# What makes Mozart so great



## Kbmanonymous

Why is Mozart's music considered so great and important. I was just reading on TheRestisNoise.com how the Morgan Library is beginning to put manuscripts of music online, one being Mozart's Haffner Symphony. No doubt he was a prodigy and of course during his time his music was "pop music" but to me all his music sounds the same. Although i will admit even though he is one of my least favorites i do have a reasonable collection of works by him that i listen to occasionally.


----------



## Webernite

I don't agree with the fashionable opinion that Mozart wrote "the pop music of his day." His music was considered difficult to understand and even more difficult to perform.


----------



## starry

Kbmanonymous said:


> but to me all his music sounds the same.


All composers have their style if that's what you mean. And really to say 'it all sounds the same' just seems simplistic as well as wrong. How is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik the same as his Requiem?


----------



## pjang23

K626. 





And operas.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...to me all his music sounds the same.

This can surely be applied to almost any composer and any musical genre or era: The Baroque all sounds the same; Handel all sounds the same; Mahler all sounds the same, Jazz all sounds the same, etc... Such an assessment is commonly based upon a rudimentary perusal of a given composer of genre.

Why is Mozart "great"? Because ensuing generations of music critics, musicologists, musicians, composers, and music lovers have recognized something in his music that continues to resonate and speak to them. Of course there is no way to sell someone on any composer... to "make" them like something they don't like through logical argument. For me Mozart is a magical composer. His music exudes such untrammeled, child-like simplicity and purity... it is almost like it has always existed... as if (to borrow from Amadeus) he were merely taking dictation from God... or the muses. It speaks of such beauty... such wit and genius... it is like a dance of pure joy... and then... every so often... a momentary darkness descends... a phrase of such exquisite melancholy that it almost brings you to tears... and then he is off again... dancing.

Why is Mozart "great"? The clarinet quintet, the clarinet concerto, the piano concertos, the Great Mass in C-minor, the quintet for piano and winds, the Gran Partita, the Requiem, the late symphonies... especially nos. 40 and the stupendous 41... and most of all... the operas!


----------



## starry

"Of course there is no way to sell someone on any composer... to "make" them like something they don't like through logical argument."

Exactly, which is why I didn't even try.


If you want to find a way to enjoy his music, listen to it more and maybe read about the music a bit if you want. But really don't expect a shortcut to liking it through some secret key someone else may have, it doesn't exist. If you aren't open to it now maybe try sometime later in your life when you might be more open to other kinds of music, then it might click (or it might not). I'd just say beware cheap/bad performances with any classical music.


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why is Mozart "great"? The clarinet quintet, the clarinet concerto, the piano concertos, the Great Mass in C-minor, the quintet for piano and winds, the Gran Partita, the Requiem, the late symphonies... especially nos. 40 and the stupendous 41... and most of all... the operas!


I don't understand. All those are rubbish.


----------



## Kieran

Argus said:


> I don't understand. All those are rubbish.


That's an opinion. A _minority_ opinion, too. All of those works are miraculous. There - another opinion! :tiphat:

What makes Mozart so great is his subtlety, and his ability to compose music that expresses everything, but in a profound way. In any genre. He seemed to have limitless ideas and he left the world more great music than any other renowned composer, though he lived a short life. Alongside few other men and women in history, Mozart's reputation is deserved. I suggest you listen to his operas to get a feel for the man - alongside his piano concertos.

And this:

14th Piano Sonata Adagio

Just to show you how sublime and gorgeous his music could be... :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't understand. All those are rubbish.

The key phrase being: *I don't understand.*

Maybe this has something to do with it:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*When I was young I didn't like Mozart*

Now, I love him! I love his operas...Don Giovani less... But Cosi fan Tutte, Le Nozze di Figaro, the magic flute are AWESOME!

Martin


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't understand. All those are rubbish.
> 
> The key phrase being: *I don't understand.*
> 
> Maybe this has something to do with it:


It's just that I would have expected you to list some good music if you're trying to defend Mozart's greatness.

What's Tony Iommi got do with anything?

This is more puerile than even the most cringeworthy of Geezer Butler lyrics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> good music


But you seemed to say you didn't like people calling music 'good' (presumably as you think it is too subjective).


----------



## prezbucky

Answering the OP:

Along with the beautiful works others have mentioned, I would posit Piano Concerto in A, AKA Piano Concerto #23, AKA K488 -- the adagio portion.

The pianist actually makes a mistake at the start of the grand finale... plays one too many eighth notes... missing the beat.






Another version:






And the Clarinet Concerto in A...






To me, what made Mozart great -- this coming from a singer/songwriter, but not a Music major -- were these things:

1) Melodic and harmonic genius
2) Layering and "rounding" -- the perfect layering of the sound (like a chord on a guitar... 1/4/5, for example, or G/C/D) at any particular moment, and his genius at playing a melody, then having a different section play the same. So I sing or play "la la la la" and on my third "la", you begin the same. That's what I mean by "rounding".
3. Compelling melodies. It's what makes a hit a hit -- an attractive melody. It's the tune, the part you sing in the shower, what makes a song popular...the melody.

Anyway, everyone has an opinion, but you should know that among those who listen to Classical music, yours is in the far minority. The Big Three are Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, and IMO Mozart was the greatest of those three, and... of all time. Any genre or era. He'd be Michael Jackson, Elvis, the Beatles and the Stones, combined, in today's terms. Only twice as good as all of their aggregate greatness. Vain as he was said to be, he probably would have laughed at them. And then he'd have written an entire album for each of them, for he was also eager to please. And... lol... he'd write all four albums, 10 songs each, in about a month. And each would have like five #1 hits...

