Composers you don't get

[ibanezmonster]

and my prior statements still stand. I don't feel bad for having listened to these symphonies. I just don't feel anything drawing me in or even drawing me back to relisten to any of them

If I did the same project, I'd almost bet money I'd have the same exact reaction.

[Ken B]

Mozart's music is the most profoundly human ever composed I think. But all the deepest, lightest, saddest, happiest, most memorable, etc music he composed—the stuff worth listening to more than once—is accounted for in some 60-70 works I'm estimating. Though subjective of course I think most people's lists won't be too dissimilar:

Nozze / DG / Cosi / Zauberflöte
Requiem / C Minor Mass
Piano Concertos 9 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27
Sinfonia Concertante
Clarinet Concerto
Symphonies 38 / 39 / 40 / 41
The last ten string quartets
String quintets 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Clarinet quintet
"Kegelstatt" Trio
Piano quartets
Divertimento for string trio K563
Some of the piano and violin sonatas (almost certainly K310, 457/475, 576, 379 and 526, but this depends on the listener I guess)
Gran Partita K361
[remaining spaces left open for subjectivity]

Not that there's anything wrong with the other works, just that these in particular seem on a higher plane, and are difficult to even compare with the others. By comparison, with Haydn virtually all of the works are of the same (high, if perhaps not quite as sublime as Mozart's greatest) quality, containing so many surprises, emotional extremes and memorable ideas as to make his output seem inexhaustible.

Anyway, for "composers I don't get"... Merzbow.

More or less. Left off the Piano and Wind Quintet, K452, which WAM considered (at that time ) the best music he ever wrote. I'd toss in PC 14 and out with PC 26.

[Karl Henning]

If I did the same project, I'd almost bet money I'd have the same exact reaction.

This does nothing for you?

http://www.youtube.com/v/2UpLYuSVgoQ

[ibanezmonster]

This does nothing for you?

I like it.

There are a few Mozart works that I've liked, though I've heard several of the symphonies and either didn't care for them or felt that they could just be something different to listen to if I felt like it. And the assessment of it being nice music but not really deep is what I thought of what I heard (don't remember which ones, though, it's been a few years). I wouldn't be surprised if there were only maybe 5 of them total that I genuinely enjoyed listening to repeatedly.

But eventually I do plan to listen to them all, of course.

[Ken B]

Completed my Mozart Symphony cycle listen. Today was 36-41, and my prior statements still stand. I don't feel bad for having listened to these symphonies. I just don't feel anything drawing me in or even drawing me back to relisten to any of them SAVE No. 36. This is the one symphony in which I came away invigorated to go back and discover those lost nuances. It was moving and exciting and was the single symphony that didn't sound like it was just a piece of a quilt. No. 36 stood out to me, and simply discovering that fact, made this whole project worthwhile.

36 Bohm (Relisten)
37 Leinsdorf
38 Honek
39 Harnoncourt
40 Bernstein
41 Haitink

In almost 40 years I have never managed to listen to 37.
I saw it on a concert listing once with Sibelius's 8 and the fourth movement of Bruckner's 9 but just walked on by. Am I sorry now.

[Jo498]

There is no #37. Mozart wrote a slow introduction to a symphony of Michael Haydn and apparently this was mistaken as one of Mozart's.

I wonder what kind of music people find "deep" if Mozart's #38 or #39 don't qualify?

[Pat B]

I like Mozart, but I'm not sure how enthusiastic I would be about #39 if I had just listened to the previous 37.

[amw]

While the minor-key works are usually the ones people who don't find Mozart "deep" enough are advised to listen to (esp K427, 491, 516 and 550) I think his "deepest" work may be the String Quintet K515, the prototype of Schubert's C major quintet.

That or K595.

Maybe I'm just weird.

[Cato]

This does nothing for you?

http://www.youtube.com/v/2UpLYuSVgoQ

Verrry interesting!   

[Madiel]

I like Mozart, but I'm not sure how enthusiastic I would be about #39 if I had just listened to the previous 37.

Yes, this crossed my mind as well.  It doesn't matter who the composer is, churning through 10 or 15 works in a day is the very opposite of a way to find 'depth'.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to skim across the surface of everything saying "show me depth". The Mariana Trench doesn't look deep if you zoom past it on a motorboat.

[Ken B]

While the minor-key works are usually the ones people who don't find Mozart "deep" enough are advised to listen to (esp K427, 491, 516 and 550) I think his "deepest" work may be the String Quintet K515, the prototype of Schubert's C major quintet.

That or K595.

Maybe I'm just weird.

I had a friend --now a convicted felon, you decide -- who hated Mozart but loved Boulez and Ravebussy. (Did I mention the felon bit?). I played for him K427. He loved it and said the one guy who he was sure did not write it was Mozart.

[Jo498]

I think the K 593 quintet may be the "deepest" quintet; in any case the last two seem to be somewhat neglected compared to 515/516.
I also agree that one will not get so much out of a Mozart symphony if ones listens to 5 or 10 in a row. Things tend to get blurred (and it would be the same with Bruckner's, only not many would even try to listen to 5 in a row).

[Madiel]

Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?

I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.

(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)

[Ken B]

Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?

I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.

(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)

Oh for sure. But some claim that because he sounds so deft and light he lacks depth. But you are right: he is Charlie Chaplin and most of his contemporaries are the Keystone Kops. 

