# My Love of Mozart Has Been Steady



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

For those of you who have known me on here for a while know I've been all over the place with what I like. But Mozart has been my favorite composer for a while now, it's a great feeling to know who you are!


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Tchaikovsky was unabashed in his love for Mozart. His Suite No. 4 was written and named in Mozart's honor.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

progmatist said:


> Tchaikovsky was unabashed in his love for Mozart. His Suite No. 4 was written and named in Mozart's honor.


I just put it on, certainly sounds very inspired by Mozart. But it is lush like Tchaikovsky too, he can't escape his romanticism!


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

No argument here. Mozart is awesome. I can be listening to anything from Mahler to Metallica and still be in the mood for Mozart.
The alliteration was not intentional.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

BlackAdderLXX said:


> No argument here. Mozart is awesome. I can be listening to anything from Mahler to Metallica and still be in the mood for Mozart.
> The alliteration was not intentional.


*M*agnificnet, that is! haha,


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

I always liked Mozart but he wasn't always my favourite. In my early days as a classical fan I'd have picked Beethoven, but Mozart began to loom larger in my late teens/early twenties and has been my top favourite for decades now.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Animal the Drummer said:


> I always liked Mozart but he wasn't always my favourite. In my early days as a classical fan I'd have picked Beethoven, but Mozart began to loom larger in my late teens/early twenties and has been my top favourite for decades now.


I also started off with a preference for the Romantics like Beethoven and Chopin, but grew into Mozart whom I originally rejected.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

I had an infatuation with Mozart for about a year that didn't last. The things I return to most frequently tend to have some quirk or relatively atypical characteristic that I wish I heard in more of his pieces, a good example I can recall being the finale of his 18th quartet. It might be one of my top 3 favorites by Mozart, for its locomotive-like pulse. I've actually noticed over the years that usually pejorative descriptions like "mechanical" and "sewing-machine" describe lots of music I like.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

That's a fantastic movement! I love it.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Many other composers loved Mozart aside from Tchaikovsky. Richard Strauss modeled his wind music after Mozart as well as his opera Rosenkavlier.

Living composer Richard Rodriguez, a Texan, has written both orchestral and vocal music on the Mozartean model.

It's often said no composer portrays the depths of light and shade, darkness and brightness in his oeuvre than Mozart. 

Few others can move from the childlike wonder of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik to the perfection of his wind music and piano sonatas to the earth-shattering quality of the Requiem and Mass in C Minor to the all-is-dust, end of existence music when the Don is sent to Hell in Don Giovanni.

I think it this quality that sets Mozart apart from everyone else in classical musc.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

-----------------------------------


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

For years, my love of Mozart was unwavering. But then I finally faced the truth: He's just not that into me.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough (Jul 25, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I find Joseph Haydn to be exaggerated in terms of the "quirky and atypical characteristics" some people attribute to his style (I'm mentioning him cause you keep saying he's your favorite because of the alleged "quirky and atypical characteristics"), especially in the Paris and London symphonies.


It may be that my use of words like "quirky" and "atypical" in reference to Haydn were ill-advised when I don't know nearly as much about the classical era as you do. They describe his relationship to contemporaries I know little about. There are some themes like the slow movement of his 45th that I maintain sound pleasantly awkward to me, but in most cases I was probably looking for a word like peppy, or, for the slow movements, charming and easy-going.

Some of your posts are cathartic for me, because I do sometimes hate it when Haydn just starts "banging" out of nowhere, or when, as in the slow movement of the Drumroll symphony, his elaboration of the theme is just repeating it yet again but as a solo. I fast forward a fair bit when I listen to him, and agree with your assessments often enough. I will confess to a bit of hyperbolic Salieri-syndrome because I was on a Haydn kick awhile back, but still do not find him to be the 3rd rate composer that you do.






I just don't see how this music is not dense with melody and rhythmic contrast. I love the pulsing strings that come in at 2:13, and how these busy-machine textures interact so seamlessly with the daintier melodies of the winds. These kinds of passages are when Haydn's supposed banging works very well for me, and if there's really a plethora of other classical era composers, outside of Mozart and Beethoven obviously, who did this kind of thing just as well, I admittedly have not heard them.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> For years, my love of Mozart was unwavering. But then I finally faced the truth: He's just not that into me.


