# I find Mozart boring



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

I'm working my way down this list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

I've now come to String Quartet No. 20. I've hardly found anything that I like. Nothing interesting happens in this music. Do I just have to move further down the list, or is everything this dull?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couldn't tell you, as I don't find most of it to be very dull. Seems as though you are on a mission to have a controversial opinion about every great composer.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

John, do you like anything by anyone else from the classical era? I'm only asking because if you can't get into Mozart then I would have thought that there was little chance of you liking much from any of the other c. 1750 - 1800 big guns either (and vice versa).


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> John, do you like anything by anyone else from the classical era?


I like this. Not sure if it's from the classical era.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Vivaldi's rather too early, really. For symphonies, concertos and chamber works I was thinking about composers from a similar timeframe as Mozart's, such as J. Haydn, M. Haydn, Boccherini, C.P.E. Bach, F-J Gossec.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way down this list.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
> 
> I've now come to String Quartet No. 20. I've hardly found anything that I like. Nothing interesting happens in this music. Do I just have to move further down the list, or is everything this dull?


When I first started listening to classical music, I found Mozart's music mostly dull too. There were some exceptions, notably the first movement of the D minor piano concerto (no.20), which hooked me from the start. I eventually realised that what was happening was that, because I'd come to classical music via the big late-19th-century orchestral works, I was too dismissive of music that didn't match the expectations I developed. So I gradually came to appreciate the music on its own terms.

If you'd asked "why is it that so many people don't find this dull?" that would suggest to me that you're interested in learning how to appreciate Mozart's music, but it sounds from "is everything this dull?" that you feel you've put enough effort in already - if you're working down the list, you'll have already heard all the symphonies and concertos so I'm not sure what more anyone can say to persuade you of Mozart's merits.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

I'm not interested in learning to appreciate Mozart, so maybe it's better to move on. Maybe Chopin?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way down this list.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
> 
> I've now come to String Quartet No. 20. I've hardly found anything that I like. Nothing interesting happens in this music. Do I just have to move further down the list, or is everything this dull?


Before we go further, let me ask a preliminary diagnostic question that I put to everyone experiencing this and similar problems. Did you remember to turn the volume of your stereo on? We had two people make this mistake last year, one of whom thought Mozart was a sham as a result (especially after progressing beyond the early period), while another person loved it and just wondered why everyone made such a big deal about 4'33''.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> Before we go further, let me ask a preliminary diagnostic question that I put to everyone experiencing this and similar problems. Did you remember to turn the volume of your stereo on? We had two people make this mistake last year, one of whom thought Mozart was a sham as a result (especially after progressing beyond the early period), while another person loved it and just wondered why everyone made such a big deal about 4'33''.


:lol:

15characters


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Blancrocher said:


> Did you remember to turn the volume of your stereo on?


Yes, I did. I know it's very imortant 

Edit: Started listening to Chopin now. The Études. First thought: Wow, this guy really moves his fingers fast. But otherwise it's not that interesting.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way down this list.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
> 
> I've now come to String Quartet No. 20. I've hardly found anything that I like. Nothing interesting happens in this music. Do I just have to move further down the list, or is everything this dull?


You find Mozart dull, huh? Try Bruckner. :tiphat:


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm not sure if you're serious or just here to stir the pot so I'll indulge you this once. 

1. You can blog here instead of creating numerous threads, thus burying meaningful discussion. We already have enough nonsensical threads, started on a daily basis.

2. Try talking about what you enjoy, as opposed to what you don't. Again, we have enough of that as well. Plenty here who go well out of their way to tell everyone what they hate, as nauseam. 

3. Speaking of those people, have you tried Schubert? If Mozart doesn't immediately impress you, try someone else. You can always return to him. I'd suggest Schubert's Piano Quintet, String Quintet, 9th Symphony, and String Quartet 14. If you don't like them, or Mozart, or Beethoven's symphonies, then maybe you're in the wrong genre entirely.


----------



## shadowdancer (Mar 31, 2014)

John Galt said:


> I'm not interested in learning to appreciate Mozart...


I am very sorry for you...


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

I can spot a trend here.
Your next thread. 'Bach - What a pillock'?

