https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABm7nMVyNh4&list=PLy_sFE0vLIaNxkXv_xWnwM34alZ1oKQDO&index=2

>>127113796 (OP)
Because the frequency is closer to the more natural 432hz humans long for

>>127113835
Meds schizo

>>127113835
> closer to the more natural 432hz humans long for
But that just refers to the reference note of A above middle C, which is just a single note, and every other note is going to have different frequencies anyways, everything is just going to be flatter by a few steps for no reason...

>>127115962
>steps
I mean cents

Music is all about nostalgia, a timecapsule evoking a certain time and place, even when it is evoking the current year. Classical attracts a lot of people who want to be nostalgic for an era they never even experienced, back in the good old days when there was real music, people knew their place etc. The presentation is a big part of that, scratchy old windup gramophone recordings, low resolution sound puts them back in that era, even if people then didn't hear the sound like that. Same way black and white or sepia photos seem classier or more in tune with the times, even if people weren't colourblind back then.

>>127113796 (OP)
That's too old. Peak recordings are from around 1950s to 1980s. It's not just better because of the warmer analogue sound and distortion, but because the performers were much better and individualistic too.

>>127116408
I really don't think this applies to more than a marginal number of listeners, if that, at least when it comes to classical music. The logic seems upside down. I'm not just speaking for myself when I say that I *first* realized classical music and literature were simply better (technically, aesthetically, and on many other levels), and *then* my worldview developed from that realization. It wasn't the other way around, as in "everything used to be better, therefore old music better". That seems like a backwards and shallow understanding.
And no, you don't need to have "experienced" a past era to understand what it might have felt or looked like. Just imagine a good 100-150 years ago: classical music, with all its richness, diversity, and expressive potential, being the main form of music. You still had traditional folk music traditions everywhere, because industrialization and globalism hadn't yet steamrolled every local culture, and there was "light" and "popular" music too for entertainment. But there were no recordings (or they weren't available to anybody), so the aura of music was far stronger. You had to either learn to play it yourself or go hear it live where it could absolutely blow you away. It was a ritual, a rare social event, and had a communal aspect that's completely alien today. You had church music, public concerts, playing music together at home, and no instant and infinite music listening program.
Now music mostly serves as a constant background noise for daily life; walking around, eating, shopping, driving, working, studying. It's all just noise pollution, it's annoying, and it has no power.
To reduce this to mere "nostalgia" is missing the point. This is about something much deeper and essential.

>>127116938
>I really don't think this applies to more than a marginal number of listeners
Well yes that was the point, nostalgia is different for every listener, and only a small proportion of classical fans, have this nostalgia for crackly 1920s recordings. Then again another fan is nostalgic for a different era >>127116851

It wasn't a claim that classical is only liked because of nostalgia so your tangents about industrialisation and gobalisation is just you trying to defend against the supposed barbarians at the gate dismissing classical.

>>127116408
>>127117180
You're a fucking retard, kill yourself

Anyways, OP, the actual reason is pretty simple to explain: Most modern performance practice in the west aims less to heighten the beauty of a piece of music but instead to be as accurate as possible to what the piece used to sound like, the issue is that most "historically informed" performances like this are for the majority, based on guesses and vague writings. This leads to performances that don't really sound good and barely anyone thinks sound good, but like because they are "historically accurate". This got worse and worse overtime and a lot of modern performances of even Beethoven and Mozart suffer from this. And it has absolutely raped Bach's work for almost a century now.

Here is a performance of Bach back in the early 20th century:
https://youtu.be/WehiJcwu0Ho

And here is one from the modern day
https://youtu.be/LHjbRMIIhuM

What was originally an orchestra is now a string quintet with a flutist and a harpsichordist. What was the "one voice per part" based on? Cock and balls. What is the lack of vibrato based on? Cock and balls. The only historically accurate part of this entire performance is the use of gut strings. It's a glorified gimmick that has infected most of the performances of Bach's music in the modern day. The worst part about these performances to me is that they often just sound unpleasant. Bach sounded fine when played like any other contemporary piece of music, you aren't missing anything by hearing Bach like that, the previous performance was simply playing Bach in the tradition that he was a part of, the latter is playing Bach as if he's a historical artifact, it's academic and soulless. And this philosophy seeps into most modern performances and is even getting to the romantic period.

>>127117425
very interesting! got some more examples or maybe something to read more on this topic?

>>127117425
i think i enjoy both examples provided

>>127117571
Basically any baroque composer tends to suffer this fate

Vivaldi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kzofdXPBlM
https://youtu.be/qb4NpsWmWV0

Handel
https://youtu.be/DqyHUvW9BHo
https://youtu.be/__dDy0jtmjc

And once again, Bach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bseJdTAIygQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcsfDxojdV8

>>127117581
That is fine, I personally detest the majority of historically informed performances (Not all of them, I actually enjoy Robert Levin's recordings of Mozart's Piano Sonatas and Concertos. They're not my absolute favorite, but they're an interesting listen). But I do understand why some might dig the sound. My main intent is to explain why OP would find older recordings more pleasant to listen to. I wouldn't dislike them as much if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of lesser known composers have almost exclusively HIP recordings of their work. When it comes to composers like CPE Bach, it gets really hard to find a normal traditional recording of their work. I find traditional performances as important of historical artifacts as a supposed "authentic" performance is, as a traditional performance is hearing Bach the way most of the romantic composers heard him. I think the Bach that Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Dvorak and Schubert heard is as important as the Bach that his contemporaries heard. And simply denying the romantic way of playing Bach as an "inaccurate" performance implies a lot of negligence for the art, thinking of his work not as music, but as a historical record. It just reeks of the common cultural idea of classical music just being old music, and not a canon of important works of aural art that you see so often from most people now.