Or -- since he mastered really everything, all styles of music available, at the time... he'd write the music for a huge comeback album for Pearl Jam, maybe a big rap album for Lil Wayne, a heavy metal album for Metallica, a pop album for Kesha (that would be a trip...), a country album for Tim McGraw. Reggae, ska, punk, hard rock, R&B, it wouldn't matter... because the key element in all of them is music, and whether you use a violin or a guitar or a keyboard/synth to make your music, it must be catchy to be successful. Mozart had catchiness in spades.

Mozart was the greatest musical genius in (known) history.

I... I often wonder, when I'm listening to a popular song or one I've written, what Mozart would think of it. i've never mentioned that to anyone. Such is the esteem in which I hold Mozart. I hope he'd like my music.


----------



## PetrB

No classical music was ever 'the pop music of its day.' That is a phrase which comes out of the mouths of idiot music appreciation teachers, perhaps thinking they are pandering to a group used to pop music to 'tie in' that groups interest. It is serious silliness, trendy to say and just so wrong.

If all music sounds the same to you, any intellectual explanation of why Mozart, or any other great composer is so outstanding is useless to say.

Perhaps if you do a lot more listening, and maybe some reading, and then develop a personal sense and set of criteria where you can begin to distinguish between all that music which by your admission now "sounds the same," then you have a base for some comprehensible dialogue.

As it is, you've pretty much announced you are less than a blank slate, basically virtually 'deaf'

Your post is 'old' in the way of forum dating... maybe you have since listened enough to begin to discern and have formulated some thoughts of how you listen, and what is in the music?


----------



## Cnote11

Argus said:


> It's just that I would have expected you to list some good music if you're trying to defend Mozart's greatness.
> 
> What's Tony Iommi got do with anything?
> 
> This is more puerile than even the most cringeworthy of Geezer Butler lyrics:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch


Always thought it was some black guy in your avatar until St. Luke blew it up. Guy doesn't even have a mini-fro anymore


----------



## Stargazer

I've never really connected with Mozart, he's one of the few major composers that I just really don't like very much. Sure there are a handful of works by him that I really do love, including one of my all-time favorites, but for the most part I find his music rather boring. That said, I do recognize his achievements relative to classical music and do agree that he was really good at what he did. Just not my style


----------



## Sid James

Kbmanonymous said:


> Why is Mozart's music considered so great and important. I was just reading on TheRestisNoise.com how the Morgan Library is beginning to put manuscripts of music online, one being Mozart's Haffner Symphony. No doubt he was a prodigy and of course during his time his music was "pop music" but to me all his music sounds the same. Although i will admit even though he is one of my least favorites i do have a reasonable collection of works by him that i listen to occasionally.


I'd hazard a guess you are below the age of 30? Or even 20? Not a judgement, just a guess based on my experience & a kind of hunch. Because the older I got, the more I appreciated music of Mozart and of composers before him.

One reason can be that few of the pieces of before the Romantic era where written in a minor key. Mozart had his two symphonies in G minor, numbers 25 & 40, and Haydn had works like _Sym.#49 'La Passione,' _but these were few and far between. This was around the time of the_ Sturm und Drang _period in literature (storm and stress).

What makes Mozart so great to me is these things -

- His imagination, creativity within these templates which you'd think are too restrictive - he does things that I would not think, his music has surprises & twists and turns

- His daring innovation. I could give many examples. Eg. first expression of fear in opera, the scene with the commendatore taking the Don to hell in_ Don Giovanni._ Eg. less Romantic things like putting two trios in his _minuet_ movement of _Clarinet Quintet_. So playing around with existing forms.

- His innate optimism, elegance, clarity & economy of expression.

...I could go on & I'm not even a Mozart groupie. But he and Haydn weren't just staging posts between Bach & Beethoven. They were the real deal. Haydn actually anticipated and did many of Beethoven's innovations in embryonic form. The wigs were the real deal, but not maybe for reasons that you'd typically think.

Re him sounding the same, I heard a funny skit of the late comedian Victor Borge doing his own _A Mozart opera by Borge_. Hilarious! There were cliches in his music for sure. But once I got to know his music more, and more of his music, I kind of went beyond them. But as I said, I don't always listen to his music, but I don't avoid it either.


----------



## SottoVoce

I would add that it still *is* difficult to understand. Mozart is one of those composers that I'll listen to at first, learn more about music, and then come back and here a completely different piece. When I first started listening to classical music, I found Mozart harder to *truly* appreciate than most of Debussy's and Stravinsky's early music; once I started paying attention, a whole new color entered my world. Whoever calls the introduction of the Dissonance Quartet or the almost atonal passage in the Finale of the Jupiter Symphony "boring", "easy to listen to", or "the same as everything else" is not listening nearly enough.

I think it was Frederick Delius that said, "If a man tells he likes Mozart, I know in advance that he is a bad musician." I would say the exact opposite (jokingly of course)


----------



## presto

Mozart is great but there are other composers not far behind him.

I've often tried to workout why Mozart is put in a higher league than his contemporaries.
I'm been very keen in discovering the other composers of Mozart's time and what strikes me his how similar many sound, take Kozeluch (1747-1818) for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kozeluch

His symphonies are remarkably fine, strong melodic ideas and interesting things going on I don't think they would pale too much in comparison with Mozart. 
This might seem quite a strong thing to say but I feel Mozart gets performed so much to the determent of other composers of the time thus he has such a strong foothold and following.
If Kozeluch was to receive as much attention I genuinely believe he would be elevated, some of his works are equally as good as Haydn or Mozart.