All classical music can appear boring until you learn to appreciate it.
It lacks the immediacy of pop / rock because of it's complexity.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

scratchgolf said:


> Try talking about what you enjoy, as opposed to what you don't.
> 
> have you tried Schubert?


I'll post it here when I find some Chopin that I like 

I'll move to Schubert after finishing Chopin.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Subtlety has never been my strength.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Morimur said:


> I think Galt lives under a bridge... if you catch my drift. ut: ut: ut:
> 
> Subtlety has never been my strength.


Listened to all of Chopin's Études now. Didn't like them, even if I was impressed by the superfast fingers. Now I'm listening to the ballades. Not my cup of tea.

Where's the melodies?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

John Galt said:


> I'm not interested in learning to appreciate Mozart, so maybe it's better to move on. Maybe Chopin?


If I may pick at the scab a little more:

If you're not interested in learning to appreciate Mozart, then why did you listen in the first place? What was it you were hoping to get out of the experience? Are you expecting instant gratification? Because that doesn't happen often. Yes, there are some pieces of music that we immediately love, just like there are some paintings that instantly catch our eye, or some movies that hook us from the opening shot, or some novels that are captivating from the first page. But surely you understand that most times we let them slowly reel us in, and we for our part have to want to be reeled in.
This "Oh well, Mozart's done, time for Chopin" is an odd sort of "grazing" approach to appreciating art, one that I don't get.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> If you're not interested in learning to appreciate Mozart, then why did you listen in the first place?


Because I wanted to see if I liked him.



Nereffid said:


> Are you expecting instant gratification?


If not instant gratification, at least instant interest. Of course, good music will get better and better the more you listen to it, but if there's nothing there to begin with, I feel like moving on. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of composers to check out.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

*Fantasie-Imprompty (Chopin)*

Love this!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

John Galt said:


> If not instant gratification, at least instant interest. Of course, good music will get better and better the more you listen to it, but if there's nothing there to begin with, I feel like moving on. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of composers to check out.


OK, but if you find _nothing_ in Beethoven or Mozart (or, it would appear, Chopin [edit: OK, you seem to have found something]), then why do you think other composers of the same era would offer anything else?

Why not try a few composers from more recent times (randomly chosen but well-known and easy to find):
Sofia Gubaidulina, Arvo Part, Michael Nyman, Luciano Berio, Gyorgy Ligeti, Alfred Schnittke.

Or go older: Claudio Monteverdi, Josquin Desprez, Guillaume de Machaut...


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> OK, but if you find _nothing_ in Beethoven or Mozart (or, it would appear, Chopin [edit: OK, you seem to have found something]), then why do you think other composers of the same era would offer anything else?
> 
> Why not try a few composers from more recent times (randomly chosen but well-known and easy to find):
> Sofia Gubaidulina, Arvo Part, Michael Nyman, Luciano Berio, Gyorgy Ligeti, Alfred Schnittke.
> ...


Thanks for the suggestions, I'll check them out


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

John Galt said:


> I'll post it here when I find some Chopin that I like
> 
> I'll move to Schubert after finishing Chopin.


John, your whole approach to classical music is bizarre. One does not go down lists and listen to 20 string quartets or whole genres of piano music by Chopin after not liking the first three. This sounds like the kind of plan someone with obsessive compulsive disorder would devise, or else someone who is not willing to expend the effort to devise a better plan. *More effort is required of you.* Before you started listening to all of Mozart's symphonies from number one, for example, you should have made the effort to find out what symphonies of his are considered to be his best. Had you done this, you could have listened to three masterpieces instead of 15 works of juvenilia. What you should do is pick one or two highly revered works by a number of different composers from different eras, keep track of what you like best, and then expand to similar works. If you are unable to navigate on your own, you should take a course in music appreciation or get a book.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> One does not go down lists and listen to 20 string quartets or whole genres of piano music by Chopin after not liking the first three.


Because the next 17 are likely to be more or less similar?



> Before you started listening to all of Mozart's symphonies from number one, for example, you should have made the effort to find out what symphonies of his are considered to be his best. Had you done this, you could have listened to three masterpieces instead of 15 works of juvenilia. What you should do is pick one or two highly revered works by a number of different composers from different eras, keep track of what you like best, and then expand to similar works.


Good point. So I need to find a website which lists the compositions considered to be the best.

