# Classical Music Isn't Hard To Get



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Overly complex compositions are too convoluted. Listen to Mozart and find sheer bliss, and non-contrived music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not sure what overly (or too) complex is. Certainly some pieces can seem "over-worked" (some Mahler finales for example) but good performances can make them seem natural. Of course, I love the alleged simplicity of Mozart but am struck by how difficult it can be to play it effectively. You need a real "feel". I think there are also signs on TC that Mozart is not an easy composer for listeners to "get" ... or at least that many do not get him easily.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure what overly (or too) complex is. Certainly some pieces can seem "over-worked" (some Mahler finales for example) but good performances can make them seem natural. Of course, I love the alleged simplicity of Mozart but am struck by how difficult it can be to play it effectively. You need a real "feel". I think there are also signs on TC that Mozart is not an easy composer for listeners to "get" ... or at least that many do not get him easily.


I think the TC Mozart haters are more responding to his popularity and being the face of Genius in music, taking away attention from other composers.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

*More is sometimes more*



Captainnumber36 said:


> Overly complex compositions are too convoluted. Listen to Mozart and find sheer bliss, and non-contrived music.


My favorite composer JS Bach wrote a lot of complicated fugues so I have to disagree with this statement. Although it does make sense with a reaction against the very complicated fugal compositions of Bach and Handel that the Classical era composers represented.

But *Captain* you have an ally in *Johann Adolf Scheibe 1708-1776* - from the wiki article:

>>>


> Scheibe held Johann Sebastian Bach and Georg Frideric Handel as the finest composers of keyboard music, citing structure and ornamentation as of primary importance. He considered Bach to be the finest contemporary player of the organ, harpsichord and clavichord, incomparable to all except Handel. Bach's Italian Concerto (BWV 971), published in 1735, was for Scheibe a perfect example of a well-constructed concerto.
> Scheibe's often-quoted objections to the music of Bach derive from an anonymous letter from 1737 in the Critischer Musikus. Scheibe blamed Bach's music for being "bombastic". Johann Abraham Birnbaum, a professor in rhetoric at Leipzig, defended Bach on that occasion. The quarrel between Scheibe and Birnbaum was a very long and significant one.[1] According to Scheibe Bach's music was artificial and confusing in style, and the notation of such elaborate ornaments (rather than leaving ornamentation to the performer, as was customary) obscured the melody and harmony. Rather than a clear division between melody and accompaniment, Bach made all voices equal in his brand of polyphony, which Scheibe felt made the music overloaded, unnatural and oppressed. <<<


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I can't speak for others, but my dislike of Mozart isn't a reaction to his popularity. It's the glibness of so much of his writing. Sure he wrote some great music that I like, but if you take a look at his vast output, how much of it really is "great"? Of his 41 symphonies, only the last five or six are played often. Of the two dozen or so piano concertos, only a handful are known well. The wind concertos aren't all that great, really. Only a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning. And so it goes. As a listener, I want to be moved and make an emotional connection with music - and Mozart just doesn't get there too often. If you look at the catalogs of composers from that era, say Mozart, Haydn, Bach, even Schubert, it's stunning how much music they wrote. Was it easier then? When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate. Or they put more something into their music. There's more direct emotional appeal in the Dvorak 8th or Tchaikovsky 6th than in anything Mozart ever wrote - at least for me.

Yes - I do chafe at the constant barrage of "Mozart Festivals" to the detriment of others. Our local classical station has a whole block on Sunday just for Mozart. I tune it out. And I don't attend Mozart festivals. Now, as a player, Mozart is a hoot to play! Symphonies 40 & 41 are extremely well written for each instrument and a joy to play. Player Hell is having to perform modern garbage like John Adams - it's repetitive and boring. As a conductor, I avoid Mozart - his notation isn't modern and a lot of players don't know how to read it or play it and rehearsing is torture.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> I can't speak for others, but my dislike of Mozart isn't a reaction to his popularity. It's the glibness of so much of his writing. Sure he wrote some great music that I like, but if you take a look at his vast output, how much of it really is "great"? Of his 41 symphonies, only the last five or six are played often. Of the two dozen or so piano concertos, only a handful are known well. The wind concertos aren't all that great, really. Only a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning. And so it goes. As a listener, I want to be moved and make an emotional connection with music - and Mozart just doesn't get there too often. If you look at the catalogs of composers from that era, say Mozart, Haydn, Bach, even Schubert, it's stunning how much music they wrote. Was it easier then? When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate. Or they put more something into their music. There's more direct emotional appeal in the Dvorak 8th or Tchaikovsky 6th than in anything Mozart ever wrote - at least for me.
> 
> Yes - I do chafe at the constant barrage of "Mozart Festivals" to the detriment of others. Our local classical station has a whole block on Sunday just for Mozart. I tune it out. And I don't attend Mozart festivals. Now, as a player, Mozart is a hoot to play! Symphonies 40 & 41 are extremely well written for each instrument and a joy to play. Player Hell is having to perform modern garbage like John Adams - it's repetitive and boring. As a conductor, I avoid Mozart - his notation isn't modern and a lot of players don't know how to read it or play it and rehearsing is torture.


