Austria – one of the best places to live
January 27, 2009 by
If you are looking for a different kind of sport, the extreme terrains of the Alps is for you with alpine skiing the most popular sport in Austria. Similar sports such as snowboarding or ski-jumping are also widely popular. So if you like to laze around covered with snow, listen to classical music and dissect the inner workings of mind and spirit, the comforting atmosphere of Austria invites you. Find out why Austria is considered one of the best places to live.
First and foremost, music is the soul of Austria’s culture being the birthplace of many famous composers such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Franz Schubert, Anton Bruckner, Johann Strauss, Sr., Johann Strauss, Jr. and Gustav Mahler as well as members of the Second Viennese School such as Arnold Schoenberg, Anton Webern and Alban Berg.
It has long been an important center of musical innovation with eighteenth and nineteenth century composers drawn to the city due to the patronage of the Habsburgs, and made Vienna the European capital of classical music. Generally regarded as the greatest of all composers, Ludwig van Beethoven spent the better part of his life in Vienna, cementing its standing as a nurturer of musicdom’s renowned stars. If you love music, Austria is definitely one of the best places to live and retire.
Austria not only prides itself in music but it also boast of a diverse cuisine which is influenced by Hungarian, Czech, Jewish, Italian and Bavarian cuisines, from which both dishes and methods of food preparation have often been borrowed. It is the birthplace of the world’s famous persons, both revered and reviled, and boasts of a culture that succinctly combines the classical and the modern. Foodies will find that Vienna is one of the best cities to live in the world.
A landlocked country in Central Europe, the Republic of Austria borders both Germany and the Czech Republic to the north, Slovakia and Hungary to the east, Slovenia and Italy to the south, and Switzerland and Liechtenstein to the west. Vienna, being a cradle of classical music, has reared into the world the geniuses of music with its atmosphere bereft then of the goose stomping army of the Third Reich led by the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, a native Austrian. In addition to physicists, Sigmund Freud also was born in Austria as well as the world famous movie star and current California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
damn it and I have already shown my inability to find a friend, hahah
روی من حساب کن در این مورد …:)
Richard Wagner, Ludwig van Beethoven, Anton Bruckner, Richard Strauss played loud ! All good stuff !
The difference between Reger’s tonality and the Second Viennese School’s atonality is that for Reger, the goal of all his chromatic alterations and voice-leading is a harmony with a recognizable traditional tonal function.
Translation: “In Reger's music (unlike that of the 2nd Viennese School), I always (eventually) understand which notes are which scale degrees.”
The entire opening section is leading up to the final beat of m. 17: a clear-as-day V4/3 which resolves into a recapitulation of the opening.
Translation: “In the context of the passage, the G in the bass of m. 17 is clearly understandable as scale degree 2, and the E as scale degree 7 (etc.)”
(Incidentally, this is not where the “entire opening section” is leading to: though admittedly mm.17-18 is a structural boundary, it doesn't represent a “resolution” of the preceding material at all. In particular, the B-natural, which is still alive and well, continues to push us forward. At this point, we're still within the the opening section, the goal of which (resolution of the B-natural to C) isn't reached until mm. 23-24.)
The uncertainty of that chord at the beginning (is it some sort of viiº7? Or an f minor chord—hinted at by the pedal tone—with an altered note?) gives way to a confirmation of the latter (the f minor chord) signalled by the V4/3, which, after all, is given prominence by the chromatic sequence gearing up to it.
Translation: “In m. 2 I wasn't sure whether the F was scale degree 1 or scale degree 4, but in m. 18 I know it has to be scale degree 1 because the preceding simultaneity was a C-major triad.” (!)
The point is that, Schoenberg might use the same sorts of chromatic voice leading, but the goal of the phrase/section/piece wouldn’t be a triadic collection with a harmonic expectation to be fulfilled or frustrated. (Unless it’s a piece like the “Ode to Napoleon,” say, which is built on nothing but triads, and is really its own special case.) And whereas Reger will almost always fill out his chromatic excursions into triads and seventh chords (for example, in the second statement of the theme in m. 6), an atonal composer like Webern or Boulez will choose to avoid triadic structures, lest they be misinterpreted as tonal harmonies. (Are there isolated triads in Webern and Boulez? Probably. But nowhere in the same universe as the density—and traditional doubling, it should be added—of Reger.)
With all due respect, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post (as well as these previous ones). I have repeatedly been making the case that the actual behavior of notes in a piece (this includes whether explicit triads are used or avoided, whether there is “traditional doubling”, and so on) has nothing to do with “tonality”, which is an analytical system, not a descriptive category. Obviously, the actual surfaces of Webern and Boulez are different from those of Reger — you would have to be deaf not to notice that. The question on the table is whether those surface differences necessitate that one must use separate systems of cognition in order to process the different composers' music. My answer is a resounding “no”, and my complaint is that it has always been assumed that the answer is not only “yes” but “obviously yes” — without any serious attempt to give an argument for the proposition.
The dense chromaticism of Reger (or Strauss, similarly) can always be seen as aiming (usually via a lot of contrary-motion half-steps, either short- or long-range) for a resolution that’s recognizably similar—if not identical—to the sorts of, yes, chord progressions of the common practice period… That’s why, for all their resitance to Roman numerals, they still sound tonal; and why, even when Schoenberg seems to hint at pitch centers (4th quartet, for example), his music doesn’t.
Prove it. I'm dead serious. Explain to me why the Schoenberg 4th quartet isn't tonal. (Just the first movement will do.) I want to see the reasoning spelled out in detail, with premises and conlcusion. I suggest you start by giving an argument for why (unlike the Reger concerto) it isn't in the key of F minor.]]>
My blood is beginning to boil at the disparaging comments about Haydn made here. Jonathan is clearly a ninny and needs no comment beyond a thumbs down. However, Doc Watson's remarks about the symphonies cannot go unchallenged. Haydn's corpus of 104 symphonies id, IMO, far more significant than those of Mozart. From 1 to 104 there isn't a dud. They cover the full gamut of emotions, including much humour. I really wonder if those who talk like this have ever listened to any of the middle period, sturm und drang, symphonies? This article bears reading and digesting from the knockers (by Andreas Schiff)
It can be argued that Haydn single handedly invented the string quartet and the piano trio. The last two oratorios, The Seasons and The Creation are amongst the greatest in the genre, as are the last six masses written for the name day of Princess Marie Hermengild. Just listen to his writing with just strings and percussion in that now named 'The Nelson'