# WHY can't I get into Mozart



## Cosmos

As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I appreciate Mozart but somehow I can't connect that well with him yet. I'm not a huge opera fan and some of Mozart's greatest works are operas, so I guess that's bad luck. I do appreciate his later symphonies and symphonies 25 and 29 but I'd somehow always rather listen to Haydn. Maybe it's the rhythm or Haydn's quirks, I don't know. To me, it seems Haydn thought about the 'effects' of every musical line whereas Mozart seemed to go for a beautiful sound which is less concerned about the listener. Don't kill me now, hehe.


----------



## KenOC

It's a poorly kept secret (and kind of an inside joke) that Mozart is, in fact, quite boring. Just on and on, bowing and scraping, nothing ever really happening. Mozart was in on this and had more than a few good chuckles at what so-called "connoisseurs" had to say about his music! Legend has it that his death was really caused by choking on a piece of fish while reading a review of his clarinet concerto...


----------



## arpeggio

Not everyone gets Mozart like not everyone gets Wagner and some do not get anything composed after 1911.

The only Mozart I get is his late stuff.

As many here know I do not get Verdi.

If you like it, listen to it; if you don't like it, don't.


----------



## Itullian

Listen with your heart...............


----------



## Turangalîla

While I am one of the people that _cringes_ at the idea that "Mozart is, in fact, quite boring", don't beat yourself up over your opinion of his music. Keep listening to it every once in a while, make sure that you read scores as you do so, keep an open mind, and realize that you are not expected to immediately appreciate everything in the classical literature. Give it time, though...chances are great that you will eventually recognize his genius and come to appreciate his music.

(By the way, listen to lots of Bach...if he influenced Mozart, perhaps his music can help _you_ understand Mozart.)


----------



## mmsbls

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


When I hear that someone does not like Mozart, I wonder if they like Classical era music in general. Do you like Haydn's music or music of other Classical era composers? Some people just find that era's music uninteresting.

Obviously there's something you're not getting, but unless you simply have not listened to more than a few Mozart works, you may just not respond positively to what others find sublime.


----------



## Musician

Cause the geniuses in the libraries and other book stores put him up as background music, so the listener is forced fed the lie that he is some kind of a boring elevator /library background dude...


----------



## neoshredder

I feel the same way about Beethoven.


----------



## Musician

neoshredder said:


> I feel the same way about Beethoven.


I think that Beethoven is probably one of the most not boring composers ever. Take his moonlight sonata for example, it has all the hallmarks of a boring piece, slow, repetitious, light, and quiet, yet it captures the very core of the listen's attention.


----------



## neoshredder

Musician said:


> I think that Beethoven is probably one of the most not boring composers ever. Take his moonlight sonata for example, it has all the hallmarks of a boring piece, slow, repetitious, light, and quiet, yet it captures the very core of the listen's attention.


Well I've tried. His symphonies are good. His String Quartets bore me though. I'll keep listening though.


----------



## Weston

I'm in the Mozart is boring camp - or have been. People have suggested I just don't like the classic era. While this is true of early classic, by the time of Mozart there were a number of his contemporaries I DO enjoy, Haydn, Boccherini and Klaus being the stand outs. So why not Mozart? 

For me it's his musical gestures, his signature habit of using predictable appoggiaturas. I can understand why this wouldn't bother other listeners, but it bothers me a lot. Just one of those things. But I have to admit in the later works he cuts down on that a bit, and it's the less predictable later works I really enjoy from about the time of the Piano Concerto No. 21, K. 467 onward (as long as we exclude that awful K.545 Sonata semplice from the list!).


----------



## starthrower

mmsbls said:


> When I hear that someone does not like Mozart, I wonder if they like Classical era music in general. Do you like Haydn's music or music of other Classical era composers? Some people just find that era's music uninteresting.
> 
> Obviously there's something you're not getting, but unless you simply have not listened to more than a few Mozart works, you may just not respond positively to what others find sublime.


I've been listening to classical music for over 30 years, but I was never attracted to the classical era. Considering Mozart's massive output, I've heard very little. If the average lifespan was closer to 150 years, I'd buy the Brilliant Classics box and give it a go.

When I think of it, I don't like a heck of a lot from the baroque period either. Life is short, so I'll stick with the later stuff.


----------



## PetrB

Bach did not influence Mozart in any way until very late in Mozart's career, when Mozart was introduced to the music of the old Thuringian by Baron von Swieten. It is from that exposure we have the Adagio and Fugue in C minor, and nothing else remotely like Bach after that. All of Mozart's contrapuntal skill and impulse was trained and fed by his study of modal counterpoint in his early teens.

So... I think listening to J. S. Bach will not at all set up anyone to listen to Mozart.

I think you should consider what music you listen to, and think about it enough to articulate why. It is a gross exaggeration that one composer or one piece has just everything, and that includes just one era.

You are, I bet, happier with the later romantics, perhaps the big late romantics.... there is nothing remotely like that in Mozart. The music is highly abstract, made up of bits of nothing, a little lick here, an interval, and whipped up into something which many (me included) find remarkable, formidable, and it speaks to us deeply.

Dip stick check Mozart only once in a great while. If I've had a change of heart about a composer, piece, a great novel, it has not happened overnight and there is no use beating at the door. You may change, over time, like ten years, maybe less, and then find the door open for you. Check it only once in a great while, because sometimes "all of a sudden" you're enjoying something you thought you did not or would not.

There is an ocean of repertoire, really great stuff, from before and after Mozart. Don't Worry.


----------



## DavidA

Fine if you don't get Mozart. I can never see the life of me why anyone doesn't get him but we are all different people. There are composers I don't get who are most revered here so we only have to conclude that is because we have a different way of looking at things. Music is to be enjoyed not endured. It is not one of life's compulsories to like Mozart. Just don't do what Glenn Gould did and play him badly to make the point,


----------



## Garlic

Mozart eluded me for a long time. Despite his popularity I found his music "difficult", requiring repeated, focused listening to understand. Of course it may just not be to your taste.



DavidA said:


> Just don't do what Glenn Gould did and play him badly to make the point,


I never much liked Mozart's piano sonatas until I heard Gould's recordings! ymmv


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> but we are all different people.


I'm not .

Mozart is no more an acquired taste than any other classical composer. But you may find that you need several listens before you begin to warm to it. You'll only do this if you feel there is something attractive in it in the first place, or that if everyone else likes it, there must be something you don't want to miss out on.

I like his Jupiter, but I've not yet felt compelled to listen to much else. On the other hand, I like Shostakovich enough to try out several symphonies. Sometimes, liking comes before familiarity.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Not liking Mozart is no different to not liking any other composer.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^That is all I have to say


----------



## PetrB

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^That is all I have to say


That is a promise I'm sure none of us could keep, or expect to hold you to!


----------



## Picander

PetrB said:


> Bach did not influence Mozart in any way until very late in Mozart's career, when Mozart was introduced to the music of the old Thuringian by Baron von Swieten. It is from that exposure we have the Adagio and Fugue in C minor, and nothing else remotely like Bach after that. All of Mozart's contrapuntal skill and impulse was trained and fed by his study of modal counterpoint in his early teens.
> 
> So... I think listening to J. S. Bach will not at all set up anyone to listen to Mozart.
> 
> I think you should consider what music you listen to, and think about it enough to articulate why. It is a gross exaggeration that one composer or one piece has just everything, and that includes just one era.
> 
> You are, I bet, happier with the later romantics, perhaps the big late romantics.... there is nothing remotely like that in Mozart. The music is highly abstract, made up of bits of nothing, a little lick here, an interval, and whipped up into something which many (me included) find remarkable, formidable, and it speaks to us deeply.
> 
> Dip stick check Mozart only once in a great while. If I've had a change of heart about a composer, piece, a great novel, it has not happened overnight and there is no use beating at the door. You may change, over time, like ten years, maybe less, and then find the door open for you. Check it only once in a great while, because sometimes "all of a sudden" you're enjoying something you thought you did not or would not.
> 
> There is an ocean of repertoire, really great stuff, from before and after Mozart. Don't Worry.


Mozart transcribed some fugues from The Well Tempered Clavier for string quartet, and in some cases even wrote his own preludes.

Here, for example, are 5 fugues (Mozart's KV 405):


----------



## Schumann

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Did you listen to his Requiem and Masses already? Those are very powerful pieces of music! I can't believe that anyone who understands and loves classical music assumes this as boring music.


----------



## poptart

You're not the only one:


----------



## ArtMusic

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Can you name at least one composer's music that you do like, so we know where to "start"?


----------



## Dongiovanni

Every composer has his own signature. It's hard to describe Mozart's, but terms like 'elegance' come to mind. I was not drawn to his music from the start, Beethoven was much more appealing for example. I discovered Mozart through his opera's. Ever since I appreciate his music more and more. In my experience, his darker pieces are more accessible, strange as it may sound. 

Just yesterday I attended a Nozze di Figaro and as always I was overwhelmed by the brilliance of the music, and how the feelings and thoughts of the characters are embedded in the music. There are so many highlights. The climax of act 2 is theatrical genious. The Contessa probably has the best arias of the opera. When the Contessa 'forgives' the count, we hear such powerfull music it just makes you forget everything for a while. Thank you Mozart!


----------



## Sonata

Musician said:


> I think that Beethoven is probably one of the most not boring composers ever. Take his moonlight sonata for example, it has all the hallmarks of a boring piece, slow, repetitious, light, and quiet, yet it captures the very core of the listen's attention.


Sounds like you've only heard the first movement of the piece. The latter two movements are nothing like light quiet or slow. Have you perchance listened to Appassionata?


----------



## Sonata

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Not liking Mozart is no different to not liking any other composer.


I agree with CoAG, don't beat yourself over the head with Mozart if you're not into Mozart (or wagner or beethoven etc)


----------



## Musician

Sonata said:


> Sounds like you've only heard the first movement of the piece. The latter two movements are nothing like light quiet or slow. Have you perchance listened to Appassionata?


Not only I heard the last movement of the Moonlight, I've also played it. And pretty much know these two works inside out.
I was only making a point about the first one, I thought it was self evident, but I guess it wasn't...


----------



## Manxfeeder

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music)


I can relate to you. Mozart in general bored me (with exceptions: the Requiem, the late symphonies, quintets, and a few others). So I made a New Year's resolution that that year, I would "get" Mozart. It took me up to July, but the vault finally cracked.

I started out by listening to all his symphonies. That was a mistake. What did it for me was his piano concertos. And I don't like operas, but Figaro was great; there's real psychological insight in how he uses the music to depict the characters.

But if you still find him boring, there are a ton of other composers who will make you happy. And, personally, given the choice, I'd still rather spend an evening with the music of Haydn.


----------



## Musician

What strikes me as a little strange is that you can be an amazing musical genius and still cause some people to be bored by your music, conclusion, you can never make everyone happy, yes even if you're as great as Mozart.


----------



## Vesteralen

You'll never beat the Emperor Zurg if you can't get past the second level, and you'll never get past the second level if you can't appreciate Mozart. So keep trying....


----------



## Alydon

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


I think it all depends on what Mozart we are talking about. I think most of the symphonies up to No.29 & and piano concertos below No.11 and a lot of the earlier K nos. are what I would describe as wallpaper music, and I haven't got the time or listening energy to even try and explore the early operas. But when it comes to some of the later works - the quintets, concertos etc. there is something so sublime which cannot be bettered.

Composers are a personal thing: many composers held in great esteem here and worldwide I cannot even listen to; but one day I might. Mozart may catch you off - guard and then what you don't get now will all become clear.