We share a similar opinion of Mozart, but why 'chafe at the constant barrage of "Mozart Festivals"'? Presumably such festivals are held because of high ticket demands? What's to be annoyed about?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

People for whom music is "about" volume and beat will never "get" most CM, Mozart or otherwise.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MarkW said:


> People for whom music is "about" volume and beat will never "get" most CM, Mozart or otherwise.


What exactly does volume and beat mean? I'm guessing volume means amounts of output, but I'm at a loss with beat...?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ras said:


> My favorite composer JS Bach wrote a lot of complicated fugues so I have to disagree with this statement. Although it does make sense with a reaction against the very complicated fugal compositions of Bach and Handel that the Classical era composers represented.
> 
> But *Captain* you have an ally in *Johann Adolf Scheibe 1708-1776* - from the wiki article:
> 
> >>>


I don't find Bach overly complex, at all. His masses, to me, are long winded, however, his fugues all sound the same, even though pleasant to listen to, even my favorite, the brandenburg works have a certain repetition to them.

There are some formulaic cliche's in Mozart asa well, but I find his work diverse melodically, which is very important to me. I also find his work exceptionally concise, something Bach had as well, admittedly.

Beethoven, to mention the third of the "big three", is just so human and not living in the divine, which is fine, but not my preference, but it used to be.

I'll probably change my mind by the end of the day, and be praising Mahler as the best composer!


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What exactly does volume and beat mean? I'm guessing volume means amounts of output, but I'm at a loss with beat...?


I think "volume" means sound intensity and "beat" refers to an overt one on drums, drum machine, bass guitar, etc. When I was younger I found classical music unappealing because I'd been conditioned to listening to music with an overt beat: I listened a lot to Queen, The Beatles, Oasis, and some Latin music. For some reason I chose to buy a classical compilation album at the at age of 20 and it was only after listening to it repeatedly that I began to accept music without the drums and bass guitar.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Overly complex compositions are too convoluted.


Tautological statements are too redundant.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't find Bach overly complex, at all.


If Bach and his fugues aren't complex then I don't know what you mean by complex.

Are you referring to big long dense stuff like Wagner or Bruckner or Mahler? If you are I tend to agree with you although I hope I can someday appreciate those composers who must have something going for them considering how many clever people with good ears on this forum and elsewhere love them so much. (Put in some commas in that sentence - I'm to lazy to do it right now).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ras said:


> If Bach and his fugues aren't complex then I don't know what you mean by complex.
> 
> Are you referring to big long dense stuff like Wagner or Bruckner or Mahler? If you are I tend to agree with you although I hope I can someday appreciate those composers who must have something going for them considering how many clever people with good ears on this forum and elsewhere love them so much. (Put in some commas in that sentence - I'm to lazy to do it right now).


Yes, you get what I am saying. There are things to see in all music, I think. But to me, Mozart is God. I'm sticking to that view for two whole days now, that's a record!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I still don't "get" what is is I am supposed to "get." If I like it, I listen. Guess my approach is overly simplistic, but it does not exclude complex works.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> I can't speak for others, but my dislike of Mozart isn't a reaction to his popularity. It's the glibness of so much of his writing. Sure he wrote some great music that I like, but if you take a look at his vast output, how much of it really is "great"? Of his 41 symphonies, only the last five or six are played often. Of the two dozen or so piano concertos, only a handful are known well. The wind concertos aren't all that great, really. Only a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning. ...


I understand that you don't like Mozart as much as many others do, but in all honesty, the above sounds almost sarcastic. _Only_ the last 5 or 6 symphonies are played often. _Only_ a handful of his piano concertos are well known. The wind concertos aren't _all_ that great. _Only_ a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, _but_ ...

Actually what I find interesting is that you say you dislike Mozart. I would say that I like any composer who wrote some great music that I like although I know others may focus more on the whole body of work.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I can't speak for others, but my dislike of Mozart isn't a reaction to his popularity. It's the glibness of so much of his writing. Sure he wrote some great music that I like, but if you take a look at his vast output, how much of it really is "great"? Of his 41 symphonies, only the last five or six are played often. Of the two dozen or so piano concertos, only a handful are known well. The wind concertos aren't all that great, really. Only a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning. And so it goes. As a listener, I want to be moved and make an emotional connection with music - and Mozart just doesn't get there too often. If you look at the catalogs of composers from that era, say Mozart, Haydn, Bach, even Schubert, it's stunning how much music they wrote. Was it easier then? When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate. Or they put more something into their music. There's more direct emotional appeal in the Dvorak 8th or Tchaikovsky 6th than in anything Mozart ever wrote - at least for me.
> 
> Yes - I do chafe at the constant barrage of "Mozart Festivals" to the detriment of others. Our local classical station has a whole block on Sunday just for Mozart. I tune it out. And I don't attend Mozart festivals. Now, as a player, Mozart is a hoot to play! Symphonies 40 & 41 are extremely well written for each instrument and a joy to play. Player Hell is having to perform modern garbage like John Adams - it's repetitive and boring. As a conductor, I avoid Mozart - his notation isn't modern and a lot of players don't know how to read it or play it and rehearsing is torture.


