# I Find Baroque and Classical Eras Lame for the Most Part



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Except there are a few gems like Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Beethoven was a classical composer, can’t imagine you would find his compositions lame. Consider listening to Mozart pc 20 or Bach violin concertos


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I have made it pretty clear over the years here on TC, that I am not at all interested in classical music from any earlier that the early 20th century. 

But I would not say that music from those eras (or any other pre-20th century era), is 'lame'. I would only say they do not interest me.

Music from earlier than the 20th century, is certainly not lame. I just personally do not like it.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Simon Moon said:


> I have made it pretty clear over the years here on TC, that I am not at all interested in classical music from any earlier that the early 20th century.
> 
> But I would not say that music from those eras (or any other pre-20th century era), is 'lame'. I would only say they do not interest me.
> 
> Music from earlier than the 20th century, is certainly not lame. I just personally do not like it.


That’s actually crazy. I think at least 80% of classical canon is from pre-20th century. But I’m sure you tried many times but if you don’t like it you don’t like it


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'Lame' does indeed seem a curious word. Can you really have listened to enough varied pieces from these two vast types of classical music to make this a just conclusion about the music, rather than your own powers of concentration?

But in any case, that's fine. You're allowed not to like any music that doesn't float your boat.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I just find it really unartistic. It doesn't communicate deep thoughts or emotions for the most part.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just find it really unartistic. It doesn't communicate deep thoughts or emotions for the most part.


It does to me. But since it doesn't to you, just leave it alone!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It communicates thoughts and emotions, unlike a lot of pop, just not interesting ones most of the time.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just find it really unartistic. It doesn't communicate deep thoughts or emotions for the most part.


While I like the answer of "leave it alone if it doesn't interest you," this does provoke the question of how you think music communicates deep thoughts and emotions to begin with. I find all kinds of music (including Classical and Baroque music) PROVOKES in me deep thoughts and emotions, but this is is distinct from saying the music expresses such things. It also then becomes a question that if it can (and it obviously does) provoke deep thoughts/emotions in some why it doesn't for you. Maybe it's because you don't "understand the language" (so to speak)? Just things to ponder.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Remarks like the topic title appear from time to time in discussions, certainly when someone explains his/her opinion in a debate by mentioning personal preferences and non-preferences  ... and, without a doubt, everyone's personal taste is worthwhile imho. At least for one's self.

I do wonder though: what kind of thread or 'discussion' is to be expected from a topic like this?

Or is it actually meant as "I find music from Era X mostly lame and boring, please help me or give some advice to find exceptions to this 'rule'." ?

If so, then try Mozart (here he is again) in his Piano Concertos KV 466, 491 and 595.
And his Maurerische Trauermusik KV 477.
If you do not find vocal music lame, then try his C minor Mass KV 427 and his Requiem (in whatever completion) KV 626.

And/or try Bach's entire oeuvre. 😛
Starting with BWV 542, the Fantasia & Fugue in G minor for organ, preferably played on a good ole baroque/classical (restored/reconstructed) organ.
It's deep and it's dazzling.
His B minor Mass BWV 232 is a miracle, too.
(Just for starters, I could mention 1080 compositions of course.)

But if the topic (title) is just meant to make a statement, then I will say: how very interesting. Just proceed enjoying the stuff you don't find lame. (It always works for me.)


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

(Just to make myself clear: I LOVE music from the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Baroque and the 'Classical' period... no life without Von Bingen, Lassus, Desprez, Monteverdi, Purcell, Buxtehude, Bach and Wolfie here!)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It communicates thoughts and emotions, unlike a lot of pop, just not interesting ones most of the time.


Let me take this back. All art communicates ideas and emotions, not all of them are unique and individualistic. That's what I prefer and call Genius. You can do something that's never been done before, and still have it be something bland.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think almost half of my collection is of music composed between 1708 and 1828, which is leaving out 100 years of baroque (of which I would have another two rows of shelving but not as much as of the high baroque until the deaths of Beethoven and Schubert). So I don't find it lame


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Captainnumber36, if you think that music from baroque and classical eras are lame for the most part, that's perfectly fine for me.

At first, I remember that this music was an authentic mirror of its time in its time. Listening to it now has some museum aspect. After Tristan and Sacre du printemps, we cannot listen to it as the men for whom it was written. So if you think that is doesn't touch you - perfect.

At second, I would always recommend listening the music that pleases. Life is short. It is ok to look left and right from time to time, but if later music is enriching you more, go ahead. Nuff said.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Could not resist this (I do hope it's still allowed to post a clip of a Russian pianist): thanks to the fact that Franz Liszt did not consider much of the 18th century's music lame at all, people who do not appreciate the organ can still listen to Bach's BWV 542 on a Grand Piano.






We are all gonna help fellow member Captainnumber36 to make this a lengthy thread!


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> That’s actually crazy. I think at least 80% of classical canon is from pre-20th century. But I’m sure you tried many times but if you don’t like it you don’t like it


I have tried quite a few times, and continue to try. I actually have a fairly sizable collection of Classical era recordings that I return to from time to time, to see if they will click for me.

While I am sure you are correct with your estimation of over 80% of classical coming from pre-20th century eras, I have absolutely no problems finding new composers and pieces to listen to. If anything, keeping up with all the great music from the last 80 or so years, is hard enough. I make new discoveries on a weekly basis.

