Composers you don't get

[aukhawk]

... Now I am 23. I still don't like Mozart,
... It's weird. Mozart's music sounds uninspired and shallow to me, but I also feel shallow for not liking him. Maybe it just takes a certain level of maturity that I don't yet have.

I'm 67 and I still don't like Mozart's music.  I know "it's not Mozart, it's me" but I've learned not to let it get to me.

[ibanezmonster]

I also struggled with Mozart for a while when I discovered classical music. I found Mozart's music sissy. I think you feel similar way, don't you? After a few years I understood it's not the music, it's me. What if I listen to it as sissy music and accept it as it is? Change my expectations and perspective. Guess what? Mozart started to work for me! It's kind of the best sissy music ever. His piano concertos where the first to really impress me. The music is like wondering around in a flower shop. You just have to admit flowers are beautiful, not sissy. This might be easier when you are older (I was about 40 when Mozart clicked - when I was 23 as you are now I thought ALL classical music is sissy!  ).

Quite the challenge. Liking a lot of Mozart's stuff is about as challenging as enjoying flowers in a flower shop. Doesn't exactly come natural.

[Henk]

I'm planning on a marathon listening of Mozart's Symphonies soonish, maybe even this weekend. So please send in your recommendations, if you would.

[asin]B001L15C9Q[/asin]

[Henk]

Nobody said Krips, so I'm fixing that.

Sissy interpretations?

[EigenUser]

I don't know why it's required that everyone "get" everything in classical music. If someone likes something, good. If not, who cares? There are obviously enough people who like Wagner (or Madonna) that my not liking Wagner (or Madonna) has not made much of a difference in Wagner's (or Madonna's) sales figures each year.

It isn't required, of course. I remember reading about Glazunov and his opinions on modern music that was coming through at the turn of the century. He didn't like it, but rather than dismissing it and booing at concerts he would regularly listen to it in an attempt to figure it out and see what everyone was so excited about. I like this attitude very much and I've always felt this way about music. I can be dismissive at first and I've called several modern compositions "horrible" (I guess I shouldn't), but I do try. I even almost listened to "Gruppen" last night for this reason. Some people like it. Shouldn't there be something there? Mozart isn't modern (at least, not since the classical era!), but I think that the same logic applies. Many people like him, so what am I missing? A lot of times it turns out that I am missing something, but sometimes it turns out that the music just isn't to my taste. It is hard for me to tell when I start listening to a composer for the first time, but it becomes clearer as I hear more which of the two options apply.

Though there are countless things I'd rather do than listen to Wagner (or Madonna), I have had some limited success with listening to Brahms. I have never hated Brahms, however. I had simply, until hearing his chamber music, been bored by Brahms. However, I have listened to his symphonies as conducted by Janowski and Haitink (Boston), and I am no longer a Brahms orchestralphobe. Do I love him? No. Am I ever going to like him as much as I like Mahler? Not unless it is an unintended consequence of brain surgery I may have to have someday in the future. But I don't change the dial the minute I hear the name Brahms on the radio (as I do with Wagner [or Madonna]).

So, I wish you luck with Mozart. I hope he's your Brahms rather than your Wagner (or your Madonna).

Thanks! I feel exactly the same way that you felt about Brahms, by the way. I like the "sound" of his music, but it gets boring for me after a not-very-long time.

Also, I assumed that if I like Mahler then perhaps Wagner is next (don't most people who like Mahler also like Wagner?). I guess I might have been wrong.

[North Star]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll listen to these next time I want to give him another chance.
Haha, that's a good way to put it, actually. I've done that with other music and it seems to work. For instance, I actually like some Boulez now because I just accept that it is "intellectual" (before that I was put off that it was coming from his mind, not heart). I used to dislike the third movement of the Ligeti Requiem, but I accept it as "terrifying" and it seems to work (still not my favorite Dies Irae, but I like it now). Even with Haydn, a year ago I would have said it was too proper. Sure it is proper, but it is damn good proper music.

Listen closely, there are rather dissonant harmonies under the surface in Mozart.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qUKPL0kJdME

[Rinaldo]

Sissy interpretations?

