I like that recording except for the fact fucking Theo Adam sings Jesus
Isaiah Bennett
Romaticism is defined by three factors: --Rejection of traditional form --Evolution of melody --Technique above all else Here are what I consider the definitive romantic pieces youtu.be/KrITNrgQHuE youtu.be/0mnrHf7p0jM youtu.be/1O4h0AapdbQ Discuss
>But the romantics all wrote within the romantic era that was discussed earlier and I don't think it's true. Holst, Strauss, Reger and Pfitzner were romantics in their own way, too. A lot of movie scores are romantic. So, it's not helpful to arbitrarily reduce romantic music to a artificially defined 'romantic era'. It's much more interesting to look in the details of what are the differences between what we feel is classical and what is romantic.
>Trite and simplified melodies Retard. Romanticism aimed to make the melody as complex and satisfying as possibled, if there's any era to complain about "trite" and "simplified" melody it's the classical era >Sentimentality above all else Yes, yes, you're a bug man, we get it. But sentimentallity was not the aim of romanticism, it was more like an effect of what they did to melody. Unless your talking about hacks like the impressionists, which is a multi-era movement(goes from late romantic to early 20th century) and in no way defines the romantic movement
Nicholas Clark
>Rejection of traditional form Huh, romantic pieces still largely are in sonata form, just more devopled and nuanced >Trite and simplified melodies Yes bruh because a Chopin melody is a simple melody compared to a diatonic Baroque melody that is all in step movement and crotchets xD literally no one contests that Romanticism was the peak of melody >Sentimentality above all else Nothing wrong with this.
Austin Lee
they didn't reject traditional forms retard, they did expand on them and come up with new forms in addition to more traditional forms.
what does evolution of melody even mean?
no.
stop posting in this general
Joseph Hill
>Romanticism aimed to make the melody as satisfying as possible What do you even mean you pseud, how were Baroque and Classical melodies not "satisfactory" exactly? >But sentimentallity was not the aim of romanticism It mostly was yes > it was more like an effect of what they did to melody Lol absolutely not, it was much more an effect of what they did to orchestration and form, and what inspired/motivated them to write in the first place which was now drasticaly different from the previous eras >a diatonic Baroque melody that is all in step movement and crotchets Literally when are Baroque melodies mostly diatonic other than maybe in fugues (where the discussion of indiviual melodic virtues of each voice would be retarded)? What kind of Baroque music have you been hearing >>Sentimentality above all else >Nothing wrong with this I hate people like you so much you can't even begin to fucking understand. It is clear to me that evert point you try to make will come from a place where you already stand with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sentimentality being above all else in prority from a composer/writer's point of view, and for that I will not bother reading anything else you sentimal romantic mouth has to shit out at me
Bentley Hernandez
Whats the status of Porgy & Bess in the classical oeuvre? This is my personal favourite recording.
>they didn't reject traditional forms retard, they did expand on them and come up with new forms in addition to more traditional forms They explicitly did. They went out of their way to write for obscure forms like etudes and song cycles, if they ever touched things like the sonata or fugue they try to be as different and radical as possible. Just look at the discography of famous romantics and compare it to the likes of mozart and beethoven and you'll realise it's true >what does evolution of melody even mean? They brought the melody past the simplistic classical melody and squeezed as much out of it as possible. Once again, compare schubert's unfinshed to one of haydn's symphonies >no Have you actually listened to the romantics? Have you played them? They were virtuoso as fuck
Michael Bailey
>what does evolution of melody even mean? Not him, but I kinda agree with this even though it is a bit unclear. >--Technique above all else At least for the performer.
Nathan Morgan
Its a western opera and a groundbreaking one at that. What would make it classical?
Bentley Evans
>I hate people like you so much you can't even begin to fucking understand. It is clear to me that evert point you try to make will come from a place where you already stand with the idea that there is nothing wrong with sentimentality being above all else in prority from a composer/writer's point of view, and for that I will not bother reading anything else you sentimal romantic mouth has to shit out at me >HOW DARE THEY MAKE ME FEEL THINGS
Joseph Sullivan
>groundbreaking how so?
