Unpopular Opinions

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I don't think that's an unpopular opinion, as such. Yes, Mozart is hyped up among the general public (okay, so it's "popular" in that sense), but much of the genius attributed to him by those who know better than the average Joe is mostly the result of his later works, especially the ones you mention and the piano concerti.

Honestly, this is way off. Among Mozart fans ("those who know better than the average Joe") the list of recognizably accomplished works which predate the "late" period is stacked up like a log-jam.

You'll hardly find a true Mozartian who doesn't enjoy such early works (or early-ish, anyway) as the violin concertos, the early masses, or the serenades (the Haffner in particular).

The "middle" period is populated by such works as Idomeneo, the Posthorn Serenade, and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola (not to mention the first of his "Haydn" string quartets).

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So much more to explore.

[Klaze]

You seem to be part of a decide trend here,  in which I join (although I'm more partial to the operas).  Metamorphosen and Four Last Songs, and don't bother with the rest!

I'd gladly join this trend, although I really like Till Eulenspiegel as well...
Anyway, perhaps the unpopularity of this opinion on Strauss should be re-evaluated?

[North Star]

Honestly, this is way off. Among Mozart fans ("those who know better than the average Joe") the list of recognizably accomplished works which predate the "late" period is stacked up like a log-jam.

You'll hardly find a true Mozartian who doesn't enjoy such early works (or early-ish, anyway) as the violin concertos, the early masses, or the serenades (the Haffner in particular).

The "middle" period is populated by such works as Idomeneo, the Posthorn Serenade, and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola (not to mention the first of his "Haydn" string quartets).

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So much more to explore.

+1.

I'm actually going to jump aboard the Richard Strauss hate-train too. And you guys have already identified the two Strauss works I prize above all others: Metamorphosen and the Four Last Songs. There's no shame in that, honestly; the Four Last Songs alone would be enough to make a pretty serious case for his greatness and importance, and they make a convenient and highly symbolic "ending" to the "romantic era." But the famous tone poems hold no interest for me.

+1. (though I need to hear the operas)

[TheGSMoeller]

Popular or Unpopular, the music of Richard Strauss is what opened my ears to the world of classical over 20 years ago, I will always credit him with this and will forever consider him one of my favorite composers. I find his music exhilarating, expansive and rewarding. Also my favorite scores to follow are from Strauss.

And it's alright by me, one of the biggest Strauss supporters here, if someone doesn't agree with my analysis of Strauss. But one day when you need a musical laugh, checkout Till. When you need motivation or extra courage, listen to Heldenleben. When you're in the need to travel somewhere far away, put on Alpine. When you're in the mood for a good story, play Quixote or even Domestica. How about a virtuosos concerto, try the horn concertos. Dramatic opera? Covered, Elektra and Salome. Challenge the soul and mind with Metamorphosen. Or relax your body with the Duett-Concertino.

Long live classical music, my friends. 

[Brian]

How about a virtuosos concerto, try the horn concertos.

Oh! I forgot, I really like the Burleske.

[Sergeant Rock]

Honestly, this is way off. Among Mozart fans ("those who know better than the average Joe") the list of recognizably accomplished works which predate the "late" period is stacked up like a log-jam.

You'll hardly find a true Mozartian who doesn't enjoy such early works (or early-ish, anyway) as the violin concertos, the early masses, or the serenades (the Haffner in particular).

The "middle" period is populated by such works as Idomeneo, the Posthorn Serenade, and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola (not to mention the first of his "Haydn" string quartets).

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So much more to explore.

Popular or Unpopular, the music of Richard Strauss is what opened my ears to the world of classical over 20 years ago, I will always credit him with this and will forever consider him one of my favorite composers. I find his music exhilarating, expansive and rewarding. Also my favorite scores to follow are from Strauss.

And it's alright by me, one of the biggest Strauss supporters here, if someone doesn't agree with my analysis of Strauss. But one day when you need a musical laugh, checkout Till. When you need motivation or extra courage, listen to Heldenleben. When you're in the need to travel somewhere far away, put on Alpine. When you're in the mood for a good story, play Quixote or even Domestica. How about a virtuosos concerto, try the horn concertos. Dramatic opera? Covered, Elektra and Salome. Challenge the soul and mind with Metamorphosen. Or relax your body with the Duett-Concertino.

Long live classical music, my friends. 

This being the Unpopular Opinion thread, I didn't feel right about contradicting the, uh..wrong-headed opinions about Strauss and Mozart on display here. But I'm glad you guys did 

Sarge

[Dancing Divertimentian]

This being the Unpopular Opinion thread, I didn't feel right about contradicting the, uh..wrong-headed opinions about Strauss and Mozart on display here. But I'm glad you guys did 

Sarge

The Strauss bit got to me too but I bit my tongue. Couldn't hold it for the Mozart, though... 0:)

[Mirror Image]

I'm actually going to jump aboard the Richard Strauss hate-train too. And you guys have already identified the two Strauss works I prize above all others: Metamorphosen and the Four Last Songs. There's no shame in that, honestly; the Four Last Songs alone would be enough to make a pretty serious case for his greatness and importance, and they make a convenient and highly symbolic "ending" to the "romantic era." But the famous tone poems hold no interest for me.

I wouldn't say I hate Richard Strauss' music, but he's definitely not a composer I frequently listen to or even think about other than to say I don't care for his music.

[jochanaan]

I wouldn't say I hate Richard Strauss' music, but he's definitely not a composer I frequently listen to or even think about other than to say I don't care for his music.

But where would record producers and Stanley Kubrick be without the opening to Also sprach Zarathustra?

