# Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?



## superwomant

I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period. I don't seem to connect with Mozart or Beethoven which is kinda strange because everybody likes them. I don't know much about music theory so I don't exactly why I like/ don't like some composers. 
Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


----------



## Couchie

Perhaps you just haven't heard the right pieces yet?

Take these two and call me in the morning. 

This one starts out with a slow buildup, so give it a chance. Serious goosebumps should be settling in at around the 2 minute mark.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

It means you got good taste,


----------



## Art Rock

It is a wide-spread misconception that we all must like the same composers, because they are the famous ones. Listen to all the great names, and by all means sample the less famous ones for that's where some of the real positive surprises are. But do not be surprised or even alarmed that not every famous name will click with you. As an example: I love Bach (my favourite composer), but can just about tolerate Handel, Telemann, Corelli and Vivaldi, even though they are in the same period and general style.


----------



## crmoorhead

What have you tried listening to? Bach is probably, IMO, the best of the three but there are plenty of works by the other two that are equally as enjoyable. Maybe symphonies turn you off and you prefer the more intimate setting of Bach's time. Or maybe you love Bach's choral works and the other two don't compare. I find that it just takes time to get to into works that initially don't do anything for you. It took me a while to get into Haydn, but then it just seemed to click with me. 

What are your favourite Bach pieces? How do you find Handel?


----------



## Xaltotun

If anything, this just demonstrates that Bach is worlds apart from Mozart or Beethoven (who aren't exactly alike, either!). There's no reason you should like all three of 'em. Art Rock said it well. Myself, I love Beethoven, sort-of-like Mozart, and don't care much for Bach (or baroque music) at all.


----------



## itywltmt

Let's not over-analyze...

Generally speaking, I get that some composers are an acquired taste, buit that usually applies to contemporary music - I guess this is the rare occasion where it applies to classical/early romantics.

As you explore musical periods, it is my hope you will find composers you will like. I also agree with "Couchie", that you probably need to find the right Mozart/Beethoven works. Since Bach's music covers a wide swath, I'm curious what area of the Bach catalogue you fancy most, and whether/bot you've looked at works from other composers that cover similar types (e.g., solo keyboard works).

In my view, music appreciation is just as much about sampling the menu as it is about sitting down and having a meal!

Good listening!


----------



## Argus

Maybe because Bach doesn't sound like Mozart or Beethoven.


----------



## kv466

A couple of Mozart pieces I find very Bach-like are the Fantasy in c minor, k475 and also in the same key the first mvt. of his fourteenth sonata for piano...hmmm, Beethoven definitely has his moments in the sonatas but nothing sticks out...still half asleep here...definitely some of the early sonatas have traces of the great father


----------



## Manxfeeder

I remember an old song, "I don't know why I love you like I do. I don't know why, I just do." 

That's how I feel about some composers: some click and some don't. Explore the ones you enjoy and keep testing the waters with the others. 

One thing that's helped me with classical composers is, listen to the bass line. They were concerned with movement over melody, so the bass helps to highlight the journey they're taking me on.


----------



## World Violist

I feel the same way; love Bach, dislike Beethoven and Mozart. I don't feel any particular rush to "learn to like them" either, I just don't like them at the moment. If I do ending liking them somewhere down the line, so be it. I'll wait for that click to happen. I've got a whole lifetime to wait.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

World Violist said:


> I feel the same way; love Bach, dislike Beethoven and Mozart. I don't feel any particular rush to "learn to like them" either, I just don't like them at the moment. If I do ending liking them somewhere down the line, so be it. I'll wait for that click to happen. I've got a whole lifetime to wait.


Exactly! Let it come to you. That's my motto. I already have small works I sorta like by Beethoven, Mozart, and Bach.

Just, make sure you don't die anytime soon and miss the chance.


----------



## science

I sometimes ask myself questions like this, but I really wouldn't expect even my best friends to have much insight into the matter, let alone folks on the internet. 

I'd bet it's just a matter of exposure / time. Some music grabs some people right away, some music is an acquired taste. 

I do not hold with the "passive response" theory of taste, in which one just likes some music and just doesn't like other music. To me, classical music is not a buffet in which it's ok to pass over the stuff that doesn't look immediately appealing; it's more of a book in which it's not ok to skip chapters. You don't have to like them all, but you have to read them all carefully. And, I'd wager, most people who do the careful reading come out liking the music. Not all of course, but most. 

My own struggles are with very late romanticism: Bruckner, R. Strauss, Mahler. Don't care for a lot of Wagner so much either. I don't listen to them as much as to music that I like more easily, but I return to them occasionally and, slowly, they're growing on me. My goal is to understand why other people love their music so much. 

But otherwise I've done pretty well for myself. I'm good with most music that I've heard from Perotin to Brahms, and from Debussy on, including the modernists (Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Bartok, Ives) and minimalists, both of which seem to bother a lot of people. I haven't exposed myself to a lot of the post-modern guys (Xenakis and so on), but I like what I've heard and I'll get to it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Would anyone argue that it's a matter of _maturity _in liking certain time periods or genres of classical music? As in, it's possible not to be _mature _enough to even understand them?


----------



## Nicola

superwomant said:


> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


I don't see how anyone can be expected to answer this without you telling us which works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven you have listened to. I wouldn't be surprised if it's very little.


----------



## Art Rock

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Would anyone argue that it's a matter of _maturity _in liking certain time periods or genres of classical music? As in, it's possible not to be _mature _enough to even understand them?


Well, at 54 and with 25 years of experience of listening to classical music, I'd say maturity is not my problem.....


----------



## Manxfeeder

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Would anyone argue that it's a matter of _maturity _in liking certain time periods or genres of classical music? As in, it's possible not to be _mature _enough to even understand them?


Hmm, I'd have to think about that. I don't think it requires as much maturity as understanding, which is a form of maturity. What time was the composer living in? What philosophy or current events were prevalent in his/her time? What was the state of his/her health? Who was his/her teacher/influence, and was his/her music a reaction to or a continuation of what went before?

If you can understand where the composer is coming from, you can come closer to connecting with his/her music.


----------



## Tapkaara

I feel that it is a sort of dogma that one must like all three of these composers in order to have any taste in classical music. People will say it's not true but I dare you to express any ardent distaste in any of these three and see how many people come back to you and tell you that you or wrong or, that tried and true all-canceling comeback "you are missing the point." I have missed more points, it seems, than most!

Mozart, especially, is a sacred cow. (I have been raked over the coals many a time for using the words "Mozart" and 'Sacred Cow" in the same sentence.) The general lack of respect I have received for expressing my dislike of him is a little dissappointing to say they least. Mozart is something of a religion in classical music, and any heresy against his name will cause quite the backlash. I've given up trying to make my points because no one wants to hear them. Maybe it's the other who "miss the point."

I do love Bach and Beethoven, however, so my soul cannot be completely lost.

My "point" is this, and please do not miss it: The reason you asked such a specific question "Why do I like Bach but not Beethoven or Mozart" suggests to me that you feel you are EXPECTED to like all three and you feel confused that you don't. So, you have asked all of us (who must certainly like all three) to get some sort of explanation for these gaps in your appreciation for music. You are asking this, I feel, because it has been drilledinto our heads for generations that any and all appreciation of classical music MUST begin with an appreciation for these three. Not one of them, or two of them but all three. But maybe it should be four because, remember we have the all-mighty 3 B's: Bach, Beethoven AND Brahms. PLEEEEASE tell meyou like Brahms...because if you don't, you might as well go find something else to do besides listen to classical music. ( I do not really mean that by he way.)

Long story short, there are no requirements in classical music. Regardless of how masterful a composer is in their craft (and I would never doubt Mozart's talents; he is popular for a reason), what ultimately decides where a composer resides in your heart is your personal taste. And the laws of nature see to it that no two people will ever have exactly the same taste. So if you do not have a love for Mozart and Beethoven, to quote Lady Gaga, "Baby, you were born this way." It does not mean you are wired wrong, it does not mean you are missing that all-elusive point, it just means you are a human who does not have to like everything you hear. Even if the majority likes it.

So, the next time you are at the music store, do not feel ashamed to walk past the Beethoven and Mozart sections with your nose in the air and a disdainful frown. You don't have to like them. It's not a requirement. 

Have a great life!


----------



## Nicola

science said:


> I do not hold with the "passive response" theory of taste, in which one just likes some music and just doesn't like other music. To me, classical music is not a buffet in which it's ok to pass over the stuff that doesn't look immediately appealing; it's more of a book in which it's not ok to skip chapters. You don't have to like them all, but you have to read them all carefully. And, I'd wager, most people who do the careful reading come out liking the music. Not all of course, but most.


I agree with your comment above, which you have expressed nicely. I happen to like all the top 20-30 composers, more or less in the order in which they tend to show up in opinion polls. I find comments denigrating one or other of the major composers very silly, and I suspect they mainly come from people whose knowledge and time exposure to classical music is very limited.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword

I love Bach and Beethoven, but I'm not a huge fan of Mozart (though he does have some great stuff) or Handel. 

It's all about different tastes and such. Different composers, different pieces/styles.


----------



## Tapkaara

Nicola said:


> I agree with your comment above, which you have expressed nicely. I happen to like all the top 20-30 composers, more or less in the order in which they tend to show up in opinion polls. I find comments denigrating one or other of the major composers very silly, and I suspect they mainly come from people whose knowledge and time exposure to classical music is very limited.


I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this. Having less-than-positive opinions of the top 20 to 30 composers, whoever they are, does not mean someone is "silly" or has a lack of exposure or knowledge of music.

There are no requisites when it comes to appreciating music. At the end of the day, it matters no how skilled the composer was, or how universally loved he is...what matters is whether or not his art speaks to you. Requiring people to like any composer, lest they be thought of as a philistine (or some other fancy pejorative) is one of the things, if you ask me, that is really wrong with the world of classical music appreciation. This has got to be one of the reasons people are reluctant ort even scared to approach it or give opinions about it: because if they do not meet all of the needed criteria, their intelligence and taste gets quickly called into question, and nobody likes that. That's not very welcoming, is it?

Perhaps more people would approach classical music if there were less of the snooty, cognac-swilling PhDs in tuxedos waiting for them at the entrance to the concert hall. The only REAL requirement in appreciating any music is to like it or dislike it. If you want to learn about the history or mechanics of a piece, great! That's part of the fun anyway.


----------



## World Violist

Nicola said:


> I agree with your comment above, which you have expressed nicely. I happen to like all the top 20-30 composers, more or less in the order in which they tend to show up in opinion polls. I find comments denigrating one or other of the major composers very silly, and I suspect they mainly come from people whose knowledge and time exposure to classical music is very limited.


Or maybe we just don't like their music. I'm not denigrating Mozart by saying I don't like his music. I respect and appreciate his vast talent. I just don't like his music. Is it so hard to comprehend the difference between disliking someone's music and disrespecting the composer?


----------



## Nicola

World Violist said:


> Or maybe we just don't like their music. I'm not denigrating Mozart by saying I don't like his music. I respect and appreciate his vast talent. I just don't like his music. Is it so hard to comprehend the difference between disliking someone's music and disrespecting the composer?


By _"... comments denigrating one or other of the major composers ..."_, I meant the criticism of the composer's music, as should be clear from the context of my remarks. Obviously, I didn't mean it the way you have evidently taken "denigration" as some kind of character assassination of the composer in question, separate from their musical endeavours.


----------



## Nicola

Tapkaara said:


> I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with this. Having less-than-positive opinions of the top 20 to 30 composers, whoever they are, does not mean someone is "silly" or has a lack of exposure or knowledge of music.
> 
> There are no requisites when it comes to appreciating music. At the end of the day, it matters no how skilled the composer was, or how universally loved he is...what matters is whether or not his art speaks to you. Requiring people to like any composer, lest they be thought of as a philistine (or some other fancy pejorative) is one of the things, if you ask me, that is really wrong with the world of classical music appreciation. This has got to be one of the reasons people are reluctant ort even scared to approach it or give opinions about it: because if they do not meet all of the needed criteria, their intelligence and taste gets quickly called into question, and nobody likes that. That's not very welcoming, is it?
> 
> Perhaps more people would approach classical music if there were less of the snooty, cognac-swilling PhDs in tuxedos waiting for them at the entrance to the concert hall. The only REAL requirement in appreciating any music is to like it or dislike it. If you want to learn about the history or mechanics of a piece, great! That's part of the fun anyway.


I respectfully disagree with everything you have said too. If you can't appreciate the music of Mozart and at the same time see fit to knock his music at almost every opportunity, I reckon it's you who is the odd one out, not the rest of us. Perhaps you should work on it a bit harder, instead of all that third-rate Japanese material you seem to like.


----------



## Couchie

Nicola said:


> I respectfully disagree with everything you have said too. If you can't appreciate the music of Mozart and at the same time see fit to knock his music at almost every opportunity, I reckon it's you who is the odd one out, not the rest of us. Perhaps you should work on it a bit harder, instead of all that third-rate Japanese material you seem to like.


ZING!


----------



## Tapkaara

Nicola said:


> I respectfully disagree with everything you have said too. If you can't appreciate the music of Mozart and at the same time see fit to knock his music at almost every opportunity, I reckon it's you who is the odd one out, not the rest of us. Perhaps you should work on it a bit harder, instead of all that third-rate Japanese material you seem to like.


Well, far be it from me to call your taste into question if you cannot enjoy/appreciate the same music I do.


----------



## Aramis

> Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?


This attitude is deeply rooted in your childhood memories (of which you are probably unaware), everything begun when, as a child, you saw your father...

Siegmund Freud, stop writing posts from my account

Let me finish this one

No way

At least let me send it so the guy will be on the right track

No

I'll click "post reply" anyway

No, you won't

Yes, I will, look wgrt
v4 6jn
43vm,.

bbmm8
0


----------



## Ukko

There are obvious indicators of illness all over this thread, apparently a vector transmitted by the OP. _Aramis_ must be unusually susceptible.


----------



## Nicola

Hilltroll72 said:


> There are obvious indicators of illness all over this thread, apparently a vector transmitted by the OP. _Aramis_ must be unusually susceptible.


The OP looks like a "wind-up" to me, which explains why I asked for further information in my post number 15. The odds of someone new to classical music liking baroque, renaissance, and late romantic but none of the music of the two greatest masters of the "classical" era is low; and the chance that such a person would come here and in their first post ask a bunch of complete strangers for an explanation of this curious phenomenon without giving chapter and verse on what specific compositions they are referring to, defies belief even further.


----------



## Tapkaara

I wonder, do y'all think it is REQUISITE to be an appreciator of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or any of the "great" composers to consider yourself a really knowledgeable classical music fan? Can you like most of them but not one or a few? Or is it all or nothing?

Obviously, my opinion that it is not requisite.


----------



## crmoorhead

Tapkaara said:


> I wonder, do y'all think it is REQUISITE to be an appreciator of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or any of the "great" composers to consider yourself a really knowledgeable classical music fan? Can you like most of them but not one or a few? Or is it all or nothing?
> 
> Obviously, my opinion that it is not requisite.


For me, it is a requisite of anyone whose opinions I am really going to respect.  If they dislike more than one of the three (or thinks that one of them is truly awful), I'm inclined to view their other opinions with suspicion. Sometimes I think that the status of 'Top Three' means that there will inevitably be some people who will look for excuses to dislike them. Its more attractive to sing the praise of some lesser known composer or to champion a lesser known work because, lets face it, who wants to repraise what has been so highly regarded for centuries.



World Violist said:


> Or maybe we just don't like their music. I'm not denigrating Mozart by saying I don't like his music. I respect and appreciate his vast talent. I just don't like his music. Is it so hard to comprehend the difference between disliking someone's music and disrespecting the composer?


Mozart has not grabbed me in the same way the other two have. Yet. I listen to Bach and Beethoven just about every day, but not Mozart. Nonetheless, I still couldn't relegate him to fourth place. I'm happy enough put Bach at No.1, Beethoven at No. 2 and Mozart at a comfortable No. 3.


----------



## Tapkaara

crmoorhead said:


> For me, it is a requisite of anyone whose opinions I am really going to respect.  If they dislike more than one of the three (or thinks that one of them is truly awful), I'm inclined to view their other opinions with suspicion.


I don't think anyone's personal taste should be met with "suspicion." When people simply do not like something, there is no hidden agenda. The agendas come in when people who have an uncommon/unpopuar opinion are met with hostility.

