# Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.



## Captainnumber36

Mine would have to be Bach. I can really love some Baroque music, and Bach's in particular, but sometimes I find his to be the least engaging for me. It's too focused on math, theory, and conceptualizing music for my tastes.


----------



## Woodduck

Duplicate post...


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart by far. Not that there's anything wrong with him. I just don't respond to the Classical sensibility as strongly as to the Baroque and the...well, the Beethovenian! (I give him a period unto himself, but maybe we can call it the Classimantic or the Romassical.)


----------



## Pugg

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mine would have to be Bach. I can really love some Baroque music, and Bach's in particular, but sometimes I find his to be the least engaging for me. It's too focused on math, theory, and conceptualizing music for my tastes.


I can't choose, sorry, like choosing between parents.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Pugg said:


> I can't choose, sorry, like choosing between parents.


It's ok, Pugg!  You don't have to.


----------



## Art Rock

Beethoven, clearly. Bach is my #1, Mozart would come in around #10, Beethoven around #20-30.

Beethoven for me is a strange mix of excellent works (symphonies 5+6, string quartets, lots of piano sonatas, violin concerto, piano concertos 3+4), but also works I never need to hear again, no matter how popular they are (symphony 9, triple concerto, cello sonatas, Missa solemnis).


----------



## Captainnumber36

Woodduck said:


> Mozart by far. Not that there's anything wrong with him! I just don't respond to the Classical sensibility as strongly as to the Baroque and the...well, the Beethovenian! (I give him a period unto himself, but maybe we can call it the Classimantic or the Romassical.)


I understand. Baroque Era Compositions are filled with strong pride (in a positive way) and love of god. But sometimes, and often, I find it too predictable. I also find Mozart quite predictable, moreso juvenilia, but it's got more variety than the Baroque I feel.

I totally agree with Beethoven having his own Era of his own, he is my favorite of the big three!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Art Rock said:


> Beethoven, clearly. Bach is my #1, Mozart would come in around #10, Beethoven around #20-30.
> 
> Beethoven for me is a strange mix of excellent works (symphonies 5+6, string quartets, lots of piano sonatas, violin concerto, piano concertos 3+4), but also works I never need to hear again, no matter how popular they are (symphony 9, triple concerto, cello sonatas, Missa solemnis).


My first comment is we got all three of them in the first three posts of this thread, :lol:. I've pretty much loved everything I've heard from Beethoven, so I couldn't be more opposite. But more power to you and your personal taste and convictions!


----------



## KenOC

I think this whole thing needs to be settled by a pugilistic contest. Sebastian "Big Boy" Bach, Amadeus "Kid Wolfie" Mozart, and the favorite, Ludwig "The Bonn Bruiser" Beethoven. I'll be handling the betting window. Odds will be posted shortly. Howard Cosell will call the action.


----------



## Bulldog

Bach by a large margin over Mozart who edges out Beethoven.


----------



## mmsbls

The answer for me is Bach, but in some sense that's misleading since these are my 3 favorite composers. I adore all three and feel each composed a staggering amount of wonderful music. To say I like Mozart and Beethoven more than Bach may be true, but the difference is insignificant compared to the joy I receive from all of them.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> Mozart by far. Not that there's anything wrong with him. I just don't respond to the Classical sensibility as strongly as to the Baroque and the...well, the Beethovenian!


Same here, and for the same reason; I'm not really a big fan of the Classical era in general. Don't get me wrong - I love Mozart, but that only goes to show just how much _more_ I esteem Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Pugg said:


> I can't choose, sorry, like choosing between parents.


You've got _three_ parents? Wow!!!


----------



## Jacck

I heard only a fraction of the output of all 3 composers, but I am going to pick *Mozart *as the least favorite. There is something in his music that sounds trivial, predictable and ultimately boring, something in his musical language or phrases. His music probably sounds more trivial than it in fact is - if I try to concentrate on the music and desentangle all the threads/voices, he used counterpoint and the music is in fact very complex and of high craftsmanship. It just sounds trivial on the surface level.


----------



## Enthusiast

I have moods where any and each of these three can be my _favourite_ so I couldn't come up with a least favourite that would be true for me all the time. They are so different from each other.


