# Mozart Really is the King of Composers



## Captainnumber36

Everything he wrote is genius, talent like that is so rare!  I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite!


----------



## Xisten267

Captainnumber36 said:


> Everything he wrote is genius, talent like that is so rare!  I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite!


Which performance of the violin concertos are you listening to?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Allerius said:


> Which performance of the violin concertos are you listening to?


Eduardo Marturet & Concertgebouw Chamber Orchestra


----------



## Bulldog

Who is the Queen of Composers?


----------



## Zhdanov

who is the prince there?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bulldog said:


> Who is the Queen of Composers?


That I do not know!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Beethoven, obviously!


----------



## Bulldog

Every royal court needs a musical jester, maybe PDQ Bach.


----------



## KenOC

Captainnumber36 said:


> Beethoven, obviously!


Last time I checked, Beethoven was Galactic Overlord. That's likely unchanged since he had canceled all future elections. :tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> Last time I checked, Beethoven was Galactic Overlord. That's likely unchanged since he had canceled all future elections. :tiphat:


lol, I don't get it, but I smirked.


----------



## Bulldog

KenOC said:


> Last time I checked, Beethoven was Galactic Overlord. That's likely unchanged since he had canceled all future elections. :tiphat:


Beethoven was recently dismembered, so the job is now open.

Being a member of royalty is like having a target on your back - in Beethoven's case, a chainsaw.


----------



## Pyotr

Captainnumber36 said:


> Everything he wrote is genius, talent like that is so rare!  I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite!


I agree! They just played a movement of his Flute Quartet in D major, on the Light classical channel. I never heard it before. It's fantastic.

Hail Mozart!


----------



## mbhaub

Mozart? Meh……Genius, sure. Overrated, obviously. My favorite? Far from it. I don't get the whole Mozart-worship thing. Mostly Mozart Festival? Why not Mostly Mahler? Or Totally Tchaikovsky. I know I'm in a small minority, and that's ok. I'll take Haydn any day.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Did Mozart have any work he didn't release to the public? Stuff he wasn't proud of?


----------



## jdec

I feel bad for people that think Mozart is overrated, they are missing big time. But who knows, they might rectify some day, wisdom sometimes comes with time.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> I feel bad for people that think Mozart is overrated, they are missing big time. But who knows, they might rectify some day, wisdom sometimes come with time.


:lol::lol::lol: Good post.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite!


Not bad for just a 19 y/o composer, is it?


----------



## Malx

jdec said:


> I feel bad for people that think Mozart is overrated, they are missing big time. But who knows, they might rectify some day, wisdom sometimes come with time.


Wisdom has come to the man that understands that his opinion is not the only one. 
Or to quote Socrates "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".


----------



## Bluecrab

Captainnumber36 said:


> Everything he wrote is genius...


So you've listened to every single one of his works at least once? If not, how can you make such a preposterous claim?

Exaggerate much?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bluecrab said:


> So you've listened to every single one of his works at least once? If not, how can you make such a preposterous claim?
> 
> Exaggerate much?


Just like Miles Davis for Jazz, Elvis for Rock and Jackson for pop, you don't have to hear it all to KNOW, it's the truth.


----------



## Bulldog

One thing for sure - I can't tolerate listening to Eine kleine Nachtmusik.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bulldog said:


> One thing for sure - I can't tolerate listening to Eine kleine Nachtmusik.


lol! haha.


----------



## Bluecrab

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just like Miles Davis for Jazz, Elvis for Rock and Jackson for pop, you don't have to hear it all to KNOW, it's the truth.


FFS... no, it's not the truth. It's your opinion. Why is it that so many Mozart idolators cannot discern fact from opinion?


----------



## Bulldog

Bluecrab said:


> FFS... no, it's not the truth. It's your opinion. Why is it that so many Mozart idolators cannot discern fact from opinion?


I think they are perfectly capable of discerning fact from opinion, but they would rather not as they don't want to burst the bubble.

The same applies to those who hold other composers as idols.


----------



## Bluecrab

Bulldog said:


> I think they are perfectly capable of discerning fact from opinion, but they would rather not as they don't want to burst the bubble.
> 
> The same applies to those who hold other composers as idols.


I agree with you completely, but with the Mozart cult it seems to reach absurd heights.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Ok ok, it's an opinion. But, one I believe in very strongly! I think Mozart, MJ, Elvis, and Miles Davis are the kings of their respective genres i care about most.


----------



## Bulldog

Bluecrab said:


> I agree with you completely, but with the Mozart cult it seems to reach absurd heights.


I remember a thread devoted to Vivaldi's music. The praise was so thick, I almost choked on it. Now I'm exaggerating.:lol:


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> I agree with you completely, but with the Mozart cult it seems to reach absurd heights.


I bet you are also in the minority that thinks Mozart is overrated :devil:


----------



## Dimace

It is started all over again>>> Mozart VS Beethoven for music's heavy weight title... I'm going to listen some Liszt! :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

Captainnumber36 said:


> Ok ok, it's an opinion. But, one I believe in very strongly! I think Mozart, MJ, Elvis, and Miles Davis are the kings of their respective genres i care about most.


Whenever I see"MJ", I think of Michael Jordan who was a lot better at basketball than Jackson was at making music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Bulldog said:


> Whenever I see"MJ", I think of Michael Jordan who was a lot better at basketball than Jackson was at making music.


Or better yet, Maurice Jarre, whose film music I've recently been exploring (and loving!).


----------



## Bulldog

Tchaikov6 said:


> Or better yet, Maurice Jarre, whose film music I've recently been exploring (and loving!).


Nah, professional basketball always trumps music for the movies.

This is one silly thread, kind of a nice change of pace.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Bulldog said:


> *Nah, professional basketball always trumps music for the movies.
> *
> This is one silly thread, kind of a nice change of pace.


I'll give you that...


----------



## KenOC

Malx said:


> ...Or to quote Socrates "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".


I hope somebody immediately asked Socrates, "And do you know that as a fact?"


----------



## Malx

KenOC said:


> I hope somebody immediately asked Socrates, "And do you know that as a fact?"


Well he couldn't really know it as a fact - being a wise man he knew nothing!


----------



## Woodduck

Of course Mozart is overrated. Any time a composer is called the greatest composer of all time, he is overrated. And anyone who calls him that, overrates himself.

In children, the need to declare that something is the biggest or the best is an expression of the need for self-validation. In adults, it's the same thing.


----------



## mbhaub

jdec said:


> I feel bad for people that think Mozart is overrated, they are missing big time. But who knows, they might rectify some day, wisdom sometimes comes with time.


You're right, it does, and with age I've come to the conclusion that the experts don't know what they're talking about. There's a lot of great music and if you only give the chosen few a hearing you're going to miss out on a lot of great stuff! Up next on my CD player: Pancho Vladigerov!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Woodduck said:


> Of course Mozart is overrated. Any time a composer is called the greatest composer of all time, he is overrated. And anyone who calls him that, overrates himself.
> 
> In children, the need to declare that something is the biggest or the best is an expression of the need for self-validation. In adults, it's the same thing.


That's true, but he was a very successful and respected composer!!!


----------



## Tchaikov6

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's true, but he was a very successful and respected composer!!!


Nobody is saying he wasn't successful or respected or even great. They're just saying that stating an opinion as a fact (a theme that constantly seems to be coming up among TC threads) isn't the best way to go around doing things.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> Of course Mozart is overrated. Any time a composer is called the greatest composer of all time, he is overrated. And anyone who calls him that, overrates himself.
> 
> In children, the need to declare that something is the biggest or the best is an expression of the need for self-validation. In adults, it's the same thing.


I FFF love what you have written, my friend! What is this, after all? Am I better? Is he better? Who is worse? Who has it bigger? (the talent…) etc. Such a waste of time.


----------



## Phil loves classical

He was definitely one of the kings of his period with Haydn and Beethoven, but there were kings of other eras and many times, they really can't be compared with each other.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> He was definitely one of the kings of his period with Haydn and Beethoven, but there were kings of other eras and many times, they really can't be compared with each other.


Who do you suggest?


----------



## Hermastersvoice

The string quintets are pure genius but so much else is from this composer - the piano quartets as well. I remember not being able to listen to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik either. But then Klemperer opened my ears to the fact that this is not some piece of frivolous whipped cream. He did the same with Magic Flute which I couldn’t stand for years either.


----------



## Woodduck

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's true, but he was a very successful and respected composer!!!


So were many others, of course. But, since you bring it up, did Mozart ever persuade a king to fund the building of a theater for the exclusive performance of his operas, raise money for an annual festival devoted to the same, and attract prominent people and ordinary music lovers from all over the world, including other prominent composers of his time, to the performances?

Take that, king of composers! ut:


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> So were many others, of course. But, since you bring it up, did Mozart ever persuade a king to fund the building of a theater for the exclusive performance of his operas, raise money for an annual festival devoted to the same, and attract prominent people and ordinary music lovers from all over the world, including other prominent composers of his time, to the performances?
> 
> Take that, king of composers! ut:












:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> :tiphat:


I'll bet you're very selective in which of Richard the First's statements you'll endorse. That's extremely wise! I believe he also called Bach the most monumental genius in the history of Western Civilization, or something to that effect. He made similar comments about Beethoven, and wrote extensively about him. Apparently he couldn't decide between them, and neither should we.

:tiphat:


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> I'll bet you're very selective in which of Richard the First's statements you'll endorse. That's extremely wise!
> 
> :tiphat:


Richard the First? Richard Cœur de Lion? Nope, I'll be honest and say I don't know any statement of him at all.


----------



## Dimace

Wagner was playing the anarchist, before makes the statement that his rich friends must pay his life expenses, so he has time to compose. At the end he embraced Ludwig the Second of Bayern who was one of the biggest enemies of people rights and with his money was living like a second king. When they asked him for this great change of his philosophy, he answered that he did it in favor of his art. What I want to say: Wagner said a lot of things. All of them not to be remembered and not to be mentioned for their quality. What I can say also (with certainty???), is that when he listened the Beethoven playing in a concert, he became ill with fever for three days. So much he was affected from Beethoven's music. *Wagner he never accepted someone as better as him!* (maybe he made an exception with Liszt, but not for musical reasons) A man who rejected his own son, who was a very good composer, to recognize Mozart as the biggest composer is for me unthinkable.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Richard the First? Richard Cœur de Lion? Nope, I'll be honest and say I don't know any statement of him at all.


It's my nickname for Wagner. Richard the Second is Strauss. Richard the Third is...I don't know, maybe Rodgers.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> *I believe he also* called Bach the most monumental genius in the history of Western Civilization, or something to that effect. He made similar comments about Beethoven, and wrote extensively about him. Apparently he couldn't decide between them, and neither should we.


There you have it. Wagner agrees with my own "top 3" then.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> I'll bet you're very selective in which of Richard the First's statements you'll endorse. That's extremely wise! I believe he also called Bach the most monumental genius in the history of Western Civilization, or something to that effect. He made similar comments about Beethoven, and wrote extensively about him. Apparently he couldn't decide between them, and neither should we.
> 
> :tiphat:


You have red my brain, my friend. Unbelievable! I was writing the same things! :tiphat:


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> It's my nickname for Wagner.


I know Mr. Woodduck, I was just pulling your leg. Sorry.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> I know Mr. Woodduck, I was just pulling your leg. Sorry.


I know. I wanted to mention Richard the Second too. The Third is up for grabs.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I know. I wanted to mention Richard the Second too. The Third is up for grabs.


Richard Nixon wrote a piano concerto. Sort of.

BTW, in response to a previous posting, Mozart didn't have a mentally infirm monarch to mooch off of.


----------



## Xisten267

Captainnumber36 said:


> Who do you suggest?


