# Music that is difficult to listen to



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I recently came across this, and a lot of people in the comments section brought up how it is so difficult for them to listen to, due to factors such as its morbid and emotionally taxing mood, personal connections they may have to its subject matter (dementia), its intentional use of distortion of sound, its length, etc. This made me think about the various reasons for why people might find certain music "difficult" to listen to. *So, what pieces and composers do you find exceptionally difficult to listen to, and why? Do you find it rewarding to listen to difficult music? You may interpret "difficult" any way you like.* I expect that many of the answers will have to do with very personal subject matter; please do not feel pressured to share any more than you feel comfortable with. Also, I am expecting people to mention contemporary music, a controversial topic on TC that tends to spark debates that derail threads. It is OK to express negative opinions, of course, but please be considerate of the thread topic and of other posters.


----------



## mrdoc (Jan 3, 2020)

If I said which music, and I use that word very loosely that I find hard or even impossible to listen to a certain mod would delete my post and ban me so I will say nothing but I am sure you get the gist of my post


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Cryptic or what? Perhaps paranoid would be a better word.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I find certain classical period music very difficult to listen to, Boccherini, Stamitz, Dittersdorf, etc, especially the stuff with lots of repeats. It just grates on my ears.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

If it's "difficult" in the sense of "hard to assimilate", and not "accessible but boring", these are what come to my mind now:

- Late Bach;
- Late Beethoven;
- Some pieces by Berlioz;
- Wagner's operas, particularly his late ones;
- The Mahler symphonies;
- Schoenberg, particularly works of his atonal and dodecaphonic periods.

I think that there's a lot of difficult works in the XXth century, it being the "hardest" period of music in my opinion, but I refrain from citing names due to my lack of exposure to much of this music.

As a listener, I like to be challenged - I think that it's great the feeling of getting something out of a musical work after attentively listening to it several times. It's like a deserved reward for me. I like details, I like complexity, and I enjoy when a work of art is made in a somewhat "cryptic" language and I have to try to decipher it. That said, I think that difficulty alone can't make a work great or even good - it has to have substance, at least in my judgement. And easy, accessible music can be very great in my opinion - I'm thinking of late Haydn, late Mozart, middle Beethoven and late Schubert for example.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Just about anything from Hans Werne Henze.


----------



## Ofekaaa (Mar 7, 2020)

I must say that it is hard for me and I believe for 99% of the world to listen to all of the new composers who must "feel" smart and write everything in A-Tonal way without any true knowledge


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Allerius said:


> Late Beethoven;


It's funny: this is not the first time I've seen Beethoven mentioned in such a context, but it always surprises me. I found late Beethoven--especially the late string quartets and piano sonatas--to be my introduction to obsessive music listening before I entered my teens. It sounded more "narrative" than many other pieces, and I liked the "spooky" qualities. A sloppy performance of the Great Fugue can still raise my hackles a bit, but even so I liked it immediately.

Just goes to show that difficulty can be subjective in some cases, I guess.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I find music difficult when it turns out to not be what I was expecting it to be. I can usually get over the difficulty by re-calibrating my expectations. I often find difficulty enticing. I suppose the most difficult of all is boring music - and I don't find that enticing at all.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

When I started listening to classical music in the mid eighties, the first year it was baroque to Debussy. When I first tried Stravinsky's Sacre, it was a shock. I found it too difficult, but tried and tried again until it clicked. It opened the 20th century for me. Similarly, it took repeated tries with Berg's violin concerto to eventually get into the second Viennese school. A series of CD's by the Kronos quartet around 1990 opened up contemporary music for me - but again it was not easy at the start.

Three decades later, I can listen to most music without finding the experience difficult. That is not the same as finding the experience rewarding obviously.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Like what I think Flamenco is saying, I have a hard time focussing on music which has no really distinguishing or unique features; music in which there are no conceptual or harmonic surprises.

Then again, this used to be the case with me and Vivaldi, until I heard Giuliano Carmignola. He put passion and facility into it. I could tell his sincerity, and how seriously he took the music, especially from seeing him on YouTube video.

This is a case of humanity/performance trumping abstract ideas/musical features.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I don't find late Beethoven particularly hard to "understand". In fact I find the aesthetics close to Beethoven's contemporaries': Hummel's late piano pieces (such as Etude Op.125 No.21 in B flat major making use of arpeggios and the pedal like Beethoven's Op.106, and Piano Sonata No.5 in F sharp minor having fugal sections with octaves in the bass, resembling Beethoven Op.101, 110) and Cherubini string quartets. Writing melodies like Tchaikovsky was not really Beethoven's forte, so he's finding other ways of expression. I think the use of contrast in Grosse Fuge is interesting, and the themes are "catchy" nevertheless.

It's doubtful if a large part of the 20th century is really hard to "understand" as people often claim, or if they're really just film music techniques. There was no cultural equivalent of 'horror movies', for example, back in 18th, 19th centuries and prior. So composers of the 20th century were required to develop techniques appropriate for their century's new entertainment content. That's how I see it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

I actually found Bach, Brahms, and Mozart difficult to listen to and sustain interest in my early days of listening; while Schubert, Chopin, and Rachmaninoff captivated me right away. Now, I listen to everything from all eras and styles, but there are still many things that simply don't interest me. Schumann's piano music is probably the biggest example outside of atonal music. I admire those who have been naturally gifted with the ear to enjoy atonal stuff. I do enjoy quite a bit of it (some Webern, Messiaen, Ives, Dutilleux) but when people call things like Berg's Violin Concerto and Britten's 3rd String Quartet (the featured work in the Weekly Quartet activity) "beautiful," I'm simply stupefied. It takes repeated listens and a radically different way of approaching the activity of music-listening for me to gain some appreciation for them. And on a purely emotional level, there's two things in all of music that I feel are too private to listen to: the first movement of Beethoven's 14th Quartet, and the finale of Mahler 9. Painfully personal, but oh-so-sublime.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> *So, what pieces and composers do you find exceptionally difficult to listen to, and why? Do you find it rewarding to listen to difficult music? You may interpret "difficult" any way you like.* .


I have a hard time with music which has its own discrete rules which requires a period of study just to understand that particular composer and their individual system. I don't have the time to study music that I used to, so any rewards inherent in the music are not worth the time and effort it takes to put in when I can gain similar rewards with other music.

For example, Messaien frustrates me. I don't hear colors, so it bothers me that I don't hear what I'm supposed to be seeing.

I'm on the periphery with Alban Berg, because he does arcane things underlying his music that I can't hear and which requires long periods of score-marking to grasp.

I never listen to my Maxwell Davies quartet recordings because they use magic squares, and I don't have time to figure out what that even means.

I don't mind difficult music if there is something in it that grabs me. Like Per Norgard's infinity series; I don't necessarily understand it, but it keeps my attention. And personally, I don't think any music is difficult if I have the time to put into understanding it, like I did ten years ago with Anton Webern. But time is my enemy, and ars longa, vita brevis.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Cryptic or what? Perhaps paranoid would be a better word.


I think "cryptic" is a vague term in this case. Are these "cryptic"?