And let's say someone disliked Mozart, Bach and Beethoven but adored just about any other composer that usually makes a "best of the best" list (like Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinksy), should any and all of their musical opinions or thoughts be immediately invalidated?

This is where I have trouble. Telling someone they are ignorant because they do not like Beethoven, for example, just reeks of a certain type of elitism that gives the appreciation of classical music an unnecessary level of complexity and and inaccessibility.

I am very thankful that when I began discovering classical music in the 11th grade I was on my own. I did not belong to any internet forums on the subject, I did not have any other friends who also liked this kind of music and, as a result, I was allowed to feel comfortable accepting what spoke to me and rejecting what did not. I'm glad that I did not feel required...or even bullied...to like something that I did not in order to be taken seriously by the cognescenti.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Again... there is a difference between disliking a composer... or being left indifferent by a composer... and assuming that because you dislike a given composer that composer must suck. The question of maturity comes with recognizing that our personal tastes are not the last word upon merit or what is "good" or "bad". That is even true of our own selves. I cannot name how many composers once left me cold (or worse) who I later discovered to be quite marvelous (and vis-versa).

The world of classical music is so immense... beginning with the 10th century chants... the first works for which scores have survived... and going on through music composed just last week. In spite of my diligent efforts I will admit that there are genre and regional and national traditions, and entire eras of music of which I know very little and appreciate less. For all my admiration of Mozart and Haydn I could not easily name another 10 composers of the same period. Until only recently, the same would have been true of the Baroque. While Bach was (and remains my favorite composer) I could not have named many of his peers beyond Handel, Vivaldi, Domenico Scarlatti, and a couple of others. In the last 2 years I have discovered a wealth of composers of true brilliance that were long ignored or unknown to me. I have also come to change my opinion on any number of other composers. For whatever reason, Berlioz long left me unimpressed. But recently I have begun to reexamine his work... and to wonder, "What was I ever thinking?!" I might even say the same of the proverbial Modernist whipping boy, John Cage. I still think he's overrated by many within the scope of the whole of music... but I also recognize that he most certainly composed some rather beautiful works. 

Mozart ranks among the triumvirate of classical music for a good many reasons. If you dislike his music, or find it leaves you unimpressed, that is all well and fine. But that does not mean his music is bland or sucks or that those who champion him do so without the least critical ear. The great many classical music lovers who admire and even revere Mozart do so for a reason... and it is possible you may eventually be of a different mind.

No one should feel obliged to like something that they don't like... but neither should they assume that their "likes" and "dislikes" are the ultimate measure of artistic merit beyond the individual themselves. 

:tiphat:


----------



## Tapkaara

stlukesguildohio said:


> again... There is a difference between disliking a composer... Or being left indifferent by a composer... And assuming that because you dislike a given composer that composer must suck. The question of maturity comes with recognizing that our personal tastes are not the last word upon merit or what is "good" or "bad". That is even true of our own selves. I cannot name how many composers once left me cold (or worse) who i later discovered to be quite marvelous (and vis-versa).
> 
> The world of classical music is so immense... Beginning with the 10th century chants... The first works for which scores have survived... And going on through music composed just last week. In spite of my diligent efforts i will admit that there are genre and regional and national traditions, and entire eras of music of which i know very little and appreciate less. For all my admiration of mozart and haydn i could not easily name another 10 composers of the same period. Until only recently, the same would have been true of the baroque. While bach was (and remains my favorite composer) i could not have named many of his peers beyond handel, vivaldi, domenico scarlatti, and a couple of others. In the last 2 years i have discovered a wealth of composers of true brilliance that were long ignored or unknown to me. I have also come to change my opinion on any number of other composers. For whatever reason, berlioz long left me unimpressed. But recently i have begun to reexamine his work... And to wonder, "what was i ever thinking?!" i might even say the same of the proverbial modernist whipping boy, john cage. I still think he's overrated by many within the scope of the whole of music... But i also recognize that he most certainly composed some rather beautiful works.
> 
> Mozart ranks among the triumvirate of classical music for a good many reasons. If you dislike his music, or find it leaves you unimpressed, that is all well and fine. But that does not mean his music is bland or sucks or that those who champion him do so without the least critical ear. The great many classical music lovers who admire and even revere mozart do so for a reason... And it is possible you may eventually be of a different mind.
> 
> No one should feel obliged to like something that they don't like... But neither should they assume that their "likes" and "dislikes" are the ultimate measure of artistic merit beyond the individual themselves.
> 
> :tiphat:


Thank you.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't think anyone's personal taste should be met with "suspicion."

Beyond the realm of the most experimental Modern and Contemporary music (which certainly inspires a degree of disdain... and even hostility in some) where exactly have you met with this suspicion of personal taste? I am being serious here... because outside of the comic comments that everyone throws out from time to time here, one shouldn't be told that one "should" or "must" like a given artist or work of art... or be made to feel that liking a given artist or work of art is a prerequisite of intelligence.

When you start a thread asking whether Mozart is "garbage" it seems that you have gone beyond merely stating that you personally don't like Mozart and have intentionally provoked the many who do love Mozart no less than if you had proclaimed (as another member has) that Black Sabbath and AC/DC are greater than Mozart. My guess is that you knew you were being provocative.

Personally, I love dark beer and hate lima beans. If someone else is of the opposite mind and hates dark beer and loves lima beans I couldn't care in the least. It only means all the more dark beer for me, and the possibility of fewer lima beans for me to come across. If, however, that individual declares, "Dark Beer?! How can you drink that crap?" and then proceeds to suggest that one day, when my tastes have matured enough... or when my understanding has reached the proper level... I too will love lima beans... well then we have a problem.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

... let's say someone disliked Mozart, Bach and Beethoven but adored just about any other composer that usually makes a "best of the best" list (like Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinksy), should any and all of their musical opinions or thoughts be immediately invalidated?

Only if they hadn't seriously explored Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart and thought to make judgments regarding their merits... or went beyond expressing a "dislike" Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart into making derogatory statements of "fact": "Mozart sucks".


----------



## Tapkaara

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't think anyone's personal taste should be met with "suspicion."
> 
> Beyond the realm of the most experimental Modern and Contemporary music (which certainly inspires a degree of disdain... and even hostility in some) where exactly have you met with this suspicion of personal taste? I am being serious here... because outside of the comic comments that everyone throws out from time to time here, one shouldn't be told that one "should" or "must" like a given artist or work of art... or be made to feel that liking a given artist or work of art is a prerequisite of intelligence.
> 
> When you start a thread asking whether Mozart is "garbage" it seems that you have gone beyond merely stating that you personally don't like Mozart and have intentionally provoked the many who do love Mozart no less than if you had proclaimed (as another member has) that Black Sabbath and AC/DC are greater than Mozart. My guess is that you knew you were being provocative.
> 
> Personally, I love dark beer and hate lima beans. If someone else is of the opposite mind and hates dark beer and loves lima beans I couldn't care in the least. It only means all the more dark beer for me, and the possibility of fewer lima beans for me to come across. If, however, that individual declares, "Dark Beer?! How can you drink that crap?" and then proceeds to suggest that one day, when my tastes have matured enough... or when my understanding has reached the proper level... I too will love lima beans... well then we have a problem.


Of course I knew what i was doing. Mozart is such a sacred cow that I thought it would be fun to create a brazenly and ridiculously titled thread to watch people go into a tizzy. I wouldn't create such a thread now as the fun wore off pretty quickly and I can see how it would be met with hostility by people. Perhaps I have grown up a bit. Oh well.


----------



## Tapkaara

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... let's say someone disliked Mozart, Bach and Beethoven but adored just about any other composer that usually makes a "best of the best" list (like Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinksy), should any and all of their musical opinions or thoughts be immediately invalidated?
> 
> Only if they hadn't seriously explored Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart and thought to make judgments regarding their merits... or went beyond expressing a "dislike" Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart into making derogatory statements of "fact": "Mozart sucks".


Obviously, no one should make a judgement on something they have not tried or explored. You mentioned the Baroque composer Scarlatti. I do not know any of his works. Perhaps I have heard one or two on the radio before, and if that's the case, I do not remember them. As a result, I would dare not formulate an opinion on something I know nothing about.

I assume the person who started this thread has explored Mozart and Beethoven in order to know he/she does not relate to their music. I can assure all of you I have heard my share of Mozart on the radio, on recordings and in concert and, despite all of that, I am still not won over.


----------



## crmoorhead

Tapkaara said:


> I don't think anyone's personal taste should be met with "suspicion." When people simply do not like something, there is no hidden agenda. The agendas come in when people who have an uncommon/unpopuar opinion are met with hostility.


Of course there is a hidden agenda - it's called the subconscious. There are three ways in which music can be judged.

1. Scientifically - Difficult to do, but based on analysis and logic. It's all music theory and seeing how a composer may do what he will with the limitations of his time or when compared to his contemporaries. It is employed whenever anyone gives an actual justification for their belief rather than a gut feeling. I would ask you this, do you have a logical reason for disliking Mozart? Do you feel any need to justify it logically?

2. By consensus - Of course, the easy way of doing the above is seeing what other people have to say. What have other people (much more qualified than you or I) said about the composer's works through the ages? How often are their works performed? How often are they recommended? No composer can become as popular and as highly regarded as Mozart, Bach or Beethoven while at the same time being stale, boring or just plain bad. To reject Mozart is to also reject generations of musical experts, not to mention the opinions of quite a few composers that you do love.

Of course, this method does go against all anti-establishment thinking. Why should anyone go with the mass opinion instead of forming one of their own? Perfectly valid objection, I agree, but my one problem with that is that you could also pose the question: Why should I be vaccinated? You could make up your own mind on this or you could just look at the research and the science behind it. But, of course, music is an art and not a science. People are perfectly entitled to have their own opinions, but I do believe they better have a bloody good reason for disliking something that is almost universally regarded as high quality. Assuming you dislike Mozart, do you also dislike Classical era music in general?

3. By instinct - This way is the way you advocate. There is nothing wrong with that, but you should be willing to recognise that it is entirely dominated by psychology. There is no magic chord or arrangement of notes that makes music good. It revolves entirely around preconceptions and state of mind.



> And let's say someone disliked Mozart, Bach and Beethoven but adored just about any other composer that usually makes a "best of the best" list (like Haydn, Chopin, Schubert, Brahms, Stravinksy), should any and all of their musical opinions or thoughts be immediately invalidated?


Regarding someone's opinions with suspicion because they seem illogical isn't the same as "any and all" of their "opinions and thoughts" being "immediately invalidated". If they disliked Beethoven, Mozart and Bach but loved the others I would say that obviously there must be some reason for that other than mere taste. After all, what makes music objectively good is very present in the works of the top three. To say that it isn't, but maintain that other similar and derivitive works are still excellent would indicate a complete disconnect to me. I find it hard to see how someone could love Haydn but dislike Mozart, for example.



> This is where I have trouble. Telling someone they are ignorant because they do not like Beethoven, for example, just reeks of a certain type of elitism that gives the appreciation of classical music an unnecessary level of complexity and and inaccessibility.


Who called anyone ignorant? Who even implied it? All I'm saying is that people's tastes are formed by their preconceptions. Sometimes people inherently feel a need to repel what might be 'too popular'. There isn't any concious decision involved in this at all. One could be very well educated, musically speaking, but still lean towards one composer or another for reasons that fit one's personality rather than an objective analysis of the music.



> I am very thankful that when I began discovering classical music in the 11th grade I was on my own. I did not belong to any internet forums on the subject, I did not have any other friends who also liked this kind of music and, as a result, I was allowed to feel comfortable accepting what spoke to me and rejecting what did not. I'm glad that I did not feel required...or even bullied...to like something that I did not in order to be taken seriously by the cognescenti.


The fact that you have a history of liking things that none of your friends did from such an early age does imply that you are quite comfortable being the odd one out, and maybe even enjoy being different. There is nothing wrong with that and I am not going to psychoanalyse you on very little knowledge. I too have discovered classical music entirely on my own and none of my friends listen to it either. I am on Internet forums because i don't know anyone in real life who likes classical music as passionately as I do (or even at all) . I am, however, fully congnisant that I am a little different and that it shapes my tastes. I feel no need to adhere to any conventions, but I still could not bring myself to reject Beethoven, Bach or Mozart. Or any of the 'greats'. The fact is that all of them were pretty damn good at what they did. While you pride yourself in not beign influenced by outside sources, that is somewhat irrelevant. You must have known who Mozart was, so there were already preconceptions there. They only question is why you might have a deep love for Beethoven and Bach, but not Mozart.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I tend find it more fascinating about a person's "likes" when it comes to music rather than his/her "dislikes". It's their "likes" that are often more revealing about their tastes and preferences in music rather than their "dislikes". Indeed, one might dislike composer X from a particular period and yet like many, many other composers of the same period.


----------



## superwomant

Nicola said:


> The OP looks like a "wind-up" to me, which explains why I asked for further information in my post number 15. The odds of someone new to classical music liking baroque, renaissance, and late romantic but none of the music of the two greatest masters of the "classical" era is low; and the chance that such a person would come here and in their first post ask a bunch of complete strangers for an explanation of this curious phenomenon without giving chapter and verse on what specific compositions they are referring to, defies belief even further.


Well, to answer your question, I took piano lessons for many years but never really understood/liked many of the pieces I played, and didn't really care about classical music, so I eventually stopped playing. And I never took up music theory, so I can't exactly explain why I didn't like them from a technical point of view, I only know I didn't connect with the mozart and Beethoven pieces I played or I heard other people played from standard programs. I do remember though all the pieces I liked are either Bach or Chopin alike. 
So recently when I decided to give classical music another run and figure out what is it that I liked and didn't like so that maybe I'll be able to enjoy classical music more and eventually pick up where I left off, I started off by listening to the composers I remembered I liked and didn't like.
I listened to Glenn Gould's recording on Bach's piano pieces and I liked them, and then I moved on to Bach's work on other instruments and I liked them too. So that I declared I like Bach.
And then I Listened to some other pianists's work I find liking, these includes Chopin and alike. And then I went on to explore late Romantic composers starting with Mahle, and I like his work too.
And I did similar things to Mozart and Beethoven, checking out some pianists recordings, but didn't like them.
And then I went on wikipedia and picked the most famous renaissance composers just for gigs to see what their music sound like and I liked them.
And then I post on this board to see if anyone can help me figure out why I don't like Mozart and Beethoven upon my initial testing. 
Now if you have any helpful suggestions you're welcomed to let me know.


----------



## superwomant

Nicola said:


> The OP looks like a "wind-up" to me, which explains why I asked for further information in my post number 15. The odds of someone new to classical music liking baroque, renaissance, and late romantic but none of the music of the two greatest masters of the "classical" era is low; and the chance that such a person would come here and in their first post ask a bunch of complete strangers for an explanation of this curious phenomenon without giving chapter and verse on what specific compositions they are referring to, defies belief even further.


Well, to answer your question, I took piano lessons for many years but never really understood/liked many of the pieces I played, and didn't really care about classical music, so I eventually stopped playing. And I never took up music theory, so I can't exactly explain why I didn't like them from a technical point of view, I only know I didn't connect with the mozart and Beethoven pieces I played or I heard other people played from standard programs. I do remember though all the pieces I liked are either Bach or Chopin alike. 
So recently when I decided to give classical music another run and figure out what is it that I liked and didn't like so that maybe I'll be able to enjoy classical music more and eventually pick up where I left off, I started off by listening to the composers I remembered I liked and didn't like.
I listened to Glenn Gould's recording on Bach's piano pieces and I liked them, and then I moved on to Bach's work on other instruments and I liked them too. So that I declared I like Bach.
And then I Listened to some other pianists's work I find liking, these includes Chopin and alike. And then I went on to explore late Romantic composers starting with Mahle, and I like his work too.
And I did similar things to Mozart and Beethoven, checking out some pianists recordings, but didn't like them.
And then I went on wikipedia and picked the most famous renaissance composers just for gigs to see what their music sound like and I liked them.
And then I post on this board to see if anyone can help me figure out why I don't like Mozart and Beethoven upon my initial testing. 
One thing I know, I don't take music from a technical approach. to me it's all emotional, so I guess I'm trying to find out what is it that's different in Mozart and Beethoven's composition than the other composers that I don't find appealing emotionally.
Now if you have any helpful suggestions you're welcomed to let me know.