----------



## Mal

Beethoven said that Mozart, Bach, and Haydn were far greater composers than himself, that he'd learned everything from them, and that his works were unoriginal footnotes to their masterpieces. His lifelong ambition was to work for Prince Easterhazy, and he did play in his orchestra, as an intern at second violin, with no pay, for several years. Haydn had to frequently tell him to stop calling him "sir", and to stop apologising when asked to play with less inhibition and modesty. So Ludwig is my least favourite, mild mannered is OK, but he was just too much of a wimp.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I heard only a fraction of the output of all 3 composers, but I am going to pick *Mozart *as the least favorite. There is something in his music that sounds trivial, predictable and ultimately boring, something in his musical language or phrases. His music probably sounds more trivial than it in fact is - if I try to concentrate on the music and desentangle all the threads/voices, he used counterpoint and the music is in fact very complex and of high craftsmanship. It just sounds trivial on the surface level.


My thoughts entirely. The small amount of his music that I have more or less defines why I wasn't attracted to classical music. Apparently I have some great symphonies of his; I listen to them once in a blue moon but always feel the same. Twee.

At the other extreme, I find Bach's sonatas and partitas for solo violin to be some of the most profoundly beautiful works I have ever heard.


----------



## Kieran

I’ll go with Bach, partly because I’m least familiar with him, but also, from what I’ve heard, because I detest harpsichord music, and sometimes his concertos sound like simple minded harlequins having a noontime party while politely acting as if they all got drunk on a mug of chamomile tea. 

But I think if I listened more I’d like him, and place Beethoven last, because no matter how much I listen to Luigi, I can’t shake off fatigue from all that muscular effort he puts in. Sheesh, I say to him, just let that bass turd flow a little and stop interfering...


----------



## Boston Charlie

Beethoven is my main man; my eternal favorite in classical music since I was a teenager. I like the fact that while Beethoven is known for his heroism, his sense of struggle; there is a softer side to the genius from Bonn that often comes to the fore: say, the beautiful and "pastoral" Symphony #6 or the lovely slow movement of the Violin Concerto.

I like Bach for a few works; the Brandenburg Concertos, Orchestral Suites, Concerto for Violin and Oboe, Concerto for Two Violins, the solo works for violin or cello...

For years, Bach's religious works more-or-less mystified me; but I eventually learned to appreciate enjoy a handful of cantatas, the passions and the motets thanks mostly to HIP master Masaaki Suzuki. While I pretty much avoided Bach's religious works, as well as, HIP music for years, Masaaki Suzuki made me a believer on both counts. 

Be that as it may, I've come to enjoy the Rachmaninoff's Vespers/All-Night Vigil and the church music of Orlando Gibbons more than all the requiems, masses, passions and cantatas which exist throughout the rest of classical music, and that includes the works of Bach. 

I like Mozart for a handful of his orchestral works; the more popular symphonies, the violin concerts #4 & 5, the soothing, mellow yet still interesting clarinet concerto. I recently heard the beautiful horn concertos by Mozart on YouTube and liked it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

It would be Bach - mainly because though I esteem him on the highest level - much of his music is not what I would listen to

organ works
cantatas
harpsichord works
orch suites
passions (the math passion has one catchy tune on flute that keeps coming back and gets tiresome after the third reprise)

but the eternal works

solo violin
WTC
a handful of concertos
b minor mass

great as they are - there just are not enough of them


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bach. Although he was most responsible for showing what could be done with harmony, I don’t feel I need to be reminded, and prefer the most sophisticated forms by the time of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. My greatest joy with Bach was in learning his pieces back in the day.


----------



## Genoveva

A slight problem with this thread is that it's not clear whether people are talking about the "Big 3" as occupying Nos 1, 2, 3 in their preferences or Nos 4, 85, 134, to give admittedly rather extreme examples.

In my overall composer preferences, I place Mozart as my No 1 choice, with Beethoven and Bach in equal No 2 positions. Apart from generally liking much of their music, this choice is partly dictated by the fact that they are the ones I first began with and I feel some continued loyalty towards them. It's also partly because I recognise that they are widely considered to be the "greatest" composers, and I have tried to maintain my personal preferences in their direction.

I choose Mozart over Beethoven and Bach because I find Mozart's music has a very polished, faultless and "seamless" feel to it. I can also play some of Mozart's piano music after a fashion, and it's nice to play. I have also found that I can listen to lots of Mozart with less likelihood of fatigue setting in. In the case of Bach, I like a great deal of it but must admit that I find quite a lot of it to be very "samey". Harpsichord music doesn't appeal to me much, and nor does some organ music. With Beethoven, I appreciate the sense of drama he wonderfully imparts, and his really memorable themes, but I kind of get a bit weary of it after a while and yearn for something rather more poetic and easier going on the brain cells.