So if someone claims to "understand" a certain piece better than us, he should at least help us "understand" in the same way as him. If he just keeps finger-pointing at us with the "you-don't-appreciate-it-because-you-just-don't-understand-it" kind of attitude, I'll just consider that pretentious.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Difficult music? The two who readily come to mind are Ferneyhough and Stockhausen.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Bruckner. I tend to fall asleep to it...


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

aleazk said:


> Bruckner. I tend to fall asleep to it...


This is another one for me. I enjoy Bruckner in the right mood, but I find his music difficult.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

flamencosketches said:


> This is another one for me. I enjoy Bruckner in the right mood, but I find his music difficult.


I also had a hard time appreciating him in the beginning but the more I listen, the more I like his works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> It's funny: this is not the first time I've seen Beethoven mentioned in such a context, but it always surprises me. I found late Beethoven--especially the late string quartets and piano sonatas--to be my introduction to obsessive music listening before I entered my teens. It sounded more "narrative" than many other pieces, and I liked the "spooky" qualities. A sloppy performance of the Great Fugue can still raise my hackles a bit, but even so I liked it immediately.
> 
> Just goes to show that difficulty can be subjective in some cases, I guess.


I discovered late Beethoven early as well. In high school, actually. It made me the man I am today. I offer that as a warning.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

*Allan Pettersson* - it's very dark, very disturbing and upsetting. When the Zombie Apocalypse strikes it will make good background music, though. Pettersson was a very troubled man, very angry - and boy does his music reflect it.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> *Allan Pettersson* - it's very dark, very disturbing and upsetting. When the Zombie Apocalypse strikes it will make good background music, though. Pettersson was a very troubled man, very angry - and boy does his music reflect it.


I was waiting for someone to mention Pettersson. I haven't explored that much of his music, but from what I do know, he'd be one of the first names to come to mind.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The toughest nuts to crack for me were E Carter and B Ferneyhough. Carter for pioneering a technique, and Ferneyhough for going against convention, even contemporary ones. Most contemporary music follow the same conventions, and aren't that tough. I think you can crack anyone if you keep listening and keep an open mind. Eventually you will zero in on what makes it tick. But the music i think is most difficult to fully grasp, even though I don't find it hard to like is Babbitt. I like him way more than Carter or Ferneyhough, yet I find there are things in his music that eludes me. Carter and Ferneyhough is Mickey Mouse compared to Babbitt. Their music unravels in a linear way, unlike Babbitt.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The toughest nuts to crack for me were E Carter and B Ferneyhough. Carter for pioneering a technique, and Ferneyhough for going against convention, even contemporary ones. Most contemporary music follow the same conventions, and aren't that tough. I think you can crack anyone if you keep listening and keep an open mind. Eventually you will zero in on what makes it tick. But the music i think is most difficult to fully grasp, even though I don't find it hard to like is Babbitt. I like him way more than Carter or Ferneyhough, yet I find there are things in his music that eludes me. Carter and Ferneyhough is Mickey Mouse compared to Babbitt.


once I cracked Schoenberg, I did not find any of the modern music particularly challenging. For me the most difficult has been Mozart. He took me maybe 2 years to crack until I warmed to his music. Other relatively difficult for me have been Bartok and Scriabin. Then there are the minimalists and composers such as Feldman. I haven't even tried to crack those, because I am not convinced that there is any nut inside the hard shells.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> once I cracked Schoenberg, I did not find any of the modern music particularly challenging. For me the most difficult has been Mozart. He took me maybe 2 years to crack until I warmed to his music. Other relatively difficult for me have been Bartok and Scriabin. Then there are the minimalists and composers such as Feldman. I haven't even tried to crack those, because I am not convinced that there is any nut inside the hard shells.


I see Schoenberg as very far from the likes of Carter or Ferneyhough. He's a Romantic or Classicist under disguise. Agree about the minimalists, I see it only as a technique, a means to an end. Feldman is also pretty much what you hear is what you get, but is not all that bad.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see Schoenberg as very far from the likes of Carter or Ferneyhough. He's a Romantic or Classicist under disguise. Agree about the minimalists, I see it only as a technique, a means to an end. Feldman is also pretty much what you hear is what you get, but is not all that bad.


Schoenberg was for me the first plunge, ie I had to reconceptualize my perception of music and get used to the modern sounds. Carter and Ferneyhough are of course different, though I did not find them challenging. I liked the Carter quartets almost from first listening and have listened to them many times. Boulez piano sonata 2 was also slight challenge, but after listening to it many times, I think I cracked it


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This was a great challenge.






as was this






and this


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> This was a great challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

annaw said:


> I also had a hard time appreciating him in the beginning but the more I listen, the more I like his works.


That's the kind of thing I like to hear about Bruckner.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Difficult can mean two distinct, though possibly related, things. One can find music difficult to understand and difficult to enjoy. In general I do not attempt to consciously understand a work but rather to like it. There's plenty of music I enjoy, some music that I'm indifferent to, and much less music I actively dislike. I wouldn't call any of this music difficult for me. It's simply that I like it, dislike it, or have no feeling one way or the other to it. 

The music I find difficult is music that I struggle to hear as music. Obviously I don't understand this music, but for me it's more that I just don't know how to properly listen to the sounds such that I hear them as music. An example would be Ferneyhough's string quartets though likely most or all of his music might fit into this category. The project, "1980-2000 Listening Group" may help given that there is a work by Ferneyhough. Multiple listenings coupled with discussion from those who enjoy the work may help me learn to listen to it in a manner I have previously been unable to.

Two works mentioned in this thread give me hope that I can learn to enjoy Ferneyhough. I used to dislike Beethoven's Grosse Fuge and could only hear Berg's Violin Concerto as random sounds. Allegro Con Brio mentions being stupified that anyone can hear the Berg as beautiful. Early in my time on TC, I would have strongly agreed with this sentiment. Now the concerto is my favorite 20th century violin concerto, and I hear much as profoundly beautiful. It's simply amazing how one's brain can change to hear music vastly differently. Also, the Grosse Fuge is now one of my favorite quartets.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Red Terror said:


> Difficult music? The two who readily come to mind are Ferneyhough and Stockhausen.


OMG Yes. How anyone can listen to Ferneyhough is beyond comprehension to me.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I would agree Pettersson is difficult to grasp and enjoy. There is a prevailing darkness about it. He has been compared to Bruckner but that is superficial in my opinion. Pettersson is as long-winded but his form is far different.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

How about this one, it's either wonderful or unlistenable depending on your character and expectations I guess.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> *Allan Pettersson* - it's very dark, very disturbing and upsetting. When the Zombie Apocalypse strikes it will make good background music, though. Pettersson was a very troubled man, *very angry - and boy does his music reflect it*.


As I understand it he was in considerable pain for most of his life. That can make you angry, I guess. I'm not sure his music is difficult, though. It may not be pleasant and it lacks structure - his long symphonies often sound like extended jam sessions to me - and perhaps his easiest work is the 2nd violin concerto. I don't think he is an essential composer but his music can be rewarding ..... for those attracted to it! And that's it - if you are not attracted to it you might just as well leave it alone. It's a case of what you hear (even on first hearing) is what you get.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> *As I understand it he was in considerable pain for most of his life. That can make you angry, I guess*. I'm not sure his music is difficult, though. It may not be pleasant and it lacks structure - his long symphonies often sound like extended jam sessions to me - and perhaps his easiest work is the 2nd violin concerto. I don't think he is an essential composer but his music can be rewarding ..... for those attracted to it! And that's it - if you are not attracted to it you might just as well leave it alone. It's a case of what you hear (even on first hearing) is what you get.