Try the very beautiful Clarinet Concerto in E flat.


----------



## Badinerie

I think the real key to Mozarts continuing popularity is his Accessibility. Most of his music is easy to listen too. Even his intense and challenging works are still engaging. Personally, I think he is a composer of great contrasts. Some of his work is jaw droppingly beautiful unreachable by any other composer, much is I feel incredibly pedestrian. I think often he just 'cruised' on his patrons money and gave them what the asked for. just my opinion though.


----------



## Xaltotun

I very rarely _connect_ with Mozart, but I still think he is absolutely great. He's so universal and humane, I love him. There's none of me in Mozart, but there's a substantial amont of Mozart in everyone, including me (even if that doesn't make sense!).


----------



## Sid James

SottoVoce said:


> ...Whoever calls the introduction of the Dissonance Quartet or the almost atonal passage in the Finale of the Jupiter Symphony "boring", "easy to listen to", or "the same as everything else" is not listening nearly enough.
> 
> ...


Yeah but those kinds of works are like exceptions to the rule. Yet as I said, I still marvel at how Mozart played around with the conventions of his day - and innovated - in music that is not as weird or unusual for his time. The opening of the _Dissonance_ quartet is more or less a joke, that's how I take it, a thing that is deliberately different and left of centre to grab the audience's attention. But still, I love that change in mood, from darkness to light, that happens after that introduction, it is pure joy and optimism which follows. Not unlike the intros to Haydn's London symphonies, they all tend to be slow and darkish, but then he floods everything with light, grace and ease. That's kind of what I like about this period in a nutshell, as someone said above, they were masters of contrast.


----------



## poconoron

In addition to the well-expressed sentiments above, I would say this:

1. For me, no other composer was as able to produce so many masterpieces in virtually every music genre - this alone keeps me interested enough to come back to his music time and again over the past 40 years. If it's opera I'd like to listen to, or a string trio, string quintet, symphony, sacred music, solo piano, concerto (piano, clarinet, oboe, flute, bassoon - whatever) or anything else - Mozart is there. And he is there in the highest possible quality of music.

Here's a little test: name just one other composer who was a genius at composing some of the acknowledged greatest operas of all time - *and* produced so many other masterpieces in every musical genre (all by the age of 35).

2. After 40 years of listening to classical music, I have found a number of composers I really like to listen to. These include Bach, Handel, Beethoven, Brahms, Rossini, Dvorak and Schubert. After all of this time, however, when I reach for something to listen to, it ends up being Mozart 80% and everyone else combined 20%.


----------



## kv466

This rubbish, too, Argus?


----------



## dmg

This...






Sounds the same as this...






???????????????


----------



## kv466

Yeah, well, there are also 2000+ great songs that use the G-D-C progression...after a couple hundred works, one is bound to repeat every now and then.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Kbmanonymous said:


> Why is Mozart's music considered so great and important. I was just reading on TheRestisNoise.com how the Morgan Library is beginning to put manuscripts of music online, one being Mozart's Haffner Symphony. No doubt he was a prodigy and of course during his time his music was "pop music" but to me all his music sounds the same. Although i will admit even though he is one of my least favorites i do have a reasonable collection of works by him that i listen to occasionally.


Mozart's music is great to me because it can make me feel better no matter what emotional state I'm in. It connects with me in a way that no other composer's music is able to (Except Chopin and Beethoven to some extent). It's absolutely fine if you're unable connect with his music, the perception of greatness is all subjective anyway.

I imagine his will sound incredibly strange and trivial to a lot of people, but the thing that currently attracts me most to his music (That's the wonderful thing about most classical music, once you get bored of fawning over one aspect of it, you have a million other aspects to choose from.) is his cadential material at the end of expositions. It always seems to provide such a satisfying closure to what came before it. There's just something about it...

Examples:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yCYN7WZ_0I#t=17m56s
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvtoqE33iZg#t=1m27s
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeTyZPxlwMA#t=39s


----------



## Arsakes

Lack of seriousness in 'majority' of his works ... like they're composed for plain fun!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What makes music "serious"? A minor key... big dynamic contrasts? I'm reminded of those who think this is "serious" art:










while this obviously isn't:


----------



## Nothung

If you don't like Mozart, there is something wrong with you - not Mozart.


----------



## Operadowney

In my opinion, no matter what effect Mozart was striving to achieve, he did it with elegance. Musically, his work can never be called anything but.


----------



## Arsakes

I didn't mean he isn't great but is not serious. For example Bruckner and Shostakovitch are serious composers ... I've seen a signature here that says: "I'm not ready for Mahler..." Mahler is too serious and I agree with that line.


----------



## Glissando

Not the least of the things I love about Mozart is that you can watch beautiful women singing in his operas: in the roles of Susanna, Pamina, Dorabella, Donna Elvira, etc.  Mozart was a humanist who was interested in depicting the passions of everyday people. In terms of sheer musical talent, I think the only composer we could compare him to is Bach. Both wrote a ton of music. And as great as Bach is, Mozart's music has a clarity and grace that Bach's often lacks. Mozart's best music feels conversational -- it has the rhythms and the logic of a communicative sentence. Bach's music is complex and challenging. But although Mozart's music does not seem as challenging as Bach's, it still has lots of little subtleties that you pick up on as you come back to it again.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

But if Mozart's not "serious", what is he... comic?