Fair enough that this is how you feel but really it is just a record and justification of fairly extreme prejudice. Probably you don't intend to sound like you feel your view is more refined and informed than those "idiots" who value a lot more of Mozart's output than you do? I mean only the last four or five symphonies? And where, I wonder, do you draw the line with only a few of the operas? And probably your resentment at the popularity of Mozart (and the festivals in his name) has a back-story to explain it? It seems strange to mention it, though, in a post written to demonstrate that it is not Mozart's popularity that is the cause of your disdain for his music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Branching out from pop/rock, I disagree overall with the OP. Most of Classical music I came to appreciate after understanding the complexity. Before there were only a select few catchy passages I would like of only the simplest of music. I disliked all of 20th C and anything without a catchy hummable tune, which is over 90% of the repertoire. Heck, I liked John Williams soundtracks way more over any concert hall music. 

What it takes is a desire to expand musical horizons, but doesn't mean you have to embrace all kinds of ideas like indeterminate music or serialism. But one should dig deeper before judging.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I find some of these comments incredible. 

Mozart's wind concertos aren't great? Please cite five better clarinet concertos, two better flute concertos, any flute-harp concerto that can compete with his, and any bassoon concerto that is better. Or find any slow movement of any woodwind concerto by anyone better than Mozart's for clarinet.

Someone said only the last 5 or 6 of his symphonies are played. How does that differ from Beethoven? Or Mahler? Or Brahms. Oops, sorry, Brahms only wrote hour. And how many other composers in history have six of their symphonies regularly recorded and played in concert. Sit down and write us a list. 

Then delete the names Haydn, Beethoven and Mahler from your list and see what it looks like. You'll have a much better idea of Mozart's place in history. At least so far as symphonies go.

Then do the same with his piano concertos -- list the ones regularly played in concert and recorded and find five other composers whose bounty is as great. Or just find one. I'll bet you can't.

People that don't like Mozart don't like him; I get that. But people that deny his greatness simply don't know what they are talking about. They know nothing about music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I can't speak for others, but my dislike of Mozart isn't a reaction to his popularity. It's the glibness of so much of his writing. Sure he wrote some great music that I like, but if you take a look at his vast output, how much of it really is "great"? Of his 41 symphonies, only the last five or six are played often. Of the two dozen or so piano concertos, only a handful are known well. The wind concertos aren't all that great, really. Only a few of his operas hold a place in the repertoire. Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning. And so it goes. As a listener, I want to be moved and make an emotional connection with music - and Mozart just doesn't get there too often. If you look at the catalogs of composers from that era, say Mozart, Haydn, Bach, even Schubert, it's stunning how much music they wrote. Was it easier then? When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate. Or they put more something into their music. There's more direct emotional appeal in the Dvorak 8th or Tchaikovsky 6th than in anything Mozart ever wrote - at least for me.
> 
> Yes - I do chafe at the constant barrage of "Mozart Festivals" to the detriment of others. Our local classical station has a whole block on Sunday just for Mozart. I tune it out. And I don't attend Mozart festivals. Now, as a player, Mozart is a hoot to play! Symphonies 40 & 41 are extremely well written for each instrument and a joy to play. Player Hell is having to perform modern garbage like John Adams - it's repetitive and boring. As a conductor, I avoid Mozart - his notation isn't modern and a lot of players don't know how to read it or play it and rehearsing is torture.


I can see where you're coming from. It's like when I said a lot of Mozart's earlier music is not relevant anymore. The fact there are more recordings than say, M Arnold's symphonies which some I think are masterpieces of the last 30 years, doesn't go well with me. Maybe just need more time, but with the explosion of other contemporary music is not likely


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I certainly don't 'dislike' Mozart's music, but he is not on my go-to list when I want deeply engaging music. A friend recently commented that Mozart 'never wrote a bad work'. That may be true, but the proportion of his output that could be truly described as outstanding music is not so impressive. Thinking it over, what strikes me about Mozart's music is his capacity to produce a large amount of work from quite a narrow palette. The same sequences and structures recur repeatedly, often cleverly used, but none the less familiar. Mozart seldom surprises me or grabs my attention. I can listen to Mozart and read a novel at the same time, which I couldn't do with, say, Beethoven or Hindemith *. 


