# If like me you love Maurice...and Igor



## fiestared

There is a "Facebook" page(in French) with lots of informations, photos, and details about Maurice Ravel...

https://www.facebook.com/amisdemaur...4tQhQ2-QVLPEhmi1XvKUkaCiK9pWe64L6uu0M&fref=nf


----------



## ctsai89

fiestared said:


> There is a "Facebook" page(in French) with lots of informations, photos, and details about Maurice Ravel...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/amisdemaur...4tQhQ2-QVLPEhmi1XvKUkaCiK9pWe64L6uu0M&fref=nf



are you kidding me. He's one of my favorite composers.


----------



## Iskra

Who doesn't love Ravel?!?!?!?!?


----------



## mikeh-375

In an alternative universe, I, me, not Him, has written Daphnis and Chloe.


----------



## Iskra

In a modest alternative universe, me, not him, has written just 3 pages of jeux d'eau.
In my wildest alternative universe, me, not him, has written the piano trio in A minor.


----------



## mikeh-375

Iskra, judging from your avatar, I reckon you could sight read Jeux d'eau


----------



## ctsai89

mikeh-375 said:


> Iskra, judging from your avatar, I reckon you could sight read Jeux d'eau



nope nope!. I am liszt/Chopin's true successor. I CAN SIGHT READ THAT I AM SCRIABIN THE GOD OF MUSIC


----------



## mikeh-375

ctsai---lol, what colour is Jeux d'eau????


----------



## ctsai89

mikeh-375 said:


> ctsai---lol, what colour is Jeux d'eau????


----------



## Iskra

mikeh-375 said:


> Iskra, judging from your avatar, I reckon you could sight read Jeux d'eau


In an alternative universe, yes. 
In this universe, long time ago, it took me around 9 months to learn it so-so just to pass the conservatory exam


----------



## mikeh-375

Nice one Iskra, did you ever play le Tombeau de C? I could never get those damn mordents sounding good in the first mvt. That is another work I should have written.
Ctsai,
Do you have perfect or relative colour?


----------



## ctsai89

mikeh-375 said:


> Nice one Iskra, did you ever play le Tombeau de C? I could never get those damn mordents sounding good in the first mvt. That is another work I should have written.
> Ctsai,
> Do you have perfect or relative colour?



i've got the P pitch but can't see colour like Scriabin could. :( Guess I'm not qualified to be the reincarnation of my favorite composer :(


----------



## ctsai89

@Iskra have you ever played Scriabin's etude op. 42 no. 5? took me about 3 months to finish learning it. 

Rachmaninoff's etude tableau op 39. no 5 only took me a month

But all of those would've taken Scriabin a sight read to learn.

how long do you think it'll take me to learn jeux d'eau.. it actually doesn't look too hard physically...


----------



## ctsai89

gaspard de la nuit though.. that would probably take me 5 years to learn lmfao


----------



## Iskra

mikeh-375 said:


> I could never get those damn mordents sounding good in the first mvt.


In that first movement the most difficult thing for me was to keep the evenness of all those eights (in rhythm, volume, legato).. tough stuff! Actually one of my teachers from back then told me a 'trick' I still use: play them as jazz eights while practicing. She was right! After practicing with syncopation then the evenness was easy (for a while, at least)


----------



## JohnG

I have learned so much from Ravel. His scores give us an entire orchestration curriculum.


----------



## Iskra

ctsai89 said:


> @Iskra have you ever played Scriabin's etude op. 42 no. 5?


Back in the day, yes. But that was like 20 years ago when I was practicing 6 hours per day and was at the top of my technical game. I have lost a lot of 'fingers', so there are many things from that time I can't play anymore (unless I start practicing again for 6 hours!). In one of my exams I remember preparing Op.8 n12 from you (  ) and Vallée d'Obermann of myself. If I try to play those now I think my arms and wrists will fall apart in a musical pandemonium not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Iskra

JohnG said:


> I have learned so much from Ravel. His scores give us an entire orchestration curriculum.



So true.
The man's work is an enciclopedia by itself, both in composition and orchestration.


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> Back in the day, yes. But that was like 20 years ago when I was practicing 6 hours per day and was at the top of my technical game. I have lost a lot of 'fingers', so there are many things from that time I can't play anymore (unless I start practicing again for 6 hours!). In one of my exams I remember preparing Op.8 n12 from you (  ) and Vallée d'Obermann of myself. If I try to play those now I think my arms and wrists will fall apart in a musical pandemonium not for the faint of heart.



I practiced about 2 hours a day for 3 months to get the scriabin etude correctly. 

Oh I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've accidentally jammed my fingers. My forearm muscles also feel extremely sore and dehydrated everytime I practiced it. And yea I think I hurt my wrist so I stopped playing for about 2 weeks and it healed fortunately...

too physically demanding.


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr

ctsai89 said:


>



my friend, you know I am fascinated by scriabin...promethean scales and harmony..


----------



## ctsai89

AlexanderSchiborr said:


> my friend, you know I am fascinated by scriabin...promethean scales and harmony..



yep! you showed me that piece of yours. It's awesome. 

Scriabin's language should not be underestimate. There's so much use for it especially in film music.

But honestly I think his more "tonal" works deserves quite a lot of attention as well. They are just the very highlight of fin de ciele era music.

It's just so sad he didn't live long enough :( 

He would've been the very face of concert music. Single handedly affecting music history as we know it. Mozart/Brahms would've easily been forgotten because of His greatness but history had to go the way it went :(


----------



## Johnny42

ctsai89 said:


> gaspard de la nuit though.. that would probably take me 5 years to learn lmfao


I actually performed it for my senior recital a loooooong time ago. It was gruesome.

Exquisite musical taste!!


----------



## mikeh-375

JohnG said:


> I have learned so much from Ravel. His scores give us an entire orchestration curriculum.



Indeed John. Every part idiomatic, every detail considered and in combination, infused with inventive imagination. The whole merging into a seductive sound.


----------



## fiestared

Here is a link to a superb concert in Prague. Images and sound are excellent... (I hope you won't have a problem of country or zone)
https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/075386-001-A/gautier-capucon-a-prague/
Programme :
-Maurice Ravel
Le Tombeau de Couperin, suite pour orchestre
-Camille Saint-Saëns
Concerto pour violoncelle n°1 en la mineur, op. 33
Le carnaval des animaux, le cygne
-Albert Roussel
Symphonie n°3 en sol mineur, op. 42
-Maurice Ravel
La Valse, poème chorégraphique pour orchestre
ENJOY my friends !

EDIT The link !


----------



## Iskra

Now we're sharing... 
Some lectures on pieces by Ravel (I love them, so it may be interesting for others). Dedicated to piano trio, string quartet in F and Gaspard de la Nuit.


----------



## ctsai89

fiestared said:


> Here is a link to a superb concert in Prague. Images and sound are excellent... (I hope you won't have a problem of country or zone)
> https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/075386-001-A/gautier-capucon-a-prague/
> Programme :
> -Maurice Ravel
> Le Tombeau de Couperin, suite pour orchestre
> -Camille Saint-Saëns
> Concerto pour violoncelle n°1 en la mineur, op. 33
> Le carnaval des animaux, le cygne
> -Albert Roussel
> Symphonie n°3 en sol mineur, op. 42
> -Maurice Ravel
> La Valse, poème chorégraphique pour orchestre
> ENJOY my friends !
> 
> EDIT The link !



Gautier capucon's such a great celllist. Nice


----------



## fiestared

Iskra said:


> Now we're sharing...
> Some lectures on pieces by Ravel (I love them, so it may be interesting for others). Dedicated to piano trio, string quartet in F and Gaspard de la Nuit.



Fantastic ! Thank you for sharing these Iskra...


----------



## Iskra

fiestared said:


> Thank you for sharing these Iskra...


My pleasure  Hope you enjoy them!


----------



## LondonMike

Great thread! I’ll be sure to check out those links.
My undergraduate dissertation was on Ravel’s piano music!
Some marvellous stuff there! A very refined ear for harmony.


----------



## ctsai89

Ravel > Debussy


----------



## leon chevalier

ctsai89 said:


> Ravel > Debussy


Ravel > Debussy > me


----------



## ctsai89

leon chevalier said:


> Ravel > Debussy > me


 

You = me


----------



## fiestared

Iskra said:


> My pleasure  Hope you enjoy them!


O yes I enjoy them, there are some incredible gems in them...


----------



## Robert Jason

Quick Ravel/Gershwin story. Ravel attends a concert of Gershwin's music, comes backstage to congratulate Gershwin. Upon seeing the famed Ravel, Gershwin asks Ravel to work/instruct him (Gershwin). Ravel replies "why would you want to be a 2nd rate Ravel when you're already a first rate Gershwin?"
Both Ravel piano concertos are wonderful, rich with orchestral color, of course...even a WHIP, in No 1!


----------



## ctsai89

Robert Jason said:


> Quick Ravel/Gershwin story. Ravel attends a concert of Gershwin's music, comes backstage to congratulate Gershwin. Upon seeing the famed Ravel, Gershwin asks Ravel to work/instruct him (Gershwin). Ravel replies "why would you want to be a 2nd rate Ravel when you're already a first rate Gershwin?"
> Both Ravel piano concertos are wonderful, rich with orchestral color, of course...even a WHIP, in No 1!



I'd honestly rather be Ravel if I were Gershwin lol. I don't blame Gershwin for having thought about it


----------



## ctsai89

@Robert Jason 

Speaking of Gershwin though. Skip to 7:36 and listen. Do you think Gershwin stole a lot of stuff from Scriabin's sonata no. 5 for his rhapsody in Blues? i think so


----------



## mikeh-375

Ctsai, I can't immediately hear any Gershwin but thanks for posting a great piece I didn't know.


----------



## jjmmuir

Iskra said:


> Now we're sharing...
> Some lectures on pieces by Ravel (I love them, so it may be interesting for others). Dedicated to piano trio, string quartet in F and Gaspard de la Nuit.



Great share - thanks


----------



## Iskra

leon chevalier said:


> Ravel > Debussy > me





ctsai89 said:


> You = me


More likely:

Ravel = Debussy = many > many > ...someone like Cherubini... > many >...someone like Zemlinsky...> ...you two ('cos you guys rock) > me.


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> More likely:
> 
> Ravel = Debussy = many > many > ...someone like Cherubini... > many >...someone like Zemlinsky...> ...you two ('cos you guys rock) > me.



but Scriabin > all. And All > me cuz everyone else rocks  I do too kinda.


----------



## Erick - BVA

I always go back and forth between Debussy and Ravel. I tend to think that Ravel's music lacks a little depth, but where it lacks in depth it makes up for in color and orchestration (Daphnis et Chloe?). Debussy had a little more of a quirky sense of orchestration, and sometimes it didn't really work (some of the stuff in "Iberia"). But for me, nothing will beat the experience I had of the first time hearing Debussy's "Nuages" --which also happened to be on vinyl. One of the most haunting and strange pieces ever written.
I don't think I could really rate composers though. I just go through phases of listening. I tend to overlook the baroque and classical era ones though, not really a fan.


----------



## ctsai89

Sibelius19 said:


> I always go back and forth between Debussy and Ravel. I tend to think that Ravel's music lacks a little depth, but where it lacks in depth it makes up for in color and orchestration (Daphnis et Chloe?). Debussy had a little more of a quirky sense of orchestration, and sometimes it didn't really work (some of the stuff in "Iberia"). But for me, nothing will beat the experience I had of the first time hearing Debussy's "Nuages" --which also happened to be on vinyl. One of the most haunting and strange pieces ever written.
> I don't think I could really rate composers though. I just go through phases of listening. I tend to overlook the baroque and classical era ones though, not really a fan.



