/classical/

Fuck anonymous

Attached: cage stew.jpg (1280x873, 376.54K)

was john cage rich? i don't understand how he could afford anything while making what most people consider shit.

probably lived like a hobo like many artists

Ono
youtube.com/watch?v=NiO1pevvUds

Fuck John Cage.

Attached: 1557912191220.jpg (1200x1600, 522.2K)

Fuck cats

Attached: VCEY64OUAZDRHFVDPLDH7CN5QU.jpg (1200x1702, 147.38K)

I've been practicing Chopin's funeral march for about a month and have it all down reasonably well except for this section. Been focusing on it for about a week and still can only play it super slow and with mistakes.

I think its probably above my level and I should move on to something else, but what are some easier pieces that would give me some practice with big awkwardly fingered chords that change every beat?

Attached: funeral march.png (757x427, 194.22K)

>for about a week
practice more or better, get a teacher. They can make it easier to learn and understand

in addition to daily octave practice, where the wrist is springy and you're using the muscles of the hands as a kind of recoil spring getting u from one octave to the next
practice playing just the pinky, just the thumb, then pinky plus inner voice, then thumb plus inner voice, then all 3 together

hit these notes super short staccato, so hit the note, and then move as quickly as u can to the next note, don't play it yet, sit there, imagine playing it, prepare playing it, play is hard fast and loud and jump to the next note

do that as I said, then do it in 2 note phrases, as in play groups of 2 notes, perhaps with the written rhythm, perhaps with the opposite,

for those leaps u gotta prepare them, for the 1st measure 2nd line going from the a to 3, gotta sliiiigtly tilt that left elbow in like you're leaping in violin, to load your gun and to shorten the distance traveled

a week isn't really enough if you're not already at a fairly high level of skill.

As the other poster said, get a teacher, or practice a lot more.

ima post this here, it's Chopin esque
youtu.be/DtBAHTXTy9E

Attached: bud_index_at_piano.jpg (494x620, 58.9K)

I've been playing piano for about 6 months. I play a few other instruments so I'm not new to music but I'm very green on piano. Since I dont have a teacher I'm trying not to flounder and waste time making no progress if I hit a brick wall, hence why I think I might need to move on since I dont feel like I'm making much progress on this section relative to the speed I was able to learn the rest of the piece.

If I need to nut up and accept that gains might come slow I'll keep chipping away at this section, I just dont want to struggle for weeks on end with nothing to show for it when it might be more beneficial to mine deeper into the notebook for anna or hayden's easier sonatas instead of punching above my weight on a harder piece I have no business trying to play at this point

If you're going for broad but shallow, move on

If you're going for actual virtuosity, keep working.

>I've been playing piano for about 6 months
In this case I think it's better to return to this piece later. It's not a particularly difficult piece (at least the third movement isn't) but the part you pointed out requires somewhat more advanced legato playing (stretching the fourth finger over the fifth one). Don't listen to , grinding away at a piece above your skill level will not help you become virtuosic nor will it make the piece actually sound good in the end since you won't have mastered it, you'll only be able to play the notes.
Play something else, get a teacher and return in another 6-12 months is what I would say.

Suzuki's newest recording from a few months ago is fuckin ballin

After hearing his Mompou and Scriabin recordings, I'm turning into a Volodos supremacist.

How many cellos is too many? youtube.com/watch?v=2iGWapZ6Rm8

Apparently 2

Attached: 24EEAE96-33D2-4DED-989E-B19188EEBCBB.jpg (301x167, 6.9K)

Volodos is fantastic
youtube.com/watch?v=bX_IjA3x_rw

Due to my autistic knack for being able to list things, I can name ~200 classical composers off the top of my head, despite not being familiar with a majority of their works. I'm not classically trained, although I've played piano and drums for over a decade and know a good bit of theory.

I think I'm ripe to really dig into classical. So basically, to ask the age old question, how do I start?