----------



## Ukko

If you don't 'get' Mozart - or Beethoven - or Bartók - or Ligeti - it's _on you. _It's _your _deficiency. Nobody here or anywhere else is going to give you a magic elixir. I know decent, good citizens who never voluntarily listen to _any_ music, and they seem to get along OK in life. A big deficiency in blood will kill you; not getting Mozart won't.


----------



## JCarmel

I do wonder why you might not like him..... on the whole, I do struggle with why people have these problems with various composers? I have my preferred composers but I like & appreciate virtually everything from Plain Chant through to Schoenberg (just!...) ...so if I can do that, why can't you? What is the difference between me/my taste & yours...that's the fascinating question. What's not to like with Mozart...so Yes, there _is_ something that you are just not getting! Or else, I'm just getting too much of it!


----------



## Piwikiwi

This is what got me into Mozart
Jupiter 4th movement


----------



## Mahlerian

It's fine if you don't enjoy it, but from my perspective, Mozart's music is just so brilliantly inventive. As PetrB said, he creates whole movements, whole works, out of the most trivial materials, and they take on an immediately brilliant sheen through his treatment of a supposedly homophonic texture in a contrapuntal way, with all kinds of sudden, unexpected chromaticisms and irregular phrasing. Mozart only bores me if I don't pay enough attention. Many of his contemporaries bore me if I pay too much attention.


----------



## Vaneyes

Sometimes composer blockage can be caused by listening to non-registering recordings over and over again. If they're not doing it for you, avoid or get rid of them. Preferably the latter. Bad recs. in a collection are cancers that need immediate expulsion.

Thought #2. Classical music listening is a lifetime journey. Nothing says you must understand/like all by 2013. Feel free to step back, and move onto something else. There's plenty to consider and choose from.

Thought #3. It really is non-productive to diss composers because you figuratively haven't cracked the nut, though most of us have done it at one time or another. This action has a tendency to restrict future opportunities in the CM listening 'n learning processes. To say the least.

Thank you. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Not liking Mozart is no different to not liking any other composer.


In a general sense I think we'd all agree. Tastes vary so it's not so surprising that some will like a given composer and others will not. On the other hand most of us would react differently to the following:

Why can't I get into Mozart?
Why can't I get into Salieri?
Why can't I get into John William Middendorf? (arpeggio might argue that the only real question would be: Why _do_ I get John William Middendorf? )

The first is a bit surprising given the number of classical music lovers who adore Mozart. The second question would not surprise, and the third would likely be answered by, "Duh!" (although to be fair, he was Secretary of the US Navy - a pretty special day job).

So I guess I would argue that not liking Mozart is somewhat different than not liking Faure or Prokofiev or Borodin. The principle is the same, but the probability is not.


----------



## Sonata

Musician said:


> Not only I heard the last movement of the Moonlight, I've also played it. And pretty much know these two works inside out.
> I was only making a point about the first one, I thought it was self evident, but I guess it wasn't...


Looked over the quote again "most not boring composers"

didn't see the "not" in there previously. So I get what you're saying now


----------



## neoshredder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Not liking Mozart is no different to not liking any other composer.


No different than disliking Sibelius?


----------



## IBMchicago

Disliking or liking a composer says much more about the listener and far less about the composer. I'm a massive fan of Mozart and Bach. As for my personality...I won't reveal much, but I do greatly dislike whining and what I tend to perceive as "first world problems." I prefer elegance and seek enormous depth of meaning in understatement. I've seen this trait in similar fans, though I also acknowledge that my sample size is too small to bear any statistical significance.

Sorry, not sure if this helps...


----------



## Vaneyes

IBMchicago said:


> Disliking or liking a composer says much more about the listener and far less about the composer. I'm a massive fan of Mozart and Bach. As for my personality*...I won't reveal much*, but I do greatly dislike whining and what I tend to perceive as "first world problems." I prefer elegance and seek enormous depth of meaning in understatement. I've seen this trait in similar fans, though I also acknowledge that my sample size is too small to bear any statistical significance.
> 
> Sorry, not sure if this helps...


We'll have none of that. Spill more.


----------



## bigshot

The problem is either...

1) Your frame of reference has a blind spot to Mozart. (Broadening your horizons will always help.)
2) You are listening to the wrong performances (What works for Haydn doesn't necessarily work for Mozart)
3) You aren't addressing the context of the music. (it isn't just background music)
4) You are listening to the wrong works. (Mozart wrote everything from symphonies to operas. Huge variety there.)

But I can assure you that the problem isn't Mozart's.


----------



## Crudblud

I dislike these kinds of threads because the whole implication is that the OP believes there is something wrong with them.


----------



## PetrB

Picander said:


> Mozart transcribed some fugues from The Well Tempered Clavier for string quartet, and in some cases even wrote his own preludes.
> 
> Here, for example, are 5 fugues (Mozart's KV 405):


Yes, yes. A bit of fun or investigative exercises. Doesn't change the negligible influence point though.


----------



## Ondine

Well, I am addicted to Mozart. The most part of my classical listening is about his oeuvre. His music has brought me endless moments of joy, happiness and a kind of 'crystal clear' listening experience.

His oeuvre is huge and enough for my humble listening ambitions; maybe because my frugal temper.

Even though, at least I will tell, at dying, that I met Mozart; that I got in love and decided to stay with _'him'_; that his music changed my life in a very significant way because music and life have been an organic whole; that _he_ and his music will ever be a mystery and I want to keep it like that in a world where mysteries are taken as targets to be tackled, revealed, exposed or ridiculed.

That somebody can't get into Mozart is OK. I can't get into some composers and there is no problem with that.

Don't getting into some composers do not make us neither better nor worse people. And nobody has to be forced to get into a place that she or he does not want to get into.

Don't worry, you are not losing anything important. There are hundreds of composers out there that will bring you wonderful moments of listening experience and those -eventually will become your great companions along your life


----------



## Blancrocher

Crudblud said:


> I dislike these kinds of threads because the whole implication is that the OP believes there is something wrong with them.


In this case, of course, the implication is correct. Mozart is one of those 3 or 4 composers about whom you're just not allowed to say: "He just doesn't do it for me."

Of course, the penalty for breaking this rule is nothing at all.

In fact, I like his spirit! :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> In this case, of course, the implication is correct. Mozart is one of those 3 or 4 composers about whom you're just not allowed to say: "He just doesn't do it for me."
> 
> Of course, the penalty for breaking this rule is nothing at all.


That is because there is, really, no rule, are no rules about what to like or not. Never find them in texts either, other than _implied_. Most learn to stop bowing to the mob's social pressures somewhere between high school and college age years.

Funny how many will regress, or not arrive at a similar conclusion, when it comes to the arts.


----------



## bigshot

Blancrocher said:


> In this case, of course, the implication is correct. Mozart is one of those 3 or 4 composers about whom you're just not allowed to say: "He just doesn't do it for me."


Oh no. It's perfectly fine to say that. It just doesn't mean that there is something wrong with Mozart. His music is what it is. Not much question about it. Whether or not someone appreciates it is their own concern.


----------



## trazom

Weston said:


> I DO enjoy, Haydn, Boccherini and Klaus being the stand outs.So why not Mozart?


Because you're immune to good music? jk.

What appoggiaturas are you talking about?


----------



## jani

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Because you are weird... ... ...


----------



## trazom

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Not liking Mozart is no different to not liking any other composer.


I disagree. There are cerain composers whose music is of such high quality and importance to the standard repertoire,is studied by musicians and composers alike for generations, that there's obviously more that's being missed by someone who doesn't like it than, say, someone who decides they don't like Sorabji.

Not all great art is immediately accessible, but it rewards in spades once time and effort is put in to understanding it.


----------



## Weston

We cannot force people into liking something as subjective as music simply by insisting they _must._. Life is too short and the personal journey too important to put up with that. From my reading and experience the seekers who raise questions both sew and reap the greatest benefit in the long run rather than those who insist on established canon.

On those too many notes, I'm moving on to seek more productive discussion.


----------



## Musician

I second Weston's comments above, if he doesn't like Mozart, trust me the earth will survive nothing will change, its his choice and we all need to respect that...


----------



## Guest

trazom said:


> I disagree. There are cerain composers whose music is of such high quality and importance to the standard repertoire,is studied by musicians and composers alike for generations, that there's obviously more that's being missed by someone who doesn't like it than, say, someone who decides they don't like Sorabji.


Can't comment on Sorabji (who?) but I'm inclined to agree with the idea that there's more being 'missed'. However, that's still a matter of personal taste. I think that you'd be missing more if you couldn't get into _Citizen Kane_ but were happy to watch _American Pie_...but it takes all sorts.



trazom said:


> Not all great art is immediately accessible, but it rewards in spades once time and effort is put in to understanding it.


First part, true, second part, possibly but not inevitably.


----------



## trazom

Musician said:


> I second Weston's comments above, if he doesn't like Mozart, trust me the earth will survive nothing will change, its his choice and we all need to respect that...


Not liking something isn't really a 'choice,' but giving up and refusing to learn or listen is.


----------



## Nereffid

trazom said:


> I disagree. There are cerain composers whose music is of such high quality and importance to the standard repertoire,is studied by musicians and composers alike for generations, that there's obviously more that's being missed by someone who doesn't like it than, say, someone who decides they don't like Sorabji.


I don't agree with this, because I think ultimately it's an argument from statistics. AFAIC, "great" music is that which produces a highly positive (but subjective) response in a large majority of listeners, but widespread agreement on a subjective issue doesn't make the result objective. Yes, statistically speaking, a randomly chosen person (well, classical listener, at any rate) should like Mozart's music but that doesn't mean they will, and if they don't, all it means is that this music doesn't produce a positive (subjective) response. It's not that "there's obviously more that's being missed".


----------



## trazom

Nereffid said:


> I don't agree with this, because I think ultimately it's an argument from statistics. AFAIC, "great" music is that which produces a highly positive (but subjective) response in a large majority of listeners, but widespread agreement on a subjective issue doesn't make the result objective. Yes, statistically speaking, a randomly chosen person (well, classical listener, at any rate) should like Mozart's music but that doesn't mean they will, and if they don't, all it means is that this music doesn't produce a positive (subjective) response. It's not that "there's obviously more that's being missed".


I don't believe that if the music continues to fascinate and inspire musicians (and laymen) generations later, that it's only subjective. Obviously, there is something that sets it apart from most of the music written in the same period, and learning about what sets it apart can only help because it gives an idea of what to listen for.


----------



## Garlic

I'm surprised some people are surprised some people don't like Mozart.


----------



## apricissimus

Itullian said:


> Listen with your heart...............


Maybe he is. It's hard to tell, but I usually give people the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## BurningDesire

There's no problem with you hon. Mozart is quite over-rated at any rate :3 Still, I think you should give his later works more of a chance, there are some really cool ones there.


----------



## Nereffid

trazom said:


> I don't believe that if the music continues to fascinate and inspire musicians (and laymen) generations later, that it's only subjective. Obviously, there is something that sets it apart from most of the music written in the same period, and learning about what sets it apart can only help because it gives an idea of what to listen for.


OK, but what if the "something that sets it apart" is precisely the thing that the person who doesn't like Mozart's music _doesn't like_?

I should clarify that I'm certainly in favour of repeated attempts to appreciate and/or understand things you don't initially like. But not everyone likes all the same things, and eventually that's all there is to it.


----------



## starry

Cosmos said:


> WHY can't I get into Mozart


How would anyone know that unless they are psychic? There's already Mozart threads anyway and I don't think a new one specifically for one poster is necessarily needed, surely this can be put into the mix with any others who have problems.