----------



## Tapkaara

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I tend find it more fascinating about a person's "likes" when it comes to music rather than his/her "dislikes". It's their "likes" that are often more revealing about their tastes and preferences in music rather than their "dislikes". Indeed, one might dislike composer X from a particular period and yet like many, many other composers of the same period.


I think that is very, very true.

My lack of enthusiasm for Mozart is legendary. In fact, there was a time when the whole of the Classical period made no sense to me. But, slowly but surely, I began to appreciate Haydn. While I would not list Haydn on my short list of all-time favorites, I actually do enjoy his works. I find his music to have a wider range of emotional and textural variety, and I even like his tunes better.

I never actively sought to be turned off by Mozart. As I mentioned in an earlier post, as I began my exploration of classical music years ago, I certainly explored him because he was one of the big names and his music was easy to get. But, alas, the more I listened, the more I realized I was not feeling the same excitement as I did from others. Again, this was not for any particular reason...I had nothing personal against Mozart, that's just where my tastes were being directed...or shall we say diverted.

I will admit, the mischief maker in me has often taken over when the issue of Mozart has come up. Probably not the best idea. Notwithstanding, I think people should be allowed to dislike Mozart, or any composer, and express that without getting the wrath of others. I haven't always presented myself in the best way, though, so I suppose some of the responses I have gotten in the past from angry Mozartians were to be expected.


----------



## superwomant

wow thank you guys for the replied. I didn't expect this post to get so many replied in one day.
I asked this question genuinely so I could figure out why some composers are appealing to me, some aren't.
I guess for me the most important element for liking and not liking a piece of music is being able to resonate with the composer (possibly the musicians who are carrying out the work) emotionally. Maybe to some of you the complexity and technicality or other elements are important too but at this stage for me that's not so important.
I can see how others find Mozart and Beethoven emotionally fulfilling, but I just can't connect. Now I can't explain specifically where and why I don't find the pieces I listened to not appealing, but I feel overall a sense of being mechanical and cold. that's why I'm posting here to ask maybe you folks would know why that happens in a more technical term.
With Bach, I love it because to me, he's always intense, and in all the piano pieces I listened to (like standard prelude and fugue) I feel like I'm in a emotional over floating state for a very short period of time, and it's over. It's like listening to a neurotic person having a conversation with his many split personalities, it's hard to explain but I really like it.
Now with Chopin and Mahle and such, for me it's just really easy to feel the ups and downs of emotions, now again I don't know what exactly happened in the chords that makes me feel the emotions in that way but I just do. And with some 20th century composers, it's pretty easy to picture the story the composer is trying to tell with the music. again, don't know why.
Upon initially random listening to renaissance composers, some of them are just really churchy, which I like.
So here we go,that describes the most down-to-earth, beginner's feeling about classical music.


----------



## Tapkaara

superwomant said:


> wow thank you guys for the replied. I didn't expect this post to get so many replied in one day.
> I asked this question genuinely so I could figure out why some composers are appealing to me, some aren't.
> I guess for me the most important element for liking and not liking a piece of music is being able to resonate with the composer (possibly the musicians who are carrying out the work) emotionally. Maybe to some of you the complexity and technicality or other elements are important too but at this stage for me that's not so important.
> I can see how others find Mozart and Beethoven emotionally fulfilling, but I just can't connect. Now I can't explain specifically where and why I don't find the pieces I listened to not appealing, but I feel overall a sense of being mechanical and cold. that's why I'm posting here to ask maybe you folks would know why that happens in a more technical term.
> With Bach, I love it because to me, he's always intense, and in all the piano pieces I listened to (like standard prelude and fugue) I feel like I'm in a emotional over floating state for a very short period of time, and it's over. It's like listening to a neurotic person having a conversation with his many split personalities, it's hard to explain but I really like it.
> Now with Chopin and Mahle and such, for me it's just really easy to feel the ups and downs of emotions, now again I don't know what exactly happened in the chords that makes me feel the emotions in that way but I just do. And with some 20th century composers, it's pretty easy to picture the story the composer is trying to tell with the music. again, don't know why.
> Upon initially random listening to renaissance composers, some of them are just really churchy, which I like.
> So here we go,that describes the most down-to-earth, beginner's feeling about classical music.


I have to admit that I cannot imagine not hearing the emotional ups and downs of Beethoven, but I obviously do not hear him the way you do.


----------



## superwomant

Also I have no problem not like them, I'm just curious why that might be, so later on when I dig into theory or composition I can be like "oh this is why I don't like them."
and I really appreciate you guys suggesting some of their other works so I can see if it's because I didn't listen to the "right ones".


----------



## mmsbls

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed here -

1) There is no moral obligation to like particular works or composers.
2) Works and composers ought to be judged by the collective classical listening community (or perhaps the subset of those who have taken considerable time to listen and try to understand much classical music). Individuals can make judgements, but those judgements are a reflection on the individual rather than the music.
3) Disliking works or composers that are considered great is not problematic but it might be considered curious (in the sense that it is different from a significant norm).

The original question was "Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?" There could be trivial reasons such as someone has not listened to any major works by Mozart or Beethoven or someone likes being confrontational and consciously "tries" to be contrary. Assuming these are not the case, what actually are potential reasons? Many people here have referred to taste. Not everyone has the same taste. True, but the real question is "Why?" Obviously this is an extremely complex question, but musical taste has greatly intrigued me for a year or so now. 

When I hear that someone does not like Mozart (or Beethoven/Bach/Wagner/etc.), I wonder "How could that be? (not in a judgmental or negative sense, but in a scientific sense). What makes someone like the vast majority of composers but dislike a composer that the classical community deems great? I, myself, don't know the answer, and I suspect we don't know nearly enough about the brain and music to adequately answer the question. Of course I would love to hear suggestions.

Incidentally, I have the same question regarding modern music. Why do I, for example, not like much modern music? It is the extension of the music (Baroque, Classical, Romantic) that I absolutely love, and many others love many modern works and composers. While I have some relatively simple thoughts on this issue, it remains somewhat mysterious.


----------



## superwomant

Are there any stereotypical types of tastes out there?


----------



## superwomant

thank you! that's exactly what I meant.
I can see how other people appreciate Mozart and Beethoven, I don't doubt they are geniuses. I just wonder why personally I don't like them?


----------



## superwomant

Couchie said:


> Perhaps you just haven't heard the right pieces yet?
> 
> Take these two and call me in the morning.
> 
> This one starts out with a slow buildup, so give it a chance. Serious goosebumps should be settling in at around the 2 minute mark.


Thanks for posting them. 
Ok so for the 1st one it started to get goosebumpy at 2:26 and it lasted for around 30 secs and gradually died.
for the 2nd one only from 0:03- 0:40 I liked.
For both of them I feel like I was waiting for the emotional climax but the notes following just turn differently than I anticipate, the climax would never arrive and it's disappointing. 
For Bach and some other composers, say Chopin, the emotions created by the notes coming next are always more than I expect which make them very satisfying. 
It's hard to explain, I hope you know what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Art Rock

superwomant said:


> I really appreciate you guys suggesting some of their other works so I can see if it's because I didn't listen to the "right ones".


Beethoven - Symphony 6, Piano concerto 3, Violin concerto, Septet, Violin sonata 5
Mozart - Clarinet concerto, Piano concerto 20, Requiem, String quintets

Maybe these duplicate YouTube recommendations, cannot see those because of the company firewall.


----------



## superwomant

So I read wikipedia, and I suspect these are the reasons why I like classical composers less than Baroque or Romantic period:

Baroque vs. Classical
Classical music has a lighter, clearer texture than Baroque music and is less complex. It is mainly homophonic [4] - melody above chordal accompaniment (but counterpoint is by no means forgotten, especially later in the period). Variety and contrast within a piece became more pronounced than before. Variety of keys, melodies, rhythms and dynamics (using crescendo, diminuendo and sforzando), along with frequent changes of mood and timbre were more commonplace in the Classical period than they had been in the Baroque. Melodies tended to be shorter than those of Baroque music, with clear-cut phrases and clearly marked cadences.

romantic vs. classical
Romantic music attempted to increase emotional expression and power to describe deeper truths or human feelings, while preserving but in many cases extending the formal structures from the classical period, in others, creating new forms that were deemed better suited to the new subject matter.

maybe it's just like I like more intense stuff, like a bunch of chords and melodies throwing at me all at once that kinda thing


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Sounds like you'd probably like Malmsteen.



> maybe it's just like I like more intense stuff, like a bunch of chords and melodies throwing at me all at once that kinda thing


Yeah, Bach was pretty much the master of a bunch of chords and melodies throwing at us all at once.


----------



## Sid James

superwomant said:


> ...Baroque vs. Classical...romantic vs. classical...


I think that you are intellectuallising & rationalising things (that maybe cannot be quantified?) too much. Pitting one so-called "style" or "era" against another will never help you appreciate them. This kind of attitude just creates false dichotomies, imo. I think there are actually more commonalities between the different "styles" & "eras" than strict differences. I am using quotation marks over these two words because, in my opinion, they simply don't exist. Eg. guys in the twentieth century like Bartok bought back many of the techniques of guys like J.S. Bach that had lain dormant for a long time. Just listen to things like Bartok's _Music for Strings, Percussion & Celesta_ & you'll hear counterpoint galore. Similar thing with Palestrina, scholars analysing Beethoven's late quartets say that he probably incorporated the Italian's techniques into these works, Debussy, Bruckner & Wagner were huge fans of Palestrina (Wagner actually published an edition of Palestrina's _Stabat Mater_ - good old Richard certainly "put his money where his mouth was" in funding that publication, so to speak). So now, given these things, do we call J.S. Bach a "Modernist" like Bartok, or do we call Palestrina a "Late Romantic" or "Impressionist?" These are all bullsh*t terms, imo. Palestrina & Bach in their day were just as much contemporary composers as Bruckner or Debussy were in theirs, or Golijov or Gubaidulina are today. They all thought of themselves as contemporary composers, Palestrina didn't think something like "now, how can I compose something in the "Renaissance" style today?"

I don't want to be vicious, but I'm just challenging your assumptions (& everyone else's here). The moment you use these boxes & categorisations, you lose sight of "the big picture." So, in other words, to be able to access a wide variety of musics, it's better to take each composer on his/her own terms, perhaps taking it further to see how they fit into the wider tradition/s of musics over the ages. That's how I do it anyway, & I like most of what I hear (at a certain level) - a recent performance of J.S. Bach's music moved me to tears (before I saw him as a "tough nut to crack" but I then realised that it's stupid to think of great works of art as "nuts to be cracked"); another thing is I'm getting into vocal music (particularly stage/dramatic musics) which previously hadn't grabbed me that much. Basically, it all boils down to attitude, life experience, openness, these things, not strictly the technical stuff which I basically think is overrated, at least as far as general appreciation of classical musics is concerned...


----------



## Couchie

superwomant said:


> Thanks for posting them.
> Ok so for the 1st one it started to get goosebumpy at 2:26 and it lasted for around 30 secs and gradually died.
> for the 2nd one only from 0:03- 0:40 I liked.
> For both of them I feel like I was waiting for the emotional climax but the notes following just turn differently than I anticipate, the climax would never arrive and it's disappointing.
> For Bach and some other composers, say Chopin, the emotions created by the notes coming next are always more than I expect which make them very satisfying.
> It's hard to explain, I hope you know what I'm trying to say.


Which works of Bach and Chopin are your favourites?


----------



## Bix

To the original poster - simply you like what you like, that doesn't mean that you push away for ever the things that you don't like - likes and dislikes are fluid and not concrete - you may in time come to dislike things you once loved and visa-versa - and none of this is wrong.



Tapkaara said:


> This is where I have trouble. Telling someone they are ignorant because they do not like Beethoven, for example, just reeks of a certain type of elitism that gives the appreciation of classical music an unnecessary level of complexity and and inaccessibility.


I have made a similar comment to this elsewhere on the forum - and as you have said before, if the composers art simply doesn't do anything for you then it just doesn't. I myself like all of the three, but that doesn't make me any more of a classical buff than the person who dislikes all three.

_How would this train of thought show in my world:
patient: "doctor, these tablets are making me more ill,"
doctor: "well you must continue to take them, they are down as one of the top treatments for your condition so you must learn to tolerate them"
patient: "but they have made me stroke out twice and i've been admitted to the hospital due to this"
doctor: "don't be silly, just take them"_

Obviously you are not going to die if you like or dislike one thing or another, but its just that kind of "i know best" snobbery and "this is the be all and end all" attitude that puts people off.

Perhaps the OP was worried that not liking all three would make them out to be some sort of freak in the classical world, which would be unfair to append in my opinion, but it is exactly what some of the responses to the post have made the OP and some others out to be. Yet again, some people have asked a simple question, looking for answers, even constructive criticism, and some on the forum have debased the discussion to personal comments - shame.


----------



## crmoorhead

> I have made a similar comment to this elsewhere on the forum - and as you have said before, if the composers art simply doesn't do anything for you then it just doesn't. I myself like all of the three, but that doesn't make me any more of a classical buff than the person who dislikes all three.
> 
> _How would this train of thought show in my world:
> patient: "doctor, these tablets are making me more ill,"
> doctor: "well you must continue to take them, they are down as one of the top treatments for your condition so you must learn to tolerate them"
> patient: "but they have made me stroke out twice and i've been admitted to the hospital due to this"
> doctor: "don't be silly, just take them"_


Yeah, but you must ask yourself if this a reason not to ever go to the doctor's surgery? You are saying that this extreme example is full justification for never listening to a medical professional (the establishment) ever again. In practice, this would be an entirely foolish way to live your life. To believe that you know more that any number of professionals. A more proper analogy would be giving the option of a second or third opinion. Why listen to only one person's view on classical music or one man's opinion on medicine?



> Obviously you are not going to die if you like or dislike one thing or another, but its just that kind of "i know best" snobbery and "this is the be all and end all" attitude that puts people off.


I have a real problem with people that assume it IS snobbery and an "I know best" attitude. I am of the opinion that much of music can be seen objectively, but that people's tastes are subjective. The opinion that there is absolutely no way to evaluate music from an objective point of view to any degree is just plain wrong.

There is a difference between recognising a composer as being very skilled and actually enjoying their own music to put them in your own favourites list. The latter is, I believe, entirely acceptable, but to rubbish a composer that doesn't connect with you is due to the listener and not the composer. I feel the same way about people who make grand negative evaluations that classical music is completely awful, unlistenable and music has clearly advanced because classical music is a lot less popular than it used to be. I also really don't understand how someone can like Haydn and dislike Mozart. The two are very similar.



> Perhaps the OP was worried that not liking all three would make them out to be some sort of freak in the classical world, which would be unfair to append in my opinion, but it is exactly what some of the responses to the post have made the OP and some others out to be. Yet again, some people have asked a simple question, looking for answers, even constructive criticism, and some on the forum have debased the discussion to personal comments - shame.


Perfectly happy to suggest pieces, but needed a bit more info to do so.


----------



## crmoorhead

From your comments it seems you like more intimate piano works without all the bravado of an orchestra. I don't know what Chopin or Bach pieces you have listened to, but perhaps they were also shorter pieces?

What about this?






I know that this is a contraversial attitude to take, but I really find that it helps to listen multiple different times to a piece to let it settle in. I guess that if you are practicing the pieces on piano, it makes it a lot easier to connect with them. From your comments on the videos, I think that there is a good buildup in the piece below, even though it is a symphony.






The more I listened to it, the more it excited me. I also think that you need to listen to it with the volume adequately turned up.  If you are looking for early Romantic stuff from Chopin's era, I would suggest some Robert Schumann and piano works by Liszt.

As far as Mozart goes, what about his Requiem for 'churchy stuff'?






I am a fan of choral works. If you haven't listened to the finale of Beethoven's 9th symphony, do so! I found it a life changing experience.


----------



## Nicola

It seems to me that this thread so far has been virtually a complete waste of time because it has gone off at a tangent to the OP. The original question asked was:



> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


All we've had so far is the highly predictable but also highly irrelevant comment from the usual quarters that it's OK to dislike any or all of these composers, and that anyone who argues differently is a snob.

This kind of response is totally irrelevant to the OP because it doesn't deal with the specific question raised namely why it might be that someone likes Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven.