But then again... didn't W.C. Fields suggests that "Comedy is serious business"?


----------



## Cnote11

His music!


----------



## IBMchicago

This might help -- Prof. Robert Levin explaining the essence of Mozart's piano music (in 3 short parts):

Part 1: 



Part 2: 



Part 3: 




The best quote from this series: "…and to turn Mozart into an object that is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty, is to me unforgivable because his music teams with all of the disorder of the human condition."


----------



## brianwalker

What makes boobs so great?


----------



## Polyphemus

brianwalker said:


> What makes boobs so great?


Do you want a serious answer to that question.


----------



## Polyphemus

The Mozart that brings me unqualified joy are the piano concerti, never fail to give me a lift.


----------



## Kieran

He wears his complications lightly: in fact, he makes his complications seem accessible. Mozart wasn't a 'Romantic' composer, he didn't write just to show what he could write. He wrote music for specific purposes each time, whether it should be operas, masses, symphs, piano sonatas to bring his pupils on, whatever. But he did it with a subtlety and grace that's made it seem almost as if his music is 'light.'

The tragic in Mozart is implicit, not explicit. It's almost like he doesn't want to burden us with grief, but the closer we look at him, the more we see that lies beneath the surface. And it can be profoundly sad, and often too beautiful to bear....


----------



## Alydon

I have come up with my own phrase in connection with my personal two greatest composers, ' Beethoven was the greatest, but Mozart was the most perfect.' No pop star, as we know it has ever come near the opus which Mozart created for us. Mozart's music is sublime in the face of Beethoven's seemingly heroic struggle, but Mozart is as difficult to come to terms with as the most complex music written in the last three hundred years. 
I have always found Mozart a paradox: so simple, yet so profound; so superficial, yet so meaningful. Mozart is the music of the angels, whereas Beethoven is grounded with us and sharing our hardships and struggle. Mozart brings an innocence we have for the most part lost, but constrained in the musical formalities of the day - he wasn't trying to stretch the bounderies, but wrote in the confines of what he knew. 
Mozart uplifts and gives solace but he is confined - Beethoven breaks out of the straitjacket and screams at us - Mozart does this sometimes, but is very polite about it which makes him sublime. I know Mozart had a one in a century or so talent and his music reflects back at us what we so much are lacking as human beings, and I can never be grateful enough for what he has given us in what was such a short span of time


----------



## Alydon

No, the pop music of the day were folk songs and popular ballads which our current understanding of this genre comes from. Mozart was continuing a tradition of what we might call 'serious music' - not a popular composer, but what was demanded from from the nobility of the time none of whom ( and they comissioned his work at the time! ) would have a notion that he was the genius we now know him as. We can't use a current term as 'pop' to even come to an understanding of a musician and composer such as Mozart - anything we know of as music in the last thirty years, ( and I'm talking 'pop') should not even be compared as a comparison with him.


----------



## Kieran

Both Mozart and Beethoven addressed similar things in their music, but when it comes to tragic elements, Beethoven was defiant and muscular, Mozart was resigned. It's this delicious painfulness makes his music so much more deep than explicitly wounded scores. His insight and restraint are worth more to me than loud outrage and fist-clenching. Often with Mozart, the more we listen, the more complicated it sounds. This is the opposite to the usual, where complicated works untangle a bit as we become familiar with them.

With Mozart, familiarity only brings us deeper. David Cairns wrote a profound statement in his great book, _Mozart's Operas_. It was to the effect that Mozart's music strangely contains the perfection our souls long for - and the sensation of that longing...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The Mozart that brings me unqualified joy are the piano concerti, never fail to give me a lift.

Hmmm... not unlike boobs.


----------



## NightHawk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The Mozart that brings me unqualified joy are the piano concerti, never fail to give me a lift.


I agree - the piano concertos and especially their slow, 2nd movements (9, 20, 21, 23, 24 to mention a few), 'never fail to' exorcise my demons.

Here is the _Adagio_ from K.488 in A major with Helene Grimaud - nice montage between forest scenes and the actual performance.


----------



## PetrB

Been here, done this already. waaa.


----------



## Vesteralen

What makes Mozart's _*music*_ great is that more than 200 years after he died, basically his entire output is available for people to study and listen to, most of it in multiple versions. A lot of people must love it for that to be true. Current popularity is cheap, centuries-long popularity is rare to say the least.

What makes Mozart great? Nothing. As a _*person*_, he wasn't particularly great.


----------



## Kieran

Vesteralen said:


> What makes Mozart great? Nothing. As a _*person*_, he wasn't particularly great.


I never met him. Couldn't possibly agree or disagree with this one...:tiphat:


----------



## brianwalker

Polyphemus said:


> Do you want a serious answer to that question.


Yes, yes I do.


----------



## violadude

brianwalker said:


> Yes, yes I do.


They are symbolic of comfort and nourishment.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

Vesteralen said:


> What makes Mozart great? Nothing. As a _*person*_, he wasn't particularly great.


I don't know about that. Wasn't he the one who, if he met a beggar in the street, he'd get a piece of paper and compose something right on the spot and give it to the person and tell them to take it to the publishers (or whatever you call them) and sell it to them for a price? Unless I'm confusing that with someone else... But I think that makes him a pretty good person.


----------



## Guest

Perhaps Mozart's greatest work is...

