Unpopular Opinions

[Parsifal]

But as has been pointed out this is not generally a problem with CD players because they do not interrupt when a new track starts. Maybe it was a problem with some of the early players although I do not recall such problems. It was only when we started playing CDs in computers and burning copies in the late 1990s that the problem of brief pauses between tracks showed up.

Certainly my first generation CD player did not introduce a gap between tracks when simply playing the disc. Ironically, the CD player I have now, a fancy Marantz, introduces a hiccup between tracks if I program consecutive tracks (say, if I have a Mozart symphony disc and want to program tracks 5, 6, 7, 8 to hear the second symphony on the disc). A singularly stupid design, although the unit has very fine sound. Has been a factor pushing me towards computer streaming (using the digital input of the same unit).

[Pat B]

It's simply a case of not bothering to start loading the beginning of the next track ahead of time.

Which undoubtedly can be done. I've got a CD player from 1992 that knows in shuffle mode how to start getting the next track ready to play. And iTunes knows how to do it. But there are a bunch of services out there where the programmers haven't ever bothered to figure it out.

It's not a question of whether a streaming service's programmers have bothered to figure it out. It's a design flaw in the mp3 format. It's solvable for app-based playback (either via non-standard metadata or by using a different format), but for web-based playback, there's not really a reliable solution.

[Parsifal]

Why can't you just advance to track 5 and play from there on?

That works fine if I am playing to the end of the disc. But, for instance, with my old CD player if I wanted to listen to a symphony that occupied tracks 5, 6, 7, 8 of a 12 track disc I would program 5, 6, 7, 8 so that the player would stop at the end of the symphony without me having to grab the remote and mash down on the stop button before the next work started. With my new player that causes hick-ups when it continues to a subsequent track. Tolerable if the movements are distinct, but not for works with attacca movements.

[Madiel]

That works fine if I am playing to the end of the disc. But, for instance, with my old CD player if I wanted to listen to a symphony that occupied tracks 5, 6, 7, 8 of a 12 track disc I would program 5, 6, 7, 8 so that the player would stop at the end of the symphony without me having to grab the remote and mash down on the stop button before the next work started. With my new player that causes hick-ups when it continues to a subsequent track. Tolerable if the movements are distinct, but not for works with attacca movements.

In all seriousness, if I had a CD player that did that, I would be taking it back and complaining. For me that would be completely unacceptable.

[Parsifal]

In all seriousness, if I had a CD player that did that, I would be taking it back and complaining. For me that would be completely unacceptable.

It did bug me, but ultimately I kept it because it has optical SPID input, so that I use it both for playing CDs and streaming FLAC files from my PC without needing a separate DAC unit.

[Brian]

Every year I listen to Mozart's Requiem convinced that the overwhelming emotion and genius will finally connect with me. And, if the past 45 minutes is any indication, every year I get so freaking bored. I couldn't wait for it to end. Did nothing at all for me.

[Karl Henning]

Every year I listen to Mozart's Requiem convinced that the overwhelming emotion and genius will finally connect with me. And, if the past 45 minutes is any indication, every year I get so freaking bored. I couldn't wait for it to end. Did nothing at all for me.

I stand by your (right?) not to care for the Requiem!

(I like it, I'm not overwhelmed by it, I rarely seek it out for listening.)

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Every year I listen to Mozart's Requiem convinced that the overwhelming emotion and genius will finally connect with me. And, if the past 45 minutes is any indication, every year I get so freaking bored. I couldn't wait for it to end. Did nothing at all for me.

Personally I think it is a great work, incredibly powerful when I first heard it (the Mozart-Sümayr version). Unfortunately, the feeling wore off after repeated listens until I found a brilliant version by Duncan Druce. In my unpopular opinion, Druce's version is far more enjoyable than any other.

[Mirror Image]

Every year I listen to Mozart's Requiem convinced that the overwhelming emotion and genius will finally connect with me. And, if the past 45 minutes is any indication, every year I get so freaking bored. I couldn't wait for it to end. Did nothing at all for me.