Just as a curiosity, the TC poll and the list of the DigitalDreamDoor (links below) show some names of awesome composers:

The greatest composer?

https://digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best-classic-comp.html


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> I know. I wanted to mention Richard the Second too. The Third is up for grabs.


Yes, only Richard the First and the Second (in this context) are worth it here. A 3rd one does not matter.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Yes, only Richard the First and the Second (in this context) are worth it here. A 3rd one does not matter.


What? You don't want to climb ev'ry mountain and solve a problem like Maria?


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> What? You don't want to climb ev'ry mountain and solve a problem like Maria?


Is Rodgers really like a mountain?? Maria is not even an asset to the abbey.


----------



## hammeredklavier

........................


----------



## KenOC

KenOC said:


> Last time I checked, Beethoven was Galactic Overlord. That's likely unchanged since he has canceled all future elections.





Bulldog said:


> Beethoven was recently dismembered, so the job is now open.


Beethoven dis-membered??? That must have hurt, and damaged his love life as well. I should have written that he canceled "erections," not "elections."


----------



## Captainnumber36

KenOC said:


> Beethoven dis-membered??? That must have hurt, and damaged his love life as well. I should have written "erections," not "elections."


Bettina would be devastated!!! haha


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Beethoven dis-membered??? That must have hurt, and damaged his love life as well. I should have written "erections," not "elections."


Was he dismembered before or after he began decomposing?


----------



## Merl

Worst thread ever. I'm off to do some ironing.


----------



## DavidA

One of the greatest of all composers. Not sure about the title 'king'


----------



## Captainnumber36

I sort of changed my mind, while I do think everything Mozart wrote was of high quality, he really did play it safe. Every work by Beethoven sounds unique, he rarely relied on the same mechanics from piece to piece.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

jdec said:


> I feel bad for people that think Mozart is overrated, they are missing big time. But who knows, they might rectify some day, wisdom sometimes comes with time.


For many years, I couldn't stand Mozart. Over the last few, and I mean VERY few years, he has become one of my absolute favorites---so many wonderful chamber pieces, satisfying piano and violin concertos, as well as some very engaging serenades and divertimentos.


----------



## janxharris

Haydn67 said:


> For many years, I couldn't stand Mozart. Over the last few, and I mean VERY few years, he has become one of my absolute favorites---so many wonderful chamber pieces, satisfying piano and violin concertos, as well as some very engaging serenades and divertimentos.


What was it that didn't work for you?


----------



## Kieran

Bulldog said:


> One thing for sure - I can't tolerate listening to Eine kleine Nachtmusik.


You and me both. In fact, listening to LyricFM this morning, George Hamilton (the celebrated football commentator) he was signing off with some Mozart. I scrunched forward on the sofa to listen....and one of the movements from EKNM came on. How bloody predictable, I thought, then I swore some, then I suggested to the empty room that RTE must have gotten that CD as a freebie, so often to they wear the tracks of EKNM. Nobody wants to hear that music. Nobody. Sure, it has beauty, but familiarity has banged its evident charms over the head repeatedly with a sledgehammer and left it squirming on the concrete, pleading for respite.

Get that - the music itself wants a rest from being played. Hah!

Then the next show made slight amends by immediately offering the first movement of a Mozart symph (I think it was #30), and relations were fully restored an hour later with a complete performance of the string quintet in C, which has just ended.

But EKKKKKNNNNMMMMMMMMmmmmmm should be given a holiday for about a generation, so we can someday come to it afresh...


----------



## ribonucleic

As background music for reading this thread, I put on Symphony No. 27, K.199, played by the Berlin Philharmonic under Karl Böhm. It's exquisite stuff and the kid was only 17.


----------



## SixFootScowl

This has already been settled here where TC voted for the greatest composer. Top three:

Beethoven 54%

Bach 48%

Mozart's 35%

.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fritz Kobus said:


> This has already been settled here where TC voted for the greatest composer. Top three:
> 
> Beethoven 54%
> 
> Bach 48%
> 
> Mozart's 35%
> 
> .


. Really, I need to explore Mozart more, to find the gems I enjoy though! Symphony 40 and 41 are really the only two I KNOW I love.

Also Rondo Alla Turka and Fantasia in D.


----------



## Jacck

Fritz Kobus said:


> This has already been settled here where TC voted for the greatest composer. Top three:
> 
> Beethoven 54%
> 
> Bach 48%
> 
> Mozart's 35%
> 
> .


it is incredible that Mahler is rated higher than Brahms. Mahler would not make it into my personal Top10. Beyond the symphonies, he did not compose much.


----------



## Jacck

Haydn67 said:


> For many years, I couldn't stand Mozart. Over the last few, and I mean VERY few years, he has become one of my absolute favorites---so many wonderful chamber pieces, satisfying piano and violin concertos, as well as some very engaging serenades and divertimentos.


I am also liking him more and more. At the moment, my absolute favorites are his string quintets.


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn67 said:


> For many years, I couldn't stand Mozart. Over the last few, and I mean VERY few years, he has become one of my absolute favorites---so many wonderful chamber pieces, satisfying piano and violin concertos, as well as some very engaging serenades and divertimentos.





janxharris said:


> What was it that didn't work for you?


Actually I'd like to know what changed that enabled you to go from unable to stand Mozart to him becoming one of your favorites.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> Everything he wrote is genius, talent like that is so rare!  I'm listening to some of his violin concertos now, exquisite!


Im glad you like the violin concerti. The first one, it seems to me, while lively - is the weakest. Two I like a lot but the last three are really way ahead. Mozart must have experienced a sudden explosion of creative energy that gave us the best violin concertos until 1806. k216,218,219. What happened in Mozart's creative mind that enabled him to go from one relatively conventional classical concerto to these unique mini masterpieces - light years ahead of any other contemporary violin concerto and it is in these pieces that I think Mozart really established his mastery.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Of course Mozart is overrated. Any time a composer is called the greatest composer of all time, he is overrated. And anyone who calls him that, overrates himself.
> 
> In children, the need to declare that something is the biggest or the best is an expression of the need for self-validation. In adults, it's the same thing.


I see these threads not to work out who was better - a futile task - but rather an invitation to compare listening experiences and discuss the relative merits of Mozart and his music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

..........................


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I sort of changed my mind, while I do think everything Mozart wrote was of high quality, he really did play it safe. Every work by Beethoven sounds unique, he rarely relied on the same mechanics from piece to piece.


How we can take anything you say seriously - you keep flip flopping - no stable views whatsoever.


----------



## Jacck

hammeredklavier said:


> There is a guy named Schumann who gets so much love despite his mediocre orchestration, and people complain about the quality of Mozart's output.. I mean like. Come on..


nobody complains about quality. The music can be most complex, most counterpunctually perfect, cleverly orchestrated, yet comunicate nothing or be uninteresting and ugly. There are many people who can't stand Mozart, and their complaint is not about the technical quality of the music, but rather his weird melodies and use of clichés. The music does not resonate with them.


----------



## mmsbls

Kieran said:


> You and me both. In fact, listening to LyricFM this morning, George Hamilton (the celebrated football commentator) he was signing off with some Mozart. I scrunched forward on the sofa to listen....and one of the movements from EKNM came on. How bloody predictable, I thought, then I swore some, then I suggested to the empty room that RTE must have gotten that CD as a freebie, so often to they wear the tracks of EKNM. Nobody wants to hear that music. Nobody. Sure, it has beauty, but familiarity has banged its evident charms over the head repeatedly with a sledgehammer and left it squirming on the concrete, pleading for respite.


Do you find that as you become more familiar with a work the less you enjoy it? I suppose EKNM is played more than the vast majority of other works, but do you have similar issues with other music that is played often?

I would guess that more people wish to hear EKNM than the vast majority of works discussed on TC, and that's why it's played more than most other works. I don't hear it often, but when I do, I always find it rather enjoyable. I would guess that it's not in my Mozart top 100, but I've yet to hear a work by Mozart that I did not enjoy.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> How we can take anything you say seriously - you keep flip flopping - no stable views whatsoever.


I flip flop on stances I hold, but the content of my arguments are valid...it's just the conclusions I arrive at with the facts I state keep changing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

ribonucleic said:


> As background music for reading this thread, I put on Symphony No. 27, K.199, played by the Berlin Philharmonic under Karl Böhm. It's exquisite stuff and the kid was only 17.


For the early sy try no 24 - and in particular the 2nd mvt which I understand was used for years as an introduction to a R4 program, not sure which one. Anyway I think that 2nd mvt is young Mozart at his most charming - beautifully paced - few notes - lovely melody.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> I flip flop on stances I hold, but the content of my arguments are valid...it's just the conclusions I arrive at with the facts I state keep changing.


I'm searching for my truth, and am slowly getting over the fact that there are definite greats, it is opinion in the Arts.


----------



## mmsbls

Jacck said:


> nobody complains about quality. The music can be most complex, most counterpunctually perfect, cleverly orchestrated, yet comunicate nothing or be uninteresting and ugly. There are many people who can't stand Mozart, and their complaint is not about the technical quality of the music, but rather his weird melodies and use of clichés. The music does not resonate with them.


When I first came to TC, I assumed that everyone here would love Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Phil Goulding in his book, Classical Music, says, "It is not really possible to dislike Mozart's music." Well, Phil was exaggerating, and I quickly found out that I was wrong. Yes, many people (in absolute numbers but not in percentage) dislike Mozart's music, and it would be hard to understand if that were not true. Tastes simply differ. As you say, "The music does not resonate with them."

I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "weird melodies." Do you think other composers create weird melodies as well?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I flip flop on stances I hold, but the content of my arguments are valid...it's just the conclusions I arrive at with the facts I state keep changing.


You didn't make any arguments. You assert things based on your emotions and draw invalid conclusions.

Try to get some stability in your thoughts.


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> When I first came to TC, I assumed that everyone here would love Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Phil Goulding in his book, Classical Music, says, "It is not really possible to dislike Mozart's music." Well, Phil was exaggerating, and I quickly found out that I was wrong. Yes, many people (in absolute numbers but not in percentage) dislike Mozart's music, and it would be hard to understand if that were not true. Tastes simply differ. As you say, "The music does not resonate with them."
> 
> I'm not sure I've ever seen the term "weird melodies." Do you think other composers create weird melodies as well?


I would like some examples - plus examples of non-weird melodies.


----------



## Xisten267

Fritz Kobus said:


> This has already been settled here where TC voted for the greatest composer. Top three:
> 
> Beethoven 54%
> 
> Bach 48%
> 
> Mozart's 35%
> 
> .


I took the time to count the results of this poll until about one hour ago, which are below:



Allerius said:


> Results of this poll until November 25, 2018, with 261 voters and 234 posts (the percentages are in relation to the total number of votes):
> 
> Total number of votes: 636.
> 
> 1. Beethoven - 141 votes (22.2%);
> 2. Bach - 124 votes (19.5%);
> 3. Mozart - 91 votes (14.3%);
> 4. Wagner - 39 votes (6.1%);
> 5. Mahler - 29 votes (4.6%);
> 6. Tchaikovsky - 27 votes (4.2%);
> 7. Schubert - 25 votes (3.9%);
> 8. Stravinsky - 23 votes (3.6%);
> 9. Brahms - 21 votes (3.3%);
> 10. Haydn - 18 votes (2.8%);
> 11. Shostakovich - 15 votes (2.4%);
> 12. Chopin - 13 votes (2.0%);
> 13. Händel - 11 votes (1.7%);
> 14. Dvorák - 10 votes (1.6%);
> 15. Others - 49 votes (7.7%).
> 
> Composers most cited as options for Others in the comments (some people cited more than three composers):
> 
> Cited 4 times: Bruckner, Debussy, Schoenberg and Boulez;
> Cited 3 times: Berlioz, Schumann, Sibelius, Bartók and Varèse;
> Cited 2 times: Dufay, Josquin, Vivaldi, Rameau, Mendelssohn, Prokofiev and Messiaen.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> You didn't make any arguments. You assert things based on your emotions and draw invalid conclusions.
> 
> Try to get some stability in your thoughts.


