I disagree. Mozart is stereotypically referred to as a sort of light and bubbly composer, but that's because most (not all) of his work is, and is quite famous for it. His deeper material is still quite enjoyable. Really, his talent was for his diversity, not solely his "exquisite lightness".

Hrrm, let me rephrase. Lightness as in lightness and vivacity of spirit, not precluding exquisite depth in range and melody. Everything he composes, even in its most melancholy moments, shines through with this joy that puts a grin on my face every single time I listen to his work. Similar to Haydn's Trauer; joy to be found even in death and destruction.

It's interesting that you feel that way, for even his melancholic moments, for I can't recall even having the same feelings. Some part of me, however, can imagine how one could be encouraged to feel as such.

Album Rating: 2.0

His Requiem is by far his best work.



I also had to study a movement of one of his other piano sonatas for my music A-level and it was so loathsomely tiresome. I'm not knocking his other types of works, but I just think that in terms of piano sonatas, there are far, far better ones out there.

Well yeah that's fine, I could say some similar things about others, but I mean, it's a rather pointless review. If you're trying to convert the users here onto classical, giving something a 2 just makes it sound like you were bored. Supply the userbase stuff that they will like, according to you of course. If you can't say anything remotely encouraging, then why bother? The only reason why one "reviews" this sort of stuff is to get people onto it, which I certainly do endorse. Aside from that, there are parts of this that are pretty whack.

I mean, this for example: "yet I cannot recall a fraction of melody used in the entire movement" is a pitiful argument.

This: "We are finally reintroduced to the classy, ornamented melodies that made Mozart famous. This, combined with the humour and pompousness of the major sections, creates not a balance, but a stark contrast that Mozart uses to show his fun side." Firstly, ornamented melodies did not solely make him famous. Secondly, there is no real humour, or "pompousness" found here. This Rondo is derived from his experiences of Turkish dance and culture. Surely you of all people know this! He's attempting to mimic the form of that music, and very faithfully at that.

The writing is ok, but best kept to conversing between you and your tutors. Until Sputnik becomes the home for classical, most of this negativity isn't going to get anyone but a very small few excited. Here people have this "I think I like classical/want to like classical/pretend I like the classics for cred" thing—most aren't going out of their way to avoid/approach certain things—and this makes reviewing classical a pretty though market to succeed in. I know, because I did what you are doing right now. So, by all means continue, but do spare a moment to consider redirecting your efforts—something which you've been doing up til' now.

Album Rating: 2.0

I see your point about reviewing positively for classical.



"I mean, this for example: "yet I cannot recall a fraction of melody used in the entire movement" is a pitiful argument."

When a piece runs for 14 minutes and is supposedly based on one theme, you'd expect it to remember at least what the main theme of it is, as that's what the entirety of the piece stands on.



I accept what you say to an extent re: the Rondo, but looking at it from a purely context-driven perspective isn't something new listeners of classical do, nor is it to many people's knowledge of the Turkish culture at that time, so including stuff like that in the review would have been pretty pointless. Also, humour depends on what the listener makes of the piece. The solemnity of the minor sections contrasted immediately with the boisterousness of the major section has a humour that (maybe not by you) can be appreciated.

The only pompousness to be found in Mozart is in cetain parts of the Requiem
The rest is pure joy

Album Rating: 4.0

the writing is good but the content is a really awful representation of the music

great review

so good discussion itt. we lost some good users man

Album Rating: 3.5

no one here seems to understand that Mozart composed the piano sonatas for his students.. all of them. They are didactic... that's why they don't dazzle. He composed them to show his pupils what the bare bones of high classical form looks like. That this is true and he he wrote the alla turca should, I hope, make you rethink your opinion.

That Turkish March. I used to love it as a kid.

Album Rating: 3.0

"Mozart composed the piano sonatas for his students.. all of them. They are didactic... that's why they don't dazzle."

So is Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier. Which I'd consider far less dull than most of Mozart's sonatas, even though those preludes and fugues are quite formulaically written.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

wtf is this review

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

the alla turca is just dessert u tard

Album Rating: 3.0

adding encore track as a bonus on an EP? now that's a novel approach

Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off

I actually agree with this reviewer in that Mozart's using the theme and variations approach makes this one of his weaker sonatas overall...or it would have if the final movement didn't exist, anyways.



The Rondo alla Turca is fabulous, a melody near and dear to my heart. The interpretations where they play it at breakneck speed are my personal favorites, although Mozart did intend for it to be taken at a more moderate tempo.