Even keeping up with still living composers keeps me busy, and discovering new composers all the time.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

I myself prefer the organ though, it's more dramatic (don't let the different pitch/tuning of the instrument scare you off...).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Try Haydn Symphonies nos. 44 and 49, and Bach's St. Matthew Passion.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I would bet the author of this thread is a young person, probably 35 years of age or less. Almost everyone starts out with high octane romantic music, then tires of it after a decade or so and begins to discover the world of classical music goes way beyond exaggerated noises, volcanic speeds, and heightened romantic ideas.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Marc said:


> Could not resist this (I do hope it's still allowed to post a clip of a Russian pianist): thanks to the fact that Franz Liszt did not consider much of the 18th century's music lame at all, people who do not appreciate the organ can still listen to Bach's BWV 542 on a Grand Piano.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This was just ok. I do enjoy Trifonov's playing though.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This was just ok. I do enjoy Trifonov's playing though.


I liked the Fantasia part, but the Fugue most def works better on the organ imho.
But hey, preferences and such.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I personally have always loved the majesty of baroque brass. As in Bach's Orchestral Suites Nos. 3 & 4, and the ever popular Handel's Music for the Royal Fireworks.



EvaBaron said:


> Beethoven was a classical composer, can’t imagine you would find his compositions lame.


While Beethoven was technically a classical era composer, he defined the romantic style.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Try Haydn Symphonies nos. 44 and 49, and Bach's St. Matthew Passion.



Listening to the Haydn, it's ok, nothing mind blowing. Don't love Matthew's, it's moving, but not interesting.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Marc said:


> I liked the Fantasia part, but the Fugue most def works better on the organ imho.
> But hey, preferences and such.


Is that the first part? I enjoy that too.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

larold said:


> I would bet the author of this thread is a young person, probably 35 years of age or less. Almost everyone starts out with high octane romantic music, then tires of it after a decade or so and begins to discover the world of classical music goes way beyond big noises, volcanic speeds, and enormous romantic ideas.


I am a young person (23) who has been listening to classical music for the past five years. While my preference is for romantic orchestral music, I love romantic chamber music, some Modernist music, Haydn, Mozart, and Bach.

In short, my tastes are more diverse than high-octane romantic music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Marc said:


> I myself prefer the organ though, it's more dramatic (don't let the different pitch/tuning of the instrument scare you off...).


How about harpsichord? It is no less dramatic, this transcription seems Bachian to me, and the perfrormance- Fernando de Luca -- is engaged. These things always make me think of Lurch.

J.S. Bach: Fantasia und Fuge BWV 542 - Harpsichord transcription. - YouTube


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bernamej said:


> Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.


I chuckled.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bernamej said:


> Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.


It's all good. But if you make a thread like this about _contemporary music_, woe be unto you. You'll have commenters coming out of the woodwork who haven't been around since 2014 and moderators alternating 12 hour shifts to keep an eye out for mayhem.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

ORigel said:


> Try Haydn Symphonies nos. 44 and 49, and Bach's St. Matthew Passion.



I do like Haydn's charm and simplicity AND Mozart's flamboyancy. I didn't like this symphony, perhaps suggest another? Feel free to suggest other genres, but I want to hear more Haydn.

Thanks.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Haydn's Piano Sonatas are really awesome I think, perhaps surpassing Mozart's. Far more delightful. But Mozart's Symphonies are better.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

When I read the title of the OP and know from other posts that the author is relatively young and new to classical music, I can’t help but respond, ‘Give it more time grasshopper.’


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

dissident said:


> It's all good. But if you make a thread like this about _contemporary music_, woe be unto you. You'll have commenters coming out of the woodwork who haven't been around since 2014 and moderators alternating 12 hour shifts to keep an eye out for mayhem.


Well, if you ask me, “decadent music” is real, and no one will bully me into refraining from despising the subversive elements of Western Civilization, be it rap, hip hop, or serial music.
I hope I’m not making any bad tropes


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Mandryka said:


> How about harpsichord? It is no less dramatic, this transcription seems Bachian to me, and the perfrormance- Fernando de Luca -- is engaged. These things always make me think of Lurch.
> 
> J.S. Bach: Fantasia und Fuge BWV 542 - Harpsichord transcription. - YouTube


Sure, I love the harpsichord (and the Addams family)... I just picked the piano alternative for those who are not that interested/enthousiastic about the baroque/classical period(s).


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Except there are a few gems like Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41.



That is opening a can of worms Captain, not agree with you though.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Is that the first part? I enjoy that too.


Yep.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Bernamej said:


> Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.


Yeah, it's amazingly funny, but I don't see the relevance here.
Besides that, the pillars are dead & buried in this case, so they probably do/can not care less, whilst the forum members are quite alive.

Nothing wrong with behaving oneself on a forum.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

Captain, your thread title strikes me as bizarre. I thought you were a big fan of Mozart, and not just of Symphonies 40 and 41. I believe I recall your starting a thread just to comment on how charming Mozart's 1st Symphony was.

So what happened?


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

Marc said:


> Yeah, it's amazingly funny, but I don't see the relevance here.
> Besides that, the pillars are dead & buried in this case, so they probably do/can not care less, whilst the forum members are quite alive.
> 
> Nothing wrong with behaving oneself on a forum.


You surely qualify as a well behaved good boy but I still like to show humility and respect for those who have actually contributed to who we are.


