# Did learning an instrument change your opinion on a given composer?



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

I'm curious for anybody who may have listened to classical music before playing an instrument - atleast to a high enough level and have opinions on composers and music, and then have those opinions change as you actually got to play some of their pieces hands on.

For example, I am not a huge fan of Bach to listen to. I wouldn't just listen to it for my enjoyment, but they are my favorite pieces to play. The melodies and counterpoint are so great but I feel like you only understand it when you play it.

Mozart is my favorite composer and still is, but actually playing it is quite dissapointing. Not only does it require perfect playing, but he's an orchestral writer and its usually all the parts working together which makes the music. The actual part atleast on the surface - he's never doing anything too crazy.

Beethoven I don't really like to listen to that often except a few of his pieces. However playing him you can see see just how much of a beast of a pianist he was, and just how much changed the format.

Debussy is my favorite pianist composer, which I never really paid attention to prior to that. I still have yet to play more pieces in general, so my opinions can shift yet again. 

I'm curious for those who play an instrument, how playing pieces has effected your opinion


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aloevera said:


> Mozart is my favorite composer and still is, but actually playing it is quite dissapointing. Not only does it require perfect playing, but he's an orchestral writer and its usually all the parts working together which makes the music. The actual part atleast on the surface - he's never doing anything too crazy.


I think it's boring/awkward to play Mozart on the modern piano due to the reasons stated in


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I love playing Mozart on piano or digital keyboard. Generally I find with composers I already like, learning their music makes me like them more. For composers I'm not interested in, playing through something will either have no effect, or sometimes it may increase my liking of the composer a little. 

Sometimes certain pieces that weren't particular favorites of mine, become favorites after playing through them.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Aloevera said:


> Mozart is my favorite composer and still is, but actually playing it is quite dissapointing. Not only does it require perfect playing, but he's an orchestral writer and its usually all the parts working together which makes the music. The actual part atleast on the surface - he's never doing anything too crazy.


What you described didn't happen to me yet. Anyway, talking about Mozart, I don't play the piano but I feel like you're looking at him with "the glasses of romantic virtuosism", which many pianists have. I do not know what is the best way to interpret Mozart, but try to look at him this way: I feel like in Mozart a pianist can focus on each note and that's probably what he wanted. I feel like even his instrumental pieces had a very discoursive and theatrical nature - like arias. I would focus on the dialogue the piano instaurates with the orchestra, that's the most fascinating thing about his concertos for me. I'd also look at very different performers, like Uchida and Gulda to name two. I don't feel like Mozart should be played in a certain way, rather people in general like to listen to his pieces played in that delicate way. I think a performer with Mozart has more freedom than he is led to believe. So, my point is: I think you're missing what's fascinating in those pieces because you look at him like you look at romantics. You probably look for virtuosism and "crazy stuff" like you said and you miss the point. I also feel like you think there's one way to play him (which makes him more boring), but I think it's not true.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I've said it in another thread, but growing up, I assumed Camille Saint-Saens was one of the greats because I practiced cello, and his cello works are so fantastic. Not just the concerto and "The Swan", he's got some fabulous cello suites to play too.

E) oh, and the youth orchestra favorite, the Danse Bacchnalle. Which was my favorite youth orchestra piece because the cellos got a ton of quick pizzacatto and the coda where you just play a bass ostinato at a quick triple forte. Incredible fun.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

As a classical listener I never really took to Mozart. I walked out of The Magic Flute in the Vienna State Opera house because I was so bored. My large LP and CD collection had almost no Mozart. Then came the bassoon playing and fighting the essential excerpt from the overture to Marriage of Figaro. Hated the guy. But then something happened: I got a gig that payed well in a chamber orchestra of all Mozart; it was an utter joy to play the 41st symphony. It was transformative. So much so that when I got a chance to go to Mexico and play a run of the whole opera Figaro I jumped at it and had a wonderful time. Playing Mozart in an orchestra really did change my perception, appreciation and interest in him. I still have no desire to collect all the operas, but the complete symphonies now grace the shelves.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Mozart for me too, but in a different way. I've always loved his music and from my late teens onwards he's been my favourite composer of all, but (though I've played the piano for all but the first 5 years of my life) I never felt particularly drawn to the piano sonatas. However, in search of a retirement project I went back to formal piano lessons 3 years ago, one of the first pieces my teacher set me was Mozart's A major sonata (the one with the _Rondo alla Turca_ finale) and more recently we moved on to its immediate successor, K332 in F. I've adored playing both, especially K332, and I now appreciate the Mozart sonatas in a whole new way as a result.