"This is Classical Music at its very finest. You won't find Mozart anywhere else that is played with such lightness, radiating joy, and so being the epitome of musical tip-toeing. Yes, it sounds very different – luxuriously so – than Mozart coming from smaller, HIP groups, but not heavier per se, nor swooningly romantic.

Krips covers symphonies 21 to 41 and they are finally available separately again after having long shared box-set space with the unnecessary Neville Marriner-conducted early symphonies. Even with the excellent, moderately HIP Charles Mackerras / Prague set (Teldec) available, Krips should still be the first choice of any collection's allotment for Mozart symphonies."

Ionarts: Why Haydn Should be Mandatory

[Jay F]

Also, I assumed that if I like Mahler then perhaps Wagner is next (don't most people who like Mahler also like Wagner?). I guess I might have been wrong.

Though there may be commonalities, I, as a "Mahler Uber Alles" listener, am unable to perceive them to the extent that they enable me to like Wagner. However, I'm not a big fan of opera in general. I like Die Zauberflote, Le Nozze di Figaro (speaking of Mozart), La Traviata, and La Boheme, and that's about it. I'm something of an anti-anti-Semite, as well, which has to inform my attitude towards Wagner at least a bit.

I have read from time to time that if you love Mahler, you'll also love Bruckner. I am not a Bruckner lover. I don't hate him. I like him, even. I definitely like him more than Brahms. But I know I don't have all of his symphonies. I had them once, all by HvK, but I let them go during a move a dozen years ago. And I don't miss them at all. I've reacquired some of them. I like Bernstein's interpretations most, I think. And Celibadache's. But there is no Bruckner symphony I like as much as my least favorite Mahler symphony (#1 or everything in #9 except the first movement).

My friend the music critic says more people who like Mahler also like rock and pop more than they like other classical music, and that is true of me.

And whoever called Mozart "sissy" music, well, my response to you would probably get me booted from GMG.

[Madiel]

I do like Mozart, but he is definitely quite different to Haydn. Haydn is more... human. Somewhere out there is a quote I can't relocate, about Haydn being earthly and Mozart being heavenly, and I think there's an element of truth in that.

Mozart is more likely to dazzle you with the perfection of his technique, but Haydn is more likely to dazzle you with his wit. Or something like that. It's not to say that Mozart can't be witty, or that Haydn has no technique. We're talking about 2 giants of the musical world here. But nevertheless, their emphasis is a bit different.

I suppose another way of saying it, for me, would be that Mozart is a bit more intellectual and Haydn is a bit more emotional.

You could also argue that Haydn was followed by Beethoven, whereas Mozart was followed more by Schubert... and now, having opened up as many cans of worms as possible, I'll stop. 

[Henk]

Nietzsche writes about Mozart as being very "European music", more than Beethoven for example, who was more Nordic. Also Nietzsche says Mozart's music is about seeing Italian life. Those views are not contradictive as some might think.

BTW Beethoven's music is "music about music" according to Nietzsche.

[Jay F]

Haydn is another composer I don't "get."

[Henk]

A composer I "got" in the past, for about just a few listenings, but now not anymore: Prokofiev.

But I don't want to like him, so there's no problem.

However, one might also want "to get" a composer to be able to judge the music.

[Ken B]

Jo has given you excellent analysis.

The Requiem is over rated 427 under rated.
The best music is in the Piano Concerti, the operas, and some of the chamber music, especially the quintets of various flavors. K452.

That said my favorite is the Sinfonia Concertante K364

The PCs are not like flowers, they are like conversations or dates with winsome women. Forget the flower nonsense.

The key to Mozart is his underlying sadness. It is rarely overt though. It is like cumin in a delicately spiced pilaf. If you approach Mozart as happy flower man you have got him wrong. He is Apollonian to the bone. Mondrian, Monet, and Ingres, not Goya or Gericault.

40 in g minor is often I think misplayed. The opening is not upbeat. It is music of dread and apprehension, like near the end of Don Giovanni. 

FWIW, I didn't really "get" Haydn for a long time, seeing him as "Papa". (That wretched epithet is as wrong as flowerboy.) I saw him as Mozart light, which is wrong. His goals are different  and Haydn doesn't have the cumin. 

[Ken B]

Listen closely, there are rather dissonant harmonies under the surface in Mozart.
https://www.youtube.com/v/qUKPL0kJdME

Let me max out my plus here. Cumin. 