The question wasn't _"Is it OK among snobbish circles that I don't like Mozart and Beethoven, and if it is not OK what can I say to these people to reduce my embarrassment"._ And yet this is the question that most people seem to assume was asked. Read the question again, and you will see that you have been barking up the wrong tree.

To the OP the only answer that I can give to the actual question posed is that I haven't a clue why you don't like Mozart and Beethoven, but maybe you haven't yet heard enough of their works. Beyond that, I cannot account for your tastes, and nor can anyone else. I'm afraid that your attempted explanations have not clarified the problems you have experienced, at least not to me. Possibly if you give it a few more years you may change your mind, as most people do. If not, don't worry about it because there are certainly far more important things in life to worry about than this mere triviality.

As for all the answers and comments given on the question that wasn't raised, but which these people like to talk about nevertheless, I can only suggest they get a life, instead of coming on here on lecturing the rest of us on how much they dislike Mozart, and how it is their right to do so, all of which is utterly boring and quite pathetic.


----------



## Tapkaara

Nicola said:


> It seems to me that this thread so far has been virtually a complete waste of time because it has gone off at a tangent to the OP. The original question asked was:
> 
> All we've had so far is the highly predictable but also highly irrelevant comment from the usual quarters that it's OK to dislike any or all of these composers, and that anyone who argues differently is a snob.
> 
> This kind of response is totally irrelevant to the OP because it doesn't deal with the specific question raised namely why it might be that someone likes Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven.
> 
> The question wasn't _"Is it OK among snobbish circles that I don't like Mozart and Beethoven, and if it is not OK what can I say to these people to reduce my embarrassment"._ And yet this is the question that most people seem to assume was asked. Read the question again, and you will see that you have been barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> To the OP the only answer that I can give to the actual question posed is that I haven't a clue why you don't like Mozart and Beethoven, but maybe you haven't yet heard enough of their works. Beyond that, I cannot account for your tastes, and nor can anyone else. I'm afraid that your attempted explanations have not clarified the problems you have experienced, at least not to me. Possibly if you give it a few more years you may change your mind, as most people do. If not, don't worry about it because there are certainly far more important things in life to worry about than this mere triviality.
> 
> As for all the answers and comments given on the question that wasn't raised, but which these people like to talk about nevertheless, I can only suggest they get a life, instead of coming on here on lecturing the rest of us on how much they dislike Mozart, and how it is their right to do so, all of which is utterly boring and quite pathetic.


In other words, we missed the point?


----------



## CaptainAzure

regressivetransphobe said:


> It means you got good taste,


Five stiff little digits should be administered to the side of your head squire.


----------



## TxllxT

I think, that first one should answer the question within the Bach family: do you like Johann Sebastian but not his sons? From Johann Christoph (who already turned 'classical' be it on the bright side) you get quickly the link to Mozart.


----------



## CaptainAzure

I am going to be quite forthright here and say that if you do not care for Mozart then you shouldn't be here in fact to say you don't like Mozart suggests that you should have difficulty opening doors and keeping your tongue from hanging from your jowels as you must have suffered some serious head trauma.

I do not trust a man who says he does not care for Mozart. It can only mean two things. Either he is a liar or wishes to be odiously controversial for the sake of it.
Such a man has no defense.


----------



## Nicola

TxllxT said:


> I think, that first one should answer the question within the Bach family: do you like Johann Sebastian but not his sons? From Johann Christoph (who already turned 'classical' be it on the bright side) you get quickly the link to Mozart.


Are you kidding? Even I wouldn't consider that to be a reason for liking Mozart: the mere fact that one of JSB's sons was around at the same time as Mozart! Good heavens.


----------



## crmoorhead

Tapkaara said:


> In other words, we missed the point?


I thought it was an interesting discussion.  I should probably point out the hypocrisy in taking time out to chastise people for wasting their time and then giving an answer to the OP which is basically 'How the hell should I know?' Not exactly helpful either, but I think that if a bit of common sense is applied and question not taken too literally, it would be obvious that the OP was looking for some suggestions and was certainly happy enough to receive some.


----------



## Nicola

CaptainAzure said:


> I am going to be quite forthright here and say that if you do not care for Mozart then you shouldn't be here in fact to say you don't like Mozart suggests that you should have difficulty opening doors and keeping your tongue from hanging from your jowels as you must have suffered some serious head trauma.
> 
> I do not trust a man who says he does not care for Mozart. It can only mean two things. Either he is a liar or wishes to be odiously controversial for the sake of it.
> Such a man has no defense.


You may be right but I put it down to youthful ignorance in a large number of cases. Many of these people are obviously in the first flush of acquiring any useful knowledge about classical music.


----------



## crmoorhead

CaptainAzure said:


> I am going to be quite forthright here and say that if you do not care for Mozart then you shouldn't be here in fact to say you don't like Mozart suggests that you should have difficulty opening doors and keeping your tongue from hanging from your jowels as you must have suffered some serious head trauma.
> 
> I do not trust a man who says he does not care for Mozart. It can only mean two things. Either he is a liar or wishes to be odiously controversial for the sake of it.
> Such a man has no defense.


Quite forthright, indeed. It did make me chuckle though.


----------



## Vesteralen

I remember an acquaintance of mine back in the 1980's who slept through a Mozart piece at a symphony concert he attended.  He was no classical music veteran, by any means, but he did kind of like the lusher, romantic repertoire. He said he found Mozart to be boring and predictable.

I've been at some rather uninspired Mozart live performances myself, so I'm guessing he must have experienced one of those. But, I've also heard some truly great Mozart in concert.

Last year I had the chance to hear my favorite Mozart symphony (#39 - I'm a sucker for the key of E-flat) done by my hometown orchestra with both the first and last movement repeats (that you seldom hear on disc). It was magical. 

In addition to the Clarinet Quintet and the Clarinet Concerto, other long-time favorites of mine are The Magic Flute and the "Prague" symphony. 

Now, thanks to the Brilliant Complete Mozart box, I'm getting to experience some brand new Mozart - like the String Quintets. The Minuet from the Second String Quintet has already become a favorite of mine.

Sorry for rambling....


----------



## Nicola

crmoorhead said:


> I thought it was an interesting discussion.  I should probably point out the hypocrisy in taking time out to chastise people for wasting their time and then giving an answer to the OP which is basically 'How the hell should I know?' Not exactly helpful either, but I think that if a bit of common sense is applied and question not taken too literally, it would be obvious that the OP was looking for some suggestions and was certainly happy enough to receive some.


Yes indeed, I thought it was not a very interesting question to raise in the first place, as it is very difficult for other people to account for others' tastes. But just in case there might have been a very simple explanation, e.g. that the OP had not heard much Mozart and Beethoven, I thought it worth seeking clarification on that issue. The further information provided on this matter did not help.

Beyond that, I was actually agreeing with a lot of what you have said. It was the answers to the question which which was not actually raised that I have objected to as being irrelevant. You are quite new here, and perhaps don't know about the cohort of Mozart-haters who lurk about this forum ready strike at the drop of a hat, with any old excuse to rehearse their standard arguments. If you don't believe me, try digging out the "Mozart: God or Garbage" thread.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

CaptainAzure said:


> I am going to be quite forthright here and say that if you do not care for Mozart then you shouldn't be here in fact to say you don't like Mozart suggests that you should have difficulty opening doors and keeping your tongue from hanging from your jowels as you must have suffered some serious head trauma.
> 
> I do not trust a man who says he does not care for Mozart. It can only mean two things. Either he is a liar or wishes to be odiously controversial for the sake of it.
> Such a man has no defense.


:lol: Way to go, Captain!

Mozart is easily amongst my top 3 favourite composers. As far as I'm concerned, he was king when it came to the piano concerto (excluding harpsichord concertos, i.e. original instruments when first performed), and also king when it came to opera written after the Baroque, plus several other key genres that many other composers wrote after him.

Most of the comments I came across here in TC from folks who didn't like Mozart's music appeared to suggest his music seemed "superficial" in the sense that it "lacked" the apparent complicated sounds and textures of later periods, especially the Romantic. That's just my empirical observation from what I read here.


----------



## TxllxT

Nicola said:


> Are you kidding? Even I wouldn't consider that to be a reason for liking Mozart: the mere fact that one of JSB's sons was around at the same time as Mozart! Good heavens.


You cannot deny the fact, that JSB's sons received a thorough musical education by their father. You really think that these sons were so inventive to become 'classical'?


----------



## Llyranor

I quite enjoy all three composers, but for different reasons.
-------
I quite like Mozart now, but it took a bit of warming up to. His music tended to sound a bit 'lightweight'. It wasn't until I heard a few of them live at a concert that I really started to appreciate his symphonies.

The sinfonia concertante for violin & viola is still my favorite Mozart composition by far. I suggest listening to at least the first 3 min and see if it does anything for you! I love the dialogue between the violin and viola, and the way the orchestra takes over at 2:26ish just melts my heart somehow. Love this piece.





His clarinet concerto is beautiful too. Perhaps listen to the first 2:30 of this, at least!





His Requiem is also fantastic, as linked by others

-------
My favorite Beethoven composition is his violin concerto. It's such a shame he only wrote one! If you only listen to one part, at least do around 4:00 to around 9:20. His violin is just majestic!





His 5th piano concerto has really tender moments as well. I love the 2nd movement particularly! Starts at 4:20 - see if you can make it till the end of the video and if it makes you want to listen to the next part!





---------
Anyway, I hope sharing this wonderful music helps you maybe enjoy these two composers a little bit more.


----------



## Sid James

Llyranor said:


> I quite enjoy all three composers, but for different reasons.


Ditto.



> I quite like Mozart now, but it took a bit of warming up to. His music tended to sound a bit 'lightweight'. It wasn't until I heard a few of them live at a concert that I really started to appreciate his [music]...


Agreed about the last sentence. Music in the live format is much more exciting for me than on a recording. In fact, I have heard many of those pieces listed above by Mozart & others, although I'm by no means a "Mozartian." I just appreciate the man's music, simple as that. I would recommend anyone who is kind of "on the fence" or "iffy" about a certain composer to just go to a concert & experience the music "in the flesh." This can give you a whole new perspective on the work in question. I was the same with Saint-Saens until I went to a live performance last year of _The Carnival of the Animals _- the humour and even profundity of that work really shone through at that concert.

There were so many facets to Mozart's music, like all the great composers. A big discovery for me was his _Great Mass in C_, a work that sometimes gets overshadowed by the _Requiem_. Like the _Requiem_, the _Great Mass_ was not finished, but what we have of this work (which is still almost an hour long) is 100 per cent genuine Mozart. Another one I'd add is the sublime motet _*Ave Verum Corpus*_, surely one of the man's most beautiful melodies (& here, I think my use of that "cliched" description is fully warranted). But Mozart can have "dark" moments as well, if that's what the listener values. The scene with the Commendatore sending the main protagonist *Don Giovanni *to hell in that opera was the first time fear was fully & unequivocally conveyed in music...


----------



## Bix

crmoorhead said:


> Yeah, but you must ask yourself if this a reason not to ever go to the doctor's surgery? You are saying that this extreme example is full justification for never listening to a medical professional (the establishment) ever again. In practice, this would be an entirely foolish way to live your life. To believe that you know more that any number of professionals. A more proper analogy would be giving the option of a second or third opinion. Why listen to only one person's view on classical music or one man's opinion on medicine?


I agree, this is the point I was making - there is a greater body of knowledge, but that also doesn't mean that it is the be all and end all.



crmoorhead said:


> I have a real problem with people that assume it IS snobbery and an "I know best" attitude. I am of the opinion that much of music can be seen objectively, but that people's tastes are subjective. The opinion that there is absolutely no way to evaluate music from an objective point of view to any degree is just plain wrong.


I agree with this, regarding the evaluation of music - but I found the outright castigation by some to be a little harsh, so I used the term snobbish (perhaps wrongly).



Nicola said:


> It seems to me that this thread so far has been virtually a complete waste of time because it has gone off at a tangent to the OP.
> 
> The question wasn't _"Is it OK among snobbish circles that I don't like Mozart and Beethoven, and if it is not OK what can I say to these people to reduce my embarrassment"._


Your'e right, it wasn't but thats what it degraded into.



Nicola said:


> To the OP the only answer that I can give to the actual question posed is that I haven't a clue why you don't like Mozart and Beethoven, but maybe you haven't yet heard enough of their works. Beyond that, I cannot account for your tastes, and nor can anyone else. I'm afraid that your attempted explanations have not clarified the problems you have experienced, at least not to me. Possibly if you give it a few more years you may change your mind, as most people do. If not, don't worry about it because there are certainly far more important things in life to worry about than this mere triviality.


This is a good general synopsis of the opinions thusfar.



Nicola said:


> As for all the answers and comments given on the question that wasn't raised, but which these people like to talk about nevertheless, I can only suggest they get a life, instead of coming on here on lecturing the rest of us on how much they dislike Mozart, and how it is their right to do so, all of which is utterly boring and quite pathetic.


Members are actually lecturing on how much they do not like Mozart?!? I'm going a rootin through old posts - I like Mozart, I'd like to have a read of what they said - is there a specific post? Thanks



crmoorhead said:


> I thought it was an interesting discussion.  I should probably point out the hypocrisy in taking time out to chastise people for wasting their time and then giving an answer to the OP which is basically 'How the hell should I know?' Not exactly helpful either, but I think that if a bit of common sense is applied and question not taken too literally, it would be obvious that the OP was looking for some suggestions and was certainly happy enough to receive some.


:tiphat:


----------



## crmoorhead

Sid James said:


> A big discovery for me was his _Great Mass in C_, a work that sometimes gets overshadowed by the _Requiem_. Like the _Requiem_, the _Great Mass_ was not finished, but what we have of this work (which is still almost an hour long) is 100 per cent genuine Mozart.


The Great Mass is pretty damn good from start to finish. I was relistening to it last night. It ranks up with Bach's best, IMO. Also, as you say, it is 100% Mozart (unlike the Requiem).

This post has prompted me to go back and relisten to a lot of Mozart now.


----------



## Meaghan

Llyranor said:


> The sinfonia concertante for violin & viola is still my favorite Mozart composition by far. I suggest listening to at least the first 3 min and see if it does anything for you! I love the dialogue between the violin and viola, and the way the orchestra takes over at 2:26ish just melts my heart somehow. Love this piece.


It might be my favorite Mozart works as well! And this movement gets me every time.


----------



## Argus

CaptainAzure said:


> Five stiff little digits should be administered to the side of your head squire.


That'd be preferable to having to listen to any Mozart.

Actually, that's quite a good analogy for the effect Mozart's music has on me, except rather than a nice firm punch to the temple, it's more like a limp wristed slap to the cheek from an Alan Carr-type of fellow.



> I am going to be quite forthright here and say that if you do not care for Mozart then you shouldn't be here in fact to say you don't like Mozart suggests that you should have difficulty opening doors and keeping your tongue from hanging from your jowels as you must have suffered some serious head trauma.
> 
> I do not trust a man who says he does not care for Mozart. It can only mean two things. Either he is a liar or wishes to be odiously controversial for the sake of it.
> Such a man has no defense.


Are all Mozart fans this open-minded?


----------



## CaptainAzure

Llyranor said:


> The sinfonia concertante for violin & viola is still my favorite Mozart composition by far. I suggest listening to at least the first 3 min and see if it does anything for you! I love the dialogue between the violin and viola, and the way the orchestra takes over at 2:26ish just melts my heart somehow. Love this piece.


The first movement is going to be played at my future wedding. Absolute perfection.


----------



## Meaghan

Argus said:


> Are all Mozart fans this open-minded?


Oh, absolutely. 

(I like Mozart and I like Saariaho and others may dislike them as they please.)


