do admit that they produce different effects of course, but that does not mean they have an inherent "meaning" in the way language or representational art does. It is primarily "music expressing music": structured sounds in motion, appreciated for their internal logic, beauty, emotional evocation, rather than explicit references or external ideas, stories or concepts. "Meaning" implies semantics or intentional content, instrumental music lacks this. A Bach fugue doea not translate into a story or a sentence.

>>130631531
No, because language doesn't have inherent meaning either, still less representational art. The meaning of words is purely consensual, not inherent to them, and constantly changes over time. Meaning is never stable and does not imply some fixed intentional content. I mentioned before that this idea of a purely self-sufficient craftsmanship without meaning is a post-Wagnerian overcorrection, but in truth it applies to all the arts, not just music. Finnegans Wake is a good example of how this plays out in literature as writers sought to write in a way that freed them completely from the burden of meaning and sever the link between craft and effect: a literature that expresses nothing but style .

>A Bach fugue doea not translate into a story or a sentence.
Irrelevant. I repeat myself, but music's meaning is integral to music or else it would be written in words; that is not to say it communicates nothing. In any case, the effects produced by a Bach fugue are obviously related to its abstract means of composition, but they are not synonymous with them.

>>130631310 (OP)
>Szymanowski edition
Based. Love the metopes, masques, and myths.
Makes me a little sad because my hands are too small to plat some of his chords though.

>>130631624
>No, because language doesn't have inherent meaning either, still less representational art. The meaning of words is purely consensual, not inherent to them, and constantly changes over time. Meaning is never stable and does not imply some fixed intentional content.
That does not erase the meaningful differences in how domains like language, representational art and instrumental music function or convey content. Language has propositional semantics and we can reliably decode sentences into truth-evaluable claims that people can agree on in context. Meaning isn't purely subjective on a whim. Changes happen, but within constraints.
In music, there is no way to extract "propositions". You can't paraphrase music into words, it will change its content entirely.

>>130631398
>If you admit that these different means produce different effects then of course they have meaning.
Beer and Coffee produce different effects, but do they have meaning?

>>130631711
>In music, there is no way to extract "propositions". You can't paraphrase music into words, it will change its content entirely.
You keep repeating this but it's entirely a straw man. Who are you quoting when you say 'propositions'? I have repeatedly stated that music is sufficient in itself to express its meaning. Meaning is not strictly experienced propositionally. In fact, I would argue that it is more often prerational. People do not need to put words on music to experience meaning from it.
>>130631731
Yes, of course, beer and coffee mean a lot to people, and their meaning is usually related to their different effects on human physiology. Food and drink is a domain of culture that often holds very primal meaning to people, actually.

>>130631770
>You keep repeating this but it's entirely a straw man.
You don't understand strawman fallacy at all. I'm not at all implying this is what you said.

>>130631770
Hm, yeah you're right. I hadn't previously thought about the topic all that much and just argued for fun but what you're saying makes a lot of sense actually.

>>130631731
All art has meaning.

>>130631800
Either it's a strawman where you're trying to box me into the claim that meaning is purely a verbal and rational phenomenon or your post is explaining something irrelevant to my own. I am not saying that music is the same as language, nor that meaning is strictly subjective. I am saying that neither music nor language evoke fixed and changeless meanings.

File: 71AkNYFiQ4L._SL1400_[1].jpg (191 KB, 1400x1400)

Hewitt's Bach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWk6pBW6Gb8&list=OLAK5uy_mew7jhNlDEffD-0ESex9d6Cp87Y1XmYfk&index=21

>>130631856
>neither music nor language evoke fixed and changeless meanings.
And I am saying that music evokes no meaning at all.

>>130632007
Which is plainly ridiculous unless you limit the scope of how people experience meaning so narrowly that it's unrecognisable as such. Not least because people usually find meaning in music quite involuntarily.