I'm sorry to hear that, what was wrong with him Enthusiast?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think he was wracked by rheumatoid arthritis.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

He also grew up in a terribly abusive family; for years he lived alone in a cramped apartment where a vile neighbor blasted rock 'n roll 24/7 through the walls. The man had fortitude that most of us can't imagine.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Boy that's tough.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I discovered late Beethoven early as well. In high school, actually. It made me the man I am today. I offer that as a warning.


:lol:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Blancrocher said:


> It's funny: this is not the first time I've seen Beethoven mentioned in such a context, but it always surprises me. I found late Beethoven--especially the late string quartets and piano sonatas--to be my introduction to obsessive music listening before I entered my teens. It sounded more "narrative" than many other pieces, and I liked the "spooky" qualities. A sloppy performance of the Great Fugue can still raise my hackles a bit, but even so I liked it immediately.
> 
> *Just goes to show that difficulty can be subjective in some cases, I guess*.


I suppose. Some people have great facility in learning Calculus and Electromagnetism, it seems almost natural to these people to understand them. Yet, at least where I study, these are amongst the school subjects with highest repetition rates. Thus, it seems reasonable to me to call them "difficult", even if it's not for some people. The point is that if many people need a great effort to understand something, then it can be said to be "difficult", even if for a few it is not.

Late Beethoven has been highly controversial in the XIXth century. Even if composers such as Berlioz and Schubert seem to have "gotten it" from the start, many others criticized it. It would take many years so that some of these marvellous compositions, such as the _Grosse Fuge_, would truly enter in the mainstream classical music repertoire. And even today, after Schoenberg and Stockhausen, it is still fiercely attacked by some, and even compared to music by some second rate composers contemporary to Beethoven. Considering this, I think that there should be no problem acknowledging it as "difficult" music.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think "cryptic" is a vague term in this case. Are these "cryptic"?


Mozart's musical language is quite direct and accessible, with lots of repeats, cantabile melodies and use of standard formal procedures and formulas of the Classical period. I don't think that any of it can be said to be "cryptic" at all, and frankly I believe that any child can understand his music without too much trouble.

Note that I'm not saying that his music is not great.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Michael Finnissy:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Mozart's musical language is quite direct and accessible, with lots of repeats, cantabile melodies and use of standard formal procedures and formulas of the Classical period. I don't think that any of it can be said to be "cryptic" at all, and frankly I believe that any child can understand his music without too much trouble.







There are repeats in Mozart, but (like Brahms) he varies expression through use of melodic variation, counterpoint, etc. Listen to the ending of the D minor quartet K421 or, the chromatic section of K428:






By saying I understand Beethoven's stuff like Grosse Fuge, I wasn't saying something like "it doesn't have as much depth as people make it out to be". I think it's a creative work of classical music full of contrast between angst and consolation -I think it's "timeless" music. Not like some random electronic music from the 20th century.

Arnold Schoenberg:
"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"
"When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."
"The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."
" My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner. "
In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are repeats in Mozart, but (like Brahms) he varies expression through use of melodic variation, counterpoint, etc. Listen to the ending of the D minor quartet K421 or, the chromatic section of K428:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is not that Mozart's music has no details, or that it's not advanced for it's time, but that it's aesthetics are usually done in a way to deliberately make them instantly enjoyable by audiences. I don't know any piece by him that has had the need to be championed by someone to be accepted by the public, like some late compositions by Beethoven (Ninth symphony by Wagner, Hammerklavier sonata by Liszt etc). Note that, again, I'm not saying that his music isn't great. I love his last four symphonies beyond any other symphonic music I know from the 18th century and yet I don't think that they're difficult to grasp.

I understand Mozart's music as music that is made to look like as if it was simple, althought it isn't.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

if you want a real challenge in musical extremity, then listen through the Pulse Demon




I did listen through the whole thing several times. It is listenable. The trick is to lower the volume to make the noise barely audible (you will find the right balance if you toy with it) and then just enjoy the pulses of the noise. This is the real frontier of music, at the edge of white noise. After you listen through this, then Ferneyhough will sound like highly melodic and structured music


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Jacck said:


> if you want a real challenge in musical extremity, then listen through the Pulse Demon


This isn't challenging, it's just annoying and BORING.


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

Jacck said:


> if you want a real challenge in musical extremity, then listen through the Pulse Demon
> I did listen through the whole thing several times. It is listenable. The trick is to lower the volume to make the noise barely audible (you will find the right balance if you toy with it) and then just enjoy the pulses of the noise. This is the real frontier of music, at the edge of white noise. After you listen through this, then Ferneyhough will sound like highly melodic and structured music


Thank you reminding me of Merzbow. I have several CDs of his(Masami Akita). Have to dig these out and listen again.
What is not so easy to stomach for me is Händel. Specially Music for the Royal Fireworks.


----------



## Sad Al (Feb 27, 2020)

Anything by Mozart. Too simplistic! Mozart is Muzak. Mozart is supermarket music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Sad Al said:


> Anything by Mozart. Too simplistic! Mozart is Muzak. Mozart is supermarket music.


"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Sad Al said:


> Anything by Mozart. Too simplistic! Mozart is Muzak. Mozart is supermarket music.


I thought exactly this way for more than a year until I heard the Sinfonia Concertante and the Clarinet Quintet. But I'll be brutally honest and say that I still think a good deal of his music is not all that inspired.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

The title of the post is "Music that is difficult to listen to." Ok, if Mozart fits that category but I think that is the opposite of why Mozart is so popular is that his music is "easy" to listen to. First thing first--I am of the opinion Mozart genius and circumstances he lived in, he held himself back in giving his all due to lack of ability to distance himself from his environment and create music as freelance artists might. He devoted himself to operas so that took away from the medium of other works, many that they are. 

When I first read on TC I was shocked that his 40/41 symphonies placed so highly and is piano concerto 20 was ranked #1. I never thought his symphonies were to be considered that well thought of in relation to his other works. Mozart is easy to listen to in the sense that pick any work in piano/violin/wind, and you do not have to torture yourself to enjoy it. I hear things like "inspired" and no, he did not struggle in some way to produced his music like other composers but I am wondering if we are making too much of this idea of what composer's works are about. 

I might add a music critic wrote on the Mozart and Beethoven. He loves Mozart and it is something he breathes apparently, also the recent Mozart quotes reveal how other composers feel about Mozart.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"


Amen. I try to follow this myself and if anyone feels I am stepping outside my boundaries, feel free to let me have it.


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Sad Al said:


> Anything by Mozart. Too simplistic! Mozart is Muzak. Mozart is supermarket music.


Funny thing, I have heard Beethoven, Bach, Vivaldi, and even Mahler in the so called MUZAK settings. Apparently the "genius" is a better fit for this environment as there is plenty of less inspired music to put in this category.


