Видео

one of many composers, that his "music" sounds always the same no matter what it is written for !!!

@@Travlos-GlinkaI think you’re talking about Chopin

@@yujiazhang9954 Nope, I'm talking about Brian :-)

It is!

Thanks!​@@artemsscorevideos2313

it does thin out within the first few minutes though, and there's tremendous variety from the folky stuff (11:55) to the Bach inspired (21:25) In terms of overall flow i'm sometimes reminded of Keith Jarrett's long and sprawling piano improvisations (esp the ones from Japan) albeit more cerebral.

You don't have the intelligence and imagination to take in this music, weren't you a kid?

Wdym by distilled 🤨

​@@augustboothe8565 more unified, this is very heterogeneous

well, this isn't really something you could call a song, is it?

A lot has happened in the intervening 50 years. I lived there at the time this work was written -- though oddly enough I haven't heard it until now -- and this sort of music was cutting edge then. But it's quite different now.

Based on living near San Francisco, I recommend you stay far, far away.

same!

Same! Have been asking my sheet music score for a decade. I own every other Ligeti composition in score post-57

Hello, Brian! Indeed, what a great piece. If there is a second cello concerto, and if I can find a score of it, I would love to make a score video!

Yes I saw now that there is a second cello concerto. It was composed in 2016 so it´s a much later work.

Too bad for you

I find it very very beautiful

Without dissonances the art can`t exist because they are a great part of the life.

it is beautiful

ART ISN'T ALWAYS BEAUTIFUL. It is a reflection of life, it's ups and downs and everything in between, and sometimes those moments aren't beautiful. Classical music isn't meant to be relaxing and pretty all the time, it's about EXPRESSION. In the 20th century, composers sought new ways of experimenting with expression. The same thing happened with the visual arts. I'd say this piece is much more representative of the complications of modern society, and our lives in the 20th/21st century, than a pretty tonal piece that ends in a major chord.

It doesn't seem like you are legitimately asking, but I can give you an answer anyway. Art doesn't always have to be about "beauty". I know saying this seems like the most copypaste bs ever, but let's remember that the concept of beauty itself is rather dubious and limited - although your definition of it is pretty clear, considering the fact you have Bach as your nickname and profile picture and also considering your other comment. However, let's also remember that to the great majority of people, "beauty" equals familiarity, therefore, if it's something new to me but at the same time matches with what I already like = beautiful, and considering that we've had thousands of years of modal and hundreds of years of tonal music, most people will be the most familiar with things that follow those tonal or modal constructional pillars. But here's the thing: some people will enjoy compositional experiments because they show us a new world, instead of repeating the same old formulas over and over again. It's an openminded adventure to the unknown. But you have to be familiar with that concept in order to understand and enjoy those works, because they break away from what has been done in the past thousands of years. It's just like learning a new language, or learning how to drink, or learning how to enjoy pepper, or even coffee for that matter: it takes much time and many trials. Your body may initially naturally reject it and you'll think that thing is garbage because it's so different from everything you have always known. But when you finally get it, it's the most wonderful thing because suddenly you're not bounded by the limits of your comfort zone and you can see the beauty in it, the excitement in it, you can feel good and you'll also be able to enjoy many and many different things. It's like people who dislike baroque: wouldn't you wish for them to be able to hear Bach and see the beauty in it the same way that you do? Because many people think Bach is garbage and boring. Isn't it sad? The same aplies to Ligeti. Now, the best of all: you can enjoy both A and B, the new and the old. You don't have to hate yellow to love blue, you can love both - that is, you can love Bach and Ligeti, tonal and atonal (or post-tonal). Also, if you're having difficulty in enjoying works like this, try other things which are closer to your understanding and gradually go further. This is literally what everyone who gets into Contemporary Music does. Some Ligeti's works which are easier to understand are the capricci 1 and 2, mysteries of macabre, the horn trio and the six bagatelles for wind quintet. Remember that Ligeti's work is mainly about rhythm, melodies and textures - don't just listen to the harmony. All the best

@@MomentsNotice thank you , you told me a lot of things, all the best to you too

Бро, классная же музыка, слушать интересно, чем больше разной музыки написано, тем богаче культура человечества.

Стравинский разве не великий композитор, который в поздние года писал исключительно додекафонную музыку ? Или Скрябин, который единственный писал в духе символистов музыку без тонального центра. Великий Шостакович, который написал ту самую Лениградскую симфонию, в сонате для скрипки смешивает додекафонию с тональностью, образуя наверное ещё большее количество диссонансов чем здесь

Бах, которым ты себя назвал, использует в ре минорной фантазии и фуге практически атональную тему. Он бы нашёл много интересного в работах Лигети.

Still here