Did you read all my posts in the thread? I did indeed state some facts. I acknowledged everything by Mozart is of very high quality, but that he does utilize the same mechanics from piece to piece which takes away from my enjoyment of him as a composer overall. I much prefer the works that stand out, and break his formulas.

The thread title is poorly worded, there is no such thing as kings/best in Art, it's all subjective.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> nobody complains about quality. The music can be most complex, most counterpunctually perfect, cleverly orchestrated, yet comunicate nothing or be uninteresting and ugly. There are many people who can't stand Mozart, and their complaint is not about the technical quality of the music, but rather his weird melodies and use of clichés. The music does not resonate with them.


But they don't say "the works are complex and well-structured, but they don't fit my tastes" or "Mozart contributed so much to music, but still he's not my favorite". Instead, they talk about the objective quality and frequently use the word "overrated", they seem to challenge the objective value of a work on how much they like it or not. 
For many people, Justin Bieber resonates in them more than Bach. Does that make Justin Bieber somehow "greater" than Bach? And make Bach "overrated" compared to Justin Bieber? I don't think so. There are objective values the composers themselves valued, like classical balance, in the case of Tchaikovsky and Schoenberg, for example. People keep using the word "overrated" and so, I keep talking about how amateurish Chopin was, I'm essentially asking "What do you mean "Mozart is overrated"? Do you honestly think composers like Mozart belong in the same league as Chopin?" Great melodists?


----------



## Xisten267

Captainnumber36 said:


> Did you read all my posts in the thread? I did indeed state some facts. I acknowledged everything by Mozart is of very high quality, but that he does utilize the same mechanics from piece to piece which takes away from my enjoyment of him as a composer overall. I much prefer the works that stand out, and break his formulas.
> 
> The thread title is poorly worded, there is no such thing as kings/best in Art, it's all subjective.
> 
> My favorite composer is Beethoven, since there is more uniqueness from work to work.


Just my opinion: Don't take this "who's the greatest" or "who's the best" thing too seriously. Of course that you have your favorites at the moment - we all have, I suppose -, but don't let this prevent you from listening and enjoying the works of other composers, even those that are somewhat obscure.

You seem to be quite new to the classical world and I believe that your favorite compositions may oscillate a lot in the next years.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Allerius said:


> Just my opinion: Don't take this "who's the greatest" or "who's the best" thing too seriously. Of course that you have your favorites at the moment - we all have, I suppose -, but don't let this prevent you from listening and enjoying the works of other composers, even those that are somewhat obscure.
> 
> You seem to be quite new to the classical world and I believe that your favorite compositions may oscillate a lot in the next years.


I'm "intermediate" I'd say. I am familiar with many of the more popular works.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I believe the stance I'm arriving at, is that in the Arts, I don't have favorite "Artists" but favorite works. That goes for novels, painters, film, music etc.


----------



## Kieran

mmsbls said:


> Do you find that as you become more familiar with a work the less you enjoy it? I suppose EKNM is played more than the vast majority of other works, but do you have similar issues with other music that is played often?
> 
> I would guess that more people wish to hear EKNM than the vast majority of works discussed on TC, and that's why it's played more than most other works. I don't hear it often, but when I do, I always find it rather enjoyable. I would guess that it's not in my Mozart top 100, but I've yet to hear a work by Mozart that I did not enjoy.


Generally speaking, no, I don't find that familiarity dulls the senses with a great work, particularly Mozart. For instance, every single day for about 2 years I listened to PC 21, and after about 30 years familiarity with this work, I can put it on right now, and it hasn't diminished for me even slightly. But EKNM is a particularly light work, written as it was as a serenade for some posh folk while they munched their scran. It isn't a work that Mozart composed to express anything significant of himself, or his work in general. It's a great work! But it has never gripped me. It's pop music.

And I think it gets played so often because the radio stations like occasionally to sweeten the programme with a hugely popular work, and they wheel out this. I love to hear the works of Mozart but when the radio station says they're going to play some Wolfie, my heart sinks a little, because over 50% of the time they'll play this, and I lose an opportunity to hear something that I may not have heard before, or seldom have...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> Did you read all my posts in the thread? I did indeed state some facts. I acknowledged everything by Mozart is of very high quality, but that he does utilize the same mechanics from piece to piece which takes away from my enjoyment of him as a composer overall. I much prefer the works that stand out, and break his formulas.
> 
> The thread title is poorly worded, there is no such thing as kings/best in Art, it's all subjective.
> 
> My favorite composer is Beethoven, since there is more uniqueness from work to work.


Let's examine some facts:

1. You start a thread on TC entitled "Mozart Really if The King of Composers"
2. #26 you repeat that Mozart is the king of classical music.
3. #1 you say: "Everything he wrote is genius" - even though you acknowledge you have not listened to every piece so cant possibly hold this opinion and in any case -
4. #65 "I sort of changed my mind"

So after starting a thread declaring Mozart the king - you change your mind and declare that Beethoven is the king.

I could only find 2 facts in all your posts

The orchestra and soloist of the recordings your are listening to
and

In one post you said Mozart was a successful and well respected composer. Few would disagree with that and we can call it a statement based on facts.

The rest is just assertions which you subsequently contradict.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Let's examine some facts:
> 
> 1. You start a thread on TC entitled "Mozart Really if The King of Composers"
> 2. #26 you repeat that Mozart is the king of classical music.
> 3. #1 you say: "Everything he wrote is genius" - even though you acknowledge you have not listened to every piece so cant possibly hold this opinion and in any case -
> 4. #65 "I sort of changed my mind"
> 
> So after starting a thread declaring Mozart the king - you change your mind and declare that Beethoven is the king.
> 
> I could only find 2 facts in all your posts
> 
> The orchestra and soloist of the recordings your are listening to
> and
> 
> In one post you said Mozart was a successful and well respected composer. Few would disagree with that and we can call it a statement based on facts.
> 
> The rest is just assertions which you subsequently contradict.


I really don't feel like engaging in this argument, but I do now acknowledge that I no longer search for favorite artists in any medium, only favorite works.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

mmsbls said:


> Actually I'd like to know what changed that enabled you to go from unable to stand Mozart to him becoming one of your favorites.


I think what worked against my appreciation of Mozart was a combination of sometimes "old fashioned" and sometimes "silly" and/or innacurate assumptions and images. I had viewed his music in very superficial and exaggerated terms: too light, overly delicate and syrupy sweet. Movies depicting certain aspects of eighteenth century life at social gatherings--- someone dipping into a snuffbox, the minuet, the ostentatious garb of the time, etc.---also stuck in my mind, intermittently in mocking fashion.

Maybe there was also the strong hold Brahms had on me for so many years, with his obviously marked difference to Mozart in terms of the latter's musical character. It's sometimes hard for me to pinpoint why and how the aesthetic transformation with Mozart took place. I think it started occuring when I was first attracted to his Clarinet Quintet. There was a sense of absolute exquisiteness that simply took off with me. The Quintet For Piano and Winds, the "Hoffmeister" String Quartet, the Third String Quintet, Sinfonia Concertante, to mention a few, have all provided similar allure and satisfaction.

To put things in a bit more truthful perspective, however, I should admit I have never been a fan of opera, therefore I have no comments relating to that genre regarding Mozart. While I have heard nearly all of the Symphonies, I also enjoy (currently, at least) only a few: 25,31,33,41. I derive more pleasure from the Piano Concertos (approximately half of them).


----------



## Phil loves classical

Captainnumber36 said:


> *I flip flop on stances* I hold, but the content of my arguments are valid...it's just the conclusions I arrive at with the facts I state keep changing.


That must be from your right brain.  Sometimes you feel hot towards a composer, sometimes cold.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> That must be from your right brain.  Sometimes you feel hot towards a composer, sometimes cold.


LOL, you make me feel safe Phil, I love getting responses from you! 

It's really been more of a search for definitive greatest of all time, when really it's 100% taste. I now only look for works I enjoy, in any medium.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Haydn67 said:


> I think what worked against my appreciation of Mozart was a combination of sometimes "old fashioned" and sometimes "silly" and/or innacurate assumptions and images. I had viewed his music in very superficial and exaggated terms: too light, overly delicate and syrupy sweet. Movies depicting certain aspects of eighteenth century life at social gatherings--- someone dipping into a snuffbox, the minuet, the ostentatious garb of the time, etc.---also stuck in my mind, intermittently in mocking fashion.
> 
> Maybe there was also the strong hold Brahms has had on me for so many years, with his obviously marked difference to Mozart in terms of the latter's musical character. It's sometimes hard for me to pinpoint why and how the aesthetic transformation with Mozart took place. I think it started occuring when I was first attracted to his Clarinet Quintet. There was a sense of absolute exquisiteness that simply took off with me. The Quintet For Piano and Winds, the "Hoffmeister" String Quartet, the Third String Quintet, Sinfonia Concertante, to mention a few, have all provided similar allure and satisfaction.
> 
> To put things in a bit more truthful perspective, however, I should admit I have never been a fan of opera, therefore I have no comments relating that genre regarding Mozart. While I have heard nearly all of the Symphonies, I also enjoy (currently, at least) only a few: 25,31,33,41. I derive more pleasure from the Piano Concertos (approximately half of them).


That is very interesting - now and again someone on the board someone says - I finally get Mozart. I think as you say in your case you found 1 work that opened your mind to the possibility there is something more to Mozart than light classics.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm searching for my truth, and am slowly getting over the fact that there are definite greats, it is opinion in the Arts.


Not going to find truth here. All ratings of composers are either subjective or are based on select criteria. No one rating system will ever be able to determine who was the greatest ever composer because we may not ever figure how to rate every factor. If we put in personal lives, some composers would be deplorable, others saintly.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.)

Beethoven's is more solemn.


----------



## mmsbls

Haydn67 said:


> ...
> 
> Maybe there was also the strong hold Brahms has had on me for so many years, with his obviously marked difference to Mozart in terms of the latter's musical character. It's sometimes hard for me to pinpoint why and how the aesthetic transformation with Mozart took place. I think it started occuring when I was first attracted to his Clarinet Quintet. There was a sense of absolute exquisiteness that simply took off with me. The Quintet For Piano and Winds, the "Hoffmeister" String Quartet, the Third String Quintet, Sinfonia Concertante, to mention a few, have all provided similar allure and satisfaction.
> 
> To put things in a bit more truthful perspective, however, I should admit I have never been a fan of opera, therefore I have no comments relating that genre regarding Mozart. While I have heard nearly all of the Symphonies, I also enjoy (currently, at least) only a few: 25,31,33,41. I derive more pleasure from the Piano Concertos (approximately half of them).


I find both variation in and agreement on taste fascinating. Everyone I know personally likes both Haydn and Mozart, but on TC there are a number of people who like one but not the other. I suspect you may have heard other string quintets, but if not, I think you might like the 4th quintet (K516) as well. My understanding is that the quintets (at least the later ones) were not written for public consumption but rather for "elevated listening." You may wish to sample the last 4 or all 6.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fritz Kobus said:


> Not going to find truth here. All ratings of composers are either subjective or are based on select criteria. No one rating system will ever be able to determine who was the greatest ever composer because we may not ever figure how to rate every factor. If we put in personal lives, some composers would be deplorable, others saintly.


I did find truth!