I'm not as fond of Strauss as I might be; I can do without most of his late music (even the oboe concerto!).  I have to admit, though, that he struck gold with the end of Tod und Verklaerung.  Yeah, it's manipulative--but it gets me every time.  Weird.

[Mirror Image]

But where would record producers and Stanley Kubrick be without the opening to Also sprach Zarathustra?

Haha...that's true!

[Opus106]

Honestly, this is way off. Among Mozart fans ("those who know better than the average Joe") the list of recognizably accomplished works which predate the "late" period is stacked up like a log-jam.

You'll hardly find a true Mozartian who doesn't enjoy such early works (or early-ish, anyway) as the violin concertos, the early masses, or the serenades (the Haffner in particular).

The "middle" period is populated by such works as Idomeneo, the Posthorn Serenade, and the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola (not to mention the first of his "Haydn" string quartets).

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So much more to explore.

In my defence, I said 'later'. Much of Mozart's aura as a child genius was thanks to his father's impressive PR work. So while a lot of people may think everything starting from K. 1 is a gem (and he wrote a LOT! -- lovely music, much of it, no doubt), he began to bloom into the composer that we adore only in his late teens. 15 years later, he died. 15 years in an average life-span may be considered the 'late' period, but for Mozart it was over a third of his life. I'm just making a distinction between the 'performing monkey' era, which has contributed a lot to his popular image as a 'genius', and the other part, which is what you are (and I was, implicitly) referring to.

[mc ukrneal]

This being the Unpopular Opinion thread, I didn't feel right about contradicting the, uh..wrong-headed opinions about Strauss and Mozart on display here. But I'm glad you guys did 

Sarge

Post of the day!!

[Florestan]

I think Mozart is very over-rated.  Apart from the last few symphonies, a couple of the piano sonatas, the Mass in C, two or three of the operas, the Gran Partita for Winds and some chamber music it's all so sweet and the endless tonality and saccharine quality has me reaching for something more 'savory'.  Like eating a meal that is all black forest cake.  At my stage much of Mozart is too easy-listening for me, but I was a big fan 30 years ago.  Now my musical tastes have matured and I've left him largely behind, apart from the wonderful works I've mentioned.

Mozart-bashing, unpopular? Hardly ever. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

In my defence, I said 'later'. Much of Mozart's aura as a child genius was thanks to his father's impressive PR work. So while a lot of people may think everything starting from K. 1 is a gem (and he wrote a LOT! -- lovely music, much of it, no doubt), he began to bloom into the composer that we adore only in his late teens. 15 years later, he died. 15 years in an average life-span may be considered the 'late' period, but for Mozart it was over a third of his life. I'm just making a distinction between the 'performing monkey' era, which has contributed a lot to his popular image as a 'genius', and the other part, which is what you are (and I was, implicitly) referring to.

What you're describing is Mozart's "juvenilia". His juvenile years. There's little point as I see it in knocking him for that (or any composer for that matter).

Post-juvenilia Mozart is bursting at the seams with extremely fine works, right from the get-go.

[ibanezmonster]

I understand the "egotistical" quality of Strauss' music- it might not be intentional, but I get that sense when I listen to it, which I don't get with Mahler, Wagner, or Bruckner. Maybe his disposition was a bit too sane to be writing Late Romantic music that gets under your skin, like the music of the other three. I like his music, but it doesn't have that edge to it.

[otare]

I don't know if it is an unpopular opinion, but I have just been listening to the box of Van Cliburn's recordings, and I am wondering why I bothered. What an overrated pianist! Very limited repertoire, and from what I hear he only knew how to play Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. His Beethoven and Chopin is heavy-handed and totally out of style. His Brahms and Debussy is boring. He didn't make many recordings, and I really wonder why he was allowed to make any at all.

[The Six]

I haven't bothered with his recordings, but it is possible that he coasted on that Tchaikovsky Competition win for his whole career. Pianists who stick to the Chopin/Rach/Liszt, etc group of Romantic composers are a dime a dozen, and typically demonstrate a limited range of creativity.

[Sammy]

I don't know if it is an unpopular opinion, but I have just been listening to the box of Van Cliburn's recordings, and I am wondering why I bothered. What an overrated pianist! Very limited repertoire, and from what I hear he only knew how to play Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. His Beethoven and Chopin is heavy-handed and totally out of style. His Brahms and Debussy is boring. He didn't make many recordings, and I really wonder why he was allowed to make any at all.

Must be that little competition he won that made him an overnight global sensation.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I don't know if it is an unpopular opinion, but I have just been listening to the box of Van Cliburn's recordings, and I am wondering why I bothered. What an overrated pianist! Very limited repertoire, and from what I hear he only knew how to play Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. His Beethoven and Chopin is heavy-handed and totally out of style. His Brahms and Debussy is boring. He didn't make many recordings, and I really wonder why he was allowed to make any at all.

I haven't bothered with his recordings, but it is possible that he coasted on that Tchaikovsky Competition win for his whole career. Pianists who stick to the Chopin/Rach/Liszt, etc group of Romantic composers are a dime a dozen, and typically demonstrate a limited range of creativity.

Van Cliburn suffered from a debilitating bout of performance nerves that dogged him his entire career. He didn't ask for his instant stardom after his Tchaikovsky competition win but at that particular moment in history he somehow managed to overcome his demons and put on a show that won over probably one of the most critical of audiences (Moscow) in a competition that was - to say the least - close to the hearts of the hometown crew. During the Cold War.

You want extreme pressure-cooker, that was it.

Of course, post-competition things changed and his performance apprehensions took control and things were never the same. And no doubt this carried over into the recording studio.

It's actually a sad tale but one that's not deserving derision.  
 

[otare]

You are probably right. I'm sure there are reasons for his poor performances on record. Let's just say that his recordings are not of a very high standard for whatever reason.