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I think it's boring/awkward to play Mozart on the modern piano due to the reasons stated in


Hm yeah I always figured this. I wonder if his reputation as a composer requiring perfect and delicate playing really pertains to optimizing the modern piano. I've never played a fortepiano but from what I see it seems limited in dynamics, so there isn't a need to be so sensitive about its dynamics, which means when its forte youre expected to hammer the notes more. I've never played a fortepiano so I can't say for certain. I hope one day in the future I'll be able to own one.

Edit: finished the first video and confirmed what I just csaid


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

Amadea said:


> What you described didn't happen to me yet. Anyway, talking about Mozart, I don't play the piano but I feel like you're looking at him with "the glasses of romantic virtuosism", which many pianists have. I do not know what is the best way to interpret Mozart, but try to look at him this way: I feel like in Mozart a pianist can focus on each note and that's probably what he wanted. I feel like even his instrumental pieces had a very discoursive and theatrical nature - like arias. I would focus on the dialogue the piano instaurates with the orchestra, that's the most fascinating thing about his concertos for me. I'd also look at very different performers, like Uchida and Gulda to name two. I don't feel like Mozart should be played in a certain way, rather people in general like to listen to his pieces played in that delicate way. I think a performer with Mozart has more freedom than he is led to believe. So, my point is: I think you're missing what's fascinating in those pieces because you look at him like you look at romantics. You probably look for virtuosism and "crazy stuff" like you said and you miss the point. I also feel like you think there's one way to play him (which makes him more boring), but I think it's not true.


I think virtuosity may be the wrong word. However I think certainly biased by being exposed to romantic music. I think theres a certain art in the hands which many romantic composers compose for. Like the way the notes look on paper and the feel on the hands is in itself part of the craft. Whereas Mozart the music is more about the subtle wit buried underneath the plain paper


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> Mozart is my favorite composer and still is, but actually playing it is quite dissapointing. Not only does it require perfect playing, but he's an orchestral writer and its usually all the parts working together which makes the music. The actual part atleast on the surface - he's never doing anything too crazy.


 Overall I think so too, but mainly because it seems musically thin compared to his larger-scale work, whether it's played on a modern grand or a fortepiano. I don't sense that kind of thinness in the keyboard music of Bach or later Beethoven.

Learning the piano and now the cello didn't really change my opinion of any composers, but it did expose me to their work in a way that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern (Jul 29, 2020)

I don't think I would've appreciated the cello suites that much if I didn't play cello. A lot of soloists play them too fast for the listener to make sense of the phrasing and the complex harmonies. The millions of non-cellists still appreciate them so I could just be on about nothing.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Overall I think so too, but mainly because it seems musically thin compared to his larger-scale work, whether it's played on a modern grand or a fortepiano. I don't sense that kind of thinness in the keyboard music of Bach or later Beethoven.


Whatabout K.394, K.396, K.497, K.511, K.594, K.616, K.608? (which are more interesting than the slow movement of the F major concerto K.411, for example, which I think is a bit of a "pot-boiler")


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

consuono said:


> Overall I think so too, but mainly because it seems musically thin compared to his larger-scale work, whether it's played on a modern grand or a fortepiano. I don't sense that kind of thinness in the keyboard music of Bach or later Beethoven.
> 
> Learning the piano and now the cello didn't really change my opinion of any composers, but it did expose me to their work in a way that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.