>>130632063
You are misusing the word "meaning"

>>130632174
No. You are artificially limiting how it is actually used for the sake of an argument.

>>130632197
>You are artificially limiting how it is actually used
That doesn't make any sense. Words have meanings, including the word 'meaning'.

>>130632208
You artificially exclude how art can express meaning that is irreducible to verbal paraphrase. It is a motte and bailey where you point to the undeniably abstract craft of music to make the much weaker claim that because music's effects cannot be equated to a verbal paraphrase, it expresses no meaning. But no one would listen to music if it were not expressive of something other than its craft.

File: MzgtNDI0Ni5qcGVn[1].jpg (89 KB, 595x600)

Can someone tell me if these three listings are all the same release, and if not, which is the best? Please and thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnCKcLEY1g&list=OLAK5uy_kXXXjqlVgZ0s0Tk_nM1rWpxv8SZe6ciwY&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv_mjHlljtU&list=OLAK5uy_kbFjeT1RFNthkn8HVCiqtg9-p5GlSL3Ow&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOyoo_T-Bkk&list=OLAK5uy_lJDQJUUwgOY8ZGzcyBkKlxaTnTBCIrfzY&index=1

They each have different runtimes so my assumption is they're all different releases, and ergo, different remasterings. I've heard the first two through and I'm listening to the third one now in hopes it's the famous recent Pristine Audio release which supposedly did a very good job on cleaning up the sound. We'll see.

Officially, there are three releases: one on Opera D’Oro, one on Orfeo, and one on Pristine Audio. Now, my assumption is the first two links are the same Orfeo release, and my hope is the third one is the cleaned-up, interventionalist one from Pristine Audio.

File: gif-facepalm.gif (953 KB, 500x209)

>>130632375
No one said music is not expressive. You are constantly making stuff up to justify absolute nonsense.

>>130632472
'Music expresses music' is the only nonsense here.

File: 71OXEL8Za7L._SL1000_[1].jpg (183 KB, 1000x1000)

Rachmaninoff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdy2xapKp4&list=OLAK5uy_msXg2QLTU_EYr7toJnttkmxOMJ6TrbKG8&index=6

File: dvorjak.png (1.78 MB, 1254x1254)

>>130631263
You are a neurotic, and probably should get therapy

File: jean_baptiste_Lully.jpg (50 KB, 438x501)

Daily reminder that Baroque is King and Renaissance is Queen. Do not fall under the neurotic incel spells of Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Bruckner, and Mahler. They will fill you with anxiety, depressive episodes, and cause spiritual imbalance.

Platomaxx with Palestrina, Josquin, Purcell, Bach, Debussy and the court musicians of Louis XIV.

File: bela Bartok 44455.jpg (7 KB, 178x283)

I WANNA SEE BELA'S BARTOK

Classical is cum and Romantic is the human

>>130633424
>the neurotic incel spells of Brahms, Chopin, Schubert, Bruckner, and Mahler
Sounds pretty badass desu. Going to listen to only these composers from now on.

>>130633460
Least sex-pilled comment in this general, you should be ashamed.

>>130633492
Sex is degenerate.

File: This uglyu.png (339 KB, 479x450)

Post your personal top 10 /classical/, with some honorable mentions.

Top 10 keyboard composers of all time:
1. Bach
2. Scriabin
3. Debussy
4. Ravel
5. Scarlatti
6. Couperin
7. Liszt
8. Rameau
9. Albeniz
10. Chabrier

Honorable mentions: Jongen, Grieg, Satie, Poulenc, Tailleferre

>>130633507
Bach had sex

>>130633539
My top 10 keyboard composers of all tiime:
1. Händel
2. Bortkiewicz
3. Chausson
4. Widor
5. Cimarosa
6. Martin Kraus
7. Draeseke
8. Sgambati
9. Milhaud
10. J.C. Bach

