nice cover it reminds me of Drudkh or some shit
these guys should try some folk influences

thanks for your contribution tbh

Album Rating: 4.0

"make you aware of the fact that Mozart has worked in pretty much all genres of classical music"



I particularly loved his serialism period



"This kind of "but i prefer x" mentality is present in a lot of people that tend to like a bit of

classical music here and there and it's rather unfortunate because they usually cling onto that and refuse

to delve deeper into classical music as a whole or give a

given composer's opus the necessary attention"



This is self serving elitist bullshit. Of course people are going to enjoy different periods of western

classical music more than others. That is what *taste* is. It doesn't mean they just don't *get* it.



I am definitely more partail to late romantic composers and onwards into impressionism mostly because the

breaking out of traditional harmony and tonality is by far the thing I most enjoy about listening to

'classical' music, that and emotive music is much more likely to interest me than say, early baroque

works. That does not mean I don't *understand* them or arent well versed enough in compositional

techniques and in depth study of the theory. I just prefer listening to later works.



Don't be *that guy*.

you read way too much into what i said

dont be that guy

serialism isnt a genre

Album Rating: 4.0

Then kindly explain what you meant? Because I can't get anything else from what you said...



I guess you could call it a technique or a movement, but that's nitpicking to the extreme.

I never said, implied or even hinted at anyone not being capable of ~getting~ something. I personally don't even believe in the concept of ~getting~ music being a thing.
What I was saying is that people often justify or I guess off-set their dislike for a given work by referring (openly or for themselves) to the handful composers they like, being content with that and kinda dodging to delve deeper into what's out there.
There's nothing wrong with preference in itself, because it's only natural. What you do with or let that preference do to you is what I was alluding to.


In the context of classical music the term "genre" refers to the form of the given piece.
Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_forms_by_era
Serialism is definitely a technique and a movement.

Album Rating: 4.0

Ok that makes a lot of sense, most people who you talk to about any work or composer do tend to have a

strong opinion based off a small selection of what they've heard, but isn't that common to most music. How

many times have you heard someone say 'yeah well I don't like Jazz' when they've barely heard any, let alone

the ridiculous breadth of stuff that comes under the moniker.



I think the term 'genre' in classical music is an incredibly vague thing, because it's an idea pushed upon a

type of music that the idea wasn't meant for. Do a tiny bit of googling and you'll find several definitions

for 'genre' relating to classical music. I can't say I've ever used the word r concept of a genre with

reference to classical or even world music but maybe it's just never something I've come across?

I absolutely agree and what perplexes me is that it applies to people that have moved beyond that within other branches of music. It applies to a lot of people that are very experienced with classical music and generally open-minded when confronted with popular music as well.


If you go by the wiki definition of genre ("any category [...] based on some set of stylistic criteria") you really only apply it to musical forms in classical music. It can apply to movements too but Serialism is not one of them. Minimalism could be called a genre I guess.

Album Rating: 4.0

I think classical music and I'll say 'other' music don't tend to have a huge overlap. Even people who are fans od a crazy variety of music outside the classical spectrum see classical as kinda otherwordly. Separate to all other music.



If I had to guess I would say the obvious enormity of theory and complexity behind this kind of music, and its place as a studied art ect, is kind of intimidating to people who aren't used to it? So they don't feel like they can fully listen to it beyond what they like and dislike on a 'surface listening' as they don't feel they can have a deeper opinion without understanding all the complex theory. Just a thought.



I think you're probably right on that one, after looking around a bit. Does seem to be a slightly blurry line, but I think a lot of that is just mislabeling. Minimalism definitely started as a movement but I think has evolved into a genre over time.

Album Rating: 4.5

nice review for timeless music.

Amadeus is one of my favorites, it's gotta be one of the best acted movies I've ever seen. Review is really good, I'll most likely check it out.

"The reason I responded to your post and recommend listening to his Requiem (or just more of his and his contemporaries' work in general) is that your preference for Pärt/Gorecki is of rather remote relevance to your dislike for this particular work. Same goes for
the other dude I responded to. It's like going into an Arcade Fire thread and telling the boys you prefer listening to Godspeed You! Black Emperor."

you know god damn well and fine that it isn't anything even remotely like this. i will gladly concede that the two types of classical are very different in sound and structure, but they aren't completely different genres. i get that people like to lord their knowledge over others when it comes to music (especially classical music) on this site, but it's as simple as this: when listening, i don't focus on its historical relevance or merit within the genre; all other considerations fall away and the only thing left for me to analyze is whether or not i enjoy the piece on a purely aural level. it has nothing to do with being clueless (as if knowledge of music is integral to enjoying it), it has to do with me comparing the classical i've heard and enjoyed to that which i've found boring.

also i was completely receptive to the recommendations given me, so i'm not even sure why you're making it seem like i'm completely dismissive of the artist on the whole. if i didn't enjoy this in 20 minutes i don't think i'm going to enjoy the remainder, or listening over and over again to find things i do like. it sounds to me like so much other classical music i've heard in lobbies and elevators and taxis and black and white films. however, if he's as eclectic as people say, i'll gladly look into requiem and other albums.

the only thing that's stopping from weighing in on this is the desire to not be that anonymous douche who
seriously says the words "Mozart is overrated" on a message board

but uhhhhh....yeah. Not my favourite classical musician at all, but I will say that this symphony has always
been one of his most enjoyable pieces for me.

same here, adrian. i checked out a few of his other works and they were pretty w/e imo. i don't know, classical music like this does very little for me

yeah I don't know much about classical, clearly, but the romantic side of the style generally leaves me not caring. I just feel like I'm at some high brow dinner party wearing a wig and comparing the property I own with that of High Society's Most Respectable Tastemakers.

I can't deny that he was a genius composer though, it's just not my favourite style.

man

Album Rating: 4.0

'(as if knowledge of music is integral to enjoying it)'



You've missed the point



'it sounds to me like so much other classical music i've heard in lobbies and elevators and taxis and black

and white films'



Yup, there's your problem

I mean, the first movement is extremely famous, you probably literally did hear it somewhere at some point. But I don't see how that's a reason to dislike it

Album Rating: 5.0

It sure is nice to see a review for this masterpiece.

Love this symphony.