What went wrong?
European music 1894 youtube.com/watch?v=d6idPaGqvV8
European music 1994 youtube.com/watch?v=08alW4Z9hEc

>broad but shallow understanding
you're almost a fully-formed /classical/-poster, all you're missing now to fit in is to stop acknowledging that ignorance. download some soijacks and fire up that ">" key and you're good to go

Americans

Scriabin

youtube.com/watch?v=d1cHBBJa9Es

Weber

youtube.com/watch?v=-2qlr00KkDs

A long time ago I saved a pastebin from here (MjG9h0Av) which had mega links to, among other things, PDFs on music theory and history, but the link is dead now. Do any of you by chance have the file? I'm just curious as to what might have been in there.

Attached: cozy saints.jpg (498x516, 72.06K)

how do composers write down music for non-traditional instruments? electronic, computer or synth music?
what about music that the composer wants to be heavily edited by software for additional effects/options?
can all of this be noted down?

>No audience at the concert hall following the government measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
nice, no coughs in the transmission

Is this /sci/ user right about Scriabin?

Yes

Yes, in that Scriabin is unequivocally the most concentrated musical exponent of extravagance, but that doesn't mean we have to larp as ascetics and reject him wholesale.

no

List them

Yes, he was the hackest of them all, in fact the only 100% hack. This complete hack state allowed him to transcend hackery and enter a form of non-hackery never before seen.

>When STEMtards try to talk about art
embarrassing

that's a lot of words to say nothing related to music

Is that Penguin companion to Classical music a good book for obtaining a deep understanding of classical music?

Beethoven
Händel
Haydn
Bach
Palestrina
Pfitzner
Bruckner
Mahler
Brahms
Schubert
Schumann
Berlioz
Verdi
Puccini
Strauss
Strauß Father
Strauß Son
Rossini
Bellini
Czerny
Zelenka
Bartok
Janacek
Dvorak
Bruch
Smetana
Tchaikovsky
Borodin
Sibelius
Rimsky-Korsakov
Vivaldi
Telemann
Saint-Saëns
JC Bach
CPE Bach
Ives
Elgar
Delius
Vaughan Williams
Esa-Pekka Salonen
Lutoslawski
Szymanowski
Panufnik
Stockhausen
Stravinsky
Boulez
Schmidt
Schmitt
Clara Schumann
Lily Boulanger
Ravel
Debussy
Lully
Rameau
Alessandro Scarlatti
Domenico Scarlatti
Gluck
Charpentier
Salieri
Sacchini
Meyerbeer
Mendelssohn
Scriabin
Sorabij
Nono
Berio
Berg
Schönberg
Webern
Richard Wagner
Siegfried Wagner
Humperdinck
Mozart
Copland
Gershwin
Bernstein
Albeniz
Rodrigo
Resphigi
Nicolai
Kalman
Raff
Röntgen
Stenhammar
Nielsen
(Thomas Aids lol)
Rautavaara
(minimalists Reich, Andriessen, Adams, Pärt)

>I can name ~200 classical composers off the top of my head, despite not being familiar with a majority of their works.
You don't need to listen to every work of every composer. Many of the old masters have hundreds if not thousands of works, each of which may span from minutes to hours. It will take forever and there are diminishing returns as not every work of a particular composer is completely different from the others. Not every composer is completely different from every other composers either.
>how do I start
Just pick one of those 200 composers you know and dig into them. You are free to move on when you feel like it isn't fruitful anymore for whatever reason. It might be that sometimes your urge to move is due to that you are being challenged in some way. Thus it might be worth to sit it through sometimes (not all the time) or try to attack the music in a different way. Sometimes you might encounter music that just goes over your head. Then it might be better to revisit later.

And browse /classical/ and the internet in general for finding obscure composers you haven't heard about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_composers_by_era

>harmony GOOD disharmony BAD
I don't know why I read that post

109 composers short

next time I just repeat the 3 same minimalists until I get to 200

Lmao

overall no, but he's onto something here
>The retard peasants, since they were retards (we call this type of retard "pseudointellectual"), ate up all this crap, believing it to "have meaning" and "be deep", and they flaunted their tastes in garbage because the retard pseudointellectuals thought obscurity was equivalent with intelligence, which they only correlated because when they tried to read intelligent works, they were obscure to them.