Don't feel bad. It isn't you. I sensed that about him from the start and have kept my distance. I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I find him a useful companion when I'm in the mood for skittles, but the scatology is wearing after a while.


Is it the general Rococo expressions, or Mozart's own unique traits that you're talking about? I hear a lot of people say they prefer, for instance, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms over him for this (the Rococo); and it's totally understandable. Btw, an interesting fact about Mozart and scatology:
""scatology was common in Mitteleuropa [central Europe]", noting for instance that Mozart's Salzburg colleague Michael Haydn also wrote a scatological canon. Haydn's canon was entitled "Scheiß nieder, armer Sünder", which Karhausen renders as "**** fast, poor sinner"."


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Is it the general Rococo expressions, or Mozart's own unique traits that you're talking about? I hear a lot of people say they prefer, for instance, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms over him for this (the Rococo); and it's totally understandable. Btw, an interesting fact about Mozart and scatology:
> ""scatology was common in Mitteleuropa [central Europe]", noting for instance that Mozart's Salzburg colleague Michael Haydn also wrote a scatological canon. Haydn's canon was entitled "Scheiß nieder, armer Sünder", which Karhausen renders as "**** fast, poor sinner"."


I'm not big on Rococo expressions, except when they get quirky, as in C.P.E. Bach. P.D.Q. is fun too. He who is running knows.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I'm not big on Rococo expressions, except when they get quirky, as in C.P.E. Bach.


Ok. I also do regard C.P.E. Bach highly, but, like his older brother W.F., I think his oeuvre consists a bit too much of ensemble combinations involving the harpsichord; there's a bit too much of this sort of "grindy" sound: watch?v=DOaZvIFFevM&t=2m43s
If you're interested in "quirkiness" from this period (that's not Mozart); I think you might like
watch?v=9gDxnpn5vb4&t=4m25s
watch?v=GnzHku6aHYE&t=13m

Btw, I acknowledge that quite a lot of people (such as DavidA) had been "dogmatic" toward others about Mozart's "absolute greatness" regarding issues such as Mozart vs Wagner or Mozart vs Beethoven. I sympathize with all your responses to them.



hammeredklavier said:


> Also, I find J. Christian Bach's contribution to certain areas such as concertos just as impressive as his.
> ex. W C70 , W C73 , W C69, etc.
> Emanuel, on the other hand, like his Baroque predecessors, self-plagiarized quite a lot (transcribing the same exact concertos for different solo instruments).
> ex. Wq.26/Wq.166/Wq.170, Wq.28/Wq.167/Wq.171, Wq.29/Wq.168/Wq.172, etc.
> ...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I acknowledge that quite a lot of people (such as DavidA) had been "dogmatic" toward others about Mozart's "absolute greatness" regarding issues such as Mozart vs Wagner or Mozart vs Beethoven. I sympathize with all your responses to them.


Funnily enough, I do think Mozart is probably as great a composer as has ever lived or ever will live. I simply can't bear his devotees' putdowns, explicit or implicit, of other composers. It's absurd enough to claim that a comic opera like _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind (yes, someone here actually said that), but equally ridiculous is the assertion that had he lived long enough he would have surpassed all other composers at doing whatever it is they did. I suppose He could also have created the world in five days rather than six, and that His eleventh commandment would have been to wear powdered wigs in church.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I simply can't bear his devotees' putdowns, explicit or implicit, of other composers.


I understand. And I also feel guilty of having done those "putdowns"; I actually occasionally go back to the "old conversations" we had, and see that you were right in all of your points. But at the same time I'm still troubled by the "hyperbolic Salieri-syndrome" (as Clairvoyance correctly put it) in the devotees of some other composer as well. For instance,
Haydn- more talented than Mozart | Kenneth Woods - conductor
watch?v=qMl4gLWGM-0&t=5m42s
And in a recent poll thread, I pointed out some "facts" and "history distortions" regarding another highly-regarded composer, but I got responses like "are you nuts?" I find that the "just-ignore-the-outlier-rantings" mentality exists in the minds of the devotees of other composers as well. The mindset that _"We all must accept that [X] is phenomenally great just because that's just the way it is."_
But I understand your view about Mozart as well.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> It's absurd enough to claim that a comic opera like _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind (yes, someone here actually said that) . . .