>>127117704
Also one funny thing to note. Mahler wrote some arrangements of Bach's music, while at the time seeming a little autistic as it didn't greatly differ from how most other people played Bach that much, now are one of the rare cases you can hear the old way of performing Bach in high quality (Obviously it's not 1 to 1, but it sounds closer)

https://youtu.be/cq7nYkkgluU

>>127117425
Oh well, not trying to make an animefag understand anything about taste and beauty.

>>127117762
>I think you're wrong but I am not going to say it because anime girls make me shit my pants in anger
Ok? What exactly did you expect me to think of this?

>>127117762
Anime site

>>127113796 (OP)
There was actually a tradition of music that informed you how to use dynamics to express feeling. Now we just have mechanical reproduction.

>>127117834
He's saying that attaching a cartoon girl to all of your posts reflects poorly on your tastes about class and refinement, which is true. When you imply some bug eyed drawing made for otaku to fellate themselves to is the peak of beauty, most people will not take your taste on other things seriously

I also read your main post, its a bunch of overly wordy drivel. You try to sound intelligent but clearly lack the articulation skills and talk like a teenager who just learned he could say 'retard' and 'cock and balls' on the internet. You write a lot but you're not actually saying much beyond, "I don't like how it sounds, it's soulless". Thanks for the links though

Lets be real, if you and every other classicalfag wanted proper academic discussion over classical music you would be posting literally anywhere else other than 4chan. But you're mostly a bunch of pseuds who like classical for superficial reasons, so you're stuck here

>>127117978
>He's saying that attaching a cartoon girl to all of your posts reflects poorly on your tastes about class and refinement
1. Not all of my posts
2. Cut me a fucking break, this site was initially designed specifically for discussion of these "bug eyed drawings". You can scroll up right now and there's a goot chance you will see an anime-themed banner. Browsing this site in the first place reflects poorly on your tastes about class and refinement if we're going by this logic (Kind of based, but in that case you gotta fuck off).
>, which is true. When you imply some bug eyed drawing made for otaku to fellate themselves to is the peak of beauty, most people will not take your taste on other things seriously
Please refer to the part of my post where I called this character "the peak of beauty", I am waiting.
>I also read your main post, its a bunch of overly wordy drivel.
Fair point, I do tend to be a bit too verbose in my posts.
>You try to sound intelligent but clearly lack the articulation skills and talk like a teenager who just learned he could say 'retard' and 'cock and balls' on the internet.
I do not try to sound like anything but myself. I say "based on cock and balls" because it's a humorous way to phrase it. If you don't find it particularly funny, that's fair. But not really anything fundamentally wrong with the post.
>You write a lot but you're not actually saying much beyond, "I don't like how it sounds, it's soulless".
I do say quite a bit more. My main point is that most HIP performances are overly academic and base themselves more on being faithful to vague writings from hundreds of years ago rather than what actually sounds emotionally resonant. I say "soulless" because it treats the music in a very un-artistic way IMO. As said, this is partially personal taste, I do not have any issue with someone enjoying them. My main issue is that it has taken over most modern performances of baroque music
>Thanks for the links though
Np

>>127118032
>goot
*good

>>127113796 (OP)
i think part of it is some composers were still alive during the early days of recording, so we get to hear them at their most authentic; they way they intended to play, be it someone close to them or the composers themselves

the only things we know about pre-recording composers is what they or others have written down

>>127117425
>>127117704
yeah the older recordings sound way more sovlful
i couldn't get into baroque/classical eras until i heard these

>>127113796 (OP)
Just go
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
when you listen to modern recordings to get the same effect

>>127117180
I'm not "nostalgic for a different era", you fucking retard. The old great performers are literally technically superior and much more individualistic, it's a fact. Stop projecting this retarded backwards login on to other people, nobody thinks like you want them to.

>>127113796 (OP)
For me, it's Baroque music on piano. I will not listen to a harpsichord, it sounds like two skeletons fucking on a tin roof in the middle of a storm.

>>127117180
I'm not "nostalgic for a different era", you fucking retard. The old great performers are literally technically superior and much more individualistic, it's a fact. Stop projecting this retarded backwards logic on to other people, nobody thinks like you want them to.

>>127113796 (OP)
i mean it's sarasate dude was like the paganini of his decade and this recording was nerfed by the recording technology at the time...
i like heifetz for this piece though.

>>127113796 (OP)
I honestly believe that the way performers "felt" music in the days before recordings and so much of the rest of modern technology was different. I think they were much more attuned to the music, being closer to the culture of its creation, and that this allowed them to express themselves through it in a more unmediated way than modern performers. Basically, that they were better able to take expressive liberties with their playing and make them sound right. Compare a pianist like Cortot with Lang Lang, who is technically incredible, but whose every ritardando sounds fake and chintzy. (Or chinky and retarded.) It's hard to explain precisely because I think it's holistic. The whole of society shapes an artist.