* Two names chosen as examples from a longer list. Other composers are available. Terms and conditions apply.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

larold said:


> I find some of these comments incredible.
> 
> Mozart's wind concertos aren't great? Please cite five better clarinet concertos, two better flute concertos, any flute-harp concerto that can compete with his, and any bassoon concerto that is better. Or find any slow movement of any woodwind concerto by anyone better than Mozart's for clarinet.
> 
> ...


On the topic of Arnold from my last post. Here are some wind concertos that are more relevant today


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Branching out from pop/rock, I disagree overall with the OP. Most of Classical music I came to appreciate after understanding the complexity. Before there were only a select few catchy passages I would like of only the simplest of music. I disliked all of 20th C and anything without a catchy hummable tune, which is over 90% of the repertoire. Heck, I liked John Williams soundtracks way more over any concert hall music.
> 
> What it takes is a desire to expand musical horizons, but doesn't mean you have to embrace all kinds of ideas like indeterminate music or serialism. But one should dig deeper before judging.


I think if you have to try to like it, it's forcing it, and thus pretenscious(I can't spell this word).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> On the topic of Arnold from my last post. Here are some wind concertos that are more relevant today...


I have no idea what "relevant" means when speaking of abstract music...


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

KenOC said:


> I have no idea what "relevant" means when speaking of abstract music...


I'm guessing he means the style they're written in because it clearly has nothing to do with how often they're recorded or performed in concert. Would someone please notify the soloists and orchestras worldwide performing Mozart's clarinet, flute, bassoon, oboe, and horn concertos that they are performing irrelevant music? Talkclassical has spoken.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

fliege said:


> I think "volume" means sound intensity and "beat" refers to an overt one on drums, drum machine, bass guitar, etc. When I was younger I found classical music unappealing because I'd been conditioned to listening to music with an overt beat: I listened a lot to Queen, The Beatles, Oasis, and some Latin music. For some reason I chose to buy a classical compilation album at the at age of 20 and it was only after listening to it repeatedly that I began to accept music without the drums and bass guitar.


Exactly!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

fliege said:


> I think "volume" means sound intensity and "beat" refers to an overt one on drums, drum machine, bass guitar, etc. When I was younger I found classical music unappealing because I'd been conditioned to listening to music with an overt beat: I listened a lot to Queen, The Beatles, Oasis, and some Latin music. For some reason I chose to buy a classical compilation album at the at age of 20 and it was only after listening to it repeatedly that I began to accept music without the drums and bass guitar.


I firmly believe Mozart is the way, he's so eloquent.


----------



## Ras (Oct 6, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart is God.


Or at least he is _a god_ - but I hope you some day you will realize that Bach is _creation itself!
_


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ras said:


> Or at least he is _a god_ - but I hope you some day you will realize that Bach is _creation itself!
> _


I still say his masses are too long!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Don't people ever tire of saying stupid things about Mozart?

Yeah, on both sides.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I guess Mozart is no longer the Captain's enemy. Capricious I say.

It would have been easier to just say: I like Mozart (this month).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> I guess Mozart is no longer the Captain's enemy. Capricious I say.
> 
> It would have been easier to just say: I like Mozart (this month).


Oh, come, Sir! One just can't say "I like God (this month)."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like Mozart's piano sonatas because they seem "naked," and I'll bet that makes them a bitch to play convincingly. I like the way his music is not overly dense. It's like a light, whipped dessert, after a good dinner of Beethoven.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Oh, come, Sir! One just can't say "I like God (this month)."


You're right, I don't even say it annually.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I like Mozart's piano sonatas because they seem "naked," and I'll bet that makes them a bitch to play convincingly. I like the way his music is not overly dense. It's like a light, whipped dessert, after a good dinner of Beethoven.


Perhaps also like a sheer dress, or a light supper. I know what you mean though; it is particularly the slow movements having that spare texture. A master.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Perhaps also like a sheer dress, or a light supper. I know what you mean though; it is particularly the slow movements having that spare texture. A master.


Mozart's vocal music is similarly "exposed" - or rather, the voice is exposed, without instruments doubling it or providing a richly textured support to make the singer sound good if she isn't. And the decorous symmetries of the Classical style forbid the singer to cover over vocal uncertainty with emotive gestures.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Overly complex compositions are too convoluted. Listen to Mozart and find sheer bliss, and non-contrived music.


Hell, I listen to mostly post WWII and contemporary classical, and considering the amount of derogatory threads opened on TC, most classical music fans 'don't get' this music.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

_Number_ of threads. Fair comment though. This is a rather foolish thread stating: if you think "classical" is difficult, you are listening to the wrong "classical".


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think if you have to try to like it, it's forcing it, and thus pretenscious(I can't spell this word).


Not saying you have to try to like it, but try to understand first, by looking at what is actually involved, rather than just what gets through.