It wasn't me! 

Though, on reflection, it would likely make my top forty.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> I understand. And I also feel guilty of having done those "putdowns"; I actually occasionally go back to the "old conversations" we had, and see that you were right in all of your points. But at the same time I'm still troubled by the "hyperbolic Salieri-syndrome" (as Clairvoyance correctly put it) in the devotees of some other composer as well. For instance,
> https://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2009/06/01/haydn-more-talented-than-mozart/
> 
> 
> ...


I simply do not see the point of putting the great geniuses of music in competition with each other. After all, one of the marks of genius is originality, which means doing something that no one else does or, probably, could do as well. Composers can be compared on some points but not on others. It's pretty hard to compare _Figaro_ and _Tristan_, both of which have been called the greatest of all operas. And neither composer could have created the other's work. There will be no blue ribbon awarded today.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Funnily enough, I do think Mozart is probably as great a composer as has ever lived or ever will live. I simply can't bear his devotees' putdowns, explicit or implicit, of other composers. *It's absurd enough to claim that a comic opera like Le Nozze di Figaro is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind* (yes, someone here actually said that), but equally ridiculous is the assertion that had he lived long enough he would have surpassed all other composers at doing whatever it is they did. I suppose He could also have created the world in five days rather than six, and that His eleventh commandment would have been to wear powdered wigs in church.


Claims of any single work of art being the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind are equally absurd.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Claims of any single work of art being the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind are equally absurd.


So are you objecting to the notion of "highest cultural achievement," or denying it would be a work of art?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> So are you objecting to the notion of "highest cultural achievement," or denying it would be a work of art?


I'm objecting to the notion that a single work of art can be the highest cultural achievement because there is an assumption of a simple hierarchy in which single pieces of art are given a rank, objectively according to some people.

But you also raise another point of objection which I had not considered. Human culture includes more than works of art and one could argue (I would argue if so inclined) that humanity's highest cultural achievement is not art. My reply was bounded to the context of art within cultural achievements, though.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> It might be one of my top 3 favorites by Mozart, for its locomotive-like pulse. I've actually noticed over the years that usually pejorative descriptions like "mechanical" and "sewing-machine" describe lots of music I like.


For me, it's the feeling of pulsating bliss, maybe like the underbeats of falling in love, lifting you/carrying you. ie:

1. Beethoven - 



2. Bach - 



3. Mozart - 



 (chose this specific version because I like the cut )

I can't say I grasp the sentiments above by TwoFlutes or Woodduck. I can rank pieces and composers just fine, hence why I put the Beethoven above the Mozart here. If only Beethoven wrote more like this, ie. great and transcending, I would put him above Mozart.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Funnily enough, I do think Mozart is probably as great a composer as has ever lived or ever will live. I simply can't bear his devotees' putdowns, explicit or implicit, of other composers. *It's absurd enough to claim that a comic opera like Le Nozze di Figaro is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind (yes, someone here actually said that)*, but equally ridiculous is the assertion that had he lived long enough he would have surpassed all other composers at doing whatever it is they did. I suppose He could also have created the world in five days rather than six, and that His eleventh commandment would have been to wear powdered wigs in church.


It isn't my view but I don't think it is so ridiculous to believe that The Marriage of Figaro is our highest cultural achievement. I imagine quite a number of us have some sympathy with that position. There are plenty of people who look down on Mozart's achievement (often from Romantic heights) and would be astounded by such claims but there are many others who might get it. I certainly wouldn't want to nominate another work above the Marriage for the crown but can think of many works that could contend (including a good few by Mozart) and am, anyway, more inclined to think the crown belongs before the Romantic era than during or after it. Is that also shocking?