Edit: Found another lovely Chopin piece: *Mazurka No. 1*. Chopin is my favorite composer so far, no doubt about it!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

John Galt said:


> I'll post it here when I find some Chopin that I like
> 
> I'll move to Schubert after finishing Chopin.


You can always going to play with your toys


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

John --

Tell us what pop music you like, and maybe we can narrow down your options to something/someone you are more likely to get into.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

John Galt said:


> Good point. So I need to find a website which lists the compositions considered to be the best.


You've found it.

http://www.talkclassical.com/13221-talk-classical-top-50-a.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/12443-tc-150-most-recommended.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/13702-tc-top-50-most.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/13220-tc-top-100-most.html


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

You sound like a 16 year old tasting "yucky" red wine. The wine is absolutely just fine. It's your taste that has a great deal of developing to do.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Mazurka No. 2 is nice too. This is great music!



GGluek said:


> John --
> 
> Tell us what pop music you like, and maybe we can narrow down your options to something/someone you are more likely to get into.


Really, can you reocmmend classical music based on pop music taste?? Well, you can try


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Couchie said:


> You sound like a 16 year old tasting "yucky" red wine. The wine is absolutely just fine. It's your taste that has a great deal of developing to do.


I know  I should have started listening to this when I was 13, not 30!

I love red wine, by the way.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

I hate to have to come on this thread, but where else would I be able to say this.

Warning, it is a personal remark, though I don't offer it as a substitute for arguing a point (ad hominem) or intend it to be offensive.

What I would suggest is that you listen to a lot of music without talking about it. You present as being the greenest of greenhorns. That is, your claim is that you have no experience at all with this stuff. These first hearings (which you don't seem to want to follow up on in any way) constitute the entirety of your experience.

That does not strike me as a good basis for expressing opinions. That does not strike me as even a good basis for _having_ opinions. Besides, in spite of another of your claims, you do seem to us to be listening to music in order to express opinions about it. Listen to the music for itself. Try to understand it, what it is trying to do, rather than simply using it as a means for expressing opinions. Without a fair amount of experience, from which hopefully will come some knowledge and eventually even wisdom, any opinions you have will be preliminary at best.

Not that preliminary reactions cannot be interesting or even valuable. But they are more revealing of you and where you are in your journey than they are of the music. Express them as being about you, and I doubt anyone's knickers would get in a twist.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

John Galt, you're encountering resistance here because you've entered a Classical Music forum seemingly to disparage the composers many consider the foundations of everything that's come since (in Classical Music).

Going onto a Classic Rock forum and carrying on about how Led Zeppelin or some other famous band is overrated may win some friends and lose others, but simply saying "I listened once and there's absolutely nothing there" or even "Led Zeppelin's music is clearly only for those who hate themselves, because it is so negative" will probably not garner friends even among those who dislike the band.

You're just discovering Classical Music, and that's great. There's nothing wrong with having a good bit to learn and if you want, you can just keep discovering more and more that you'll love. But posting as if your first reactions are obviously absolutely correct for everyone is not going to win many friends here or elsewhere.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> John Galt, you're encountering resistance here because you've entered a Classical Music forum seemingly to disparage the composers many consider the foundations of everything that's come since (in Classical Music).
> 
> Going onto a Classic Rock forum and carrying on about how Led Zeppelin or some other famous band is overrated may win some friends and lose others, but simply saying "I listened once and there's absolutely nothing there" or even "Led Zeppelin's music is clearly only for those who hate themselves, because it is so negative" will probably not garner friends even among those who dislike the band.
> 
> You're just discovering Classical Music, and that's great. There's nothing wrong with having a good bit to learn and if you want, you can just keep discovering more and more that you'll love. But posting as if your first reactions are obviously absolutely correct for everyone is not going to win many friends here or elsewhere.


I'm _not_ saying that my reactions prove Mozart-likers to be wrong.


----------



## OlivierM (Jul 31, 2014)

John, I can understand that you don't like Mozart or Chopin. I'm not really big on Mozart either, whom I find very much overrated.
But if the reason for the disliking is "where is the melody?", I fail to understand. It's difficult to deny either of these two guys a certain sense of melody. Subjectively, it's hard to find better melodies than Chopin's. Schubert is absolutely brilliant as well.
Maybe skip the piano solo at the moment, which can be a bit harder to grasp and concentrate on chamber music.