K.231/K.382.c Leck Mich Im Arsch

My German's not so good.. I think it has something to do with angels or something.

:devil: :devil: :devil:

Wonder why it isn't performed more often?

More to the point, if he didn't take himself too seriously, maybe he wouldn't want us to take him too seriously either.


----------



## Moira

Mozart wrote music that is both pretty and emotionally satisfying. That's a good combination.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Mozart is the greatest simply because he loved to make fart jokes.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Mozart is the greatest simply because he loved to make fart jokes.


 I guessed this was probably the main reason, but it's nice to have it confirmed with such authority.


----------



## Misologos

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What makes music "serious"? A minor key... big dynamic contrasts? I'm reminded of those who think this is "serious" art:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while this obviously isn't:


Why don't you try comparing that rather pedestrian portrait to one of the religious paintings Rubens is more well-known for, like 'Massacre of the Innocents'? In any case, don't blame the Romantics or 'moderns' for placing a high value on seriousness. In the classical hierarchy of genres, portraiture was considered lower than historical, mythological, religious, and especially allegorical paintings, the last of all being considered the apex of Art. The Goya painting is indeed an allegory (for time), and is therefore, by classical standards, considered to be not only more 'serious' but of more merit.

As another poster here expressed, what makes Mozart great is his universal humanity, not his seriousness or lack thereof. But this universality can be a weakness. In normal circumstances he is pleasant enough. But I know very few people who turn to Mozart in their more personal moods, of sadness or anger especially. That is where the Romantics and the tonal Moderns come in, at least for me.

If one could resurrect Mozart, I'm sure he would laugh at his modern-day cult -- which appears to be made up of assorted snobs and middle-class strivers who think his music makes their babies magically smarter. It's trendy nowadays to mock the Romantic conceit of the creative genius, but if great art is not solely a matter of inspiration, neither is it a matter of refinement and historical taste. Mozart would surely agree. But unfortunately many of his followers do not.


----------



## leshake

*Why I now love Mozart!*

As a professional writer (brain in high gear when working), I've never found any music I could listen to while working. If the music was great, I had to stop and listen. If it was terrible, I got annoyed and turned it off. Finally, a year or so ago, I discovered Mozart's piano sonatas done by Mitsuko Uchida. Amazingly I was able to work and listen. The music simply goes in, soothes the savage beast, and yet doesn't interfere with my thought process. Normally, my reading music has been Bach. My power music is Wagner, Holst, Dvorak's 5th, Tchaikovsky's 5th, all of Beethoven's symphonies, Richard Stauss (Also Sprach), Bruckner, etc. But suddenly I'm just plain hooked on Mozart. Must be gittin' old, as my grandpappy used to say. Nice forum.


----------



## DavidA

Vesteralen said:


> What makes Mozart's _*music*_ great is that more than 200 years after he died, basically his entire output is available for people to study and listen to, most of it in multiple versions. A lot of people must love it for that to be true. Current popularity is cheap, centuries-long popularity is rare to say the least.
> 
> What makes Mozart great? Nothing. As a _*person*_, he wasn't particularly great.


I think the last line could be said of a whole load of composers. I love Beethoven's music but I bet I wouldn't have liked him as a man. Same with many others.
I think we are wrong to assume the image of Amadeus film for our impression of Mozart. He was actually a highly sophisticated man who spoke many languages. He just wasn't any good with money. But we can't be good at everything!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think we are wrong to assume the image of Amadeus film for our impression of Mozart.


I'm sure we are. But is anyone making that assumption?



> He was actually a highly sophisticated man who spoke many languages


But liked practical jokes and had a fondness for scatology, allegedly.


----------



## deggial

Misologos said:


> Why don't you try comparing that rather pedestrian portrait to one of the religious paintings Rubens is more well-known for, like 'Massacre of the Innocents'?


that's certainly not a pedestrian portrait. It's actually so far ahead of its time it's not funny. I'd say it links Raphael and Manet in one smooth go.

as for Mozart's music, I've always enjoyed the versatility and, indeed, detachment. I liked the little bit of him that transpires in his letters. Sounds like a jolly bloke with a sound work ethic.


----------



## petter

No one else could have produce Symphony No.39 with its mixture of intellectual depth and sublime joyfulness.


----------



## starry

Misologos said:


> Why don't you try comparing that rather pedestrian portrait to one of the religious paintings Rubens is more well-known for, like 'Massacre of the Innocents'? In any case, don't blame the Romantics or 'moderns' for placing a high value on seriousness. In the classical hierarchy of genres, portraiture was considered lower than historical, mythological, religious, and especially allegorical paintings, the last of all being considered the apex of Art. The Goya painting is indeed an allegory (for time), and is therefore, by classical standards, considered to be not only more 'serious' but of more merit.
> 
> As another poster here expressed, what makes Mozart great is his universal humanity, not his seriousness or lack thereof. But this universality can be a weakness. In normal circumstances he is pleasant enough. But I know very few people who turn to Mozart in their more personal moods, of sadness or anger especially. That is where the Romantics and the tonal Moderns come in, at least for me.


Rubens could well have done better paintings, but that Goya one has something simple and stereotypical to the faces of the two main figures which might suit some allegorical style he is aiming for but it just falls flat for me.

As for your second comment, I really think that's just a matter of taste. Mozart can be very expressive.


----------



## trazom

MacLeod said:


> I'm sure we are. But is anyone making that assumption?
> 
> But liked practical jokes and had a fondness for scatology, allegedly.