Bach relies on strong and complex melodies so its easier to appreciate the notes he's using. Even those basic minuets everyone learns from suzuki are ingenious. Mozart is just scales and arpegios strung together in a genius way but when broken down are still scales and arpeggios. Although I would disagree in that I don't consider his sonatas to be in any way deficient or lesser in quality, just that there isnt anything striking that he's doing, which makes me think "how did he think of that" which is different when i listen to the music.
Even his concertos, I find that simply playing it solo on the instrument is rather barebones but when adding all the parts together thats when everything begins to shine


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> I would focus on the dialogue the piano instaurates with the orchestra, that's the most fascinating thing about his concertos for me.


The difference between the solo fortepiano sonatas and concertos was kind of like the "standard of the time", before the time of Beethoven, Hummel, Schubert. On the other hand, the outer movements of K.497 -probably the most elaborate use of Classical forms before Beethoven's 3rd (I rate them as high as K.515/i in this regard). I do think Mozart's concertos are great, but people constantly mention them everywhere even in threads about Mozart's symphonies, for example -and in all honesty, the level of fuss around them (especially when you consider K.482/iii, K.595/iii, which aren't his most daring stuff) is kind of baffling. Several of them are more like half-improvisational pieces written for his subscription concerts, In K.537, he left much of the solo parts blank. I'm also slightly put off by the numerous cadenza sections where we're forced to hear random improvisations by the modern performers.
One-movement Sonata Cycle


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aloevera said:


> Although I would disagree in that I don't consider his sonatas to be in any way deficient or lesser in quality, just that there isnt anything striking that he's doing, which makes me think "how did he think of that" which is different when i listen to the music.


There are moments of ingenuity; for example;
One-movement Sonata Cycle


hammeredklavier said:


> Think of the upward steps and download leaps this way:
> match the parts in blue in the Wagner with the parts in blue in the Mozart,
> and the parts in red in the Wagner with the parts in red in the Mozart.
> There are some differences in rhythm and scale degrees, but the gestural similarities are undeniable.
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Aloevera said:


> just that there isnt anything striking that he's doing, which makes me think "how did he think of that" which is different when i listen to the music.


Take a look at this;
*Malcolm Bilson: Taste in Mozart and Chopin




 (3:02~5:40)*


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Aloevera said:


> Bach relies on strong and complex melodies so its easier to appreciate the notes he's using. Even those basic minuets everyone learns from suzuki are ingenious. Mozart is just scales and arpegios strung together in a genius way but when broken down are still scales and arpeggios. Although I would disagree in that I don't consider his sonatas to be in any way deficient or lesser in quality, just that there isnt anything striking that he's doing, which makes me think "how did he think of that" which is different when i listen to the music.
> Even his concertos, I find that simply playing it solo on the instrument is rather barebones but when adding all the parts together thats when everything begins to shine


As an example, the B flat minor fugue from WTC II is as rich as anything Bach wrote for chorus and/or orchestra. You won't find that kind of richness in Mozart's solo piano music. ...(edit)...*usually*. There are exceptions such as the C major fantasy and fugue and a couple of the piano sonatas where his writing is more contrapuntal. I sometimes get the feeling that maybe Mozart just didn't quite have the interest in or maybe time for solo keyboard music that Bach or Beethoven did.


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

consuono said:


> As an example, the B flat minor fugue from WTC II is as rich as anything Bach wrote for chorus and/or orchestra. You won't find that kind of richness in Mozart's solo piano music. ...(edit)...*usually*. There are exceptions such as the C major fantasy and fugue and a couple of the piano sonatas where his writing is more contrapuntal. I sometimes get the feeling that maybe Mozart just didn't quite have the interest in or maybe time for solo keyboard music that Bach or Beethoven did.