Baroque is cool with me. But classical era is completely awful to me haha. Well said!


----------



## ctsai89

it was such a joke. Chord progressions goes I, V, I, V7 I, V back to I without fail non-stop. Classical era = awful.


----------



## Iskra

ctsai89 said:


> Chord progressions goes I, V, I, V7 I, V back to I without fail non-stop


But delightfully and beautifully done. 
Mind you, without Haydn there would have been no Beethoven, without Beethoven no Wagner, and without Wagner you would not have existed. 
I haven't found yet a single musician that doesn't like to play Haydn or Wolfi.
Now back to my northern neighbor Ravel:


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> But delightfully and beautifully done.
> Mind you, without Haydn there would have been no Beethoven, without Beethoven no Wagner, and without Wagner you would not have existed.
> I haven't found yet a single musician that doesn't like to play Haydn or Wolfi.
> Now back to my northern neighbor Ravel:




I like some of the Haydn stuff. But I definitely think that romantic era could have started with the classical era having been skipped. Beginning with Beethoven. But instead classical era was there to set music backwards a few decades

I would say the modern era stuff would not have existed if Scriabin wasn't there. He was the first to start the movement of weird sounding Harmony and chords yet the atonal guys always credit their achievements back to Schoenberg but not Scriabin. 

I think it's just a projection that one would've not existed without the other. I think many would've very well existed without the one that existed before they did. 

The alternate version of music history may very well have turned to be better than anyone could've imagined it to be. So who knows. Oh wellz.


----------



## LondonMike

ctsai89 said:


> I like some of the Haydn stuff. But I definitely think that romantic era could have started with the classical era having been skipped. Beginning with Beethoven. But instead classical era was there to set music backwards a few decades



That is a very peculiar way of looking at the development of music if you don't mind me saying.
Early and early middle period Beethoven is absolutely classical.
I'd say the change of thinking and practices that the classical era brought from that of the Baroque era especially in orchestration and form but also in melody, formed the basis of everything that followed for a very long time.

But this is a Ravel thread so here's my favourite waltz from Valse Nobles...


----------



## ctsai89

LondonMike said:


> That is a very peculiar way of looking at the development of music if you don't mind me saying.
> Early and early middle period Beethoven is absolutely classical.
> I'd say the change of thinking and practices that the classical era brought from that of the Baroque era especially in orchestration and form but also in melody, formed the basis of everything that followed for a very long time.
> 
> But this is a Ravel thread so here's my favourite waltz from Valse Nobles...





Sure but in terms of the harmonic language the classical era has set music backwards just my opinion. That is one of the most important part that I am speaking of. Aaron Copland would probably agree with me in another way on this as he opposes the sonata form in music as well but I don't have too much of a problem with the forms of music created from the classical era. In terms of orchestration, I would say there are many ways to orchestrate and that is evidenced by the fact that we have hybrid orchestration nowadays. The classical era advanced in terms of orchestration in a way that only encouraged composers to restrict orchestration to western classical music instruments.


----------



## LondonMike

ctsai89 said:


> Sure but in terms of the harmonic language the classical era has set music backwards just my opinion. That is one of the most important part that I am speaking of. Aaron Copland would probably agree with me in another way on this as he opposes the sonata form in music as well but I don't have too much of a problem with the forms of music created from the classical era. In terms of orchestration, I would say there are many ways to orchestrate and that is evidenced by the fact that we have hybrid orchestration nowadays. The classical era advanced in terms of orchestration in a way that only encouraged composers to restrict orchestration to western classical music instruments.


Well, orchestration wasn’t even really a thing in itself before the classical era made it one. In terms of ‘colour’ and splitting the orchestra into sections of brass, woodwind, strings and percussion etc.
I also have to disagree about harmony in the classical era which to me is a perfect example of ‘economy of means’ or ‘less is more’. In the right hands of course!


----------



## ctsai89

LondonMike said:


> Well, orchestration wasn’t even really a thing in itself before the classical era made it one. In terms of ‘colour’ and splitting the orchestra into sections of brass, woodwind, strings and percussion etc.
> I also have to disagree about harmony in the classical era which to me is a perfect example of ‘economy of means’ or ‘less is more’. In the right hands of course!



I agree with you that less is more. My favorite "less is more" kind of chord progression is something like i, VI, VII, iv back to i. Or VI, VII, i, iv, then loop. You'll hear a lot of that stuff in EDM so I never said less is bad.

But... the classical era is so constricted in terms of rules that they never dared doing something like the above chord progressions I listed where the dominant chord doens't always resolve also the 7th note isn't aways sharped. Seems to me classical era is all about formula that made it simple and in a way it limited art. Which was basically just I, IV, V7, I or i, iv, V7, i without fail......

In my personal opinion and please feel free to elaborate or educate me (  ) if you disagree: that the kind of harmony taht Bach was writing was way ahead of his own era AND the following era: classical era.


----------



## Johnny42

ctsai89 said:


> I agree with you that less is more. My favorite "less is more" kind of chord progression is something like i, VI, VII, iv back to i. Or VI, VII, i, iv, then loop. You'll hear a lot of that stuff in EDM so I never said less is bad.
> 
> But... the classical era is so constricted in terms of rules that they never dared doing something like the above chord progressions I listed where the dominant chord doens't always resolve also the 7th note isn't aways sharped. Seems to me classical era is all about formula that made it simple and in a way it limited art. Which was basically just I, IV, V7, I or i, iv, V7, i without fail......
> 
> In my personal opinion and please feel free to elaborate or educate me (  ) if you disagree: that the kind of harmony taht Bach was writing was way ahead of his own era AND the following era: classical era.


There is a lot more going on within the constraint of the sonata form. Let's take Mozart 40th for example. A simple half step motivic idea Eb-D is used as part of the theme. He then expanded that idea ( E-Eb-D) to move to the dominant.
The second theme starts with the notes F-E-Eb. While the harmonic language may not have been that sophisticated(that is in retrospect), the classical composers made up for it in other ways. What is funny is that we have the exact opposite in Wagner. His unwillingness to resolve the dominant


----------



## ctsai89

Johnny42 said:


> There is a lot more going on within the constraint of the sonata form. Let's take Mozart 40th for example. A simple half step motivic idea Eb-D is used as part of the theme. He then expanded that idea ( E-Eb-D) to move to the dominant.
> The second theme starts with the notes F-E-Eb. While the harmonic language may not have been that sophisticated(that is in retrospect), the classical composers made up for it in other ways. What is funny is that we have the exact opposite in Wagner. His unwillingness to resolve the dominant



Mozart = boring/cheesy/insincere

Wagner = SUBLIME!


----------



## ctsai89

Ravel = exquisite!


----------



## JohnG

It's sacrilegious but I practically fall asleep listening to Mozart. I admire it, but....

Wagner -- sometimes! Hard for me to ignore what an awful person he seems to have been.

Ravel, I love all the time.


----------



## Carles

JohnG said:


> It's sacrilegious but I practically fall asleep listening to Mozart. I admire it, but....
> 
> Wagner -- sometimes! Hard for me to ignore what an awful person he seems to have been.
> 
> Ravel, I love all the time.


That's what I call a coincidence John, pretty much the same appreciation for all three here (have to exclude Requiem for a better matching though).


----------



## ctsai89

I'll give my take on how I would describe their music analogically


Mozarts music never feels like reaching orgasm. It's like just talking to a woman/man but everything stays first base and nothing more

Wagner music = sex with multiple orgasm 

Scriabin/Ravel = sex on ecstasy


----------



## Iskra

ctsai89 said:


> Mozart = boring/cheesy/insincere





ctsai89 said:


> Ravel = exquisite!


...Funny you say this, as Ravel himself said about his own music "_It is nothing but Mozart_"...
Plus:
"A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me." (Schubert)
"If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity". (Brahms)
"In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct". (Grieg)


ctsai89 said:


> in terms of the harmonic language the classical era has set music backwards just my opinion. That is one of the most important part that I am speaking of. Aaron Copland would probably agree with me in another way on this as he opposes the sonata form in music as well


"Mozart tapped the source from which all music flows, expressing himself with a spontaneity and refinement and breathtaking rightness." (Copland)


----------



## re-peat

I'm of the conviction that Mozart was one of the most inventive, fertile, imaginative and boldly pioneering musical minds ever put on this planet. On good days, of which he was given sadly far too few, he wrote music which escapes and transcends its stylistic straight-jacket with stunning ease to reach a level of abstract musical perfection and beauty; a level where stylistic, technical or formal considerations are no longer relevant. That occurs *only* with the greatest of the greatest. (I can think of only a tiny handful of composers that are able to go there with any regularity. Scriabin isn't one of them.)

It's precisely in the many restrictions which the style of the period imposed on him — and few periods in the history of music have been as imprisoned by a seemingly rigid system of structural and stylistic dogma's as the classical era — , that his peerless genius emerges most magnificently.
I say '_seemingly _rigid' because it is only in the hands of lesser composers and/or to the limited brain of the prejudiced or otherwise crippled listener that the conventions of the musical language present an insurmountable obstacle. Not so with Mozart.

Mozart adheres to those conventions with a flawless instinct and mastery, yet at the same time mocks them with what I can only describe as boundless inspiration of the highest musical order. The often almost arrogant self-confidence with which he either exploits or circumnavigates the many trappings, formulas, rules and generic gestures of the musical language he is required to speak, is one of the great musical wonders of all time, in my opinion.
Add to that a melodic gift that defies analysis plus a perfect sense and intuition for the structural distribution and balancing of conflict and resolution, and you have one of the greatest composers of that or any other age. A composer for which I feel no amount of our gratitude and respect will ever be sufficient.

Ravel, by the way, is actually a *very* Mozartean composer. Identical musical mould even, I'd say. Strip away the classicist disposition in Ravel and you're left with little else than 'many-coloured coatings without substance'. It's the Mozart in Ravel that provides the substance and makes the music as great as it is. On the surface, Mozart's and Ravel's music are very different — obviously —, but in its inner musical workings, technique and approach, they're virtually the same.

_


----------



## Living Fossil

ctsai89 said:


> I like some of the Haydn stuff. But I definitely think that romantic era could have started with the classical era having been skipped. Beginning with Beethoven. But instead classical era was there to set music backwards a few decades.



If it comes to harmony:
you need to look closer. The interesting things don't happen during the exposition of the main themes.
Mozart's music e.g. is full of harmonic details that are simply stunning.

If it comes to polyphony:
it's sure to say that after the barock era the polyphonic arts never again reached that level.

If it comes to formal language:
The development of the sonata form is an extreme achievement of the classical era. And the sonata form is the mother of that broad scope of thematic development that exists since.

If it comes to taste:
everybody is completely free to like or dislike whatever she/he wants.


----------



## JohnG

I don't dislike Mozart, just for the record. No doubt a reflection of (my) stunted musicality, I find when I put it on I think about something else.

I've watched Bernstein's lectures and when I see the fervour of his enthusiasm for Mozart's daring and genius, I realise I need another life to learn more.


----------



## rottoy

JohnG said:


> I don't dislike Mozart, just for the record. No doubt a reflection of (my) stunted musicality, I find when I put it on I think about something else.
> 
> I've watched Bernstein's lectures and when I see the fervour of his enthusiasm for Mozart's daring and genius, I realise I need another life to learn more.


----------



## ctsai89

JohnG said:


> I don't dislike Mozart, just for the record. No doubt a reflection of (my) stunted musicality, I find when I put it on I think about something else.
> 
> I've watched Bernstein's lectures and when I see the fervour of his enthusiasm for Mozart's daring and genius, I realise I need another life to learn more.