That sort of humor was very common. No one mentions how he also liked puns, anagrams, puzzles, folding his napkins into different geometric shapes, billiards, and dancing, but I guess it's easier to write him off as some sort of crude manchild because it makes for a better story.


----------



## Guest

trazom said:


> That sort of humor was very common. No one mentions how he also liked puns, anagrams, puzzles, folding his napkins into different geometric shapes, billiards, and dancing, but I guess it's easier to write him off as some sort of crude manchild because it makes for a better story.


"No one mentions" much about Beethoven except that he was bad-tempered and deaf. Perhaps that's because unless you're going to read a book about these composers, you're not going to know much at all except what is presented to you in readily digestible gobbets via...whichever media source you most tap into. I didn't offer that 'fact' about Mozart to diminish him, but merely to exemplify that he was more than any one-dimensional caricature can describe ("highly sophisticated").

You missed answering my first point, which is that noone with an opinion worth worrying about assumes anything about Mozart, or Beethoven, or any other composer whose first call on your time should be their music, not their personality!


----------



## Blancrocher

MacLeod said:


> You missed answering my first point, which is that noone with an opinion worth worrying about assumes anything about Mozart, or Beethoven, or any other composer whose first call on your time should be their music, not their personality!


My first interest in Mozart was in his music, but my second was in his remarkable personality, which has over the years gotten on the other side of my first interest and influenced it. There are aspects of Mozart's music--like his use of fugues--that need to be interpreted; and whether you think he started writing fugues to please himself or the old-fashioned tastes of other people will probably ultimately depend on what you think of his temperament (and--maddeningly--your own!).


----------



## eipi

I was listening to Mozart today and it struck me -- my God, this all sounds the same. All great, but all the same. I did a Google search for "all Mozart sounds the same" and it led here.

For me, Mozart is the ultimate background music. There's never a surprise. You know where the music is going at all times. Nothing ever the least bit grating.

I don't mean to diminish Mozart's talents. He was unquestionably brilliant. And not all the music sounds the same. The Requiem, the 40th symphony, and the 20th piano concerto are outliers, and all of these are brilliant. I think Mozart may have been the greatest musical genius of all time.

And always sounding the same isn't such a terrible criticism. I can identify paintings by Rembrandt, van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, etc. with very high accuracy.


----------



## KenOC

trazom said:


> That sort of humor was very common. No one mentions how he also liked puns, anagrams, puzzles, folding his napkins into different geometric shapes, billiards, and dancing, but I guess it's easier to write him off as some sort of crude manchild because it makes for a better story.


In fact, Mozart wrote aleatoric music before anybody had heard of it. Really! The idea was to select musical phrases based on the roll of dice and tack them together. Mozart's game has been reproduced on the Internet:

http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/Mozart/dice/


----------



## starry

eipi said:


> I was listening to Mozart today and it struck me -- my God, this all sounds the same. All great, but all the same. I did a Google search for "all Mozart sounds the same" and it led here.
> 
> For me, Mozart is the ultimate background music. There's never a surprise. You know where the music is going at all times. Nothing ever the least bit grating.
> 
> I don't mean to diminish Mozart's talents. He was unquestionably brilliant. And not all the music sounds the same. The Requiem, the 40th symphony, and the 20th piano concerto are outliers, and all of these are brilliant. I think Mozart may have been the greatest musical genius of all time.
> 
> And always sounding the same isn't such a terrible criticism. I can identify paintings by Rembrandt, van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, etc. with very high accuracy.


You say he always sounds the same and then you say he doesn't. Maybe you just don't like the high classical style which he came from. Do you think all baroque music sounds the same? Or renaissance? And Mozart's music is engaging with it's many ideas which can be immediately tuneful to people, that's the opposite of background music. I just don't see him as purely being about a beautiful sound at all, there is emotion but also intellect.


----------



## AliceKettle

His musical works share great similarities to each other. In fact a lot of his coloratura arias have that "Ahh...ahhah" cadenza at the end. For instance:
O zittre nicht(ending):




Martern Aller Arten:




All of his music had an upbeat, catchy, light, yet at the same time dark undertone to it.


----------



## SONNET CLV

What makes Mozart so great?

His music.


----------



## millionrainbows

eipi said:


> I was listening to Mozart today and it struck me -- my God, this all sounds the same. All great, but all the same. I did a Google search for "all Mozart sounds the same" and it led here.
> 
> For me, Mozart is the ultimate background music. There's never a surprise. You know where the music is going at all times. Nothing ever the least bit grating.
> 
> I don't mean to diminish Mozart's talents. He was unquestionably brilliant. And not all the music sounds the same. The Requiem, the 40th symphony, and the 20th piano concerto are outliers, and all of these are brilliant. I think Mozart may have been the greatest musical genius of all time.
> 
> And always sounding the same isn't such a terrible criticism. I can identify paintings by Rembrandt, van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Cezanne, etc. with very high accuracy.





starry said:


> You say he always sounds the same and then you say he doesn't. Maybe you just don't like the high classical style which he came from. Do you think all baroque music sounds the same? Or renaissance? And Mozart's music is engaging with it's many ideas which can be immediately tuneful to people, that's the opposite of background music. I just don't see him as purely being about a beautiful sound at all, there is emotion but also intellect.


I think what eipi means by 'it all sounds the same' is not as literal as starry is making it sound. I think what eipi is hearing is the overall thrust and purpose of Mozart's music, which was for distracted entertainment of spoiled, powerful nobles _(divertissement).