When you mean rich, do you mean less driven by short term pleasure, and able to develop a theme to its full extent? If so I agree, but is anyone other than Bach capable of doing that? However in Bach do you see one theme building up to another theme? Because I don't. I feel Mozart's wit lies elsewhere. I think Mozart was just big on form. In those days, I'd imagine something like a symphony or a sonata served a function. The variety resides in the variety of different kinds of forms rather than variety within form. A piano concerto's purpose was to be bombastic as to display the composer's virtuosity, a symphony is supposed to be theatrical in nature, and a quartet resides on subtlety. Probably this has to do with enlightened ideals and its revival of greek texts which valued the notion of form. Mozarts piano concertos are not that complicated (though geniusly stringed together) They mainly rely on pure finger muscle rather than counterpoint, or difficult rhythm. His sonatas pay more attention to counterpoint and more nuanced rhythm. They just arn't arn't written to to mindblow the audience, like perhaps Beethoven's sonatas


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> As an example, the B flat minor fugue from WTC II is as rich as *anything Bach wrote for chorus and/or orchestra.*













FastkeinBrahms said:


> I am a huge Bach fan, too, however: Not all his work is pure genius, a lot is also "Gebrauchsmusik", with a lot of self-recycled material . No wonder if you have to churn out a new cantata for almost every week for years for your stingy and yet extremely demanding Leipzig employers. *Besides, a lot of the texts/lyrics he uses are third rate, mostly amateurish and sometimes involuntarily funny best enjoyed in German by non-German speakers.* I feel that a little less exposure to the duopoly of Bach/Händel and a bit more openness to Zelenka and many others would be healthy. Think about the huge number of great Italians beside Vivaldi, for example Porpora, the Scarlattis, or the extremely versatile Rameau, or Lully and Charpentier.


Again, the kind of the solo fortepiano sonatas Mozart wrote was the "standard of the time". But K.497/i is as elaborate as K.515/i, and K.504/i,
and K.608 is like a miniature piece in the style of K.504 (the French-overture like expressions in the outer movements), albeit just as 'rich" musically.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> There are exceptions such as the C major fantasy and fugue and a couple of the piano sonatas where his writing is more contrapuntal.


"A couple of piano sonatas"? 







hammeredklavier said:


> Take the C sharp minor from WTC I, for example. Once this subject enters, Bach has the phrase repeated practically every measure (in different registers).


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> There are moments of ingenuity; for example;
> One-movement Sonata Cycle


I didn't really mean that as criticism in Mozart:

I mean't if you didn't know any theory and you listened to this:






Atleast I hear wizardry, how each section perfectly leads into the next. Which makes us wonder what he's doing And then you actually play to find out, and its always simple scales, yet the level of wit exists on a different dimension that makes it quite literally impossible to imitate It starts with a simple melody, that is quite poor in comparison to some of Bach's melodies. And then you introduce the next theme at :26 which is simply moving up the g major scale. And that at :35 you have a beautiful response to that. these are all simple melodies yet they all fit together perfectly but in itself there isn't some magical ingredient.

This is contrasted to Beethoven which at first glance, seems absent of any kind of logical form but when you play it you see the logic of the piece through the sensuality of the hand movement and more understand the thought process.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

^No, they're more like apples and oranges, to me.

For instance, Bach is sometimes criticized for these things:





https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
_"The piece is eighty minutes long, and mostly in G major."
"Not only is it G major, but it is always, (nauseatingly?) the same sequence of harmonies within G major."_


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Aloevera said:


> I didn't really mean that as criticism in Mozart


Don't be scared ahah. Hammeredklavier likes to give insights about pieces and discuss authors, expecially Mozart.

(For hammeredklavier: I don't have the time now to seriously look at what you've written, but thanks anyway, I'll see later if I can. Also, I didn't forget your thread about "the french Don Giovanni", but I need time to go through my notes, as I didn't find much useful informations at a first look. Right now I'm working on my thesis, I'm a bit busy.)


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

Amadea said:


> Hammeredklavier likes to give insights about pieces and discuss authors, expecially Mozart.


I can tell haha


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

OT: No but it did make me appreciate Brian May's guitar playing.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Aloevera said:


> I'm curious for anybody who may have listened to classical music before playing an instrument - atleast to a high enough level and have opinions on composers and music, and then have those opinions change as you actually got to play some of their pieces hands on.
> 
> For example, I am not a huge fan of Bach to listen to. I wouldn't just listen to it for my enjoyment, but they are my favorite pieces to play. The melodies and counterpoint are so great but I feel like you only understand it when you play it.
> 
> ...