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> I find both variation in and agreement on taste fascinating. Everyone I know personally likes both Haydn and Mozart, but on TC there are a number of people who like one but not the other. I suspect you may have heard other string quintets, but if not, I think you might like the 4th quintet (K516) as well. My understanding is that the quintets (at least the later ones) were not written for public consumption but rather for "elevated listening." You may wish to sample the last 4 or all 6.


Quintets - the last 4 - the second is an arrangement of a serenade for winds though does sound very nice.

I am baffled how someone could like Mozart and not Haydn - and vice versa. I actually think there are more Haydn fans who dont like Mozart at all than vice versa. As a big Mozart fan I can say that J Haydn is virtually the only other classical era composer I can listen to, because his high level of artistry is sufficient to interest me. I have heard one Mozart fan on here say he prefers Mozart because he uses dissonance and Haydn does not - how far true that is I dont know. But given that Mozart and Haydn are both stylistically very similar I would have thought if you have an ear for one you should like the other - even if ultimately you prefer one composer's work.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

mmsbls said:


> I find both variation in and agreement on taste fascinating. Everyone I know personally likes both Haydn and Mozart, but on TC there are a number of people who like one but not the other. I suspect you may have heard other string quintets, but if not, I think you might like the 4th quintet (K516) as well. My understanding is that the quintets (at least the later ones) were not written for public consumption but rather for "elevated listening." You may wish to sample the last 4 or all 6.


"I find both variation in and agreement on taste fascinating.">>>You put a smile on my face. I have said virtually the same thing numerous times, especially where listeners have continuously argued over what "the greatest" pieces of music are.

Yes, I also went through a transformation with Haydn's music just before Mozart's. While I like both very much, I overwhelmingly prefer Haydn's Symphonies to Mozart's. The same holds true for the Piano Sonatas. The rest of the chamber genre---each exceptionally fulfilling!

I have owned and listened to the Budapest String Quartet along with violist Walter Trampler performing the Complete String Quintets. Interesting you should mention the 4th (K 516), since I was listening to it just yesterday. I find it very satisfying as well, though the No.3 currently edges it out as my favorite among all six. :tiphat:

***Forgot to specifically acknowledge Haydn's Piano Trios with the Beaux Arts Trio.***


----------



## SixFootScowl

Captainnumber36 said:


> I did find truth!


You found this truth?


Malx said:


> Wisdom has come to the man that understands that his opinion is not the only one.
> Or to quote Socrates "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".


----------



## DavidA

Fritz Kobus said:


> Not going to find truth here. All ratings of composers are either subjective or are based on select criteria. No one rating system will ever be able to determine who was the greatest ever composer because we may not ever figure how to rate every factor. If we put in personal lives, some composers would be deplorable, *others saintly*.


I seemed to have missed these! :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Haydn67 said:


> "I find both variation in and agreement on taste fascinating.">>>You put a smile on my face. I have said virtually the same thing numerous times, especially where listeners have continuously argued over what "the greatest" pieces of music are.
> 
> Yes, I also went through a transformation with Haydn's music just before Mozart's. While I like both very much, I overwhelmingly prefer Haydn's Symphonies to Mozart's. The same holds true for the Piano Sonatas. The rest of the chamber genre---each exceptionally fulfilling!
> 
> I have owned and listened to the Budapest String Quartet along with violist Walter Trampler performing the Complete String Quintets. Interesting you should mention the 4th (K 516), since I was listening to it just yesterday. I find it very satisfying as well, though the No.3 currently edges it out as my favorite among all six. :tiphat:
> 
> ***Forgot to specifically acknowledge Haydn's Piano Trios with the Beaux Arts Trio.***


The Budapest Qt - my favourite set too. Not many favour k515 over k516.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

stomanek said:


> The Budapest Qt - my favourite set too. Not many favour k515 over k516.


In my opinion, a chamber group who recorded here in the US that could sound more like the Viennese in Haydn and Mozart than the other American chamber groups I've heard.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DavidA said:


> I seemed to have missed these! :lol:


Well, I like to think of Feliz Mendelssohn as saintly, but then he has his issues too.


----------



## Euler

stomanek said:


> The Budapest Qt - my favourite set too. Not many favour k515 over k516.


I think the C major and D major quintets have risen in reputation over the years to rival the g minor. The g minor was singled out in part by people whose Romantic guts couldn't fully digest Mozart, as with the d minor piano concerto. Its reputation hasn't diminished one iota, but 515 and 593 are now equally recognised as masterpieces of the first rank. The transcription of 388 is very fine too as you say; the wind version is a bit of an overlooked triumph IMO, often lost in the Gran Partita's shadow.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Kieran said:


> Generally speaking, no, I don't find that familiarity dulls the senses with a great work, particularly Mozart. For instance, every single day for about 2 years I listened to PC 21, and after about 30 years familiarity with this work, I can put it on right now, and it hasn't diminished for me even slightly. But EKNM is a particularly light work, written as it was as a serenade for some posh folk while they munched their scran. It isn't a work that Mozart composed to express anything significant of himself, or his work in general. It's a great work! But it has never gripped me. It's pop music.


I agree about Einekleine Nachtmusik being overplayed, I think Maurerische Trauermusik should be played more often, and EN less.


----------



## Xisten267

Fritz Kobus said:


> Not going to find truth here. All ratings of composers are either subjective or are based on select criteria. No one rating system will ever be able to determine who was the greatest ever composer because we may not ever figure how to rate every factor. If we put in personal lives, some composers would be deplorable, *others saintly*.


Arturo Toscanini must have had a line of though similar to yours, for he calls Beethoven a saint in the video below. It's at 32:37.


----------



## jdec

Allerius said:


> Arturo Toscanini must have had a line of though similar to yours, for he calls Beethoven a saint in the video below. It's at 32:37.


Schoenberg also called Mahler "a saint", BTW.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Schoenberg also called Mahler "a saint", BTW.


In all honesty, I think Mahler is too long winded, unnecessarily so too. Bach's masses are long, but worthwhile to my ears.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ribonucleic said:


> As background music for reading this thread, I put on Symphony No. 27, K.199, played by the Berlin Philharmonic under Karl Böhm. It's exquisite stuff and the kid was only 17.





stomanek said:


> For the early sy try no 24 - and in particular the 2nd mvt which I understand was used for years as an introduction to a R4 program, not sure which one. Anyway I think that 2nd mvt is young Mozart at his most charming - beautifully paced - few notes - lovely melody.


I think the early symphonies are unique in their own ways, albeit not as mature as Linz, Prague, and the last three.
For example, the 23th contains a memorable oboe solo section in the middle, 
25th is well known for its "Sturm and Drang" quality.
26th has a gorgeous C minor middle section that anticipates his later pieces of the structure, E flat- C minor - E flat.
(9th and 22nd piano concertos and sinfonia concertante for violin and viola)
and also there's the famous 29th


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> In all honesty, I think Mahler is too long winded, unnecessarily so too.


Don't worry, you might "flip-flop" on this too sooner or later.


----------



## Larkenfield

One man's opinion. Even by the age of 9, Mozart was already one of the best composers in Europe with his own unmistakable harmonic skill, self-confidence, and brilliance. He never sounded exactly like anyone other than himself, though of course he had his influences, perhaps the earliest development in having his own style among any of the major composers (earlier than Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Rossini, and Mendelssohn, IMO).

What other composer was performing before Kings and Queens when he was 5? Written at 9, his 4th Symphony is well worth hearing with Mozart's usual sparkling freshness. I do not believe the great composers change; instead, they evolve and deepen over time, gain sophistication, complexity, and study the counterpoint of someone like JS Bach later in life. Mozart's father must have been dumbfounded to have the responsibility of nurturing such a staggering prodigy as his son, who not only sounded like himself from an early age but was corrected by his father and studied or collected scores from some of best composers of his day, including Johann Christian Bach:



> In 1764 Bach met with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was aged eight at the time and had been brought to London by his father. Bach then spent five months teaching Mozart in composition. Bach is widely regarded as having a strong influence on the young Mozart, some describing him as "the only, true teacher of Mozart". Mozart arranged three sonatas from Bach's Op. 5 into keyboard concertos, and in later life Mozart "often acknowledged the artistic debt he owed" to Johann Christian. [unquote]
> 
> But even at this stage in Mozart's life with JC Bach, he had already been performing successfully before royalty, including by improvising on themes presented to him and accomplishing other musical feats. From the first to the last of his life his own bright, inventive, characteristic style remained virtually the same-and if that isn't the earmark of genius, I don't know what is, as he was, at the very least, gifted in virtually everything he wrote.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> One man's opinion. Even by the age of 9, Mozart was already one of the best composers in Europe with his own unmistakable harmonic skill, self-confidence, and brilliance. He never sounded exactly like anyone other than himself, though of course he had his influences, perhaps the earliest development in having his own style among any of the major composers (earlier than Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Rossini, and Mendelssohn, IMO).
> 
> What other composer was performing before Kings and Queens when he was 5? Written at 9, his 4th Symphony is well worth hearing with Mozart's usual sparkling freshness. I do not believe the great composers change; instead, they evolve and deepen over time, gain sophistication, complexity, and study the counterpoint of someone like JS Bach later in life. Mozart's father must have been dumbfounded to have the responsibility of nurturing such a staggering prodigy as his son, who not only sounded like himself from an early age but was corrected by his father and studied or collected scores from some of best composers of his day, including Johann Christian Bach:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1764 Bach met with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who was aged eight at the time and had been brought to London by his father. Bach then spent five months teaching Mozart in composition. Bach is widely regarded as having a strong influence on the young Mozart, some describing him as "the only, true teacher of Mozart". Mozart arranged three sonatas from Bach's Op. 5 into keyboard concertos, and in later life Mozart "often acknowledged the artistic debt he owed" to Johann Christian. [unquote]
> 
> But even at this stage in Mozart's life with JC Bach, he had already been performing successfully before royalty, including by improvising on themes presented to him and accomplishing other musical feats. From the first to the last of his life his own bright, inventive, characteristic style remained virtually the same-and if that isn't the earmark of genius, I don't know what is, as he was, at the very least, gifted in virtually everything he wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some excellent anecdotes compiled in Jane Glover's book. One wonders who much truth there is to them all but one stood out. On his travels - I think at age 8 or 9, in a european state, cant recall which - Mozart the young was invited by a selection of composers to test his talent. One of the composers had brought 2 mvts of a sonata and Mozart played it. Shame we dont have the third mvt - said one of the composers - as you play so well. Well that's not a problem, said young Mozart - here is the third mvt - which he invented on the spot and all agreed it was in perfect harmony with the first 2 mvts - utterly humiliating the composer of the sonata.
> 
> These are impressive stories - which would now be long forgotten as irrelevant had Mozart not risen to fame as a great composer.
Click to expand...


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Don't worry, you might "flip-flop" on this too sooner or later.


lol, true. I got a disc of shorter works by Mahler, vocal ones, I dug it.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

One of my favorite anecdotes of the child Mozart appears in the biography of Mozart in Friedrich Schlichtegroll's 'Nekrolog' for 1791 and may come from Andre Schachtner, an old Mozart family friend from the time of Wolfgang's childhood . When he was 6 years old Mozart was brought by his father to the court at Vienna and played before Emperor Franz I. The Emperor came over to turn the pages for him - No, said the little boy, let Herr Wagenseil do it: he understands!


----------



## Bluecrab

jdec said:


> I bet you are also in the minority that thinks Mozart is overrated :devil:


You lose.

15-character minimum... why?


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> You lose.


Good to know that I was wrong here.


----------



## Dimace

Fritz Kobus said:


> Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.)
> 
> Beethoven's is more solemn.


