Any Mozart that resembles romanticism?

[allchopin]

Did Mozart ever write anything that sounds like it could have appeard in the romantic period, such as resembling Brahms or Chopin?  He seemed to write almost all of his music in the SAME style over and over , and Im searching for something new and exciting.  The most abstract i have found is his Fantasia in D minor.

[eddie92099]

I know he wrote pieces in the Baroque style,
Ed

[dj]

Didn't mozart write classical style? anyway, if u want something like brahms or chopin, y don't u play brahms or chopin? just a suggestion

[eddie92099]

Yes of course he wrote the majority of his music in the classical style! I meant in addition to this...
Ed

[allchopin]

Because i still like the some of the sounds of Mozart's music, but after a while it gets repetitive- which is why im looking for something different of his.   I already know Chopin (all too) well, and Brahms has weird tendencies (like to play very low notes when they arent necessary).  Mozart has creative melodies, but boring style.  I want the BEST OF BOTH WORLDS!

[BuyBuy]

Mozart Boring ?

Why don't you look at his variations on "Ah vous dirais'je maman" (twinkle little star, if you prefer). That's all exciting.

[rachfan]

Clearly Mozart was writing in the Viennese Classical style.  However, I would suggest you listen to the middle movement of his Piano Concerto No. 21 (which became popular with the movie Elvira Maddigan).  While not truly music of the Romantic style, it is a precursor to Schubert's lyricism, so you might consider it "pre-Romantic".  

[ThEmUsIcMaNBJ]

Get a teacher allchopin!  It seems like you have very little apreciation for piano music as a whole, and just like the FAST FAST stuff!  Mozart is wonderful!  Bach is amazingly wonderful!  Both of them are not boring in  the least!  Listen to more of it, try to understand it a little better...  They both werent just genius's mozart and bach have a lot of beauty in their music.  Look for it!  Anyone off the street is impressed by the fast fingers, but it takes more time and more experience usually for some to fully appreciate Mozart and Bach.  

[eddie92099]

I find much of Beethoven both boring and mediocre. Mozart's slow movements are sometimes especially laborious, and Bach is repetitive beyond belief. I also fully understand this music and that these composers were geniuses. The fact is, music is written to convey emotions, and a feeling of excitement is an emotion. If one wants to be excited all the time, then what is wrong to listening to and playing only fast music?
Ed

[allchopin]

Exactly.  But I do understand and appreciate MOST slow pieces, just as equitably as i appreciate fast pieces.  But I think that playing fast pieces takes more skill, and therefore intrigues me more.  Plus, they typically can get to the main point faster, and are better for people with slightly tweaked attention spans    I really have nothing against Mozart, except that most of his pieces are A) slow  B) typical style  C) all classical-type
I can compare to Chopin:
The great thing about Chopin is that he covered so many generations of music within one, 39-year lifetime, with all different pieces of music (i.e. his preludes) and many different varying tempos.  This allows many different emotions and moods to accept his music.
Im tired of typing now.

[dreamaurora]

It is a common fact that playing slower movements or lyrical pieces are much harder than playing fast pieces. That is because when playing fast or complex pieces, good techniques can often mask musical deficiencies and errors. However, most piano students ignore the lyrical development of their musical aspects. Hence we have many piano students that can play Chopin's Etudes extremely fast but can only play technically simple and musically deep pieces such as Schumann's Kinderszenen at a very mediocre standard.

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I don't think I can ever convince you that Bach is more than just technical study and Mozart is not boring. But why limit your enjoyment and appreciation of music to just select few of composers. Appreciating music can be likened to tasting new food you've never eaten before, some of them may not look nice at first sight, but they all taste wonderful in your mouth. Admitedly , a lot of students don't like to play Mozart, because of the fact that the music is very transparent ,  any musical or technical deficiencies will be magnified. However, in the hand of a master, Mozart's music is like magic, every note is a pure music to the ears.

Since you mention you are teaching, I would suggest you become more acquinted with all the repertoire of pianos. A good appreciation and understanding of different eras of piano repertoire is essential to learning of music. By limiting yourself and your students to Chopin mostly, you will be doing yourself and your students great disservice. And once again, please do get a teacher.

[eddie92099]

To allchopin,
You said that most of Mozart's pieces are slow. However, the majority of music he wrote is in conventional three movement sonata form - where the outer two movements are "fast" and the central one "slow". You don't have to be a genius to work out that this makes 2/3 of his music "fast", GET A TEACHER!!!
Ed

[NetherMagic]

ahem I think la carrenio would appreciate me saying this   but Bach's pieces isn't just about independent finger technique, if you pay attention to his Preludes and Fugues for example, you'll notice how it says "Prelude no3 a 3 Voci" or something in the book (well in my book) that states how many voices the piece had, which you are supposed to mimic when you are playing and one major factor of why Bach's music is enjoyable to some ppl is because of the complexity of the intermingling of various voices in various registers and the variations of the theme

and Mozart's music well I haven't really looked deep into his music yet, and I think Beethoven is good but I just don't find his Moonlight Sonata to be so astonishing, just a bunch of broken chords put together, and it sounds too long and repetitive either

whoops off-topic there  

[dj]

well now that u mention beethoven, he is pretty close to right in the middle between chopin and mozart, showing a lot of classical and romantic qualities in his work.

[allchopin]

It is a common fact that playing slower movements or lyrical pieces are much harder than playing fast pieces

I just knew someone was going to say this, and i somewhat disagree.  I, personally, would be more impressed with someone who played, say, the revolutionary mediocre, than someone who played schumann's kinderschezen very well.  This is because they are two different difficulties, and i value the former more.  Its kind of like comparing a Ferrari to a Volvo.  People are always impressed with a brand new ferrari rolling down the street at 100 mph, than a little Volvo that could.  Although the Volvo is safer and cheaper, the Ferrari is faster and more impressive.  But wait, what does this have to do with romanticism?...