----------



## mrdoc (Jan 3, 2020)

It seems to me that some people think any music that is widely accepted/popular cannot be any good.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Sad Al said:


> Anything by Mozart. Too simplistic! Mozart is Muzak. Mozart is supermarket music.


I can't agree that Mozart is perfect and infallible like a certain member of this community seems to want to prove, and I don't place him among the "Big Three" like many people seem to do - in terms of overall achievements, it's my opinion that Wagner or Brahms should have his place and stay together with Bach and Beethoven in this popular top three, and this only because I miss a Mozart late, mature period in the sense of what those composers offer, because he died so early - but at the same time I think that not to acknowledge his genius and the greatness of his music is quite unfair.

Mozart has a great number of masterpieces in a wide array of genres: he has great masses, concertos, operas, string quintets and quartets, piano quartets (that he invented), symphonies, divertimentos, serenades, solo keyboard works etc. He produced an impressive amount of about 200 hours of music in the small life spam of 35 years, and still in life was revered by his mastery of basically every technical skill of his day, and would often mixture styles of the Classical period - for example in the first movement of K 332 - to reach what I believe that many people agree to be the apotheosis of the music of this period in the 18th century. Many great composers, including Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky and Schoenberg, revered him. Einstein thought of him as the greatest composer of all together with J.S. Bach, and Hawking chose his requiem as one of his eight essential compositions . In no way his music should be thought as just supermarket's in my opinion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mrdoc said:


> It seems to me that some people think any music that is widely accepted/popular cannot be any good.


Obviously anybody who writes something popular is a sell-out. It's always been this way! Beethoven, on his death bed, angrily threw aside a novel by Sir Walter Scott exclaiming, "The man writes only for money!"

Oddly, I can't remember an instance of Beethoven refusing a paycheck, preferably a large one. And he always read his reviews. :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant!I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works." -Johannes Brahms (1896)
PA134
PA135

Act 1 - "Padre, germani, addio!" - "Ecco Idamante, ahimè!" 
Act 1 - "Tutte nel cor vi sento"




















Act 3 - "Deh resta, o cara" - "Andrò ramingo e solo"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

There is no challenging music, there's just hearing and listening. 
Hearing anything is easy. Listening is hard.

I personally like to hear my music. However, there's some music of a chaotic nature that perks my ears involuntarily, so I'm forced to listen when I just want to hear. Once the startles pass, I can hear the music better. But it's the _time_ I don't wish to lose in this process, so, I stick to what flows.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

So many TC'ers have put the time into what's deemed 'difficult' which is to their credit afaik. From what one often reads here, they have reaped the rewards gained for their efforts. I would suggest that they are mirroring in their own way, what happens to a composer who studies music to a profound level. Familiarity with, and constant handling of, the stuff of music leads the composer to new sonic worlds which are as beautiful as earlier styles and even more fertile from a creative standpoint.

The problem as always with 'difficult' music is that value judgements are based on what listeners (and composers for that matter), actually want or crave out of the experience of listening (or composing) and what lengths they are prepared to go to find new experiences. Familiarity is capable of overcoming hostility if one has the time - something composers put in as a matter of course.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Things I find difficult to read (part 1):

Half baked thoughts about the "inferiority" of Mozart. It starts with a proud announcement that he is simplistic, or sugary or whatever else. These are impressions, emotional reactions, and are therefore legitimate. Still, it has long been a sort of rule of mine (when looking out for people who may give me some good pointers about what to listen to) that I am unlikely to have similar taste (in performance as well as works) to someone who doesn't get Mozart. I honestly find myself wondering what they look for in music that Mozart can't fit within it.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Obviously anybody who writes something popular is a sell-out. It's always been this way! Beethoven, on his death bed, angrily threw aside a novel by Sir Walter Scott exclaiming, "The man writes only for money!"
> 
> Oddly, I can't remember an instance of Beethoven refusing a paycheck, preferably a large one. And he always read his reviews. :lol:


Stravinsky, on hearing of the success of Britten's War Requiem commented that it can't be any good then.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I thought exactly this way for more than a year until I heard the Sinfonia Concertante and the Clarinet Quintet. But I'll be brutally honest and say that I still think a good deal of his music is not all that inspired.


Well, we all have different ideas what makes music "inspired". (Maybe you're just not that fond of the classical style.) If you ask me, I can't take the newagey-ness of Chopin in heavy doses. (I specifically mentioning him because you rate him and Schubert higher than Mozart.) It just reminds me too much of Yiruma or Yuhki Kuramoto. Schumann later in life did criticize Chopin for lacking variety. And I can't stand the "I'm-the-greatest-semiprofessional-composer-who-ever-lived" rhetorics of Schubert. The way he modulates and everything.. sounds too much like compositional exercises rather than actual serious works.









If look at certain sections of the Rosamunde quartet, in each measure it goes like - all the voices start on note A, the next measure, on note D, the next, on G, the next, on C.. (Wow..)









in the development section, this gets multipled 4~5 times. (Wow..)



Allerius said:


> I can't agree that Mozart is perfect and infallible like a certain member of this community seems to want to prove,


The only thing I can't understand about Beethoven is his crazy fans' attitude: _"You're just NOT understanding his music! Because you're too stupid!"_. 
I find that there's nothing hard to "understand" about Beethoven, for even though his working of themes can seem clunky and contrived, the way he makes argument is still simplistic (not in a bad way), like the 2nd movement of 32nd sonata, which creates atmosphere somewhat like the variations of his 12th sonata. And the melody in the final measures is presented somewhat like the way the 2nd theme is presented Apassionata 1st movement. It's his signature in music: _"I am Beethoven"_.
Yes, just like all other composers including Mozart (I'm not that crazy about the clarinet quintet or the coronation piano concerto tbh) -, even Beethoven in his late period, wrote great music, as well as some boring music. is it that sacrilegious to say "I find certain pieces in late Beethoven boring"?.. I mean, come on, the emperor is naked, haha 

_"You're just NOT understanding his music! Because you're too stupid!"_ - Seriously.. Beethoven doesn't need to be elevated/glorified in this way. Let's be reasonable, like seriously..


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, *but not more significant!*I


Perotin was significant. There's always value in significance, but there's probably more value in a composer's ability to learn from it.

Personally, I think Mozart's music may sound significantly more repetitive than Beethoven's, perhaps especially rhythmically. 
To some, this means Beethoven is clunky and Mozart is perfect.
While to others it means Mozart is boring and Beethoven is engrossing.



hammeredklavier said:


> I find that there's nothing hard to "understand" about Beethoven, for even though his working of themes can seem clunky and contrived, the way he makes argument is still simplistic (not in a bad way), like the 2nd movement of 32nd sonata, which creates atmosphere somewhat like the variations of his 12th sonata.


I feel the same way about Mozart, especially rhythmically and in timing. I always feel like "Alright I get it. You're showing me the structures of music. Now can you form a human statement like Beethoven? (to analogize)"

There's definitely a major interpretive change from Mozart -> to Beethoven -> to Romanticism, Chopin and Mendelssohn and the like. That is, while Mozart made profound grounds towards overall development, Beethoven probably made more profound grounds towards developed rhythm/melody, and then Romantics even moreso to where the original development of the former is replaced by this new kind--they're all 3 quite different. If you don't know what you're listening for then you miss the great significance.