But I see you liked the Four Seasons, so I might recommend Boccherini's string quintets, George Onslow's trios, the Piano Concerto No 1 by Chopin. If you don't like that, fine. But if it is because you can't find melody there, you must have an internal ear problem.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

OlivierM said:


> John, I can understand that you don't like Mozart or Chopin.
> 
> But I see you liked the Four Seasons, so I might recommend Boccherini's string quintets, George Onslow's trios, the Piano Concerto No 1 by Chopin.


I do like Chopin so far. His Mazurkas are brilliant!

Thanks for the suggestions!


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

John Galt said:


> Listened to all of Chopin's Études now. Didn't like them, even if I was impressed by the superfast fingers. Now I'm listening to the ballades. Not my cup of tea.
> 
> Where's the melodies?


I hated the etudes at first too; they sounded like random fast notes with no structure. Looking back, that was because I hadn't listened to them enough times. You'd be much better off listening to the same etude 8 or 10 times in a row rather than just going through all of them one at a time. If you haven't at least partially memorized a piece you can't really judge whether or not you like it because you're not even hearing the structure the composer built, especially with something like a string quartet let alone an etude.

My general rule is that if I don't know a piece well enough to hum at least the first few minutes of it without help then I haven't really given it a chance. If you memorize it and still don't like it, come back a few weeks or months later.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> If you haven't at least partially memorized a piece you can't really judge whether or not you like it because you're not even hearing the structure the composer built


Interesting thought. I'll give it a try.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Waiting for Johnny's reaction to the Bartok quartets. Especially after he's spent a whole couple of hours with 'em!


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Waiting for Johnny's reaction to the Bartok quartets. Especially after he's spent a whole couple of hours with 'em!


Boring stuff?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

You're not getting the message. The music is what it is. "Boring" is a perception on your part. These works can't be absorbed and appreciated on the first go round. You have to keep listening to give your brain time to process, enjoy, and appreciate the music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

John Galt said:


> Because the next 17 are likely to be more or less similar?
> 
> Good point. So I need to find a website which lists the compositions considered to be the best.
> 
> Edit: Found another lovely Chopin piece: *Mazurka No. 1*. Chopin is my favorite composer so far, no doubt about it!


It's easier than that! You are already on the right website. Had you asked here which Mozart symphonies are essential to know or put the composer in the best light, 9 out of 10 people on this site (a guess) would have said "the last three, 39, 40, and 41." There would have been a few other suggestions as well, but the mere consensus would have told you where to start. Someone might also have given the general advice that the later works in most genres are a good place to start with Mozart, since he wrote so much when he was very young.

When you said you liked Vivaldi's The Seasons, which are baroque concertos, it would have been nice if someone had recommended other great baroque concertos. The Bach Brandenburg's would be worth trying. I would have recommended starting with 2 through 6 (there are 6), since these are roughly in the same format as the Vivaldi concertos, although a bit more intricate.

Folks here are generally very helpful if asked for advice or recommendations. Telling them you find Mozart boring based on listening to a list of compositions most of them would have been unlikely to recommend will tend to lead to a different response, as you have seen.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

starthrower said:


> You're not getting the message. The music is what it is. "Boring" is a perception on your part. These works can't be absorbed and appreciated on the first go round. You have to keep listening to give your brain time to process, enjoy, and appreciate the music.


I think I actually found the last two movements of the fourth quartet immediately appealing.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If one doesn't "get the message" of a certain composer, no matter how great, simply stop listening and move on to a different composer.

Every listener is different. Just because Mozart is acknowledged to be great, doesn't mean YOU have to like his music. Hating Beethoven or Mozart, last I looked, is not a crime.

As for me, I find Schubert, Chopin, Liszt and most Bruckner and Debussy boring. So, I move on and listen to other composers.

Perhaps one day you will come back to Mozart and hear things you didn't hear before. It happens.


Please post back on TC when you do find a composer you are in synch with.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Dim7 said:


> I think I actually found the last two movements of the fourth quartet immediately appealing.


Sure! This happens to different people listening to various works. But a lot stuff takes time and concentrated listening. Also, John might want to try different performances of the same work.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

John Galt said:


> Boring stuff?