Honorable mentions: Ginastera, Mozkowski, Alfano, Sarasate, Weinberg

>>130633539
KEYBOARD COMPOSERS TIER LIST (most informed and on objective basis)
>ELDER GOD TIER
Chopin
Debussy
>ELDER GOD TIER 2 (THE POWER GAP TIER)
Nobody.
>GOD TIER
Rachmaninoff
>GREAT TIER
Liszt
Fauré
Scriabin
Beethoven
>GOOD TIER
Mozart
Schubert
J.S. Bach
Brahms
>PASSABLE TIER
Reger
Haydn
Satie
>MEH TIER
Scarlatti
Byrd
Sorabji
Clementi
Poulenc
>BAD TIER
>SHIT TIER
Most others

>>130633539
Very based list. Mine would probably be:
1. Scriabin
2. Beethoven
3. Bach
4. Fauré
5. Debussy
6. Scarlatti
7. Mozart
8. Messiaen
9. Chopin
10. Ravel

Honorable mentions: Rameau, Handel, Chabrier, Rachmaninoff, Medtner, Szymanowski

>>130633621
>Satie above Scarlatti and Poulenc
b8

>>130633621
Half bait, half fact, but a good list otherwise.

>>130633621
Ravelbros...Debussy won

>>130633621
Difficult to find any kind of logic or coherent criteria in this list. Well, apart from vague, personal bias. I'd love someone to try and find out the logic behind this.

>>130633682
at least half the top x lists posted here are bait

File: cover.jpg (289 KB, 1200x1200)

Boccherini time, bitches. Best set of string quintets after Op. 13 for now. Very colorful!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOC2Lc073zU

>>130633967
Coherent criteria is the composer's ability to write in a sophisticated, pianistic (for romantics) manner, with intricate patterns, pedalling, sonority or even notation or pedagogical legacy.

>>130634070
>sophisticated
>pianistic
>intricate
>sonority
Could you be more vague, please?
Anyway, Liszt is clearly high if we focus on sonority, pedaling, color, technical and pedagogical influence. Clementi is obviously high on technical and pedagogical influence (more than Debussy, for one).
Your criteria is as incoherent and stupid as your list.

piano composers who had the largest pedagogical influence (in no particular order)
>C.P.E. Bach
>Hummel
>Chopin
>Liszt
>Hanon
>Czerny
honorable mentions: J.S. Bach, Schumann, Bartok, Burgmüller

>>130631310 (OP)
>>130631310 (OP)
>>130631310 (OP)
>have never liked classical music
>want to get into it, enter thread and click on sticky
>need to take a whole course before I can listen to it
>and listen to a 4 hour YouTube series
>and read a million books

Uhhhh, okay I want to get into it but do I really need all that?

>>130634265
No lol. You start with which pieces you already like and branch out from there + try other popular pieces and see if you'r einto them and branch out from them as well

>>130634265
You don't, just listen to this for a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uG-jjXAhrI

>>130634265
Fuck everyone else replying to you
Listen to the Planets by Gustav Holst

>>130634146
These are not vague at all.
>Clementi
Too entry-level. Pedagogical influence is only one of the criteria.

>>130633572
E C L E C T I C
C
L
E
C
T
I
C

too eclectic for me

>>130634321
>These are not vague at all.
They are. Very subjective. God knows what you mean by them.

>>130634277
what if I like Handel's Sarabande?

>>130635070
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp53Jh6qO6Q

>>130634265
>/classical/ be like listen to 1.5 hour symphonies by Mahler and all 96 tracks of the WTC
Ya

>>130635070
Bach's brandenburg concertos as anon recommended are great, but the sarabande you refer to is from Handel's keyboard suites and I strongly recommend them
https://youtu.be/FB1atm__LTY
^This is my favorite one
but this is the source of the sarabande you like:
https://youtu.be/WjcWzfs7e9c

>>130627693
Why do you list Piano and Violin twice?

>>130634265
Just give us a few of your favorite pieces - either classical or closest to classical, and anons will give you recs.