For me, learning how to play a piece on a (reasonably) high level requires so much, and so thorough, study, practice and rehearsal of that piece, that inevitably one views it differently than as a more casual listener. Spending hard time with a Beethoven symphony, and hearing it over and over, really does help you understand what makes it such a big deal. The same can't be said for other great composers, though. Playing Wagner is an endurance marathon, and the repetition that so effectively helps create dramatic unity for the audience is excruciating to play. Other things are hard to listen to or make sense of so close up for a variety of reasons.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Aloevera said:


> When you mean rich, do you mean less driven by short term pleasure, and able to develop a theme to its full extent?


I mean the interweaving of melodic lines to create a congruent whole.


hammeredklavier said:


> "A couple of piano sonatas"?


Yeah, maybe one or two more.


hammeredklavier said:


> For instance, Bach is sometimes criticized for these things:


Followed by an example "in the style of Bach". :lol: By the way, continuing from the Jeremy Denk source that you can't seem to comprehend:


> To be fair, Bach charges at this fact with full foreknowledge, even brazenly. He says, in effect, yes this is bound to be boring but I am going to be so masterful that you will be in awe and not care even if you will be bored.


And this is supposed to refute my statement about the B flat minor fugue how, exactly?


hammeredklavier said:


> [video of BWV 70 chorus]


I still stand by the statement:




And what does this have to do with anything? The subject isn't Bach the literary craftsman:


> Besides, a lot of the texts/lyrics he uses are third rate, mostly amateurish and sometimes involuntarily funny best enjoyed in German by non-German speakers.


The Da Ponte libretti aren't exactly standalone great literature either. Nor for that matter are those Latin liturgical texts you're always posting. Doesn't matter. None of them were intended to be great literature.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I do think Mozart's concertos are great, but people constantly mention them everywhere even in threads about Mozart's symphonies, for example -and in all honesty, the level of fuss around them (especially when you consider K.482/iii, K.595/iii, which aren't his most daring stuff) is kind of baffling.


I don't even know where to start XD I do understand your point but... I was sticking to what a pianist studies normally today! Argh, I would eat you when you write these things!  Of course I cannot not mention the piano concertos!!! She (?) plays piano! That's her (?) STANDARD REPERTOIRE. In fact, SHE MENTIONED THEM. DUDE. C'MON. :lol: :lol: :lol: What else do you expect me to mention? The Sinfonia concertante for violin and viola in E Flat? I don't know. You tell me. XD



Aloevera said:


> but he's an *orchestral writer* and *its usually all the parts working together which makes the music*. The actual part atleast on the surface - he's never doing anything too crazy.


Anyway they are the most performed, as they engage the orchestra, so obviously they are the most mentioned!! Expecially in a thread about symphonies! rolleyes. Where else? Lol. That said, let's move to:



hammeredklavier said:


> Several of them are more like half-improvisational pieces written for his subscription concerts, In K.537, he left much of the solo parts blank. I'm also slightly put off by the numerous cadenza sections where we're forced to hear random improvisations by the modern performers.


You're really exaggerating here. Not only because you consider only the piano part like that's the only important thing in a concerto, but also many of Mozart's own cadenzas are preserved. But it is preferred with a pianist's own cadenzas, as the composer intended. Anyway, even without his cadenzas the important parts were written down obviously and the dialogue the piano instaurates with the orchestra is what makes the concerts fascinating (and also the other concertos for other instruments). 
A personal favourite of mine as example:






Of course, we could also talk about the piano sonatas, but they are less interesting than his orchestral pieces in my opinion, with some exceptions. They were mainly written for his students. There are the violin and piano sonatas, but they are different, as we proceed in the kochel catalogue the piano part becomes an accompaniment and the violin becomes more relevant. Those with piano as accompaniment are the ones most performed and studied today. Aloevera will probably study those and not else. But the piano parts are less interesting. 
Why do you mention the string quintets? Some Mozart's quartets/quintets are better than some concertos and even many symphonies I give you that, but I don't get it. Aloevera plays piano. Don't go off topic 
Now, the piano duets. Those are definitevely more interesting than the piano solo sonatas but not more than a concerto. The dialogue between two pianos is less complex than the one with a solo instrument and an orchestra. Not to mention the emotions. Again I think you're not considering the orchestra!!! Do you remember when Glenn Gould said those idiotic things about Mozart's piano concerto n.24? He wasn't considering the orchestra.  Don't make the same mistake:






Anyway, normally a pianist doesn't study the duets so much (my sister is a pianist). I'd say also the piano quintet is underrated.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I would describe the Mozart piano sonatas as deceptively simple, and masterfully crafted. They are more than they appear.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't know why hammeredklavier continually posts that AI Bach piece. You can find one of those for all the major composers. None of them sound much like the actual composers and they are all programmed by humans. Who cares!!


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

tdc said:


> I would describe the Mozart piano sonatas as deceptively simple, and masterfully crafted. They are more than they appear.


That's for sure, like all Mozart's pieces. But overall I wouldn't put them on the same levels of the concertos, except for a couple maybe.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> You're really exaggerating here. Not only because you consider only the piano part like that's the only important thing in a concerto ...


Maybe. But I personally feel that this is an area where Mozart gets a bit too much recognition. People constantly compare them to Beethoven's, but I don't find the comparison fair since I find his to be also quite unique from Mozart's, and decent in quality as well. (I don't approve of the "Mozartian" label people attach to his early works, especially Op.50.)
Don't get me wrong, I think of stuff like K.466 very highly, but I don't see how K.537/iii is so phenomenally better than K.573, for example.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Amadea said:


> That's for sure, like all Mozart's pieces. But overall I wouldn't put them on the same levels of the concertos, except for a couple maybe.


Some others on this forum say this too but I think that is like saying Bach's Brandenburg Concertos aren't on the same level as his B minor Mass. Ok, maybe? But the works are different, the one thing is not trying to be the other.


----------



## jkl (May 4, 2021)

Maybe the organ after playing some simple Bach organ works. But the organ is such a diverse instrument. It has at least led me to appreciate the big church organs more.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe. But I personally feel that this is an area where Mozart gets a bit too much recognition.


Orchestral pieces will always be considered more than chamber, sonatas etc sadly. That has to do with how classical music centered around symphonies, I guess. Thank Beethoven ahah. Too many symphonies have been made in history and we are still obsessed I guess. I have to thank Mozart if I discovered chamber music. I've comed to a strong dislike almost hate for certain romantic/late romantic symphonists because I was like "too many symphonies, enough...". I don't like Brahms symphonies (except some movs). But I do like his chamber works.



hammeredklavier said:


> People constantly compare them to Beethoven's, but I don't find the comparison fair since I find his to be also quite unique from Mozart's, and decent in quality as well


I don't know what people say about them.



hammeredklavier said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think of stuff like K.466 very highly, but I don't see how K.537/iii is so phenomenally better than K. 573


Those variations Mozart could do them in front of you real time. That's improvisation basically. Even if it's still great quality of course. If you like them as much as the concertos, that's another thing. But I wouldn't say a concerto isn't better, maybe it's a bit offensive for Mozart which put more effort in those than in variations. But I think you are maybe kinda like Harnoncourt on this: you don't view certain Mozart's works as inferior in quality to others. Correct if I'm wrong. It is very cute and a romantic view of Mozart, but I do not know if I can share it, even if I do love all his works.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