As for whether Mozart would have become greater had he lived longer, we can never know and don't need to know. It may be that his music was becoming a bit tired towards the end of his life and that his success rate was less reliable. I also don't see the deification of Mozart as being any more ridiculous than the deification of any other composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> There are plenty of people who look down on Mozart's achievement (often from Romantic heights) and would be astounded by such claims but there are many others who might get it. I certainly wouldn't want to nominate another work above the Marriage for the crown but can think of many works that could contend (including a good few by Mozart)


"Many years after Mozart's death, his wife Constanze mentioned her late husband's favorite works. What she said will surprise many people:
"He was fond of Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro, but perhaps most of all Idomeneo. He had wonderful memories of the time and circumstances of its composition."" https://packhum.org/idomeneo.html

"It has been a great pleasure for me to return to Mozart's Idomeneo after a decade long hiatus from this remarkable work. Of all Mozart's operas-I find Idomeneo to be the most satisfying.
What other composer could so successfully have juxtaposed the formality of the opera seria template with such heightened and extreme emotion? The Apollonian world of 18th-century Europe clashes head on with the earliest stirrings of Romanticism making Idomeneo a particular thrill and a particular challenge for all artists participating in this production." -Marshall Pynkoski


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

if my head is knotty or squiffy due to tiredness or stress, i can go to any number of Mozart pieces, listen deeply - and all is untangled and i feel centred and content. For me he is uniquely gifted in this regard.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

progmatist said:


> Tchaikovsky was unabashed in his love for Mozart. His Suite No. 4 was written and named in Mozart's honor.


Tchaikovsky identified Mozart as "a musical Christ"; and praised Mozart for his sense of craftsmanship, the seamless quality that seems to link one musical idea to another without effort. Tchaikovsky was very critical of his own works because he felt as though he couldn't get his melodies and musical ideas together with such a degree of smoothness. To my own ears, Tchaikovsky's craftsmanship is not that bad, and is often very fine, but then again, if you're going to make Mozart your benchmark, your bound to become disappointed.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For those of you who have known me on here for a while know I've been all over the place with what I like. But Mozart has been my favorite composer for a while now, it's a great feeling to know who you are!


Mozart; he is good, though he wasn't a favorite early on when I was a teenager in the 1980s and still full of testosterone.

Back then and through a good portion of my young adult years Beethoven was my man: always heroic in the face of struggle; always climbing up the mountain; always reaching new heights; breaking down walls; and grabbing "fate" by the tail.

By my late 30s/early 40s I started gravitating towards Bach, as I started to become more religious, as people often do become more religious, or at least philosophical, during middle age as they start pondering the great existential questions of life. Even if I can't ascribe to myself to a literal interpretation of scripture, I found in Bach's sense of faith a certain hope and comfort that there is a purpose to life.

Now in my 50s I find myself identifying with Mozart, whose music I more-or-less avoided for many decades. During that time, I saw Mozart as "pretty" and "pleasant" but also rather uninteresting. I think what facilitated a shift in my thinking about Mozart was my increasing awareness, appreciation, and enjoyment, regarding craftsmanship. Around this same time, I also started to develop an interest in hiking trails and gardening; and studying the patterns that exist in nature. My continuing interest in chess brought me to studying the games of Jose Capablanca, who has been sometimes called the "Mozart of Chess", because every move seems to make perfect sense as if the game is playing itself. In this regard, it's the seamless quality in Mozart that appeals to me. It has been said that Mozart was a "natural", that as opposed to Beethoven whose originals reveal a constant reworking of ideas with much scribbling and erasures; Mozart's music just somehow rolled out of him like a music machine. I suspect, however, that this was not the case and that Mozart probably worked very hard to make his music appear "effortless" as what usually appears to look "effortless" involves the most effort, making the effort you don't see the greatest amount of effort.

As different as they are from one another, I consider Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, to be the greatest craftsmen in classical music.

There is a mental clarity in Mozart that appeals to me as well, where one might love music for it's own sake. With Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Mahler, Shostakovich (oh, very much, Shostakovich) we always find ourselves trying to figure out what the composer was meaning to say. But with Mozart, there is a kind of emotional balance, where the composer is simply trying to create something beautiful in a weary world.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)




----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Here's a what if: what if Mozart had been born later, when music became more sophisticated. He would've been far more prolific and influential than he's already considered by many. He simply had the misfortune of being born in a time when music had to be stripped down for a turbulent world.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Coach G said:


> Mozart; he is good, though he wasn't a favorite early on when I was a teenager in the 1980s and still full of testosterone.
> 
> Back then and through a good portion of my young adult years Beethoven was my man: always heroic in the face of struggle; always climbing up the mountain; always reaching new heights; breaking down walls; and grabbing "fate" by the tail.
> 
> ...