----------



## Bernamej (Feb 24, 2014)

DBLee said:


> Captain, your thread title strikes me as bizarre. I thought you were a big fan of Mozart, and not just of Symphonies 40 and 41. I believe I recall your starting a thread just to comment on how charming Mozart's 1st Symphony was.
> 
> So what happened?


Yes I remember him saying that Mozart’s music is “pure and innocent” in a good way. I assumed it applied to more than just two symphonies and a few sonatas.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Bernamej said:


> You surely qualify as a well behaved good boy [...]


Well thank you! That's a kind thing to say.



> but I still like to show humility and respect for those who have actually contributed to who we are.


There is indeed nothing wrong with that. But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
Of course, one can make a suggestion to the admins and mods that anyone who writes something like "Wagner is lame" or "Mozart's music sucks" deserves a penalty, too.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DBLee said:


> Captain, your thread title strikes me as bizarre. I thought you were a big fan of Mozart, and not just of Symphonies 40 and 41. I believe I recall your starting a thread just to comment on how charming Mozart's 1st Symphony was.
> 
> So what happened?


I'm not limiting it to those two, but I think there are fewer masterpieces in these eras compared to later ones. I do think Mozart is pure and innocent in a good way, just not all the time.

I'm starting to see the grey more, instead of making blanket black and white statements.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really do love the 1st Symphony.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Marc said:


> Well thank you! That's a kind thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think what made my thread title ok, was that I qualified it with "I find" rather than making an objective statement.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think what made my thread title ok, was that I qualified it with "I find" rather than making an objective statements.


Relax. 
I was puzzled by the thread title, I did not think it made all that much sense, I admit that (and I wrote about it)... but so far I have been contributing quite a lot. 
Don't forget: Bach, Händel, Haydn, Mozart: they already faced plenty of criticism, sometimes even quite harsh, during their life & career, and now they're dead. My guess is that they won't be really bothered.
Being a great admirer of all of them, I can only speak for myself, and I'm not really bothered, either.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Bernamej said:


> Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.


This seems a bit exaggerated, I don't think the language of this thread was strong enough to express desecration but should it be the case it just shows that the forum is embedded in the current culture that shows very similar features (to a far greater extent, both the ignorance or desecration of lots of history, especially "pillars" and the coddling of individuals, usually those who complain the loudest).


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Except there are a few gems like Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41.


When composers follow an established style - baoque, classical, romantic etc - they often lapse into platitude.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I shouldn't respond to this OP - it is just too far from how I feel. If I were to list my favourite 100 pieces (not that I could) I am sure that more than half of them would be Baroque or Classical. Any many more pieces that didn't make my list would still be works that I would hate to do without. Just to take Mozart, to reduce his works to just the last two symphonies is to ignore many more symphonies, several wonderful concertos, a lot of great quartets and several marvellous operas - works that I can't imagine anyone who has tried failing to register their greatness. 

And then there is Haydn, Bach and Handel ... . 

I get that some people only really like Romantic music or Modern music ... and fair enough, I suppose. But how to really get that music without knowledge and a real feel for what came before? There isn't much to add to a statement dismissing the rest and the only possible reply to that dismissal must be "you don't know what you are missing".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A case can be made (I will make it) that the passage of time and the increasing number of tools available to composers allows for an ever-increasing palette of "colors", rhythms, longer-winded melodies, etc that were not available to composers of earlier eras. Hence there is more to hear and more to love as we approach and reach Bartok, Martinu, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, even Respighi. I began mostly with 20th century music and have moved back in time over the decades to Mozart, Bach & company, finding much treasure in the older music. It may be what we first hear and have imprinted on us that determines our early enthusiasms, but as the years pass, the Captain will likely also discover the joys of earlier music, though not necessarily in the same abundance as, say, from Brahms to Bartok.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

A case could also be made to a rather different conclusion that more mediocre music of the 17th and 18th century was weeded out by history compared to more recent times. Or that the high virtuosity and orchestral palette since the mid-late 19th century allowed composers to beef up mediocre ideas and structures.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> A case can be made (I will make it) that the passage of time and the increasing number of tools available to composers allows for an ever-increasing palette of "colors" rhythms, longer-winded melodies, etc that were not available to composers of earlier eras. Hence there is more to hear and more to love as we approach and reach Bartok, Martinu, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, even Respighi. I began mostly with 20th century music and have moved back in time over the decades to Mozart, Bach & company, finding much treasure in the older music. It may be what we first hear and have imprinted on us that determines our early enthusiasms, but as the years pass, the Captain will likely also discover the joys of earlier music, though not necessarily in the same abundance as, say, from Brahms to Bartok.


Even more than the "colors" of rhythm and melodies I think the more limited palette of instrumental/orchestral colors is what prevents me from enjoying the baroque-and-earlier eras more than I do. My love for melody and musical drama still pushes Handel into my top 5 composers, and I can appreciate intellectually (if not always be moved by emotionally) the harmonic complexity of Bach and many of his predecessors; but it's nice to come back to romantic-and-later music and hear such a diverse range of instrumental and tonal coloring that isn't relying on JUST melody and harmony, but also the subtle moods, atmospheres, and aesthetics afforded by the greater amount of instruments, not to mention the expanded concepts of tonality especially from late romanticism onward. The classical era sounds, to me, like a transitional period between the rather spartan palettes of the baroque-and-prior eras with the much more expansive palettes that came after. It's very much the point where I, personally, don't find much of anything limiting my musical enjoyment, at least with the greats like Mozart and Haydn. Maybe there's still something missing in terms of the more nuanced atmospheric/tonal elements I mentioned above, but most modern music also lacks the facility with melody and form that Mozart and Haydn possessed to, so it's more of an equal (to me) tradeoff.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Bernamej said:


> Yes I remember him saying that Mozart’s music is “pure and innocent” in a good way. I assumed it applied to more than just two symphonies and a few sonatas.