You're certainly not alone in your sentiments regarding this requiem.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Lol, then I'm quite the opposite. The Requiem is the only Mozart work that has truly made me go "wow!!", he's not a composer I am aesthetically drawn to normally. Just my opinion though 

Have you heard the Druce version??

Honestly, if anything should wow you, it is that one. Replacing the bombastic IV-I 'amen' at the end of the 'Lacrimosa' completely and utterly ruins the pattern Mozart sets up of ending each major section with a fugue. Druce throws away Süssmayr's frivolous drivel and acknowledge's Mozart's sense of structure, modulation and orchestration throughout the work and comes up with a relevant and meaningful solution to the end of the Sequence of the Requiem:

https://www.youtube.com/v/JTDyM2tnceg

Lacrimosa begins at 19:57 but the transition into the Amen fugue begins around the 23 minute mark FYI. No other completion I have heard (which includes the fugue) actually includes such a smooth and powerful transition into the Amen.

[Mahlerian]

Lol, then I'm quite the opposite. The Requiem is the only Mozart work that has truly made me go "wow!!", he's not a composer I am aesthetically drawn to normally. Just my unpopular opinion though 

Mozart is like Mahler in that although his surfaces are undoubtedly attractive and full of wonderful melody, his real genius is in the way that everything is put together under that surface with an attention to the smallest details.

Incidentally, I think that Mahler may very well in the future suffer from the same trivialization as Mozart, taking the same path in miscomprehension from "nothing but a tortured Romantic" to "nothing but a sublime tunesmith."

[Jo498]

I share the relative indifference to the Mozart Requiem. Some movements are great (e.g. the first two, the Dies irae, Confutatis and a few more), some rather meh, probably Süssmayr's fault. I usually lose interest after the sequentia... While I think that at least the Introitus (despite very clearly inspired by Handel's Ways of Zion) is a great fusion of severe baroque style and early romantic sound with the bassett horns, more original than the pieces in the c minor mass that are more closely following baroque models and there is great stuff elsewhere, overall I prefer the c minor mass.
And I agree that those who only like the Requiem have not grasped what is great about Mozart (among other things his versatility). I think Tovey writes in one of his essays that if someone dismisses Beethoven's 4th symphony as slight, we should not listen to him when he tells us how great the 5th is because he is only impressed by the surface drama.

[mc ukrneal]

Every year I listen to Mozart's Requiem convinced that the overwhelming emotion and genius will finally connect with me. And, if the past 45 minutes is any indication, every year I get so freaking bored. I couldn't wait for it to end. Did nothing at all for me.

But you are going in with the wrong attitude. It can't help but fail to live up to what you think it should be. I guarantee you that if I did the same with Ligetti, the result would be the same.

[North Star]

Time to commit virtual suicide here:

I find 95% of opera cheesy (not the good kind) and cringey. As a composer, it's not a genre I'm drawn to either 

Does the 95% include the works by Debussy, Bartók, Berg, Britten, Janáček, Monteverdi, Ravel and Strauss? 

[Madiel]

Time to commit virtual suicide here:

I find 95% of opera cheesy (not the good kind) and cringey. As a composer, it's not a genre I'm drawn to either 

I suspect that is actually quite a popular opinion. Or maybe I'm just showing my own biases.

[Mirror Image]

Time to commit virtual suicide here:

I find 95% of opera cheesy (not the good kind) and cringey. As a composer, it's not a genre I'm drawn to either 

I'm not a huge opera fan but there are several that I love dearly. I don't really follow the plot of operas even whenever I'm listening. There are a few notable exceptions: Bartók's Bluebeard's Castle, Berg's Wozzeck, Ravel's L'enfant et les sortileges, Janáček's Kata Kabanova, Martinů's Julietta, Britten's Death in Venice, and those always fascinating short operas from Schoenberg like Erwartung and Die glückliche Hand.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I....I...I d-don't a-actually mind l-listening to Meyerbeer so much.............

[Artran]

I - don't - care - about - lossless.

[Madiel]

I - don't - care - about - lossless.

GASP!

Do you at least care about bitrate??

[The new erato]

I - don't - care - about - lossless.

Yu dnt care abou lssles?