Therefore, like Perotin's key role in music history, I'm not always sure what to listen for with Mozart, because (like Perotin) he's not a musical element I feel in dire need of. If Perotin invented harmonic theory then why do I feel myself not engrossed? Is it because everyone is at a certain stage in their listening, I think most people have evolved past harmonic fundamentals and are not listening to Perotin. You're free to prove me wrong.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I feel the same way about Mozart, especially rhythmically and in timing. I always feel like "Alright I get it. You're showing me the structures of music. Now can you form a human statement like Beethoven? (to analogize)"





Bigbang said:


> When I first read on TC I was shocked that his 40/41 symphonies placed so highly and is piano concerto 20 was ranked #1. I never thought his symphonies were to be considered that well thought of in relation to his other works. Mozart is easy to listen to in the sense that pick any work in piano/violin/wind, and you do not have to torture yourself to enjoy it. I hear things like "inspired" and no, he did not struggle in some way to produced his music like other composers but I am wondering if we are making too much of this idea of what composer's works are about.


I see what you're saying. It reminds me of what Tchaikovsky once said _"Mozart does not grip one as profoundly as Beethoven; his sweep is not as broad. Just as in life he was a carefree child to the end of his days, so in his music there is no subjective tragedy of the kind which reveals itself so strongly and powerfully in Beethoven. However, this did not prevent him from creating an objectively tragic figure, indeed the most striking and powerful human figure ever portrayed through music. I mean Donna Anna in Don Giovanni [...]"_

Yes, Beethoven is often very majestic, like the slow movement of his 7th, but after listening to it many times, I began to think the unthinkable: _"isn't he a bit too nice?"_. I mean, listen to the A major sections of:






He doesn't really have Mozart's kind of "disturbing strangeness" namely, in the form of chromatic excursions.






I think it all depends on perception.  Your opinions on Mozart are equally valid.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, we all have different ideas what makes music "inspired". (Maybe you're just not that fond of the classical style.) If you ask me, I can't take the newagey-ness of Chopin in heavy doses. (I specifically mentioning him because you rate him and Schubert higher than Mozart.) It just reminds me too much of Yiruma or Yuhki Kuramoto. Schumann later in life did criticize Chopin for lacking variety. And I can't stand the "I'm-the-greatest-semiprofessional-composer-who-ever-lived" rhetorics of Schubert. The way he modulates and everything.. sounds too much like compositional exercises rather than actual serious works.


I rate Chopin and Schubert higher than Mozart because I enjoy their music more. Not because their music is objectively "better-crafted", or because they wrote better counterpoint, or avoided repetition. Mozart indeed may be a "better" composer in the formal sense, but it's a simple truth that his piano concerti and operas don't touch me as profoundly as any Chopin nocturne or Schubert song. They simply appeal more to my sensibilities. I don't pretend that they are factually greater; I admit my preference and move on. I also admit that I have somewhat of a blind spot for some Classical Period music; perhaps we can both help each other to appreciate what we have yet to enjoy. That's what TC is all about, after all! The desire to tear down composers simply because some people like them more than you do is, I must admit, very destructive and antithetical to the spirit of this forum. Yes, both Chopin and Schubert also wrote music that I don't see as particularly "inspired," but, c'mon, even you would have to admit that Mozart wrote at least a couple works that are not up to par with his greatest masterpieces. Nobody. Is. Perfect. But, to show my appreciation for the great Wolfie, I will admit that I would take his G Minor String Quintet over Schubert's Quintet any day. I really would!

P.S. "Newagey-ness" wasn't a thing in Chopin's time because there was no such thing as "new age" music. If you want to use that analogy, you should at least say new age music sounds like Chopin rather than vice versa, even though I have no idea what point that would be proving.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> "I always find Beethoven's C Minor concerto (the Third Piano Concerto) much smaller and weaker than Mozart's. . . . I realize that Beethoven's new personality and his new vision, which people recognized in his works, made him the greater composer in their minds. But after fifty years, our views need more perspective. One must be able to distinguish between the charm that comes from newness and the value that is intrinsic to a work. I admit that Beethoven's concerto is more modern, but not more significant! I also realize that Beethoven's First Symphony made a strong impression on people. That's the nature of a new vision. But the last three Mozart symphonies are far more significant. . . . Yes, the Rasumovsky quartets, the later symphonies-these inhabit a significant new world, one already hinted at in his Second Symphony. But what is much weaker in Beethoven compared to Mozart, and especially compared to Sebastian Bach, is the use of dissonance. Dissonance, true dissonance as Mozart used it, is not to be found in Beethoven. Look at Idomeneo. Not only is it a marvel, but as Mozart was still quite young and brash when he wrote it, it was a completely new thing. What marvelous dissonance! What harmony! You couldn't commission great music from Beethoven since he created only lesser works on commission-his more conventional pieces, his variations and the like. When Haydn or Mozart wrote on commission, it was the same as their other works." -Johannes Brahms (1896)[/URL]


I think that Brahms was very unfortunate in what he said here.

First because Beethoven has a lot of dissonance, and I would say that his can look much more harsh and raw than those by Mozart - I'm thinking for example in the development of the first movement of the Eroica, in the recapitulation of the fourth movement of the seventh symphony, in moments of his sonata #28, and of course the Grosse Fuge. I'm yet to find something in Mozart that seems so shocking to the ear.

Second because he doesn't specify what he means by "true" dissonance. Is it "bold" dissonance, this is, dissonance that somehow looks natural, almost as if it wasn't there? If it is, it's not better than "untrue" dissonance, is it? If Brahms only wants beauty everywhere then I would say that he would be missing a lot of great music if he lived more and could examine the works of a Schoenberg, Bartók or Stravinsky.

Third because there's great music by Beethoven that was result of a comission, for example the Rasumovsky quartets, that Brahms himself acknowledged as "inhabiting a significant new world."

Also, his idea that originality is not as important as "substance". I think that this talks more about himself than about Beethoven or Mozart - being known in life as a conservative, I don't think that it's a surprise that he would end up embracing the music of the composer who uses a more conservative musical language over the one who has more variety and is more innovative.



hammeredklavier said:


> The only thing I can't understand about Beethoven is his crazy fans' attitude: _"You're just NOT understanding his music! Because you're too stupid!"_.
> I find that there's nothing hard to "understand" about Beethoven, for even though his working of themes can seem clunky and contrived, the way he makes argument is still simplistic (not in a bad way), like the 2nd movement of 32nd sonata, which creates atmosphere somewhat like the variations of his 12th sonata. And the melody in the final measures is presented somewhat like the way the 2nd theme is presented Apassionata 1st movement. It's his signature in music: _"I am Beethoven"_.
> Yes, just like all other composers including Mozart (I'm not that crazy about the clarinet quintet or the coronation piano concerto tbh) -, even Beethoven in his late period, wrote great music, as well as some boring music. is it that sacrilegious to say "I find certain pieces in late Beethoven boring"?.. I mean, come on, the emperor is naked, haha
> 
> _"You're just NOT understanding his music! Because you're too stupid!"_ - Seriously.. Beethoven doesn't need to be elevated/glorified in this way. Let's be reasonable, like seriously..