This reminded me of this other quote from the legendary conductor:

"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure." - Bruno Walter


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

progmatist said:


> Here's a what if: what if Mozart had been born later, when music became more sophisticated. He would've been far more prolific and influential than he's already considered by many. He simply had the misfortune of being born in a time when music had to be stripped down for a turbulent world.


The only switch I'd be curious about is Beethoven as the elder. It may be the only better scenario, as what an unfortunate triviality if Herr Mozart were born amongst the romantics! Instead, I'd like to imagine what Ludwig could pull off in Haydn's earlier time, I think outside the shadow of Mozart it may actually improve likewise, as when he mimics Mozart it's not that great. When he writes like the Pastorale, it's his own perfection, he owns that dominion forever.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Some excellent and insightful posts in this thread, and ones I agree with. I would've liked to see a more creative Mozart myself and am curious as to the concepts that could make that a possibility.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Today I have ironically been curious about Satie and Schoenberg. They are both much more interesting!


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

progmatist said:


> Here's a what if: what if Mozart had been born later, when music became more sophisticated. He would've been far more prolific and influential than he's already considered by many. He simply had the misfortune of being born in a time when music had to be stripped down for a turbulent world.


Disagree. We cannot know this. I am pretty sure that a "Mozart" born in 1800 would have composed far fewer works, probably be overall too different to be comparable at all to the real Mozart at all. And most 19th century music is not more sophisticated than mature Mozart.

The only speculation that is not totally moot is to imagine Mozart simply living another 25 years. He would then maybe have totally dominated several decades and especially opera might have taken a different turn. But in this case it could also be possible that Mozart would have stagnated after a while or fallen out of fashion (as difficult as this is to imagine). Or if Mozart had been dominant, Beethoven might have become another "Hummel" or Proto-Liszt, relying on his piano prowess because there was no creative composing in the shadow of Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Some excellent and insightful posts in this thread, and ones I agree with. I would've liked to see a more creative Mozart myself and am curious as to the concepts that could make that a possibility.





Captainnumber36 said:


> Today I have ironically been curious about Satie and Schoenberg. They are both much more interesting!


I have a question; through all these years, you've been regularly making Mozart threads that are (imv) essentially just "variants" of your <Why I Believe Mozart is So Successful>, <Mozart Really is the King of Composers> -but what are your true "motivations" behind them? What sort of discussions do you wish to stimulate with threads of generic titles like "I still like Mozart"? Why not instead just revive one of the countless Mozart appreciation threads from the past, if you have something positive to say about him?
I'm starting to wonder if they're all also just variants of your <Mozart Is My Enemy>, <Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?>, albeit, with less explicit negativity in the title. 
I still get, that even in these newer threads, you're still trying to get people to express negativity about Mozart, just for you to arrive at the conclusion; "Mozart simply wrote to please his audience, and Beethoven was better as an "artist"".

I remember that in 2018, you were doing this far more regularly and explicitly and I had the impression TC was just another site with a bunch of Beethoven-admirers having low respect for Mozart. (For instance, the composer guestbook thread "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart", was full of their rantings) I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I'm just curious of your true intentions.

In your <Mozart is the Van Gogh of CM>, basically the conclusion you seemed to have reached was:
norman bates: "In my case I have often the impression listening to his music that I'm i world of face powder, wigs, bows, confetti, lace curtains, pink and light blue satin and and I'm completely out of place. Sort of living inside Marie Antoinette"
Captainnumber36: "How do you feel about Beethoven Norman Bates? I think he's much more the expressionist when compared to Mozart. He has the tortured artist concept going for him, and much of his music is filled with a dark intellectual beauty."


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Some excellent and insightful posts in this thread, and ones I agree with. I would've liked to see a more creative Mozart myself and am curious as to the concepts that could make that a possibility.


I am curious how you would imagine a "more creative" Mozart? How exactly was he lacking in creativity.
I think it is very difficult to separate an artist from his time and environment. Overall, Mozart thrived in his environment and despite an early death left a hugely impressive body of work. (I think the only thing "missing" is the mature church music he could have written at St. Stephen). One could make maybe a case for someone like Schubert or Zelenka who did not have great careers (still, I think it is also highly speculative what they could have done "better" or more in more conducive circumstances).