I dont want specifically music by mozart that is fast, but that is in the romantic style.  
(btw, i will not have time or money to get a teacher, especially when i begin teaching.- but i plan to go to college in music, so this should help)

[NetherMagic]

although this is entirely off-topic, allchopin i think you kind of misinterpreted dreamaurora's point there with the slow vs fast.  Im thinking she's specifically referring to the high levels of piano playing; when you have 2 extremely competent pianists, fast pieces aren't as good as slow pieces to judge their musicality, since fast pieces are harder to pick out the details, and Romantic ones tend to have lots of notes being played at the same time, mingling the the melody along when compared to the clear melody that Mozart always displays in his pieces.  Therefore, when you get to those levels, slow pieces (and btw, slow doesn't mean THAT slow, slow can also mean like in a dream-like feeling, i can't find the word for it but you know opposite of lively) show the musician's degree of depthness and tone in his music.  I'm not saying fast songs won't show that either, but more effort is needed to keep the lyrical feeling flowing fluently in the slow piece

and of course I'm just generally speaking, there are probably many exceptions to this

[ThEmUsIcMaNBJ]

I think not only do slower pieces show more music but are also tons more fun for me personally.  

As an example I'll use Fantasie Impromptu.  I always loved this piece.  It pretty much inspired me to learn piano.  But now that I can actually play it I find myself enjoying the middle slower section hundreds of times more.  To play musically is immensly fun, I don't know if fun is the right word...  Maybe enjoyable...  But the way I used to play was wanting to get past the slow part so I could play fast again.  But now that I can play it competently I find myself speeding the first part up way to fast just to get to the slower part  

For the same reason I enjoy learning things like Nocturnes rather then Scherzi.  That doesn't mean I don't learn the Scherzi it's just that I enjoy playing the slower things more.  Why?  Because it is very very rewarding to play something musically.  It gives you a feeling of accomplishment.  Unlike just playing all the technical difficulties which gives me the feeling of accomplisment also.  But that feeling is more like "Yes I just beat this video game, it's taken me 2 months!".  But when you add the musical aspect....  Well I already said that 50 billion times, so I think I'll end this extremely long, off-topic ramble!  

[dreamaurora]

Allchopin, from your previous posts, I gather that you judge the difficulty of pieces based on technical difficulties alone. Sure, Revolutionary Etude is obviously technically more difficult than Kinderszenen, but how about musically wise ?. And your analogy of comparing music to cars are rather flawed , sure people may be impressed with Ferrari driving down the road at breakneck speed, but is music all about show-offs and adrenalie rushes. Sure, to non musical people, a poorly played Chopin Ballade will defiinitely sound more impressive to them than a Mozart Sonata played very well musically. That's what pop culture is about nowadays, all flash and no substance. Sure, the public like it, but is that true art, NO!!!!! In the end Allchopin, playing piano music is not about impressing others or satisfying your own ego, its about making the best music you can for others. I guess you have never performed for musicians before, but I did last time when I was still self-taught, and guess what, what I thought was wonderful was revolting to them. Anyway, in the end, strive to make the best music you can, do justice for the composers.

And you mention about going to college to study music. Good luck to you, though it may well be extremely difficult for you since you may not be aware of your deficiencies, and most colleges they will only accept students with good foundations. And I never met a pianist that have good foundations without a teacher.

[willster]

I, personally, would be more impressed with someone who played, say, the revolutionary mediocre, than someone who played schumann's kinderschezen very well.

Judging by your narrow minded approach to music I'm wondering whether you have even heard Schumann's kinderschezen. All I ever read about from you is "revolutionary" this and "revolutionary" that. Go back to your book of "romantic piano favourites" and your small electric keyboard........but please wear your headphones - I can smell the stench of Fur Elise from here.

[allchopin]

oo hoo getting touchy.  Actually this may surprise you- I can play some of his Kinderschezen and i cannot play the revolutionary.  Im simply, and maybe naively stating that, at this point in my piano life, I can extremely impressed with virtuosity, because this is something that doesnt show up in us all, and you just wont see in many people.  I unde4stand the musicality, but i find virtousity more rewarding.,

[eddie92099]

AllChopin,
Firstly, virtuosity is far more common than musicality. Secondly, if you are learning to play Schumann's Kinderzenen, would it be at all possible for you to learn how to spell Schumann's Kinderzenen?
Ed

[Noah]

Well, actually it's Kinderszenen  
Willster, after all AllChopin is the author of the most inspiring (and constructive) quote I've seen on this board yet : "Bach - he sucks"        

[eddie92099]

Actually both spellings are acceptable (if you don't believe me search "Kinderzenen" on Yahoo,
Ed

[allchopin]

O thank you for the quote recoginition, Im also known for "warming up works miracles".  Actually if youre being sarcastic i cant tell, because speech style doenst come across in forums.  and sorry about the Kinderszenen thing Im no good at typing, but who spells everyhitng correctly?

Anyway, I dont think that virtuosity is so much more rampant.  See, the difference between musicality and virtuosity is simply that one is like opinionated and the other is like factual.  Musicality is interpreted a hundred and one different ways, but if you cant play revolutionary, then ya cant play it, nuff said  (btw, i am using revolutionary as an example, i guess i couldve used a different etude name each post, but its for the POINT).
-we really need a new thread for this unique discussion