----------



## CaptainAzure

Meaghan said:


> (I like Mozart and I like Saariaho and *others may dislike them as they please.*)


No they may -bloody- not


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Nicola said:


> It seems to me that this thread so far has been virtually a complete waste of time because it has gone off at a tangent to the OP. The original question asked was:
> 
> All we've had so far is the highly predictable but also highly irrelevant comment from the usual quarters that it's OK to dislike any or all of these composers, and that anyone who argues differently is a snob.
> 
> This kind of response is totally irrelevant to the OP because it doesn't deal with the specific question raised namely why it might be that someone likes Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven.
> 
> The question wasn't _"Is it OK among snobbish circles that I don't like Mozart and Beethoven, and if it is not OK what can I say to these people to reduce my embarrassment"._ And yet this is the question that most people seem to assume was asked. Read the question again, and you will see that you have been barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> To the OP the only answer that I can give to the actual question posed is that I haven't a clue why you don't like Mozart and Beethoven, but maybe you haven't yet heard enough of their works. Beyond that, I cannot account for your tastes, and nor can anyone else. I'm afraid that your attempted explanations have not clarified the problems you have experienced, at least not to me. Possibly if you give it a few more years you may change your mind, as most people do. If not, don't worry about it because there are certainly far more important things in life to worry about than this mere triviality.
> 
> As for all the answers and comments given on the question that wasn't raised, but which these people like to talk about nevertheless, I can only suggest they get a life, instead of coming on here on lecturing the rest of us on how much they dislike Mozart, and how it is their right to do so, all of which is utterly boring and quite pathetic.


highly predictable but also highly irrelevant comment from _the uuuuusual quarters_

utterly boring and quite pathetic

I can only suggest they get a life

_attempted_ explanations 

*Monocle pops off*

Take a chill pill, daddy-o. You're the only one who seems upset in this thread.


----------



## Pemberlean

No offense to Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm kind of relieved that some people share the same feelings as mine. 

I learnt piano when I was young and couldn't bring myself to really love classical music (except Bach) because a lot of the pieces my teacher chose for me were from Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt etc. Now I don't play music anymore but youtube has exposed me to the beaty of music. A lot of Italian composers really touch my heart - Vivaldi, Corelli, Albinoni, Locatelli, Marcello, and non-Italians too like JM Leclair and Purcell. 

As for as I know Italian Baroque had had some influence on Bach and that Baroque actully spread from Italy to Germany. There are great classical and romantic pieces too but imho nothing is quite like the intriguing soul-striking depth and complexity of baroque music.


----------



## Pemberlean

TxllxT said:


> I think, that first one should answer the question within the Bach family: do you like Johann Sebastian but not his sons? From Johann Christoph (who already turned 'classical' be it on the bright side) you get quickly the link to Mozart.


I like CPE Bach, but not JC Bach, Mozart nor Beethoven - I know I am very silly and prejudiced... one of the reasons for my dislike is their religious stance. JC Bach and Mozart are well known freemasons while Beethoven is thought to be one. This may have nothing to do with their music but in my ideation art (be it music, literature or painting) has to be an expression of what one believes in...

Hope I won't start an unpleasant argument here... just ignore me if you're offended


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Pemberlean said:


> I like CPE Bach, but not JC Bach, Mozart nor Beethoven - I know I am very silly and prejudiced... one of the reasons for my dislike is their religious stance. JC Bach and Mozart are well known freemasons while Beethoven is thought to be one. This may have nothing to do with their music but in my ideation art (be it music, literature or painting) has to be an expression of what one believes in...
> 
> Hope I won't start an unpleasant argument here... just ignore me if you're offended


I, for one, am not offended but I _am _ perplexed as to how you decide to dislike a composer based on their religious stance. I mean, this is even worse than _my_ prejudices against Mozart and Beethoven (they didn't write enough fugues). I'm also wondering whether you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think freemasonry is about devil worshipping and secretly controlling the world. I really hope you'd tell me that that's not the case here.


----------



## Ravellian

People generally don't like what they don't understand, most of the time because they don't have enough exposure. Mozart and Beethoven are not particularly difficult composers, but they are very different from Bach. I would suggest listening to their best known works. This web page gives good approximations for top 10 best known/greatest works per composer: http://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-top10.html

So, in the Mozart list, we have:
1. Don Giovanni
2. Le Nozze di Figaro
3. Symphony No. 41 in C major "Jupiter"
4. Piano Concerto No. 20 in D minor
5. Symphony No. 40 in G minor
6. Clarinet Quintet in A major
7. String Quintet No. 4 in G minor, K516
8. Die Zauberflote
9. Piano Concerto No. 21 in C major
10. Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor

Not a bad list. I suggest listening to some of these works and then telling us if you still don't like Mozart.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Pemberlean said:


> I like CPE Bach, but not JC Bach, Mozart nor Beethoven - I know I am very silly and prejudiced... one of the reasons for my dislike is their religious stance. JC Bach and Mozart are well known freemasons while Beethoven is thought to be one. This may have nothing to do with their music but in my ideation art (be it music, literature or painting) has to be an expression of what one believes in...
> Hope I won't start an unpleasant argument here... just ignore me if you're offended


Well, just listen to the pieces as they come to your senses wihout imbuing them with personal philosophical beliefs from our modern times over these works that are centuries old. That might help, and reading a book about these composers to understand their times and idiom do help a lot too.


----------



## Sid James

Interesting, on THIS list of famous Freemasons throughout history on Wikipedia, a number of composers/musicians come up, some that stuck out for me were Brahms, Duke Ellington, Thomas Arne & Irving Berlin. I'm not sure of how accurate this list is, or how long they were active as Freemasons, or in what way, but if you begin to blank out composers because of them being Freemasons, you may well find out that many of your favourites were of that persuasion at some point in their lives (I personally am more troubled by Wagner's avowed anti-Semitism, but it doesn't mean that I can't enjoy his music to some degree)...


----------



## graaf

I don't really care for Wagner's antisemitism, for at least two reasons: 1) In XIX century Europe antisemitism was very widespread, and no one cared much about it until the whole thing went out of control and culminated with Holocaust, 2) his antisemitism was amplified by Hitler's worship of him. When I listen to Wagner, I don't hear anything antisemitic, but maybe I'm missing out on something. 

If I had to denounce everyone who lived back then and wasn't politically correct by today's standards, especially not correct towards Jewish people, I would have to eliminate almost everybody who ever made a comment about other nation. It's easy to get many quotes about Jews via google, and see how many famous people (and still respected today) were antisemitic. 

On the matter of religion, all my favourite composers can easily be converts to Shamanism for all I care, as long as they can bring themselves to spit out decent Requiem or a Mass (not that those are my favourite musical forms, but there are great ones out there).


----------



## Sid James

graaf said:


> ...If I had to denounce everyone who lived back then and wasn't politically correct by today's standards, especially not correct towards Jewish people, I would have to eliminate almost everybody who ever made a comment about other nation. It's easy to get many quotes about Jews via google, and see how many famous people (and still respected today) were antisemitic...


What I'd add to that is that composers were just humans like the rest of us. They're not gods, they're just human. Of course, my regard for those musicians who were also humanitarians - eg. Pablo Casals - is very high in all aspects, not just in terms of the music they made. But Casals simply shows one side of the coin compared to the other side, eg. Wagner & others. A teacher of mine at high school loved the music of Wagner - she was what could be described as a Wagnerite - but said that she couldn't help thinking when listening to his music in it's more strident moments that it was like the soundtrack to the invasion of Poland - which it most likely was on those ancient newsreels & propaganda films. So you're right, our opinion of Wagner's politics is strongly coloured by what happened in the second world war, Holocaust, etc...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Something people tend to forget when they talk about Wagner: artists are total ****s. All of them, forever.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

regressivetransphobe said:


> Something people tend to forget when they talk about Wagner: artists are total ****s. All of them, forever.


Except Bach.


----------



## violadude

HerlockSholmes said:


> Except Bach.


No, Bach was pretty much a grumpy ******* too.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> No, Bach was pretty much a grumpy ******* too.


Violadude, we talked about this man, Rachmaninoff was a nice guy! There were some great composers that were pleasant human beings... Bach was a very reasonable man I think, very hardworking and industrious, no nonsense, matter of fact.


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> Violadude, we talked about this man, Rachmaninoff was a nice guy! There were some great composers that were pleasant human beings... Bach was a very reasonable man I think, very hardworking and industrious, no nonsense, matter of fact.


Ya he was all those things too. But he could be a grumpy ******* too.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Ya he was all those things too. But he could be a grumpy ******* too.


He said that rude comment about CPE Bach's music, his own son, "it fades, like Prussian blue". That makes me a little indignant!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

clavichorder said:


> He said that rude comment about CPE Bach's music, his own son, "it fades, like Prussian blue". That makes me a little indignant!


Nice one! I read that somewhere too. But to be fair, CPE had the greatest music teacher one could have wished for while CPE was learning, and a stern comment from a great teacher could be forgiven.


----------



## Sid James

regressivetransphobe said:


> Something people tend to forget when they talk about Wagner: artists are total ****s. All of them, forever.


We may as well substitute people generally for artists if we are being so negative. Most people are not totally horrible or angelic saints but somewhere in between. We're all fallible human beings (even the Pope in Rome, who is supposed to be infallible). Like Pavorotti was booed for his voice accidentally jumping at La Scala once. He said they had a right to boo him, they were paying for a "perfect" performance, but my opinion of his kind of harsh audience is not very positive (an*l and pedantic comes to mind)...


----------



## HerlockSholmes

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Nice one! I read that somewhere too. But to be fair, CPE had the greatest music teacher one could have wished for.


Exactly. It's like if my dad was the CEO of Apple and I grew up to become the manager of the local McDonald's.
CPE had it coming.


----------



## Researcher

You have received many answers, all of them more or less right, but inevitable incomplete too. There is a Spanish saying, Of tastes and colours, the authors haven't written. I thought one should try to dwell into the forming of tastes, so perhaps I should be the first to write on the subject. Actually, there are plenty of books dealing with music appreciation that approach it, but perhaps they are too serious or technical to make pleasant reading. So I created a thread here to make a few questions that might help understand other people's experience with music. Your own questions would seem to point to you prefering the music from before the classical structures were set. In my view, one should always go back in time in order to appreciate what a great composer has achieved, never comparing his music to what came afterwards. But as for your liking or disliking, of course your contact with music throughout your life is what will expand your knowledge and love for this art. Maturity may be the right term, or not. In any case, it is also important to see the history of music as a continuous overlapping of developments, rules and techniques. Today, composers use them all at their will, from the early Middle Ages to today's electronics. They also have the artistic freedom to do it. So you will find that the ancient elements are there as well as the latest. In the case of Mozart and Beethoven, it also seems to me that a basic fact is that the individual passion begins then to be incorporated in the music, and of course, Beethoven is an conspicuous exponent. It's not so much as which pieces you listen to, the love for any style comes with familiarity.


----------



## clavichorder

HerlockSholmes said:


> Exactly. It's like if my dad was the CEO of Apple and I grew up to become the manager of the local McDonald's.
> CPE had it coming.


Its not like that at all!


----------



## ImNewHere

*Rephrasing the question*



Tapkaara said:


> The reason you asked such a specific question "Why do I like Bach but not Beethoven or Mozart" suggests to me that you feel you are EXPECTED to like all three and you feel confused that you don't. So, you have asked all of us (who must certainly like all three) to get some sort of explanation for these gaps in your appreciation for music. You are asking this, I feel, because it has been drilled into our heads for generations that any and all appreciation of classical music MUST begin with an appreciation for these three.


I have the same question as superwomant but my point is not that I want to like Beethoven/Motzart because I am expected to. My question is more along the lines of "What exactly are people who like Beethoven/Motzart hearing in this music (technically)?" To some extent "taste" in music or anything else is subjective, but I don't subscribe to the view that "there's no accounting for it". I think people who like certain kinds of music are focusing on certain aspects of it that people who don't "get" that kind of music are missing/unable to hear. Sometimes when an expert explains exactly what aspects of a certain kind of music are worth listening for, it's very educational and you begin to hear the music differently and may even learn to appreciate it...


----------



## Ravndal

I'm not a big fan of the classical era either.. So it's absolutely nothing wrong with you


----------



## atsizat

I also don't see why people see Mozart that great. He has so many ordinary boring pieces. He has some very good pieces too such as Requiem and 40th symphony but the number of them are very very little compared to how many pieces he composed. So I find Bach and Vivaldi much better than Mozart based on how many good pieces they made. That's how I think. My favourite composers are Bach and Vivaldi based on how many good pieces there are that were composed by them. That's how I think.


----------



## scratchgolf

atsizat said:


> I also don't see why people see Mozart that great. He has so many ordinary boring pieces. He has some very good pieces too such as Requiem and 40th symphony but the number of them are very very little compared to how many pieces he composed. So I find Bach and Vivaldi much better than Mozart based on how many good pieces they made. That's how I think. My favourite composers are Bach and Vivaldi based on how many good pieces there are that were composed by them. That's how I think.


This opinion may not be shared by many here but it's yours and nobody can take that from you. My favorite composer is Schubert and I've been burning through his catalog feverishly, yet still have much to hear. With Mozart and Haydn, specifically, I've barely scratched the surface. While I don't agree with your take on Mozart, the fact is his music is going nowhere. Perhaps one day he'll open up to you or perhaps he won't. If he doesn't, there's nothing lost. There's lifetimes worth of music out there. And if he does, you'll get to hear the brilliance that many others cherish and they'll envy you for getting to hear it with fresh ears. Many times I've wished I could hear things like Beethoven 9 for the first time again. Luckily, there's just so much I've never heard that I don't dwell on it. Happy hunting.


----------



## isorhythm

atsizat said:


> I also don't see why people see Mozart that great. He has so many ordinary boring pieces. He has some very good pieces too such as Requiem and 40th symphony but the number of them are very very little compared to how many pieces he composed. So I find Bach and Vivaldi much better than Mozart based on how many good pieces they made. That's how I think. My favourite composers are Bach and Vivaldi based on how many good pieces there are that were composed by them. That's how I think.


Here's the thing to realize about Mozart: the music is about structure, architecture.

You can say, it's a bunch of major scales and arpeggios and stock phrases. Sometimes that's actually the case, but it's about how those elements are arranged in relationship to one another.

There is also the fact that, in Charles Rosen's words, Mozart was a "composer of music whose prettiness alone amounted almost to genius." So if you don't like the prettiness, you won't get a big part of Mozart's appeal.


----------



## trazom

isorhythm said:


> There is also the fact that, in Charles Rosen's words, Mozart was a "composer of music whose prettiness alone amounted almost to genius." *So if you don't like the prettiness, you won't get a big part of Mozart's appeal.*


I'm not sure how this follows from Rosen's quote? He's talking about one facet of Mozart's music, but he isn't specifying its importance in appreciating it. Part of Mozart's appeal is his sense of structure and proportion, yes, but there's also his humor, sense of dynamic, thematic and rhythmic contrast, and increasing experimentation with chromaticism and counterpoint in forms that he perfected himself. All aspects of his music that Rosen emphasized in his books and published essays that, in his opinion, made Mozart stand out. "Prettiness" wasn't mentioned except when used ironically(as in the quote you posted) or in outright disdain. Speaking for myself, and maybe one or two users I know very well who also enjoy his music, if prettiness was such an important component of his music, I would've stopped listening to it a long time ago.


----------



## isorhythm

trazom said:


> I'm not sure how this follows from Rosen's quote? He's talking about one facet of Mozart's music, but he isn't specifying its importance in appreciating it. Part of Mozart's appeal is his sense of structure and proportion, yes, but there's also his humor, sense of dynamic, thematic and rhythmic contrast, and increasing experimentation with chromaticism and counterpoint in forms that he perfected himself. All aspects of his music that Rosen emphasized in his books and published essays that, in his opinion, made Mozart stand out. "Prettiness" wasn't mentioned except when used ironically(as in the quote you posted) or in outright disdain. Speaking for myself, and maybe one or two users I know very well who also enjoy his music, if prettiness was such an important component of his music, I would've stopped listening to it a long time ago.


I take your point, but I'm not sure I agree. A person who is not at all drawn to the "surface" of a particular kind of music, or is even repelled by the surface, will probably not go any further with it.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

superwomant said:


> I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period. I don't seem to connect with Mozart or Beethoven which is kinda strange because everybody likes them. I don't know much about music theory so I don't exactly why I like/ don't like some composers.
> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


Try Haydn - he's like a mixture of Bach/Vivaldi with Mozart .


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Argus said:


> That'd be preferable to having to listen to any Mozart.
> 
> Actually, that's quite a good analogy for the effect Mozart's music has on me, except rather than a nice firm punch to the temple, it's more like a limp wristed slap to the cheek from an Alan Carr-type of fellow.
> 
> Are all Mozart fans this open-minded?