Isaac Stewart
i don't know how well i can put it into words but i've always viewed third stream as its own sort of genre that branched off of classical/jazz rather than it being part of the classical tradition
nothing seems to have really built upon third stream in the same way other composers built upon other 20th century classical genres and incorporated them into the tradition, but that's just my opinion
Joshua Mitchell
Threadly reminder that nobody would eat the culinary equivalent, or watch the film equivalent, or read the literary equivalent, or view the visual art or sculptural equivalent, or inhabit the architectural equivalent of contemporary/modern classical.
Of course we do say that nobody DOES do these things, or that these do not exist, but that where they do exist they are almost universally enjoyed. Except for of course modern sculpture, poetry, and art, where almost all expectations of genuine skill, creativity, and imagination are shed. Or perhaps I should say she’d.
Jayden Campbell
Incorporating jazz into into a classical form (although not gershwins first attempt). It is the apotheosis of Gershwins work. Surely that is worth appraisal and a bigger step forward in classical than any other in the last century?
i guess my question is: who comes after gershwin? I just don't see how he's changed the trajectory of the classical tradition.
Brandon Martin
Has anyone tried to follow him? or have they stuck to with the classic format?
Alexander Roberts
>Has anyone tried to follow him? I think that's my point though. If his ideas were worth following wouldn't we have more composers influenced by him? I don't think many people see Gershwin's music as anything more than a gimmick and it's failed to leave an impression on the classical canon.
I'm not calling it a touchstone, i'm calling it a work worthy of a bit more praise. My point with that previous post is that like most artforms, nostalgia has become more important than relevance. Porgy & Bess attempted something new and in my personal opinion is a masterwork.
Isaac Williams
The genesis of the argument was that I don't consider it >classical. That wasn't a judgement of the work's merit.
Dominic Walker
I don't see why you have to impose a narrative on the classical music tradition. Surely it can be incorporated?
Blake Gonzalez
It's not a narrative, it's the nature of how a tradition develops.
When a composer writes a piece it's either accepted into the larger canon and tradition of works by virtue of it's influence and value or it's largely forgotten and doesn't inspire the generation of future works.
I disagree. Opera has become tepid. Musicals have become the popular artform of the last century and now. Gershwin has had a hige influence on Musical theatre and legitamised it as an american artform. You may bemoan that, but it certainly doesnt discredit Gershwin as an influencer.
The tradition is not developing, it has failed to catch up or produce anything new.
Nolan Barnes
yes
Asher Reyes
That's fine, you can argue that Gershwin has had influence outside of the classical music sphere. But that's not what this discussion is about.
We're talking about his influence and reputation in the classical music world. Nothing about him being important in musical theatre has to do with the classical tradition.
Isaac Jones
It seems though that you are putting everything into seperate boxes. Throughout the classical music tradition, there have been compositions that were treated likewise but became incorporated. Just because the format has changed doesnt mean that the progenitor isnt worthy of inclusion. Its like abandoning a child because he looks diffrent from the rest of your family.
Levi Ross
Perhaps i am uninformed though and it will take another century to find out what has stood the test of time
Kayden Cook
You can call it boxes, but most people just call it genre. We're kind of going in circles here but I'll end with this.
The fact that Gershwin isn't seen as an important figure in classical music though should tell you everything about his place within the genre and tradition of classical music.
Logan Ramirez
Who are currently seen as important figures in the classical music genre?
Aiden Wilson
me
Jace Anderson
I know where this is going. I'm going to give you a list of composers I think are important. You're going to make me prove why I think they're important. You're going to point out that it's just like subjective man and tell me Gershwin should be included.
How can you take impressionism seriously after this?
Jacob Garcia
Im not playing a game. I said in a previous post that i am uninformed. I couldnt make an objective opinion before this thread is pruned.
Adrian Lopez
Pick your favorite composer to listen to on a particular drug >Weed Mahler Stravinsky Prokofiev Rimsky-Korsakov >Acid Wagner Strauss Liszt >Amphetamines/meth Mozart Most baroque Schoenberg Webern >DXM Ligeti Messiaen Satie >Alcohol Beethoven Schubert Schumann >Opiates Scriabin Debussy Tchaikovsky Ravel
Joshua Sanchez
Lets settle this once and for all: who is the greatest conductor of all time?
Kayden Mitchell
Ringo Starr
Owen Allen
Petzold
Owen Diaz
me
Jack Gray
Toscanini for calling out American bass players for neither having eyes nor ears
