# Exploring Mozart's perfection/imperfection



## Andrew_MBB (Jan 30, 2011)

Mozart has been called empty by a few people on this forum ( I read the 'Composers you hate' thread)
I would honestly like someone to fault his musical style here. In all the analysis I've done of music , I have never found Mozart either boring, long-winded , 'overblown'(clearly a favourite word here) or predictable. 
I cannot say the same for Beethoven or Brahms , they are often boring ( The Waldstein last movement is ample testimony to this as are several Brahms compositions - the Symphony Number 1 comes to mind straight off - an over laborious and in the end, unsuccessful achievement)
Predictability in terms of composition is a fault of Chopin, Liszt and Rachmaninoff. You are not often surprised by these composers even though they are among the most pleasing to the ears.
I have restricted myself to the piano composers here, it being my instrument and my area of semi-expertise. I welcome corrections of course and compositional information from members who's field is outside the piano.

PS : General and vague statements like 'It somehow just does not appeal to me' are not welcome.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I guess the example most often brought up is how, in the piano concerti, the piano part so often leads back into the orchestra with the same annoying trill. Needless to say, in itself it isn't much of an argument against Mozart's greatness. But I think it's that _sort of thing_ that gets on people's nerves. The Alberti basses, too, can seem amateurish and uninspired...

For myself, I consider Mozart's piano concerti to be flawed masterpieces, his solo piano works to be flawless, but not masterpieces, and his really perfect works to be the operas, string quartets and string quintets.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Mozart is great, though occasionally the somewhat formulaic method of structure and harmony keeps me from listening to the classical era.
Classical era music doesnt necessarily contain the same profound connection to the listener IMHO. Though of course you could say Mozart was one of the first to start 'romanticising' music and developing harmony and structure.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Most of those that claim Mozart is empty and predictable are usually geezers that attribute him classical period style as his own. Harmonic progression and resolvements, forms that were stanard and even mandatory at that time annoy them, not Mozart's individual character. I never saw coneisseur of pre-romantic music dismissing Mozart and the major critic and anti-Mozart booster in history of TC was devoted fan of Rautavaara lololo EMBRASSEMENT 90210


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Aramis said:


> Most of those that claim Mozart is empty and predictable are usually geezers that attribute him classical period style as his own. Harmonic progression and resolvements, forms that were stanard and even mandatory at that time annoy them, not Mozart's individual character.


Exactly, If anything mozart is like a pre-Beethoven proto-romantic in his later works. Symphony 40?


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Classical era music doesnt necessarily contain the same profound connection to the listener IMHO.


Some of his works are not that emotionally profound, but to me, it has nothing to do with style. For one thing, I find his Requiem to be much more dramatic and profound than, for example, Mahler's eighth symphony.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Mozart is great, though occasionally the somewhat formulaic method of structure and harmony keeps me from listening to the classical era.
> Classical era music doesnt necessarily contain the same profound connection to the listener IMHO. Though of course you could say Mozart was one of the first to start 'romanticising' music and developing harmony and structure.


But don't all styles have some formulas or ideas that they use quite alot? The best composers are those that use them within a more creative context.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

starry said:


> But don't all styles have some formulas or ideas that they use quite alot? The best composers are those that use them within a more creative context.


True, but I think due to Classicisms focus on form and structure a certain flexibility is removed. Within this classical framework Mozart is surely one of the more creative composers.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Andrew_MBB said:


> PS : General and vague statements like 'It somehow just does not appeal to me' are not welcome.


i.e. the only statements that really mean anything.


----------



## Andrew_MBB (Jan 30, 2011)

Actually , they don't. If you cannot find out what exactly it is that annoys you, then 'IMHO' you have no business criticizing.
I myself think that writing Classical Period music is much harder. If I'm asked to score a piece in which I am constrained - my modulation methods curtailed , tonality to be strictly adhered to , tonal centre changes not happening too often I would find it almost impossible to produce a work of any worth.
I have started learning the Sonata in C Minor recently - it has been a favourite of mine for a while , yet I've never got down to playing it. 
The pure musical,compositional worth alone blows me away. Add to that, it is dramatic, emotional and intellectual all in one.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Some of his works are not that emotionally profound...