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> Disagree. We cannot know this. I am pretty sure that a "Mozart" born in 1800 would have composed far fewer works, probably be overall too different to be comparable at all to the real Mozart at all. And most 19th century music is not more sophisticated than mature Mozart.
> 
> The only speculation that is not totally moot is to imagine Mozart simply living another 25 years. He would then maybe have totally dominated several decades and especially opera might have taken a different turn. But in this case it could also be possible that Mozart would have stagnated after a while or fallen out of fashion (as difficult as this is to imagine). Or if Mozart had been dominant, Beethoven might have become another "Hummel" or Proto-Liszt, relying on his piano prowess because there was no creative composing in the shadow of Mozart.


I don't know about that. Mozart had an extraordinary kind of prodigious genius. Even if alive today at the tender age of 6 or 7, music would flow out of him like the Colorado River out of the Hoover Dam.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> **I still get, that** even in these newer threads, you're still trying to get people to express negativity about Mozart, just for you to arrive at the conclusion; "Mozart simply wrote to please his audience, and Beethoven was better as an "artist"".


**I still get the impression that**


----------



## Esterhazy (Oct 4, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> For those of you who have known me on here for a while know I've been all over the place with what I like. But Mozart has been my favorite composer for a while now, it's a great feeling to know who you are!


One cannot declare that one listens to classical music and finds Mozart's music boring/indifferent. My enjoyment of his music is indeed everlasting.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

progmatist said:


> I don't know about that. Mozart had an extraordinary kind of prodigious genius.


Many major and minor composers in the 18th century wrote as much music and as quickly as Mozart. Almost no major composer of the 19th century did. The main exceptions are composers like Rossini, Donizetti, Offenbach, Joh. Strauss (and maybe Schubert, the only serious instrumental composer of these). 
Anyway, I think my point was that there is hardly any reason to believe that Mozart did not fit very well in the society and stage of music history he actually lived in. He was not struggling, whereas for Schubert (and maybe some others, although the "unrecognized genius" is almost always more legend than truth) one could make the case that he was unlucky und not sufficiently recognized during his lifetime.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Many major and minor composers in the 18th century wrote as much music and as quickly as Mozart. Almost no major composer of the 19th century did.


Also they were employed by the church or the royal court, so they were generally obliged to compose in many genres. A composer employed by the church at the time, had to produce, in addition their music for church services, orchestral serenades/cassations/divertimentos, which pretty much follow the same texture as symphonies (or string quartets depending on the setting) of the period, for their employers' entertainment. Not only that, they also had to play obbligatos and improvise on the organ during high mass, so they tended to be good keyboardists, if not virtuosos. Sometimes they even had to produce dramatic works for the church. (Ex. G. Pasterwitz, who produced organ works and dramatic works for a monastery in Salzburg). Over the course of his life, Mozart moved his job from the liturgy to the secular, and had chance to write in various forms of both branches from commission.
Mozart's early liturgical stuff, influenced by the "Neapolitan" style, is pretty much exercises in writing fluid alternations of solos and ensembles in concertos and operas.
I don't think it's fair to judge the 19th century composers (ex. Wagner, Mahler, Chopin, Bruckner) who only focused on certain genres (due to their emphasis on their own individuality or philosophical ideals) by the same criteria. 
Although I appreciate Joseph Haydn's E minor, in classical music forums, I feel there's a bit too much a fuss whether or not a 18th century composer wrote piano sonatas (for instance). Piano sonatas of this period pretty much followed the structure of symphonies of the same period, only simpler in terms of texture and instrumental color due to its more intimate setting and "salon-music" nature (consider C.P.E. Bach's "piano symphonies"). If the composer was a keyboard virtuoso, he would have added some brilliant passage work for the instrument here and there, but again, the techniques to writing (part-writing and stuff) both genres are not totally different.
(Likewise, I talked about how there's not much difference in compositional technique between the string quintet and the string quartet: https://www.talkclassical.com/71012-haydns-joseph-vs-michael-16.html#post2098467)



Woodduck said:


> but equally ridiculous is the assertion that had he lived long enough he would have surpassed all other composers at doing whatever it is they did.