Although these composers occupy the top 3 spots, that's not say that I give any of them anything like that degree of attention. I like dozens of other composers, and I typically spend far more time listening to others rather than the top 3 combined. Also, the rate at which my preferences decline follows quite a slow decline, since I like Schubert, Brahms and Schumann almost as much as I do anyone in the top 3. Sometimes, I give all of the above mentioned composers a complete rest, and just listen to Medieval, or Renaissance, or 20th C music, minimalism and all.


----------



## Guest

I took the OP to mean: Given that these 3 are generally considered to be the Big 3; which of them is your least favourite?

I don't think one could ask on the basis they are everyone's Big 3. Personally they're not even in my Big 10.


----------



## Captainnumber36

dogen said:


> I took the OP to mean: Given that these 3 are generally considered to be the Big 3; which of them is your least favourite?
> 
> I don't think one could ask on the basis they are everyone's Big 3. Personally they're not even in my Big 10.


That is what I meant. Out of these three, who do you rank lowest!


----------



## Olias

The Enlightenment and subsequent Age of Revolution are my favorite periods in history to study, so my "big three" are Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Nothing against Bach, but I tend to prefer secular music and homophonic texture in the genres of music that developed after Bach (symphonies, opera buffa, string quartet, etc). Interestingly my favorite Bach work is the "Coffee" Cantata which was one of his secular works that resembles a one act opera buffa. Go figure.


----------



## Phil loves classical

i think the thread title is pretty clear: Least favourite of the “Big Three”, not Your Big 3. Bach is probably below #50 in my list, and only Mozart in my big 10. Saying nothing about greatness, or importance, of course.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Genoveva said:


> I choose Mozart over Beethoven and Bach because I find Mozart's music has a very polished, faultless and "seamless" feel to it.


I see what you mean, which is why I prefer Bach and Beethoven - their music seems to give me more to get my teeth into.


----------



## lele23

My ranking is:

3. Mozart
4. Bach
5. Beethoven 

after

1. Haydn
2. Messiaen


----------



## Genoveva

Captainnumber36 said:


> That is what I meant. Out of these three, who do you rank lowest!


I know what you meant, and all I was saying is that if all three are ranked low it may be difficult to talk about the least liked.

I have looked at loads of poll data at TC asking about favourite composers, and very often people have said that they can't rank the composers at all, and some have said they can only do so with much difficulty after the top few.

It's not a big deal, as I thought I made clear.


----------



## mmsbls

Genoveva said:


> A slight problem with this thread is that it's not clear whether people are talking about the "Big 3" as occupying Nos 1, 2, 3 in their preferences or Nos 4, 85, 134, to give admittedly rather extreme examples.


When I first came to TC, I assumed that most members would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart their top 3 composers. Obviously that's not the case, and I soon learned more about members tastes and feelings towards the Big 3. Still what surprises me is how few members view Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart as their top 3. In one major TC poll only one other member and myself placed them 1,2,3. Since that poll a few other members have indicated such a preference, but it appears quite rare for members to view the Big 3 as their Big 3.


----------



## larold

I've sung music for 60 years, collected recordings and gone to concerts for 50 years, and cannot imagine anyone saying any of these three are the "least" of anything. They are so much better than whomever is in 4th, 5th, 85th and 200th place in the classical music pantheon as to defy description.

However, I would say that, in terms of learning and performing their music, Mozart is a breeze, Beethoven can be very difficult, and Bach can be brutally difficult. This, to me, is another reason Mozart is the greatest genius: his music is so simple yet so wonderful, so filled with light and shade yet driven by blood, thunder and lightning when necessary.


----------



## Genoveva

mmsbls said:


> When I first came to TC, I assumed that most members would consider Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart their top 3 composers. Obviously that's not the case, and I soon learned more about members tastes and feelings towards the Big 3. Still what surprises me is how few members view Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart as their top 3. *In one major TC* poll only one other member and myself placed them 1,2,3. Since that poll a few other members have indicated such a preference, but it appears quite rare for members to view the Big 3 as their Big 3.


You refer to previous "favourite composer" polls at T-C. I hope that what I set out below isn't seen as a distraction to this thread, as it's not intended be, but rather to present a slightly wider perspective on the "numbers" side of things regarding the order of preferences.

You may recall that I was involved in the last "big" favourite composer poll carried out in 2016, which another member started but left soon after. I stepped in and carried out the analysis. That particular poll requested people to list their "top 10" composers in rank order. There were 83 valid responses. Of those, only 6 members listed Beethoven, Bach, Mozart as their top 3. However, 34 members included these three composers somewhere in their top 10.