How humble of you!

I'd by far rather listen to your music than mozarts. Any day!

But I feel like your feeling towards mozarts music isn't due to not having learned enough but rather due to your sincere way of purely listening to music and judging without a corrupted "educated" or "brainwashed" mindset.


----------



## ctsai89

Of course most composers looked up to mozart in the old days because they didn't have cds or audio recordings like we do today.

But being a millennial, it's very hard to have time to dig into mozart (but I actually have, and I also listened to traditional middle eastern and African ethno-music as well just so you know I am not out of touch by being obsessed with only the late romantics).

What happens is that some people just don't have the patience to sit through mozarts music but they actually do have patience when it comes to the sexiness of ravel's music. It is closer to that of film's music.

But the problem is that they love to stereotype mozart as the face of concert music so when you put on Ravel they don't think you're showing them classical music (I'm not talking about classical era) but that you're showing them Disneyland music.


----------



## Iskra

Composers in the old days didn't needed CDs or recordings, scores were enough (scores are enough even in the current days, if you prefer to study that way). 
Mendelssohn looked back to Bach, Mozart and Haydn, as did Brahms, Ravel and Bartok, among many others. That 'some people' you're referring to are not the majority, not by far. As composers or musicians, we tend to overlook that we listen with different ears that the common people. We do listen critically, we are able to differentiate all instruments and enjoy a good modulation or orchestration trick both intellectually and emotionally, and so on. But the common people don't. 
The vast majority of people will listen Mozart happily in a concert hall or at the supermarket, but won't stand for a minute La Valse or Gaspard de la Nuit. We as composers-musicians prefer to listen to Ravel, Debussy or Brahms (whoever is your favorite 1880-onwards-composer), and tend to listen to much more late romantic/ early contemporary music than the rest of the people, precisely because we're composers/ musicians (and specially if you're into orchestral media composition, as we all are in one way or another).

Gee, even of those 'classical music' CD collections that come free with magazines or newspapers it's always baroque, classical and romantic music, with maybe a little Debussy and a little Richard Strauss thrown in. You won't find a collection for everyone that consist of Ravel, Debussy, Messiaen, Bartok, Shönberg and Stravinsky, but you will find many, many budget collections of classical and early romantic.That's not a stereotype, people listening to it transformed that music into a stereotype.

I love Mozart, Haydn and Bach, but I tend to listen more to Ravel, Stravinsky or Prokofiev, or Keith Jarrett or Miles or Pearl Jam from time to time, but that doesn't mean Ravel or Stravinsky are superior to the classicists. Music it's not a race. Listening more to other things is just my personal preference based on my experience and my ear, not a rule of thumb that I would apply to anyone but me. 
I prefer more harmonically and rhythmically complex music, but I'm kind of tired that for many musicians the history of music started with Bach, jumped to late Beethoven, then jumped again to late romantics, and then stopped somewhere during the early years of Berg and Bartok. All those great composers, like in science, were standing in the shoulders of other giants. If I cannot see all music as Bernstein or Ravel or Mendelssohn did (and of course I can't), it's because I would need 10 or 20 lifetimes to learn and understand what they learnt and understood.


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> Composers in the old days didn't needed CDs or recordings, scores were enough (scores are enough even in the current days, if you prefer to study that way).
> Mendelssohn looked back to Bach, Mozart and Haydn, as did Brahms, Ravel and Bartok, among many others. That 'some people' you're referring to are not the majority, not by far. As composers or musicians, we tend to overlook that we listen with different ears that the common people. We do listen critically, we are able to differentiate all instruments and enjoy a good modulation or orchestration trick both intellectually and emotionally, and so on. But the common people don't.
> The vast majority of people will listen Mozart happily in a concert hall or at the supermarket, but won't stand for a minute La Valse or Gaspard de la Nuit. We as composers-musicians prefer to listen to Ravel, Debussy or Brahms (whoever is your favorite 1880-onwards-composer), and tend to listen to much more late romantic/ early contemporary music than the rest of the people, precisely because we're composers/ musicians (and specially if you're into orchestral media composition, as we all are in one way or another).
> 
> Gee, even of those 'classical music' CD collections that come free with magazines or newspapers it's always baroque, classical and romantic music, with maybe a little Debussy and a little Richard Strauss thrown in. You won't find a collection for everyone that consist of Ravel, Debussy, Messiaen, Bartok, Shönberg and Stravinsky, but you will find many, many budget collections of classical and early romantic.That's not a stereotype, people listening to it transformed that music into a stereotype.
> 
> I love Mozart, Haydn and Bach, but I tend to listen more to Ravel, Stravinsky or Prokofiev, or Keith Jarrett or Miles or Pearl Jam from time to time, but that doesn't mean Ravel or Stravinsky are superior to the classicists. Music it's not a race. Listening more to other things is just my personal preference based on my experience and my ear, not a rule of thumb that I would apply to anyone but me.
> I prefer more harmonically and rhythmically complex music, but I'm kind of tired that for many musicians the history of music started with Bach, jumped to late Beethoven, then jumped again to late romantics, and then stopped somewhere during the early years of Berg and Bartok. All those great composers, like in science, were standing in the shoulders of other giants. If I cannot see all music as Bernstein or Ravel or Mendelssohn did (and of course I can't), it's because I would need 10 or 20 lifetimes to learn and understand what they learnt and understood.



I was about to like your post except..... WHY DIDN'T YOU, not even a single time write "LIZST" or "Scriabin"??? :(


----------



## Johnny42

Living Fossil said:


> If it comes to harmony:
> you need to look closer. The interesting things don't happen during the exposition of the main themes.
> Mozart's music e.g. is full of harmonic details that are simply stunning.
> 
> If it comes to polyphony:
> it's sure to say that after the barock era the polyphonic arts never again reached that level.
> 
> If it comes to formal language:
> The development of the sonata form is an extreme achievement of the classical era. And the sonata form is the mother of that broad scope of thematic development that exists since.
> 
> If it comes to taste:
> everybody is completely free to like or dislike whatever she/he wants.


@Living Fossil, your statement about thematic development and harmonic details in Mozart's music is so accurate.


----------



## LondonMike

It’s Ok prefer the music of one era over another but it’s a mistake to judge the music of an era from the vantage point of a later era. 
In other words, it is quite wrong to say Mozart and his contemporaries were constrained by rigid rules and formulae. In fact they were breaking free of the stuffy (to their ears) and confining practices of the late Baroque. 
In Mozart’s case this most noticbly applies to Opera which is an area where he really changed everything.
Composers of any era, the good ones anyway, do not obey rules so much as conceive music in their own way which has much to do with when and where they were born and what music they are surrounded with.


----------



## Carles

re-peat said:


> I'm of the conviction that Mozart was one of the most inventive, fertile, imaginative and boldly pioneering musical minds ever put on this planet.



I have to agree with that.



re-peat said:


> It's precisely in the many restrictions which the style of the period imposed on him — and few periods in the history of music have been as imprisoned by a seemingly rigid system of structural and stylistic dogma's as the classical era —


And that the reason for me to get bored. Is not fun to me when you are listening supposedly unheard music and you can so easily anticipate the end of a phrase with near 100% probability to guess "what's next", and this unfortunately applies (to me) not only to all the classical era composers but that "plain death commercial approach" is even degrading Mozart's geniality to my ears.
I feel sorry for Mozart in a different way but somehow similar to how I feel sorry for Shostakovich (and how both managed to cast their nature despite the rules).
So Mozart has my eternal recognizement and gratitude but it doesn't changes the fact that I get bored after listening for a while. Not proud of that but that's how it is.
Luckily for me, I find one of his pieces not adhering that much the era rules, Requiem, where forms and harmony much differs from those (to me) "easy and boring rules", a piece which I not only enjoy but also one of the ones that raises goose bumps on me.

Ravel to me has also "that thing" but unlike Mozart being prisoner of his era, Ravel had freedom to experiment not only with the flourished orchestration you make reference to, but also a harmonic freedom that did break the rules of the game by then (not to mention Debussy who I find even more "transgressive" about) while resulting so magical and imaginative.

Said that, I'd love to hear an hypothetical Mozart born one or two century later (or ironically even one century before) but unfortunately (to me) Mozart and his era are not divisible.


----------



## LondonMike

An example of Mozart breaking no ‘rules’.


----------



## ctsai89

Carles said:


> I have to agree with that.
> 
> 
> And that the reason for me to get bored. Is not fun to me when you are listening supposedly unheard music and you can so easily anticipate the end of a phrase with near 100% probability to guess "what's next", and this unfortunately applies (to me) not only to all the classical era composers but that "plain death commercial approach" is even degrading Mozart's geniality to my ears.
> I feel sorry for Mozart in a different way but somehow similar to how I feel sorry for Shostakovich (and how both managed to cast their nature despite the rules).
> So Mozart has my eternal recognizement and gratitude but it doesn't changes the fact that I get bored after listening for a while. Not proud of that but that's how it is.
> Luckily for me, I find one of his pieces not adhering that much the era rules, Requiem, where forms and harmony much differs from those (to me) "easy and boring rules", a piece which I not only enjoy but also one of the ones that raises goose bumps on me.
> 
> Ravel to me has also "that thing" but unlike Mozart being prisoner of his era, Ravel had freedom to experiment not only with the flourished orchestration you make reference to, but also a harmonic freedom that did break the rules of the game by then (not to mention Debussy who I find even more "transgressive" about) while resulting so magical and imaginative.
> 
> Said that, I'd love to hear an hypothetical Mozart born one or two century later (or ironically even one century before) but unfortunately (to me) Mozart and his era are not divisible.



:( unfortunately I can't feel the same way you do about requiem. It really lacks the emotion the title suggests as necessary (to my ears) but again I am opinionated. There are a few parts I like but on a scale of 1~10 in terms of how much I like those parts it's probably no more than 7/10 and the parts I like are only in about 10% in total of the whole way through which I am really sad for myself about it, how that I am not able to enjoy things that others can. 

Chopin/Ravel/Scriabin/BACH however: I can enjoy up at least 80% and up to 100% of their pieces. Some I even find that perfection exists only through their music. And the amount of how much I like on those parts on a scale of 1~10 is about 9/10 or 10/10. Listening to their longer works often times feels like watching a really really good movie that keeps me enticed the whole way through. And afterwards leaves me a feeling of satisfaction. I could even say I've lived a good life because I finally heard their work and could pass away in peace happily after hearing their works. Mozart never did had that effect on me. 

And in terms of his Dissonance quartet: it sounds just like the 500 other pieces he's written in all during his lifetime. Nothing special :( help me out and point to me what I can appreciate about it please thanks.


----------



## ctsai89

And honestly I am really confused. Some say that I am uneducated that's why I don't like Mozart. Some say I've had too much musical training thus it's why I am having harder than staying interested in Mozart. So what is my problem exactly?


----------



## LondonMike

ctsai89 said:


> And honestly I am really confused. Some say that I am uneducated that's why I don't like Mozart. Some say I've had too much musical training thus it's why I am having harder than staying interested in Mozart. So what is my problem exactly?


There's no law that says you have to like Mozart. Or Scriabin or Ravel for that matter.


----------



## fiestared

ctsai89 said:


> And honestly I am really confused. Some say that I am uneducated that's why I don't like Mozart. Some say I've had too much musical training thus it's why I am having harder than staying interested in Mozart. So what is my problem exactly?


Maybe you're in the complicate position of the "too much BUT not enough" , syndrome of the self-taught persons where I find myself very often ?