Without knowing it, you are touching some very deep thoughts of mine... It is absolute crazy, but I have partitioned the musical life of Amadeus in two sectors: The first ist VERY big. Fast his whole musical life. The second is ONLY the time of his late symphonies and of the Requiem. The first period ist somehow indifferent to me. The second, especially the Requiem, is sent to us from God. So BIG difference. His last years, Mozart seems to awake up from his standard patterns and ideas for music. He changed completely and very rapidly. He is transforming to someone else. *I call this man AMADEUS II!* I don't know what happened. But I have the feeling that Mozart knows that his end quickly approaching. *And he decides to change!* He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose! Go to Africa or to Asia. Pick up a local guy from there and play for him early music of Mozart. After a week he will understand his style and he will recognize his music. After play for him the Requiem. He will tell you that this music is composed from someone else!  As a conclusion: This dramatic change of style and character proves (this is my opinion) that Mozart wasn't satisfied with his music. And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.* And he succeeded this better than anyone composer I know!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dimace said:


> Without knowing it, you are touching some very deep thoughts of mine... It is absolute crazy, but I have partitioned the musical life of Amadeus in two sectors: The first ist VERY big. Fast his whole musical life. The second is ONLY the time of his late symphonies and of the Requiem. The first period ist somehow indifferent to me. The second, especially the Requiem, is sent to us from God. So BIG difference. His last years, Mozart seems to awake up from his standard patterns and ideas for music. He changed completely and very rapidly. He is transforming to someone else. *I call this man AMADEUS II!* I don't know what happened. But I have the feeling that Mozart knows that his end quickly approaching. *And he decides to change!* He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose! Go to Africa or to Asia. Pick up a local guy from there and play for him early music of Mozart. After a week he will understand his style and he will recognize his music. After play for him the Requiem. He will tell you that this music is composed from someone else!  As a conclusion: *This dramatic change of style and character proves (this is my opinion) that Mozart wasn't satisfied with his music. *And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.* And he succeeded this better than anyone composer I know!


Many of Mozart's greatest works were composed between his 25th and 30th year. There was no sudden change - unless we pinpoint Mozart's discovery of Bach and subsequent influence - but then we are talking about age 25 around k380 or so and Bach influence is there in many kb works especially and the incomparable c minor mass composed 9 years before his death. Had Mozart composed a requiem at this time there is no reason to believe it would not have been as great as K626. Had he composed Zauberflote well before Nozze I have no doubt it would have been the equal of what we have now. My evidence? Die Entführung aus dem Serail k387 - one of the best German operas in history and virtually the equal of anything he composed.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Dimace said:


> Without knowing it, you are touching some very deep thoughts of mine... It is absolute crazy, but I have partitioned the musical life of Amadeus in two sectors: The first ist VERY big. Fast his whole musical life. The second is ONLY the time of his late symphonies and of the Requiem. The first period ist somehow indifferent to me. The second, especially the Requiem, is sent to us from God. So BIG difference. His last years, Mozart seems to awake up from his standard patterns and ideas for music. He changed completely and very rapidly. He is transforming to someone else. *I call this man AMADEUS II!* I don't know what happened. But I have the feeling that Mozart knows that his end quickly approaching. *And he decides to change!* He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose! Go to Africa or to Asia. Pick up a local guy from there and play for him early music of Mozart. After a week he will understand his style and he will recognize his music. After play for him the Requiem. He will tell you that this music is composed from someone else!  As a conclusion: This dramatic change of style and character proves (this is my opinion) that Mozart wasn't satisfied with his music. And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.* And he succeeded this better than anyone composer I know!


"middle period" Mozart (circa 1774~1782) is also good, in case you haven't noticed.

Symphony No. 34 in C major K.338: II. Andante di molto


----------



## hammeredklavier

........................................


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, just stop. I know Romantic music fans like to look down on classical period music, ridicule it as being superficial, but I find even something like this (
> 
> 
> 
> ) much more interesting in terms of richness and balance than anything written by the Early Romantics (Beethoven counts as a Transition period composer) for the reasons I stated before. Blind spots, anyone? If Mozart is lalalalala music, (
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> ) <- these would be 100% Scott Joplin. (they're actually late works.. *sigh*) Joseph Haydn was far greater a composer than Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn btw.


I can't imagine what a post like this is intended to prove. The Mozart movement you cite is indeed a characteristic jewel of a rondo, quite a typical specimen. But what are those drab little posthumous Chopin things? Who has even heard of them? How old was he when he wrote them? Why would you drag them out of storage for what you presumably intend as a comparison with a fine and famous work by Mozart?

Perhaps this would have been a better example from Mozart, preferably played on the piano by the same ungainly amateur pianist who recorded the Chopin: 



 Profound, ain't it now?

These comparisons are silly enough when the choice of music is rational and fair. But it never can be rational and fair, and nothing is ever proved except that we prefer A to B.


----------



## DavidA

Dimace said:


> Without knowing it, you are touching some very deep thoughts of mine... It is absolute crazy, but I have partitioned the musical life of Amadeus in two sectors: The first ist VERY big. Fast his whole musical life. The second is ONLY the time of his late symphonies and of the Requiem. The first period ist somehow indifferent to me. The second, especially the Requiem, is sent to us from God. So BIG difference. His last years, Mozart seems to awake up from his standard patterns and ideas for music. He changed completely and very rapidly. He is transforming to someone else. *I call this man AMADEUS II!* I don't know what happened. But I have the feeling that Mozart knows that his end quickly approaching. *And he decides to change!* He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose! Go to Africa or to Asia. Pick up a local guy from there and play for him early music of Mozart. After a week he will understand his style and he will recognize his music. After play for him the Requiem. He will tell you that this music is composed from someone else!  As a conclusion: This dramatic change of style and character proves (this is my opinion) that Mozart wasn't satisfied with his music. And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.* And he succeeded this better than anyone composer I know!


I've heard it all now - two Mozarts! 'He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose!' Oh come off it! Haven't you heard some of the great earlier works? 'Go to Africa or to Asia'? Why? I've travelled extensively in both places.
'And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.' What sort of reasoning is this in the face of history? The requiem was composed as a commission because he needed the money! Unfortunately your romantic view just does not fit the facts*


----------



## hammeredklavier

....................................................


----------



## DavidA

hammeredklavier said:


> In another thread, I wrote "I actually find 12 German Dances for orchestra K586 somewhat interesting for its use of clever polyphonic devices. They're obviously not as good as the canonic minuets of his serious works, but I can see these are the works Mozart was drawing his inspiration from, to write something like
> 
> 
> 
> ", I also wrote about the 'underrated' D-minor variations of his divertimento K334
> 
> Anyway, I know perfectly well how much percentage of Chopin's output is "salon cliche", and know perfectly well (Great melodists?) what I'm talking about when I make comparisons between him and other composers.
> I must admit. Lately, I've been growing frustrated with a certain type of people online badmouthing about classical period music, and I'm speaking from my experience looking at the general pattern in their preferences, tastes. Maybe I'm just being too salty. Sorry about that, I'll refrain. I'm not saying Dimace is one of such people, I'm just saying "*other composers wrote crap too*, why do you make fun of Mozart more than others?"


Exactly! Some people fail to realise that Mozart wrote things like dances, serenades, etc, to provide the background or dancing music to certain events. I doubt whether he would say they are among his profoundest works. The amazing thing is that they are all so listenable and with such genius underlying them.
And someone who could write a work like the Clarinet Concerto in so short a time when seemingly overworked on every side? What does one say?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I can't imagine what a post like this is intended to prove. The Mozart movement you cite is indeed a characteristic jewel of a rondo, quite a typical specimen. But what are those drab little posthumous Chopin things? Who has even heard of them? How old was he when he wrote them? Why would you drag them out of storage for what you presumably intend as a comparison with a fine and famous work by Mozart?
> 
> Perhaps this would have been a better example from Mozart, preferably played on the piano by the same ungainly amateur pianist who recorded the Chopin:
> 
> 
> 
> Profound, ain't it now?
> 
> These comparisons are silly enough when the choice of music is rational and fair. But it never can be rational and fair, and nothing is ever proved except that we prefer A to B.


Thanks - I havent really listened to the german dances _ I assume that one played with style by the Melos Ensemble is one of the set Mozart composed in return for the pitiful salary of his belated court appointment. I seem to recall he said of them - "I am paid too much for these trifles" or words to that effect. I think they are delightful.


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> And someone who could write a work like the Clarinet Concerto in so short a time when seemingly overworked on every side? What does one say?


Mozart was an expert on time management?


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Exactly! Some people fail to realise that Mozart wrote things like dances, serenades, etc, to provide the background or dancing music to certain events. I doubt whether he would say they are among his profoundest works. The amazing thing is that they are all so listenable and with such genius underlying them.
> And someone who could write a work like the Clarinet Concerto in so short a time when seemingly overworked on every side? What does one say?


Good point. 




I would also like to mention Misericordias Domini in D minor, a choral work Mozart wrote at 19, the work Beethoven took into consideration in composing his 9th. While Beethoven's finale is unique on its own right, I think it feels a bit 'choppy' in some places. 



 I think Beethoven did not achieve the flow like Mozart in his finale, perhaps due to his distorted sense of classical balance or difficulties in vocal writing.
I find the expression 'the king of all composers' really cringy and pompous. I think 'the master of classicism' would be more stylish and appropriate for Mozart. While Beethoven would be 'the father of romanticism'.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> Thanks - I havent really listened to the german dances _ I assume that one played with style by the Melos Ensemble is one of the set Mozart composed in return for the pitiful salary of his belated court appointment. I seem to recall he said of them - "I am paid too much for these trifles" or words to that effect.* I think they are delightfu*l.


Correct! There seems to be a misconception among some here that because a work by a great composer is not a staggering masterpiece it cannot be enjoyed. I enjoy the German Dances even though they are not Don Giovanni. Also there is the occasion of listening. When I want music to relax to before I go to bed I don't put on Beethoven's Missa Solemnis - I listen to Fur Elise even th9ough it is not the staggering masterpiece the Missa is!


----------



## larold

_Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.) Beethoven's is more solemn._

Back in the day, PBS host and Bach lover William F. Buckley once commented on a young rapper who said Bach was "an old dead punk. "Buckley said this showed less the difference between people and preference and more the difference between humans and animals. Clearly he meant some people have no concept of taste.

To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music. Mozart was the author of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro which most opera pundits consider the two best or two of the top three ever written.

One has among the most powerful scenes in all of classical music where the Don is cast into Hell, along with his sidekick, by the Commendatore, a statue come back to life representing the father of a woman who died result of the Don.

Mozart also wrote 27 piano concertos of all moods, one of the most magnificent masses (C minor) and a requiem that is the equal of any save Verdi. He also wrote a fantastic opera and about 700 published works that span the realm of human experience through the 18th century. He was the model for Beethoven's first two piano concertos.

I have listened intently to Beethoven all my life (68 years) and never heard anything so "solemn" from him as what I have seen in the opera house happening to the Don and Figaro. Or anything so outlandish as the Queen of the Night warbling. Beethoven is many things but not Mozart.

Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.

In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.

I should mention Mozart did this all in an extraordinarily brief lifetime -- 35 years. Ironically, Mozart takes years to understand, grasp and love fully. Whomever wrote the headnote comment is apparently just beginning that journey.


----------



## Xisten267

larold said:


> To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music.


This answer seems promising. It seems interesting and well-thought-out, I will continue to read it.



larold said:


> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts


Hmm. Something has gone wrong...