Please explain to me how you measure the emotional profundity of a work of music. Is this nothing more than the employment of a minor key and big crescendos...?


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

Andrew_MBB said:


> I have started learning the Sonata in C Minor recently - it has been a favourite of mine for a while , yet I've never got down to playing it.
> The pure musical,compositional worth alone blows me away. Add to that, it is dramatic, emotional and intellectual all in one.


I'm learning K 282 at the moment, and I can agree with everything you say. His sonatas are sublime.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> I have started learning the Sonata in C Minor recently - it has been a favourite of mine for a while , yet I've never got down to playing it.
> The pure musical,compositional worth alone blows me away. Add to that, it is dramatic, emotional and intellectual all in one.


You mean C minor piano sonata? I just discovered it yesterday, many things about it are obvious denials for all those who say that Mozart is unexpressive.



> Is this nothing more than the employment of a minor key


Don't laugh at minor keys thing, that's how I explore Haydn, Mozart and other classical composers which wrote a lot of works: I got huge box set of Haydn SQs so what I do? Check out those in minor keys at first place. And it often... works


----------



## Lipatti (Oct 9, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Some of his works are not that emotionally profound...
> 
> Please explain to me how you measure the emotional profundity of a work of music. Is this nothing more than the employment of a minor key and big crescendos...?


I can see that's my quote - I'm sorry, I just didn't get my point through well at all. I should've written "some of his works _may_ not be that emotionally profound" - that would at least have been closer to what I meant. All I was trying to say was that, "profundity" (which is a highly elusive and subjective term btw) has absolutely nothing to do with musical style.

Also, most of my favorite works by Mozart (who is my favorite composer) are predominantly in major keys, so that's not an important factor to me at all.


----------



## Andrew_MBB (Jan 30, 2011)

Exactly. Nothing whatever to do with pure musical style. You will notice that I 'added' it. I said compositionally it's a joy not to mention its emotional depth . 
Now as regards the minor key and big crescendos thing, it's easier said than done, it is by no means a way to guarantee pleasing of even the most easily pleased audiences.
See how exciting the first movement of the Waldstein sonata by Beethoven is(in a major key) compared to the loud Ballade in G minor by Brahms which employs all you say - minor key and big crescendos. There are many other works like this - lots of Rachmaninoff and plenty of Liszt.


----------



## Andrew_MBB (Jan 30, 2011)

Whereas style may not in a pure form lend itself to 'emotional profundity' , the way devices are employed often do.
I'll used the Waldstein for this again. 
Beethoven , before returning for the recapitulation, reaches a Neapolitan sixth progression long before hitting the tonic. 
We are left 'suspended' in a dominant chord(centre) for about thirteen-fifteen measures(a rough guess) of turbulent semiquaver passages. This gets me on edge, almost frenzied and leads me to feel that the man was on edge when he wrote this section - in his own words music transforms the listener/exponent into the state of mind of the composer.
Given the L'Aurora broadcast in the last movement , one wonders why he would string together such contrasting emotions in one work.
The use of rapid, structured modulations against diminished seventh chords before this sections also adds to the emotional charge of this part.
So whereas pure style - the conventions of the period do not show 'emotion' , the style of individual composers certainly does.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Andrew_MBB said:


> We are left 'suspended' in a dominant chord(centre) for about thirteen-fifteen measures(a rough guess) of turbulent semiquaver passages. This gets me on edge, almost frenzied and leads me to feel that the man was on edge when he wrote this section - in his own words music transforms the listener/exponent into the state of mind of the composer.


Bach does this in the prelude in C from the WTC, yet I dont get the same effect - why?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Mozart's oeuvre show a dynamic range of emotions that is both accessible and seldom matched by later composers. Almost all genres you can find something that was by W. A. Mozart that could be amongst best of that genre.


----------



## Vor Gott (Jan 26, 2011)

For me Mozart has quite a range: some of his works fail to extend a melody over a long period of time successfully (i.e. as Beethoven did with Eroica's first movement) and others completely capture and embody a given emotion near flawlessly.