----------



## muk

A tangential point: I think that the Mozart reception of our time is going wrong. His music has become a favorite for advertisers. It is presented as easy listening, nice but totally harmless. In Mozart's time nothing could have been further from the truth. There were shocked and upset people leaving the room during his concerts. There are several letters from his father, Leopold, where he asks his son to please not forget about the 'common taste' of the audience ('Leute mit langen ohren'). Meaning that in his fathers opinion, Wolfgang was writing music that was baffling and perplexing the biggest part of the audience much too often. Today, his music is presented in smoothened versions drained in fabric softener, in tv advertising and on compilations like 'Music for relaxation'. In his time this same music was shockingly new.
The symphony no 40 k 550 is a good example for that. Widely known it is often presented in a nice sing-along style, just lean back in your seat and enjoy, we won't hurt you. No wonder if you get bored with that:



But that is just a misunderstand, a misreading of the music. Listen to this interpretation:



Here nothing is smoothened, and if you don't get a feeling that this music is telling something deeply uncomfortable, disturbing even, you are not paying close attention. Nicolas Harnoncourt said about this symphony: 'This music is about life and death, any other reading is simply a misunderstanding'. But all too often nothing of that is present in the interpretations we get to hear, maybe behind a nice commercial for cars or perfume.
That all doesn't mean that you have to like Mozart. If you don't it could mean that you are more drawn to the large late romantic symphonic sound, painted with broad brush strokes (and lots of brass) rather than the more subtle richnesses of classical era music. It could also mean that we are used to listening in a peculiar and twisted way to Mozart's music.


----------



## Iskra

muk said:


> Listen to this interpretation:


Amazing performance!!!! Thanks for sharing


----------



## ctsai89

LondonMike said:


> There's no law that says you have to like Mozart. Or Scriabin or Ravel for that matter.



But majority people look at me weird like "you love music but you don't like mozart??" 

Wish it was different sometimes.


----------



## ctsai89

And then the same old usual. Even amongst us musicians some ppl have never heard of Scriabin. Sickens me a bit.

At least most ppl know ravel


----------



## re-peat

ctsai89 said:


> But majority people look at me weird like "you love music but you don't like mozart??"




No sane person would ever look weirdly at you for simply not liking Mozart. I’ve been in blissful relationships with people who don’t like Mozart. No problem. People wil however start to look askance in your direction, and justifiably so if you ask me, when you declare Mozart and his music an ‘effortless, awful joke’ and ‘insincere’, ’annoying’, ‘childish’ and ‘cheesy’. Because with such comments you leave the realm of reasonable, intelligent debate, and enter that of irrational fanatic bias and plain imbecility. (A domain, I’m sorry to say, I’ve come to very much associate with you. And not just for musical reasons: you wishing, for example (quote below), a fellow member a slower, more agonizing death than being killed by an atomic bomb, has few endearing aspects to it, no matter what the context was that inspired you to say it. (Have to add though: your opponents in that particular embarrassment of a discussion didn’t exactly emerge praiseworthy from it either.)

Other comments of yours that don’t do you-being-taken-seriously any favours are ““Of course most composers looked up to Mozart in the old days _because they didn't have cds or audio recordings like we do today._” Hello? And there’s another one, at the top of this page, where you imply that only people with _“a corrupted 'educated' or brainwashed mind”_ enjoy the music of Mozart. Do you, I wonder, give such bafflingly ignorant and stupid remarks some thought before posting? I half-hope you don’t, actually. That would, at least, make you a case of being-more-to-be-pitied-than-censured. Which is, I fear, the extent of any understanding I, for one, still have for you.

There’s also the instance, earlier in this thread, where you first accuse Gershwin of stealing from Scriabin, submit so-called proof, which turns out to be no proof at all — not even when listened to with a most anti-Gershwinian frame of mind —, and then, when asked to explain a bit further, remain cowardly silent.
That’s you all over, isn’t it: making all these big, bold bravado statements and accusations about how every 20th century composer of renown stole from your oh-so-sadly-neglected pet composer, but beyond slinging all this cheap dirt, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever of substance or insight to offer. I have *never* read any sentence from you that suggested even a hint of knowledge, let alone thought-provoking perception, of the matter at hand. (Your description of the harmonic language of the classical period as covering no more than the three basic diatonic chords, is another good example of your myopic views on music.) And perhaps that is the main reason why people look at you they way they do.

And if you consider slinging dirt a fun sport, you might wanna prepare yourself for a few rather uncomfortable moments because, as I don’t doubt you know, Scriabin made himself a huge target for a few very disturbing incriminations, compared to which Wagner’s unsavoury-nes seems like the milk of human kindness.

_

[QUOTE="ctsai89, post: 4140860, member: 13540”] (…) I don't hope for a nuclear war on you however because it'll instantly kill you but I would like to see you suffer longer [/QUOTE]

_


----------



## ctsai89

re-peat said:


> No sane person would ever look weirdly at you for simply not liking Mozart. I’ve been in blissful relationships with people who don’t like Mozart. No problem. People wil however start to look askance in your direction, and justifiably so if you ask me, when you declare Mozart and his music an ‘effortless, awful joke’ and ‘insincere’, ’annoying’, ‘childish’ and ‘cheesy’. Because with such comments you leave the realm of reasonable, intelligent debate, and enter that of irrational fanatic bias and plain imbecility. (A domain, I’m sorry to say, I’ve come to very much associate with you. And not just for musical reasons: you wishing, for example (quote below), a fellow member a slower, more agonizing death than being killed by an atomic bomb, has few endearing aspects to it, no matter what the context was that inspired you to say it. (Have to add though: your opponents in that particular embarrassment of a discussion didn’t exactly emerge praiseworthy from it either.)
> 
> Other comments of yours that don’t do you-being-taken-seriously any favours are ““Of course most composers looked up to Mozart in the old days _because they didn't have cds or audio recordings like we do today._” Hello? And there’s another one, at the top of this page, where you imply that only people with _“a corrupted 'educated' or brainwashed mind”_ enjoy the music of Mozart. Do you, I wonder, give such bafflingly ignorant and stupid remarks some thought before posting? I half-hope you don’t, actually. That would, at least, make you a case of being-more-to-be-pitied-than-censured. Which is, I fear, the extent of any understanding I, for one, still have for you.
> 
> There’s also the instance, earlier in this thread, where you first accuse Gershwin of stealing from Scriabin, submit so-called proof, which turns out to be no proof at all — not even when listened to with a most anti-Gershwinian frame of mind —, and then, when asked to explain a bit further, remain cowardly silent.
> That’s you all over, isn’t it: making all these big, bold bravado statements and accusations about how every 20th century composer of renown stole from your oh-so-sadly-neglected pet composer, but beyond slinging all this cheap dirt, you have absolutely nothing whatsoever of substance or insight to offer. I have *never* read any sentence from you that suggested even a hint of knowledge, let alone thought-provoking perception, of the matter at hand. (Your description of the harmonic language of the classical period as covering no more than the three basic diatonic chords, is another good example of your myopic views on music.) And perhaps that is the main reason why people look at you they way they do.
> 
> And if you consider slinging dirt a fun sport, you might wanna prepare yourself for a few rather uncomfortable moments because, as I don’t doubt you know, Scriabin made himself a huge target for a few very disturbing incriminations, compared to which Wagner’s unsavoury-nes seems like the milk of human kindness.
> 
> _
> 
> [QUOTE="ctsai89, post: 4140860, member: 13540”] (…) I don't hope for a nuclear war on you however because it'll instantly kill you but I would like to see you suffer longer



_[/QUOTE]

So you digged up another thread to find my "ignorant" post but you can't ignore the fact that it wasn't me who started that kind of behavior. You can easily look at just post above mine (and you did notice it), it was someone else wishing ill on me, not myself and of course I caved in to do the same (which yes I admit was a dumb thing to do). The moderator curses there so please don't use that as a reference for this thread.

But since you brought that up, I have every reason to suspect now that your accusation of my "taking a leave from the realm of intelligent debate" was fueled by my your opposition to my political stance and of course that you're probably offended that I threw dirt at one of the composers you have a lot of respect for, and I'm sorry for that.

Will you help me out though? how do I appreciate Mozart's music? I really do wish one day to become like everybody else who do. And I meant that as in I want to be open minded. Is there a trick you can do to open your mind?

And is there any other more intelligent (but honest) way to describe how I "personally FEEL" about Mozart's music? (effortless, awful joke’ and ‘insincere’, ’annoying’, ‘childish’ and ‘cheesy’) I did say it was just me and my (VERY HONEST )opinion.


----------



## JohnG

muk said:


> Here nothing is smoothened, and if you don't get a feeling that this music is telling something deeply uncomfortable, disturbing even,



It’s very enjoyable, certainly, but I wonder if I like it better because it’s more as modern pieces seem to be? In other words, I don’t know whether the reason I like it genuinely springs from Mozart’s mind and intention or because this performance conforms to what I personally enjoy. 

The dynamics seem rather intense, for one thing. I don’t know if anyone can specify with full confidence how loud or soft _forte_ and _piano_ were at that time, but this conductor makes a lot more of the contrasts than I think is generally done. I like it, but is that a modern trope layered on?

I like other aspects too. I prefer the use of a small string section, so the winds and brass are balanced. I’d like it even better if all, rather than some, of the instruments were period; of course it’s sometimes hard to tell by looking, but most of the strings besides the basses look modern.

Another question is the strings themselves on the instruments. It looks as though most or all of the strings are using modern, metal-wound strings which, if true, substantially crimps the attempt to achieve a more Mozart-accurate sound, I would suppose. 

I read that violinists adopted metal core strings, apart from the G string at least, only at the end of the 19th century, starting with the fragile E string. Modern violassound more like a lower-register violin than they did formerly— not sure when the transition occurred. 

However, maybe they are using a synthetic string that looks modern but is more authentic to Mozart’s time?


----------



## ctsai89

fiestared said:


> Maybe you're in the complicate position of the "too much BUT not enough" , syndrome of the self-taught persons where I find myself very often ?



not exactly. Some things about music I am at large self taught. But I've always taken lessons for 2 instruments as a kid and also went to major in music at a 4 year university. But unlike a lot of music majors students/alumnis out there, the people I am surrounded with are a lot of people who aren't classically trained musicians. A lot of engineers/lawyers/doctors who are just into the top 40 billboard stuff. 

Thus it's why I have resentment on both sides (both musicians and non-musicians)

Musicians tend to think that I lack proper knowledge in music 

Non-musicians think I am crazy technical when it comes to appreciating a song/piece.

All I am trying to do is to bridge 2 sides together where I want to see the hip-hop crowd open their mind and say "WOw, that Scriabin/Ravel's piece was BEAUTIFUL unlike the same old usual Mozart I have heard which I have always thought was what classical music was only all about".


----------



## Guy Bacos

You certainly have the right to say that Mozart's music is effortless, awful joke’ and ‘insincere’, ’annoying’, ‘childish’ and ‘cheesy’, however, when I listen to some of his adagios, I wonder why I bother writing music.


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> You certainly have the right to say that Mozart's music is effortless, awful joke’ and ‘insincere’, ’annoying’, ‘childish’ and ‘cheesy’, however, when I listen to some of his adagios, I wonder why I bother writing music.



Will you link me one of those adagio that made you feel that way? I like your cello/piano piece by the way so here goes hoping that I would encounter one good mozart you introduce to me!