Since that time, I have extended this analysis to include the results of 5 previous favourite composer polls going back to 2009 that were carried out on a similar basis, i.e. involving a list of favourites, whether 20, 25 or in one case 100. Some members voted in more than one poll. When this occurred I took the member's latest set of preferences for their top 10. This aggregation across the six polls gave a net total of 241 valid responses altogether. Of these, 38 members (16%) included Beethoven, Bach, Mozart as their top 3. In total there were 118 members (49%) who included these three somewhere in their top 10.

Based on the results overall for the six polls, the highest number of votes went to Beethoven (180), next was Bach (165), Mozart (156). These three composers accounted for 21% of all the votes cast across all composers. The most frequent set of preferences was, in order top down, Beethoven, Bach, Mozart. The next most frequent was Bach, Beethoven, Mozart.

Therefore, based on poll data across a fairly large sample of T-C members over the past 9 years it would appear to be the case that Mozart is the least "liked" of the Big 3. The question "why" is of course left unanswered by poll data alone.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Nice question....

I would place Mozart 3rd of those three.
Beethoven, to my mind, is unassailable. He left music in a quite different place to where he found it.
Bach, even though I'm not a fan of music of that period, I can appreciate for his innovation and structural finesse.
Mozart is fascinating in this respect. He wrote a great deal of appealing, engaging music, some of it when he was absurdly young. But the nagging doubt I have always had about M is that he wrote from a quite narrow palette. M's music is immediately recognisable - the familiar phrasing, ornaments, cadences - as he uses the same rather limited techniques to craft a wide range of music. Some might say that's a sign of real genius. I don't.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Genoveva said:


> I know what you meant, and all I was saying is that if all three are ranked low it may be difficult to talk about the least liked.
> 
> I have looked at loads of poll data at TC asking about favourite composers, and very often people have said that they can't rank the composers at all, and some have said they can only do so with much difficulty after the top few.
> 
> It's not a big deal, as I thought I made clear.


I'm not attempting to conduct statistical analysis. I feel you are very driven by structure and logic, which is fine and good, but sometimes it's ok to be less organized.

This thread is meant for fun, not science!


----------



## Captainnumber36

larold said:


> I've sung music for 60 years, collected recordings and gone to concerts for 50 years, and cannot imagine anyone saying any of these three are the "least" of anything. They are so much better than whomever is in 4th, 5th, 85th and 200th place in the classical music pantheon as to defy description.
> 
> However, I would say that, in terms of learning and performing their music, Mozart is a breeze, Beethoven can be very difficult, and Bach can be brutally difficult. This, to me, is another reason Mozart is the greatest genius: his music is so simple yet so wonderful, so filled with light and shade yet driven by blood, thunder and lightning when necessary.


Hey, you stated who your favorite of the three is (Mozart?), I think, not least!


----------



## Robert Gamble

Since the question is 'least favorite' this is pretty easy. Bach by a mile. Don't get me wrong, some of his works I really enjoy in small to moderate sized chunks, for instance the Cello Suites. But in general I just don't take the Baroque style as much as I do later styles.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Pat Fairlea said:


> Nice question....
> 
> I would place Mozart 3rd of those three.
> Beethoven, to my mind, is unassailable. He left music in a quite different place to where he found it.
> Bach, even though I'm not a fan of music of that period, I can appreciate for his innovation and structural finesse.
> Mozart is fascinating in this respect. He wrote a great deal of appealing, engaging music, some of it when he was absurdly young. But the nagging doubt I have always had about M is that he wrote from a quite narrow palette. M's music is immediately recognisable - the familiar phrasing, ornaments, cadences - as he uses the same rather limited techniques to craft a wide range of music. Some might say that's a sign of real genius. I don't.


I agree with your sentiments. I won't go into detail, but I find the term Genius unnecessary. I find the repetition rather annoying, to be honest.

But, Mozart has composed some of my favorite works as well.


----------



## larold

<<Therefore, based on poll data across a fairly large sample of T-C members over the past 9 years it would appear to be the case that Mozart is the least "liked" of the Big 3. The question "why" is of course left unanswered by poll data alone. >>

I'd say your assessment accurate. As to "why" Mozart? Probably because people that think of him as feminine or less dramatic than the other two don't know all his music. No one that knows Don Giovanni, the C Minor Mass or Requiem mass, or even Thamos of Egypt or a well-done version of the "Haffner" serenade would reach such a conclusion. While it is relatively easy to find and hear the greatest music of Bach and Beethoven, in my opinion it takes more searching to do same with Mozart.


