Except there are a few gems like Mozart's Symphonies 40 and 41.
Let me take this back. All art communicates ideas and emotions, not all of them are unique and individualistic. That's what I prefer and call Genius. You can do something that's never been done before, and still have it be something bland.It communicates thoughts and emotions, unlike a lot of pop, just not interesting ones most of the time.
This was just ok. I do enjoy Trifonov's playing though.Could not resist this (I do hope it's still allowed to post a clip of a Russian pianist): thanks to the fact that Franz Liszt did not consider much of the 18th century's music lame at all, people who do not appreciate the organ can still listen to Bach's BWV 542 on a Grand Piano.
We are all gonna help fellow member Captainnumber36 to make this a lengthy thread!
I chuckled.Funny how this forum allows and encourages any random opinion and expression of desecration towards the pillars of Western culture, but if you dare hurt the sensibility of a random forum poster, the moderator will come and make you a lesson of how to act like a good mommy’s boy.
I'm not limiting it to those two, but I think there are fewer masterpieces in these eras compared to later ones. I do think Mozart is pure and innocent in a good way, just not all the time.Captain, your thread title strikes me as bizarre. I thought you were a big fan of Mozart, and not just of Symphonies 40 and 41. I believe I recall your starting a thread just to comment on how charming Mozart's 1st Symphony was.
So what happened?
I think what made my thread title ok, was that I qualified it with "I find" rather than making an objective statement.Well thank you! That's a kind thing to say.
There is indeed nothing wrong with that. But that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
Of course, one can make a suggestion to the admins and mods that anyone who writes something like "Wagner is lame" or "Mozart's music sucks" deserves a penalty, too.
Very interesting post. My psychology background really enjoyed it.This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.
Pictures of the brain in action show that adolescents' brains work differently than adults when they make decisions or solve problems.
So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.
Ah music, it's a deep subject.
Great post!Even more than the "colors" of rhythm and melodies I think the more limited palette of instrumental/orchestral colors is what prevents me from enjoying the baroque-and-earlier eras more than I do. My love for melody and musical drama still pushes Handel into my top 5 composers, and I can appreciate intellectually (if not always be moved by emotionally) the harmonic complexity of Bach and many of his predecessors; but it's nice to come back to romantic-and-later music and hear such a diverse range of instrumental and tonal coloring that isn't relying on JUST melody and harmony, but also the subtle moods, atmospheres, and aesthetics afforded by the greater amount of instruments, not to mention the expanded concepts of tonality especially from late romanticism onward. The classical era sounds, to me, like a transitional period between the rather spartan palettes of the baroque-and-prior eras with the much more expansive palettes that came after. It's very much the point where I, personally, don't find much of anything limiting my musical enjoyment, at least with the greats like Mozart and Haydn. Maybe there's still something missing in terms of the more nuanced atmospheric/tonal elements I mentioned above, but most modern music also lacks the facility with melody and form that Mozart and Haydn possessed to, so it's more of an equal (to me) tradeoff.