----------



## deggial

^ it's a rhetorical question. He knows why he can't get into Mozart, as he has stated in the OP. A very to the point answer would be "you can't get into Mozart because his music bores you and until you find at least one piece that does not, it will continue to be inaccessible". Usually these threads are pleas for others to post works that have convinced them when they were in a similar position and/or for others still in that position to come and commiserate. The truly useful answer is, of course, don't fret. You can't force yourself to like something. If it happens, it happens, if it doesn't you're just one of those people who don't connect with Mozart's music.


----------



## millionrainbows

If Mozart's music bores some people, for me it only reinforces the (mistaken)notion that music must primarily evoke some sort of "emotional" response. I mean, how do you define that, and how is it "in" the music? I think it just comes from being human. I like cheeseburgers; in fact, when hungry for one, I get rather excited; but is this an "emotional" response? Some would say yes, after hearing Barry Manilow's famous "You deserve a break today" jingle for McDonald's. If we cannot penetrate the simplicity of a visceral V-I progression, then our hi-def world has gotten too far away from the simple involvement we should be deriving from music. Media overload, too much information, too much data. This is a dilemma we must work on for ourselves; pick a few good things, and immerse yourself deeply in them. Dig in the dirt for an hour or two; plant seeds. Simplify. Choose, select, edit.


----------



## Vaneyes

Ondine said:


> Well, I am addicted to Mozart. The most part of my classical listening is about his oeuvre. His music has brought me endless moments of joy, happiness and a kind of 'crystal clear' listening experience.
> 
> His oeuvre is huge and enough for my humble listening ambitions; maybe because my frugal temper.
> 
> Even though, at least I will tell, at dying, that I met Mozart; that I got in love and decided to stay with _'him'_; that his music changed my life in a very significant way because music and life have been an organic whole; that _he_ and his music will ever be a mystery and I want to keep it like that in a world where mysteries are taken as targets to be tackled, revealed, exposed or ridiculed.
> 
> That somebody can't get into Mozart is OK. I can't get into some composers and there is no problem with that.
> 
> Don't getting into some composers do not make us neither better nor worse people. And nobody has to be forced to get into a place that she or he does not want to get into.
> 
> Don't worry, you are not losing anything important. There are hundreds of composers out there that will bring you wonderful moments of listening experience and those -eventually will become your great companions along your life


It is heart-wrenching that some are trying to dumb-down WAM, as they or others did Vivaldi. Re the latter, I think I can say that I almost singlehandedly made him cool again. I hope I won't be required to perform such services for WAM, though I gladly will, if need be.


----------



## bharbeke

I agree with those who say that there are lots of composers, and it is not necessary to like or love something from each of them, no matter how famous.

I try to listen to a few famous works from a composer before I stop actively seeking out their music. Later, I may come across something I like from them on classical radio, but I've got plenty to listen to without them.

Sometimes, composers excel at certain genres of work more than others. For Mozart, I would recommend any of his piano or wind concertos as an introduction.


----------



## Ondine

bharbeke said:


> For Mozart, I would recommend any of his piano or wind concertos as an introduction.


Or his Masses; God! how irreverent the sound -without a bit of solemnity-


----------



## Ondine

Ups........ Double post


----------



## starry

I could do loads of threads on 'why don't I like...', we all could I guess, the whole forum could be filled with them. But I don't worry about not liking something somebody else likes, I don't want to just join a crowd. In fact I probably take more pleasure in just finding things randomly for myself and knowing I found my own way, even if that way is sometimes something relatively few even bother with.


----------



## IBMchicago

I didn't enjoy Shakespeare in high school and found MacBeth, Caesar, Hamlet, and all the other great works to be boring (just as you find Mozart). Perhaps it is because my teacher wasn't the right person for the job. Or, maybe my mind was just not up to the task of appreciating Shakespeare. There are dozens of possible reasons that I couldn't connect with Shakespeare's works, though not one of those reasons, I can assure you, can be attributed to Shakespeare himself. At the very least we should both be capable of acknowledging the brilliance of Shakespeare, Mozart, Wagner, Cezanne or any other artist that we may not understand or appreciate. Anyone who is going to be dismissive of genius itself needs to have a very solid reason in order to be taken seriously.


----------



## Guest

IBMchicago said:


> At the very least we should both be capable of acknowledging the brilliance of Shakespeare, Mozart, Wagner, Cezanne or any other artist that we may not understand or appreciate. Anyone who is going to be dismissive of genius itself needs to have a very solid reason in order to be taken seriously.


And yet if we can't connect with acknowledged geniuses ("I don't like it but I can see why others think it's great") then we're accepting second-hand judgements. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, but there is the potential for 'emperor's new clothes': "Everyone tells me this is good, but actually, it's not."

Just to be clear, before the fans of Mozart and Shakespeare retort, I'm not applying my ponderings specifically to WAM and Mr Shaxberd. Having said that, it's all too easy to think that established geniuses are beyond criticism.


----------



## starry

Just because you dislike/don't get something doesn't mean you have to have the mammoth assumption that you will dislike it for the rest of your life. I don't actually mind someone if they dislike something that is generally acclaimed if they have more to say than that they dislike it for no particular reason, or that they dislike it but need someone to come along and somehow give them some special non-existent secret key to music that they can either understand themselves if they give it time or won't find anyway as they just prefer other stuff.


----------



## IBMchicago

MacLeod said:


> Having said that, it's all too easy to think that established geniuses are beyond criticism.


I absolutely agree. Gallileo questioned the science of Aristotle, and Einstein questioned Newton. Beethoven questioned the structures of classical music, and JS Bach questioned his contempories. And it's a great relief that they had the capacity of genius to do so. Regarding Mozart, no one of his level seems to have discounted his abilities (and, sorry, Delius and Gould don't really count as "at his level"). If anything, WAM's presumed "equals" have nothing but praise for him.


----------



## atsizat

Manxfeeder said:


> I can relate to you. Mozart in general bored me (with exceptions: the Requiem, the late symphonies, quintets, and a few others). So I made a New Year's resolution that that year, I would "get" Mozart. It took me up to July, but the vault finally cracked.
> 
> I started out by listening to all his symphonies. That was a mistake. What did it for me was his piano concertos. And I don't like operas, but Figaro was great; there's real psychological insight in how he uses the music to depict the characters.
> 
> But if you still find him boring, there are a ton of other composers who will make you happy. And, personally, given the choice, I'd still rather spend an evening with the music of Haydn.


Yes. İt is quite my point. Most of pieces Mozart have composed bores me but there are some exceptions such as Requiem, 25th and 40th symphony, Turkish March, A little Night Music, Piano concerto no 4 andante, Piano concerto no 21 andante, piano concerto no 23 adagio, piano concerto no 24 ( all of piano concerto no 24). So When I listen to these musics, I wonder, why are Mozart's other musics not like these musics. Why most of his musics are ordinary and boring. There are some musics very good but the number of them are so very little compared to how many musics he has composed. I listen to so much more musics from Bach and Vivaldi so I find Bach and Vivaldi better than Mozart in general.


----------



## Mahlerian

atsizat said:


> Yes. İt is quite my point. Most of pieces Mozart have composed bores me but there are some exceptions such as Requiem, 25th and 40th symphony, Turkish March, A little Night Music, Piano concerto no 4 andante, Piano concerto no 21 andante, piano concerto no 23 adagio, piano concerto no 24 ( all of piano concerto no 24). So When I listen to these musics, I wonder, why are Mozart's other musics not like these musics. Why most of his musics are ordinary and boring. There are some musics very good but the number of them are so very little compared to how many musics he has composed. I listen to so much more musics from Bach and Vivaldi so I find Bach and Vivaldi better than Mozart in general.


The answer might just be that those pieces are less boring to you because they are more familiar. Your list is weighted towards minor-key Mozart, though it contains other things as well, but you're missing out on many of his best works if you just dismiss everything else as "boring."


----------



## pentaquine

I feel you. I don't connect with Mozart either. I guess it just takes time and age. I didn't connect with Brahms when I was 20, but he became my favourite when I was 30.


----------



## Combinebobnt

If you can't get into Mozart after trying, then stop trying. Just listen to something you like instead; maybe try Mozart again in a few years. Don't be pressured by him being a "super awesome" and popular composer or whatever, as everybody has different opinions, and sometimes, they just don't work with your own.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Don't kill me now, hehe.


Can't guarantee that. There's definitely been this idea going around that says if you're not enjoying something, a part of your life is missing, that _enjoying _something means _adding _something to your life, and if you dislike something, you're missing out on life. You anti-hedonist, anti-materialist! :scold: When actually, disliking something might give you just much meaning to your life. eek: Did I just say that?) Life is a journey of _desire_, not a check-list and a test of "reach 100% enjoyment of everything before you die or else you lose the game of life." When will people actually get this concept? The world will never know.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I sometimes wonder what my appreciation for Classical would be if I hadn't listened to it since the crib. I know a huge factor in my love for Mozart stems from Amadeus. I grew up on both of the soundtracks that came out for that movie, and I still listen to them. 

Fantasia might've been another contributor to my love of classical. My parents got a cd of the month kind of thing through BBC and Musical Heritage Society back in the 80s and 90s. So I was exposed to a lot of music. While eventually I broke off into other genres, I still would come back to the classical music. 

Maybe you just haven't heard the right recording. Maybe you just weren't in the right place or mood when you heard the piece. Some performances just click with your emotions better than others. That's while you'll tend to find some people praising and hating the same recording on Amazon.


----------



## atsizat

Mahlerian said:


> The answer might just be that those pieces are less boring to you because they are more familiar. Your list is weighted towards minor-key Mozart, though it contains other things as well, but you're missing out on many of his best works if you just dismiss everything else as "boring."


The answer is because other pieces of Mozart are boring. At least, they are to me if they are not to other people. Think of Mozart's ordinary major Works and Piano Concerto no 21 andante. It is like there are 2 different people to me. I see so much difference. How can I not like such a good piece like Piano Concertno no 21 andante or piano concerto no 23 adagio? I wish Mozart had always composed this kinds of music. There is something unbelieveable about Mozart. I read that, Mozart Piano Concerto no 4 andante, which is one of the pieces I like from Mozart, was composed by Mozart when he was 10 years old. This is really weird because I don't get how a 10 year old can make a piece that has such sadness in it. It is weird that Wikipedia says Mozart composed it when he was 10 years old. It is really weird.

Did Mozart really compose this when he was 10 years old? It is unbelievable. It must be wrong.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I would find Mozart's prodigious skills more of a shocker, if he didn't have such a musical family. Mozart probably wasn't distracted from music. I'd say music probably distracted him more than anything. Wolfgang's mind was the perfect consistency for the vast knowledge Leopold could teach him. He and his sister were both playing music, and they bonded with each other and their father through music. It's the perfect storm in creating the most talked about composer of all time. 

Not to knock his immense skill, people forget his work ethic. Mozart had the perfect combination of talent and hard work. You hardly ever see both at that high of a level. Mozart was quoted something to the effect of "People ask how it comes so easily to me, but they do not realize that I work much harder than they do" 

Then you have the bond he had with Constanze who was also musical. Mozart's circle of friends and family was musical. He was friends with Haydn. If he wasn't born with that natural talent, it still would've rubbed off on him.


----------



## Vaneyes

To the OPie, don't worry about it. In the meantime, try Bruckner. :tiphat:


----------



## SeptimalTritone

atsizat said:


> Yes. İt is quite my point. Most of pieces Mozart have composed bores me but there are some exceptions such as Requiem, 25th and 40th symphony, Turkish March, A little Night Music, Piano concerto no 4 andante, Piano concerto no 21 andante, piano concerto no 23 adagio, piano concerto no 24 ( all of piano concerto no 24). So When I listen to these musics, I wonder, why are Mozart's other musics not like these musics. Why most of his musics are ordinary and boring. There are some musics very good but the number of them are so very little compared to how many musics he has composed. I listen to so much more musics from Bach and Vivaldi so I find Bach and Vivaldi better than Mozart in general.