So, incongruous statements, both of which are cliches? Yes, this certainly merits further inquiry.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Interestingly, I never found Viennese classical music less attractive because of the slightly smaller orchestra. Although the very first pieces that drew me in were mostly romantic (Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Grieg) as soon as I really discovered Mozart and especially Beethoven I long tended to prefer the late Mozart/Haydn Beethoven orchestra, i.e. flute(s), oboes, clarinet, bassoons, horns, trumpets, timpani, strings with any additional brass, percussion, piccolo etc. if at all only for special occasions (I even found these instruments often a bit "gimmicky"). I sometimes missed the clarinet in earlier classical works but it's really a minor point (I liked Mozart's "little g minor" immediately, without ever thinking about missing trumpets or clarinets). Bruckner and some other late romantics, even Schubert's 9th I found a bit too "brassy" at that time and I preferred the sound of Mendelssohn to Brahms (although this was not such a strong preference to make me dislike Brahms or even Bruckner or Mahler).
As for baroque, it was with a few exceptions not such a focus for almost 10 years until my mid-late 20s. But I just accepted that the Brandenburg concertos had a rather different sound than a classical symphony without being any lesser. Or that Vivaldi's 4 Seasons were strings only.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even more than the "colors" of rhythm and melodies I think the more limited palette of instrumental/orchestral colors is what prevents me from enjoying the baroque-and-earlier eras more than I do. My love for melody and musical drama still pushes Handel into my top 5 composers, and I can appreciate intellectually (if not always be moved by emotionally) the harmonic complexity of Bach and many of his predecessors; but it's nice to come back to romantic-and-later music and hear such a diverse range of instrumental and tonal coloring that isn't relying on JUST melody and harmony, but also the subtle moods, atmospheres, and aesthetics afforded by the greater amount of instruments, not to mention the expanded concepts of tonality especially from late romanticism onward. The classical era sounds, to me, like a transitional period between the rather spartan palettes of the baroque-and-prior eras with the much more expansive palettes that came after. It's very much the point where I, personally, don't find much of anything limiting my musical enjoyment, at least with the greats like Mozart and Haydn. Maybe there's still something missing in terms of the more nuanced atmospheric/tonal elements I mentioned above, but most modern music also lacks the facility with melody and form that Mozart and Haydn possessed to, so it's more of an equal (to me) tradeoff.


Yes, I remember being surprised at how many subtle melodies there are in the Handel keyboard suites. When you play through them you're pleasantly surprised (at my young age I didn't expect it from dusty old Handel). They impressed me as more unabashedly lyrical than the suites of JSB.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I remember being surprised at how many subtle melodies there are in the Handel keyboard suites. When you play through them you're pleasantly surprised (at my young age I didn't expect it from dusty old Handel). They impressed me as more unabashedly lyrical than the suites of JSB.


You should try to hear Mahan Esfahani’s Bach Partitas. I say this because they are a deliberately Handelian interpretation of the Bach.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> You should try to hear Mahan Esfahani’s Bach Partitas. I say this because they are a deliberately Handelian interpretation of the Bach.



Thanks. I found this hour long recital. The program looks interesting, and he explains along the way.





and this lyrical Handel from Eric H.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

dissident said:


> It's all good. But if you make a thread like this about _contemporary music_, woe be unto you. You'll have commenters coming out of the woodwork who haven't been around since 2014 and moderators alternating 12 hour shifts to keep an eye out for mayhem.


To be fair though, a good many, if not the great majority, of those anti-contemporary (or anti: modernism, serial, avant-garde) threads do tend to speak in language that seems quite a bit more as if the poster's opinion, is objective fact. The OP of this thread made it clear it is their opinion.

As a fan of contemporary, serial, atonal, modernist, avant-garde classical music, I fully understand I am in the minority here. I understand that most do not like it, and I am perfectly fine with other's opinions.

And let me add, that a good many of the anti-contemporary remarks tended to be pretty snarky. Although this seems to have improved in the last year or so.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Simon Moon said:


> I have tried quite a few times, and continue to try. I actually have a fairly sizable collection of Classical era recordings that I return to from time to time, to see if they will click for me.
> 
> While I am sure you are correct with your estimation of over 80% of classical coming from pre-20th century eras, I have absolutely no problems finding new composers and pieces to listen to. If anything, keeping up with all the great music from the last 80 or so years, is hard enough. I make new discoveries on a weekly basis.
> 
> Even keeping up with still living composers keeps me busy, and discovering new composers all the time.


I have to ask, just because it got me into classical music, have you tried Beethoven symphonies? I mean every one of them and with a good recording? They’re all pretty unique and they don’t sound the same, at least to me. If you need recording recommendations let me know


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

larold said:


> I would bet the author of this thread is a young person, probably 35 years of age or less. Almost everyone starts out with high octane romantic music, then tires of it after a decade or so and begins to discover the world of classical music goes way beyond exaggerated noises, volcanic speeds, and heightened romantic ideas.