[Karl Henning]

I like it.

There are a few Mozart works that I've liked, though I've heard several of the symphonies and either didn't care for them or felt that they could just be something different to listen to if I felt like it. And the assessment of it being nice music but not really deep is what I thought of what I heard (don't remember which ones, though, it's been a few years). I wouldn't be surprised if there were only maybe 5 of them total that I genuinely enjoyed listening to repeatedly.

But eventually I do plan to listen to them all, of course.

Stout fellow!

[Mandryka]

Random thought while listening to some Mozart piano sonatas (K.570 at the moment): isn't being light one of the reasons to *like* Mozart?

I mean, everyone's been talking as if all the challenge is in being deep. But that isn't true. Being as light on your feet as Mozart is isn't something that just happens without talent or effort. Making music SOUND light can actually be pretty hard work. A lesser composer of the period is going to sound four-square or stodgy in comparison.

(And, speaking from my piano student days, playing Mozart to convey the grace and lightness is sometimes considerably more difficult than a composer who allows you to lay into the keyboard in a forceful fashion.)

Light is good (overture to Così, after the intro)
Heavy is good (Requiem - Lacrimosa)
Deep is best (contessa perdono - Figaro)

K 570 by the way seems to me more like Contessa Perdono than the others, at least potentially.

[Madiel]

K 570 by the way seems to me more like Contessa Perdono than the others, at least potentially.

There are definitely a few of the piano sonatas with operatic/vocal qualities.

[eoghan]

Interesting discussion. I too fall into the camp of generally being pretty ambivalent towards Haydn and Mozart. But I think to an extent that stems from ploughing through string quartets, badly, at school.

I still struggle with Haydn if truth be told but I think that's partly because I've never really explored his "best" work - I don't even know what his best is. Mozart, on the other hand, I think is akin to eating out in an Italian restaurant. There's no point in paying big money in a restaurant for a bit of bruschetta or a slab of mozzarella with some basil leaves unless (1) it uses the very best ingredients and (2) it's PERFECTLY prepared. Similarly with Mozart, I generally found his music pretty dull, but I realised that at his very, very best his music is pretty much perfection. The late piano concertos and the operas, when they're played by the very best, are just out of this world.#

But the one I just don't get is Schubert. Beethoven - yes. Mendelssohn - yes. Schumann - a cautious yes, although I don't know enough of his music and probably wouldn't go out of my way to hear it. But Schubert just strikes me as being less complex, less tuneful, less emotional and just less interesting than Beethoven or any other contemporaries. That's just the instrumental music (I don't "do" songs). The "HIP Romantic recordings" thread has inspired me, however, and I've recently bought the Immerseel/Beths/Bylsma CD of the Schubert trios which is getting a good few airings. Perhaps I'll be turned?

Another one who I formerly didn't get but am making an effort with, with good results so far: CPE Bach.

Oh, and Dvorak. With a few exceptions (cello concerto, etc) it just leaves me cold.

Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded? Is it that he was just a bit of an oddball and so gets a cult following, or am I missing something in his music?

[Jo498]

I have the somewhat provocative idea that Schubert (who died a few months before turning 32) had only "found his style" in a few pieces and even the mature ones, great as they are in many respects, still show what could be conceived of as "weaknesses". A case in point are the last two piano sonatas D 959 and 960, revered pieces that many listeners count among the greatest music. Although others (or even the same ones) are puzzled how he can follow extraordinary "deep" and emotionally challenging slow movements with a somewhat run of the mill scherzo and finale, teeming with good-natured Viennese Laendler etc. Even the finale of what may be his greatest instrumental work, the string quintet, has a section I secretly dub "the Kaffeehausmusik".

Nevertheless, I think he solved those problems of form and balance of movements quite satisfactorily in the string quintet, quartets in d minor and G major, the C major symphony and the Trios. And if some of the piano sonatas may confuse the listener with a leisurely going Rondo after some heart wrenching slow movement, the best ones are very impressive anyway. Most of them are very broadly conceived and somewhat slow going, so one should not judge them with the concentration and density one would find in Beethoven.

Another interesting thing is that Schubert could be unconventional and almost terse, but he did this only twice in larger works, namely the "Wanderer" Fantasy and the violin fantasy. The former was one of the few instrumental works that were well known and influential in the 19th century. Liszt arranged it as a piano concerto with orchestra and the integrated form of his piano sonata ows quite a bit to the piece.

[Scion7]

But the one I just don't get is Schubert. Perhaps I'll be turned?

Let's certainly hope so!   

Another one who I formerly didn't get but am making an effort with, with good results so far: CPE Bach.

Tsk tsk.  Hopefully you find JS, and the other sons, enjoyable?

Oh, and Dvorak. With a few exceptions (cello concerto, etc) it just leaves me cold.

Tsk tsk, reprise. A contender for the greatest Czech composer, and since there are several great ones (like Smetana), that's saying something.  With very few exceptions, I find his work very admirable.

Final question: why is Erik Satie so highly lauded?

If he is, it is by his aficionados.  Generally speaking, even finding his works in the racks is a miracle - and very rarely played on the classical stations. And on the stage?  Bah.  Now, this is not in itself a condemnation of the music, since, say, Bacewicz is only now getting recorded more and more, but rarely heard on western Classical stations or the stage, but while she is probably the greatest female composer of all time, this is an injustice, while Satie is of much lesser interest.