_Mozart was not,* generally speaking,* creating art for his own sake, or using music to express the emotions of struggle and strife of his experience or the human condition, as folk art does. He was making operas to entertain society at large, and striving to be a success in that context. He was catering to a sophisticated, educated, powerful elite ruling class. He wanted to have the sponsorship of a wealthy patron, so he could continue to write music. Just like Mahler and Schoenberg, he wanted to be a part of the wealthy, glamorous world he saw in the big urban centers. Just like Andy Warhol, he wanted to hang out with the rich and powerful, and do their portraits, and go to all the best parties.

As such, Mozart's music is best appreciated on a purely musical level of craftsmanship, without the degree of drama which many listeners crave. The craftsmanship is impeccable, and represents the apotheosis of the tonal system. This is tonal music designed for outdoor activity, dinners, and the amusement of nobles, so it's no surprise that it is going to sound somewhat predictable on some level.

The instrumental music is the soundtrack for a lifestyle and the backdrop for power. It does what instrumental music does best, it enhances the 'drama,' which is, in this case, the lifestyles of the audiences who listened to it in chamber settings and social gatherings.

This music did not concern itself with the human suffering outside those opulent halls; this was the music of the elite, who had escaped that suffering.

It wasn't until the Romantic period, with democracy on the rise, that music began to try to reflect an inner human state, rather than an ideology or the "lifestyles of the rich & famous."


----------



## Notung

To me, what makes him great is his counterbalance between light and dark.

In Mozart, we hear a surface joy and exuberance ("Nachtmusik, "Magic Flute", etc), along with a playfulness and virtuosity ("Turkish March"). However, when one listens closely, one discovers a deep and profound sensitivity to tragedy. One detects melancholy and even despair. The first movement of his dissonance quartet is a case in point. It begins in a broodingly dark adagio, but then moves to an upbeat allegro. The transition, however, is bittersweet; the happiness of the allegro is put into a bitter, almost ironic context. I can literally hear him crying throughout the whole movement.

"Don Giovanni" is the pinnacle of his duality. Although much of the opera is rambunctious and mischievous, it both begins and ends in tragedy (the crushing "commendatore" motif at the beginning of the overture and final scene). Further, although Giovanni's lines are seductively written, one can taste a creepiness to the music underneath all that "fizz". "La ci darem la mano" is the most twisted dance music I've ever heard, contrasted with Zerlina's pure, virginal lines. He always sings (here and elsewhere) in a forceful tone; a most cruel charm.

Mozart is the crying clown; a genius who sings the joys of life while giving himself a tragic accompaniment.

One of the most remarkable geniuses ever!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I think what eipi means by 'it all sounds the same' is not as literal as starry is making it sound. I think what eipi is hearing is the overall thrust and purpose of Mozart's music, which was for distracted entertainment of spoiled, powerful nobles _(divertissement).
> 
> _Mozart was not,* generally speaking,* creating art for his own sake, or using music to express the emotions of struggle and strife of his experience or the human condition. He was making operas to entertain society at large, and striving to be a success in that context. He was catering to a sophisticated, educated, powerful elite ruling class. Just like Mahler and Schoenberg, he wanted to be a part of the wealthy, glamorous world he saw in the big urban centers. Just like Andy Warhol, he wanted to hang out with the rich and powerful, and do their portraits, and go to all the best parties.
> 
> The instrumental music is the soundtrack for a lifestyle and the backdrop for power.
> 
> This music did not concern itself with the human suffering outside those opulent halls; this was the music of the elite, who had escaped that suffering.
> 
> It wasn't until the Romantic period, with democracy on the rise, that music began to try to reflect an inner human state, rather than an ideology or the "lifestyles of the rich & famous."


It makes you wonder: could the Kardashians have kept up with Mozart?


----------



## ArtMusic

Kbmanonymous said:


> Why is Mozart's music considered so great and important. I was just reading on TheRestisNoise.com how the Morgan Library is beginning to put manuscripts of music online, one being Mozart's Haffner Symphony. No doubt he was a prodigy and of course during his time his music was "pop music" but to me all his music sounds the same. Although i will admit even though he is one of my least favorites i do have a reasonable collection of works by him that i listen to occasionally.


Frankly, because his masterpieces make up every classical music lover's listening experience with awe one way or another, and nothing newly composed now come remoetly close. So,what do we do? We go back to the past to Mozart, for example.


----------



## dgee

^^^

Thumbs up for the work rate Art, but that's a completely illogical response to a comment by someone not that fussed on Mozart. Pure and simple


----------



## hpowders

Different strokes for different folks. I prefer Haydn and consider "Him" to be a greater composer than Mozart, the latter I would only address as "him"

So arrest me!!! :lol::lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Woodduck said:


> It makes you wonder: could the Kardashians have kept up with Mozart?


No.

Unless of course they lived in a society constructed by the revolutionary catechism of Marxism.

Then, as Trotsky preaches in_ Literature and Revolution_: "The average type of person will ascend to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx; and above this ridge new peaks will rise."

The_ average _type.

That'd be a real hard class to teach. . . with or without Versace chic.


----------



## millionrainbows

The symphonic tradition, which started with Haydn and Mozart, and continued with Beethoven and Mahler, was the embodiment of 'absolute music,' which is music for music's sake; purely instrumental, structure oriented, untouched by extramusical elements, and with a purely aesthetic rather than social function. 