I think you'd find Bartok malevolent in the extreme, actually...


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

John Galt said:


> I'm working my way down this list.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart
> 
> I've now come to String Quartet No. 20. I've hardly found anything that I like. Nothing interesting happens in this music. Do I just have to move further down the list, or is everything this dull?


Up to you whether you consider moving down the list is worth pursuing or not. It is entirely up to your listening curiosity. Have you listened to say his symphony no. 40 and no.41? These tend to be quite popular pieces to start with.

Perhaps I can make a humble opinion that Classical music isn't really for you because you find a significant amount of Mozart boring? It's like me going to a jazz forum and saying that Duke Ellington and Miles Davis are boring, or going to a cooking forum to say I don't enjoy cooking.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> John, your whole approach to classical music is bizarre. One does not go down lists and listen to 20 string quartets or whole genres of piano music by Chopin after not liking the first three.


Yep. Especially with Mozart, where there is admittedly a great deal of "ordinary" work from his younger years, simply going through the K numbers is perhaps not the best method.

I certainly don't recommend that with Bruckner, where it would take listening to 100 works just to reach his 1st symphony (WAB 101)!

I don't really know where to begin in terms of recommending Mozart work that I don't find dull. Perhaps its worth starting off small, with a single movement perhaps, a movement that is deeply heartfelt, deceptively simple because it is so profound, and simply extraordinary at every turn...

I'm thinking the slow movement from the 18th piano concerto. :tiphat:


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Skilmarilion said:


> I certainly don't recommend that with Bruckner, either, where it would take listening to 100 works just to reach his 1st symphony (WAB 101), lol.


The Grasberger catalogue is, of course, organised by genre rather than chronologically.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

It is Scheonberg time for you.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

[whisper]Let's tell him to listen to Telemann sequentially![/whisper]


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Perhaps fifty hours of Haydn?

I think that the Offenbach and Lehar recommendations stand true.


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

ahammel said:


> The Grasberger catalogue is, of course, organised by genre rather than chronologically.


Yes -- the symphonies appear very late in the catalogue.

Therefore sequential listening using the WAB numbers as a reference would be quite the task.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I am so not surprised I did not even need to read the OP, which I have not done; that predictable I think its intent. I have not either read any other comments in this thread


If you don't get Mozart, you don't get music. -- On this point too, this does not surprise me at all.

One major criterion of what makes a piece of music bad and / or boring is if it is as predictable as I found the OP.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I am so not surprised I did not even need to read the OP, which I have not done; that predictable I think its intent. I have not either read any other comments in this thread


Hah, well the joke's on you PetrB, because we've all spent this thread solving world hunger and bringing peace to the Middle East!


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Hmmmmm...


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

John Galt said:


> *I find Mozart boring.*


I know exactly what you mean. The composer has an uncanny way of boring into one's heart and soul with his musical magic, profundity and charm. No other composer in my experience does such so well.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Try Dvorak or Tchaikovsky. Great melodies.


----------



## jimsumner (Jul 7, 2013)

Going on a classical music message board and announcing that you find Mozart boring and have no interest in learning to appreciate him seems like a very curious thing to do.

There's no law that says you have to like Mozart; or Bach; or Beethoven, And I suppose there are classical music listeners who don't like Mozart-although I've never met any. But to dismiss a composer listened to with great pleasure by millions for well over two centuries without making more than a cursory effort to find out what others find in him seems to me like short-changing both Mozart and the OP. 

Try Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (A Little Night Music). Not his most profound utterance. But about as far from boring as music can be. If that doesn't make you want to explore further, then, yes, you might want to move on. But IMO Mozart is worth a little more effort. The rewards can be worth it.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> When I first started listening to classical music, I found Mozart's music mostly dull too. There were some exceptions, notably the first movement of the D minor piano concerto (no.20), which hooked me from the start. I eventually realised that what was happening was that, because I'd come to classical music via the big late-19th-century orchestral works, I was too dismissive of music that didn't match the expectations I developed. *So I gradually came to appreciate the music on its own terms.*


This was exactly my experience as well. Perfectly put! :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2015)

I expect your an overview of your Bach thread on my desk by Monday.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

You find Mozart boring - how sad for you!