----------



## Captainnumber36

larold said:


> <<Therefore, based on poll data across a fairly large sample of T-C members over the past 9 years it would appear to be the case that Mozart is the least "liked" of the Big 3. The question "why" is of course left unanswered by poll data alone. >>
> 
> I'd say your assessment accurate. As to "why" Mozart? Probably because people that think of him as feminine or less dramatic than the other two don't know all his music. No one that knows Don Giovanni, the C Minor Mass or Requiem mass, or even Thamos of Egypt or a well-done version of the "Haffner" serenade would reach such a conclusion. While it is relatively easy to find and hear the greatest music of Bach and Beethoven, *in my opinion it takes more searching to do same with Mozart*.


I think this is true. I still have to do some searching. So far I love his piano sonatas (almost all of them are great, if not all of them), symphonies 38-41 (I haven't heard them all, so there may be some earlier ones I love as well).


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Mozart by far. Not that there's anything wrong with him. I just don't respond to the Classical sensibility as strongly as to the Baroque and the...well, the Beethovenian! (I give him a period unto himself, but maybe we can call it the Classimantic or the Romassical.)


Same. And I think the 'big 3' are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms anyway.


----------



## PlaySalieri

larold said:


> I've sung music for 60 years, collected recordings and gone to concerts for 50 years, and cannot imagine anyone saying any of these three are the "least" of anything. They are so much better than whomever is in 4th, 5th, 85th and 200th place in the classical music pantheon as to defy description.
> 
> However, I would say that, in terms of learning and performing their music, *Mozart is a breeze*, Beethoven can be very difficult, and Bach can be brutally difficult. This, to me, is another reason Mozart is the greatest genius: his music is so simple yet so wonderful, so filled with light and shade yet driven by blood, thunder and lightning when necessary.


While this is true technically - it is not so straighforward.
In an interview Brendel said that a performer's interpretation is more exposed when there are fewer notes, as in Mozart sonatas etc. 
Think about the middle mvt of k467 - simple - but easy to make a complete hash of.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Christabel said:


> Same. And I think the 'big 3' are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms anyway.


not according to all the poll data

but you are entitled to your own preference


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pat Fairlea said:


> Nice question....
> 
> I would place Mozart 3rd of those three.
> Beethoven, to my mind, is unassailable. He left music in a quite different place to where he found it.
> Bach, even though I'm not a fan of music of that period, I can appreciate for his innovation and structural finesse.
> Mozart is fascinating in this respect. He wrote a great deal of appealing, engaging music, some of it when he was absurdly young. But the nagging doubt I have always had about M is that he wrote from a quite narrow palette. M's music is immediately recognisable - the familiar phrasing, ornaments, cadences - as he uses the same rather limited techniques to craft a wide range of music. Some might say that's a sign of real genius. I don't.


You are entitled to your view.

But in all your comments I disagree.

Mozart had tremendous range in every respect. You only, for example, need to listen to two contrasting piano concertos to hear a sample of it K466 and K488.

if Mozart's music is recognizable it's only because it has had so much exposure.


----------



## larold

<<Same. And I think the 'big 3' are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms anyway....not according to all the poll data but you are entitled to your own preference.>>

Ditto, Brahms came in No. 4 on my survey a polnt or two ahead of Nos. 5-7 but way behind the big three.


----------



## larold

<<Hey, you stated who your favorite of the three is (Mozart?), I think, not least! >>

I said I thought Mozart the "greatest genius;" I didn't say he was my favorite. I don't have a favorite among the Big 3 and probably play Beethoven the least. But that's not saying anything about any of them.


----------



## Star

stomanek said:


> While this is true technically - it is not so straighforward.
> In an interview Brendel said that a performer's interpretation is more exposed when there are fewer notes, as in Mozart sonatas etc.
> Think about the middle mvt of k467 - simple - but easy to make a complete hash of.


The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists.

(Arthur Schnabel)


----------



## Star

I saw Cosi fan Tutte last night and was once again struck with the staggeringly effortless genius, the strikingly subtle way emotion is conveyed and the amazing number of memorable tunes. Was WAM the greatest? Well, we can safely say there was no-one greater.


----------



## jdec

Christabel said:


> Same. And I think the 'big 3' are Bach, Beethoven and Brahms anyway.


The 3 B's? yes. 
The 3 big Germans? yes. 
The 3 greatest ever? No. You obviously have to replace Brahms with Mozart here, as great as Brahms is.


----------



## jdec

Star said:


> The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists.
> 
> (Arthur Schnabel)


"The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen."