----------



## Quasar

JohnG said:


> It’s very enjoyable, certainly, but I wonder if I like it better because it’s more as modern pieces seem to be? In other words, I don’t know whether the reason I like it genuinely springs from Mozart’s mind and intention or because this performance conforms to what I personally enjoy.
> 
> The dynamics seem rather intense, for one thing. I don’t know if anyone can specify with full confidence how loud or soft _forte_ and _piano_ were at that time, but this conductor makes a lot more of the contrasts than I think is generally done. I like it, but is that a modern trope layered on?...



You make a very astute, nuanced distinction. But whether it's one or the other, or a coincidental combination of the two, you still can't hear the music as Mozart envisioned it, nor can you respond to it in any of the ways his contemporaneous audiences did. Even if you were a music historian and knew scholastically on a stanza-by-stanza basis exactly what people were reacting to when shocked and appalled or whatever, you couldn't viscerally connect to that, because you're not a product of that time and place. Our whole zeitgeist and the sensibilities we bring to bear are simply too remote, and all we can do is hear what we hear, interpreting from the perspectives we have now.

When it is said that one of the criterion for _great_ art or music is that it "passes the test of time", what it means IMHO is that there's some ostensible universal, fundamental quality that keeps it compelling across a span of cultures & centuries. But, like relative motion in physics, that "quality" never remains static in its relationship to us. It can't, and we still hear it differently than each generation that precedes or follows us.


----------



## Guy Bacos

ctsai89 said:


> Will you link me one of those adagio that made you feel that way? I like your cello/piano piece by the way so here goes hoping that I would encounter one good mozart you introduce to me!



I don't want to get into his more commercial works but here's the 2nd mov. of his 23rd piano concerto and I believe Horowitz last recording session. Let me know what you think?


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> I don't want to get into his more commercial works but here's the 2nd mov. of his 23rd piano concerto and I believe Horowitz last recording session. Let me know what you think?




Ah! well that's also my favorite pianist playing it. Yep this is exactly one of the only parts of Mozart I KIND OF like but not enough to love it. Only up till 2:06, see when the chord progression starts going I, V7, I, V7 is when I start to lose interest and start to sound just like all of his other music. Still though, it isn't bad at all.  thank you for sharing


----------



## Guy Bacos

Not trying to convert you  but what about his Requiem? Listen to that gorgeous modulation at 1:27, I can never get enough of it.


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> Not trying to convert you  but what about his Requiem? Listen to that gorgeous modulation at 1:27, I can never get enough of it.




I liked the material way more from the piano concerto you showed me.


----------



## ctsai89

and nope you won't convert me as long as Ravel exists, don't you ever worry about that.

But if Mozart were the only composer that ever existed then it'd be different story.

SO i guess it's kind of more or so a relative thing for me. 



^ one of my favorite pieces from Ravel by the way


----------



## Guy Bacos

That is also my fav piece from Ravel, or among the top. my esteem for Ravel is HUGE!


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> That is also my fav piece from Ravel, or among the top. my esteem for Ravel is HUGE!



I have to say that your cello/piano piece that you posted a few months back reminds me a lot of Ravel's musical language... Now I know why


----------



## Guy Bacos

For me, the 1st time I heard "La Valse", that was a wake up call to what orchestration was all about.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Another Ravel moment for me was during my orchestration class, when I first heard the harmonics passage at 2:23 of
Ravel "Alborada del Gracioso" , I went: What the f..... is that??? Pure genius.


----------



## ctsai89

re-peat said:


> I'm of the conviction that Mozart was one of the most inventive, fertile, imaginative and boldly pioneering musical minds ever put on this planet. On good days, of which he was given sadly far too few, he wrote music which escapes and transcends its stylistic straight-jacket with stunning ease to reach a level of abstract musical perfection and beauty; a level where stylistic, technical or formal considerations are no longer relevant. That occurs *only* with the greatest of the greatest. (I can think of only a tiny handful of composers that are able to go there with any regularity. Scriabin isn't one of them.)
> 
> 
> 
> _



Perhaps it isn't me who's the one that's uninformed/ignorant/closeMinded here but I apologize in advance and I don't mean any offense towards you personally.

You did not list "Scriabin isn't one of them" as your opinion which obviously is an opinion.

In my opinion, Scriabin's music is so constructed perfectly that if you played even 1 note wrong it will likely stick out and the what would've beeen a really good performance would turn out a poorer one.

But what you described of Mozart have been described by many of of Scriabin's contemporaries and peers on Scriabin the composer and on his music. These include Roslavets, Mosolov, Feinberg, Rachmaninioff, etc. and many others. Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Shosta, Stravinsky and Myaskovsky were also amongst the ones that drew heavy influence from Scriabin's music and ideas. Plus many of the greatest pianists including Horowitz would've thought of the same description you have on Mozart, on (all of) Scriabin and his music.

The reason for that Scriabin's influence is sadly forgotten: is because of the censorship in the Soviet Union. Also the British radio found his music to be offensively devilish so his music were never promoted from then on until now thank God we have youtube so his music would be so much more accessible.

I also would urge you to watch this documentary if you havent, which of course isn't my only source for information about Scriabin, but it would be a good start for you (if you haven't).


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> Another Ravel moment for me was during my orchestration class, when I first heard the harmonics passage at 2:23 of
> Ravel "Alborada del Gracioso" , I went: What the f..... is that??? Pure genius.




my professor said the same thing on bunch of other occasions on Ravel's pieces as well.


----------



## fiestared

ctsai89 said:


> and nope you won't convert me as long as Ravel exists, don't you ever worry about that.
> 
> But if Mozart were the only composer that ever existed then it'd be different story.
> 
> SO i guess it's kind of more or so a relative thing for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ one of my favorite pieces from Ravel by the way



Me too, but Ravel, "_qui la jugeait avec sévérité : « J’en perçois fort bien les défauts : l’influence de Chabrier, trop flagrante, et la forme assez pauvre. L’interprétation remarquable de cette œuvre incomplète et sans audace a contribué beaucoup, je pense, à son succès_" Difficult for me to translate with the nuances, but Ravel was not found of this piece, he even had a judging very severe against "La pavane pour une infante défunte" : incomplete work, without any audacity and with too much influence from Chabrier, etc...


----------



## Knomes

Perhaps this can help appreciate Mozart


----------



## ctsai89

fiestared said:


> Me too, but Ravel, "_qui la jugeait avec sévérité : « J’en perçois fort bien les défauts : l’influence de Chabrier, trop flagrante, et la forme assez pauvre. L’interprétation remarquable de cette œuvre incomplète et sans audace a contribué beaucoup, je pense, à son succès_" Difficult for me to translate with the nuances, but Ravel was not found of this piece, he even had a judging very severe against "La pavane pour une infante défunte" : incomplete work, without any audacity and with too much influence from Chabrier, etc...



Hah don't you love it when composers are critical of their own works that we could only have dreamed of writing? Ravel was some sort of a perfectionist. I wouldn't be surprised that he was unsatisfied with some of the pieces I am in love with. That self critical perfectionism was also a trait of scriabin's. I believe it's an attribute that made them the kind of composers they are


----------



## re-peat

I'm not sure if anyone can actually help with unlocking the door that leads to (a genuine appreciation of) Mozart. (Although, listening to the infectuous enthusiasm and insight with which people like Bernstein or Schiff discuss this music, might speed things up a little.)

I went for years reading about how great Mozart was, without ever hearing where that greatness might possibly manifest itself and thinking the exact same thing as Carles was mentioning earlier in this thread: "How can this music possibly be great if I can so often predict what's going to happen next, and predict it with such disappointingly infallible accuracy?"

But then, gradually, it began happening. You start enjoying the 'stylistically determined' side of this music for what it is (and what it's not), you recognize and appreciate its formulas, generic phrases and vocabularly for what they are, and slowly start opening your mind to the sublime sense of flow and balance that this music has, the often exquisite curves of the horizontal lines (and I don't just mean the melodies) that run through it, the inventive and surprising deviations from the template, ... and then, one day, you find your ears have opened up to Mozart's ability to design opulent musical gardens with what frequently are, if looked at individually, the most banal of plants and common-variety flowers. (Although closer scrutiny will also reveal many patches of unique flora of singular beauty.)

And you also realize — and this may well be the most important point — that the so-called rigid, formulaïc nature of the musical style, structure and language is not so much a limitation, but actually an essential prerequisite, or framework, for the musical ideas to become all what they were intended (= composed) to be. That is to say, great classical music offers us one of the most intricate and highest developed matches between form and content. The content would be less without the form, and the form would be meaningless without the content. That degree of vital interaction between form and content is, to me, one of the greatest triumphs of the classical period in music.

The garden metaphor works quite well actually, I think. When looked at from a distance, a classic garden reveals something which can't be seen or enjoyed if you walk through it, but at the same time, walking through it brings with it many spells, sensations and enjoyments that can't be experienced from afar. That's Mozart to me: endlessly rich gardens of music, offering unique enchantments and delights whether enjoyed from afar or up close.

But it might prove difficult, I agree. And maybe it'll never happen, or only partially. Me, for example, I still struggle with the 'pomp rhetoric' side of much of the music of the classical period: the preambles, the grand gestures, the exaggerated theatrical side of it. And whenever things get too jubilant, too Sturm-und-Drang-like, or are rooted too recognizably in dance music (many menuet movements in classical symphonies are too dance-y for my taste), I still tend to press the fast forward button.

A good start, whatever you do, is to try and leave behind all the prejudices and preconceptions that this music has little more to offer than elegant but superficial, formula-ridden, empty fluff. Even if there are indeed many moments in the music of Mozart and his contemporaries which answer to that description, that's not where *it* happens (with the exception of the structural anchoring which all these devices provide). The beauty, for me anyway, happens in the unfolding of the music, in the way its formal template both confines yet inspires freedom at the same time, in the way melodies and motifs (often quite trivial things when isolated from their context) are shaped, re-shaped and varied to sustain interest over longer stretches of time, in the many ways the composer, once the exposition is dealt with, takes the music on a journey, often leading far away from home, and then returns with it, in many instances to a home that has changed considerably since we left it. And, as I mentioned earlier, in that perfect match between form and content. Utterly fascinating and musically deeply rewarding, I find.