But I'm happy to think that Mozart and Mozart-lovers will survive; and happy to read some interesting posts and recommendations.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> You find Mozart boring - how sad for you!
> 
> But I'm happy to think that Mozart and Mozart-lovers will survive; and happy to read some interesting posts and recommendations.


Ironically as a kid I used to think that Haydn was boring until I was mature enough to appreciate his legacy . Mozart I have always loved.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> Ironically as a kid I used to think that Haydn was boring until I was mature enough to appreciate his legacy . Mozart I have always loved.


I started with the Clock Symphony, of Haydn, by Antal Dorati, at age 10. So we got off to a good start, because I fell in love with that piece.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I always go to Haydn before Mozart when I'm looking for an adrenaline rush. Mozart and Bach tend to be slowburns for me and even their energetic stuff sounded too rigid and lacking in drama at first, but Handel and Haydn have an in-your-face jubilant bounciness that was easier for me to like in the beginning, and even still.


----------



## sabrina (Apr 26, 2011)

When I was in the late teens, I listened to Tchaikovsky's 6 symphony and I found it boringly sad. I had to stop as I could not absorb so much sadness. I was afraid to try it again for a long time. I recently tried you tube and I liked it so much I went and bought a CD...I can't believe I am so changed, hopefully only for this symphony.


----------



## Oscarf (Dec 13, 2014)

I also find Mozart boring but that for me has nothing to do with Mozart music greatness it is just a reflection of my personal taste and inability to get emotionally involved with his music. I find much easier to connect with a lot of other composers.


----------



## pianississimo (Nov 24, 2014)

I didn't get Mozart at first. Then I was reading an interview with Vladimir Ashkenazy and he described piano concerto no 21 as his favourite. I realised I had a copy of him playing it in a compilation cd which I'd only sampled bits of. I listened to it properly and suddenly got it. It's full of sunshine and wit and warmth. Ashkenazy expresses this so perfectly. It made me want to try more. Now I love most of his music. I'm even learning how to play some of it. Then you can see up close just how clever the construction and the ideas are. 

As for Chopin, I have never heard any piece of his that I don't love. The études are fascinating!


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

ArtMusic said:


> Have you listened to say his symphony no. 40 and no.41?


Yes. I enjoyed no. 40. One out of extremely few Mozart compositions that I liked. Now I'm listening to Chopin. So much better in my view! Maybe it's because it's easier to integrate, and Mozart requires more listening. I don't know. But I love Chopin's mazurkas! Also, a couple of his nocturnes are lovely, especially no. 1, 15 and 20. Not to mention Fantaisie-Impromptu in C-sharp minor and impromptu no. 1


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Oscarf said:


> I also find Mozart boring but that for me has nothing to do with Mozart music greatness it is just a reflection of my personal taste and inability to get emotionally involved with his music. I find much easier to connect with a lot of other composers.


Yeah, I never said Mozart isn't great. But I'm not able to get it. Maybe I just have to listen more, or maybe I'm not mature enough. Or maybe Mozart and my ears are simply incompatible.

I was surprised at the short duration of many of Chopin's compositions. Many of them last shorter than 1 min!


----------



## leafman (Dec 21, 2014)

Art, music and women are very subjective things. One man's masterpiece is another man's abomination. I cannot fault anyone for their preference in any such category.

For me, Mozart is like the Perry Como of classical music. It's nice but not as inspiring, vivid and passionate for my tastes. Later "famous" composers from the classic era and all the way up to Stravinsky et al seem to often thrive in the ponderously lethargic, even dark morass, of what is often termed brilliantly technical music.

Enjoy whatever you like. As Hemingway observed in Islands in the Stream, "No one thing is true. Everything is true." (or something like that).

The original poster cited Vivaldi as a favored pick. Yes, he was slightly prior to Mozart but, hey, I agree with the original poster.

Take a look at this clip from a small, live performance by famed singer Roberta Mameli. It's a short piece (Quick Escape) from one of Vivaldi's operas (Orlando Furioso). Notice the genuine fun she is having. Notice her body motions that bob and groove with the beat of the music! This from a 300-year-old opera! I find refreshing, this sort of exuberance and fun in any music?


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Wow, these three pieces are so beautiful!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

John Galt said:


> Wow, these three pieces are so beautiful!


