[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/mu/ - Music


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Will he ever be surpassed
>>
>>88342318
Yes. By Beethoven.
>>
File: hadyn3.jpg (91 KB, 524x640)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>88342327
Pleb.
>>88342318
No, but he has been nearly equalled a few times.
>>
>>88342318
I think a few people just by cultural saturation have similar respect and love for music and tonality. But the likelyhood of those people also being such talented composers and improvisers is quite low.
>>
>>88342318
bladee
>>
>>88342338
Beethoven's Late String Quartets are the epitome of music
>>
>>88342318
kanye is well and alive, OP
>>
File: hadyn.jpg (300 KB, 1000x1264)
300 KB
300 KB JPG
>>88342642
Fool. Not even the best string quartets, let alone the peak of music.
>>
>>88342663
why is op. 76 so good
>>
>>88342338
>>88342663
>hadyn
Do you even know the name of the composer you're posting?
>>
File: hadyn2.jpg (32 KB, 593x800)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>88342681
Pure unadulterated genius. It only comes once in a long while.
>>
>>88342318
A challenger appears:
https://ystrex.bandcamp.com/album/what-do-you-get-for-the-man-who-lost-everything
>>
File: hadyn1.jpg (101 KB, 900x750)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>88342721
It's a meme from old /classical/.
>>
>>88342327
Based. Symphony 7 is GOAT
>>
File: hadyn6.jpg (151 KB, 827x1000)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
>>88342776
Not even the best Beethoven symphony, let alone the greatest symphony.
>>
>>88342776
Greatest symphonies I've heard honestly are Brahms' 4th, Mahler's 9th and Pettersson's 6th. Reccs?
>>
>>88342663
>>88342733
Based Hadynposters
>>
>>88342662
kill yourself nigger
>>
>>88342821
How so?
>>
File: hadyn5.jpg (152 KB, 988x1241)
152 KB
152 KB JPG
>>88343155
Listen to Beethoven 3, then listen to Haydn 26, 44, and 21.
>>
>>88343237
>no arguments
Based.
>>
File: hadyn4.jpg (237 KB, 1000x750)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>88343505
We have to have the same context from which to discuss. Come back when you've listened to and studied them and have the necessary experience for discussion. As of now, explaining it to you would be a waste since you lack the knowledge required for discourse.
>>
>>88343551
>I j-just don't want to provide arguments haha!
Kek, sure, buddy.
>>
File: hadyn7.jpg (60 KB, 436x550)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>88343640
None of my arguments would make sense unless you have some reference to go off of. Would you seriously expect someone to have a civilized discussion of the merits of a piece of art if one party had never experienced that art? Of course not. You're being foolish. If you want to truly discuss a book, you first have to have read that book.
>>
>>88343693
>I SWEAR!! I know what I'm taking about I just don't want to show m-my arguments! Trust m-me!
Literally pathetic.
>>
File: hadyn8.jpg (36 KB, 460x620)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>88343854
If you actually wanted a further appreciation of music you would listen to the pieces, analyze them, and construct your own thesis that we could compare to come to a conclusion. However, it's obvious that you're just here for a gotcha moment and aren't actually interested in classical music appreciation. Stop making art a competition, that's what teenagers and idiots do.
>>
>>88343907
>stop trying to make me explain my thoughts! That's what teenagers and idiots do!
Jesus Christ kek
>>
>>88343934
I can't explain my thoughts about something unless you've listened to the thing I'm talking about. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. I wouldn't want to discuss a Sorolla painting with someone who's never seen it. You're actually mentally deficient if you don't understand that you need to hear a piece before discussing it. No amount of green-texted strawmen will change that. These are canonized pieces you should have already heard and studies anyways.
>>
>>88344014
>I'll not explain my point of view by presenting arguments and you're mentally deficient
The absolute state of this board. I got it, man. You don't know how to explain your own ideas and opinions. Pathetic.
>>
>>88344083
All you need to do is listen to the pieces and then I would be happy to explain them to you. If your attention span is that low and you are so lazy that that's too difficult, so be it. You should have analyzed these pieces already, but evidently you are a classical tourist. You can keep implying I'm the one who's failing to present arguments when you're the one who is refusing to inform himself and actually take the discussion seriously. I should have expected someone who thinks Beethoven surpassed Bach hasn't actually listened to or analyzed any classical music.
>>
>>88344137
>I should have expected someone who thinks Beethoven surpassed Bach
Who? Not me.
Nice goalshift post. Try to build some arguments before claiming you're pathetic ideas next time.
>>
He's pretty good. His Passions and Mass in B Minor are next level. Personally I prefer some works from Dvorak, Ravel, Bartok, and maybe Xenakis as well. But still up there though.
>>
>>88344154
All you have to do is actually listen to a piece of classical music (a daunting task for you I'm sure) and I'll give an in depth explanation of the pieces. Learn to write coherently by the way.
>>
>>88344200
All you have to do is provide a SINGLE argument for your idea. Kek, what happened to this board.
>>
>>88344219
As soon as you listen to one of the pieces I will present the reasons for its greatness. But you have to listen to the piece before I can explain it to you.
>>
>>88344219
>what happened to this board
retards started trying to argue about things they haven't listened to and then got mad when others called them out on their ignorance
>>
File: 1559046592113.jpg (56 KB, 748x499)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
Louis Couperin. zis french sodomlseur de maman was very talented as well, I'd say he equalled Bach as far as harpsichord music goes ,in terms of how colourfoul, daring and sometimes experimental his progressions were. His organ music is meh and other types of compositions almost non existent. But everybody forgot about him because of his faggotte successors, the opposite of Bach in that sense really. Also no autistic muh protestantism cult around him post mortem, the french had enough to be proud of at that time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phQtdelQfCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSoQIdlP9uI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r31y1-3YQis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_WC8Hj6svQ
>>
>>88344262
>X is better than Y guys
>why?
>I'll NOT explain! But I have the knowledge, I swear! I just don't want to explain!!!
Musical illiterates disgust me. I'll unironically stop following this thread. Goodbye. Learn music theory, and how to defend your own point of views, kek.
>>
as great as haydn is, unsurpassed in his string quartets (perhaps equalled, if that), no-one in his right mind thinks haydn is a greater composer than bach.
>>
The thing with Bach lovers when they make an argument for why he's good is that they'll refer how complex his music is. There'll be references of counterpoint, extensive harmonic variety attained through the use of lots of 7ths/inversions/etc., and modulation.