This music was the birth of 'art' music; music designed for silent contemplation, no dancing, no dinner. As such, it was designed as a 'religion' for the elite, for their sublime contemplation.


----------



## millionrainbows

Marschallin Blair said:


> No.
> 
> Unless of course they lived in a society constructed by the revolutionary catechism of Marxism.
> 
> Then, as Trotsky preaches in_ Literature and Revolution_: "The average type of person will ascend to the level of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx; and above this ridge new peaks will rise."
> 
> The_ average _type.
> 
> That'd be a real hard class to teach. . . with or without Versace chic.


Of course, capitalism has replaced the royal bourgeois of the past, and we have the rich, famous and powerful.

Capitalism is the new bourgeois, and it has turned music into a commodity. With recording technology, one man with a guitar (Bob Dylan) can be as powerful as a Mozart symphony, and on a far smaller budget.

Thus, no teaching is necessary; music of the folk, which originates from its roots, speaks of their concerns, is once more elevated to equal status and power to move with 'art' music, which has taken a decidedly downward turn since the 20th century started.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Of course, capitalism has replaced the royal bourgeois of the past, and we have the rich, famous and powerful.
> 
> Capitalism is the new bourgeois, and it has turned music into a commodity. With recording technology, one man with a guitar (Bob Dylan) can be as powerful as a Mozart symphony, and on a far smaller budget.
> 
> Thus, no teaching is necessary; music of the folk, which originates from its roots, speaks of their concerns, is once more elevated to equal status and power to move with 'art' music, which has taken a decidedly downward turn since the 20th century started.


So, generally, great art music went downhill the more freedom people got.


----------



## mtmailey

I say he is great because his music was not boring also he used most music textures that is loved by people.His music is rhythmatic at most.


----------



## shangoyal

I think Mozart and Beethoven are more popular than almost all other composers because they composed masterworks that appeal to the most basic emotional issues in us - they were not striving at creating novelties or extending the boundaries of music or excelling in one isolated aspect of composition (like orchestration, etc.) but in a way, "gave themselves" to the world through their music. I think even Bach falls behind them in this respect, even though he is the greatest of all.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> millionrainbows: Of course, capitalism has replaced the royal bourgeois of the past, and we have the rich, famous and powerful.


"Capitalism 101A: A Dialectic" by Marx O. Holic

Marschallin Blair: "See this dollar I'm holding in front of you? . . . You can't have it." <The dollar is put back into the pocket.>

Marxist: "I'm being oppressed."


----------



## Piwikiwi

millionrainbows said:


> The symphonic tradition, which started with Haydn and Mozart, and continued with Beethoven and Mahler, was the embodiment of 'absolute music,' which is music for music's sake; purely instrumental, structure oriented, untouched by extramusical elements, and with a purely aesthetic rather than social function.
> 
> This music was the birth of 'art' music; music designed for silent contemplation, no dancing, no dinner. As such, it was designed as a 'religion' for the elite, for their sublime contemplation.


Do you have any sources to back this claim up?


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> So, generally, great art music went downhill the more freedom people got.


No, it just got put on the same level playing field with other genres. After all, the empiric reality of that music is dead and gone; only its rhetoric and 'believers' remain.


----------



## millionrainbows

Bourgeois capitalist: "See this dollar I'm holding in front of you? . . . You can have it, for the ten dollar's worth of work you did for me."
Proletariat wage-slave: "I'm being oppressed."[/QUOTE]


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> millionrainbows:
> 
> Bourgeois capitalist: "See this dollar I'm holding in front of you? . . . You can have it, for the ten dollar's worth of work you did for me."
> 
> Proletariat wage-slave: "I'm being oppressed."


Marschallin Blair: "See this factory that I created with my money?-- I'll close it so that you won't be oppressed by the wages I provided; by the investment that you never made."

Marxist: "Yeah, it's called 'envy,' er, uh, I mean 'exploitation.'"


----------



## tomhh

Mozart pieces:simple and easy.


----------



## mikey

tomhh said:


> Mozart pieces:simple and easy.


Too simple for children, too difficult for artists.


----------



## Ferrariman601

Whatever the combination of elements it is that makes Mozart great, all I know is that he makes me laugh, he makes me cry, he puts me in a stupor that makes it impossible to do anything else but listen, he makes me wonder why I'm alive while also making me incredibly happy that I simply am - if there is a heaven, and if I shall go there someday, I am certain that, before I say hello to God, I will say "Hallo, und danke" to Mozart.


----------



## Pugg

He's just one of the greatest. :tiphat:
Don't need religion for that.:tiphat:


----------



## TxllxT

Ferrariman601 said:


> Whatever the combination of elements it is that makes Mozart great, all I know is that *he makes me laugh*, he makes me cry, he puts me in a stupor that makes it impossible to do anything else but listen, he makes me wonder why I'm alive while also making me incredibly happy that I simply am - if there is a heaven, and if I shall go there someday, I am certain that, before I say hello to God, I will say "Hallo, und danke" to Mozart.


You mean the famous Mozart giggle?


----------



## violadude

If you don't understand why Mozart was so great, just listen to some of his "lesser" contemporaries (Boccherini, Stamitz, Dittersdorf).


----------



## Morimur

violadude said:


> If you don't understand why Mozart was so great, just listen to some of his "lesser" contemporaries (Boccherini, Stamitz, Dittersdorf).


Dittersdorf...LOL!!!! 'Hi, my name is _Dittersdorf'_...BAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sorry about that. I sometimes revert to my middle school self.


----------

