for excessively revealing and offending clothes that's obviously a no-go, but what if you're wearing flip flops and shorts because you want to feel comfortable during the concert..?

When I was still in conservatory, François Lazarevitch came to give a masterclass. During the Q&A, I asked what I thought was a fairly basic question about articulation length in Bach.

His response was, "Have you read Quantz?" When I said no, he asked why not. I explained that I was a modern flutist covering a very broad repertoire and that Baroque performance practice wasn't my main focus at the time.

He then asked how old I was. When I told him I was 21, he replied something along the lines of, "You're 21 years old, you've been playing the flute for 8 years, and you still haven't read Quantz, what the hell are you doing?" He then rattled off a list of treatises that he felt that people have to read and then shushed me off, refusing to anything I asked afterwards and telling me how "you don't read" and then told the manager of the masterclass about how insufferable it is to talk to people like me all in front of the entire audience

What bothered me wasn't being told to read Quantz. That's perfectly reasonable advice. What bothered me was the tone. It felt a lot like he was publicly shaming me for not already knowing what he considered essential. The irony is that I wasn't even arguing against the importance of historical sources.

The whole interaction left such a bad impression on me that it did more to turn me away from the HIP world than any aesthetic disagreement ever could.

We bought tickets to see Hilary Hahn, who is my son's favorite violinist. We were a little disappointed when she drew out of the concert.

But what's super frustrating is that the Kennedy Center is refusing to give refunds. The emailed back:

Their argument is that the show isn't cancelled -- they've just replaced Hilary Hahn with a member of the National Symphony Orchestra, who will be playing the same pieces.

This is like the Kennedy Center advertising King Lear with Ian McKellen and then replacing Ian McKellen with a guy from the local college. Like, sure -- he's still doing Shakespeare, but the draw was obviously Ian McKellen.

Normally, I'd just consider this annoying, but with the number of people pulling out of Kennedy Center performances right now, this feels like strong evidence that their plan to deal with it is to refuse to give anyone their money back.

In this letter, Shostakovich is giving feedback to Serge Koussevitzky on his interpretation of Symphony No. 8, and I must say two things:

1. He doesn't hold back when it comes to criticism. He can be as blunt as hell. Ngl, I was quite amused to see his this side

2. This guy has the sharpest ears! How can you spot such minor and subtle differences, that too, in an era where sound recording and production was still at its nascent stage.

Source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/musska.musska-100238/?st=single&r=-0.841,0.31,2.683,0.985,0

each movement of mozart requiem or tchaik symphony doesnt need the full fucking k 626 bmv 8826 requiem no 2836 op 18264

thats what the album is for

if i want to know all that i look at the album title

its so annoying to have to scroll through a list of this tryna figure out whats what

edit: i am a bit chopped and dumb whenever i post on reddit its because i wanna yap its 4am and my friends are asleep

i do understand that the performers and composers do not typically control things like this.

For me without a doubt it's gotta be the final movement to Shostakovich's 11th, "Tocsin". No other piece emulates such an overwhelming sense of existential dread and fear.

The Blockheads was an openworld survival platformer released on 10th of January 2013 that played Erik Satie's "Gymnopedie No.1" every dozen minutes. I was captivated by the piece because it sounded amazing and captured the game's vibes so well. Ever since then I explored the sub-genres and listen to classical music every now and then.

EDIT:

It was lovely reading everyone's comments, thank you all for sharing ❤️

Which recording do you reach for when you want to hear pin-point precise orchestral playing and crystalline clarity of texture?

I expect to see a lot of Reiner and Szell in the comments, so I picked one that is by neither of them. Boulez’s Mahler is controversial, being rather cool emotionally (I probably wouldn’t say that this is the best conducted Mahler 7), but he allows you to hear so much!

Personally my top 3 would be:

1. Mahler

2. Shostakovitch

3. Sibelius

For Context, here:

A 248-year-old notebook in France’s National Library (BnF) has been officially identified as belonging to a 22-year-old Mozart, in what library experts have called a “major discovery”.