Dude, if you like minor key Mozart... I have a few recommendations.

String Quintet 4 in G minor 



Piano Concerto 20 in D minor 



String Quartet 15 in D minor 



Piano Sonata 8 in A minor 



Fantasy in C minor 



Piano Quartet 1 in G minor 




OMG minor key awesomeness!


----------



## violadude

atsizat said:


> The answer is because other pieces of Mozart are boring. At least, they are to me if they are not to other people. Think of Mozart's ordinary major Works and Piano Concerto no 21 andante. It is like there are 2 different people to me. I see so much difference. How can I not like such a good piece like Piano Concertno no 21 andante or piano concerto no 23 adagio? I wish Mozart had always composed this kinds of music. There is something unbelieveable about Mozart. I read that, Mozart Piano Concerto no 4 andante, which is one of the pieces I like from Mozart, was composed by Mozart when he was 10 years old. This is really weird because I don't get how a 10 year old can make a piece that has such sadness in it. It is weird that Wikipedia says Mozart composed it when he was 10 years old. It is really weird.
> 
> Did Mozart really compose this when he was 10 years old? It is unbelievable. It must be wrong.


Well...the first 4 piano concertos are based on sonatas by other composers. The first fully original PC by Mozart is the 5th.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Thankfully - loving M as I do - it doesnt bother me one jot that I dont get some other composers

But it would bother me if I didnt get M I must admit - it would be like not getting Shakespeare or Leonardo

Never mind!


----------



## Dim7

I like Mozart but probably for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Blake

You're simply not cosmopolitan enough, cosmos.


----------



## ArtMusic

atsizat said:


> Yes. İt is quite my point. Most of pieces Mozart have composed bores me but there are some exceptions such as Requiem, 25th and 40th symphony, Turkish March, A little Night Music, Piano concerto no 4 andante, Piano concerto no 21 andante, piano concerto no 23 adagio, piano concerto no 24 ( all of piano concerto no 24). So When I listen to these musics, I wonder, why are Mozart's other musics not like these musics. Why most of his musics are ordinary and boring. There are some musics very good but the number of them are so very little compared to how many musics he has composed. I listen to so much more musics from Bach and Vivaldi so I find Bach and Vivaldi better than Mozart in general.


As long as one can identify with music of the very great composers like Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart it all comes down to preference within each of these composer's music.


----------



## Gustav Mahler

I think that you just might not like the simplicity and symmetry of the classical era, Or maybe you just need to get accommodated to it.
I am a classical musician, And I know some other musicians that dislike Mozart. That is okay. You might just not like the classical style.
I prefer the emotional richness of the romantic style the most, But I adore Mozart, and I enjoy his music a lot. When you learn to comprehend the classical style you can appreciate his sublime music. He might be the greatest composer to ever live.
Liking romanticism by the way doesn't mean you can't like classical music.
A proof of that is the last word by the great Gustav Mahler, before his died:
"Mozart".


----------



## millionrainbows

I had problems with piano lessons, because sonatinas by Haydn were too simple-minded for me. I couldn't approach the simplicity. I had to start out with a Chopin prelude, something more harmonically adventurous and poetic, with 'feeling.'

Later on, it gradually dawned on me, and I was finally able to appreciate the simplicity. Hearing Glenn Gould and Sviatoslav Richter (Handel) play stuff super-fast and precise helped immensely. 

I never had a problem with Bach.

Mozart, though, is not very harmonically adventurous, and as modern listeners, exposed to TV and movie music, and more harmonically complex music on the radio, we sometimes have to make the switch to a different mode of listening before we can really 'get' Mozart.


----------



## Mahlerian

millionrainbows said:


> Mozart, though, is not very harmonically adventurous, and as modern listeners, exposed to TV and movie music, and more harmonically complex music on the radio, we sometimes have to make the switch to a different mode of listening before we can really 'get' Mozart.


Not harmonically adventurous compared to what? I've heard very little in TV or film scores, let alone popular music, that comes close to the unexpected modulatory escapades or the sudden chromaticisms of later Mozart works. I think people are distracted by the fluid surface of his works when they call them simplistic.

A bit of an extreme example, but how much TV/film music reaches this level of sophistication?


----------



## tdc

Compared to what Mozart does harmonically in many of his later works, other Classical era composers for the most part come across to me like plain white bread in terms of their harmonic language - this includes most Beethoven.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


I could say that about the vast majority of music that's considerate great....whatever conception of beauty and value WCM listeners have, mine clearly shifted from that. It's baffling to me how people can enjoy the same music for decades without it losing its shine, so I guess we were wired differently. What strikes me is usually a combination of novelty and familiarity, and things lose their novelty eventually....after that, appreciating something for its greatness without experiencing the visceral effect is just an intellectual exercise of the kind I wouldn't really care for.



Mahlerian said:


> Not harmonically adventurous compared to what? I've heard very little in TV or film scores, let alone popular music, that comes close to the unexpected modulatory escapades or the sudden chromaticisms of later Mozart works. I think people are distracted by the fluid surface of his works when they call them simplistic.
> 
> A bit of an extreme example, but how much TV/film music reaches this level of sophistication?


I agree with million rainbows, when you have a lot of film music whose ancestors are much later composers with greatly expanded harmony from Mozart's day, who spent a great deal of time V-Iing, I wouldn't consider Mozart's harmony to be more complex on most occasions.

That was a really nice selection though.


----------



## starthrower

^^^
I would have never guessed that was Mozart. A very interesting piece!


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Not harmonically adventurous compared to what?


That "little gigue" is almost like a throw-away piece -- but how many composers in history could have written it? Fascinating.

Anybody else who thinks Mozart's music is harmonically bland might want to listen to the Andante from the 40th Symphony.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> Compared to what Mozart does harmonically in many of his later works, other Classical era composers for the most part come across to me like plain white bread in terms of their harmonic language - this includes most Beethoven.


Agreed. Beethoven wasn't as adventurous in matters of form as Haydn nor as subtle in harmony as Mozart. But he did have his strengths.


----------



## Ariasexta

I am curious what music do you like if you do not Mozart. I think Mozarts violin concertos are very beautiful.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Here's another awesome little piece that's so dissonantly awesome it's painful, in a good way of course.


----------



## Ariasexta

> It's baffling to me how people can enjoy the same music for decades without it losing its shine, so I guess we were wired differently. What strikes me is usually a combination of novelty and familiarity, and things lose their novelty eventually....


To participate in a form of art is not about novelty, if I want a new season Zara design not because its new, just it suits me, and next time this design will not be repeated in the foreseeable future. It comes and then will not be repeated, I like it so I keep it for the whole life, novelty is of secondary importance.


----------



## atsizat

SeptimalTritone said:


> Dude, if you like minor key Mozart... I have a few recommendations.
> 
> String Quintet 4 in G minor
> 
> 
> 
> Piano Concerto 20 in D minor
> 
> 
> 
> String Quartet 15 in D minor
> 
> 
> 
> Piano Sonata 8 in A minor
> 
> 
> 
> Fantasy in C minor
> 
> 
> 
> Piano Quartet 1 in G minor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG minor key awesomeness!


The first movement of Piano concerto no 20 is quite good. I like the first movement of Piano Concerto no 20.


----------



## atsizat

Alydon said:


> I think it all depends on what Mozart we are talking about. I think most of the symphonies up to No.29 & and piano concertos below No.11 and a lot of the earlier K nos. are what I would describe as wallpaper music, and I haven't got the time or listening energy to even try and explore the early operas. But when it comes to some of the later works - the quintets, concertos etc. there is something so sublime which cannot be bettered.
> 
> Composers are a personal thing: many composers held in great esteem here and worldwide I cannot even listen to; but one day I might. Mozart may catch you off - guard and then what you don't get now will all become clear.


Piano concerto no 4 andante is an exception in his early piano concertos. That piece is way so good. Somebody said It was based on other composers. I also think it would be impossible for a 10 year old to make a piece that has such sadness. Piano concerto no 4 andante also sounds like some of his late piano works, which are good. It is interesting. Piano Concerto no 4 Andante is one of the saddest pieces of Mozart and this made me think that Mozart couldn't do this at the age of 10. If it was based on other composers, why is the name Mozart?


----------



## Steatopygous

Mahlerian said:


> Not harmonically adventurous compared to what? I've heard very little in TV or film scores, let alone popular music, that comes close to the unexpected modulatory escapades or the sudden chromaticisms of later Mozart works. I think people are distracted by the fluid surface of his works when they call them simplistic.
> 
> A bit of an extreme example, but how much TV/film music reaches this level of sophistication?


A good example indeed. Another is the armed men duet in Zauberflote


----------



## Steatopygous

atsizat said:


> The first movement of Piano concerto no 20 is quite good. I like the first movement of Piano Concerto no 20.


Yes, and Mt Everest is quite high. I think it's quite a tall mountain.


----------



## Ken B

To answer the original question, perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child? :devil:


----------



## Guest

Ken B said:


> To answer the original question, perhaps you were dropped on your head as a child? :devil:


Lol. Lmfao. Rofl.

Etc.


----------



## atsizat

Steatopygous said:


> Yes, and Mt Everest is quite high. I think it's quite a tall mountain.


And your point is?


----------



## Arsakes

Because Haydn is better.

Just Listen to Mozart's later works if you don't like the earlier works.

Haydn is awesome tho. Solid "very good" works everywhere. Started with 80s symphonies you can find "great" stuff tho.


----------



## atsizat

Arsakes said:


> Because Haydn is better.
> 
> Just Listen to Mozart's later works if you don't like the earlier works.
> 
> Haydn is awesome tho. Solid "very good" works everywhere. Started with 80s symphonies you can find "great" stuff tho.


Okay put the link of a piece from Haydn that you like most? I've never encountered a piece from Haydn that I liked. Put your best piece from Haydn and I will check it out.


----------



## Epilogue

Well, here's one of them:


----------



## Guest

atsizat said:


> I've never encountered a piece from Haydn that I liked.


What have you encountered? I wouldn't usually recommend movements outside the whole symphony, but the andante from Symphony 101 ("Clock") and the adagio from 99 are two of my favourites.


----------



## KetchupOnIce

I would listen to the following pieces:
Piano Concerto No. 20 in d, KV 466
Kyrie from Requiem in d, KV 626
Kyrie from Mass in c, KV 427
Prelude & Fugue in C (especially the end of the prelude) KV 394
Fantasia in c, KV 475


----------



## Morimur

OP: Perhaps you don't have a soul?


----------



## Xaltotun

I don't have the time to read the whole thread right now, but I'll just drop some eurocents about the main concern, which is: someone not liking some music and being bothered about it. Some think it's not a valid concern; I think it certainly is and I always sympathize with questions like this. What is most unproductive is telling this kind of person to "listen what they like"; I never understand that. If we only digged what we dug by natural instinct and personal taste, we'd be slopping mother's milk and nothing else. All good things in life require learning. Learning is hard work and may - shudder! - even involve suffering. Some stuff takes less time to learn to like. Some stuff, like complex art, such as Mozart's music, may take more time, and even involve suffering. It is laudable that people are willing to learn, not only because it will increase their understanding of art, but also simply because it will take them to greater sensations and pleasures. Thus, it's all right to feel frustration regarding something which at the moment causes you suffering, but which you suspect (for whatever reason) to become a source of great pleasure in the future.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

It's hard for me to tell somebody how to get into Mozart, because I've always been. I can tell you that my appreciation grows the more I listen and the more I read about the man. I think you just gotta keep an open mind about his music. Don't try and force yourself to listen to a piece. Most of the pieces I enjoy, I didn't tell myself I was going to like them, and most likely didn't seek them out. Maybe I hit shuffle, maybe it was in a movie I loved, or maybe it was a filler track. Amadeus is always a good place to start, as it's flat out a brilliant movie, and the soundtrack is a must for any classical fan. It's not 100% accurate, but I think it gives a good look into Mozart's character.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Without reading through all the posts, I note that the OP started this over two years ago. With all the advice in this thread, I wonder if by now he has gotten into Mozart? And if not by now, then what? Give up?