_


----------



## jononotbono

re-peat said:


> I'm not sure if anyone can actually help with unlocking the door that leads to (a genuine appreciation of) Mozart. (Although, listening to the infectuous enthusiasm and insight with which people like Bernstein or Schiff discuss this music, might speed things up a little.)
> 
> I went for years reading about how great Mozart was, without ever hearing where that greatness might possibly manifest itself and thinking the exact same thing as Carles was mentioning earlier in this thread: "How can this music possibly be great if I can so often predict what's going to happen next, and predict it with such disappointingly infallible accuracy?"
> 
> But then, gradually, it began happening. You start enjoying the 'stylistically determined' side of this music for what it is (and what it's not), you recognize and appreciate its formulas, generic phrases and vocabularly for what they are, and slowly start opening your mind to the sublime sense of flow and balance that this music has, the often exquisite curves of the horizontal lines (and I don't just mean the melodies) that run through it, the inventive and surprising deviations from the template, ... and then, one day, you find your ears have opened up to Mozart's ability to design opulent musical gardens with what frequently are, if looked at individually, the most banal of plants and common-variety flowers. (Although closer scrutiny will also reveal many patches of unique flora of singular beauty.)
> 
> And you also realize — and this may well be the most important point — that the so-called rigid, formulaïc nature of the musical style, structure and language is not so much a limitation, but actually an essential prerequisite, or framework, for the musical ideas to become all what they were intended (= composed) to be. That is to say, great classical music offers us one of the most intricate and highest developed matches between form and content. The content would be less without the form, and the form would be meaningless without the content. That degree of vital interaction between form and content is, to me, one of the greatest triumphs of the classical period in music.
> 
> The garden metaphor works quite well actually, I think. When looked at from a distance, a classic garden reveals something which can't be seen or enjoyed if you walk through it, but at the same, walking though it brings with it many spells, sensations and enjoyments that can't be experienced from afar. That's Mozart to me: endlessly rich gardens of music, offering unique enchantments and delights whether enjoyed from afar or up close.
> 
> But it might prove difficult, I agree. And maybe it'll never happen, or only partially. Me, for example, I still struggle with the 'pomp rhetoric' side of much of the music of the classical period: the preambles, the grand gestures, the exaggerated theatrical side of it. And whenever things get too jubilant, too Sturm-und-Drang-like, or are rooted too recognizably in dance music (many menuet movements in classical symphonies are too dance-y for my taste), I still tend to press the fast forward button.
> 
> A good start, whatever you do, is to try and leave behind all the prejudices and preconceptions that this music has little more to offer than elegant but superficial, formula-ridden, empty fluff. Even if there are indeed many moments in the music of Mozart and his contemporaries which answer to that description, that's not where *it* happens (with the exception of the structural anchoring which all these devices provide). The beauty, for me anyway, happens in the unfolding of the music, in the way its formal template both confines yet inspires freedom at the same time, in the way melodies and motifs (often quite trivial things when isolated from their context) are shaped, re-shaped and varied to sustain interest over longer stretches of time, in the many ways the composer, once the exposition is dealt with, takes the music on a journey, often leading far away from home, and then returns with it, in many instances to a home that has changed considerably since we left it. And, as I mentioned earlier, in that perfect match between form and content. Utterly fascinating and musically deeply rewarding, I find.
> 
> _



Your musical knowledge always astounds me man. Edit - I'll make my own thread.


----------



## Anami

With a classical pianist background I always loved playing Ravel!

Music from that time is especially challenging on the imagination part. You really learn to use the coloring possibilities of your instrument. (Or your lack of technical skill to get to it lol) 
If you have a grand piano you will get more out of it. This is where uprights are limited. 
People often thing that this music sounds dreamy, but in fact its highly detailed and well thought of. 
Ravel and Debussy were very detailed. Very precise. The more you listen to it, the more you will hear it.


----------



## fiestared

re-peat said:


> I'm not sure if anyone can actually help with unlocking the door that leads to (a genuine appreciation of) Mozart. (Although, listening to the infectuous enthusiasm and insight with which people like Bernstein or Schiff discuss this music, might speed things up a little.)
> 
> I went for years reading about how great Mozart was, without ever hearing where that greatness might possibly manifest itself and thinking the exact same thing as Carles was mentioning earlier in this thread: "How can this music possibly be great if I can so often predict what's going to happen next, and predict it with such disappointingly infallible accuracy?"
> 
> But then, gradually, it began happening. You start enjoying the 'stylistically determined' side of this music for what it is (and what it's not), you recognize and appreciate its formulas, generic phrases and vocabularly for what they are, and slowly start opening your mind to the sublime sense of flow and balance that this music has, the often exquisite curves of the horizontal lines (and I don't just mean the melodies) that run through it, the inventive and surprising deviations from the template, ... and then, one day, you find your ears have opened up to Mozart's ability to design opulent musical gardens with what frequently are, if looked at individually, the most banal of plants and common-variety flowers. (Although closer scrutiny will also reveal many patches of unique flora of singular beauty.)
> 
> And you also realize — and this may well be the most important point — that the so-called rigid, formulaïc nature of the musical style, structure and language is not so much a limitation, but actually an essential prerequisite, or framework, for the musical ideas to become all what they were intended (= composed) to be. That is to say, great classical music offers us one of the most intricate and highest developed matches between form and content. The content would be less without the form, and the form would be meaningless without the content. That degree of vital interaction between form and content is, to me, one of the greatest triumphs of the classical period in music.
> 
> The garden metaphor works quite well actually, I think. When looked at from a distance, a classic garden reveals something which can't be seen or enjoyed if you walk through it, but at the same, walking though it brings with it many spells, sensations and enjoyments that can't be experienced from afar. That's Mozart to me: endlessly rich gardens of music, offering unique enchantments and delights whether enjoyed from afar or up close.
> 
> But it might prove difficult, I agree. And maybe it'll never happen, or only partially. Me, for example, I still struggle with the 'pomp rhetoric' side of much of the music of the classical period: the preambles, the grand gestures, the exaggerated theatrical side of it. And whenever things get too jubilant, too Sturm-und-Drang-like, or are rooted too recognizably in dance music (many menuet movements in classical symphonies are too dance-y for my taste), I still tend to press the fast forward button.
> 
> A good start, whatever you do, is to try and leave behind all the prejudices and preconceptions that this music has little more to offer than elegant but superficial, formula-ridden, empty fluff. Even if there are indeed many moments in the music of Mozart and his contemporaries which answer to that description, that's not where *it* happens (with the exception of the structural anchoring which all these devices provide). The beauty, for me anyway, happens in the unfolding of the music, in the way its formal template both confines yet inspires freedom at the same time, in the way melodies and motifs (often quite trivial things when isolated from their context) are shaped, re-shaped and varied to sustain interest over longer stretches of time, in the many ways the composer, once the exposition is dealt with, takes the music on a journey, often leading far away from home, and then returns with it, in many instances to a home that has changed considerably since we left it. And, as I mentioned earlier, in that perfect match between form and content. Utterly fascinating and musically deeply rewarding, I find.
> 
> _


Thanks re-peat, what a superb writing ability(forgive my English, I don't find the precise words I really would) your analogy to gardens talks to me, I am a great lover of Nature and of course Animals, as far as I can I kill nothing(or the less I can) even a poor herb that grows at the wrong area... This is where the dream comes thru, Music is nothing more nor less that the wind, the birds singings, or the rain, except that a man/woman has a responsibility to his birth, it's a kind of "serendipity" of : time, area, education, means, accidents etc... and voila you have Couperin, Bach, Mozart.....Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Scriabin(ctsai89)..... Dylan, Berry, McCartney, Brown..... We are VERY lucky, we can listen to them as we want, I couldn't even imagine my life without that possibility. With the years my vision of Music has changed and I see/hear it more like colors, impressions, memories, It could be that Eric Satie was right, when he said that his Music was a Musique d'ameublement, like a decoration of life.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Although I think Mozart is a great genius, I could also understand that in today's modern world, Mozart might not mean anything to some adults, and I doubt very much that anything you say will make them change their minds. I remember a very well respected professor for which Beethoven didn't mean much for him, it was music from a different period, although he still admired Beethoven's great abilities, the music didn't connect with him, which is perfectly fine.


----------



## Iskra

I agree Guy, but we are (as always in the forum) mixing two different things: taste and objective qualities. Of course it's perfectly fine if Mozart or any other composer does not connect with someone, but that's a matter of taste and listening experience. One can perfectly recognize the outstanding qualities of Mozart's compositions while not enjoying them that much. Of course the best of both worlds is to love some really great music, but taste and objective qualities are different things.
As I said earlier, I think Mozart is a great genius, but usually I listen to other things, that's simply a matter of my taste...


----------



## ctsai89

Guy Bacos said:


> Although I think Mozart is a great genius, I could also understand that in today's modern world, Mozart might not mean anything to some adults, and I doubt very much that anything you say will make them change their minds. I remember a very well respected professor for which Beethoven didn't mean much for him, it was music from a different period, although he still admired Beethoven's great abilities, the music didn't connect with him, which is perfectly fine.



yep I think for me it's more an issues of not being able to connect with Mozart's personality that's present in his music.

Anyone ever heard of the quote "You are what you listen to" ? I like to keep it simple. The way Repent has put it, I have been there many years ago and did not work for me. But thanks to him I was shown that same way again just this morning trying to listen to Mozart with a different attitude and didn't work as well.


----------



## Guy Bacos

Iskra said:


> I agree Guy, but we are (as always in the forum) mixing two different things: taste and objective qualities. Of course it's perfectly fine if Mozart or any other composer does not connect with someone, but that's a matter of taste and listening experience. One can perfectly recognize the outstanding qualities of Mozart's compositions while not enjoying them that much. Of course the best of both worlds is to love some really great music, but taste and objective qualities are different things.
> As I said earlier, I think Mozart is a great genius, but usually I listen to other things, that's simply a matter of my taste...



Right, I agree, although not sure I understood the: "but". Aren't we agreeing?


----------



## Iskra

Guy Bacos said:


> I agree, although not sure I understood the: "but". Aren't we agreeing?


I probably condensed the text too much  With the "but we are always..." I was referring to the many different posts regarding Mozart in this thread, not specifically to your post. 
So I guess I wrote "we" not actually meaning we (you and me).


----------



## muk

If you think that you don't understand Mozart's music I can highly recommend Charles Rosen's excellent book 'The classical style':



His explanation, for example, why the beginning of the Jenami-concerto (formerly wrongly named 'Jeunehomme') K 271 is a stroke of pure genius is absolutely fascinating and eye-opening. You can't hear it by just listening, but once you've read about the context you won't ever listen the same way to it again.


----------



## ctsai89

Whelp! Guess what I just joined a group in meetup.com as a cellist and they're playing mozart quartet opus no. 18 

Will let you guys know how I like it but I've played a lot of mozart in the past and alwyas felt the same way about it. Still though!


----------



## AdamAlake

Who paid you to grab doctor Ravel?


----------



## JohnG

re-peat said:


> I'm not sure if anyone can actually help with unlocking the door that leads to (a genuine appreciation of) Mozart....



You should publish an article. I have learned things and very much enjoyed your posts about Mozart in this thread.

Thanks re-peat!

John


----------



## Carles

JohnG said:


> You should publish an article. I have learned things and very much enjoyed your posts about Mozart in this thread.
> 
> Thanks re-peat!


+1 
Thanks for the hope Piet. Running out of time currently but definitely in my list to get inner on Mozart (since I already noticed Mozart qualities, just need the pass to get over the Classical form then). Enjoying Requiem meanwhile


----------



## ctsai89

Just close your eyes! such a great way to spend the rest of wednesday night


----------



## Sebastianmu

re-peat said:


> often quite trivial things


I think this is precisely the problem many people have with Mozart. And I think calling this 'the surface' of the music, and claiming that 'it' [i.e. the essence] is happening on a somewhat deeper level - with the clear normativity that implies - is only rationalizing a subjective preference one might hold for a development-oriented interest in music, that is fairly technical and is often exposed by the more academically minded type of musicians.


----------



## CT

It seems like I missed out on some good conversation by not noticing this thread until now. 

I *do* love Ravel, although I love Debussy more.

As for Mozart, on some days I find him sublime, and on others, I don't have the desire to delve into anything written post-Bach and pre-Mahler.

I think every composer can classify themselves as either a Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven person, kind of like that _Pulp Fiction_ scene about Elvis and The Beatles. You can like all of them, but only one is your true patron saint.

The Mozarts shake their sleeves and good stuff falls out, the Beethovens rip their hair out over every note, and the Bachs start every project hoping God (or whatever you prefer) is on their side.


----------



## JohnG

Sebastianmu said:


> is only rationalizing a subjective preference one might hold for a development-oriented interest in music, that is fairly technical and is often exposed by the more academically minded type of musicians.



But aren't you only rationalizing a subjective preference for non-development-oriented music? And I think you mean "espoused" rather than "exposed."


----------



## ctsai89

Sebastianmu said:


> I think this is precisely the problem many people have with Mozart. And I think calling this 'the surface' of the music, and claiming that 'it' [i.e. the essence] is happening on a somewhat deeper level - with the clear normativity that implies - is only rationalizing a subjective preference one might hold for a development-oriented interest in music, that is fairly technical and is often exposed by the more academically minded type of musicians.