A lot of blah blah blah written in a supposedly more technical language just to give it the look of something polished. I've never seem any serious academic defending these ideas - sonata No. 32 with the "atmosphere" of No. 12? Beethoven's arguments "simplistic"? His working of themes "clunky" and "contrived"?! It's this text of yours that is clunky and contrived. And you're free to dislike Beethoven and any other great composer you wish, but I suppose that they at least deserve your respect.

I've never seem anyone calling you stupid for not liking Beethoven - you made this up. But that you didn't get the music of the man yet, that's for sure.

Now, please, go wear some clothes.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Yes, Beethoven is often very majestic, like the slow movement of his 7th, but after listening to it many times, I began to think the unthinkable: _"isn't he a bit too nice?"_. I mean, listen to the A major sections of:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that the A major sections of the Seventh are just as great as any sections of a Mozart late symphony. And by the way, what's the big deal with Maurerische Trauermusik? You seem to be obsessed with this music, posting videos of it everywhere. I think that it's beautiful, a section of it reminds me of the Kyrie of the Requiem, but Mozart certainly has better works, no?


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I rate Chopin and Schubert higher than Mozart because I enjoy their music more. Not because their music is objectively "better-crafted", or because they wrote better counterpoint, or avoided repetition. Mozart indeed may be a "better" composer in the formal sense, but it's a simple truth that his piano concerti and operas don't touch me as profoundly as any Chopin nocturne or Schubert song. They simply appeal more to my sensibilities. I don't pretend that they are factually greater; I admit my preference and move on. I also admit that I have somewhat of a blind spot for some Classical Period music; perhaps we can both help each other to appreciate what we have yet to enjoy. That's what TC is all about, after all! The desire to tear down composers simply because some people like them more than you do is, I must admit, very destructive and antithetical to the spirit of this forum. Yes, both Chopin and Schubert also wrote music that I don't see as particularly "inspired," but, c'mon, even you would have to admit that Mozart wrote at least a couple works that are not up to par with his greatest masterpieces. Nobody. Is. Perfect. But, to show my appreciation for the great Wolfie, I will admit that I would take his G Minor String Quintet over Schubert's Quintet any day. I really would!
> 
> P.S. "Newagey-ness" wasn't a thing in Chopin's time because there was no such thing as "new age" music. If you want to use that analogy, you should at least say new age music sounds like Chopin rather than vice versa, even though I have no idea what point that would be proving.


I played Chopin's nocturnes in a hospital setting with a hi powered boombox. My niece who is a singer/songwriter (and wannabe) blurted out-- Yanni? Anyway, I can forgive her since she knows nothing about classical music.

This back and forth is getting defensive but everyone is entitled to enjoy their music without judgement. Comparing Chopin nocturne to Mozart piano concerto is not really compatible in any sense. There are times I listen to my favorite slow movements of Mozart when in the mood as well as some others by themselves, such as 3rd movement of piano concerto 15. Easy--slice and dice, later Chopin time.

Anyway George Szell made that famous quote that he cannot put chocolate on asparagus in reference to conducting Mozart. His way of course, but it makes a point: Not every work is designed for our purpose so we can take it or leave it.

I hardly ever listen to opera. I own a fair amount but not interested. Not do I care what other people think. One day I might decide to get bitten by a bug....


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Also, his idea that originality is not as important as "substance". I think that this talks more about himself than about Beethoven or Mozart - being known in life as a conservative, I don't think that it's a surprise that he would end up embracing the music of the composer who uses a more conservative musical language over the one who has more variety and is more innovative.











K546 is actually a "real" dissonant fugue for strings. Not just a series of "baa-ba-bam! baa-ba-bam!" homo-rhythms - unlike some other composer's "great fugue".  Bach and Mozart don't need to sacrifice rhythmic independence of the voices to utilize dissonance. 
Maybe you're the one who has to think for more suitable reasons to use to put down Bach and Mozart in glorifying Beethoven, Mr. Allerius.  
I certainly don't hear anything like Viaticum in morientum or Pignus futurae gloriae from Litaniae de venerabili K243 or the acapella-style Laudate pueri from Vesperae K321 in Beethoven. But I don't presume to discuss "variety" in Beethoven.
( And I don't go around creating/reviving threads "[X] is overrated" with a malicious intent . That would be the most deliberate attempt to stir up shitstorm.  )
Maurerische Trauermusik K477 - just one of many reasons why Wagner saw Mozart as a "Grosser Chromatiker", along with Rondo K511, Fantasie K475, Adagio K540, Fantasie K608, Fantasie K397 etc.. K477 is similar to the Kyrie of the Requiem? That fast-paced double fugue? Maybe you're the one who doesn't "understand" Mozart's chromaticism.  Let's face it, Mozart was also innovative (like Beethoven) albeit in a different way.








hammeredklavier said:


> _"Wagner, according to Cosima, considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker.""_
> https://books.google.ca/books?id=x7jADwAAQBAJ&pg=PA291
> 
> _"Richard Wagner, a great admirer of the Requiem, was particularly fond of the Benedictus as well as the Recordare."_
> ...


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> K546 is actually a "real" dissonant fugue for strings. Not just a series of "baa-ba-bam! baa-ba-bam!" homo-rhythms - unlike some other composer's "great fugue".  Bach and Mozart don't need to sacrifice rhythmic independence of the voices to utilize dissonance.


"In the course of the Große Fuge, Beethoven plays this motif [an eight-note subject that climbs chromatically upward] in every possible variation: fortissimo and pianissimo, in different rhythms, upside down and backwards. The usual practice in a traditional fugue is to make a simple, unadorned statement of the subject at the outset, but Beethoven from the very beginning presents the subject in a host of variations."

"The Great Fugue... now seems to me the most perfect miracle in music," said Igor Stravinsky."... It is also the most absolutely contemporary piece of music I know, and contemporary forever... Hardly birthmarked by its age, the Great Fugue is, in rhythm alone, more subtle than any music of my own century... I love it beyond everything." Pianist Glenn Gould said, "for me, the 'Grosse Fuge' is not only the greatest work Beethoven ever wrote but just about the most astonishing piece in musical literature."

Source of the quotes above here.



hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe you're the one who has to think for more suitable reasons to use to put down Bach and Mozart in glorifying Beethoven, Mr. Allerius.


No, it's you who think that Mozart is infallible and keep a disrespectful, mocking tone towards any composer you don't like. I suppose that TC should have a rule limiting all this - for it's plainly possible to constructively critize a great composer in a polished and respectful manner, without lowering the level - but it seems that it doesn't and that you will continue your trolling indefinitely.



hammeredklavier said:


> ( And I don't go around creating/reviving threads "[X] is overrated" with a malicious intent . That would be the most deliberate attempt to stir up shitstorm.  )


It's not malicious. I legitimately think that Mozart is overrated, and that composers such as Wagner and Brahms deserved to receive as much attention as he does (here is a link showing their popularity according to Google Trends). Contrary to other composers, Mozart didn't have a true late period, and I really miss it.