----------



## Cosmos

Hello everyone, I will have you know that I now see the light and now love Mozart. Special thanks to the piano concertos and string quintets


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> OP: Perhaps you don't have a soul?


If that's the reason, then I don't have one either. But seriously, I just don't have a taste for Mozart, or most classical era music. I don't care how ingenious the music might be, it doesn't speak to me. So many of Mozart's orchestral pieces have that excitable little boy sounding cliche in the string section as they're all sawing away like they're waiting in line at the urinal and have to go really bad.

There is one famous piano concerto movement I enjoy, but I forget which one it is. A slow movement from one of his later concertos. I probably should listen to some of the vocal music, as I don't have much interest in symphonies these days.


----------



## millionrainbows

It's all relative. I've listened to too much jazz and Schoenberg for Mozart to strike me as harmonically adventurous. That's why I had to learn how to like the simplicity of it. I do like the use of irregular phrasing, though, and the lean textures of the piano sonatas.

I would like to complain about the difficulty of keeping track of his music, since it all has generic names. I like the G minor symphony, but was that 40, 41, or 42? I forget. Why aren't there more nicknames? Like the Turkish Rondo in piano sonata K.....432 or 143? String quintets? That helps a lot. Yeah, yeah, the Piano Sonata in C...but which one? Let's see, was that K. 687 or earlier?


----------



## atsizat

Try his works in minor keys. I also don't like his works in major keys but his works in minor keys. I even don't like most of Vivaldi's work in major keys but minor keys. The problem with Mozart is most of his works is in major keys, unlike Vivaldi.


----------



## sam93

I guess it's simply a matter of taste.  For example, I've tried to get into Bach's music but just can't. That's not to say I don't hold him in high esteem/respect him, his music just isn't to my taste. 

I have to disagree however, with anyone who says Mozart's music is "boring" and "doesn't go anywhere". You simply can't listen to his final three Symphonies and really think that way can you? 

Many of his solo piano works are also criminally underrated, from the adagio in B minor (K540) to the Rondo in A minor. Maybe try these works instead of his "lighter" earlier works.


----------



## leafman

I have tried to like Mozart during the 30 years I have listened to classical music. I do like a few of his passages but, I just can't warm up to it. 

His works seems so much like a Hillary Clinton speech, very contrived and not from the heart. 

I sat through an extended sampling of Mozart recently and remembered that early in my classical music life I had a dismissive and jocular quip regarding the composer. Mozart is like the Perry Como of his day.


----------



## violadude

leafman said:


> I have tried to like Mozart during the 30 years I have listened to classical music. I do like a few of his passages but, I just can't warm up to it.
> 
> His works seems so much like a Hillary Clinton speech, very contrived and not from the heart.
> 
> I sat through an extended sampling of Mozart recently and remembered that early in my classical music life I had a dismissive and jocular quip regarding the composer. Mozart is like the Perry Como of his day.


Oh. what?? O.O

Do you like other (pre-Beethoven) Classical Era composers? Or do they all seem contrived to you? Maybe it's a problem with the style? Mozart is surly the most heart-felt out of all the classicists...


----------



## millionrainbows

I think that to really 'get' Mozart, you have to understand the aesthetic purpose behind it. It's not Romantic, it's Classical, although there is room for emotion in a lot of it. You have to appreciate the craftsmanship. Perhaps listening to some mediocre music of his contemporaries would put a better perspective on it.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mozart had his faults, I agree, but the fact that he referred to his works as "Kochel numbers" at least goes to show that he had a sense of humor and didn't take himself too seriously.


----------



## violadude

Blancrocher said:


> Mozart had his faults, I agree, but the fact that he referred to his works as "Kochel numbers" at least goes to show that he had a sense of humor and didn't take himself too seriously.


He didn't though. Someone else did after he died.


----------



## KenOC

Bach, too, had a sense of humor in numbering his compositions. Amused by his kids' ribbing as an "old wig," he used BWV numbers. The meaning was "Bavarian Wiggy Verks."


----------



## DavidA

leafman said:


> I have tried to like Mozart during the 30 years I have listened to classical music. I do like a few of his passages but, I just can't warm up to it.
> 
> *His works seems so much like a Hillary Clinton speech, very contrived and not from the heart.
> *
> I sat through an extended sampling of Mozart recently and remembered that early in my classical music life I had a dismissive and jocular quip regarding the composer. *Mozart is like the Perry Como of his day[*/B].


Now I have heard everything! Just can't believe someone would actually write this!


----------



## leafman

DavidA said:


> Now I have heard everything! Just can't believe someone would actually write this!


Well, they did! Music is a subjective thing and different people like different things. To twist a Hemingway quote from Islands in the Stream, "No one thing is good for it is all good."

He is still Perry Como to me, though.


----------



## leafman

millionrainbows said:


> I think that to really 'get' Mozart, you have to understand the aesthetic purpose behind it. It's not Romantic, it's Classical, although there is room for emotion in a lot of it. You have to appreciate the craftsmanship. Perhaps listening to some mediocre music of his contemporaries would put a better perspective on it.


There you go. To "get" it, you must understand the purpose.... Appreciate the craftsmanship....

Music that is as hotly passionate as, say, Vivaldi's, does not require prior understanding in order to appeal. It is also more inspirational the crafted. Many of the classical guys, even the baroque writers, crafted their music too much. Again, very Clintonesque. A product of crafting and manipulation rather than one of heartfelt feelings.


----------



## SixFootScowl

This is a very interesting thought:



> *Mozart is like the Perry Como of his day.*


And if so, who of the WWII era popular music would Bach and Beethoven be like?


----------



## leafman

Florestan said:


> This is a very interesting thought:
> 
> And if so, who of the WWII era popular music would Bach and Beethoven be like?


I haven't thought about that one so much! What do you think???

I admire all of them.

I also like Perry Como!!!

Hey, Andy Williams would be another one I'd link to Mozart.

Is Andy still alive and in Branson????


----------



## DavidA

leafman said:


> Well, they did! Music is a subjective thing and different people like different things. To twist a Hemingway quote from Islands in the Stream, "No one thing is good for it is all good."
> 
> *He is still Perry Como to me, though*.


Now that is a huge compliment to Mr Como or perhaps you might need to listen to them both a bit more carefully? :lol:


----------



## leafman

I do listen to Mozart. Helps me go to sleep at night. 

Try a listen to Le Nozze Di Figaro (Marriage of Figaro) by Teodor Currentzis. It is a modern and fresh, inspired work by a youngish conductor that does great justice to Mr. Mozart.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I'll say the same thing I said in the 'why don't I like Beethoven' thread: you don't have to like something just because other people do. That being said, time may make you change your mind.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Another thought is why even ask "Why can't I get into Mozart?" If you can't then don't. Is someone pushing you to get into Mozart? Are you trying to get into Mozart to impress someone?


----------



## Biwa

DavidA said:


> Now I have heard everything! Just can't believe someone would actually write this!


It was worth a good laugh! LMAO! :lol: Thanks for a good time, leafman!


----------



## leafman

...............


----------



## leafman

leafman said:


> There you go. To "get" it, you must understand the purpose.... Appreciate the craftsmanship....
> 
> Music that is as hotly passionate as, say, Vivaldi's, does not require prior understanding in order to appeal. It is also more inspirational the crafted. Many of the classical guys, even the baroque writers, crafted their music too much. Again, very Clintonesque. A product of crafting and manipulation rather than one of heartfelt feelings.


Edit: Should be "... more inspirational THAN crafted."


----------



## Pugg

EarthBoundRules said:


> I'll say the same thing I said in the 'why don't I like Beethoven' thread: you don't have to like something just because other people do. That being said, time may make you change your mind.


Hallelujah to this :tiphat:


----------



## Mozartmusic1998

I absolutely adore Mozart and I don't know why, I can't really put into words why his music gives me goosebumps. i think its the way he approaches the melody and accompanying textures which really makes the music pop, he has a profound understand of melody writing, probably the only composer to have live to be equipped with such a vast understanding of how the melody should be constructed. If you look back, hes written a lot of really good tunes. I feel it's a bit of a stretch to say Mozart is 'boring' because his music is very much so the opposite.


----------



## Pugg

Mozartmusic1998 said:


> I absolutely adore Mozart and I don't know why, I can't really put into words why his music gives me goosebumps. i think its the way he approaches the melody and accompanying textures which really makes the music pop, he has a profound understand of melody writing, probably the only composer to have live to be equipped with such a vast understanding of how the melody should be constructed. If you look back, hes written a lot of really good tunes. I feel it's a bit of a stretch to say Mozart is 'boring' because his music is very much so the opposite.


Your nickname gives it away .


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Biwa said:


> It was worth a good laugh! LMAO! :lol: Thanks for a good time, leafman!


Perry Como in a Mozart thread? You must be my doppelganger.


----------



## Jose Miguel

Well... take a time to understand the deep of his music. More than the classicla myth of perfection, there's a lot of contrast in Mozart. Let's try...


----------



## millionrainbows

*Why YOU can't get into Mozart*

Mozart operates within bounds of the harmonic language of the time, so to get him you have to listen to what he does with that. This means longer stretches of music, understood horizontally in time, to see how he manipulates the form. If you try to penetrate the details, you'll get bogged down.
That's why Mozart is so traditionally Western and "literate." Not like modern music. This is like reading a book: the information is absorbed horizontally over stretches of time, like reading a book. Very conscious attention is required, not good for "floating" while high or inebriated. Not vertical like Messiaen.
It's narrative; the meaning comes in chunks which are compared with earlier chunks, so memory is required. Like I said, not good pot-smoking music.
Abstract forms. Good melodies, but that's not enough to justify the profundity. Listen to structure, and changes in form, not chord excursions. This is not harmonically radical music; it is not vertically innovative, but horizontally innovative.
Modern listeners have been exposed to radical harmonic language via movies and popular music and jazz. This is why Mozart sounds archaic harmonically, because it is. You must travel further afield, into narrative territory. This requires attention span, and most modern listeners are incapable of sustained concentration (hence the music download, listening to portables, music in cars, passive HDTV watching, etc.).


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> *Why YOU can't get into Mozart*
> 
> Mozart operates within bounds of the harmonic language of the time, so to get him you have to listen to what he does with that. This means longer stretches of music, understood horizontally in time, to see how he manipulates the form. If you try to penetrate the details, you'll get bogged down.
> That's why Mozart is so traditionally Western and "literate." Not like modern music. This is like reading a book: the information is absorbed horizontally over stretches of time, like reading a book. Very conscious attention is required, not good for "floating" while high or inebriated. Not vertical like Messiaen.
> It's narrative; the meaning comes in chunks which are compared with earlier chunks, so memory is required. Like I said, not good pot-smoking music.
> Abstract forms. Good melodies, but that's not enough to justify the profundity. Listen to structure, and changes in form, not chord excursions. This is not harmonically radical music; it is not vertically innovative, but horizontally innovative.
> Modern listeners have been exposed to radical harmonic language via movies and popular music and jazz. This is why Mozart sounds archaic harmonically, because it is. You must travel further afield, into narrative territory. This requires attention span, and most modern listeners are incapable of sustained concentration (hence the music download, listening to portables, music in cars, passive HDTV watching, etc.).