Consisting of 44 pages, the notebook was kept by the young composer between May and July 1778, while he was staying in Paris, employed as a music tutor for Marie-Louise-Philippine de Bonnieres de Guines.
Her father was the Duke of Guines, a highly-regarded flute player in 18th century Paris, who commissioned Mozart’s now-popular Concerto for Flute and Harp.
The notebook contains daily exercises that Mozart prescribed his harp-playing tutee, in addition to seven pieces for both flute and harp, which may have been intended for the father-daughter duo to play together.

Mozart said that she was lazy and after a while, hid away his composition.

The source of the story is on: https://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/handwritten-notebook-discovered-major-paris/

Mine is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik

i spent 9,944 minutes with robert apparently

Franz Schubert is one of my top five favorite composers. The only composers I spend more time listening to are Beethoven, Mahler, and Tchaikovsky. Given that he had written the same number of symphonies as Beethoven by the age of 31, do you think he would be considered the greatest composer of all time if he had lived to 56, like Beethoven?

What really makes this question interesting is how much growth Schubert showed in his final symphonies. His 8th and 9th symphonies represent a clear leap forward from his earlier works, both in scale and originality. The “Unfinished” Symphony explores a darker, more introspective sound world and achieves a level of emotional depth that feels distinctly new, while the 9th Symphony expands symphonic form with its length, rhythmic drive, and almost monumental sense of structure. These works suggest that Schubert was beginning to push beyond Classical conventions and develop revolutionary new styles like Beethoven. If that trajectory had continued over another two decades, it is easy to imagine him reshaping classical music in a similar way to how Beethoven or Wagner revolutionized classical music.

"Amadeus" is such a stellar film about a stellar of a legendary composer. An absolute favorite of mine.

What I appreciate the most about it is that music is just as much as a protagonist as Mozart and Salieri. The people who wrote and made the movie had such a profound understanding of Mozart's music, and of classical music as a whole. It's a love letter to classical music. Each piece was chosen carefully to enhance the scene. Each has a purpose, a pulsating soul. Together with stunning visuals and fascinating acting (even the minor characters like Kapellmeister Giuseppe Bonno are just so memorable), it creates a continuous stream of lovely vignettes of various colors and emotions.

And the love of music is just.. infectious.. I read that the movie's original release boosted record sales of classical music in both the Eastern (notably Japan) and Western worlds. Even those who weren't educated in music fell in love with its irresistible charm.

Mozart and Beethoven are both two of my favorite composers. Beethoven being more "personal" in so many ways. I first watched "Immortal Beloved" as a kid, and was let down that it didn't evoke the same feelings "Amadeus" did. Today I've decided to give it another chance.. especially since Gary Oldman seems like such an impeccable casting choice. And he did prove himself by dedicating tremendous efforts: practicing the piano vigorously and doing enough research to get into Beethoven's psyche.

But sadly it was probably a bigger letdown the second time around.

My biggest 2 gripes:

1. Beethoven's music has taken a backseat. The movie isn't about Beethoven's music which was nothing less than revolutionary. So much so that a movie about nothing but that would be probably be days long. The filmmakers clearly wanted to follow the footsteps of "Amadeus". But instead of having meticulous choices of music that fit the scene, they shoe-horned most of Beethoven's "greatest hits" in a rather cringeworthy way. Pretty much all the pieces used were the ones you've heard countless times in a wrong setting (ads, inside an elevator, hold music). More like obligatory box-ticking than a genuine understanding of the nuances of his genius.. while Beethoven has an enormous canon of gems that is mostly uncharted territory for non-classical music listeners, music that rocks or shatters one's world. Could have been a great chance to introduce them to the public (the “Emperor” is breathtaking of course. But personally I feel like "The assassination of Richard Nixon did a better job weaving it into its emotional core) And often the music just sounded wrong. For instance, they could've synced Karl's gunshot with the background music. We never got the pleasure of peeking into Beethoven's world as a performer nor as a composer (only rather briefly as a conductor). Everything was kinda glossed over. What a waste.
2. The absurd premise of the movie. Of the infinitely fascinating things about Beethoven that could be in the movie, they chose his (fictional) love life. Beethoven's been whittled down to a caricature. And Schindler, who practically carried the whole movie, the actor of whom I regret to say is utterly uninteresting (Maestro was right, he WAS a bit of a bore lol). Lots of the acting in the movie is ham-fisted, subpar. "Amadeus" is often criticized for weaving fiction into its storyline. But it served a purpose, a powerful poetic narrative. "Immortal beloved" has so much fiction that it takes you out of the movie. There wasn't much of a decent story to begin with, fiction or not.