As a professional orchestra musician for some 45 years, i got to perform a wide spectrum of repertoire...playing the music of some composers changed my appreciation of those creators.
Sibelius - i really enjoyed his music before...after performing several works, i love his music even more.
Schoenberg - kind of ambivalent at first...after performing 5 Pieces for Orchestra i came to love his music.
Vaughan Williams - same thing...playing his music very enjoyable.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Georg Robert von Pasterwitz (7 June 1730 - 26 January 1803) was an Austrian composer and teacher. He was born in Bierhütten, near Passau. First educated at Niederaltaich, he entered the Benedictine monastery in Kremsmünster in 1749. He then enrolled at the University of Salzburg, studying theology, law and mathematics. It was during this time that he met Johann Ernst Eberlin, who became his music teacher. Pasterwitz completed his studies in 1759 and soon started teaching philosophy at the monastery's Ritterakademie, eventually rising to teach courses in mathematics, physics, economics, and political science; since about 1755 he was also active as composer, producing stage works for the monastery almost every year.
Between 1767 and 1783 Pasterwitz served as the monastery's choir director. Due to reforms started by Joseph II, he had to give up some of his duties and became instead the monastery's treasurer and eventually official representative, when it was threatened with dissolution in 1785. Pasterwitz died in 1803 in Kremsmünster, having served as dean of the Upper School there until 1801. Pasterwitz's surviving oeuvre comprises some 500 works, mostly liturgical pieces and dramatic works for the church. He composed a large number of short contrapuntal pieces for keyboard: 324 were published between 1790 and 1803, and were the only works published during the composer's lifetime. They show him as a competent master of both counterpoint and the keyboard. For the monastery, Pasterwitz regularly composed dramas and dozens of liturgical pieces: masses, offertories, vespers, etc."

Maybe consuono's ideal type of a composer during Mozart's time is someone like Pasterwitz.  I'm starting to get doubt the sincerity of the things he has said to elevate the so-called "Big Three" in other threads (particularly the ones about objectivity vs subjectivity in music, or common practice music vs contemporary music). If he thought they were really that great, why would he criticize them so regularly? Maybe he should consider finding other composers with qualities he truly admires to form his own "Big Three".


consuono said:


> oom-pa-pa Alberti stuff below a tinkly treble. :devil:


^he has said things like this ever since he joined the forum, btw.


----------



## Amadea (Apr 15, 2021)

Heck148 said:


> As a professional orchestra musician for some 45 years, i got to perform a wide spectrum of repertoire...playing the music of some composers changed my appreciation of those creators.
> Sibelius - i really enjoyed his music before...after performing several works, i love his music even more.
> Schoenberg - kind of ambivalent at first...after performing 5 Pieces for Orchestra i came to love his music.
> Vaughan Williams - same thing...playing his music very enjoyable.


Wow that's cool. I've been only playing violin and some piano and cello, and I wouldn't say my perception of composers really changed. But maybe that's because I've never really player in an orchestra, sadly. Now that I think about it thought, I hate Bartók because I hated his exercises ahah but that's personal.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "Georg Robert von Pasterwitz (7 June 1730 - 26 January 1803) was an Austrian composer and teacher. He was born in Bierhütten, near Passau. First educated at Niederaltaich, he entered the Benedictine monastery in Kremsmünster in 1749. He then enrolled at the University of Salzburg, studying theology, law and mathematics. It was during this time that he met Johann Ernst Eberlin, who became his music teacher. Pasterwitz completed his studies in 1759 and soon started teaching philosophy at the monastery's Ritterakademie, eventually rising to teach courses in mathematics, physics, economics, and political science; since about 1755 he was also active as composer, producing stage works for the monastery almost every year.
> Between 1767 and 1783 Pasterwitz served as the monastery's choir director. Due to reforms started by Joseph II, he had to give up some of his duties and became instead the monastery's treasurer and eventually official representative, when it was threatened with dissolution in 1785. Pasterwitz died in 1803 in Kremsmünster, having served as dean of the Upper School there until 1801. Pasterwitz's surviving oeuvre comprises some 500 works, mostly liturgical pieces and dramatic works for the church. He composed a large number of short contrapuntal pieces for keyboard: 324 were published between 1790 and 1803, and were the only works published during the composer's lifetime. They show him as a competent master of both counterpoint and the keyboard. For the monastery, Pasterwitz regularly composed dramas and dozens of liturgical pieces: masses, offertories, vespers, etc."
> 
> Maybe consuono's ideal type of a composer during Mozart's time is someone like Pasterwitz.  I'm starting to get doubt the sincerity of the things he has said to elevate the so-called "Big Three" in other threads (particularly the ones about objectivity vs subjectivity in music, or common practice music vs contemporary music). If he thought they were really that great, why would he criticize them so regularly? Maybe he should consider finding other composers with qualities he truly admires to form his own "Big Three".
> ...