Mozart often got quite interesting vertically in his minor key works (I often gravitate towards minor key works not because of the 'darker' aspect necessarily but because there are more harmonic possibilities). Even in Mozart's major key works there is a certain tastefulness - (his use of the leading tone as subtle dissonance perhaps?)

If we compare works like the 40th Symphony or Requiem to other works in the Classical era it seems to me Mozart was the most advanced composer of his time in this area.

Everything in your post to me seems equally if not more applicable to the other big names of the Classical era - Beethoven and Haydn.

For the record when I use the term vertical I generally am referring to harmonic language that strikes me as advanced or well composed. It doesn't necessarily have to do with "height", or amount of notes stacked on top of each other. In other words composers who were good with harmony I consider vertically interesting - even if the piece is composed for only one or two voices.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> Mozart often got quite interesting vertically in his minor key works...
> 
> If we compare works like the 40th Symphony or Requiem to other works in the Classical era it seems to me Mozart was the most advanced composer of his time in this area.
> 
> Everything in your post to me seems equally if not more applicable to the other big names of the Classical era - Beethoven and Haydn.


I agree that all music of the Classical era, not just Mozart's, fits the general principle millionrainbows enunciates. I think it's understandable, though, that it might be more necessary to point this out in Mozart's case than in Beethoven's. It's easier to overlook Mozart's harmonic (vertical) originality, especially for listeners unfamiliar with the style. To many listeners accustomed to harmonically richer fare, Mozart can seem blandly pretty, whereas Beethoven is rarely accused of that. While he's less likely to use chromaticism except for very definite effects, Beethoven is fond of abrupt juxtapositions of dissimilar voicings and textures, emphasized by sometimes extreme dynamic changes. Such effects are integral to his "narratives" but still grab the attention on their own, magnifying the vertical aspects of the passages in question, including the harmony which occurs in them. This is more likely to seem familiar and "modern" than Mozart's incomparable suavity, in which remarkable occurrences, easily missed by the uninitiated listener, come and go on a steady stream of beautiful sound.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...Such effects [in Beethoven] are integral to his "narratives" but still grab the attention on their own, magnifying the vertical aspects of the passages in question, including the harmony which occurs in them. This is more likely to seem familiar and "modern" than Mozart's incomparable suavity, in which remarkable occurrences, easily missed by the uninitiated listener, come and go on a steady stream of beautiful sound.


I think this is a very accurate observation.


----------



## gellio

DavidA said:


> Fine if you don't get Mozart. I can never see the life of me why anyone doesn't get him but we are all different people. There are composers I don't get who are most revered here so we only have to conclude that is because we have a different way of looking at things. Music is to be enjoyed not endured. It is not one of life's compulsories to like Mozart. Just don't do what Glenn Gould did and play him badly to make the point,


I'm with you. I could not live without Mozart or Beethoven. They are the two musical titans in my life.


----------



## Pugg

gellio said:


> I'm with you. I could not live without Mozart or Beethoven. They are the two musical titans in my life.


In may people lives, I know the for a fact.


----------



## Nevum

Mozart boring?

Hmmm.... Really hard to understand how anyone could think that....except that they have not listened enough and/or dont appreciate classical music....


----------



## DavidA

Nevum said:


> Mozart boring?
> 
> Hmmm.... Really hard to understand how anyone could think that....except that they have not listened enough and/or dont appreciate classical music....


Sadly there are always some poor souls who cannot appreciate the good things in life!


----------



## Chronochromie

DavidA said:


> Sadly there are always some poor souls who cannot appreciate the good things in life!


Like Schoenberg's piano concerto? :devil:


----------



## pcnog11

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Mozart's music is simple, yet complicated. Deeply emotional, yet joyful. His works challenges all human limits of performing classical music. I did not appreciate Mozart until I listened to classical for almost 5 or 6 years. You need a right mindset to fully appreciate Mozart. Try listen to Piano Concerto 25, this have almost all the hallmark elements of Mozart.

Your OP was in Sept 2013, maybe you have now been converted.


----------



## Pugg

pcnog11 said:


> Mozart's music is simple, yet complicated. Deeply emotional, yet joyful. His works challenges all human limits of performing classical music. I did not appreciate Mozart until I listened to classical for almost 5 or 6 years. You need a right mindset to fully appreciate Mozart. Try listen to Piano Concerto 25, this have almost all the hallmark elements of Mozart.
> 
> Your OP was in Sept 2013, maybe you have now been converted.


O.P last visit was May 2016.


----------



## hpowders

Chronochromie said:


> Like Schoenberg's piano concerto? :devil:


When I blindly ordered the Schoenberg with Mitsuko Uchida, thanks to a prodding by one of the greatest TC posters of all time, PetrB, in my wildest dreams I couldn't imagine how beautiful, sensual and nostalgic an atonal piece would turn out to be.

Schoenberg. What an incredible genius!

P.S. I have mixed feelings about anyone who can't get into Mozart-sadness and puzzlement.


----------



## gellio

Pugg said:


> In may people lives, I know the for a fact.


Yep. Sometimes I think it's passé for classical music lovers to dismiss these two - as thought you're somehow less educated or have lesser tastes if you love them. I think they are well loved for a reason - because their music IS that magnificent. Miraculous. Awe-inspiring.


----------



## gellio

Nevum said:


> Mozart boring?
> 
> Hmmm.... Really hard to understand how anyone could think that....except that they have not listened enough and/or dont appreciate classical music....


Yes, I don't get it either. But, I think Puccini is boring, although I quite like _Turandot_ and _Butterfly_. However, _Boheme_ bores me to death. Even with my beloved Verdi, especially in his later works, there are passages that bore me. Passages where nothing interesting seems to happen musically. With Mozart, I don't think I can pin-point one single passage, in any piece I've heard (and I've heard a ton) where nothing interesting seems to happen musically. IMO it's one great phrase after another. I'm never bored with Mozart (the same can be said for Beethoven).

I swear I must have listened to _Figaro_ over 1,000 times and I still hear new things every time I listen. It may be a tiny few note phrase that sudden pops out. But there's a plethora of these tiny few note phrases. Also, behind the main melody line, there is a wonder of music. Sometimes, I try not to focus on the main melodic line and instead focus on what's behind it.


----------



## C95

You are not the only one. I listen to Mozart one in a while but I get bored of it quickly. I'm not into the baroque/classical era to be honest. I prefer my K. Stockhausen or my K. Penderecki.


----------



## PresenTense

C95 said:


> You are not the only one. I listen to Mozart one in a while but I get bored of it quickly. I'm not into the baroque/classical era to be honest. I prefer my K. Stockhausen or my K. Penderecki.


I appreciate the baroque/classical era but it's just not for me, I guess. I can relate to what you said, I would rather to listen to my beautiful Stockhausen or Ligeti. Penderecki is amazing too. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I got into orchestral music thanks to Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood and his recommendations on Penderecki, Steve Reich and Messiaen. Then, I explored Debussy and Ravel and I got fascinated. Then, again, I went to the past and tried to explore the Romantic period and I found cool things I like but when I tried the baroque/Classical period, I got numb. I didn't know what to say because it sounded so...boring to me. As time went by, I learnt to appreciate the music from that era and even enjoy some of it but it's not my stuff.










* Jonny Greenwood and Krzysztof Penderecki *


----------



## mmsbls

I know some of us have trouble believing there are actual classical music lovers who don't love Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Wagner, etc.. But maybe what's more incredible is that there _are_ people who love music from such disparate eras as Medieval, Baroque, Classical, Modern (including atonal, electronic, minimalism, and other avant-garde genres). The variety of classical music is simply stunning.

When I was young, I listened to pop (mostly rock and soul). I didn't like country, heavy metal, or much folk music, yet those genres are much more similar than the wide range of classical music. Most people I know who dislike Mozart appear to dislike the Classical Era. Some don't like the Baroque. Many hate much modern music. There's no reason to think that music lovers are likely to enjoy all the wide variety of music encompassed by classical music.

To me what's much more interesting is finding someone who loves Haydn but dislikes Mozart or who loves Mahler but dislikes Bruckner.


----------



## neoshredder

Yep so many Eras in Classical Music. It brings about much variety. For some, they could love Romantic and hate Baroque or vice versa. Which is why I find hard to believe for anyone saying they dislike Classical Music. Just gotta find the right Era for them. Vivaldi and Bach got me into Classical Music. The Four Seasons the biggest to me. Back on topic, some people don't like bright music like Mozart. Not the case with me.


----------



## Pugg

C95 said:


> You are not the only one. I listen to Mozart one in a while but I get bored of it quickly. I'm not into the baroque/classical era to be honest. I prefer my K. Stockhausen or my K. Penderecki.


As I said before, each person can have his / her own taste, pure and simple.


----------



## TheRedScarf

Because you ant mozart


----------



## janxharris

Too many chord progressions involving IV, V and I.


----------



## Jacob Brooks

If anyone doesn't love Mozart simply by how delightful his great divertimento, K 563, is, or the power and perfection (jubilation, as exalting as Beethoven's 9th) of Mozart's Jupiter symphony, then they will not like Mozart!


----------



## Pugg

Jacob Brooks said:


> If anyone doesn't love Mozart simply by how delightful his great divertimento, K 563, is, or the power and perfection (jubilation, as exalting as Beethoven's 9th) of Mozart's Jupiter symphony, then they will not like Mozart!


So many people even so many taste.


----------



## itarbrt

Give him another chance . It will be worth . To me his music is quite enough .


----------



## PresenTense




----------



## Adamus

https://www.amazon.de/Mozart-Comple...TF8&qid=1488823795&sr=8-1&keywords=mozart+225

bought it. I've never been really interested, but it's awesome.


----------



## hpowders

OP: You can't get into Mozart or you can't get anything out of Mozart.

Please clarify.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

hpowders said:


> OP: You can't get into Mozart or you can't get anything out of Mozart.
> 
> Please clarify.


Yes, important clarification. I can't help you with the former but for the latter I have a great squeeze technique to share. To give you an idea, I've been using the same toothpaste for the last 2 years!


----------



## SixFootScowl

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, important clarification. I can't help you with the former but for the latter I have a great squeeze technique to share. To give you an idea, *I've been using the same toothpaste for the last 2 years!*


Not sure how you can achieve that. Hope you are not re-using it!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Florestan said:


> Not sure how you can achieve that. Hope you are not re-using it!


I may have been exaggerating for effect


----------



## Eddy Rodgers K

I used to really love Mozart when I was a teen but then I transitioned towards Romantic and Post-Romantic music (Puccini, Verdi, Bellini) as my main interest. Mozart's music is beautiful, but now I find it rigid, mathematical. I still like it, but I prefer later composers now.


----------



## SixFootScowl

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I may have been exaggerating for effect


Or you have an institutional sized tube of toothpaste:


----------



## Pugg

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, important clarification. I can't help you with the former but for the latter I have a great squeeze technique to share. To give you an idea, I've been using the same toothpaste for the last 2 years!


O.P dates from _Sep-17-2013_, 05:39, don't think he/ she is interested any more.


----------



## DavidA

Eddy Rodgers K said:


> I used to really love Mozart when I was a teen but then I transitioned towards Romantic and Post-Romantic music (Puccini, Verdi, Bellini) as my main interest. Mozart's music is beautiful, b*ut now I find it rigid, mathematical*. I still like it, but I prefer later composers now.


I can't believe you said that!