I think you have the right to your own opinion, as do all TC members.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I'm probably the only one who was dumb enough to have this problem, but don't ever cut off Mozart's movements before the end. I find that I can get away with treating the first 3-7 minutes of a Beethoven or Bach or almost-anyone-else piece as a song of radio-friendly length, and for a long time that's how I listened to pretty much everything because it's the format I was used to, and for that period of time I hated Mozart's piano concertos. After listening to a Bach partita I'd put one of them on, dismiss it as trite after the first half, Glenn Gould was right blah-blah-blah, and then shut it off. 

Surprise surprise, when I actually committed to absorbing the full narratives of his music as intended, I perceived more drama in them and enjoyed them much more.


----------



## trazom

isorhythm said:


> I take your point, but I'm not sure I agree. A person who is not at all drawn to the "surface" of a particular kind of music, or is even repelled by the surface, will probably not go any further with it.


Well, of course there is going to be a surface aspect of the music that attracts people, I just disagreed that superficial prettiness accounted for most or even a significant part of it for beginners, let alone seasoned vets like Rosen. Take for instance the poster on the previous page who has trouble appreciating his music, they mention a pretty standard set of Mozart works enjoyed by not just by his fans, but also those who either dislike his music, know very little of it(or both): The Requiem, G minor symphonies 25 and 40, and sometimes the minor key piano concertos, which are almost always his most popular on youtube as well. Since there are many other works of his that could be described as 'pretty', but don't receive nearly as much attention, I'd guess it's the dramatic, or more overtly expressive component(often "emotional") component of the music that tends to grab new listeners.


----------



## Dim7

I have to say as a fan of Mozart's music prettiness is a very important part of its appeal. But I do tend to like things for the wrong reasons.


----------



## SixFootScowl

superwomant said:


> I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period. I don't seem to connect with Mozart or Beethoven which is kinda strange because everybody likes them. I don't know much about music theory so I don't exactly why I like/ don't like some composers.
> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


Give it time, your musical tastes will expand with the main focus drifting around to different areas. For now, give Handel's Messiah a try.


----------



## helenora

superwomant said:


> I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period. I don't seem to connect with Mozart or Beethoven which is kinda strange because everybody likes them. I don't know much about music theory so I don't exactly why I like/ don't like some composers.
> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


as someone has already said "it means you have a good taste"  I'd say it means you have an intuition with music, so first you liked Bach, but those who like Mozart and Beethoven have good taste too  and as Beethoven said "Nicht Bach, sondern Meer sollte er heißen!" "not a brook , but a sea" and he was as Ocean for them as both Mozart and Beethoven knew and studied his works.Well, good luck with both seas - Mozart and Beethoven who turned out to become oceans as well


----------



## gellio

I know, for myself, I could not live with all three (and Schubert).


----------



## gellio

Florestan said:


> Give it time, your musical tastes will expand with the main focus drifting around to different areas. For now, give Handel's Messiah a try.


I agree completely. A short time after I got into opera, I bought Wagner's Ring, because I felt I had to have it. In the beginning I thought it was dreadful. Now I have probably have over 30 recordings of it, and I get on kicks where I listen to nothing but The Ring for a month or two.

I would suggest watching Amadeus and Immortal Beloved. Both films are very much fictionalized, and the portrait of Mozart in Amadeus is deplorable, yet very entertaining. But, the star of both movies is the music. Listening to Salieri's descriptions of Mozart's work, and the characters in Immortal Beloved describe Beethoven's is truly beautiful. I liked classical music from the time I was a young boy. Amadeus turned that like into the love of my life.


----------



## Arsakes

Thread is from 2011 and the user only have 9 posts... what are you discussing here exactly?!


----------



## Clavessiniste

Literally logged in to reply to this.

I’ve been into Baroque music since October 2018. That’s when I began to listen to it with more conscience. I was introduced to Lully and from then on I mainly study French and Italian Baroque.

As of today, I remain extremely inclined towards the French school, so much that I know very little about the German and English one. For now, I only listen to tragédies lyriques, few opere serie (so taxing, long and I speak French but only some Italian) harpsichord, some cantatas, sonatas and some viole de gambe.

Been taking Harpsichord lessons since January 2019, and I tbh don’t like anything other than French music (Rameau, Chambonnières, d’Anglebert, Balbastre, still trying to like Couperin). Italians are okay (Frescobaldi, Scarlatti, but I rarely listen to them). 

As for Bach... I have only listened to his instrumental pieces and Actus tragicus. Despite the virtuosity, his music contains only VOID to me. It doesn’t carry the emotional, vocal feeling as the French and Italians do. J. Christoph Bach, one of Bach’s ancestors, composed however a dope-*** Lamento for Altus called « Ach, dass ich wassers gnug hätte ». C. P. E. Bach’s Concerto W29 is very nice also! But J. S., I hardly like him at all.

I can see why Bach never touched opera, it’d be such a bore to listen to his treatment of the TEXTS. I can’t stress how much the text and their meaning and rhythm mean to my ears. That’s why I prefer Baroque french operas, which favour theatre more than musical virtuosity.

I do enjoy playing Bach’s pieces but to listen to them? Jesus, nah... except for Air on G String.


----------



## Mandryka

Bach was interested enough in Francois Couperin's harpsichord music to copy some of it out, and he would have probably known about Chambonnieres via his connection with Bohm and indeed Buxtehude. We know that he copied D'Anglebert's ornament table for his son. Whether there are more profound connections to these composers in Bach's harpsichord music isn't clear to me, if there are they're not obvious. Clearly there's a lot of Bach in French style, for what it's worth. One thing maybe to think about is whether the second English suite sounds a bit like music by Gaspard La Rue or Louis Marchand. This is what crossed my mind listening to Suzuki's recent recording of it.


----------



## flamencosketches

So vis-à-vis the OP topic, you like neither Bach, nor Beethoven, nor Mozart, but rather only French harpsichord music?


----------



## paulbest

So many excellent posts here
Great topic. 
Bach is no doubt great music,,but as you say,,has a certain lack of emotional connection, at times,,whereas Mzoart is emotive 1st note to last,,,Mozart engages more often than with Bach and Beethoven. Beethoven can be redundant at times, Bach at times can be overly perfectionist structured. (Void). Mozart is always full of surprises,,except his dull 5 VC's, which I never cared for. 


Haydn has always sounded like *Mozart Lite*. Even his supposed great late syms, are not near as magnificent as Mozart's last 6.


----------



## flamencosketches

Paul, I know you're not big on Bach. But try this sometime, I know you love this pianist and his Bach is great:


----------



## jegreenwood

Or Samuiil Feinberg.


----------



## Guest

Having read through this thread very quickly, I would say that the best answer as to why the OP likes Bach but not Mozart and Beethoven was given by the OP herself when she said:

"_I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period ...."_ [blah blah]

I can only hope that now, some 8 years on from the date the thread was opened, that the OP has acquired a taste for the two composers she mentioned.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Partita said:


> Having read through this thread very quickly, I would say that the best answer as to why the OP likes Bach but not Mozart and Beethoven was given by the OP herself when she said:
> 
> "_I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period ...."_ [blah blah]
> 
> I can only hope that now, some 8 years on from the date the thread was opened, that the OP has acquired a taste for the two composers she mentioned.


Might never now since op has not logged in on the site in almost 8 years.


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Might never now since op has not logged in on the site in almost 8 years.


That often happens. She might have packed up her interest in classical music completely for all we know.

Another amusing feature of internet classical music forums I've quite often noticed is how some of the most enthusiastic young classical music fans, who have quite obvious limited experience from the way they rant and rave about particular composers, so often appear to fizzle out completely after a while. I don't know whether they've just become fed with forum life, or whether it's the classical music genre they've become fed up with. I rather suspect the latter in many cases.


----------



## flamencosketches

Partita said:


> That often happens. She might have packed up her interest in classical music completely for all we know.
> 
> Another amusing feature of internet classical music forums I've quite often noticed is how some of the most enthusiastic young classical music fans, who have quite obvious limited experience from the way they rant and rave about particular composers, so often appear to fizzle out completely after a while. I don't know whether they've just become fed with forum life, or whether it's the classical music genre they've become fed up with. I rather suspect the latter in many cases.


Just wait and see what happens to me, it'll prove or disprove your hypothesis :lol: I'm 24 years old and just got into classical music last year, yet I'm probably one of the most obnoxiously enthusiastic posters on the site.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> Just wait and see what happens to me, it'll prove or disprove your hypothesis :lol: I'm 24 years old and just got into classical music last year, yet I'm probably one of the most obnoxiously enthusiastic posters on the site.


At 24 you're almost in the "old geysers" bracket. I'm referring to people I suspect were quite a bit younger than you when they disappeared after making great waves of posts on here. I have a rough list of names in my head of the people I was referring to, but I won't make any of them public.

I once spotted a very interesting observation by a seasoned and well-informed member of this forum, who said that people should not express a disliking of any composer until they're at least 25, because before that age they don't have sufficient experience to make proper judgements. There's much more than an element of truth in this.


----------



## flamencosketches

Partita said:


> At 24 you're almost in the "old geysers" bracket. I'm referring to people I suspect were quite a bit younger than you when they disappeared after making great waves of posts on here. I have a rough list of names in my head of the people I was referring to, but I won't make any of them public.
> 
> I once spotted a very interesting observation by a seasoned and well-informed member of this forum, who said that people should not express a disliking of any composer until they're at least 25, because before that age they don't have sufficient experience to make proper judgements. There's much more than an element of truth in this.


I believe it. My preferences certainly change much year after year, alongside my life, personality, and everything else. So I try not to judge much of anything :lol:


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> I believe it. My preferences certainly change much year after year, alongside my life, personality, and everything else. So I try not to judge much of anything :lol:


I'm preaching to the converted.

I'll point out another aspect of forum life that you might find worth noting if you are still learning the "ropes". It's not uncommon for someone to post a thread asking for opinions about some middle-ranking composer, without making any worthwhile comments themselves as to whether or not they like that composer.

Take Composer X as an example. I have in mind someone appromately in the 20-50 most popular composer category. It's usually found that there is a huge amount of interest in Composer X, judging from the weight of positive opinion in that composer's favour. I don't doubt the sincerity of these opinions for one moment, but for the general observer it's possible to be fooled into thinking that this composer must be somehow "under-rated". This latter term is a much-used word on music forums, even though it's a dubious concept in a zero-sum game like the general popularity ratings of composers.

The reason for the warning, that one could be mis-led by such apparent enthusiasm for Composer X, is that it that the sample of respondents could well be biased in favour of that composer, i.e. his/her supporters are more likely to respond than those whose opinion is less favourable.

For a classical music "noob", rather than thread-hop to pick up possible leads in the above manner, the better way of proceeding in my opinion is to look at the general popularity ratings of composers, and then to work down the most popular of their works. Obviously, some adjustments may be required en-route to cater for special interests, but in general it's best not to form any strong dislike of any of the composers in, say, the top 20 (arbitrary figure).


----------



## Mandryka

With all due respect, I don't see why someone shouldn't sincerely say, after a good deal of reflection, that they don't much like either Beethoven or Mozart. Indeed not only do I _not_ much like most of Beethoven's music (nearly everything between op 18 and op 109) because I find it bombastic and overbearing, I also don't like people who like Beethoven's music, because they too are bombastic, uncouth and overbearing.


----------



## haydnguy

superwomant said:


> I've really just started to explore classical music recently. It seems that I like baroque and some romantic period composers, even the renaissance composers. but not the classical period. I don't seem to connect with Mozart or Beethoven which is kinda strange because everybody likes them. I don't know much about music theory so I don't exactly why I like/ don't like some composers.
> Does anyone have any idea why it might be that I like Bach but not Mozart or Beethoven?


I wouldn't worry about it. Just enjoy what you like. You'll hear a composer you like. See who was their friends. Who influenced there musical compositins (the way they wrote their music). Who their writing (composing) influenced. You're on your way to enjoying classical music.

It wouldn't hurt to branch out every once in awhile to listen to music you haven't really appreciated before but I think at first just listen and enjoy!


----------



## Larkenfield

All three were prolific. That someone can find nothing of theirs to appreciate or like leads me to suspect the listeners, not the composers. Not all Beethoven is bombastic, not all Bach sounds like a sewing machine, and not all Mozart is repetitive. There are listeners and then there are informed listeners, and some can evidently hear nothing of the greatness of these composers that are revered by humanity in general and it’s a disappointment to read how much these great masters, who are the heart and soul of the music, are so often mischaracterized, either from unfamiliarity, ignorance, impatience, or shortsightedness. It’s up to the listeners to find the gold in them and it can be done over a lifetime, even if it means starting over from scratch to hear what one has been missing, or it’s only one thing that a listener can be entirely enthusiastic about.


----------



## BachIsBest

Mandryka said:


> With all due respect, I don't see why someone shouldn't sincerely say, after a good deal of reflection, that they don't much like either Beethoven or Mozart. Indeed not only do I _not_ much like most of Beethoven's music (nearly everything between op 18 and op 109) because I find it bombastic and overbearing, I also don't like people who like Beethoven's music, because they too are bombastic, uncouth and overbearing.


I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities between any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Mandryka said:


> Indeed not only do I _not_ much like most of Beethoven's music (nearly everything between op 18 and op 109) because I find it bombastic and overbearing, I also don't like people who like Beethoven's music, because they too are bombastic, uncouth and overbearing.


Welly well well


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities between any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


Would that Beethoven groupies shared one neck, so that I could hang them all with a single rope!


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities between any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


I dislike Beethoven listeners, Mozart listeners, and Bach listeners. In fact I'm coming to dislike listeners in general.


----------



## KenOC

BachIsBest said:


> I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities *between *any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


I believe the word you want is *among*. -5 points for grammar, and -50 points for your opinion overall, which is of course execrable.


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities between any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


As you obviously never meet anyone as you sit in your little bubble it is not surprising you have these illusions. Your name isn't H Hughes by any chance? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

I must confess I always feel sorry for these people who can't experience a catholicity of taste in music. I can equally enjoy Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Which do I enjoy most? The one I'm listening to at the time!


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> As you obviously never meet anyone as you sit in your little bubble it is not surprising you have these illusions. Your name isn't H Hughes by any chance? :lol:


He's clearly being facetious.

Anyway, I hold Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven in equal esteem, with perhaps Bach edging the other two out on a good day. I think these three are well-deserved titans of the past 300 years of music.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh well. It seems I have made - or rather discovered - "enemies" or people who don't like me. And just because I greatly enjoy Beethoven. Apparently all those who like Beethoven are the same. That would be very _Ludwigist _ were it not for the fact that I am not in a disadvantaged minority.


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> I too dislike all those Beethoven listeners. It's really weird how they're just identical copies of each other whom you can then so easily judge as a collective with no dissimilarities between any of them. Makes it easy to dislike them all.


Yes indeed. The more experience of life I have the more I see that we are _fundamentally _caricatures. Of course there are dissimilarities amongst Beethoven groupies but they're not essential, these differences don't explain anything important about these people. The people who rate his bombastic overbearing barn storming middle period music do so because they themselves are bombastic and overbearing -- or aspire to be.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Wow! I'm wondering where the bombast is in the Pastoral or the violin concerto or the Opus 59/1 quartet? Perhaps it is overbearing of me to ask. But do you really think we who recognise Beethoven's greatness become (or already are) like his music? That seems like an extraordinary (and, frankly, a rather overbearing) idea. I wonder how it works when we like lots of other very different music as well?


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Wow! I'm wondering where the bombast is in the Pastoral
> .


Storm



Enthusiast said:


> violin concerto


Everywhere unless played by Thomas Zehetmair



Enthusiast said:


> Opus 9/1 quartet?


Don't know that one



Enthusiast said:


> we who recognise Beethoven's greatness


I recognise Beethoven's greatness, as a cultural phenomenon. I don't understand any other sense of greatness in this context.

What I'm about to say next is totally irrelevant: I very much like op 131 and some of the violin sonatas.



Enthusiast said:


> But do you really think we who recognise Beethoven's greatness become (or already are) like his music?


It's similar to the way that people look like their dogs, or what they eat (e .g. in Germany they eat a lot of pork . . . )



Enthusiast said:


> That seems like an extraordinary idea and I wonder how it works when we like lots of other very different music.


Multiple personalities.


----------



## KenOC

Some of these comments remind me of John Ruskin: "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer."