Not in my own experience and the young people that I’ve talked too. Most people actually start with Beethoven and Mozart because they are the most ‘popular’ composers for non-classical music fans. I started with Haydn’s 83rd symphony actually.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Simon Moon said:


> To be fair though, a good many, if not the great majority, of those anti-contemporary (or anti: modernism, serial, avant-garde) threads do tend to speak in language that seems quite a bit more as if the poster's opinion, is objective fact. The OP of this thread made it clear it is their opinion.
> ...


So...if you're convinced that what they're saying is just opinion anyway (like everything else), why get upset about it? I don't feel victimized just because somebody doesn't like Baroque, even if they express their dislike with a heaping helping of snark (and that happens too sometimes). Big deal.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> I have to ask, just because it got me into classical music, have you tried Beethoven symphonies? I mean every one of them and with a good recording? They’re all pretty unique and they don’t sound the same, at least to me. If you need recording recommendations let me know


Yes, I previously mentioned, I still have a fairly large collection of classical era music, including Beethoven's symphonies. I have the 1977 Von Karajan box set of all his symphonies. I also have a number of: Bach, Mozart, Brahms, and other composers works.

I don't believe I ever said they sound the same. I can certainly hear difference, quite large differences in some cases. I can even see why others love them, as well as other classical era works.

But when I listen to Beethoven, or others, they do not impact me on an emotional and/or intellectual level, even though I know they do for others. They are always at arms distance for me. I even have the ability to think to myself when listening; ok, that's the part that is supposed to instill feelings of awe, that's the part that is supposed to instill feelings of sorrow, oh, there's the part that is supposed to instill feelings of triumph, etc, etc. But they don't _actually_ instill those feelings in me.

But when I play something by Elliott Carter, Joan Tower, Ernst Krenek, Berg, Magnus Lindberg, Ligeti, Penderecki, Charles Wuorinen, Harrison Birtwistle, etc, I instantly get deeply drawn in, emotionally and/or intellectually. And when a piece has finished, I may also have a strong feelings of catharsis. I do not have that 'arms distance' experience with them. They hit me on a visceral level.

I used to wish Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Brahms, et al., hit me on that deeper level. After all, there is nothing wrong with having more varieties of music to listen to. But at least for now, they will remain at arms length for me.

Between the modern, avant-garde, atonal and contemporary classical music I listen to, and the other genres of nonclassical music* I listen to, I really don't think I am missing anything emotionally or intellectually.

*besides classical music, I also listen to various subgenres of jazz (fusion, post-bop, chamber jazz, M-Base, avant-garde) and various subgenres of prog (avant-prog, Canterbury, Zeuhl, classic prog). I think I have all emotional and intellectual bases covered.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I was fully prepared to disagree with the OP because I love Beethoven, Bach and Mozart so much: Beethoven for the heroism and optimism; Bach for the reverence and devotion; and Mozart for the wonderful craftsmanship, balance, and beauty. When you think of it, though, once you subtract Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and a few other things from the Baroque era, there's not much that remains that is Baroque at the heart of the standard repertoire. Likewise, if you take Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini and Gluck's _Orfeo et Eurodice_ out of the Classical era, what else remains compared to the galaxy of popular Romantic, Late Romantic, and Early Modern composers that dominate the recording studios and concert halls? The likes of composers such as Telemann, Fasch, Lully, JC Bach, Cherubini and Hummel, seem to be pretty much relegated to the Classical Radio/Brunch background music bill-of-fare.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Coach G said:


> I was fully prepared to disagree with the OP because I love Beethoven, Bach and Mozart so much: Beethoven for the heroism and optimism; Bach for the reverence and devotion; and Mozart for the wonderful craftsmanship, balance, and beauty. When you think of it, though, once you subtract Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and a few other things from the Baroque era, there's not much that remains that is Baroque at the heart of the standard repertoire. Likewise, if you take Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Rossini and Gluck's _Orfeo et Eurodice_ out of the Classical era, what else remains compared to the galaxy of popular Romantic, Late Romantic, and Early Modern composers that dominate the recording studios and concert halls? The likes of composers such as Telemann, Fasch, Lully, JC Bach, Cherubini and Hummel, seem to be pretty much relegated to the Classical Radio/Brunch background music bill-of-fare.


Maybe, but the "standard repertoire" pretty much revolves around the Romantic-era symphony orchestra. Look at a more or less comprehensive list of composers from 1820-1900 and see the vast number of the forgotten there. Not that they particularly deserved to be forgotten or that their music doesn't deserve to be rediscovered and heard, but each era seems to have a small number of "heavy hitters" and a multitude of now-unknowns. Right now my impression is that there's more interest in Baroque, Classical and modern-to-contemporary music than there is in music from the Romantic era, with the possible exception of Wagner(ians).


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

The earliest classical music I like begins with late Beethoven. I absolutely adore his late SQs for example. This is where my interest in classical music begins and this interest goes well into the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries. I never cared much about Renaissance, Baroque or Classical Eras (although I do like some Haydn and Bach). Using an adjective like "lame" to describe your dislike for these earlier eras is how should I put this...lame.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

dissident said:


> Maybe, but the "standard repertoire" pretty much revolves around the Romantic-era symphony orchestra.