Yep I think Romanticism might be up your alley.


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

neoshredder said:


> Yep I think Romanticism might be up your alley.


Suggested composers based on that?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

John Galt said:


> Suggested composers based on that?


Tchaikovsky, some select Liszt, Schumann, Dvorak. Schubert?


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> Tchaikovsky, some select Liszt, Schumann, Dvorak. Schubert?


Great, maybe I'll try Tchaikovsky after Bach!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

John Galt said:


> Great, maybe I'll try Tchaikovsky after Bach!


Tchaikovsky is known for writing some pretty dark and melancholic music, just a heads up. You may find quite a bit of it malevolent. Don't start with the 6th Symphony, whatever you do.

Ditto for Schubert. Dark, "death-obsessed".

Mahler is all over the place (I mean that in the best way possible!), but there's plenty of melancholy and darkness, to be found. Of course, there's plenty of _everything_ to be found in Mahler's symphonies, they contain the whole world. 

Give Dvorak's 9th Symphony "From the New World" a listen. Just skip the final movement, maybe.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Ditto for Schubert. Dark, "death-obsessed".


Are we listening to the same Schubert?


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Death-obsession is not my thing. I want pro-life music.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

John Galt said:


> Death-obsession is not my thing. I want pro-life music.


Schubert isn't "death-obsessed", that's a huge generalisation. His output is big and there's plenty of variety, try for example the Mozartian Symphony No. 5 and the Trout Quintet.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

John Galt said:


> Death-obsession is not my thing. I want pro-life music.


To me, this is as joyous and life-affirming as I can imagine music to possibly be. You'll probably find it malevolent, though.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Der Leiermann said:


> Are we listening to the same Schubert?


I did generalize, let me clarify. I'm mainly referring to his late works, quite a few of them are pretty dark. I didn't make up the "death-obsessed" part, it's an actual thing (articles, books, reviews, CD liners, etc.)

His earlier works, not dark at all, of course. Like the 5th Symphony, which you already suggested. Although, it's a bit too Mozartian for my tastes (just as Beethoven's 1st is too Haydnesque to be among my favorites). Anyway, this thread is called "I find Mozart boring". Not sure he's gonna like MOZARTIAN Schubert's 5th. Lol


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I'm mainly referring to his late works, quite a few of them are pretty dark. I didn't make up the "death-obsessed" part, it's an actual thing (articles, books, reviews, CD liners, etc.)
> 
> His earlier works, not dark at all, of course.


Still a generalisation. I don't see much of his late works like the Gasteiner Sonata, Piano Sonata in B flat D960, Wanderer Fantasy, Symphony in C major "Great", Fischerweise, Piano Trio No. 1, etc. as "death-obsessed". And also, why would you, when talking of Schubert in general, refer to his late works only, when there's so much good (and important) music in his earlier years. Might I remind you that such works like Gretchen am Spinnrade and Symphony No. 3 are early works?


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

> For me, Mozart is like the Perry Como of classical music. It's nice but not as inspiring, vivid and passionate for my tastes. Later "famous" composers from the classic era and all the way up to Stravinsky et al seem to often thrive in the ponderously lethargic, even dark morass, of what is often termed brilliantly technical music.


Well, people are entitled to their likes and dislikes; however--and I was hesitant to post this since people are almost always so reluctant to give up their prejudices--most of those later composers found all those qualities 'inspiring, vivid, and passionate' and more in Mozart's music and Stravinsky was one of them. Just something to ponder..


----------



## John Galt (Feb 3, 2015)

Btw, any Chopin experts here who can help me with tihs?

http://www.talkclassical.com/36425-what-chopin-piece.html#post815328


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Der Leiermann said:


> Still a generalisation. I don't see much of his late works like the Gasteiner Sonata, Piano Sonata in B flat D960, Wanderer Fantasy, Symphony in C major "Great, Fischerweise, Piano Trio No. 1, etc. as "death-obsessed". And also, why would you, when talking of Schubert in general, refer to his late works only, when there's so much good (and important) music in his earlier years. Might I remind you that such works like Gretchen am Spinnrade and Symphony No. 3 are early works?