Very accurate to what I'm thinking!

Most people on this planet aren't traditionally trained musicians nor are they knowledgeable on the topic of musicology/history. It's not musicians who I would try to convince that "classical music" (from baroque~modern) is "good" to. It's the non musicians. And telling them that they need to understand more than just the melody i.e. the development of that melody or that they need to "study" is just going to turn them off even more and set a wall between them (non-musicians) and classical music/musicians. On top of that, they'll think that they'll never be able to get to that point of sophistication and they are mentally giving up from that point on.

But even if they understood the whole thing about development of melody and other stuff that's below the "surface", there's a chance they still won't be able to like the music.

My opinion is that we had enough of focus on the famous guys already. It's time focus the ones that are also VERY good but maybe a little bit less known. There are so many compositions out there that are pure EAR CANDIES that deserves the same amount of attention Mozart's music has been receiving.


----------



## ctsai89

It's also possible to not care about how the music is developed during its development parts and still be able to enjoy a piece that's development-oriented. I think. Most of the symphonies and sonata I like.. they have great development in them but I think it'd be a very different story without the same melody/chord progression, for me personally.


----------



## Sebastianmu

JohnG said:


> But aren't you only rationalizing a subjective preference for non-development-oriented music? And I think you mean "espoused" rather than "exposed."


I don't think I am, because the inherent purpose of said rationalization is to pass off something entirely subjective as something objective. Yet I'm not going out into the world telling other people that they are imbeciles, because they don't appreciate the same things that I do. There is no 'objective' normativity in music, and people should be honest about that towards themselves as well as towards others. If a piece of music shows characteristics of a mind game or a puzzle that you have to figure out, and you happen to enjoy solving puzzles - good for you. But don't belittle people who listen for other things in music. 

And no, I don't mean "espoused". I meant they expose or _show_ a certain trait in the way some specimen of macaque would to the observing behavioral biologist, yet it might have bean a clumsy application of the word "expose".


----------



## LondonMike

Sebastianmu said:


> I don't think I am, because the inherent purpose of said rationalization is to pass off something entirely subjective as something objective. Yet I'm not going out into the world telling other people that they are imbeciles, because they don't appreciate the same things that I do. There is no 'objective' normativity in music, and people should be honest about that towards themselves as well as towards others. If a piece of music shows characteristics of a mind game or a puzzle that you have to figure out, and you happen to enjoy solving puzzles - good for you. But don't belittle people who listen for other things in music.
> 
> And no, I don't mean "espoused". I meant they expose or _show_ a certain trait in the way some specimen of macaque would to the observing behavioral biologist, yet it might have bean a clumsy application of the word "expose".


I'm not entirely sure what is meant by 'development-orientated music', but that aside, I agree that one's 'experience' of music is subjective (it could't be otherwise) but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain processes going on in a given piece of music, a knowledge of which can help deepen one's _appreciation _of and by extension, one's _enjoyment _of it.

It's one of life's great riddles that for many of the 'general public' or musical lay-people, Mozart is one of the more accessible and loved composers while on the other hand many musicians, especially from a non-classical background, find the Classical era in general quite hard to get worked up about.
I think it is true to say that for such musicians a love of Mozart and the Classical era is a taste that can be acquired.

One should never belittle someone else's taste in anything but by the same token one should not dismiss a composer's work as 'simplistic', 'trivial', 'suffocated by rules', 'full of cliches', 'predictable', 'hide-bound by convention' etc., (all things I've seen applied to Moz and co.) based purely on one's own taste. It just shows a lack of knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Iskra

LondonMike said:


> one should not dismiss a composer's work as 'simplistic', 'trivial', 'suffocated by rules', 'full of cliches', 'predictable', 'hide-bound by convention' etc., (all things I've seen applied to Moz and co.) based purely on one's own taste. It just shows a lack of knowledge and understanding.


So true. 
Mozart and Haydn's music is really far away from 'simplistic', 'trivial', 'predictable' and so on. Sure, they had a lot of musical conventions, but particularly this two transcended waaaaaay beyond those, that's why they're considered greater composers than e.g. Cherubini, Clementi or Albrechtsberger... Same way Beethoven is greater than Kalkbrenner or Liszt to Thalberg.
Imho, anyone saying Mozart or Haydn are predictable and bounded by strict rules haven't listened carefully enough to them.


----------



## Sebastianmu

LondonMike said:


> I'm not entirely sure what is meant by 'development-orientated music'


Me neither, and I wasn't using that phrase. I was talking about the (listening-)_interest_ being focused on the developmental aspect of what is going on musically.



LondonMike said:


> I agree that one's 'experience' of music is subjective (it could't be otherwise) but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain processes going on in a given piece of music, a knowledge of which can help deepen one's _appreciation _of and by extension, one's _enjoyment _of it.


I have encountered this exact argument through-out my university studies over and over again. And I have sincerely looked into the structural intricacies of some of the preeminent works of the classical period. For me - it never _ever_ added anything significant to the enjoyment of a given piece of music. Sure, I can appreciate the technical abilities and intellectual effort that went into creating it, but if it doesn't sound good in the end, all of that _just doesn't matter to me_. On the other hand, there are pieces of music that are completely void of any sort of thematic development, some of which I find to be the most enjoyable pieces of the entire history of music.

Claiming the structural, developmental aspects are somehow closer to the very _essence of music_ _itself_, while other aspects, like a richness of orchestration and harmonic progressions (which are the aspects in which Mozart and Ravel obviously differ), or even - god forbid! - expressional regards, are deemed secondary or superficial, is only conferring nobility upon the aspect that you yourself [_one_, somebody] happen to be interested in the most. And it usually comes with a fair amount of gratuitous, implied self-adoration of the person who eloquently utters such noble sounding statements.


----------



## ctsai89

Quite honestly/fairly and in my opinion (notice I have always inserted that?), I have to say that both the harmonic progression/orchestration and developmental aspects, structure and amongst other things all have significant importance in music.

I also have a feeling that many people like certain kinds of music based on things that aren't related to music itself at all. For example....... some people actually like to go to concerts, to listen to classical music, and mostly Mozart, because they feel like they are living the noble or the upperclass lifestyle whenever they do. Or feel like they're educated, smart, noble knowledgeable amongst the elites and sophisticated. It's kind of a cultural thing rather than them actually purely enjoying the music I think...

I can't say for sure that I don't do that kinds of stuff (letting non-musical elements influence my taste) either when it comes to the kinds of music I love/like.

A lot of times it's the non-musical elements that plays a role in determining your affinity towards it.


----------



## Iskra

ctsai89 said:


> For example....... some people actually like to go to concerts, to listen to classical music, and mostly Mozart, because they feel like they are living the noble or the upperclass lifestyle whenever they do. Or feel like they're educated, smart, noble knowledgeable amongst the elites and sophisticated. It's kind of a cultural thing rather than them actually purely enjoying the music I think...


That sound too condescending to me, sorry. According to what you wrote, looks like 90% of live concerts feature Mozart's music, which is incredibly far from the truth. Just check the concert programs of different orchestras.
Sure, there might be people that just go to concerts because it's cool, or make them look fancy and noble, but those will go to Mozart or Das Rheingold or Schöenberg. Why you limit that to Mozart or classicist music? People that go just because it feels upperclass will specially go to the most bizarre concerts because they don't care about the music itself and it looks even more elite to go to Ives than to Mozart's performances.
I'm almost tempted to bet that a concert featuring Ives, Schönberg and Berio will have more of those noble-feeling-audience than a concert featuring Mozart or Haydn (or Beethoven or Brahms or Ravel, for that matter).
Honestly, and sorry, but I think that linking Mozart to these type of audience you mention is a gigantic over-generalization not reflecting real concerts and real repertoire - and most important, real people. Sounds like "Mozart is only listened by people that go to concerts just to feel part of an educated elite". I know it's probably not what you meant, but sure it sounded like that.


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> That sound too condescending to me, sorry. According to what you wrote, looks like 90% of live concerts feature Mozart's music, which is incredibly far from the truth. Just check the concert programs of different orchestras.
> Sure, there might be people that just go to concerts because it's cool, or make them look fancy and noble, but those will go to Mozart or Das Rheingold or Schöenberg. Why you limit that to Mozart or classicist music? People that go just because it feels upperclass will specially go to the most bizarre concerts because they don't care about the music itself and it looks even more elite to go to Ives than to Mozart's performances.
> I'm almost tempted to bet that a concert featuring Ives, Schönberg and Berio will have more of those noble-feeling-audience than a concert featuring Mozart or Haydn (or Beethoven or Brahms or Ravel, for that matter).
> Honestly, and sorry, but I think that linking Mozart to these type of audience you mention is a gigantic over-generalization not reflecting real concerts and real repertoire - and most important, real people. Sounds like "Mozart is only listened by people that go to concerts just to feel part of an educated elite". I know it's probably not what you meant, but sure it sounded like that.



haha I did not limit that to Mozart but I agree I made it sound that way... I did say that I think I do that on the music I like too


----------



## ctsai89

@Iskra point of my post was to raise a point that people go to concert for things other than the music itself. I of course used Mozart as an example but I could've used anyone else as well. Mozart's music does appear frequently in concerts.


----------



## ctsai89

I could've easily said this as well:

"for example, people like to go to concerts, and mostly Scriabin because they want to feel like they are part of the cult, instead of actually going to listen to his music for what it is."


----------



## Iskra

ctsai89 said:


> @Iskra point of my post was to raise a point that people go to concert for things other than the music itself. I of course used Mozart as an example but I could've used anyone else as well. Mozart's music does appear frequently in concerts.


Then it has nothing to do with Mozart's music value or opinion about it, but it's a general opinion regarding audiences around the world, right? 
Mozart's music does not appear that frequently, here's an example of one of the best orchestras in the world, with 3-4 performances a week:
https://www.concertgebouworkest.nl/en/visit-a-concert/page=2

Until May, there's only 3 concerts featuring Mozart's music (and one is directed by Trevor Pinnock, which is kind of a specialist in classicism, so Mozart is a must there). To give a comparison, Mahler is featured in 8 concerts and Prokofiev in 5.


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> Then it has nothing to do with Mozart's music value or opinion about it, but it's a general opinion regarding audiences around the world, right?
> Mozart's music does not appear that frequently, here's an example of one of the best orchestras in the world, with 3-4 performances a week:
> https://www.concertgebouworkest.nl/en/visit-a-concert/page=2
> 
> Until May, there's only 3 concerts featuring Mozart's music (and one is directed by Trevor Pinnock, which is kind of a specialist in classicism, so Mozart is a must there). To give a comparison, Mahler is featured in 8 concerts and Prokofiev in 5.



To me, that's definitely good news!  Now.. only if Scriabin would be featured more. Scriabin's symphony no. 3 was just performed at the walt disney hall in LA 2 weeks ago by the way  I don't see that happening often. I guess his piano music is a bit more frequently performed than his symphonies.

You're right, it has to nothing to do with only Mozart's music. But general audience for all kinds of music. I used Mozart as an example because he's very popular as I felt it would be less difficult for non-musicians to grasp what I am talking about because some may have not heard of who Mahler is. But apparently turned out my statement were more easily misunderstood than it would be understood haha.


----------



## Iskra

I just took a look to the Vienna Philharmonic to confirm (looked up to May 2018). There's Mozart only in 3 concerts during the Mozart Salzburg Week, and that's it.
http://www.wienerphilharmoniker.at/concerts/list?from-date=2017-11-01&to-date=2018-05-31
And it's the Vienna Philharmonic, for God's sake!