I can only conclude that he had unfortunate ears, and that perhaps that condition is not terribly rare.


----------



## BachIsBest

Mandryka said:


> Yes indeed. The more experience of life I have the more I see that we are _fundamentally _caricatures. Of course there are dissimilarities amongst Beethoven groupies but they're not essential, these differences don't explain anything important about these people. The people who rate his bombastic overbearing barn storming middle period music do so because they themselves are bombastic and overbearing -- or aspire to be.


Just like how everyone who enjoys reading murder novels does so because they enjoy murdering people themselves! It's all so simple really.

In all seriousness, unless you believe, rather ironically, that we're all unique caricatures, I feel your life experience has been rather poor. My top four (personal) favourite composers are Bach, Berlioz, Mahler, and Mozart. As I'm not schizophrenic (that's what the voices in my head tell me anyways) I fail to see how one could draw consistent conclusions about me from this information even assuming that my tastes in art are somehow in one-to-one correspondence with my personality traits.


----------



## BachIsBest

KenOC said:


> Some of these comments remind me of John Ruskin: "Beethoven always sounds like the upsetting of bags - with here and there a dropped hammer."
> 
> I can only conclude that he had unfortunate ears, and that perhaps that condition is not terribly rare.


If that was the case it seems you become more similar to the composer the more you dislike them. Wierd.

Also, you get -5 points for punctuation. There should be no comma after ears.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mandryka said:


> Everywhere unless played by Thomas Zehetmair


Yes, that's a good one but there are others ...



Mandryka said:


> Don't know that one


Sorry - typo (corrected now in the post). I meant Op. 59/1



Mandryka said:


> Multiple personalities.


So ... we are all multiple personalities. That may be true.


----------



## Mandryka

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry - typo (corrected now in the post). I meant Op. 59/1


Hate it. It's manipulative music, you can feel him bullying you into feeling a certain way.

(Actually I hate it so much that it's probably about 20 years since I last heard it. It would be ironic if I liked it now.)


----------



## DavidA

BachIsBest said:


> Just like how everyone who enjoys reading murder novels does so because they enjoy murdering people themselves! It's all so simple really.
> 
> In all seriousness, unless you believe, rather ironically, that we're all unique caricatures, I feel your life experience has been rather poor. *My top four (personal) favourite composers are Bach, Berlioz, Mahler, and Mozart.* As I'm not schizophrenic (that's what the voices in my head tell me anyways) I fail to see how one could draw consistent conclusions about me from this information even assuming that my tastes in art are somehow in one-to-one correspondence with my personality traits.


As you said in your thread title you don't like Mozart naming as one of your favourite composers appears a bit odd.


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> In all seriousness, unless you believe, rather ironically, that we're all unique caricatures


I didn't say that we are caricatures. I said that the things which mark our differences aren't explanatory, they don't explain why people do what they do, why they are as they are.

When we write our autobiographies, when we're in rehab and we write that story of our life, we see that out life is a cliche.


----------



## BachIsBest

Mandryka said:


> I didn't say that we are caricatures.


and previously...



Mandryka said:


> The more experience of life I have the more I see that we are _fundamentally_ caricatures.


----------



## BachIsBest

DavidA said:


> As you said in your thread title you don't like Mozart naming as one of your favourite composers appears a bit odd.


I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think I've ever said anything negative about Mozart and certainly nothing on this thread.


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> and previously...


There's a differerence between saying that we are fundamentally caricatures and we are only caricatures.


----------



## BachIsBest

Mandryka said:


> There's a differerence between saying that we are fundamentally caricatures and we are only caricatures.


Yes, but I never claimed you said we were only caricatures and you claimed to have never said that we are caricatures not that we are only caricatures.


----------



## Mandryka

BachIsBest said:


> Yes, but I never claimed you said we were only caricatures and you claimed to have never said that we are caricatures not that we are only caricatures.


By the way, the idea grabbed my intention while reading a novel on a train, a really not very good novel IMO, but then towards the end there are two chapters, about 50 pages out of about 400, where the author suddenly finds real inspiration. And this idea about caricatures that I've been exploring with you is in it. It's a book called Vernon Subutex, I'm not sure if it's in English.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Why not do them all together, all sounds the same to me


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> Hate it. It's manipulative music, you can feel him bullying you into feeling a certain way.
> 
> (Actually I hate it so much that it's probably about 20 years since I last heard it. It would be ironic if I liked it now.)


That you hold this opinion goes some way to explaining your opinions on Brahms & his "hectoring" piano music. :lol:


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I am not sure a correlation can _explain_ anything! So these opinions from a very experienced, perceptive and thoughtful listener remain a mystery. 

Sorry - I must be in "scientist mode" at the moment.


----------



## flamencosketches

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I am not sure a correlation can _explain_ anything! So these opinions from a very experienced, perceptive and thoughtful listener remain a mystery.
> 
> Sorry - I must be in "scientist mode" at the moment.


All comes down to personal taste. Not everyone is going to like Beethoven (or Bach, or Mozart, or Schubert, or whoever)!


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> The more experience of life I have the more I see that we are _fundamentally _caricatures.


OK, caricatures, but of what?



Mandryka said:


> Of course there are dissimilarities amongst Beethoven groupies but they're not essential, these differences don't explain anything important about these people. The people who rate his bombastic overbearing barn storming middle period music do so because they themselves are bombastic and overbearing -- or aspire to be.


I do not think, that all LvB's middle period music is bombastic and overbearing. Some of it is definitely e.g. the Emperor concerto and the 5th. symphony, which I rarely listen to any more, but I would not call the op.31 sonatas and the Waldstein sonata bombastic. And I find some of his late period music very bombastic too e.g. Grosse fuge, Missa Solemnis and the Choral symphony. This bombastic tendency became much more pronounced in the Romantic and Late Romantic era e.g. Mahler and Wagner, two composers who do nothing for me at all.


----------



## Mandryka

Yes, some of the violin sonatas are exceptions too. The Grosse Fugue is a strange thing to think about, especially in the context of op 130, I live in hope of a classical performance.


----------



## Xisten267

premont said:


> OK, caricatures, but of what?
> 
> I do not think, that all LvB's middle period music is bombastic and overbearing. Some of it is definitely e.g. the Emperor concerto and the 5th. symphony, which I rarely listen to any more, but I would not call the op.31 sonatas and the Waldstein sonata bombastic. And I find some of his late period music very bombastic too e.g. Grosse fuge, Missa Solemnis and the Choral symphony. This bombastic tendency became much more pronounced in the Romantic and Late Romantic era e.g. Mahler and Wagner, two composers who do nothing for me at all.


"Bombastic":

"High-sounding but with little meaning; inflated." - Google.
"That sounds impressive but has little meaning." - Collins Dictionary.

Beethoven and the great composers from Romanticism _are not_ bombastic in my opinion. Their music is very intense as they work with strong, passionate kinds of expression, but there is a lot of meaning to the works of a Beethoven or of a Wagner. Nobody has to like an aesthetic, but I find it baffling when people start to criticize great works of art just because they don't get them. I don't know why music should be emotionally controlled, restrained all the time.



Mandryka said:


> With all due respect, I don't see why someone shouldn't sincerely say, after a good deal of reflection, that they don't much like either Beethoven or Mozart. Indeed not only do I _not_ much like most of Beethoven's music (nearly everything between op 18 and op 109) because I find it bombastic and overbearing,* I also don't like people who like Beethoven's music, because they too are bombastic, uncouth and overbearing.*


About this notion that all beethovenians are "bombastic, uncouth and overbearing", frankly I find it a very unfair generalization and, as Beethoven is amongst my most favorite composers, I feel offended by it. Perhaps some of us may have our punctual problems with a few more radical admirers of this or that composer, but to say that _all_ people who like them share an unproper behaviour is to me a quite simplistic mistake.

*To the OP:*

I know that this thread is old, but my perspective is that there's no need for anyone to like Mozart or Beethoven or any other great composer. Different people are touched by different kinds of music, and one knows when he/she likes or not a piece. Yet, my opinion is that we should respect the achievements of the great artists, connecting or not with their art. Of course, there's always the possibility that one may be having difficulties with a composer due to extra-musical reasons, bad performances or lack of knowledge of his "right" pieces, so I also believe in keep trying listening even to composers whose music one doesn't like in the moment, for it's possible that one reconsiders his/her position in the future.


----------



## Xisten267

Woodduck said:


> I dislike Beethoven listeners, Mozart listeners, and Bach listeners. In fact I'm coming to dislike listeners in general.


I hope that you don't dislike readers aswell, for I love to read what you has to say. :tiphat:


----------



## starthrower

Current favorite : Bach
Old Favorite : Beethoven
Very occasional listen : Mozart


----------



## chu42

premont said:


> I do not think, that all LvB's middle period music is bombastic and overbearing. Some of it is definitely e.g. the Emperor concerto and the 5th. symphony, which I rarely listen to any more, but I would not call the op.31 sonatas and the Waldstein sonata bombastic. And I find some of his late period music very bombastic too e.g. Grosse fuge, Missa Solemnis and the Choral symphony. This bombastic tendency became much more pronounced in the Romantic and Late Romantic era e.g. Mahler and Wagner, two composers who do nothing for me at all.


You're criticizing middle-Beethoven, Mahler, and Wagner as if they don't have subtleties in their music, which is objectively false.

It's either that you think "bombastic" equals "loud all the time", which also would not be anywhere close to a characterization of the above composer's music, or you can't hear anything from these composers except the loud parts.

Have you listened to the Emperor Concerto? Like _really_ listened to the Emperor Concerto? And "bombast" is the first thing that comes to your mind in one of the most elegant, stately, pieces ever written? How about Mahler's 4th Symphony? And the Grosse Fugue? That's about as far from bombastic as you can get.

Try these for bombastic:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Allerius said:


> "Bombastic":
> 
> "High-sounding but with little meaning; inflated." - Google.
> "That sounds impressive but has little meaning." - Collins Dictionary.


There would be two equally valid ways to approach this, IMO:

1. State that music is innately meaningless because it is not language, thus making all music that goes for anything loud or grand bombastic, making the accusation rather pointless.

2. State that meaning is innately subjective and thus any claims of "bombast" would be purely subjective claims.

I'm fine with either, though I suspect more here would object to 1. rather than 2.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Enthusiast said:


> So ... we are all multiple personalities. That may be true.


Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) -- Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

Anyone who can't listen to, watch, read, etc. and appreciate anything that's outside their personality is very small indeed. One of the great things about art is precisely that it can introduce us to people, cultures, ways of life, modes of thought, etc. that are far outside our own. Enjoying those things does not require multiple personalities, but rather curiosity, empathy, and perhaps a smidgen of passion for the possibilities of expression within the art-form.


----------



## Mandryka

This is why I said Beethoven's middle period has a lot of bombastic music in it. When I listen to much of it, I feel as though I'm being shouted at by a showoff. 

Or maybe in front of someone who's turning on the waterworks to manipulate me.

Most of Mahler's music more so.


----------



## hammeredklavier

premont said:


> I would not call the op.31 sonatas and the Waldstein sonata bombastic.


Also the Razumovsky string quartets.
Beethoven's "bombasticity" doesn't match these:


----------



## Pastoral

I am an occasional reader of this forum, and please allow me to chime in.

The slow movement of Op 59/1 was a piece I once couldn't get enough of. I think it's one of the most generous melodies from Beethoven, considering its breadth. It's painfully beautiful, but it looks like not everyone likes it. Op 78 and Op 90 both have very tender sweet melodies. There are many other calm and gentle movements in apparently "bombastic" pieces, of course. And to me, Appassionata is more like despair and cry for help, rather than bombastic.


----------



## chu42

hammeredklavier said:


> Also the Razumovsky string quartets.
> Beethoven's "bombasticity" doesn't match these:


I was going to post the Orage but not sure if it's fair considering that there are hardly any ways to convey a storm without being bombastic.

Fortunately, Liszt does have quite a few pieces that are just sheer virtuosity over anything else.


----------



## Woodduck

Almost none of the music that people are characterizing as "bombastic" deserves that epithet. "Bombast" implies excess - much sound and fury, signifying too little. Beethoven's 5th (symphony or concerto), Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto, Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony, the Grosse Fuge, even (probably) the maligned Overture 1812... I've never found any excess in any of these works, all of which justify their form with appropriate expression. Not one of them is louder or longer than it should be. "Bombastic" usually ends up being nothing but an expression of someone's inability to identify with a particular composer or work.


----------



## Mandryka

Pastoral said:


> And to me, Appassionata is more like despair and cry for help, rather than bombastic.


A lot depends on performance. Arrau made it sound a bit like that.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Almost none of the music that people are characterizing as "bombastic" deserve that epithet. "Bombast" implies excess - much sound and fury, signifying too little. Beethoven's 5th (symphony or concerto), Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto, Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony, the Grosse Fuge, even (probably) the maligned Overture 1812... I've never found any excess in any of these works, all of which justify their form with appropriate expression. Not one of them is louder or longer than it should be. "Bombastic" usually ends up being nothing but an expression of someone's inability to identify with a particular composer or work.


I don't think bombast in the sense I meant it is about quantity, it's about the quality of expression. It has to do with the way the music harangues the listener.


----------



## premont

Mandryka said:


> I don't think bombast in the sense I meant it is about quantity, it's about the quality of expression. It has to do with the way the music harangues the listener.


Bombastic may be the wrong term. What is annoying to me, it is rather, that the Romantic music is emotionally intrusive in a way, which focuses too much upon the composers private feelings. And also that the composers spend so long time on something that can be said much shorter.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ Or rather, if I have followed you correctly, what certain music makes you feel about it. The difference is that what you feel when you listen to middle period Beethoven and most Mahler is personal - music having no objective meaning acts a little like a Rorschach pattern - and perhaps not about the music at all?


----------



## premont

Enthusiast said:


> ^ Or rather, if I have followed you correctly, what certain music makes you feel about it. The difference is that what you feel when you listen to middle period Beethoven and most Mahler is personal - music having no objective meaning acts a little like a Rorschach pattern - and perhaps not about the music at all?


I am not generally adverse to middle (or late) period LvB - only to some individual works.

Concerning the Rorschach test I think that some of his cards were intended to be psychologically intrusive in some way or the other. In the same way that I think Mahler's music was intended to be emotionally intrusive in some way or the other - he wanted to express something about his own emotions. The fact that I responds to this (even if in a negative way) only tells that I am more or less a child of the same culture as him.


----------



## anahit

i liked only bach until i was 18, than i stared to like mozart and haydn too.
bach is in a way both easy to comprehend and difficult to reason. he is "all in one" packed.
mozart and haydn are "unzipped", so you hear and understand both horizontally and vertically.
zipped bach seems to be more appealing for me.


----------



## Larkenfield

premont said:


> Bombastic may be the wrong term. What is annoying to me, it is rather, that the Romantic music is emotionally intrusive in a way, which focuses too much upon the composers private feelings. And also that the composers spend so long time on something that can be said much shorter.


I believe it's mostly the wrong term as well and there's some truth in what you say. But that's why selectivity, as in all things, makes a difference. Sometimes one's in the mood for Romantic subjectivity and sometimes one isn't, and it may have little or nothing to do with what some consider "bombast."... If one likes Beethoven at all, it seems silly to write off his middle where most of his most famous symphonies were written. What about the slow movement in those symphonies? It's Beethoven in a more thoughtful and contemplative mood, and yet the critics never mention when he's not being overly enthusiastic, overbearing or extroverted. The middle of Beethoven is often what he is best known for. But he can be explosive and sometimes this may wear out some of his listeners until they can replenish themselves and come back again later... It seems to me that to get into any period of music in depth it can help to learn how to listen to it because the intention behind it can differ. And yet some listeners continue to try to fit a square peg into a round hole and condemn one period of music over another that has its own benefits and advantages. As the human race continues to evolve, however inept it may seem, the music involves with it and this is no longer 1750 or 1828 when Beethoven died, and I believe that humanity is supposed to keep up if they find anything good and beneficial in the arts, including what some of the contemporary composers are trying to do today, because there's great variety and it's not just about one thing... It's understandable that the composers wanted to please themselves during the rise of Romanticism after having to please royalty and the aristocracy during the Classical period. Composers were no longer treated like hired servants who could not risk offending their patrons. That died during the Romantic era though patronage was still needed, but it was more on an equal basis with their patrons and they were not looked down on in the same way. Mozart hated that but couldn't do anything about it at the time because it wasn't time... _Vive la difference_ in the eras. Find the gold! Genius exists within every period.