----------



## hammeredklavier

larold said:


> He was the model for Beethoven's first two piano concertos.


first three, actually










https://www.musicprogramnotes.com/mozart-piano-concerto-no-24-in-c-minor-k491/
"The 24th opens with a truly remarkable theme. It sounds as though it might have been composed 150 years later, with, what was for Mozart's day, an outrageously chromatic melody that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. So unique is it that in 1953 the German composer Giselher Klebe (1925 - 2009) used it as a tone row in his 12-tone Symphony for Strings. And yet, it's stunningly moving, hauntingly beautiful in a dark and numinous way."
"Several year later, Beethoven commented to a composer friend during a performance of this Concerto that they "would never be able to write anything like that," so envious were they of its mastery and mystery. Indeed, audiences have been as beguiled by it ever since."


----------



## WildThing

larold said:


> To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music.
> 
> ...
> 
> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.


You can't really be upset when in the same post you show "astonishing lack of insight" in regards to Beethoven's music. :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast

larold said:


> I have listened intently to Beethoven all my life (68 years) and never heard anything *so "solemn" from him as what I have seen in the opera house happening to the Don* and Figarr anything so outlandish as the Queen of the Night warbling. Beethoven is many things but not Mozart.


Get a grip, dude, it's a comedy.



larold said:


> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.


Heroically large breasts! Finally, someone who truly understands what Beethoven is about!



larold said:


> In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.


Solemn Bach and heroic Beethoven. I can see you've given this a lot of nuanced thought.



larold said:


> I should mention Mozart did this all in an extraordinarily brief lifetime -- 35 years. Ironically, Mozart takes years to understand, grasp and love fully. Whomever wrote the headnote comment is apparently just beginning that journey.


It's a good thing you mentioned that. No one ever emphasizes Mozart's tragically short life in these threads. Did they tell you the bad news about Schubert yet?

(Mozart took you years, huh? Better get crackin' with Bach and Beethoven then.)


----------



## Dimace

stomanek said:


> Many of Mozart's greatest works were composed between his 25th and 30th year. There was no sudden change - unless we pinpoint Mozart's discovery of Bach and subsequent influence - but then we are talking about age 25 around k380 or so and Bach influence is there in many kb works especially and the incomparable c minor mass composed 9 years before his death. Had Mozart composed a requiem at this time there is no reason to believe it would not have been as great as K626. Had he composed Zauberflote well before Nozze I have no doubt it would have been the equal of what we have now. My evidence? Die Entführung aus dem Serail k387 - one of the best German operas in history and virtually the equal of anything he composed.





hammeredklavier said:


> "middle period" Mozart (circa 1774~1782) is also good, in case you haven't noticed.
> 
> Symphony No. 34 in C major K.338: II. Andante di molto


Dear friends I accept your opinions without many if and questions. My only purpose is to share my thoughts and not to impose them to our fellow members. This way I can say what I want and, this is important, to learn from your answers! Thanks a lot!


----------



## Dimace

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, just stop. I know Romantic music fans like to look down on classical period music, ridicule it as being superficial, but I find even something like this (
> 
> 
> 
> ) much more interesting in terms of richness and balance than anything written by the Early Romantics (Beethoven counts as a Transition period composer) for the reasons I stated before. Blind spots, anyone? If Mozart is lalalalala music, (
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> ) <- these would be 100% Scott Joplin. (they're actually 'his' late works.. *sigh*) Joseph Haydn was far greater a composer than Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, Mendelssohn btw. Rossini was a composer of refined tastes who deeply understood the merits of the classical tradition.





DavidA said:


> I've heard it all now - two Mozarts! 'He is saying a very laut STOP to this Lalalalallala music, and he is starting to compose the music HE KNOWS, the music he CAN compose!' Oh come off it! Haven't you heard some of the great earlier works? 'Go to Africa or to Asia'? Why? I've travelled extensively in both places.
> 'And seeing the end to approach him he decides to compose not for money and his patrons but for* his immortality.' What sort of reasoning is this in the face of history? The requiem was composed as a commission because he needed the money! Unfortunately your romantic view just does not fit the facts*


*

Thanks a lot my friends for your answers! I always try to lern something new and your opinions are very helpful to me.*


----------



## DavidA

Bulldog said:


> Mozart was an expert on time management?


That's the point - he wasn't! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> In another thread, I wrote "I actually find 12 German Dances for orchestra K586 somewhat interesting for its use of clever polyphonic devices. They're obviously not as good as the canonic minuets of his serious works, but I can see these are the works Mozart was drawing his inspiration from, to write something like
> 
> 
> 
> ", I also wrote about the 'underrated' D-minor variations of his divertimento K334
> 
> Anyway, *I know perfectly well how much percentage of Chopin's output is "salon cliche", and know perfectly well *(Great melodists?)* what I'm talking about when I make comparisons between him and other composers. *
> I must admit. Lately, *I've been growing frustrated with a certain type of people online badmouthing about classical period music*, and I'm speaking from my experience looking at the general pattern in their preferences, tastes. Maybe I'm just being too salty. Sorry about that, I'll refrain. I'm not saying Dimace is one of such people, I'm just saying "other composers wrote crap too, why do you make fun of Mozart more than others?"


You may "know what you're talking about," and, actually, I know what you're talking about too. I too object to uninformed comments about Mozart. I'm annoyed by uninformed criticisms of any music. But using obviously inferior music to "stick it" to Mozart's ignorant critics - dragging out some unpublished, clunkily played trifles by a composer you think the philistines are fond of - doesn't prove anything. In fact it gives your views less credibility.

That Mozart is a greater composer than almost anyone else is generally acknowledged. But he can speak for himself, and people will understand him when they're ready to. Meanwhile, Chopin was an extraordinary composer who wrote highly original and beautiful music which people have found engaging and moving for almost two centuries. Maybe it isn't to one's taste, but one is at least ungracious to bash it to prove something that doesn't need proving to people who aren't likely to be convinced in any case.

And as far as that goes, I will take any one of Chopin's 24 very striking preludes over any one of Mozart's German dances any day. "Clever polyphonic devices" be damned.

P.S. I note that you seem to approve of the stratospheric hyperdulia of post #136. I will keep that in mind the next time you claim to "know what you're talking about."


----------



## Woodduck

larold said:


> _Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.) Beethoven's is more solemn._
> 
> Back in the day, PBS host and Bach lover William F. Buckley once commented on a young rapper who said Bach was "an old dead punk. "Buckley said this showed less the difference between people and preference and more the difference between humans and animals. Clearly he meant some people have no concept of taste.
> 
> To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music. Mozart was the author of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro which most opera pundits consider the two best or two of the top three ever written.
> 
> One has among the most powerful scenes in all of classical music where the Don is cast into Hell, along with his sidekick, by the Commendatore, a statue come back to life representing the father of a woman who died result of the Don.
> 
> Mozart also wrote 27 piano concertos of all moods, one of the most magnificent masses (C minor) and a requiem that is the equal of any save Verdi. He also wrote a fantastic opera and about 700 published works that span the realm of human experience through the 18th century. He was the model for Beethoven's first two piano concertos.
> 
> I have listened intently to Beethoven all my life (68 years) and never heard anything so "solemn" from him as what I have seen in the opera house happening to the Don and Figaro. Or anything so outlandish as the Queen of the Night warbling. Beethoven is many things but not Mozart.
> 
> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.
> 
> In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.
> 
> I should mention Mozart did this all in an extraordinarily brief lifetime -- 35 years. Ironically, Mozart takes years to understand, grasp and love fully. Whomever wrote the headnote comment is apparently just beginning that journey.


There are Christians who believe that the Bible is the only book we need, the Divinely inspired authority on everything.

Obviously they're unacquainted with Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> You may "know what you're talking about," and, actually, I know what you're talking about too. I too object to uninformed comments about Mozart. I'm annoyed by uninformed criticisms of any music. But using obviously inferior music to "stick it" to Mozart's ignorant critics - dragging out some unpublished, clunkily played trifles by a composer you think the philistines are fond of - doesn't prove anything. In fact it gives your views less credibility.
> 
> That Mozart is a greater composer than almost anyone else is generally acknowledged. But he can speak for himself, and people will understand him when they're ready to. Meanwhile, Chopin was an extraordinary composer who wrote highly original and beautiful music which people have found engaging and moving for almost two centuries. Maybe it isn't to one's taste, but one is at least ungracious to bash it to prove something that doesn't need proving to people who aren't likely to be convinced in any case.
> 
> And as far as that goes,* I will take any one of Chopin's 24 very striking preludes over any one of Mozart's German dances any day.* "Clever polyphonic devices" be damned.
> 
> P.S. I note that you seem to approve of the stratospheric hyperdulia of post #136. I will keep that in mind the next time you claim to "know what you're talking about."


That is a weird statement coming from you. Surely the mazurkas or waltzes would make equitable and artistic sense as a trade off to make your intended point.


----------



## Dimace

Not to have misunderstandings and fights in vain, I must declare again my admiration for the GREAT Austrian and his music. It is possible, because I'm German, what I write, wrote or will write for him to drive many fellows users to uncertainty about my intentions. But there are NO intentions from my site... Only my opinion (I'm NOT an expert in his music, I say this again) and my personal taste. I say to you clearly, that despite I'm German, I don't like also Haydn and Handel. My music preferences have nothing to do with ethnicities, superiorities and other bull sh....s. All these composer are TOP. Top is also the French Kitchen. Millions say this. But I DON'T LIKE IT! (the kitchen) This is not bad and actually is very natural. I love you all and thanks for any comments you are making. Positives and negatives. This is the real magic of a good conversations between Herren, dear friends.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> That is a weird statement coming from you. Surely the mazurkas or waltzes would make equitable and artistic sense as a trade off to make your intended point.


What's weird about it? I might have said that I'd take one of Chopin's preludes over all of Mozart's German dances put together, but I didn't want to send any Mozart lovers into spluttering conniptions.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> What's weird about it? I might have said that I'd take one of Chopin's preludes over all of Mozart's German dances put together, but I didn't want to send any Mozart lovers into spluttering conniptions.


This is brutal!! :lol::tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

larold said:


> _Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.) Beethoven's is more solemn._
> 
> Back in the day, PBS host and Bach lover William F. Buckley once commented on a young rapper who said Bach was "an old dead punk. "Buckley said this showed less the difference between people and preference and more the difference between humans and animals. Clearly he meant some people have no concept of taste.
> 
> To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music. Mozart was the author of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro which most opera pundits consider the two best or two of the top three ever written.
> 
> One has among the most powerful scenes in all of classical music where the Don is cast into Hell, along with his sidekick, by the Commendatore, a statue come back to life representing the father of a woman who died result of the Don.
> 
> Mozart also wrote 27 piano concertos of all moods, one of the most magnificent masses (C minor) and a requiem that is the equal of any save Verdi. He also wrote a fantastic opera and about 700 published works that span the realm of human experience through the 18th century. He was the model for Beethoven's first two piano concertos.
> 
> I have listened intently to Beethoven all my life (68 years) and never heard anything so "solemn" from him as what I have seen in the opera house happening to the Don and Figaro. Or anything so outlandish as the Queen of the Night warbling. Beethoven is many things but not Mozart.
> 
> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.
> 
> In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.
> 
> I should mention Mozart did this all in an extraordinarily brief lifetime -- 35 years. Ironically, Mozart takes years to understand, grasp and love fully. Whomever wrote the headnote comment is apparently just beginning that journey.


Great post, larold, and I even agree about Beethoven's unfeasibly large breasts (commonly called his Moobs). I also get the filigree of sadness that strikes a chord through Mozart's music, including his comedies, and the raging, outsized delight the maestro must have felt when composing such rich, life-enhacing works.



> In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.