Yes. This obviously puts mostly choral composers like Schütz or mostly chamber composers like Boccherini at a disadvantage. But some of them, e.g. Schütz have been highly regarded and are regularly performed by choirs since the late 19th century (Brahms adored Schütz). Similarly, the organ repertoire is dominated by Bach and earlier and late romantic + 20th century with an almost 150 year gap. String quartets are dominated by Haydn-Schubert and then 20th century with only a handful of high/late romantic works in the mix.



> Look at a more or less comprehensive list of composers from 1820-1900 and see the vast number of the forgotten there. Not that they particularly deserved to be forgotten or that their music doesn't deserve to be rediscovered and heard, but each era seems to have a small number of "heavy hitters" and a multitude of now-unknowns.


Exactly. The main differences in the 19th and early 20th century are that they are historically closer to us and that the styles diversified, often with a national/regional aspect. But series like hyperion's show how many virtuosi like Thalberg have been all but forgotten, Meyerbeer and other Grand opera composers (and a lot of other French 19th century opera) have become niche, so have the romantic German comic operas (like Lortzing and Nicolai that used to be very popular in German speaking countries into the 1970s) or some verismo (e.g. d'Albert) and so on. It was very surprising and I guess that few people would have predicted this in the 1950s or 60s that Monteverdi, Purcell, Handel, Rameau would become (almost) standard opera repertoire half a century later while other works rather popular in the mid-20th century would vanish or become niche.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

When I began listening, long long time ago, to Mozart's Da Ponte opera's, I got the feeling that Mozart really understood (or at least tried to understand, and felt empathy with) the human mind in all its variations. As if it were audible in the music he 'served' to his protagonists, his antagonists and even most of the supporting roles/characters.

Let's just say that I do believe his characters. They appear very lifelike to me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Marc said:


> When I began listening, long long time ago, to Mozart's Da Ponte opera's, I got the feeling that Mozart really understood (or at least tried to understand, and felt empathy with) the human mind in all its variations. As if it were audible in the music he 'served' to his protagonists, his antagonists and even most of the supporting roles/characters.
> 
> Let's just say that I do believe his characters. They appear very lifelike to me.


I'm Don Alfonso, but who are you: Don Giovanni or Count Almaviva?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> Exactly. The main differences in the 19th and early 20th century are that they are historically closer to us and that the styles diversified, often with a national/regional aspect. But series like hyperion's show how many virtuosi like Thalberg have been all but forgotten, Meyerbeer and other Grand opera composers (and a lot of other French 19th century opera) have become niche, so have the romantic German comic operas (like Lortzing and Nicolai that used to be very popular in German speaking countries into the 1970s) or some verismo (e.g. d'Albert) and so on. It was very surprising and I guess that few people would have predicted this in the 1950s or 60s that Monteverdi, Purcell, Handel, Rameau would become (almost) standard opera repertoire half a century later while other works rather popular in the mid-20th century would vanish or become niche.


I wonder if any academic who posts here could point me towards some literature about how the forces which influence classical music fashions are structured.

Just speaking anecdotally, the rise of Handel in London in the second half of the 20th century was largely driven by the marketing of English National Opera. The rise of Janacek was driven by the charisma of one advocate who caught the ear of the management of Covent Garden and The Festival Hall: Charles Mackerras.

My impression is that these things are very regional. When I'm in Toulon or Marseilles I see music by Meyerbeer and Halévy on the programme not infrequently.


.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> but who are you: Don Giovanni or Count Almaviva?


Probably would like to be the former but closer to the latter  Or to Figaro, actually, I'd guess more of us are closer to the social status of Figaro than the Conte...


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Mandryka said:


> I'm Don Alfonso, but who are you: Don Giovanni or Count Almaviva?


Despina.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Mandryka said:


> Just speaking anecdotally, the rise of Handel in London in the second half of the 20th century was largely driven by the marketing of English National Opera. The rise of Janacek was driven by the charisma of one advocate who caught the ear of the management of Covent Garden and The Festival Hall: Charles Mackerras.


There was a Handel festival in Göttingen already in the 1920s but it took decades to have any real effect on the opera repertoire (neither led it to frequent performances of oratorios beyond Messiah, once you go away from such big festivals as Göttingen, Halle, Glyndebourne and a few others). Then suddenly in the 1980s or so, baroque opera began to be all the rage. But you are probably right that there are some cases when one or a few enthusiasts can be very influential.
And this was probably different in the age of recordings, radio broadcasts, TV and video where fashions can spread far more quickly than merely by stage performances.



> My impression is that these things are very regional. When I'm in Toulon or Marseilles I see music by Meyerbeer and Halévy on the programme not infrequently.


But Meyerbeer was very common fare throughout Europe and the MET around 1900 or maybe into the 1930s, I think. Similarly, operas by Adam, Auber, Boieldieu, Gounod were not restricted to France. But sure, such things are (and were even more in former times) regional. Nevertheless, Lortzing's operas, some of which were as widely popular as Zauberflöte, Freischütz or Fledermaus until the 1970s has all but vanished in Germany and Austria. It's now mostly seen as square, stuffy, silly and boring.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I remember being surprised at how many subtle melodies there are in the Handel keyboard suites. When you play through them you're pleasantly surprised (at my young age I didn't expect it from dusty old Handel). They impressed me as more unabashedly lyrical than the suites of JSB.