----------



## Ras

One man's bombast is another man's grandeur.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?Probably because Bach was a contrapuntal composer, and did not think abstractly about harmonic progressions. He was an old-school thinker, and conservative. He knew about Rameau's more progressive music theory, but rejected it.

Beethoven was much more rhythmic.

So, you're a conservative with no rhythm.

The "Romantic" being bombastic doesn't make sense in light of Glenn Gould's quiet, introspective readings of Brahms' Intermezzi, which I'm listening to now.


----------



## millionrainbows

starthrower said:


> Current favorite : Bach
> Old Favorite : Beethoven
> Very occasional listen : Mozart


Current favorite: Mozart
Old favorite: Bach
Very occasional listen: Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> This is why I said Beethoven's middle period has a lot of bombastic music in it. When I listen to much of it, I feel as though I'm being shouted at by a showoff.
> 
> Or maybe in front of someone who's turning on the waterworks to manipulate me.
> 
> Most of Mahler's music more so.


The last time I listened to Beethoven, I felt a warmth and then a distinct stinging sensation in my buttocks, which was probably a repressed memory of childhood abuse resurfacing (the second grade, Mrs. Wallace). The waterworks? That too, but I'll not go into it.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> The last time I listened to Beethoven, I felt a warmth and then a distinct stinging sensation in my buttocks, which was probably a repressed memory of childhood abuse resurfacing (the second grade, Mrs. Wallace). The waterworks? That too, but I'll not go into it.


I think you should change your name to Jean Jacques Rousseau.


----------



## chu42

Woodduck said:


> Almost none of the music that people are characterizing as "bombastic" deserve that epithet. "Bombast" implies excess - much sound and fury, signifying too little. Beethoven's 5th (symphony or concerto), Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto, Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony, the Grosse Fuge, even (probably) the maligned Overture 1812... I've never found any excess in any of these works, all of which justify their form with appropriate expression. Not one of them is louder or longer than it should be. "Bombastic" usually ends up being nothing but an expression of someone's inability to identify with a particular composer or work.


I completely agree with you while standing by all my choices. I do think the 1812 Overture is bombastic, although it's rather difficult to argue this from an objective standpoint.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

chu42 said:


> I completely agree with you while standing by all my choices. I do think the 1812 Overture is bombastic, although it's rather difficult to argue this from an objective standpoint.


If calling for cannons in a finale isn't bombastic, I'm not sure what else possibly could be!


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?Probably because Bach was a contrapuntal composer, and did not think abstractly about harmonic progressions. He was an old-school thinker, and conservative. He knew about Rameau's more progressive music theory, but rejected it.
> 
> Beethoven was much more rhythmic.
> 
> So, you're a conservative with no rhythm.
> 
> The "Romantic" being bombastic doesn't make sense in light of Glenn Gould's quiet, introspective readings of Brahms' Intermezzi, which I'm listening to now.
> 
> View attachment 123718


That Gould is an absolutely phenomenal performance. It put me onto Brahms. Not "bombastic" in the least.


----------



## BachIsBest

premont said:


> I am not generally adverse to middle (or late) period LvB - only to some individual works.
> 
> Concerning the Rorschach test I think that some of his cards were intended to be psychologically intrusive in some way or the other. In the same way that I think Mahler's music was intended to be emotionally intrusive in some way or the other - he wanted to express something about his own emotions. The fact that I responds to this (even if in a negative way) only tells that I am more or less a child of the same culture as him.


I'm quite unconvinced that Mahler was really such a personal composer, at least comparatively speaking, to other Romantics. Obviously, _Das Lied von der Erde_ is a remarkably personal work as are some of the other song cycles but the symphonies tell a bit of a different story. The first was before Mahler really established the style that would dominate his career and is seemingly not considered overly personal. The second is an attempt to explain the cycle of life in symphonic form and incorporates many religious themes; although the wisdom of attempting to encapsulate 'all of life' in one symphony may be questioned certainly a more universal topic could not have been chosen. The third is about the awe inspired by nature, particularly the Alps, and thus can hardly be considered personal. The fourth ends with a song on a child's view of heaven which can hardly be seen as personal when the song was written well into adulthood. The fifth does contain fairly personal content. The sixth is about the struggle between the two sides of human nature (to use antiquated terms: the feminine and the masculine) and is heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy. Mahler saw the feminine side of humanity as being epitomised in his wife, but this hardly makes the sixth a 'deeply personal' affair. The seventh seems to have originally been a rather impersonal work about the journey from dusk to dawn but, after writing it, Mahler's daughter died and the subsequent revisions might have made it, arguably, more personal. The eighth was based on a medieval myth but was also, supposedly, a love letter to his wife. The ninth was probably about death and although death was certainly weighing on Mahler's mind at this point in his life, it is a rather universal theme. Contrasting this to someone like Wagner, who wrote a four-hour opera essentially to express his insatiable desire, I'd say Mahler comes out looking pretty objective.


----------



## Woodduck

BachIsBest said:


> I'm quite unconvinced that Mahler was really such a personal composer, at least comparatively speaking, to other Romantics. Obviously, _Das Lied von der Erde_ is a remarkably personal work as are some of the other song cycles but the symphonies tell a bit of a different story. The first was before Mahler really established the style that would dominate his career and is seemingly not considered overly personal. The second is an attempt to explain the cycle of life in symphonic form and incorporates many religious themes; although the wisdom of attempting to encapsulate 'all of life' in one symphony may be questioned certainly a more universal topic could not have been chosen. The third is about the awe inspired by nature, particularly the Alps, and thus can hardly be considered personal. The fourth ends with a song on a child's view of heaven which can hardly be seen as personal when the song was written well into adulthood. The fifth does contain fairly personal content. The sixth is about the struggle between the two sides of human nature (to use antiquated terms: the feminine and the masculine) and is heavily influenced by Chinese philosophy. Mahler saw the feminine side of humanity as being epitomised in his wife, but this hardly makes the sixth a 'deeply personal' affair. The seventh seems to have originally been a rather impersonal work about the journey from dusk to dawn but, after writing it, Mahler's daughter died and the subsequent revisions might have made it, arguably, more personal. The eighth was based on a medieval myth but was also, supposedly, a love letter to his wife. The ninth was probably about death and although death was certainly weighing on Mahler's mind at this point in his life, it is a rather universal theme. Contrasting this to someone like Wagner, who wrote a four-hour opera essentially to express his insatiable desire, I'd say Mahler comes out looking pretty objective.


The question raised by your thoughtful post is whether Mahler's (or any composer's) concern with "universal" themes negates, or affects at all, the objectivity or subjectivity of their expressive content. I'd say that it doesn't, and that those who find Mahler's music exceptionally personal in its emotional content are describing something real. I do agree that this varies from work to work, and for me the feel of personal confession tends to increase in the later symphonies. Curiously, _Das Lied von der Erde_ and most of the songs strike me as less personal than some of the symphonic movements; the necessity of expressing a text - telling a story or painting a scene, or entering into the mind of a fictional character - can take a composer "outside" or "beyond" himself, and result in the expression of states of feeling the composer himself does not normally experience. It's very possible that Mahler was occasionally drunk in spring, or parted with a friend in a mountain landscape, but in listening to _Das Lied_ I've never felt that Mahler was talking primarily about himself.

It's interesting that you bring up Wagner and (I believe) _Tristan,_ since my perception is the reverse of yours: I have to say that for all his momentary immersion in unfulfilled romantic passion (as a result of his relationship with the wife of Otto Wesendonck), if Wagner had ever actually experienced the gut-churning, visceral agonies of Tristan and Isolde he would probably not have survived to write about it! But _Tristan_ is exceptional among his works in focusing on a particular category of feeling. For me Wagner exemplifies the dramatist who, immersed in fictional, mythical worlds peopled with diverse characters and situations never personally encountered by the composer, projects possibilities of feeling and perception beyond "normal" personal experience, losing himself in the creative act of imagining what it's like to be someone else.

Mahler may choose "universal" themes for some of his programmatic symphonies, but those themes are often religious in nature, and religion is easily "personalized" and doesn't necessarily lead to the aesthetic "objectivization" required by drama. As a result, Mahler seems, to me, increasingly to find ways of expressing, with unparalleled precision and intensity, what it's like to be Mahler.


----------



## Xisten267

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If calling for cannons in a finale isn't bombastic, I'm not sure what else possibly could be!


I understand "bombastic" as a deprecating word. If using cannons as an instrument has necessarily to be "bombastic", then it follows that cannons shouldn't be used in music. I don't believe in this, as for me any timbristic possibility can be turned into great music, from the beautiful sounds of an harp to the heavy sounds of an electric guitar or even of a loud cannon. I can't agree with "bombastic" as used as just a synonym for "loud" or "intense" in music.


----------



## Woodduck

Allerius said:


> I understand "bombastic" as a deprecating word. If using cannons as an instrument has necessarily to be "bombastic", then it follows that cannons shouldn't be used in music. I don't believe in this, as for me any timbristic possibility can be turned into great music, from the beautiful sounds of an harp to the heavy sounds of an electric guitar or even of a loud cannon. I can't agree with "bombastic" as used as just a synonym for "loud" or "intense" in music.


The word "bombastic" is often misused. Cannons are just what Tchaikovsky's marvelous piece of high-class crap  needs.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> The word "bombastic" is often misused. Cannons are just what Tchaikovsky's marvelous piece of high-class crap  needs.


"Bombastic" would have been tuned tactical nukes. Rimsky-Korsakov suggested this, but Tchaikovsky decided a more restrained approach would be better.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Allerius said:


> I understand "bombastic" as a deprecating word. If using cannons as an instrument has necessarily to be "bombastic", then it follows that cannons shouldn't be used in music. I don't believe in this, as for me any timbristic possibility can be turned into great music, from the beautiful sounds of an harp to the heavy sounds of an electric guitar or even of a loud cannon. I can't agree with "bombastic" as used as just a synonym for "loud" or "intense" in music.


The entire point of cannons is to be loud, so much so that the blast is physically, forcefully felt. It's not playing notes, it's not contributing to melody or harmony (or even rhythm all that much), it's sole purpose is to smack you in the chest. Not that I'm complaining, since that work is one of the better workouts that my 21" subwoofer gets with music outside of pipe organs!

Personally, I don't even mind bombast. Part of enjoying music is enjoying sound as sound, and considering I grew up on loud music--my dad playing drums to rock--such things don't phase me or strike me as innately negative even when the loudness is the point itself. Such things can be fun, and I think Tchaikovsky's 1812 is good fun. I still think it's bombastic, but life without any bombast ever would be dull, so bring on the cannons! For those about to rock, I salute you!


----------



## Xisten267

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The entire point of cannons is to be loud, so much so that the blast is physically, forcefully felt. It's not playing notes, it's not contributing to melody or harmony (or even rhythm all that much), it's sole purpose is to smack you in the chest. Not that I'm complaining, since that work is one of the better workouts that my 21" subwoofer gets with music outside of pipe organs!
> 
> Personally, I don't even mind bombast. Part of enjoying music is enjoying sound as sound, and considering I grew up on loud music--my dad playing drums to rock--such things don't phase me or strike me as innately negative even when the loudness is the point itself. Such things can be fun, and I think Tchaikovsky's 1812 is good fun. I still think it's bombastic, but life without any bombast ever would be dull, so bring on the cannons! For those about to rock, I salute you!


I think that there's a meaning to the cannons - as I understand it, they help to sustain the climax of the piece in it's portrait of the defeat of Napoleon to the Russians in 1812. The point of the whole piece for me is to instill patriotic fervor in it's russian listeners, and if this is a worthy meaning is debatable IMO (and thus if the piece really is bombastic), but I think that Tchaikovsky was quite successful in reaching his musical goal if my view is correct.

I like the _1812 Overture_, particularly it's last three or two minutes, but I believe that it's far from being one of Tchaikovsky's best pieces.


----------



## Ethereality

millionrainbows said:


> *"Why do I like Bach, but not Mozart or Beethoven?"*
> 
> Beethoven was much more rhythmic.


And so much more, but certainly revolutionarily _rhythmic._ I find Beethoven to be above and beyond Bach. Even so Bach came before Beethoven, Beethoven could've made Bach's music, and did even that on occasion. But he wasn't concerned with that style or approach. Bach was a push for all humanity into a new dimension of creativity, and that set a helpful stage for the most divinely gifted composer.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> And so much more, but certainly revolutionarily _rhythmic._ I find Beethoven to be above and beyond Bach. Even so Bach came before Beethoven, Beethoven could've made Bach's music, and did even that on occasion. But he wasn't concerned with that style or approach. Bach was a push for all humanity into a new dimension of creativity, and that set a helpful stage for the most divinely gifted composer.


I think you can point to different strengths of the two composers. Beethoven excelled in his ways, but to suggest that Beethoven could've done what Bach did, I think is not valid. For one thing once one composer has already done something, you can't properly credit a later composer for the same thing, at least not to the same degree. The exception is if they are able to in some way surpass the original which did not happen there. J.S. Bach is widely considered a supreme master of counterpoint, Beethoven's counterpoint is more controversial.

I don't believe any composer really understood the expressive power of harmony to the degree that Bach did.


----------



## Ethereality

tdc said:


> For one thing once one composer has already done something, you can't properly credit a later composer for the same thing, at least not to the same degree. The exception is if they are able to in some way surpass the original *which did not happen there.* J.S. Bach is widely considered a supreme master of counterpoint, Beethoven's counterpoint is more controversial.
> 
> *I don't believe any composer really understood the expressive power of harmony to the degree that Bach did.*


You make some fair points. My response to the first bolded would be, it depends on what you mean by surpass, since Beethoven's music was empirically also an evolution from some of Bach's music, not evolution as in improvement, but as in change over time. A good point though. To the second bolded however, I'd actually disagree. Bach certainly focused _more_ on harmony but Beethoven spent time a lot of time inventing many other development techniques, and to my knowledge, understood everything more, as a universal whole. This can of course be partly credited to having classical influence, but we don't all go around praising Perotin. An earlier Beethoven would be just as genius.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> Bach certainly focused _more_ on harmony while Beethoven spent time a lot of time inventing great development techniques.


The development of new musical techniques can result from a number of different catalysts. Sometimes I think these things come as a result of simply not being able to do things any other way. If one composer is not able to express what they want through focusing primarily on a certain area (ie - harmony/counterpoint) it is probable that they may seek other ways (such as dynamics and rhythm) to make up for a perceived lack of impact or expressivity or even 'freshness' in other areas.

In other words once one composer has said virtually everything there is to say within a certain mode of musical expression, all that future composers can effectively do is look for other avenues. This is an aspect of how music evolves.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> And so much more, but certainly *revolutionarily rhythmic.* I find Beethoven to be above and beyond Bach.





Ethereality said:


> Bach certainly focused _more_ on harmony but Beethoven spent time a lot of time inventing many other development techniques, and to my knowledge, *understood everything more, as a universal whole.*


You seem to be contradicting yourself. So in simple terms, are you just saying Beethoven is a greater master of _rhythm_ over Bach, or you saying he's a greater master of _everything_ over Bach?


----------



## Ethereality

@tdc I don't believe seeking freshness is a primary focus for the majority of composers, as much as simple quality. Instead I think the more progressive time which Beethoven lived aided his _personal ambitions_ towards music, something that (if hypothetically everything kept constant) would've come from him regardless if Bach was his successor or his predecessor. In another thread I brought attention to how much Beethoven plagiarized Mozart, on the simple basis that he wrote quality melodies, and this is not the same as having an intuitive mastery of harmony (a much more novel facet of Beethoven's music.) So it's not to say Beethoven would have nearly as much harmonic knowledge without a familiarity for the 65-year-old harmonic genius Bach, but that, Beethoven's _inventions _were more likely a product of his acquired taste than his desire for freshness. His authenticity rather than creativity. The musical makeup was already in him, from an early age.



hammeredklavier said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself. So in simple terms, are you just saying Beethoven is a greater master of _rhythm_ over Bach, or you saying he's a greater master of _everything_ over Bach?


Not _everything_, but everything as a whole, as to imply most things they understood about the range and scope of music, especially considering Bach's creativity.


----------