----------



## Eddy Rodgers K

DavidA said:


> I can't believe you said that!


Well it is beautiful and I still like it but when it comes to opera I prefer through-composed works. They feel more natural to me.


----------



## DavidA

Eddy Rodgers K said:


> Well it is beautiful and I still like it but when it comes to opera I prefer through-composed works. They feel more natural to me.


Nothing is more through composed than Mozart. He was the opera master


----------



## trazom

For those who don't read threads, here's what the OP posted later on page 8:



Cosmos said:


> Hello everyone, I will have you know that I now see the light and now love Mozart. Special thanks to the piano concertos and string quintets


See? If he could learn to see the light and "get" Mozart, then the rest of you can too!...Maybe.


----------



## Pugg

trazom said:


> For those who don't read threads, here's what the OP posted later on page 8:
> 
> See? If he could learn to see the light and "get" Mozart, then the rest of you can too!...Maybe.


Dates also form way back _Dec-15-2015_


----------



## SixFootScowl

So if the OP long since got Mozart, then who here doesn't get Mozart? I admit, I haven't tried, but have plenty of other music I am busy with anyway, so it is not on my list at this time.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> So if the OP long since got Mozart, then who here doesn't get Mozart? I admit, I haven't tried, but have plenty of other music I am busy with anyway, so it is not on my list at this time.


Get it on y0ur list!


----------



## Amadeus1994

It's ok. Everyone learns to love Mozart eventually.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Amadeus1994 said:


> It's ok. Everyone learns to love Mozart eventually.


If they live long enough.


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> If they live long enough.


Even your day will come, I mean the Mozart day.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I read in the liner notes of a Mozart CD conducted by Bruno Walter, that Walter originally liked music with the "big emotions" (assuming this was in the Romantic period), and only later in his career did he actually understand Mozart. This is coming from possibly the greatest Mozart conductor of all time.


----------



## Dark Horse

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


It's not that hard to understand. He started composing at age four, and was drilled by his father into the ways of classical music. Who could possibly have anything to say or express about life at age four? But he received acclaim at an early age, entertaining the courts of Europe, so without a real need to outgrow that phase he became well versed in a mechanical approach. Essentially, though, his father lived his dream through the child prodigy... And, in my view, the father taught the child to 'dream' music. In other words, there is no real life quality to it. It's just a pleasant and entirely non-committal journey into the realm of sound.

In music, and all art, it is very simple. Unless you have a dramatic inner life, how could you possibly express anything dramatic? That's what makes Beethoven very interesting, and Mozart not so much. Beethoven is teaching us about life, while Mozart is dreaming away... 
I always thought of Mozart as the classical equivalent of elevator music. Not surprisingly, it is noted that he became somewhat more interesting later in life, when he did have life experience. Even so, he still was stuck in his old ways. The price of early success...

I could whistle out a new tune at every moment of the day, without any interest in it beyond the utterly superficial. Nobody would want to hear it. But if I'd been trained, as drastically as young Mozart, into the ways of whistling before I reached the ripe old age of four, I bet you I could fool a few ears...


----------



## Jacred

Mozart's music is relaxing in a way. Good for winding down after an eventful day but not the most engaging, I'll agree.


----------



## kyf

*Surely you can't be serious...*



Dark Horse : ... said:


> :lol:


----------



## Jacck

this is an interesting thread and a lot of good comments (such as from Dark Horse above) and I can empathize with those who cannot get into Mozart. He can, indeed, feel quite boring. It might have something to do with the predictability of his music. When I listen to his music (even never before heard pieces), I can "hear" in my head in advance, how the music is going to develop. But lately, my appreciation for Mozart has been growing. I like his piano concertos and especially his set of Haydn quartets. The K421 is an amazing piece of music.

PS: I see that the OP has succeeded in getting into Mozart finally and glad to discover that his experience mirrors mine - he entered through piano concertos and string quartets/quintets. So that is a recommendation for those, who cannot get into Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> this is an interesting thread and a lot of good comments (such as from Dark Horse above) and I can empathize with those who cannot get into Mozart. He can, indeed, feel quite boring. It might have something to do with the predictability of his music. When I listen to his music (even never before heard pieces),* I can "hear" in my head in advance, how the music is going to develop.* But lately, my appreciation for Mozart has been growing. I like his piano concertos and especially his set of Haydn quartets. The K421 is an amazing piece of music.
> 
> PS: I see that the OP has succeeded in getting into Mozart finally and glad to discover that his experience mirrors mine - he entered through piano concertos and string quartets/quintets. So that is a recommendation for those, who cannot get into Mozart.


Forgive me for doubting the truth of this. I had a friend who claimed this - and when I sat him down, played him a piece he had never heard before and invited him to play the next few bars on the piano - he was utterly wrong every time.

Glad you are discovering the wonderful d minor str quartet.

But in any case - I know every bar of the a major piano concerto - I know every note and when it will come - I can reel of this piece in my head. Is it any less fantastic to listen to? No.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> Forgive me for doubting the truth of this. I had a friend who claimed this - and when I sat him down, played him a piece he had never heard before and invited him to play the next few bars on the piano - he was utterly wrong every time. Glad you are discovering the wonderful d minor str quartet. But in any case - I know every bar of the a major piano concerto - I know every note and when it will come - I can reel of this piece in my head. Is it any less fantastic to listen to? No.


maybe predictability is not the right word. It is hard to express it in words, it has something to do with the musical phrases or language that Mozart is using. I find Haydn much easier getting into than Mozart and his string quartets are pure genius too (op76, op33 etc, I have not heard all). But I am glad that I finally started enjoying Mozart. The quartets/quintets are pure genius.


----------



## janxharris

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Mozart's music is full of repeated chords progressions especially in his cadences which may be why you don't like him. Surely, though, you like the first movement of the 40th symphony?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> maybe predictability is not the right word. It is hard to express it in words, it has something to do with the musical phrases or language that Mozart is using. I find Haydn much easier getting into than Mozart and his string quartets are pure genius too (op76, op33 etc, I have not heard all). But I am glad that I finally started enjoying Mozart. The quartets/quintets are pure genius.


well - what you dont like you dont like.

you may change your view in time to come and if you like the d minor quartet - you are going in the right direction

check out the g minor piano quartet


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> *Mozart's music is full of repeated chords progressions especially in his cadences* which may be why you don't like him. Surely, though, you like the first movement of the 40th symphony?


I wonder how accurate a statement this is - I am not musically trained so don't know.

But in any case - why should this feature mean that someone is necessarily not going to like the music?

I suspect when someone cant get on with Mozart - it is not this feature or that - supposed predictability or whatever - they just plain dont like it.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I wonder how accurate a statement this is - I am not musically trained so don't know.
> 
> But in any case - why should this feature mean that someone is necessarily not going to like the music?
> 
> I suspect when someone cant get on with Mozart - it is not this feature or that - supposed predictability or whatever - they just plain dont like it.


Mozart wrote so much music that is was bound to happen, I'd say. I still recognise his genius though and do love a number of his pieces.


----------



## Larkenfield

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Old post. Well, that may be true for you or similar like-minded individuals, the so-called boring part, which I've never found true, but not everything in Mozart or life is necessarily revealed to one at the ripe old age of 21, such as you were at the time of writing this - perhaps, if you're lucky, when you hit 40, 50 or 60 and have sorted out some of the wheat from the chaff. Then perfect. I cannot imagine a greater composer of genius and there have been some exceptionally gifted ones.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mozart was the first classical composer I tried (at the age of 10 or 11). I loved it from the start (it was Walter's recording of symphonies 35 and 40 and I can still picture the LP cover - a photo of Walter) although I can remember with some amusement that I would sometimes skip the slow movements. I always feel a little suspicious (involuntarily so) of the taste of people who don't love Mozart! They are often "Romantic only" listeners and get what they want from classical music from music that makes big bold statements. Nothing wrong with that but it is only a quarter of what classical music has to offer and I sometimes wonder if you can even really appreciate the Romantic without a feel for what Mozart and Haydn were about.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Enthusiast said:


> Mozart was the first classical composer I tried (at the age of 10 or 11). I loved it from the start (it was Walter's recording of symphonies 35 and 40 and I can still picture the LP cover - a photo of Walter) although I can remember with some amusement that I would sometimes skip the slow movements. I always feel a little suspicious (involuntarily so) of the taste of people who don't love Mozart! They are often "Romantic only" listeners and get what they want from classical music from music that makes big bold statements. Nothing wrong with that but it is only a quarter of what classical music has to offer and I sometimes wonder if you can even really appreciate the Romantic without a feel for what Mozart and Haydn were about.


The first composer that really impressed me as a young shaver was Beethoven - just could not get enough of sy 5 and 6 - still think they are phenomenal works of course - did not see how any composer could match this music. Mozart - couldn't understand the fuss. But then I had never heard any of the piano concertos - it was always eine kleine twinkle twinkle etc etc. After listening to K467 - the conversion started at that point.


----------



## apricissimus

Larkenfield said:


> Old post. Well, that may be true for you or similar like-minded individuals, the so-called boring part, which I've never found true, but not everything in Mozart or life is necessarily revealed to one at the ripe old age of 21, such as you were at the time of writing this - perhaps, if you're lucky, when you hit 40, 50 or 60 and have sorted out some of the wheat from the chaff. Then perfect. I cannot imagine a greater composer of genius and there have been some exceptionally gifted ones.


I think I'm going to run out of time on Earth before I learn to appreciate everything.


----------



## wkasimer

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Answering an ancient posting.

When I fail to understand why a particular composer or work is almost universally admired, it's usually because I've been listening to the wrong recordings. This is particularly true of Mozart - there are many highly regarded recordings of his music that, IMO, are performed with too much delicacy and insufficient vigor.


----------



## Rubens

Mozart is one of the most performance-sensitive composers you can find. If played well, it is arguably among the most beautiful music in this world. Unfortunately, most performers do not know how to bring out this beauty, and they make his music sound like Stamitz's, which is sheer torture.


----------



## janxharris

Rubens said:


> Mozart is one of the most performance-sensitive composers you can find. If played well, it is arguably among the most beautiful music in this world. Unfortunately, most performers do not know how to bring out this beauty, and they make his music sound like Stamitz's, which is sheer torture.


Could you give an example?


----------



## wkasimer

Rubens said:


> Mozart is one of the most performance-sensitive composers you can find. If played well, it is arguably among the most beautiful music in this world. Unfortunately, most performers do not know how to bring out this beauty, and they make his music sound like Stamitz's, which is sheer torture.


I remember a quote, although I'm not sure who said it - "Mozart is too easy for amateurs, and too difficult for professionals".


----------



## norman bates

yesterday I tried again with Mozart, exactly with his concerto for harp and flute. I guess it's my limitation, but I alway have the same impression. More than elegant or heavenly light (I guess that's what I should hear, considering what a lot of good and expert listeners usually say abot him), his music to me sounds frivolous, an evocation of wigs, face powder, confetti, lace courtains and stuff like that. Paradoxically while he's considered a classical composer I could see his music perfect as a soundtrack for aristocrats in a rococo Versailles. 
I wonder if there are pieces in his oeuvre able to evoke that serene elegance that I associate with the idea of classicism.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> yesterday I tried again with Mozart, exactly with his concerto for harp and flute. I guess it's my limitation, but I alway have the same impression. More than elegant or heavenly light (I guess that's what I should hear, considering what a lot of good and expert listeners usually say abot him), his music to me sounds frivolous, an evocation of wigs, face powder, confetti, lace courtains and stuff like that. Paradoxically while he's considered a classical composer I could see his music perfect as a soundtrack for aristocrats in a rococo Versailles.
> I wonder if there are pieces in his oeuvre able to evoke that serene elegance that I associate with the idea of classicism.


why do you keep banging your head up against the same wall?

try another piece

there is an abundance of serenity and elegance in Mozart's music - and he is particularly noted - out of all composers for these qualities - whether the music fits into your idea of what classicism is or not.