I avoid to attack Mozart directly though, and did this only once since I entered here because you were bombarding Beethoven with snide comments.



hammeredklavier said:


> Maurerische Trauermusik K477 - just one of many reasons why Wagner saw Mozart as a "Grosser Chromatiker", along with Rondo K511, Fantasie K475, Adagio K540, Fantasie K608, Fantasie K397 etc.. K477 is similar to the Kyrie of the Requiem? That fast-paced double fugue? Maybe you're the one who doesn't "understand" Mozart's chromaticism.  Let's face it, Mozart was also innovative (like Beethoven) albeit in a different way.


Like Beethoven he wasn't (we already discussed this here at TC previously, but I can't find the link now), but I give you that you have a point nonetheless. I think that Mozart is one of the greatest composers of all times and I know that his music has many subtleties. He has always been in my personal "top (favorite) ten."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> This was a great challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't get stoned anymore. Of the three pieces, I find Feldman's music the most satisfying. It utilizes space so my senses don't feel overloaded. And the music has other qualities that seem to draw me in and captivate me as a listener. I guess it's down to his note choices, timbre, and the way he puts it all together. The music exudes a kind of spiritual feeling and serenity I find attractive and comforting.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^I find For Samuel Beckett to be Feldman's most challenging work, too. Tough nut to crack.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

.lknmjxcdzakl vcn


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Of the three pieces, I find Feldman's music the most satisfying. It utilizes space so my senses don't feel overloaded. And the music has other qualities that seem to draw me in and captivate me as a listener. I guess it's down to his note choices, timbre, and the way he puts it all together. The music exudes a kind of spiritual feeling and serenity I find attractive and comforting.


There's a granitic quality to _For Samuel Beckett_ which I dislike. He wrote a much earlier piece called _On Time And The Instrumental Factor_ which I can handle more easily and which seems similar to me, superficial view no doubt. You only get a brief sample on youtube






Today I listened to _Ten _by Cage (not this performance, I prefer The Ives Ensemble), which in soundscape reminded me of For Samuel Beckett but was so much more flexible and human. Anyway, see what you think








starthrower said:


> I don't get stoned anymore.


It's much easier to watch than to listen to. It's a bit like watching a craftsman, or better, watching some people play a game whose rules you don't understand (cricket!)

The piece was badly received at its creation, mostly because people thought that stones and rocks weren't noble instruments like violins and trumpets. But Wolff liked the sounds and liked the fact that they were ubiquitous -- anyone could have a go at _Stones_.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I liked those pieces. Thanks!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

flamencosketches said:


> ^I find For Samuel Beckett to be Feldman's most challenging work, too. Tough nut to crack.


I remember doing the lighting for a Samuel Beckett play and because the lighting and the play were so interlinked we also had the script and were doing the prompting. At one stage everyone lost their place but no one in the audience noticed a thing! Probably because no one understood what it was about! :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> it's you who think that Mozart is infallible and keep a disrespectful, mocking tone towards any composer you don't like. I suppose that TC should have a rule limiting all this .


I agree that TC should change its rules. The mods at Reddit Classical Music Forum has banned all discussions with titles "[X] is overrated", arguing that that kind of threads promote closed-mindedness and biased attitudes toward composers.
Think of it this way: at least I don't use "insults" on other people. Lately on this forum, one member recently referred to another member as an "arrogant fool" for having an unpopular opinion on Bruckner. While another member criticized Mozart-admirers as having "sheep mentality". Another member called me a "neophyte" for not agreeing with his view on Chopin. 
I do sometimes say provocative things about composers to make a point clearly and directly (usually, to defend another composer) but I would not insult their admirers.



Allerius said:


> it's plainly possible to constructively critize a great composer in a polished and respectful manner, without lowering the level - but it seems that it doesn't and that you will continue your trolling indefinitely.


I don't see any need to "constructively criticize" composers who are now dead. Rather, it's the attitudes of the admirers on this forum that I'm mainly concerned with. 
I keep posing this question: _"Why should Mozart always be regarded as the Icon of Potboilers when Schubert also wrote a ton of stuff like the Military March?"_
If I were to compare Mozart Divertimento K334, with Beethoven Septet Op.20, and Schubert Octet D803 (I'm not sure if you would count these as "tafelmusik"). I tend to think Mozart has "more to say" than the other two, through his colorful contrast in chromaticism. Again, this is just my view, and I would also respect your view even if you valued the Beethoven and Schubert more than the Mozart.

3:00~3:40 / 7:45~8:45 / 9:50~10:10 / 14:10~14:40 / 20:20~20:40 / 25:00~26:00

I always laugh when people like Woodduck ask me if I'm "being reasonable". But the fact is that this forum wasn't "reasonable" from the beginning. Just look at the countless number of anti-Mozart threads from the years 2008~2018. (If you have the time, go through the Mozart Composer Guestbook. It's a huge mess with all those sickly "Beethoven-is-Better" arguments..) - and you decided to revive one of threads, arguing that they're "still relevant". How amusing! You really are asking for trouble, aren't you Mr. Allerius. HAHAHAHA.
I don't really have problems with DaveM or KenOC's occasional "Beethoven-is-the-greatest-composer-who-ever-lived" arguments, since they do it at a reasonable level. But problems arise when people start making unfair comparisons Mozart vs Beethoven (or Schubert). -people in those anti-Mozart threads have been "crossing the line" for too long.

In the past few days, one member has said in various threads: "[X] is overrated because he wrote a lot of uninspired music" like four times already (GOD!).
I think I can live without ever hearing the constant parallel octaves in Chopin Prelude in E flat minor Op.28 No.14, F minor No. 18, Sonata Op.35 finale, Polonaise Op.44, and the sameness of rhythm in Prelude in D minor Op.28 No.24, Berceuse Op.57. But do I invade Chopin threads and criticize for no apparent reason: "Chopin's status as the Poet of the Piano is unwarranted. He lacks inspiration"? See? I'm not even the most offensive/disrespectful/unreasonable person on this forum.



Allerius said:


> It's not malicious. I legitimately think that Mozart is overrated, and that composers such as Wagner and Brahms deserved to receive as much attention as he does (here is a link showing their popularity according to Google Trends).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (dies from laughing). Good for you, :clap: Mr. Allerius. I'll be looking forward to seeing you revive other anti-Mozart threads, and come up with more logical arguments than this and "Mozart's brass writing pales compared to Beethoven", and "Mozart's lieder are amateurish compared to Schubert's". ROFL!
And I don't think Schubert and Brahms are that much neglected as you claim: Bachtrack Statistics 2017



Allerius said:


> I avoid to attack Mozart directly though, and did this only once since I entered here because you were bombarding Beethoven with snide comments.


Jeez, Mr. Allerius, you haven't got over that already.. People like KenOC make that kind of funny jokes all the time. I even agreed with your replies in that thread. But if you really found that so offensive, I'll apologize. The critics were indeed unfair about the Beethoven symphony, but that's besides the point. The point I was making was that the expressions they used were funny. That's all.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> I agree that TC should change its rules. The mods at Reddit Classical Music Forum has banned all discussions with titles "[X] is overrated"...