- Wanda Landowska


----------



## jdec




----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> You are entitled to your view.
> 
> But in all your comments I disagree.
> 
> Mozart had tremendous range in every respect. You only, for example, need to listen to two contrasting piano concertos to hear a sample of it K466 and K488.
> 
> if Mozart's music is recognizable it's only because it has had so much exposure.


He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?

I need to explore more Mozart, for sure.


----------



## Haydn man

A few months it would have been an easy choice, Bach was my least favourite of the three.
Now, having listened to Bach much more, the decision is getting more difficult. 
It is probably still Bach but in race horse parlance 'only by a short head'


----------



## jdec

My least favorite of the 3, which doesn't mean I don't love him, is Bach.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> I need to explore more Mozart, for sure.


Come on - he was experimenting and evolving as a child.
Beethoven must have destroyed his juvenelia or you would be saying the same.
Nevertheless - many of Mozart's works written before age 20 are great works, sy 25, the violin concerti and more.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Haydn man said:


> A few months it would have been an easy choice, Bach was my least favourite of the three.
> Now, having listened to Bach much more, the decision is getting more difficult. It is probably still Bach but in race horse parlance 'only by a short head'


If you aren't familiar with the _Passacaglia & Fugue in C minor_, an astonishing early work by Bach, do check it out. You may find that Bach moves up the field a bit


----------



## PlaySalieri

jdec said:


> The 3 B's? yes.
> The 3 big Germans? yes.
> The 3 greatest ever? No. You obviously have to replace Brahms with Mozart here, as great as Brahms is.


Brahms is great but what does his life's work amount to?

4 great symphonies
1 great movement of a violin concerto (mvts 2 and 3 are 2nd rate by comparison)
half a dozen great chamber pieces
no opera
1 mass
2 great piano concertos
1 great double con
a pile of solo piano music
some lieder

have I missed much? + oh a pair of decent overtures.

Doesnt really compare well with Mozart's life work.

Brahms himself said he was inferior to Mozart.


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> I need to explore more Mozart, for sure.


I would disagree, but I'd need Beethoven and Bach's juvenilia to compare them, side by side. This might only go one way though. 

Lately I've gotten absorbed in Idomeneo, and I stack this one up against anything, more or less ever, as proof of this man's boundless and intense inspiration, organisation, ability to compose huge swathes of original and innovative music in limited spaces of time - and this was composed when he was 24.

He still had the most productive decade in the known history of music ahead of him.

But as you say, you need to explore him more - just like I need to explore Bach more. I have to get over the harpsichord hump. I need to stop thinking of merrie morris dancers leaping around a barbers pole while genteel harp strings are plucked. I got into his cello suites a few months back and these are literally like cello accompanied by cello-suites, they're so virtuoso and intense. His Goldberg variations too. But he's a vast output, like Mozart has, and it's difficult to find the time. But for this reason only, he's (temporarily) my third.

I'm open for recommendations for Bach...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> I would disagree, but I'd need Beethoven and Bach's juvenilia to compare them, side by side. This might only go one way though.
> 
> Lately I've gotten absorbed in Idomeneo, and I stack this one up against anything, more or less ever, as proof of this man's boundless and intense inspiration, organisation, ability to compose huge swathes of original and innovative music in limited spaces of time - and this was composed when he was 24.
> 
> He still had the most productive decade in the known history of music ahead of him.
> 
> But as you say, you need to explore him more - just like I need to explore Bach more. I have to get over the harpsichord hump. I need to stop thinking of merrie morris dancers leaping around a barbers pole while genteel harp strings are plucked. I got into his cello suites a few months back and these are literally like cello accompanied by cello-suites, they're so virtuoso and intense. His Goldberg variations too. But he's a vast output, like Mozart has, and it's difficult to find the time. But for this reason only, he's (temporarily) my third.
> 
> I'm open for recommendations for Bach...


harpsichord

unbearable instrument - think that before pf was invented classical audiences had to endure 2 centuries of two skeletons copulating on a tin roof for their musical edification.


----------



## Kieran

stomanek said:


> Brahms is great but what does his life's work amount to?
> 
> 4 great symphonies
> 1 great movement of a violin concerto (mvts 2 and 3 are 2nd rate by comparison)
> half a dozen great chamber pieces
> no opera
> 1 mass
> 2 great piano concertos
> 1 great double con
> a pile of solo piano music
> some lieder
> 
> have I missed much? + oh a pair of decent overtures.
> 
> Doesnt really compare well with Mozart's life work.
> 
> Brahms himself said he was inferior to Mozart.