KenOC said:


> I have no idea what "relevant" means when speaking of abstract music...


Relevant as in music more befitting of the times when talking about period music.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> *I think if you have to try to like it, it's forcing it, and thus pretenscious*(I can't spell this word).


Even before I developed a taste for classical music, I recognised that there was music which I 'got' almost instantly, and music which it took time and repeated listens to get into. What I also found is that I often became bored with the former, but the latter retained its appeal (even up to the current day).

A large scale classical work, such as a symphony, is not something that you can expect to comprehend entirely on one hearing. There are symphonies I now include amongst my favourites which I was quite ambivalent about on first hearing (e.g. Sibelius 2nd).

To the original point, Mozart was an important composer, arguably (along with Haydn) the first major 'classical' composer - I'm using the word 'classical' here to indicate an advancement from the baroque style which preceded it. I appreciate what Haydn and Mozart achieved, and how innovative they were in their day, but to my ears much of their music sounds somewhat lightweight and bland now.

They paved the way for what followed, and that was music that is altogether richer and more interesting than their's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Mozart was an important composer, arguably (along with Haydn) the first major 'classical' composer - I'm using the word 'classical' here to indicate an advancement from the baroque style which preceded it. I appreciate what Haydn and Mozart achieved, and how innovative they were in their day, but to my ears much of their music sounds somewhat lightweight and bland now.
> 
> *They paved the way for what followed, and that was music that is altogether richer and more interesting than their's.*


And round and round we go...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Even before I developed a taste for classical music, I recognised that there was music which I 'got' almost instantly, and music which it took time and repeated listens to get into. What I also found is that I often became bored with the former, but the latter retained its appeal (even up to the current day).
> 
> A large scale classical work, such as a symphony, is not something that you can expect to comprehend entirely on one hearing. There are symphonies I now include amongst my favourites which I was quite ambivalent about on first hearing (e.g. Sibelius 2nd).
> 
> ...


It's kind of true...everything you said here.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> There's more direct emotional appeal in the Dvorak 8th or Tchaikovsky 6th than in anything Mozart ever wrote - at least for me.


I think there's far more direct emotional appeal in Mozart's Maurerische Trauermusik 



 or Adagio and Fugue K546 



 or Kyrie K341 



 than Tchaikovksy's 6th and Dvorak's 8th - at least for me. I mentioned my views already in What is it about Haydn? how Schumann, Chopin, Schubert the first 'Romantics' really aren't that 'complex' compared to Mozart and Haydn. (It's not like I don't get Romantic music, I understand what makes Romanticism appealing. It's just that I started to realize their 'shortcomings' as I grew. As a piano student myself, I USED TO BE an avid fan of these Romantic composers.)

I don't get what you mean by "Many of Mozart's works are not great because they're not popular". Would that mean stuff like Bach's Art of Fugue would not be a great work because of its relative unpopularity compared to other Bach works such as the Air on the G String?

_"Some chamber music is quite good, but a lot just note spinning." _





You really have to know contrapuntal techniques such as strettos and inversion etc to understand. In his 10 late string quartets, I'm always amazed how complex they get towards the end, interesting major/minor mode modulations, chromaticism, effective use and control of dissonances etc. I'm always moved by the incredible depth and profundity of the slow movements-- and when it gets to the finales, I often ask, "what kind of drugs were you taking, Herr Mozart." The development section of the first movement of Piano Quartet in G minor K478 is also very inspired. Listen to motivic development in the strings 




People like Captain seem to accuse Mozart for writing music that is too perfect, but one thing to remember-- lots of later composers wrote boring melodies and tedious harmonies (I won't mention the composers or works specifically as I don't want to offend people who like them as I did in the other thread)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I like Mozart's piano sonatas because they seem "naked," and I'll bet that makes them a bitch to play convincingly. I like the way his music is not overly dense. It's like a light, whipped dessert, after a good dinner of Beethoven.


The first movement of K533 is just glorious for its combination of counterpoint and sonata form. What is it about K310 that makes it sound like light, whipped dessert to you?
Rather, I should put it this way.-- I'm curious how can you like Beethoven, if you dislike Mozart (and Haydn)? What do you feel when you listen to Beethoven's String Quartet in A major Op.18 No.5? As opposed to Mozart's A major (K464).. Or his 'Razumovsky' quartets, for example, which keeps making reference to Mozart. The first movement of Op.59 No.3 references the first movement of Mozart's K465. Whereas the first movement of Op.59 No.2 references the 4th movement of K465 etc. We all know, https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ed-from-k464/D41298CFD2EE4AC1639C8CDB3A887E45 like 70~80% of Beethoven share the same language with Haydn and Mozart. What is it that makes Beethoven's C minor concerto (Op.37) appealing to you but not Mozart's C minor concerto (K491) or the fourth movement of Serenade for Winds in C minor (K388) Do you just like parts of Beethoven that don't sound like Mozart and Haydn? 
I mentioned how much reference Beethoven's Appassionata makes to K475 Mozart Is My Enemy
I'm more impressed by Rondo K511 than Chopin Ballade No.4 in F minor and K608 than Liszt's Transcendental Etude in D minor "Mazeppa". 