So? No, I don't care too much for Mozart's piano sonatas overall (there are a few I love though) and I'm not alone in that judgement. By the way I could go whining to the moderators about commenting on my posting habits and personal attacks, but I'll let this one go.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Stravinsky- all composers i came to appreciate more, as i got to perform their works professionally. Not just symphonies or large orchestral works, either...chamber muslc, smaller ensemble works as well.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I never got further than a very amateurish lvl but I started playing the clarinet at ca. 16 about one or two years after getting into classical music. This changed my perception mostly in a quite general way, simply by some improvement of listening skills or playing passages from scores like the triplet passage in the coda of th 1st mvmt of the Pastoral. It also made me a bit more interested in stuff like Weber concerti I would probably not listen to if the were for the flute. But the experience closest to the question is Bach''s piano music. I had liked some Bach for a long time but found most of the suites etc rather boring. Until I played some arrangements from the 2 part inventions and dance's from French suites etc for 2 clarinets with my teacher. This basically opened up the cosmos of bach's keyboard music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Bartok's Mikrokosmos increased my appreciation for his music. When I play piano I pretty much always warm up with some pieces from Mikrokosmos.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I would say the flute. I am not a flute player but I have dabbled with the instrument. It is certainly not one that's easy to play well particularly these early instrument versions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Amadea said:


> Those variations Mozart could do them in front of you real time. That's improvisation basically. Even if it's still great quality of course. If you like them as much as the concertos, that's another thing. But I wouldn't say a concerto isn't better, maybe it's a bit offensive for Mozart which put more effort in those than in variations.


Even after going through your posts, I still think certain moments of Mozart's concertos are a bit overrated. I mean they're still good, but the fuss people make about them is a bit too much. Take K.482 for example; this is essentially a concert "divertimento" of Mozart's Vienna-period. Can you show me which section(s) in the concluding movement is particularly remarkable?





 <--- this is "remarkable"?
I hate to admit, I spend more time listening to Michael Haydn's Missa sancti Gotthardi (1792):





An "introspective" middle movement and a "lively" concluding movement ("charming" in its bravura passages) - it's exactly like K.334 in scope. 





Go through his operas, in between his more "remarkable" passages, there is the more "generic" stuff. I think stuff like K.482/iii, K.595/iii belongs more in the generic category. This is sort of expression is like the bread-and-butter of Mozart's, much like his own dramatic and Catholic music, much of which puts strong emphasis on smooth alternations between solo arias and ensembles.

Look at the "angularities" of sonata K.497/iii, by contrast: 













or K.511:















Amadea said:


> But I think you are maybe kinda like Harnoncourt on this: you don't view certain Mozart's works as inferior in quality to others.


If that's true, that would mean that would mean that some of his concertos are somewhat overrated/over-popular compared to his certain other works. (And I still think K.411/ii is definitely not the best thing he ever wrote).



Amadea said:


> Anyway, I don't get why we keep ignoring the symphonic value of Mozart's piano concertos. Yes, they're not symphonies. It's true. Yet I think they had a role in the development of symphony, so we shouldn't consider just the symphonies as part of Mozart's work in the field in my opinion.





Amadea said:


> Orchestral pieces will always be considered more than chamber, sonatas etc sadly. That has to do with how classical music centered around symphonies, I guess.


For instance, I think these are just as "remarkable" as far as "symphonism" is concerned:

K.339/vi: 



K.257/iii: 



K.262/iii: 



 (whenever I hear this, I think of the opening of Beethoven's 5th)





in terms of simplicity and serenity, this equals the best moments of his concertos:


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I began listening to classical music before I took my piano lessons. Then I became more interested in pianist composers like Chopin. It did not take very long before I turned back to composers like Mozart and Beethoven.


----------