He has that beautiful requiem, but yeah, I doubt there'd be many takers for having him among the 3 greatest composers that we know of. For me, Schubert is maybe the closest to nudging his way in, but I'd still give Beethoven the nod over him...


----------



## Kieran

stomanek said:


> harpsichord
> 
> unbearable instrument - think that before pf was invented classical audiences had to ensure 2 centuries of two skeletons copulating on a tin roof for their musical edification.


It's a miracle that keyboard music survived the harpsichord... :lol:


----------



## tdc

Bach is my favorite of the three (and my favorite composer) by a good margin. If I was attempting to estimate 'greatness' I would place Mozart in second place and I think he was close to as great as Bach (in my personal favorite list he is no. 5). Beethoven is my least favorite of the three.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Come on - he was experimenting and evolving as a child.
> Beethoven must have destroyed his juvenelia or you would be saying the same.
> Nevertheless - many of Mozart's works written before age 20 are great works, sy 25, the violin concerti and more.


_But_, the majority of his best work is after age 20...?

I'd be interested in listening to some Mozart recommendations! 
First on the list is symphony 25!


----------



## Barbebleu

Jacck said:


> I heard only a fraction of the output of all 3 composers, but I am going to pick *Mozart *as the least favorite. There is something in his music that sounds trivial, predictable and ultimately boring, something in his musical language or phrases. His music probably sounds more trivial than it in fact is - if I try to concentrate on the music and desentangle all the threads/voices, he used counterpoint and the music is in fact very complex and of high craftsmanship. It just sounds trivial on the surface level.


This is a bold statement. Watch out for DavidA pouncing!:lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> _But_, the majority of his best work is after age 20...?
> 
> I'd be interested in listening to some Mozart recommendations!
> First on the list is symphony 25!


do it quickly - you will be blown away.


----------



## KenOC

Kieran said:


> I would disagree, but I'd need Beethoven and Bach's juvenilia to compare them, side by side. This might only go one way though.


A fair amount of Beethoven's work from the time is was 12 or 13 years old survives. See especially the Dressler Variations, the "electoral" piano sonatas, and the three "juvenile" piano quartets. Here's a little ditty he wrote in Bonn at age 19. 






Listen to the soprano aria at 13:12! This boy had been listening to his Mozart, for sure.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> do it quickly - you will be blown away.


I've heard this one before! It is fantastic. One of the better ones.

Give me more awesome Mozart!

As I said, I love the Piano Sonatas (all of them) Symphonies 38-41 and now 25. What am I missing?


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Brahms is great but what does his life's work amount to?
> 
> 4 great symphonies
> 1 great movement of a violin concerto (mvts 2 and 3 are 2nd rate by comparison)
> half a dozen great chamber pieces
> no opera
> 1 mass
> 2 great piano concertos
> 1 great double con
> a pile of solo piano music
> some lieder
> 
> have I missed much? + oh a pair of decent overtures.
> 
> Doesnt really compare well with Mozart's life work.
> 
> Brahms himself said he was inferior to Mozart.


Respectfully, this proves nothing stomanek.


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've heard this one before! It is fantastic. One of the better ones.
> 
> Give me more awesome Mozart!
> 
> As I said, I love the Piano Sonatas (all of them) Symphonies 38-41 and now 25. What am I missing?


***cough*** Idomeneo.

9th and 10 PC's. According to Brendel, the 9th PC is one of the wonders of the world, no less.

There's a helluva lot of stuff to recommend...


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> ...but I am going to pick *Mozart *as the least favorite. There is something in his music that sounds trivial, predictable and ultimately boring, something in his musical language or phrases. His music probably sounds more trivial than it in fact is - if I try to concentrate on the music and desentangle all the threads/voices, he used counterpoint and the music is in fact very complex and of high craftsmanship. It just sounds trivial on the surface level.


Indeed, his use of a rather limited (and often repeated) harmonic language, especially in the cadences, is obvious to my ears. There is no denying his genius though.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> ***cough*** Idomeneo.
> 
> 9th and 10 PC's. According to Brendel, the 9th PC is one of the wonders of the world, no less.
> 
> There's a helluva lot of stuff to recommend...


The entirety of Idomeneo? I'm listening to the overture now, at least, and it's really good!


----------



## Phil loves classical

I like Mozart above the other 2 just by some of his unique works that nobody can truly mimic. His Piano Concertos 9, 17, 21, 22, 27 (last 2 my fav's). His Symphony 39 has the most lasting appeal to me, which Walter excelled in. There are arias and other moments in Marriage of Figaro, Don G, Cosi that convinces me he is the voice of God, as in the movie inspiring my avatar and signature. I truly think Bach and Beethoven are more monumental, and more consistent in quality and innovation throughout their careers but that is not as important to me.