Here are some examples of both in my opinion:

*Emotion Capturing*
• Symphony No. 29 in A Major
• Symphony No. 40 in G Minor
• Piano Concerto No. 21 in C Major
• Clarinet Concerto in A Major, K622

*Non-Emotion Capturing*
• Symphony No. 24 in B Flat Major
• Symphony No. 25 in G Minor
As well as various Violin, Horn and Piano concerti.

As was previously mentioned, and is quite commonly stated, Mozart's works were progressively emotional; had he not passed in such an untimely fashion, I believe that he could have matched and potentially surpassed Beethoven et al. (e.g. Tchaikovsky, Wagner etc.) in emotional precision. Just my two cents.


----------



## Enjoying Life (Aug 2, 2010)

Webernite said:


> I guess the example most often brought up is how, in the piano concerti, the piano part so often leads back into the orchestra with the same annoying trill. Needless to say, in itself it isn't much of an argument against Mozart's greatness. But I think it's that _sort of thing_ that gets on people's nerves.


Don't forget that the piano of Mozart's day is not the same as today. It did not have the power and depth of today's pianos or of even those in Beethoven's day. An "annoying trill" was needed to hold a note and create some drama and power. Had he access to a grand piano he might have done it differently.

This also explains why his piano parts do not "compete" with the orchestra or have the same power of dialog as in Beethoven a few years later. Mozart had to create a space for the piano within the piece so it would not be run over by the more powerful orchestra. Both could not be in the same tonal range or you simply would not have heard the piano playing. As piano's became more powerful, composers no longer had to clear out the orchestra every time the piano played and that led to much more powerful piano concerti.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Enjoying Life said:


> Don't forget that the piano of Mozart's day is not the same as today. It did not have the power and depth of today's pianos or of even those in Beethoven's day. An "annoying trill" was needed to hold a note and create some drama and power. Had he access to a grand piano he might have done it differently.


Well, I'm not referring to trills in general. I'm referring to what Mozart does, for example, in this video between 4.06 and 4.11, and again at about 8.35:






He does it a lot, and I don't accept that it's for any reason other than habit. As far as I can remember, Beethoven managed to write his Piano Concerto No. 2 (written in the 1780s) without using the same device.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> True, but I think due to Classicisms focus on form and structure a certain flexibility is removed. Within this classical framework Mozart is surely one of the more creative composers.


If you want to look at it like that you could perhaps say the same for earlier periods like baroque. But the classical style did develop it didn't stand still, arguably it kept on till around 1830.

And the opposite of what you describe could be said of some Romantic style pieces. At its worst wallowing in relatively mediocre ideas when you really just want it to move on. So each style can have its faults. I suppose it's a matter of preference as to which you have the most tolerance for.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I'm just putting in my two cents here, I don't intend to be assaulted but know I probably will anyway.

I'll repeat again the reason I generally prefer Haydn over Mozart; Mozart tends to over-elaborate things to the point that it becomes cloying and overly precious. All those trills and flicky notes and grace notes and such things are really my idea of hell. Also, Alberti bass gets really old really fast, and Mozart uses it all the time, but that's more or less peripheral.

True, most bad stuff said about Mozart is personal stuff, and I'm no exception, but so is most of what can be said about any other composer. The reasons I like Mahler and Sibelius, for instance, are exactly the reasons other people hate them. Same difference, really. Style of composition doesn't really enter into it because it can't.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Love the trills... gives me a sense of security. And I think that's their purpose. After some heavy development that takes you to uncharted territory Mozart always comes back with that trill, as if to say: 'it's ok! Everything will be all right now!.' Or if it's in a minor key, it's like 'nope! everything still sucks!'

And in regards to Mozart being stifled by the rules of classicsm. This is part of why I think Mozart was so great... because he was able to express himself _even_ though there were rules in place. And I find that to be so much more 'profound' or whatever then a romantic composer who just goes for the big emotional effect. Who decided that having less rules made things more expressive anyways? Rules are the obstacles that justify emotion... if that makes sense. Not quite sure how to word that.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

It makes sense perfectly, to me anyway. And really without any kind of structure what would our minds engage with? There has to be some kind of journey or tension between ideas and ways of resolving them for us to interact with a piece. And really the sonata form of the classical period has had a continuing impact on how we listen to music. They adapted and expanded it later but it didn't disappear completely at all. It reflects perhaps the modern need to reconcile conflicing impulses.


----------

