It is really surprising the critic against Mozart.

Haven`t you heard operas, Don Giovanni etc?

As a musician I am used to play all kins of music, but there is only few that is difficult to stand.

Some music by Mahler is really difficult (now symph 7 1st mvm). It is like somebody lieing all the time.

I agree with Harri M 100%
I have also been surprised at the lack of enthusiasm for Mozart on this forum. Listen to our hero on Mozart.

'The Finale [of the G minor Symphony] is especially marvelous. I would like to hear that at the time of my death'.---Jean Sibelius.

Perhaps Mozarts music filters more freely into the more mature mind, but hey, I've heard that said about Sibelius as well!--kullervopete.

Maturity has nothing to do with it.

I've met more and more people who are not Mozart worshippers. I almost feel there is a prerequisite within the classical community that you must like Mozart or you are a heretic, a hack.

There's no doubting that Mozart was a true talent, a genius even, but I just don't get excited by his art. It's all very well constructed and so on, but, to my ears, it just lacks something.

Sibelius, for example, has a depth of magic and mysticism that I always find intriguing and satisfying. Mozart does not.

At the end of the day, it's just a matter of taste. I have nothing personal against Mozart, and I certainly have nothing against people who like him. I know people that can't stand Sibelius and don;t understand my love for him. But not everyone is going to like the same thing. I don't think all fans of music should be expected to love Mozart. Just like all fans on music should not be expected to love Sibelius.

Yes, there are different tastes and it`s right. But salon music...please try again the stone ghost in Don Giovanni.

Taste in music is never static and one mans meat is another mans poison. My remark that Mozart might appeal to the more mature mind was merely a suggestion.
Mozart was probably the most gifted child prodigy in musical history, Symphonies and Serenades flowed effortlessly from his pen. Whereas a composer of Sibelius's ilk struggled for years to finish a single work. Sibelius completed his first Symphony at the age of 34, Mozart died at the age of 35--what might Mozart have achieved had he lived another 30 years?
Mozarts music is like a rare wine, but I would never try and force it down someones throat. I still maintain that Mozarts comparative unpopularity on the forum is puzzling.
It was that great Sibelius conductor Sir Colin Davies who remarked of Sibs music 'Its really old mans music'. Davies did not, by his own admission mean that only old men like it, he continued 'Its not really frivolously attractive music, though, is it?
Well we could debate that remark, perhaps Sibelius came close to this in some of his lighter pieces, but I think I know what Sir Colin means. I fell in love with Sibelius's music at the age of 16, hardly mature! oddly enough at School, Sibelius was never mentioned in music lessons by our teacher.
If Mozart and Sibelius do appeal more to the mature mind, then perhaps Wagner and Mahler appeal more to the adolescent! --kp

kullervopete wrote:

If Mozart and Sibelius do appeal more to the mature mind, then perhaps Wagner and Mahler appeal more to the adolescent! --kp

Well then I'm just messed up...

Mozart, I think, is better to those who are more at peace or something. I don't know, it just seems that way to me.

I'm all for well-written, tuneful music. Mozart certainly was a genius in that his melodies flowed from his pen with uncanny ease and his use of harmnony and orchestral layering was also quite remarkable. The man is widely admired for reasons that are more than valid and I understand this. Most lovers of good music enjoy listening to a good tune.

So why don't I love Mozart like everyone else? Simply, because I don't! His art just don't not raise my hackles in the way Sibbe does, Beethoven does, Prokofiev does, etc.

It's funny, because the "Classical" period is sort of like a musical blind spot to me. I greatly enjoy the lavishness and complexity of the Baroque period and once we start hitting the early Romantics (Beethoven, Berlioz, Schumann) this is when music really begins to bring out the emotion in me. But Mozart, Haydn, etc...I listen, I say "this is pleasant enough," but I just don;t get spiritually excited by what is, at the end of the day, well done music.

I know for people who admire Mozart, my position is impossible to understand and there isn't much more beyond what I've already said to make my case. Maybe my tastes are not sophisticated and all that jazz, but my tastes are my tastes. So I will comment on this no further because I simply can't!

What should be considered in all of this discussion is that we may not agree that Mozart is the be all and end all to the world of Classical music, but we all enjoy an art form that is generally overlooked by the vast majority of the population. In a world where talentless psychopaths like Britney Spears can sell millions of records whereas a new recording of Beethoven's 9th may only sell a few thousand, we in this this forum should rejoice in the fact that we know what truly great music really is, even though we will not always agree on the fine details.

Hear, hear! Couldn't have thought of it better, let alone said it!

And may I say with much love in my heart, Stravinsky was a TALENTED pychopath!

Tapkaara wrote:

... we in this this forum should rejoice in the fact that we know what truly great music really is, even though we will not always agree on the fine details.

QotM. Alas, the ads block the HTML header at the top of the page...

Kurki...am I missing something? I don;t know what you last post means...

"QotM" stands for "Quote of the Moment".

For a year or so, Forumup.com centrally deactivated the advertisement banner found at the top of the page and that space could be freely edited with HTML. There was an announcement box, instructions for new members and an area where I used to post "Quotes of the Moment", which were taken from members' posts.

But alas, the ads are back and they are most likely here to stay.

Aaah..."Quote of the Moment"...I understand now.

Another composer that bores me is Glazunov. I was living in Los Angeles for a year and I used to listen to the local classical station very much, KMZT (K-Mozart). The program director at that station must have loved Glazunov because they played several pieces by him every day.

So, with the ample exposure I got to his music, I quicky came to realize I'd cringe whenever they announced his name. I'm sure Glazunov was talented, but just not very original.

Kabelevsky and Myaskovsky also make me yawn. It's weird, because I really love Russian music, but the three aforementioned Russian composers make me very sleepy.

Best Glazunov story I know, taken from the Shostakovich/Volkov Memoires:

Shostakovich and another student snuck into Glazunov's classroom and in his desk drawer found a bottle of "Schnapps", I believe was written, with a long rubber tube attatched to it. They then realized that during their piano lessons with him, as he used to frequently sit at his desk with his head buried in his hands, he was most likely drawing on the tube that was snaked from his desk, under his jacket and through his sleeve...

Funny...I could use that same device when I'm listening to Glazunov!

Shostakovich...now there's a composer I enjoy.

Brahms (everything!)
Mozart chamber music and piano works (Syms.36-41 great)
Mendelssohn (except Hebrides and Italian)
Schumann's piano music (4th Symph. is great!)
Vivaldi
Respighi

This list is selective,as you can see! The fault is mine, nothing against the composers!

Respighi, there's a name I haven't thought about in a while. While not my least favourite, he is certainly a composer I am not too fond of, as I find there to be so little substance beyond the superficial flash.

The question is, what was his goal? If it was just to create flashy pieces, then he has done so with appropriate skill. But I get the feeling with him that he is constantly posing as if to say something profound but never quite does.

Kurkikohtaus wrote:

Respighi, there's a name I haven't thought about in a while. While not my least favourite, he is certainly a composer I am not too fond of, as I find there to be so little substance beyond the superficial flash. The question is, what was his goal? If it was just to create flashy pieces, then he has done so with appropriate skill. But I get the feeling with him that he is constantly posing as if to say something profound but never quite does.

I like Respighi quite a bit, though I admit he is more about flash than substance. Sort of an Italian Strauss, perhaps.

The Roman Trilogy kicks ass! (What's not to like about those works, Kurki?)