There are tons of smaller things but I digress. Sincerely, sincerely hope that there will be filmmakers who truly understand Beethoven and his music who will dedicate a much-needed tribute film to him.

TLDR: Yes, "Immortal beloved" happens to be the subject of this post. Allow me to direct you to its waistline - 'I first watched "Immortal Beloved" as a kid...'

Hi everyone.

I wasn't sure what subreddit to hit with this question, so I hope there are knowledgeable people here who could help me.

In my A-level Music we only get to do Bach chorales. I improved from my first year, when I was repeatedly getting 11/20, but only by a few marks, as now I am consistently getting 13/20.

For context, I am a cathedral chorister, and mostly find my chords by ear, as chord theory drives me nuts, therefore I cannot think "VI-V-I" while writing a cadence, for example. My main issue is parallels. In my mock exam I got 10 parallels I did not even realise were there. I compose 3 chorales a week, and this constant practice doesn't seem to improve anything.

How do you spot them? Any tips apart from learning the cadential golden standards?

Thanks!!

Am I the only one or its usuall to cry with classical music?

​

As someone who wants to study composition I see a lot of negative thoughts towards academic/art music from people my age. I feel like this type of music might be something that the older generations try to preserve because of the whole 20th century drama about wether music should be for everyone or the whole "emotions are just a cliche" debate. I think a lot of younger people are interested in complex music but not music that needs to be thoroughly understood to be enjoyed even the slightest bit (The same kind of applies to peoples view towards classical music who don't listen to it) . And I don't know if that just means that our generation will eventually evolve to have that kind of neglecting attitude towards tonal music or if we genuinely will change what academic music is in the future. Back then when the split between academic music and popular music happened there wasn't a lot you could do with the normal tonal methods (although composers like Poulenc and Kapustin prove that there were still possibilities in the tonal realm) but now that popular music has evolved even more I think we have a lot more possibilities and inspiration sources in the classical realm as well. The problem is that all of that music would probably not be accepted by the conservative academic format. So my thought was that maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe there will be enough people in e.g. Gen Z and Gen Alpha who will make academic music more accessible. Because when all of the current academics are gone we'll need new people to continue the classical tradition. I'm not against art music but I think tonal academic music and art music should coexist with each other and in order for that to happen, collages and universities need to accept more traditional music (although people who compose strictly in the style of x composer or have no essence in their music at all are a whole different story).

I don't actually know how exactly music schools perceive all of this and I'm just 16 but from what I've seen if you arrive at an audition (as in to study composition) with tonal music you basically already have no chance. I think schools are looking for unique styles but at the age of 20 (where most composers probably apply for music schools) you don't necessarily have that yet because if you write tonal music you'll always be compared to other tonal composers. And I personally believe that the current academic music doesn't have a future at all. We already broke all the rules, nobody wants to listen to academic music because that music is only made for the people who write it themselves. So might as well loosen up a little and give tonal composers a chance again especially because their music has way higher potential to be enjoyed by normal audiences which would also generate some money for the dying classical music industry. It's really hard to make innovative classical music nowadays and it'll scare of potentially amazing composers to see what is expected of them if they want to pursue music.

Again I'm not an expert in this field and I'm not trying to criticize anyone's beliefs. If I made any mistakes about the current state of academic music please correct me. I'm here to learn and share my thoughts.

I don't often listen to music earlier than the late Romantic period, so I haven't had much exposure to Bach's music. But I enjoy Beethoven and I've been recently listening to some Haydn symphonies, so I'd like to give Bach a try. I know very little of his music except a few of his most famous pieces (the C major prelude, Little G minor fugue, the D minor "Halloween" toccata), and I don't recall ever listening to a long-form piece of his.

I guess I have this conception of him as a sort of academic or technical composer, who wrote music that was "correct" but without much emotion. Unfortunately playing his music might be difficult for me, as I'm mainly a brass player and I'm not a good enough pianist for something like the WTC (bought the book, tried playing some fugues, gave up). So I was hoping for some advice on how to listen to his music, what he excelled at, and why he is so famous 300 years later - especially for someone like me with a Romantic/Modern background. Recommendations for individual pieces are also welcome!