 K608 is way more contrapuntally complex (Beethoven studied its double fugues) than the famous fugue of Liszt's B minor sonata by the way. I just don't get when people say Mozart is not complex.
Also, I find Fantasy and Fugue K394 



 equally impressive as Beethoven's Hammerklavier fourth movement.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Edit: Unneccessary.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think there's far more direct emotional appeal in Mozart's Maurerische Trauermusik
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"... how Schumann, Chopin, Schubert the first 'Romantics' really aren't that 'complex' compared to Mozart and Haydn. (It's not like I don't get Romantic music, I understand what makes Romanticism appealing. It's just that I started to realize their 'shortcomings' as I grew. As a piano student myself, I USED TO BE an avid fan of these Romantic composers.)"

Then you know that their works were merely different, and you know that they came out of the Baroque and Classical antecedents. I don't know how it could be any different. Romanticism was eventually replaced by something more relevant to the times. This is what makes the study of music so very interesting. I'm not as familiar with the other branches of art and serious expression. But no matter where I start in the history of music (since the 1500s anyway) I can see the continuity and the development and the expressive evolution and the improvements upon the older ideas that each great composer studied in their youth. But necessarily along with the improvements came the loss of some very appealing aspects. It's too bad that it all can't be incorporated into one period of music, but it obviously wouldn't work.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Then you know that their works were merely different, and you know that they came out of the Baroque and Classical antecedents. I don't know how it could be any different.


I know the Romantic composers themselves are unique in their own right. As I've stressed many times, I don't dislike Chopin. I find the chromaticism in Scherzo No.1 in B minor and Etude Op.25 No.11 in A minor clever and clearly acknowledge there's merit in his output. I also agree Liszt was a great composer, I wasn't necessarily trying to put him down in my comments. Again, as usual, I'm just rebutting people who people who pretend Romanticism is some sort of 'Musical Utopia' (even though it is not, for people like me) I'm just trying my hardest to be eloquent without offending other people too much, at the same time, being truly honest about what I've felt in regards to Mozart vs. the Romantics.

Regarding PhilLoves's comment that *"period music is irrelevant in modern times",* I cannot understand what this means. He seems to be arguing that the whole point of "classical music appreciation" is meaningless,-- why not just listen to modern pop music because its more relevant to modern times (especially in terms of lyrics) than something so outdated as classical music. He discredits Mozart's early works as being worthless, but--



Bulldog said:


> promoting favorites by dumping on other composers is a poor move to make.


I have to agree with Bulldog's comment in the other thread and I wouldn't even be saying these things if threads like these didn't exist in the first place. Mozart Is My Enemy
Mozart's early works are undoubtedly not as mature as his late ones, but I still find many of them inspired, (including many of the choral works and string quartet movements). 












Again, just because some people don't like them, it doesn't mean they're 'crap'.. They're certainly not even 'overrated' as they're not even performed that often, seriously. How many people knew Misericordias Domini in D minor K222 



 before reading about it in the wikipedia article on Beethoven's 9th?

Also I think blaming on the more well-known classical music composers for the relative unpopularity of the more obscure composers is also a poor move to make. I've been countering these unfair attacks on the big names in other threads and it seems more like I'm on the "defense" rather than "offense".



hammeredklavier said:


> I understand your preferences. But what I still don't get, is the mentality "it is Beethoven's fault your '30 composers' (who are lesser-known than him) are neglected." Why do you especially blame on Beethoven (and other big names) for yours not getting the attention you think they deserve? Why do you think 'Beethoven-listeners' (out of all people) would give your 30 composers more attention if there's less opportunity for them to listen to Beethoven?
> Why not instead blame on something like modern pop music industry or EDM (which are vastly larger than the classical music industry) for dominating the music market and taking all the music 'consumers' for themselves. Should classical music fans really bicker among themselves and blame on each other for not giving attention to composers who deserve them, or giving too much attention to certain composers?
> I don't think there isn't need for anyone to be 'jealous' of Beethoven's popularity -- rather you should be blaming on something like pop music instead.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I know the Romantic composers themselves are unique in their own right. As I've stressed many times, I don't dislike Chopin. I find the chromaticism in Scherzo No.1 in B minor and Etude Op.25 No.11 in A minor clever and clearly acknowledge there's merit in his output. I also agree Liszt was a great composer, I wasn't necessarily trying to put him down in my comments. Again, as usual, I'm just rebutting people who people who pretend Romanticism is some sort of 'Musical Utopia' (even though it is not, for people like me) I'm just trying my hardest to be eloquent without offending other people too much, at the same time, being truly honest about what I've felt in regards to Mozart vs. the Romantics.
> 
> Regarding PhilLoves's comment that *"period music is irrelevant in modern times",* I cannot understand what this means. He seems to be arguing that the whole point of "classical music appreciation" is meaningless,-- why not just listen to modern pop music because its more relevant to modern times (especially in terms of lyrics) than something so outdated as classical music. He discredits Mozart's early works as being worthless, but--
> 
> ...