----------



## ctsai89

Iskra said:


> I just took a look to the Vienna Philharmonic to confirm (looked up to May 2018). There's Mozart only in 3 concerts during the Mozart Salzburg Week, and that's it.
> http://www.wienerphilharmoniker.at/concerts/list?from-date=2017-11-01&to-date=2018-05-31
> And it's the Vienna Philharmonic, for God's sake!



well.. God bless Europe! the last time I checked for LA phil, I think it was back in July, Dudamel was conducting 4 straight nights of Mozart's music...

Also, there are more 220million views on one of Mozart's link on youtube. Scriabin's had millions too but never as close to hundreds of millions of views youtube. And the ones that had millions of views... I'm suspicious and I don't think a lot of those views were from people clicking the link to want to purely listen to the pianist playing Scriabin's music but maybe something else


----------



## ctsai89

@Iskra woot! you're right https://www.laphil.com/tickets/calendar

This month had been quite the month of Ravel and Scriabin..

Maybe my opposition (justice warrior behavior) to the general public stereotyping that Mozart is what "classical music" (baroque~modern) sounds like had been working! (half kidding of course)

But if it weren't for youtube, many people probably would've never discovered cool composers like Frank Bridge, Myaskovsky and others. God bless our times that serious music is easily accessible because of the internet!


----------



## LondonMike

Sebastianmu said:


> And I have sincerely looked into the structural intricacies of some of the preeminent works of the classical period. For me - it never _ever_ added anything significant to the enjoyment of a given piece of music. Sure, I can appreciate the technical abilities and intellectual effort that went into creating it, but if it doesn't sound good in the end, all of that _just doesn't matter to me_.



I have found the same thing to be true of much serial and post serial music and much of the latter 20C works by Ligeti, Boulez, Stockhausen. Not to mention Ferneyhough and others of the 'New Complexity' school!
However, knowing something of what a composer is actually attempting to do can be a_ way-in_ to their music that might otherwise never present itself. In the end if we don't feel the need to listen to something, then that is that. But sometimes we need help finding a starting point.
Why something 'sounds good' to us as individuals is deeply personal but sometimes being _forced_ to listen to a piece because you're studying it as a set work or perhaps performing in an ensemble or choir, can be the kick-start to a life-long love of something. But not always. I've listened to and studied much music that I will never feel anything but indifference towards.



Sebastianmu said:


> On the other hand, there are pieces of music that are completely void of any sort of thematic development, some of which I find to be the most enjoyable pieces of the entire history of music.



I'd be very interested for an example of what you mean. Unless you are just referring to specifically sonata-style motivic development. Even minimalism 'develops' although sometimes so slowly that it's hard to stay awake 



Sebastianmu said:


> Claiming the structural, developmental aspects are somehow closer to the very _essence of music_ _itself_, while other aspects, like a richness of orchestration and harmonic progressions (which are the aspects in which Mozart and Ravel obviously differ), or even - god forbid! - expressional regards, are deemed secondary or superficial, is only conferring nobility upon the aspect that you yourself [_one_, somebody] happen to be interested in the most. And it usually comes with a fair amount of gratuitous, implied self-adoration of the person who eloquently utters such noble sounding statements.



I'd agree up to point. Though not that many people deem expression to be secondary or superficial, do they? Not in the Classical period anyway. It's more like people pointing out that there is something going-on behind the foreground. Structurally. Something which is absolutely vital to the composer's decision choose one note/chord/keychange over another.
As for gratuitous self-adoration and the like. There are always pretentious pseudo types who are best ignored.


----------



## fiestared

Sebastianmu said:


> I think this is precisely the problem many people have with Mozart. And I think calling this 'the surface' of the music, and claiming that 'it' [i.e. the essence] is happening on a somewhat deeper level - with the clear normativity that implies - is only rationalizing a subjective preference one might hold for a development-oriented interest in music, that is fairly technical and is often exposed by the more academically minded type of musicians.


I've always thought of Music like perfume ; in French we use the same word to explain them : the Note ! 
a)note de tête, "note of the head" what you get immediately(probably what most people get listening to Music), b) note de coeur, "note of the heart", the melody of the perfume, different for everybody because of the skin, its real identity, not for the basic listeners, one needs to be able to analyse the Music to understand it, and c) note de fond, note of the memory, the feeling the perfume gives you after, like a good, bad memory or else, a note you can't explain but that you feel deeply, a note that stay in your soul...


----------



## fiestared

fiestared said:


> I've always thought of Music like perfume ; in French we use the same word to explain them : the Note !
> a)note de tête, "note of the head" what you get immediately(probably what most people get listening to Music), b) note de coeur, "note of the heart", the melody of the perfume, different for everybody because of the skin, its real identity, not for the basic listeners, one needs to be able to analyse the Music to understand it, and c) note de fond, note of the memory, the feeling the perfume gives you after, like a good, bad memory or else, a note you can't explain but that you feel deeply, a note that stay in your soul...



If you're interested, I've posted a new thread about "perfume and Music" https://vi-control.net/community/th...probably-love-perfume-of-course-you-do.66483/


----------



## fiestared

On this site http://www.collections-aristophil.com/html/fiche.jsp?id=8262883&np=4&lng=fr&npp=20&ordre=&aff=1&r= I've found the score of Maurice Ravel "Fanfare" with the famous note "Wagneramente"


----------



## ptram

LondonMike said:


> I have found the same thing to be true of much serial and post serial music and much of the latter 20C works by Ligeti, Boulez, Stockhausen.


It's funny how we declare our disgust for this music, and then spend a lot of money to purchase sample libraries that make our music sound like that! 8-)

Paolo


----------



## fiestared

douggibson said:


> I am very late to this conversation.
> 
> Re: Mozart and appreciating his music. I think you have to love opera to fully appreciate him.
> I used to be in the camp of liking, but not loving his music. Some of the piano (the minor based ones) music,
> the late symphonies, the requiem ...all cool. Some of the lullaby piano works, and having heard concerto 21 more time than I ever needed also put me in the "meh" side too.
> 
> Then I moved to New York. I began working at the Philharmonic, and via discount began going to the Met Opera 15 -20 times a year. I was not a big Opera fan before then, but I knew this was the greatest opera house on the planet so I better go. I am so glad I did. It made a whole set of works, and composers open up for me. Mozart is one of them. Until one has that experience of 2-3 hours of authentically being excited and riveted by the drama/music then it will always be academic. Don Giovanni is one of the greatest operas ever.
> 
> BTW.... Ravels love of Mozart is well documented. Apparently for the 2nd movement of his piano concerto he had the Clarinet Concerto of Mozart on his piano, and based the proportions directly off of it.


Interesting experience, thank you for sharing it. You're right the best way to discover or appreciate Music is "live"


----------



## ctsai89

I think there are a lot of (and sometimes too much) cultural and social aspects (and sometimes the historical component) that co-exist with classical (concert) music.

However, I'm the kind of listener/audience that love to eliminate anything that is only indirectly related to the music (purely art of sound through time).

So, generally I'm not into Opera for the sake of being into opera. And based on the previous posts, I may not be able to truly get into Mozart, ever... for that reason. And of course somebody will say "oh you must educate yourself before assuming so", yet: they have little to no idea about how Scriabin developed his style from early to his late period works.

Despite not being into opera for the sake of being into opera itself, I still just love the feeling Wagner's music alone (during Opera) is able to deliver to my ears. The drive, the release, the ecstasy and rapture that all also exist in Scriabin's music.

Mozart wrote many music pieces for the sake of music itself but I would say too: I like some of it, never loved any.

I love many of Ravel's works. I do for Bach as well.

But for Mozart, it all ends with only liking it a little bit.

I think it's the cultural and social things you have to bring into the picture before truly being able to love Mozart.

It's like most people who love Justin Bieber's music don't actually like the melodies he's singing itself, but the lyrics that goes with it.


----------



## ctsai89

douggibson said:


> Well look, I am certainly not here to convince you of anything. It's perfectly valid too prefere a composer/style over another. It's perfectly valid to not have interest in Mozart or Beethoven. Not the first nor the last person to feel that way.
> 
> It is perfectly acceptable and possible to find inspiration from each (Ravel, Mozart, Scriabin) and for different reasons.
> No one has to make a choice between them.
> 
> You took my comments and twisted them however. In my opinion it is harder to find composers who are both great instrumentalist composers and great vocal composers. Often people lean more in one direction over the other. Just like listening to a John Williams "Star Wars" soundtrack you can of course judge it only on a_"sound through time" _basis. Both composers stand on their own perfectly fine. It just simply denies an important part of the context to their work.
> 
> 
> Lastly with the Justin Beiber analogy: I get the gist of your point, but I just can't subscribe to it.
> 
> I am more in the "master-works" camp. Which is to say we all have blind spots - (aka listening bais, generally not giving a fuck as default mindset at times)
> 
> While I don't believe in rankings, or competitive attitudes towards music, I do think the general practice of having (for example only: can be self directed study etc) undergrads learn 100 "masterpieces" is very good.
> These are pieces that have been looked at, studied, picked apart, across many countries, many cultures, many scholars over decades that it is wise to know how to decode them and what makes them tick. You don't have to like them all. That's sort of irrelevant if you are looking to learn. Every freshman 101 class is going to tighten their butt-check when they hear Pierrot lunaire the first time.
> 
> Of course as needed one can discard this, and disagree afterwards. However any composer will be much better served for their effort.
> 
> That is to say: The Beiber analogy just does not hold water as a comparison.



THe whole point of that analogy was only to "get it". Of course I quite exaggerated it


----------



## ctsai89

And I'm not in disagreement with you at all. I also don't mean to twist what you said after having you explained it afterwards.


----------



## LondonMike

douggibson said:


> I am very late to this conversation.
> 
> Re: Mozart and appreciating his music. I think you have to love opera to fully appreciate him.
> I used to be in the camp of liking, but not loving his music. Some of the piano (the minor based ones) music,
> the late symphonies, the requiem ...all cool. Some of the lullaby piano works, and having heard concerto 21 more time than I ever needed also put me in the "meh" side too.
> 
> Then I moved to New York. I began working at the Philharmonic, and via discount began going to the Met Opera 15 -20 times a year. I was not a big Opera fan before then, but I knew this was the greatest opera house on the planet so I better go. I am so glad I did. It made a whole set of works, and composers open up for me. Mozart is one of them. Until one has that experience of 2-3 hours of authentically being excited and riveted by the drama/music then it will always be academic. Don Giovanni is one of the greatest operas ever.
> 
> BTW.... Ravels love of Mozart is well documented. Apparently for the 2nd movement of his piano concerto he had the Clarinet Concerto of Mozart on his piano, and based the proportions directly off of it.


----------



## galactic orange

??? indeed.


----------



## LondonMike

galactic orange said:


> ??? indeed.


Ah, a slight technical error. I was posting something but got interrupted so thought I’d deleted it.

All I wanted to say was:
I agree with the view that it is in Opera that you really get the measure of Mozart’s genius. Not that he didn’t create countless masterpieces in symphonic and chamber music but if you get a chance to see Figaro, Cosi, Don G or the Magic Flute especially in English (or whatever is your own language) you will be delighted.


----------



## ctsai89

I've seen marriage of figaro in full twice


----------



## SergeD

Mozart surpassed the master, Beethoven definitely buried the master and the classical era.


----------



## fiestared

View attachment 12639
I've found a fb group full of photos details and everything about Igor Stravinsky...
https://www.facebook.com/pg/Fondation-Igor-Stravinsky-135429159867314/photos/?ref=page_internal
View attachment 12639


----------