But we hear this from fans of romantic music

"Oh - where is there emotion in Mozart? It is all beautiful of course - but set in cold marble"


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> why do you keep banging your head up against the same wall?
> 
> try another piece


I was trying another piece



stomanek said:


> there is an abundance of serenity and elegance in Mozart's music - and he is particularly noted - out of all composers for these qualities - whether the music fits into your idea of what classicism is or not.


I LOVE those qualities (I opened recently a thread on neoclassicism), and I can findthat in a lot of music I like... not in Mozart though. But if you have specific examples I'm glad to listen.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates said:


> yesterday I tried again with Mozart, exactly with his concerto for harp and flute. I guess it's my limitation, but I alway have the same impression. More than elegant or heavenly light (I guess that's what I should hear, considering what a lot of good and expert listeners usually say abot him), his music to me sounds frivolous, an evocation of wigs, face powder, confetti, lace courtains and stuff like that. Paradoxically while he's considered a classical composer I could see his music perfect as a soundtrack for aristocrats in a rococo Versailles.
> I wonder if there are pieces in his oeuvre able to evoke that serene elegance that I associate with the idea of classicism.


I'm curious, what do you think about the pieces posted in your threads, some time ago,
cause you never reply back to me:
https://www.talkclassical.com/59632-creative-use-voice-classical-2.html#post1585502
https://www.talkclassical.com/61871-neoclassical-music-do-you-2.html#post1654423


----------



## janxharris

norman bates said:


> I LOVE those qualities (I opened recently a thread on neoclassicism), and I can findthat in a lot of music I like... not in Mozart though. But if you have specific examples I'm glad to listen.


----------



## hammeredklavier

norman bates, you can find a tone of examples of the kind in Haydn and early Beethoven as well. I don't know what you think about stuff like Beethoven's third Razumovsky quartet in C major, but I find stuff like that skillful.
Likewise, I find the intellectualism in these impressive.













Some people find stuff like this very emotional and turbulent. I find it a bit 'empty'.





Also, I'm not really moved by contemporary stuff that even if you remove one or two notes, or make some mistakes, nobody would even notice (I think). Stuff like Boulez for example.
I guess it all has to with our individual preferences.


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm curious, what do you think about the pieces posted in your threads, some time ago,
> cause you never reply back to me:
> https://www.talkclassical.com/59632-creative-use-voice-classical-2.html#post1585502
> https://www.talkclassical.com/61871-neoclassical-music-do-you-2.html#post1654423


sorry if I didn't reply... the Vesperae solennes is definitely not frivolous at all. Very dramatic, almost menacing and indeed solemn. It reminds me a bit of the Requiem, that is probably one of the few pieces I appreciate in Mozart, so thank you for that (having trouble with Mozart, even if I listened his music for many years I still ignore a huge amount of his music).
I have to say that I've been for a long time a bit confused with the labels of baroque, classicism and romanticism, at least in the sense that those words can be used generalizing, but there are pieces in the baroque era that to me sounds much more close to the classicism (for instance when I was talking of serene beauty: the largo from Bach's Double violin concerto is a perfect example of that and I see it as a perfect example of "classical" beauty), and on the other hand romantic pieces that sound as classical music and classical pieces (like this one) that to me have already certain aspects of romanticism. 
Beethoven and his grosse fuge that you've mentioned (and that for some reason I was listening yesterday for the hundred, a piece I really like) is a good example of this confusion. 
Actually I remember that when I studied music at school Beethoven was presented to us as a romantic composer, not even as a cusp figure. And the grosse fuge is one of the difficult pieces to categorize in what I've heard in his oeuvre. It's probably the most "modern" piece ever composed by Beethoven, it's almost "ugly" and dramatic like in a lot of romantic art, and at the same time there's the sense of form that I expect from classical music... so I don't know how to consider it exactly.


----------



## norman bates

janxharris said:


>


I think the 40th symphony was one of the very first classical pieces I've heard in my life


----------



## norman bates

hammeredklavier said:


> norman bates, you can find a tone of examples of the kind in Haydn and early Beethoven as well. I don't know what you think about stuff like Beethoven's third Razumovsky quartet in C major, but I find stuff like that skillful.
> Likewise, I find the intellectualism in these impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people find stuff like this very emotional and turbulent. I find it a bit 'empty'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I'm not really moved by contemporary stuff that even if you remove one or two notes, or make some mistakes, nobody would even notice (I think). Stuff like Boulez for example.
> I guess it all has to with our individual preferences.


Boulez is my other big bete noir (can I say black beast in english?), so while I love a lot of modern music I'm absolutely with you about him.
Interesting examples, thank you again. I've listened to the first one (the k590), I will listen the other two later.


----------



## hammeredklavier

---------------------------------


----------



## Rubens

janxharris said:


> Could you give an example?


For piano, I like Eschenbach and Lupu.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> I think the 40th symphony was one of the very first classical pieces I've heard in my life


not really serene classicism though is it

an odd recommendation given your gripe


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> I think the 40th symphony was one of the very first classical pieces I've heard in my life


ok - try






symphony in a major

serene classicism on a plate


----------



## hammeredklavier

This is the exact feel I get on my fingers when I play Rondo K511: 




The 'sense of balance' is not just about being nice. There's indeed turbulence, but
it requires a different mindset from when you listen to the Liszt example I posted above, for example.


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> Mozart was the first classical composer I tried (at the age of 10 or 11). I loved it from the start (it was Walter's recording of symphonies 35 and 40 and I can still picture the LP cover - a photo of Walter) although I can remember with some amusement that I would sometimes skip the slow movements. I always feel a little suspicious (involuntarily so) of the taste of people who don't love Mozart! They are often "Romantic only" listeners and get what they want from classical music from music that makes big bold statements. Nothing wrong with that but it is only a quarter of what classical music has to offer and I sometimes wonder if you can even really appreciate the Romantic without a feel for what Mozart and Haydn were about.


The first composer to make a big impression on me was Beethoven, mainly Syms 5, 6, 7. I came across these works at school music lessons when I was about 11. The music teacher played sections of these works on a hi-fi system to illustrate various features. Most of the other pupils were equally impressed with Beethoven. From then on I found it quite easy to self-learn about other composers, since the music teacher was on hand to guide and advise if necessary.

As my interest developed, I used my local civic library to borrow LPs and CDs. Occasionally when finances permitted, I bought my own recordings. Very quickly, I was swapping and sharing with friends recordings of the best-known works by Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Handel, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Sibelius. By the age of 16 I had become almost exclusively focused on classical music, except for modern pop/rock, and had covered all of the main composers.

Since then, decades later, my tastes in classical music have broadened out to such an extent that there's virtually nothing I'm not prepared to listen to. Obviously, I have preferences, but the "slope" of preferences is quite shallow, by which I mean that my interest doesn't decline quickly moving from best to less preferred composers.

With no disrespect intended to anyone, I therefore find it difficult to understand how anyone who has a genuine interest in classical music cannot be impressed with the likes of Mozart, or Beethoven et al. I would guess that most classical music fans do like both. Nor can I understand why anyone might think that they can find a solution to their dislikes amongst any of these most popular composers by asking for advice here. It seems to be an odd way to go about acquiring a wider interest in classical music, or finding a way around any known dislikes of certain composers.

If, perchance, I didn't like a particular composer who many other people seemed to appreciate, I'd aim to find out what's worth listening to by that composer and acquire it somehow. There are many sources of advice on this kind of thing. I'd give a few works a fair chance, and if I still didn't like it I'd probably say nothing more about it, but maybe try again some other time. This sort of thing has happened to me many times in the past. Eventually, I have often found that my interest in that particular composer has developed.


----------



## Roger Knox

*Problem Solved*

I'd rather listen to Mozart than read this thread, and can't guarantee the solution below hasn't already been posted.

If you "can't get into Mozart," sing these words before a locked cupboard to the opening tune, Finale, Mozart's Symphony No. 40 in G Minor:

"Oh Mozart's in the cupboard
Let him out, let him out, let him out,"

_... and see who's magically there as the door opens ..._


----------



## 1996D

It's probably because we're so removed from any sort of classicism in our society, you have a hard time relating to his music and what he intended with it.


----------



## Miina

Try Mass in c minor.


----------



## EvaBaron

The OP probably already likes Mozart or isn’t active on this forum anymore but I just wanted to share something. I believe Mozart’s 40th symphony is one of the most accessible pieces of music ever composed. I remember when I didn’t know a single Mozart symphony about a year ago and I listened to a playlist on Spotify called Mozart symphonies. There were about 40 tracks, including the first and last movement of the 40th symphony. One day while studying for about 5 hours I listened to every single one of them and the only ones that caught my ear immediately were those movements of the 40th. Now mind you, Spotify themselves created the playlist so the recordings were very bad but the magic still came through. After that I listened to the whole symphony and the 3rd movement almost immediately became one of my favourite 3rd movements. Now skip forward a year and me and my friends are making a documentary for school and our subject is ‘why is classical music so unpopular?’ and since I’m the only one of all my friends that listen to classical music I had to choose the background music. I chose the first movement of Mozart’s 40th. Now my other friend had to edit all the footage and so he spent a considerable amount of time hearing that opening. Now I sometimes still hear him hum the opening from time to time. That’s how infectious it is.


----------



## larold

Most people, especially young people, that can't relate to Mozart is because they think he isn't dramatic enough. Try this -- the finale of the opera *Don Giovanni *where the dead father of a girl the Don helped kill comes to life as a statue and sends the Don to Hell. If this doesn't do it for you simply watch the film *Amadeus*. It's a fictionalized account of a competition between Mozart and Salieri that never existed. It won 8 Oscars, however. If you watch that movie and still don't like Mozart, good for you.


----------



## EvaBaron

larold said:


> Most people, especially young people, that can't relate to Mozart is because they think he isn't dramatic enough. Try this -- the finale of the opera *Don Giovanni *where the dead father of a girl the Don helped kill comes to life as a statue and sends the Don to Hell. If this doesn't do it for you simply watch the film *Amadeus*. It's a fictionalized account of a competition between Mozart and Salieri that never existed. It won 8 Oscars, however. If you watch that movie and still don't like Mozart, good for you.


That movie really got me into Mozart. I already liked him before but this really got it going


----------



## Rogerx

Miina said:


> Try Mass in c minor.


Not a bad recommendation, welcome to Talk Classical by the way.


----------



## Waehnen

If you do not like the Symphonies 40 and 41, the late Piano concertos, The Clarinet Concerto and The Clarinet Quintet, String quintets in G-minor and C-major, The Haydn Quartets, Don Giovanni, Die Zauberflöte, Gran Partita, the Requiem and one Ave Verum Corpus, you do not like Mozart.

Or at least, if none of the above appeals to you in any way, then you should move on.


----------



## Thelonious 58

Cosmos said:


> As hard as I've tried, I just can't listen to Mozart! His music bores me to death and I usually feel that five minutes is long enough (which is weird b/c I am usually very patient with music) And everyone holds his music in such high esteem and raves about how amazing it is but it doesn't resonate with me. Is there something that I'm just not getting?


Don't worry. Toscanini once confessed that he found some of Mozart's works boring


----------



## HansZimmer

larold said:


> Most people, especially young people, that can't relate to Mozart is because they think he isn't dramatic enough.


What do you mean with "he is not dramatic enough"?


----------



## hoodjem

My idea of hell on earth:


----------