OK.

Kassia, Hildegard von Bingen, Perotin, Leonin, Guillaume de Machaut, Guillaume du Fay, Johannes Ockeghem, Josquin des Prez, Thomas Tallis, Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, Orlande de Lassus, Tomas Luis de Victoria, William Byrd, Carlo Gesualdo, Giovanni Gabrieli, Claudio Monteverdi, Orlando Gibbons, Jean Baptiste Lully, Arcangelo Corelli, Henry Purcell, Jean Philipp Rameau, Johann Pachelbel, Antonio Vivaldi, Dietrich Buxtehude, George Philipp Telemann, J.S. Bach, CPE Bach, Jan Dismas Zelenka, George Handel, Francois Couperin, Domenico Scarlatti, Alessandro Scarlatti, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Joseph Haydn, Antonio Salieri, Muzio Clementi, W.A. Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven, Franz Schubert, Niccolo Paganini, Carl Maria von Weber, Pergolesi, Carl Czerny, Gioacchino Rossini, Gaetano Donizetti, Vincenzo Bellini, Giacomo Meyerbeer, Mikhail Glinka, Felix Mendelssohn, Hector Berlioz, Jacques Offenbach, Robert Schumann, Clara Schumann, Frederic Chopin, Ferenc Liszt, Richard Wagner, Giuseppe Verdi, Charles Gounod, Cesar Franck, Johann Strauss II, Anton Bruckner, Modest Mussorgsky, Alexander Borodin, Johannes Brahms, Camille Saint Saens, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Georges Bizet, Edvard Grieg, Jules Massenet, Nikolai Rimsky Korsakov, Gabriel Faure, Edward Elgar, Giacomo Puccini, Hugo Wolf, Gustav Mahler, Frederick Delius, Isaac Albeniz, Richard Strauss, Jean Sibelius, Paul Dukas, Enrique Granados, Alexander Scriabin, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Ottorino Respighi, Claude Debussy, Leos Janacek, Carl Nielsen, Erik Satie, Ralph Vaughan Williams (con't)

Charles Ives, Manuel de Falla, Gustav Holst, Heitor Villa Lobos, Darius Milhaud, George Enescu, Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern, Alban Berg, Bela Bartok, Igor Stravinsky, Maurice Ravel, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, Edgard Varese, Sergei Prokofiev, Paul Hindemith, Carl Orff, Luigi Russolo, George Gershwin, Aaron Copland, Aram Khachaturian, Dmitri Shostakovich, Samuel Barber, Toru Takemitsu, Olivier Messiaen, Witold Lutoslawski, Benjamin Britten, George Antheil, John Cage, Ennio Morricone, Iannis Xenakis, Gyorgy Ligeti, Pierre Boulez, Milton Babbitt, Alfred Schnittke, Einojuhani Rautavaaara, Luciano Berio, Kszysztof Penderecki, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Arvo Part, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Terry Riley

Don't bother counting, I'll tell you that it's short of 200. However I did that completely from memory, first names and all, in one sitting without Google. Help me.

That really depends on you.
What do you enjoy in non-classical music?
Textures, harmony, lyrics, rythm?

This is just typical Yas Forums rhetoric. Reading what he says about Marxism and democracy the guy is probably a Fascist.

>textures
I don't know. Can you give me a working definition of what that means and then I'll tell you?

>harmony
I like non-conventional harmony to an extent.

>lyrics
Don't care.

>rhythm
That's what I look for most, probably. I'm a metal guy.

The comparison of aristocratic society and modern society is a bit off. I think modern society is more complex. It doesn't matter though, because the equivalence of the complexity of a society and the complexity of it's art is also a bit off in this case.

>he's onto something here
>>the retard pseudointellectuals thought obscurity was equivalent with intelligence

Obscurity does not imply quality.
Quality does not imply obscurity.
Obscurity does not imply bad quality.
Bad quality does not imply obscurity.

But intelligence is by definition obscure. thus intelligent people might (or might not) have obscure interests, some of which concern that of high quality.