/classical/

pride month edition

Ludwig van Beethoven: youtube.com/watch?v=wfF0zHeU3Zs
Grieg: youtu.be/gG1csAWYVJ4
Bach: youtu.be/llZxwf8Dq4w
Telemann: youtube.com/watch?v=wXTAi93EpWw

Attached: 1639675521740.png (660x371, 400.48K)

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/NBEp2VFh
traubeck.com/works/years
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Certain features in Bach can only be explained by the fact that he was a great improviser and wanted to pin down what he was so lightly extemporizing; hence the many pedantic markings, the curious runs, etc. What is the thing written down as compared with the inspiration? What is notation in comparison with imagination? The former is governed by the specific laws of convention, the latter is free, boundless. That is the tremendous thing about Beethoven, that in his last quartets he was able to remember and record improvisations, which could only be done through art of the highest, highest order. With Wagner it is always the drama which flouts convention and opens up new possibilities. Everybody should improvise, every good musician can produce something interesting in his improvisation. But writing it down is quite a different process, then it has to be turned into a sonata, a suite, and so on, and it takes a lot to revitalize a familiar, defined form. An improviser such as an actor must belong entirely to the present moment, never think of what is to come, indeed not even know it, as it were. The peculiar thing about Wagner as an artist, for instance, is that he looked on each detail as an entirety and never said to himself, ‘Since this or that will follow, you must do thus and such, modulate like this or like that.’ He thought, ‘Something will turn up.’ Otherwise he would be lost; and yet he knew he was unconsciously obeying a plan. The so-called genius of form, on the other hand, reflects, ‘This or that follows, so I must do such and such,’ and he does it with ease. The remarkable thing about Aeschylus, this truly great being, is that one hardly notices the way it is done! It does not appear to be art at all, because it is in fact something much higher: improvisation. With Schiller, one can imagine how things came into his mind and how he considered manipulating them; but not in Shakespeare or Aeschylus.

didn't read

Clearly you have no knowledge of Wagner. Even people who criticise his Gesamtkunstwerk for being an ill-defined mushy merging of the different arts still agree that you cannot appreciate his use of the arts completely on their own. If you can't accept Wagner's melodies stand on their own, far less than any traditional opera melodies then you are merely being dogmatic. Your understanding of Wagner shows a dilettantish reading of both his Ring as well as the original Germanic sources which is typical of those first approaching it. You know nothing of how Wagner actually adapted those stories and poetry, or that almost all visual portrayals of Wotan today come from Wagner's Ring. But this negative opinion probably comes from a superficial reading of Nietzsche. As someone who approached Wagner from the Norse sources I can tell you your opinion is wrong. It's the result of, partially, listening to horribly wrong and mediocre interpretations, and on the other hand not investigating the Ring as a self-contained 19th century artwork. No one criticises Goethe for introducing his own themes into the Faust legend. If you were as knowledgeable on the sources as I am, then you would know the subtlety with which Wagner created the Ring, from the very smallest elements of the sources he took inspiration. I'm sorry user but you don't know the first thing about Icelandic poetry, and certainly couldn't compare with Wagner. Really the problem here is that you just know nothing about Wagner's Ring. Der Ring des Nibelungen is a major work of 19th century German literature, influencing both the language and plot of Nietzsche Zarathustra's, but is also an adaptation of Germanic myths and like for most of Wagner's late works opens up a very informative dialogue between the original and his own dramatic adaptation. Icelandic poetry was one of the most fundamental influences on Wagner's Ring and I doubt you have the knowledge of it to talk about how Wagner created his Ring. Imbecile.

stop making shit up about wagner because you hate her its obviously untrue, all you are doing is taking things that have happened to you in your life and changing the subject to wagner. you hate her so much yet you won't even come up with an original rumor, instead you opt to take the lazy route.
wagner was a tranny.

didn't read

trash op didn't even bother to fill in the copypasta

>How do I get into classical?
This link has resources including audio courses, textbooks and selections of recordings to help you start to understand and appreciate classical music:
pastebin.com/NBEp2VFh (embed)

Previous:

trees are better composers than your favorite composer
traubeck.com/works/years

no one has ever used this pastebin

how do you know