The title may suggest I'm trolling, but I don't think such an interpretation is in agreement with the content of the post.SY said:I'm glad you're not trolling or anything.
jackinnj, I don't follow that 'speaks to the soul' thing at all. It sounds nice, but when I think about it, it doesn't mean anything.
And if you insist on it, then I should ask who you think, say, Schubert, speaks to (I'm guessing not his syphilis!)
As for Bach speaking to gAWD, I love the music yet I'm the biggest atheist on this spiral arm; the motivation behind music is to me largely irrelevant.
Nixie said:
Now there's the reason. You get what you pay for.
Everybody tends to discover the composers in their own individual order. You will probably discover Mozart too one day, when you are ready for it. Somebody else maybe loves Mozart, but can't understand Beethoven, until suddenly, one day, it is all revealed...
Don't forget that interpretation means a lot in classical music. Mayby you have just happened to try boring performers?
Christer is very right,
The performance and interpretation means everything. The best Rhapsody in Blue was, IMO, Leonard Bernstein at the keys in New York... early CD... so-so recording... even some bad notes in the piano work, but the best music!
And Beethoven is always hard to listen to the first few times... it's complicated music.
Listen to Mozart's operas... that really the only opera I will listen to... he did his best work when pretty sopranos were involved.
The performance and interpretation means everything. The best Rhapsody in Blue was, IMO, Leonard Bernstein at the keys in New York... early CD... so-so recording... even some bad notes in the piano work, but the best music!
And Beethoven is always hard to listen to the first few times... it's complicated music.
Listen to Mozart's operas... that really the only opera I will listen to... he did his best work when pretty sopranos were involved.
Quote from Peter Schaffer's Amadeus: 'Too many notes.'
I can't disagree. Very good no doubt, but not for me. Then again, I'm a luddite apparantly as I have never been made to feel welcome at any classical concert I've ever been too. Apparantly, and I quote what some pretentious old toad said to my face: 'I can't understand.' This was because, if you're interested, I er, went to hear and enjoy some music. Apparantly this was anathama to the people there, like passing the port the wrong way round. Music is not, I gathered, supposed to be enjoyed.
And they wonder why listener numbers are dwindling. Sigh.
I can't disagree. Very good no doubt, but not for me. Then again, I'm a luddite apparantly as I have never been made to feel welcome at any classical concert I've ever been too. Apparantly, and I quote what some pretentious old toad said to my face: 'I can't understand.' This was because, if you're interested, I er, went to hear and enjoy some music. Apparantly this was anathama to the people there, like passing the port the wrong way round. Music is not, I gathered, supposed to be enjoyed.
And they wonder why listener numbers are dwindling. Sigh.
Mozart ***
I thought the same until I heard the strings quintets!
WOW!
Gentlemen, it is on chamber music where the artist can express his most wild ideas. Usually, chamber compositions are a few decades ahead of the rest of an artist's work. For opera, it is totally the opposite: music is behind the rest of the production. Safe Wagner! Of course.
His Symphonies are very boring: mass entertainment.
His Operas are nice but lack of passion.
See, the problem with Mozart's music is that IT'S PERFECT on the formal aspect, so your brain is not impressed (maybe because you know what's next, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Brahms...etc.)
BUT, playing it must be extreeeemelly difficult because the player must not show any stress while trying to maintain the perfect style and sound. He has to make you think that it's actually easy to perform.
It's like in opera, anybody can sing "verismo" (for a while) but not everybody can sing a Mozart aria
I will surelly explore the rest of his chamber music.
Regards
Mauricio
I thought the same until I heard the strings quintets!
WOW!Gentlemen, it is on chamber music where the artist can express his most wild ideas. Usually, chamber compositions are a few decades ahead of the rest of an artist's work. For opera, it is totally the opposite: music is behind the rest of the production. Safe Wagner! Of course.
His Symphonies are very boring: mass entertainment.
His Operas are nice but lack of passion.
See, the problem with Mozart's music is that IT'S PERFECT on the formal aspect, so your brain is not impressed (maybe because you know what's next, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Brahms...etc.)
BUT, playing it must be extreeeemelly difficult because the player must not show any stress while trying to maintain the perfect style and sound. He has to make you think that it's actually easy to perform.
It's like in opera, anybody can sing "verismo" (for a while) but not everybody can sing a Mozart aria
I will surelly explore the rest of his chamber music.
Regards
Mauricio
Scottmoose said:
Yeah, and I also like what Hesse wrote about that in "Steppenwolf" (1927).
And me being from Salzburg, I certainly do not agree with anything that contains "Mozart" and "sucks" within the same sentence
Tim Horton Bassmaster ProOh, and I know some people from the Mozarteum who wouldn't be very fond of what's going on here
http://www.moz.ac.at/
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.