Correct, I did generalize. I'm not sure if you've been following John Galt's threads, I'm pretty sure I'm correct to generalize. If he found Beethoven's 6th to have a dark and malevolent mood, something tells me if he looks up "Schubert" on YouTube, it's gonna lead him to his most popular works, i.e., the Death and the Maiden quartet, the String Quintet, the 8th Symphony, etc. Quite a few of them very dark pieces in my opinion. All it takes is one listen to them John Galt to find he doesn't care for Schubert.

Yes, I find quite a bit of Schubert's best music to be very dark, death-obsessed, if you will. My apologies if that has offended you.

Once again, what's the point in suggesting Schubert's earlier works, which are known for being heavily influenced by Mozart, "Mozartian" pieces, in a thread called "I find Mozart boring". Kinda like suggesting Ligeti's earliest works to someone who detests Bartok. Or Beethoven's 1st to someone who doesn't like Haydn.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Correct, I did generalize. I'm not sure if you've been following John Galt's threads, I'm pretty sure I'm right to generalize. If he found Beethoven's 6th to have a dark and malevolent mood, something tells me if he looks up "Schubert" on YouTube, it's gonna lead him to his most popular works, i.e., the Death and the Maiden quartet, the String Quintet, the 8th Symphony, etc. Quite a few of them very dark pieces in my opinion. All it takes is one listen to them John Galt to find he doesn't care for Schubert.
> 
> Yes, I find quite a bit of Schubert's best music to be very dark, death-obsessed, if you will. My apologies if that has offended you.


No need to apologize. You're right that some of his best and most famous works are/can be seen as death obsessed and as the OP doesn't like that, the best thing to do might be suggesting works that he might like (wild guesses most of the time) instead of just name dropping composers.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Der Leiermann said:


> No need to apologize. You're right that some of his best and most famous works are/can be seen as death obsessed and as the OP doesn't like that, the best thing to do might be suggesting works that he might like (wild guesses most of the time) instead of just name dropping composers.


Absolutely, which is why I gave specific examples and suggestions with the composers I "name dropped" (?)

Dvorak's 9th excluding the aggressive final movement, avoid Tchaikovsky's 6th, a heads-up as to what to expect with Mahler. What am I missing here? Where did I go wrong?

For more suggestions, I would also avoid Bruckner, especially his 8th and 9th. Despite the immeasurable beauty they contain, going by John Galt's previous statements and aesthetic judgments, I don't think he'd warm up to Bruckner. Bruckner's 9th still sends shivers down _my_ spine.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Once again, what's the point in suggesting Schubert's earlier works, which are known for being heavily influenced by Mozart, "Mozartian" pieces, in a thread called "I find Mozart boring". Kinda like suggesting Ligeti's earliest works to someone who detests Bartok. Or Beethoven's 1st to someone who doesn't like Haydn.


As I said, suggesting works to anyone is making wild guesses, we'll never know until he has tried them. I, for example, don't like most of Mozart's symphonies, but Schubert's 5th, heavily influenced by Mozart, is one of my favorite works of his. Strange? Maybe so.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Absolutely, which is why I gave examples and suggestions with the composers I "name dropped" (?)
> 
> Dvorak's 9th excluding the aggressive final movement, avoid's Tchaikovsky's 6th, a heads-up as to what to expect with Mahler. What am I missing here? Where did I go wrong?
> 
> For more suggestions, I would also avoid Bruckner, especially his 8th and 9th. Despite the immeasurable beauty they contain, going by John Galt's previous statements and aesthetic judgments, I don't think he'd warm up to Bruckner.


Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of name dropping, I know you were just expanding upon the composers the previous poster had mentioned.


----------



## Giordano (Aug 10, 2014)

Chill out! Relax! Have a good time!

Vivaldi - Oboe concertos 





Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 21 in C major, II Andante





Mozart - Sinfonia Concertante 





Mozart - ‪Concerto for Flute and Harp in C major‬





Mozart - Flute Quartet in D major





Beethoven - Für Elise





Claude Debussy - Clair de lune





Ravel - Pavane pour une infante défunte





Tchaikovsky - The Nutcracker Suite





Tchaikovsky - Pas de quatre, Swan Lake





Stravinsky - Danse russe, Pétrouchka


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find Schubert boring. So what? Who cares?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

How about Grieg, Sibelius, and Debussy? Quite cheerful music IMO.


----------