I've read something like this before. It was advice from a famous conductor, I believe, that we should begin with Mozart, to get the technique, the sheen, the surface sparkle, then plunge into the Romantics, with their muscular sufferings, their lamentable egos, their hair-curdling tragedies - and when we've understood them, we're ready to go back again to Mozart, for the depth and subtlety that can now be discovered beneath the sheen and glitter. Not everybody appreciates this, but then, not everybody is the same...


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> Great post, larold, and I even agree about Beethoven's unfeasibly large breasts (commonly called his Moobs).
> 
> It was advice from a famous conductor, I believe, that we should begin with Mozart, to get the technique, the sheen, the surface sparkle, then plunge into the Romantics, with their muscular sufferings, their lamentable egos, their hair-curdling tragedies - and when we've understood them, we're ready to go back again to Mozart, for the depth and subtlety that can now be discovered beneath the sheen and glitter. Not everybody appreciates this, but then, not everybody is the same...


You said it, man! Some people are crude, insensitive, uncultured rubes! Those boring Bachians! Those brutal Beethovenians! Those bland Brahmsians! Those wehmutig Wagnerians! Bleah!

Wo sind meine Mozartkugeln?


----------



## Luchesi

larold said:


> _Mozart's music is gay! (I mean that in the old sense of the word of course.) Beethoven's is more solemn._
> 
> Back in the day, PBS host and Bach lover William F. Buckley once commented on a young rapper who said Bach was "an old dead punk. "Buckley said this showed less the difference between people and preference and more the difference between humans and animals. Clearly he meant some people have no concept of taste.
> 
> To say Mozart's music is gay, in any sense, or can be characterized by any single world shows an astonishing lack of insight, knowledge and experience with his music. Mozart was the author of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro which most opera pundits consider the two best or two of the top three ever written.
> 
> One has among the most powerful scenes in all of classical music where the Don is cast into Hell, along with his sidekick, by the Commendatore, a statue come back to life representing the father of a woman who died result of the Don.
> 
> Mozart also wrote 27 piano concertos of all moods, one of the most magnificent masses (C minor) and a requiem that is the equal of any save Verdi. He also wrote a fantastic opera and about 700 published works that span the realm of human experience through the 18th century. He was the model for Beethoven's first two piano concertos.
> 
> I have listened intently to Beethoven all my life (68 years) and never heard anything so "solemn" from him as what I have seen in the opera house happening to the Don and Figaro. Or anything so outlandish as the Queen of the Night warbling. Beethoven is many things but not Mozart.
> 
> Beethoven is most like the woman with large breasts -- the appeal is so obvious, the music so heroically seductive, you can't turn away. This is most especially true and pervasive to young men with a lot of glands working actively.
> 
> In contrast Mozart is the musician of light and shade, subtlety and nuance, blood and lightning, solemnity and overwhelming power. He is the man for all seasons, the one experienced listeners turn to when Bach's solemnity and Beethoven's heroics become wearisome.
> 
> I should mention Mozart did this all in an extraordinarily brief lifetime -- 35 years. Ironically, Mozart takes years to understand, grasp and love fully. Whomever wrote the headnote comment is apparently just beginning that journey.


I used to watch William Buckley's show all the time, to hear what an intelligent conservative would say.

here's 3 of his lines

- A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.

- The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.

- I've always subconsciously looked out for the total Christian and when I found him he turned out to be a non-practicing Jew.

I remember seeing him on TV playing in a Brandenburg Concerto.
It's a little bit uncomfortable to hear, but it's a difficult piece and he does get through it.

But at another time, in this slow movement he's very good and expressive. 17 minutes in.


----------



## Dimace

Woodduck said:


> You said it, man! Some people are crude, insensitive, uncultured rubes! Those boring Bachians! Those brutal Beethovenians! Those bland Brahmsians! Those wehmutig Wagnerians! Bleah!
> 
> Wo sind meine Mozartkugeln?


Mozartkugeln mit extra Marzipan??? Bliah!!!! (for the balls…) Give me please a traditional Schokolade aus Bonn... :lol:


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> You said it, man! Some people are crude, insensitive, uncultured rubes! Those boring Bachians! Those brutal Beethovenians! Those bland Brahmsians! Those wehmutig Wagnerians! Bleah!
> 
> Wo sind meine Mozartkugeln?


Ouch! I hit a raw nerve...


----------



## Kieran

Luchesi said:


> - A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
> 
> - The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.


This appears to be a man who understood these days we live in better than most people who are alive today. Must look him up, thanks Luchesi... :tiphat:


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> I used to watch William Buckley's show all the time, to hear what an intelligent conservative would say.
> 
> here's 3 of his lines
> 
> - A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
> 
> - The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so.
> 
> - I've always subconsciously looked out for the total Christian and when I found him he turned out to be a non-practicing Jew.
> 
> I remember seeing him on TV playing in a Brandenburg Concerto.
> It's a little bit uncomfortable to hear, but it's a difficult piece and he does get through it.
> 
> But at another time, in this slow movement he's very good and expressive. 17 minutes in.


Doesn't sound very intelligent to me, especially as Mozart was no conservative! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Doesn't sound very intelligent to me, especially as Mozart was no conservative! :lol:


Yeah, he wasn't born in 1905, he was born in 1925. I think he concentrated on the subjects he had always excelled in and won debates in, politics and conservative philosophy and Christology. There's only 24 hours in a day.

It was often about winning an argument - with him 'helping' the loser. I doubt he'd agree with that characterization, but that's what made him interesting to me, unlike the conservative politicians of today.


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> Ouch! I hit a raw nerve...


My nerves are much too old to be raw - but not to be tickled. Nothing tickles them quite as reliably as a claim of superior perception uttered in a tone of condescending tolerance.

"Mozart, of course, is the composer for all seasons, the universal genius, the god of music, the divine child, the darling of the ages, the cynosure of all ears, the... What more can one say? Sadly, we must accept that some unfortunates are not blessed with the ability to recognize at first WAM's utter supremacy, especially such as may have been seduced by those vulgar, egocentric, overwrought Romantics (the very word wracks our bodies with shudders of horror!). But perhaps, with a little effort and the passage of time, these impoverished souls may - and we sincerely hope they will! - come to understand what we, more naturally endowed with aesthetic sensitivity, have known all along."

Amadeus! We don't know how to love him! (music by Andrew LLoyd Webber)

.


----------



## Dimace

I'm starting to fell a little bit guilty... This conversation surely it will have NO OUTCOME! We have tried this in Germany with our friends the Austrians the last 20 years or something like this (since the beginning of internet forums) and we had no results or conclusions. And, as a professor in Mozarteum von Salzburg once told: We have been born with some composers in our blood. Is into the human nature to like a kind of music and to hate another one. We (teachers and students) we must work together to find a way to Exchange Knowledge for what as individuals love and no bullets for what we dislike. 

(I want a debate between Liszt and Chopin! I love them both so much, that in one post I will write that the Hungarian is better and after I will reply to myself: Eh, Mot…..er! What have you written? Frederic is better! Go to wash some dishes!) :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dimace said:


> I'm starting to fell a little bit guilty... This conversation surely it will have NO OUTCOME! We have tried this in Germany with our friends the Austrians the last 20 years or something like this (since the beginning of internet forums) and we had no results or conclusions. And, as a professor in Mozarteum von Salzburg once told: We have been born with some composers in our blood. Is into the human nature to like a kind of music and to hate another one. We (teachers and students) we must work together to find a way to Exchange Knowledge for what as individuals love and no bullets for what we dislike.
> 
> (I want a debate between Liszt and Chopin! I love them both so much, that in one post I will write that the Hungarian is better and after I will reply to myself: Eh, Mot…..er! What have you written? Frederic is better! Go to wash some dishes!) :lol:


Choose your seconds. See you at dawn.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kieran said:


> This appears to be a man who understood these days we live in better than most people who are alive today. Must look him up, thanks Luchesi... :tiphat:


Buckley was a simpering, condescending a$$ and an intellectual lightweight perpetually on the wrong side of history. Watch Noam Chomsky calmly humiliate and outclass him:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> You may "know what you're talking about," and, actually, I know what you're talking about too. I too object to uninformed comments about Mozart. I'm annoyed by uninformed criticisms of any music. But using obviously inferior music to "stick it" to Mozart's ignorant critics - dragging out some unpublished, clunkily played trifles by a composer you think the philistines are fond of - doesn't prove anything. In fact it gives your views less credibility.


Ok, I understand. I do respect anyone who acknowledge the merits of both Chopin and Mozart. For the whole time I was saying negative things about Chopin on this forum, I actually did feel guilty about offending people like Luchesi. 
Although I know I shouldn't make generalizations, but like 3 out 5 people who trashtalked about Mozart I have seen online happened to have the commonality of liking popular Romantic composers, especially Chopin. Like this guy named Pongo Bewindow https://www.quora.com/Whos-the-best-Mozart-Beethoven-Bach-Chopin-Tchaikovsky-or-Handel for example, maybe I'm prejudiced and insecure, but every time I encounter situations involving arguments over these composers, I can't help but recall myself the "bad memories" from the arguments and grudge I had against them. Maybe the individuals I have met are just terrible people. I don't know.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, I understand. I do respect anyone who acknowledge the merits of both Chopin and Mozart. For the whole time I was saying negative things about Chopin on this forum, I actually did feel guilty about offending people like Luchesi.
> Although I know I shouldn't make generalizations, but like *3 out 5 people who trashtalked about Mozart I have seen online happened to have the commonality of liking popular Romantic composers, especially Chopin.*


Maybe it's just that 3 out of 5 people like popular Romantic composers. And maybe 3 out of 5 people who trash talk Romantic music enjoy Mozart. What can we learn from this?


----------



## Xisten267

Kieran said:


> Great post, larold, and I even agree about Beethoven's unfeasibly large breasts (commonly called his Moobs). I also get the filigree of sadness that strikes a chord through Mozart's music, including his comedies, and the raging, outsized delight the maestro must have felt when composing such rich, life-enhacing works.


Mozart and Beethoven have a comparable accessibility to the public (what can be shown from their popularity amongst classical composers), so this "large breasts" comparison must apply to both then.


----------



## poconoron

EdwardBast said:


> Buckley was a simpering, condescending a$$ and an intellectual lightweight perpetually on the wrong side of history. Watch Noam Chomsky calmly humiliate and outclass him:


Your characterization of WF Buckley as an "intellectual lightweight" is so laughably ridiculous and off-base that I had to watch the video. If anything, it was an intelligent give and take by both sides that ended in a draw - or slight advantage to Buckley.

It's really too bad and disturbing that one's biases can so cloud one's perception of events. I suspect that Mr. Buckley has more "intellectuality" in his little finger than a certain nameless person has in your entire being, if you get my meaning..............

And by the way, what does Buckley have to do with the topic at hand ................ Mr. Mozart!!


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> Ok, I understand. I do respect anyone who acknowledge the merits of both Chopin and Mozart. For the whole time I was saying negative things about Chopin on this forum, I actually did feel guilty about offending people like Luchesi.
> Although I know I shouldn't make generalizations, but like 3 out 5 people who trashtalked about Mozart I have seen online happened to have the commonality of liking popular Romantic composers, especially Chopin. Like this guy named Pongo Bewindow https://www.quora.com/Whos-the-best-Mozart-Beethoven-Bach-Chopin-Tchaikovsky-or-Handel for example, maybe I'm prejudiced and insecure, but every time I encounter situations involving arguments over these composers, I can't help but recall myself the "bad memories" from the arguments and grudge I had against them. Maybe the individuals I have met are just terrible people. I don't know.


No need to admit to serious flaws of character. You could have countered Woodduck's observations and maintained your integrity.

It hacks me off too when people who can only listen to music of the romantic period start saying silly things about the classical master - notably Mozart. I am quite confident though that Luchesi is not skulking and brooding so you need not worry on his account. You are free to ridicule tastes in music and in return we must be prepared to take what we dish out.