And to Jay's comment about needing to listen carefully. This seems to be deliberate on Mozart's part. His letters often speak of music for those who know that will still appeal to those who do not, and like phrases.

James's comments are interesting. Bach really is deeper. But Bach is deeper than anyone  . I don't quite agree with all James says, but it's an insightful comment.

[Jo498]

I don't think "deeper" means a lot in this context. Charles Rosen and others have pointed out that Mozart's mastery of counterpoint was comparable to Bach's, but of course there are stylistic differences and dense counterpoint does not equal great or deep music. Otherwise Fux and Reger would be far greater composers than Schubert...

In any case Mozart excels both in fluid two-part-writing as in first mvmt of the last piano sonata K 576 as in rather dense polyphonic style in some of the church music, string quartets and quintets or the symphonies 38 and 41. And he combines this effortlessly with the classical style and beautiful lyrical melodies without ever sounding learned or contrived.

I never had any "problems" with Mozart, so it's hard to give hints what to listen for. But his music really encompasses a universally broad range of emotions, not only in the operas, although it might take some getting used to the nuances once blunted by Wagnerian and Straussian excesses (especially the latter revered Mozart, of course).

[EigenUser]

Great discussion, by the way!

I have read from time to time that if you love Mahler, you'll also love Bruckner. I am not a Bruckner lover. I don't hate him. I like him, even. I definitely like him more than Brahms. But I know I don't have all of his symphonies. I had them once, all by HvK, but I let them go during a move a dozen years ago. And I don't miss them at all. I've reacquired some of them. I like Bernstein's interpretations most, I think. And Celibadache's. But there is no Bruckner symphony I like as much as my least favorite Mahler symphony (#1 or everything in #9 except the first movement).

Yeah, my friend really likes Mahler (and Wagner). We had surprisingly never discussed Bruckner before so I assumed he liked him as well. He thought Bruckner was boring, much to my surprise. I've only heard the 4th and 7th. I liked them, but I definitely didn't love them, i.e. I felt no rush to further investigate his music, though I do plan to at some point. I recently bought scores for the 2nd and 3rd masses, the Requiem, and the 6th symphony for when the time is right (actually, both of the scores for the masses were falling apart, so the music store gave them to me ).

Oddly enough, I think that Schoenberg's "Chamber Symphony No. 1" was my entryway to Mahler -- the modernist "secret tunnel" approach . I discovered that piece a few months ago and it would explain why I like Mahler's 7th so much, as the first movement of the 7th has many similarities with Schoenberg's CS1.

FWIW, I didn't really "get" Haydn for a long time, seeing him as "Papa". (That wretched epithet is as wrong as flowerboy.) I saw him as Mozart light, which is wrong. His goals are different  and Haydn doesn't have the cumin. 

No, Haydn has the paprika.

[Henk]

40 in g minor is often I think misplayed. The opening is not upbeat. It is music of dread and apprehension, like near the end of Don Giovanni.

Checking this:

Krips does it slow, Immerseel, Harnoncourt and Nelson rather upbeat.

[Jay F]

Oddly enough, I think that Schoenberg's "Chamber Symphony No. 1" was my entryway to Mahler -- the modernist "secret tunnel" approach . I discovered that piece a few months ago and it would explain why I like Mahler's 7th so much, as the first movement of the 7th has many similarities with Schoenberg's CS1.

Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.

[EigenUser]

Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.

It's a wonderful piece. If you've heard his "Verklarte Nacht", it's like that taken a few steps further in terms of modernism (if you haven't heard "Verklarte Nacht" you'd probably like that, too). Kind of like an emotional roller coaster ride, but with mostly positive/passionate emotions (at least, that's how it makes me feel -- someone on here said it leaves them cold, so everyone hears it differently).

Allow me to go against the grain and recommend Schoenberg's own full orchestration of the work (originally for a chamber orchestra 15 players). I wouldn't normally, but since you are coming from Mahler you might get more out of it. The original is great, too.
[asin]B00369K1GA[/asin]

[North Star]

Mahler's No. 7 is my current favorite (favoriteness switches among Nos. 7, 6, 2, and 3), so I must try this Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony No. 1.

For older Schönberg, try also Gurre-Lieder, massive Late-Romantic symphonic cantata!