I think Handel is right there with Mozart and a handful of other composers that are in the conversation for the greatest melodist ever. Everywhere you look in Handel--the keyboard suites, the operas, the oratorios, the chamber music, the orchestral music, the cantatas and other vocal/choral music--there are melodies so sweet that just melt your soul. Handel knew a good melody when he heard one too, as testified by his borrowings both of himself and others. He might've been the first to realize that "Lascia io pianga/la spina" was good enough to be be reused with a slight change of lyrics! Yet despite his recyclings he was also a first-class musical dramatist with a profound understanding of how to use music to illuminate character psychology and drama, arguably the best prior to Mozart.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

dissident said:


> So...if you're convinced that what they're saying is just opinion anyway (like everything else), why get upset about it? I don't feel victimized just because somebody doesn't like Baroque, even if they express their dislike with a heaping helping of snark (and that happens too sometimes). Big deal.


I'd like to see links from you to threads that were the horror show you described. Were they really intolerant of opinions or only of opinions expressed as statements of fact? From what I can remember the threads you are remembering were often concerned to prove that contemporary and/or atonal music was inferior to what came before and even that it was the cause of what some saw as "the demise of classical music". So they certainly were not just saying "I don't get x" or "I dislike y". Furthermore, such threads were not opened by people confessing to dislike modern music but tended instead to follow an attempt to open a discussion between those who get modern music which were then invaded by troll like behaviour of people who were clearly angry to even see the name Schoenberg or Boulez. It was never clear why it mattered to them but mattered it did and some threads went on and on and on. 

And then they stopped. I noted that some of those who had expressed dislike of, say, Schoenberg or Boulez had begun to find enjoyment in it. Certainly we can now discuss such composers here without the thread being joined by numbers of trolls wanting to restate again and again their proofs that such music is worthless.

This thread concerns music that is widely loved on the forum and the OP was expressed as a viewpoint, almost a confession. Not at all the same.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

> So they certainly were not just saying "I don't get x" or "I dislike y".


More often than not it is/was. One such opinion would be "I don't think John Cage is a classical composer". Another might be "there is really no continuum between Bach and Stockhausen". Now those are opinions, but they're treated as if they were stated as fact especially if you don't agree with the opinion. Either way, what's the big deal even _if_ it's stated as fact if you're convinced that it isn't?

As fori links, I don't have the time or inclination. Others here can vouch for it or you can use the search feature.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ If you can't be bothered then I certainly can't. But I think you would see what I mean if you did look through some of those old posts. But it is all in the past and the forum is a better place with those battles largely forgotten (even though they still seem to rankle with you).


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ If you can't be bothered then I certainly can't. But I think you would see what I mean if you did look through some of those old posts. But it is all in the past and the forum is a better place with those battles largely forgotten (even though they still seem to rankle with you).


"Rankle"? I thought they were more amusing than anything else.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but aren't you the guy who used to post nothing but threads about how Mozart was the pinnacle of all music?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

mossyembankment said:


> Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but aren't you the guy who used to post nothing but threads about how Mozart was the pinnacle of all music?


He also started a thread called Haydn's charm so i also don't really understand him


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Now it's back to the most boring meta-level about which posters write worse blanket dismissals of whole periods or styles? What's the point?


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

mossyembankment said:


> Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but aren't you the guy who used to post nothing but threads about how Mozart was the pinnacle of all music?











Mozart Really is the King of Composers


Everything he wrote is genius, talent like that is so rare! :) I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite! :)




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> Now it's back to the most boring meta-level about which posters write worse blanket dismissals of whole periods or styles? What's the point?


This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..

The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.

All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.

Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.

So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.
Ah music, it's a deep subject.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Now it's back to the most boring meta-level about which posters write worse blanket dismissals of whole periods or styles? What's the point?


Stick around, things will get to subjectivity vs objectivity momentarily.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
> 
> The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
> Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
> ...


Very interesting post. My psychology background really enjoyed it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even more than the "colors" of rhythm and melodies I think the more limited palette of instrumental/orchestral colors is what prevents me from enjoying the baroque-and-earlier eras more than I do. My love for melody and musical drama still pushes Handel into my top 5 composers, and I can appreciate intellectually (if not always be moved by emotionally) the harmonic complexity of Bach and many of his predecessors; but it's nice to come back to romantic-and-later music and hear such a diverse range of instrumental and tonal coloring that isn't relying on JUST melody and harmony, but also the subtle moods, atmospheres, and aesthetics afforded by the greater amount of instruments, not to mention the expanded concepts of tonality especially from late romanticism onward. The classical era sounds, to me, like a transitional period between the rather spartan palettes of the baroque-and-prior eras with the much more expansive palettes that came after. It's very much the point where I, personally, don't find much of anything limiting my musical enjoyment, at least with the greats like Mozart and Haydn. Maybe there's still something missing in terms of the more nuanced atmospheric/tonal elements I mentioned above, but most modern music also lacks the facility with melody and form that Mozart and Haydn possessed to, so it's more of an equal (to me) tradeoff.


Great post!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think the greatest truth that can be said, is that every era has moving music. Perhaps Baroque and Classical has less than the Romantic/Impressionist/Modern era, which was why I created this thread, though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I do enjoy Matthew's Passion, and Bach's Brandenburg's. His cello suites are great as well.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

One thing the classical period has a great deal of that I find less easily in other periods is humour. Haydn especially is a very funny composer. The textural clarity and formal structure of the classical period allows Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart to play with the audience's expectations in a way that is extremely difficult for a Romantic or 20th century (or even Baroque and earlier) composer to do.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think the greatest truth that can be said, is that every era has moving music. Perhaps Baroque and Classical has less than the Romantic/Impressionist/Modern era, which was why I created this thread, though.