It's no great shame on you that Woodduck thinks your views are less credible than previously was the case but his comment is something you might remember to your advantage.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> My nerves are much too old to be raw - but not to be tickled. Nothing tickles them quite as reliably as a claim of superior perception uttered in a tone of condescending tolerance.
> 
> "Mozart, of course, is the composer for all seasons, the universal genius, the god of music, the divine child, the darling of the ages, the cynosure of all ears, the... What more can one say? Sadly, we must accept that some unfortunates are not blessed with the ability to recognize at first WAM's utter supremacy, especially such as may have been seduced by those vulgar, egocentric, overwrought Romantics (the very word wracks our bodies with shudders of horror!). But perhaps, with a little effort and the passage of time, these impoverished souls may - and we sincerely hope they will! - come to understand what we, more naturally endowed with aesthetic sensitivity, have known all along."
> 
> Amadeus! We don't know how to love him! (music by Andrew LLoyd Webber)
> 
> .


"Sadly, we must accept that some unfortunates are not blessed with the ability to recognize at first WAM's utter supremacy..."

Mere opinion - who's is it?


----------



## EdwardBast

poconoron said:


> And by the way, what does Buckley have to do with the topic at hand ................ Mr. Mozart!!


I didn't bring him up.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> "Sadly, we must accept that some unfortunates are not blessed with the ability to recognize at first WAM's utter supremacy..."
> 
> Mere opinion - who's is it?


I think you missed the satire.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> "Sadly, we must accept that some unfortunates are not blessed with the ability to recognize at first WAM's utter supremacy..."
> 
> Mere opinion - who's is it?


whoooosh ..............


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> whoooosh ..............


?......................................


----------



## SixFootScowl

janxharris said:


> ?......................................


The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. whoooosh......

Presumably it is so obvious that we don't have to ask whose opinion it is?


----------



## janxharris

Fritz Kobus said:


> The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. whoooosh......
> 
> Presumably it is so obvious that we don't have to ask whose opinion it is?


...just that a quick google search didn't immediately yield the answer.


----------



## SixFootScowl

janxharris said:


> ...just that a quick google search didn't immediately yield the answer.


I should have googled it. Urban Dictionary says,



> Woooosh, yes its spelled with 4 O's. It means You Missed the Joke. The Joke went right over you, making a Woooosh sound, like a bullet speeding by. WOOOOSH.


----------



## janxharris

Fritz Kobus said:


> I should have googled it. Urban Dictionary says,


 I meant the citation..


----------



## SixFootScowl

janxharris said:


> I meant the citation..


No matter. I'm learning.


----------



## Jhawn55

Totally Tchaikovsky. Agree. For me, Mozart is especially important for influencing composers who came after him. Beethoven was very influenced by Mozart. But Totally Tchaikovsky is a great idea. I want tickets to that festival.


----------



## Amusateur

*The "Ultimate" Mozart Listening Guide ??*

Saw this Mozart thread and thought I'd jump right in. I've embarked on my very personal Mozart project. The goal is to listen to his entire oeuvre. So far I'm working through the following and am having a blast:


Complete Piano Concertos, Geza Anda & Mozarteum Salzburg
 Complete Symphonies, James Kevin & Vienna Symphony
 Complete Piano Sonatas Fazil Say
 Complete String Quartets, Quartetto Italiano
Any pointers for additional great "complete set" boxes would be welcome. I know there are highlights and favorites for which I will want to listen to additional recordings. But these complete sets are a great way to get off the ground. (There is a lot to cover...)

What I could also use is some literary guidance. I know there are probably tons of books and I've already picked up "The Compleat Mozart" already. But I would love something that explains more of what's going on musically for each piece with samples from the scores. I know most of this probably online. In fact, I've been listening to the sonatas while reading the score as PDF of my tablet...which is free and lots of fun. Even without use of some of the apps that do this.

Is there something like the "Compleat Mozart" but more comprehensive ?

Thanks for any pointers.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Hey, welcome to TC!

I can recommend the book "Mozart and His Piano Concertos" by Cuthbert Girdstone... it's a bit opinionated at times, but just ignore the opining and you're left with a pretty good analysis with excerpts from the scores which is accessible and useful for people of all backgrounds.


----------



## DavidA

Amusateur said:


> Saw this Mozart thread and thought I'd jump right in. I've embarked on my very personal Mozart project. The goal is to listen to his entire oeuvre. So far I'm working through the following and am having a blast:
> 
> 
> Complete Piano Concertos, Geza Anda & Mozarteum Salzburg
> Complete Symphonies, James Kevin & Vienna Symphony
> Complete Piano Sonatas Fazil Say
> Complete String Quartets, Quartetto Italiano
> Any pointers for additional great "complete set" boxes would be welcome. I know there are highlights and favorites for which I will want to listen to additional recordings. But these complete sets are a great way to get off the ground. (There is a lot to cover...)
> 
> What I could also use is some literary guidance. I know there are probably tons of books and I've already picked up "The Compleat Mozart" already. But I would love something that explains more of what's going on musically for each piece with samples from the scores. I know most of this probably online. In fact, I've been listening to the sonatas while reading the score as PDF of my tablet...which is free and lots of fun. Even without use of some of the apps that do this.
> 
> Is there something like the "Compleat Mozart" but more comprehensive ?
> 
> Thanks for any pointers.


Try reading 'Mozart and his women' by Jane Glover


----------



## hoodjem

mbhaub said:


> Mozart? Meh……Genius, sure. Overrated, obviously. My favorite? Far from it. I don't get the whole Mozart-worship thing. Mostly Mozart Festival? Why not Mostly Mahler? Or Totally Tchaikovsky. I know I'm in a small minority, and that's ok. I'll take Haydn any day.


I agree. IMHO, he is very, very much overrated.

I find listening to any of his flute works expecially grating, like trying to eat "lite cotton candy."

I'll take Haydn any time.


----------



## Euler

hoodjem said:


> I agree. IMHO, he is very, very much overrated.
> 
> I find listening to any of his flute works expecially grating, like trying to eat "lite cotton candy."
> 
> I'll take Haydn any time.


How about the creepy piccolo in Idomeneo's storm scene? I've seen grown men need a trouser change after this cheery little trinket


----------



## hammeredklavier

.............................


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

He's not overrated. People need to stop saying that.

However, @hammeredklavier, I see you vehemently defending Mozart against nearly every negative (or even neutral) comment posted on here. I admire your effort, but maybe just let it be and don't provoke.


----------



## hoodjem

Okay. He is not overrated. Obviously, a lot of people do like him.

I do not. 

(To me most of his music is contrived and pretty, but that is all.)


----------



## hoodjem

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just like Miles Davis for Jazz, Elvis for Rock and Jackson for pop, you don't have to hear it all to KNOW, it's the truth.


Now I know I am good company: I cannot stand Elvis either.


----------



## hoodjem

Bluecrab said:


> I agree with you completely, but with the Mozart cult it seems to reach absurd heights.


Yes. Beware if you ever go to Vienna. There Mozart is a major pillar of the tourist industry.


----------



## hoodjem

Hermastersvoice said:


> The string quintets are pure genius but so much else is from this composer - the piano quartets as well. I remember not being able to listen to Eine Kleine Nachtmusik either. But then Klemperer opened my ears to the fact that this is not some piece of frivolous whipped cream. He did the same with Magic Flute which I couldn't stand for years either.


This is an important point: a lot depends on the performers.

Too many play Mozart's music as light, fluffy, lovely but vapid.

Of the pieces I can listen to, I prefer Katin in the piano sonatas and Maag in the symphonies.


----------



## Larkenfield

Euler said:


> How about the creepy piccolo in Idomeneo's storm scene? I've seen grown men need a trouser change after this cheery little trinket


"Creepy piccolo"? In your imagination. It's an opera art-music storm, not a real storm. The piccolo adds a touch of lightness and fury... He who ridicules genius is likely to someday be sat on by a sacred cow.  Try understanding a scene like this within the context of the entire opera by one of the greatest opera composers of all time. Time's up.


----------



## Euler

Larkenfield said:


> "Creepy piccolo"? In your imagination. It's an opera art-music storm, not a real storm. The piccolo adds a touch of lightness and fury... He who ridicules genius is likely to someday be sat on by a sacred cow.  Try understanding a scene like this within the context of the entire opera by one of the greatest opera composers of all time. Time's up.


Sorry, my post was poorly worded. It was meant in defense of Mozart. "Cheery little trinket" was sarcasm, "creepy piccolo" was a compliment. This scene is one of the most powerful, and brilliant, in 18th century opera IMO -- wonderfully alarming music, and a poke in the eye for those who claim Mozart wrote nothing but baubles. The piccolo is surely intended to disturb, like some maniacal spirit flickering above the anguished sailors, before it adds a superbly strange tinge to those three highly dissonant, portentous chords. I consider Idomeneo one of Mozart's finest works.

My post was meant as a riposte to hoodjem who said Mozart's flute works were like trying to eat lite cotton candy. Well, isn't this the usual "prim wimp" caricature? And I immediately thought of how Mozart used a flute-family instrument to convey terror, a far cry from "lite cotton candy". Ah well


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 said:


> Just like Miles Davis for Jazz, Elvis for Rock and Jackson for pop, you don't have to hear it all to KNOW, it's the truth.


Such composers feel the 'truth', but they don't have to think about it because the elements of music theory are all in irresistibly teasing arithmetical relationships and that's what convinces our brain that there is "truth" there (if we can follow along).


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez

I believe myself that Mozart was a tremendous genius, you only can make a comparison against to other genius in human history, not just composers.

But, think in that. Mozart was son of a excellent teacher of music, was across years working alonside geniuses like Michael Haydn or Myslivecek, also met personally JC Bach, Hasse, Abel, Luchesi, Joseph Haydn, Clementi, Martin y Soler, Gluck, Toeschi, Holzbauer and all Mainheim School, Padre Martini, Getry, Schobert, dont met personally but know the work of schroeter... etc etc etc if you make the list he estudied and met the best composers of his era...

and...

as a young man...

Mozart died, with 36,... no one composer have this astionishing amount of music, of such quality, in every genere, with 36 years, 

come on, let it go, Mozart was is the maximum that Nature can produce fisiologically but also, he was a comkpletely focused man and estudied everything from baroque masters to his comntemporanies, 

In Music, meeting almost every master of his era. Imagine he work closely alongside Michael Haydn or Myslivecek, two of the most fine composers of his era.


----------



## Luchesi

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (35 years, 10 months)

Vincenzo Bellini (33 years, 10 months)
(1801-1835) Verdi was captivated by his ‘long, long, long melodies such as no one before had written’. Liszt and Chopin were also very interested in his singing style.

Franz Schubert (31 years, 9 months)
(1797-1828) syphilis and the mercury poisoning treatments

Juan Crisóstomo Arriaga (19 years, 11 months)
the ‘Spanish Mozart' (1806-1826) was born on what would have been Mozart’s 50th birthday.

Lili Boulanger (24 years, 6 months)
Nadia's younger sister (1893-1918) only 19 when she won the Prix de Rome for composition

Giovanni Batista Pergolesi (26 years, 2 months)
(1710-1736) his Stabat mater composed in the final weeks of his life. 

George Gershwin (38 years, 9 months)
(1898-1937) brain tumor. Self taught. So poor that he didn't have access to a piano until he was 10 years old.

Felix Mendelssohn (38 years, 8 months)

Georges Bizet (36 years, 7 months)
(1838-1875) heart attack, but maybe a suicide?

Henry Purcell (36 years, 2 months)
(1659-95) died of exposure when wife had him locked out?


----------