What is it you get out of the music before romanticism that you don't get out of romanticism?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I know the Romantic composers themselves are unique in their own right. As I've stressed many times, I don't dislike Chopin. I find the chromaticism in Scherzo No.1 in B minor and Etude Op.25 No.11 in A minor clever and clearly acknowledge there's merit in his output. I also agree Liszt was a great composer, I wasn't necessarily trying to put him down in my comments. Again, as usual, I'm just rebutting people who people who pretend Romanticism is some sort of 'Musical Utopia' (even though it is not, for people like me) I'm just trying my hardest to be eloquent without offending other people too much, at the same time, being truly honest about what I've felt in regards to Mozart vs. the Romantics.
> 
> Regarding PhilLoves's comment that *"period music is irrelevant in modern times",* I cannot understand what this means. He seems to be arguing that the whole point of "classical music appreciation" is meaningless,-- why not just listen to modern pop music because its more relevant to modern times (especially in terms of lyrics) than something so outdated as classical music. He discredits Mozart's early works as being worthless, but--
> 
> ...


I'm saying Mozart's earlier works, while impressive for his age, is not that spectacular compared to a lot of music by others that came later. Just like Beethoven's earlier piano sonatas. It is for completists and dedicated fans only. BTW, you misquoted me.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying Mozart's earlier works, while impressive for his age, is not that spectacular compared to a lot of music by others that came later. Just like Beethoven's earlier piano sonatas. It is for completists and dedicated fans only. BTW, you misquoted me.


Doesn't what you want to hear depend upon your mood?

Obviously I'm curious. There's no other way to get this info except in CM discussions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm saying Mozart's earlier works, while impressive for his age, is not that spectacular compared to a lot of music by others that came later. Just like Beethoven's earlier piano sonatas. It is for completists and dedicated fans only.


I find Beethoven's early piano sonatas a lot better than that!  But of course I'm (as you say) a fan.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I find Beethoven's early piano sonatas a lot better than that!  But of course I'm (as you say) a fan.


I think they're better than any solo sonatas written in those years. Have I overlooked any?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Luchesi said:


> I think they're better than any solo sonatas written in those years. Have I overlooked any?


I don't think so. I listened to a Clementi sonata today. Op. 1 No. 3, 1st movement marked "Maestoso".

Maestoso indeed! Tinkle tinkle. Not exactly a powerhouse... Haydn did 100 times better in his late sonatas.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

On the same topic, more or less: In the car with my wife yesterday. The radio was playing what sounded like a piano trio, obviously classical period. I thought: A bit coarse for Mozart, and too exciting and energetic for Haydn. But if it were early Beethoven, I'd know it.

So what was it? It was...wait for it...Hummel! Don't sell this guy short.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I don't think so. I listened to a Clementi sonata today. Op. 1 No. 3, 1st movement marked "Maestoso".
> 
> Maestoso indeed! Tinkle tinkle. Not exactly a powerhouse... Haydn did 100 times better in his late sonatas.


Oh Clementi.. Horowitz thought highly enough of his sonatas to express that sine qua non with them. Clementi seemed to be selling them for a living.

Hummel? Whose opinion? More serious I think, but stuck in an older tradition.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> On the same topic, more or less: In the car with my wife yesterday. The radio was playing what sounded like a piano trio, obviously classical period. I thought: A bit coarse for Mozart, and too exciting and energetic for Haydn. But if it were early Beethoven, I'd know it.
> 
> So what was it? It was...wait for it...Hummel! Don't sell this guy short.


Yes, I've enjoyed them.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The Horowitz recordings of the Clementi sonatas on RCA are well worth hearing, especially if one is a pianist. He gives them just as much attention as he does to anything by Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Scriabin, or anyone else, and devotes a full album to the composer. I consider this one of his better albums during this period in his life. Anyone who enjoys Horowitz and is curious about Clementi would most likely enjoy these lively sonatas and the way Horowitz dives into them. I think it's obvious that Horowitz thoroughly enjoys playing them. A composer as imaginative and original as Mozart or Beethoven? I don't think so. But I hear a lot of Clementi's influence on Beethoven, Clementi being almost 25 years older, and there's a certain extrovert, self-confident bravura that can sound epic in Clementi's compositions that I think points to what Beethoven was going to do and take further, at least the way Horowitz plays them... I hear something big, broad and powerful in these masterful sonatas.






https://www.amazon.com/Horowitz-Plays-Clementi-Muzio/dp/B000003ER0


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> What is it you get out of the music before romanticism that you don't get out of romanticism?