Less moving music=lame for the most part?
I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EvaBaron said:


> Less moving music=lame for the most part?
> I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title


I don't want to put words in the Captain's mouth, but he may have meant that Mozart sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the classical composers, He is the Bach of classical, but all alone (in the Captain's view). I regard Beethoven as the key transitional figure, not as a full-bore classicist.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

It puzzles me how anyone declaring "I am not interested in X" can get 5 pages of responses. Including mine.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

There is so much Romantic and Modernist music that I love and couldn't be without. I probably spend more of my time listening to it than I do Classical and Baroque music. But, even given this, if I had to choose to lose the music before or after, say, 1800 I would choose to lose the music after 1800. Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier. I reject the idea that music grows in profundity or power as composers learn from those who came before them.


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

Enthusiast said:


> There is so much Romantic and Modernist music that I love and couldn't be without. I probably spend more of my time listening to it than I do Classical and Baroque music. But, even given this, if I had to choose to lose the music before or after, say, 1800 I would choose to lose the music after 1800. Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier. I reject the idea that music grows in profundity or power as composers learn from those who came before them.


I do not exactly imagine my listening without Beethoven and Brahms but it is very interesting view. It is significant, I think, that 19 century German/Austrian were so immersed in studying counterpoint. Beethoven certainly, prodded by Haydn, Brahms big time. I just wonder if you can elaborate more on what do you mean by after and later in the sentence" "Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yet despite his recyclings he was also a first-class musical dramatist with a profound understanding of how to use music to illuminate character psychology and drama, arguably the best prior to Mozart.


In terms of vertical harmony? No. Neither was Gluck for that matter.
Die Wahrheit der Natur, Ein Singspiel MH 118 (1769)
youtube.com/watch?v=KXcBzebwPyA&t=1m50s
youtube.com/watch?v=I-TeHK-bVvU
youtube.com/watch?v=Mna_VPIZwGE&t=1m20s


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

wormcycle said:


> I do not exactly imagine my listening without Beethoven and Brahms but it is very interesting view. It is significant, I think, that 19 century German/Austrian were so immersed in studying counterpoint. Beethoven certainly, prodded by Haydn, Brahms big time. I just wonder if you can elaborate more on what do you mean by after and later in the sentence" "Nothing that came after works for me except in relation to the music that came earlier"?


Perhaps I was stating it too baldly but I find and understand so many of the qualities that I love in Romantic and Modern music stem from the music of the Baroque and Classical eras, sometimes expanding upon it; sometimes reacting to or contrasting with it. The Baroque and Classical are pure and are the source. That's how I hear it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> In terms of vertical harmony? No. Neither was Gluck for that matter.


I wasn't limiting my claim to vertical harmony. I think melody, tonal coloring, and the withholding of certain elements for later dramatic contrast are equally valid methods (in aggregate, more so) for expressing character psychology as vertical harmony. A good, and very simple, example is the way in which Handel introduces the hulking Polyphemus in Acis & Galatea with a piccolo: the ironic contrast of the monstrous beast being accompanied by the orchestra's smallest, lightest instrument shouldn't be lost on anyone, but it's very much representing his psychological smallness in contrast to his physical largeness. If we're talking vertical harmony being used for psychological expression, yes, Handel wasn't among the best; his strengths are more in the other dramatic possibilities within music. Mozart and Beethoven recognized this very well. For vertical harmony and character I'd refer to more to Purcell even than Handel.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just find it really unartistic. It doesn't communicate deep thoughts or emotions for the most part.


A very silly statement.



Captainnumber36 said:


> It communicates thoughts and emotions, unlike a lot of pop, just not interesting ones most of the time.


The second is a much better statement. To make such a blanket declaration that alludes to all the works of J.S Bach being "lame" is quite the statement. We all are entitled to our opinion though. As someone mentioned above, you are young. If that is true, I can only hope for your sake that you eventually grow into & gain an appreciation for both periods. They both yield extraordinary things and experiences in music.



Strange Magic said:


> A case can be made (I will make it) that the passage of time and the increasing number of tools available to composers allows for an ever-increasing palette of "colors", rhythms, longer-winded melodies, etc that were not available to composers of earlier eras. Hence there is more to hear and more to love as we approach and reach Bartok, Martinu, Stravinsky, Ravel, Debussy, even Respighi.


Eva Yojimbo responded very well to this post. Just to elaborate a bit more: When I see the confines of musical structure these old great masters had to work with, I find their music that much more impressive that they could compose massively great works within those confines. I believe it is a true testament to their greatness and genius. Knowing that when I listen to them impresses me & makes me appreciate them that much more.

V


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

I very much like most Baroque music. I appreciate some Classical music that I have heard, particularly that by Joseph Haydn and Beethoven.

I change the channel if they start playing stuff by Krommer, Danzi, Ditters von Dittersdorf, Pergolesi, and most especially Mozart. Such vapid, simpering, mellifluous, lovely, facile drivel!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

EvaBaron said:


> Less moving music=lame for the most part?
> I still don’t understand how you can love everything Mozart wrote when he is basically the Bach of classical music and create this thread with this title


It's known as click bait and it seems to be working for 36. He changes his mind about the music he likes fairly often.


----------