What these people don't understand is that a variety in technicality and complexity doesn't necessarily translate to variety in expression. In the case of Bach, it really doesn't. When one listens to his music, the end result of what one gets is that same "majestic" royal feel often associated with formal religious music (which, in Bach's case quite a few of his works are exactly this.) The "laid back feel but notationally busy as fuck" style. He's not using a variety of techniques and adding further depth to his compositions to express more. Overall he comes off looking like a one trick pony whose depth only comes from a rather mathematical analysis of his music rather than his attempts at expressing something more.

This is versus his successors like Mozart or Beethoven who certainly don't have that kind of harmonic variety, yet they could do more with a basic V I progression than Bach could do with god knows how many different chords.

This isn't even mentioning how much the music actually lacks in dynamics, rhythm, and texture/orchestration due to it ultimately being a product of its time (with these factors only further limiting the capability of expression through the music artform.)

You can't ever make theoretical analysis itself the bastion of why an artist is good. Bach is the premier example of someone that has a lot to theoretically analyze yet its end result sound so ubiquitous.
>>
>>88344302
I will explain as soon as you listen to the piece. I never said there was an X either. I'm only trying to have an informed discussion and appreciate some music. I was hoping I could introduce some new music to you and explain why it is great in order to broaden your horizons, but I see that actually listening to a symphony is too hard for you.
>>88344312
I don't think that and I never said that. A different retard said Beethoven was better than Bach and I said he was wrong.
>>
>>88344325
>these quantifiably great aspects of this music don't matter because it lacks a subjective quality that many others believe it contains in large amounts.
>>
>>88344366
>retard said Beethoven was better than Bach and I said he was wrong

fully agreed.
>>
>>88344400
>quantifiably great aspects
Which aspects
>>
>>88344458
the complexity and technicality you cited in your post
>>
>>88344325
This is the music pleb version of saying 'Shakespeare is overrated.'
>>
>>88344325
>Bach is the premier example of someone that has a lot to theoretically analyze yet its end result sound so ubiquitous

that has got be the worst "critique" of bach i have ever read.
>>
>>88344471
>more complex = better
huh
>>
>>88344515
a piece being more complex would mean it is being better at being complex yes.
>>
>>88344546
a piece being simpler would mean it is being better at being simple, so what's your point?
>>
>>88344325
explain how to measure expression and why more expression is good.
>>
>>88344579
everything is great in some regard.
>>
>>88342318
Yeah, Die Lit has been out for over a year now retard
>>
>>88342318
I prefer Beethoven over Bach, but BWV 633 is the best thing I've ever heard.
>>
>>88342318

His violin wont be surpassed but his composition and other instruments skillset were in actually around the same time of renaissance and the enlightenment +XVII
>>
>>88344794
perhaps when it comes to choral polyphany composers like josquin des prez, tomas luis de victoria and orlando lassus are on the level as bach.
>>
>>88342318
No, he is the greatest. The label "classical music" is actually term for the golden age of musical art.

Classical music will be revered in thousands of years time, the same way we admire the Renaissance artists or the Greek philosophers.
>>
I know nothing about music theory and Bach is my favorite composer. His music flows amazingly.
>>
File: schubert.jpg (191 KB, 1000x750)
191 KB
191 KB JPG
>>88342318
>>88342327
>>88342338
>>88344167
bunch of plebs here
>>
>>88346398
This

>>88346333
Based and checked
>>
>>88342318
I have a classmate named Bach who claims to be descended from one of Johann's brothers. How cool is that?
>>
>>88347096
That's cool man and probably legit. Bach had a big family and like 9 kds.
>>
File: p01bqdpx.jpg (92 KB, 960x540)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
What does /mu/ think of my main man Chopin.
>>
>>88347254
a better composer than he allowed himself to be
>>
File: chopin.jpg (102 KB, 1600x900)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
>>88347254
I think this quote describes his position well.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.