I don't dislike Romantic music. In fact, I admire every well-known composer of the common practice period to certain extent, (I consider Romantic stuff like Holst's "The Planets" and Tchaikovsky's "Romeo and Juliet Fantasy Overture", inspired pieces of music from start to end.) It's just that there are some I do more than others. While it's true Chopin, Schumann, Schubert etc developed music, taking ideas from the baroque and classicism, and wrote a lot of inspired music- I somewhat feel that they're generally not at the same level of craftsmanship as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven in certain areas. Because of that, composers like Schumann don't inspire me at the same level Bach, Mozart, Beethoven do.

I hate to say these things, (as I have done too many times by now) but when listening to a Waltz by Chopin, you can expect to hear the same left hand 3/4 time accompaniment throughout the piece. A whole bunch of the Mazurkas follow the same formula as well, with many of them written in the ternary form "A-B-A" with no development. And here's where Schumann's 4th gets a bit repetitive in my opinion. 6:30~7:30 



 .. among many other things..

I'm not necessarily saying these things are bad.. I still think they have musical merit, and are unique for the period they were written in. I woudn't ridicule anyone for liking them.



mbhaub said:


> When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate..


However, whenever I see comments like these, I feel that some composers get 'special treatment' just because they're labeled "Romantics". It just seems so unfair. I'm like "wtf.. techniques of orchestration, contrapuntal texture, sense of balance and structure-- you mean Chopin excelled at these things better than Mozart?"

_"A lot of Mozart's chamber music is just notes spinning."_

String Quartet in D minor K421, much like the way Bach's Chaconne does, reminds me what it's like to have 'pain' in life. Especially the coda where Mozart emphasizes the ominous 4 note motif with 'painful' chromatic descending lines: 



chromatic modulation and motivic build in sections such as: 



interesting chromatic and diatonic lines and canonic imitations at: 



thematic variations and inner harmonies at: 




There's so much more to this than just 'notes spinning'. If not, why would Schoenberg say "When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it." 



 I wouldn't call any music by Chopin or Schumann just 'notes spinning'.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier - " While it's true Chopin, Schumann, Schubert etc developed music, taking ideas from the baroque and classicism, and wrote a lot of inspired music- I somewhat feel that they're generally not at the same level of craftsmanship as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven in certain areas."

For me it's like discriminating among the achievements of Rembrandt, Goya and Delacroix. (JsB, Mozart and Chopin)

I can start out attempting to rank them for my own information and review and categorizing, but it soon falls apart. 

I think it would be more helpful to rank individual works, but again, there's so many at the same level of excellence that they offer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> For me it's like discriminating among the achievements of Rembrandt, Goya and Delacroix. (JsB, Mozart and Chopin)


So in this thread, you don't have any problems with mbhaub ranking composers based on achievements, but you have problems with me doing it?  (_ "When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate."_ -mbhaub )



Luchesi said:


> *I can start out attempting to rank them for my own information and review and categorizing*, but it soon falls apart.
> 
> I think it would be more helpful to rank individual works, but again, there's so many at the same level of excellence that they offer.


By all means, do it if you would really like to. As for me, I'm a getting slightly tired of hearing the frequent 'Romantic-composers-did-better' argument. Let's get this over with once and for all. It seems to me that, to be part of the "Romantic Circle" is like an absolute prestige for a composer in this forum. If a composer is a Romantic, he is automatically considered to have written complex music. *Anybody who dares to question this gets interrogated.* It's almost like a sacrilege to speak against their achievements , their "supreme sense of emotional depth".


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> So in this thread, you don't have any problems with mbhaub ranking composers based on achievements, but you have problems with me doing it?  (_ "When you move into the Romantic era, composer output really slowed and maybe it's because music got more complex and it took longer to write, to work out and certainly to orchestrate."_ -mbhaub )
> 
> By all means, do it if you would really like to. As for me, I'm a getting slightly tired of hearing the frequent 'Romantic-composers-did-better' argument. Let's get this over with once and for all. It seems to me that, to be part of the "Romantic Circle" is like an absolute prestige for a composer in this forum. If a composer is a Romantic, he is automatically considered to have written complex music. *Anybody who dares to question this gets interrogated.* It's almost like a sacrilege to speak against their achievements , their "supreme sense of emotional depth".


I believed it when I was taught that the harmonies were more complex and the rhythms were more complex and the forms were more complex and the melodies were more complex. So you can teach us that this is too simplistic?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> If a composer is a Romantic, he is automatically considered to have written complex music. *Anybody who dares to question this gets interrogated.* It's almost like a sacrilege to speak against their achievements , their "supreme sense of emotional depth".


Romantics aren't automatically considered to have written complex music. Who cares about complexity anyway?


----------