Reddit, and the actions of its mods, are clearly overrated. :lol:


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

With these very popular and commonly regarded composers(as geniuses) arises the problem that they get proportionally much more of play time than the others. Thus over-saturating the music scene. So if you find much more interesting/different music in existence but you get Mozart every time you turn on radio or start talking about music I can see the need to voice an alternative opinion. You may even feel stupid for liking something that everybody else seems to dislike(atonal, contemporary music for instance). And to voice your contrary opinion on something so universally worshipped is almost like self-defence.
Most likely the choice of words depends how annoyed you let yourself to get.
The other thing to think about is that we accept bashing John Cage but get very upset when the same happens with Mozart and Beethoven.
For me personally it felt rather good to state my difficulties to listen Hayden. BTW Sibelius too.


----------



## mrdoc (Jan 3, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> .lknmjxcdzakl vcn


GHT ncncjk nd* ND ND* mkevp99-njrkkkk 4shitaik mmncib mbsls :devil:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't see any need to "constructively criticize" composers who are now dead. Rather, it's the attitudes of the admirers on this forum that I'm mainly concerned with.


You criticize composers such as Chopin, Beethoven, Schubert and Rachmaninoff all the time, how come you don't see the need to do so? I think that no one is above criticism and that you should be free to express your dislike for any composer and express the reasons for it, but I ask you to do so in a respectful tone.



hammeredklavier said:


> I keep posing this question: _"Why should Mozart always be regarded as the Icon of Potboilers when Schubert also wrote a ton of stuff like the Military March?"_


But who is saying that Mozart is the "icon of potboilers"? And even if Schubert's _Military March_ perhaps is overplayed, I don't see anything wrong with it.



hammeredklavier said:


> But the fact is that this forum wasn't "reasonable" from the beginning. Just look at the countless number of anti-Mozart threads from the years 2008~2018. (If you have the time, go through the Mozart Composer Guestbook. It's a huge mess with all those sickly "Beethoven-is-Better" arguments..)


But Beethoven _is_ better! :devil:

Calm down, I'm joking. I don't think that there's an objective, infallible way of measuring greatness in music, although there are better and worse composers in my opinion. Between masters of the same musical stature such as Mozart and Beethoven it's difficult to perceive who's the greatest, but I think that most people around here would agree intuitively with me that, say, Brahms is greater (and much greater) than Justin Bieber.

Perhaps I should read these anti-Mozart threads you cite. I know of the existence of some of them, but I've never really dug into these threads to see what all the fuss was about. But even if someone attacked Mozart unjustly many years ago, why would you assume that it's Beethoven's (or Schubert's, or someone else's) fault? Why the need to act disrespecfully towards them? Why would you commit the same mistake of these people that attacked Mozart years ago? You can show your profound acclaim for Mozart by creating threads in with you show us your wide knowledge (and I find this admirable about you) of the many qualities of the composer's music. One doesn't have to hate a great composer in order to venerate another.



hammeredklavier said:


> - and you decided to revive one of threads, arguing that they're "still relevant". How amusing! You really are asking for trouble, aren't you Mr. Allerius. HAHAHAHA.


I'm curious to know which is this thread that you insist that I've "revived". Some days ago I wrote that in my perception perhaps Mozart was overrated in this thread, but you provoked me to do so first, and anyway that thread had been bumped before by another member.



hammeredklavier said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (dies from laughing). Good for you, :clap: Mr. Allerius. I'll be looking forward to seeing you revive other anti-Mozart threads, and come up with more logical arguments than this and "Mozart's brass writing pales compared to Beethoven", and "Mozart's lieder are amateurish compared to Schubert's". ROFL!


I backed these arguments with renowed sources such as this article by the Oxford University Press, and the point is that Mozart is not infallible like you seem to believe, not that he isn't great. Nonetheless, I wouldn't bother to look for Wolfie's weaknesses in the first place (for I love his music) if you weren't so obsessed in putting down other great composers such as Beethoven, who by now you should know that I idolize, and this like for years.

You say that you respect me, but your tone of mocking here shows the opposite.



hammeredklavier said:


> And I don't think Schubert and Brahms are that much neglected as you claim: Bachtrack Statistics 2017


Did you notice that these statistics that you provided show that Mozart (and Beethoven) received about more concertos than Schubert and Brahms together in some of these years? And Wagner doesn't even appear in the concerto statistics. I wish that Mozart and Beethoven were played a bit less (staying in numbers together with J.S. Bach would be reasonable to me) while Brahms, Wagner and many others received more attention. Have you ever listened to, say, Chausson? I've discovered him some weeks ago thanks to a game and was impressed by his music (the starting point for me was the concerto for violin, piano and string quartet). I believe that he and others should be more played, and that the public could enjoy their music if they had more access to it and some stimulus.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

erki said:


> With these very popular and commonly regarded composers(as geniuses) arises the problem that they get proportionally much more of play time than the others. Thus over-saturating the music scene. So if you find much more interesting/different music in existence but you get Mozart every time you turn on radio or start talking about music I can see the need to voice an alternative opinion. You may even feel stupid for liking something that everybody else seems to dislike(atonal, contemporary music for instance). And to voice your contrary opinion on something so universally worshipped is almost like self-defence.
> Most likely the choice of words depends how annoyed you let yourself to get.
> *The other thing to think about is that we accept bashing John Cage but get very upset when the same happens with Mozart and Beethoven.*
> For me personally it felt rather good to state my difficulties to listen Hayden. BTW Sibelius too.


But is John Cage truly a great composer? Does his name really deserve to be mentioned alongside those of immortal composers such as Mozart and Beethoven?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but what I understand to be two key features of Cage's music - the idea that there's no distinction between music and what we call noise, this is, that every sound is musical, and the idea that the composers should have their roles drastically reduced in favour of the performers - sound questionable to me, in my view going in the wrong way compared to what composers such as Stravinsky and Schoenberg seemed to me to be trying to achieve in their late years. The idea of aleatoric music as Cage devised it can also be very unfair to the performers in my opinion: In series of pieces such as _Music for Piano_ (1952-1956) and _Variations_ (1958-1978), he leaves so many possibilities open for them that each time that these works are presented it could be said that the performers are actually composing the music - but it's not their pieces, it's Cage's. It's he who receives the laurel wreaths, and for doing almost nothing in the score, not the people who are actually playing and creating the music.

John Cage lived a good life - he had a partner for all life, no problems with money in his last years and recognition when still alive, and died at almost 80 years old. Perhaps he is just a blind spot for me and was actually a genius as some say, but from my current perspective it's about time for music lovers to leave his unorthodox ideas behind and move along. It's my opinion that he doesn't deserve that much credit and attention that people give him.

Here are the instructions notated in the score of a piece produced by a friend and disciple of Cage in 1960. Perhaps it's just me, but I've great difficulty taking this kind of work seriously:

"Piano Piece for David Tudor #1: Bring a bale of hay and a bucket of water onto the stage for the piano to eat and drink. The performer may then feed the piano or leave it to eat by itself. If the former, the piece is over after the piano has been fed. If the latter, it is over after the piano eats or decides not to. October, 1960."


----------