I agree. For instance, I don't ever think Mozart would have achieved "unique sound" of late Beethoven even if he lived longer. Claims like that ("had he lived long enough he would have surpassed all other composers at doing whatever it is they did") disregard and disrespect the individuality of composers such as Wagner, Mahler, Chopin, Bruckner.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I have a question; through all these years, you've been regularly making Mozart threads that are (imv) essentially just "variants" of your <Why I Believe Mozart is So Successful>, <Mozart Really is the King of Composers> -but what are your true "motivations" behind them? What sort of discussions do you wish to stimulate with threads of generic titles like "I still like Mozart"? Why not instead just revive one of the countless Mozart appreciation threads from the past, if you have something positive to say about him?
> I'm starting to wonder if they're all also just variants of your <Mozart Is My Enemy>, <Does Beethoven Have the Strongest Voice of the Big Three?>, albeit, with less explicit negativity in the title.
> I still get, that even in these newer threads, you're still trying to get people to express negativity about Mozart, just for you to arrive at the conclusion; "Mozart simply wrote to please his audience, and Beethoven was better as an "artist"".
> 
> ...


I'm not one to use the search function much, but I really should. I am just soul searching, that is all. I love Classical Music, and really shouldn't try to pin myself to one composer.

There really aren't any hidden motivations behind my threads, they are as you read and straightforward.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, thanks for those questions and critiques. I'll be more mindful with my posts in future.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Mozart loved drama too much for today's expectations. It wasn't his fault, he was born at that time.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> *Funnily enough, I do think Mozart is probably as great a composer as has ever lived or ever will live. *I simply can't bear his devotees' putdowns, explicit or implicit, of other composers. *It's absurd enough to claim that a comic opera like Le Nozze di Figaro is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind...*.





Woodduck said:


> *I simply do not see the point of putting the great geniuses of music in competition with each other. *... Composers can be compared on some points but not on others. *It's pretty hard to compare Figaro and Tristan, both of which have been called the greatest of all operas.* And neither composer could have created the other's work. There will be no blue ribbon awarded today.


Nicely said ideas.

We must always to some degree appreciate works of art within the context of their era. It's absurd to condemn pre-Renaissance paintings for their "flatness" or Greek tragedy for its limited use of characters.

Mozart worked within the musical realm of his era, a "classical" era replete with rules and caveats. Yet, like so many artists of genius, he managed to transcend his own era and produce works of art that remain universal and for-all-time in expression (as are Paleolithic era cave paintings, Gregorian chant, Homeric epics, flat "non-perspective" mediaeval tapestry art, Elizabethan era sonnets, and nonsense-language absurdist plays, among other examples). When Mozart's art is viewed in comparison with his contemporaries, nearly every comparison will highly favor the lad from Salzburg. Yet, Mozart's art is properly viewed only in comparison with that of the greatest creative geniuses of our species, which means the work is essentially incomparable.

It is always with some great sense of sadness that I appreciate any of the music of Mozart, and I deeply appreciate so much of it. I am ever struck by the sense of loss of this sublime consciousness at the early age of 35. I realize, upon listening to the man's music, that I am often hearing a masterpiece penned by the mind of a teenager or youthful twenty-something. Comparisons may abound, but how few other great artists stand up with the works of their youth to those of Mozart?

To zero in on two masterful contemporaries of Mozart, we might cite Joseph Haydn (died at age 77) and C.P.E. Bach (died at age 74). Sure, they have music that rivals that of the lad from Salzburg, but they had a great deal of "more time" in which to produce it, time during which they more often than not did not reach sublime heights in their musical expression. Mozart seems to have poured out masterpiece after masterpiece without a lot of "mediocre" or "passable" work between the heights. How do we begin to appreciate such a mind, such accomplishment?

Finally, Woodduck is proper to caution against statements such as "_Le Nozze di Figaro_ is the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind" and sound in his judgment when he informs us "It's pretty hard to compare _Figaro_ and _Tristan_, both of which have been called the greatest of all operas." It is enough, perhaps, that we can talk of such works as sublime and incomparable, and to leave it at that. To be able to experience and appreciate these works of art is a blessing (of whatever religious or non-religious sort we value) which humbles us all.

Besides, Woodduck well knows that Alban Berg's _Lulu_ is the "greatest of all operas" and "the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind." But, don't we all?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

^^^^^^^
"Besides, Woodduck well knows that Alban Berg's _Lulu_ is the "greatest of all operas" and "the highest cultural achievement in the history of mankind." But, don't we all? "

You're not belittling Berg's work, are you? It's difficult to tell in here..


----------