----------



## janxharris

Regarding Mozart and his clichés:

Symphony 23, 1st movement:





Symphony 40, 4th movement:


----------



## Jacck

Captainnumber36 said:


> _But_, the majority of his best work is after age 20...?
> I'd be interested in listening to some Mozart recommendations!
> First on the list is symphony 25!


I am very far from being an expert on Mozart, but I enjoyed most his
* sinfonia concertante (that was a favorite work of Einstein, by the way)
* his 6 string quintets
* his string quartets, especially the Haydn quartets

by the way, I feel that if you want to understand the musical soul of a composer, go to the essence and heart of his music, study his string quartets. It is very interesting to compare the string quartets of Mozart and Haydn. Both are genius. I will also add that the string quartets redeemed Mozart in my eyes as a composer. Before, I regarded him mostly as a composer of boring cliché music, but the quartets showed me his genius and I appreciate him much more now.


----------



## jdec

janxharris said:


> Regarding Mozart and his clichés:
> 
> Symphony 23, 1st movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symphony 40, 4th movement:


Non sense.

......


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> Give me more awesome Mozart!


A lot to recommend, but going one at a time... have you listened to Sinfonia Concertante?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I like Mozart above the other 2 just by some of his unique works that nobody can truly mimic. His Piano Concertos 9, 17, 21, 22, 27 (last 2 my fav's). His Symphony 39 has the most lasting appeal to me, which Walter excelled in. There are arias and other moments in Marriage of Figaro, Don G, Cosi that convinces me he is the voice of God, as in the movie inspiring my avatar and signature. I truly think Bach and Beethoven are more monumental, and more consistent in quality and innovation throughout their careers but that is not as important to me.


That's a good point, Phil. Mozart may have been less consistent, but his greatest works truly shine high above.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> A lot to recommend, but going one at a time... have you listened to Sinfonia Concertante?


No, I haven't. I just put this version on!


----------



## Jacck

and then you can try the quintets





BTW: if you want to hear what I consider a typical Mozart cliché, you can hear it at 2:38-2:43


----------



## T Son of Ander

I have to go with Beethoven as my least favorite. When I was in my 20s, I would have said he was my favorite, but as the decades go on, I listen to him less and less. He has some great stuff, absolutely no question, but I'm just not drawn to him anymore.

Of the three, Mozart is my favorite, though Bach is the one I hold in the highest esteem.


----------



## Blancrocher

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've heard this one before! It is fantastic. One of the better ones.
> 
> Give me more awesome Mozart!
> 
> As I said, I love the Piano Sonatas (all of them) Symphonies 38-41 and now 25. What am I missing?


The piano concertos, starting at around 17. Prepare for your heart to stop at every slow movement. Breathtaking music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Jacck said:


> and then you can try the quintets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: if you want to hear what I consider a typical Mozart cliché, you can hear it at 2:38-2:43


I know what you are talking about, and usually that type of conclusion to a phrase in his music is a trill, correct?


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm enjoying the Paris Symphony No. 31 by Mozart!


----------



## Aiwendil

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've heard this one before! It is fantastic. One of the better ones.
> 
> Give me more awesome Mozart!
> 
> As I said, I love the Piano Sonatas (all of them) Symphonies 38-41 and now 25. What am I missing?


Symphony No. 29 is another very good one. The Requiem is awfully good, if you haven't heard that. I'm rather fond of the clarinet concerto. And of the string quartets, I really like "The Hunt".


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> harpsichord
> 
> unbearable instrument - think that before pf was invented classical audiences had to endure 2 centuries of two skeletons copulating on a tin roof for their musical edification.


Your bias in favor of Mozart's music seems to have no limits. That's fine; my bias is for Bach's music and the harpsichord.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm enjoying the Paris Symphony No. 31 by Mozart!


Don't forget to check the "Haffner" (no 35) and the "Linz" (no 36) too.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Is there any alien involvement in this thread...........?


----------



## Captainnumber36

Aiwendil said:


> Symphony No. 29 is another very good one. The Requiem is awfully good, if you haven't heard that. I'm rather fond of the clarinet concerto. And of the string quartets, I really like "The Hunt".


I've heard the Requiem.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Mozart, for a very obvious, albeit unfair reason: his career was cut off prematurely by his death just as he was showing a greater maturity and depth, with works such as the Requiem and Don Giovanni. With another 20 years of life he would easily have surpassed both Beethoven and Bach.


----------



## Bulldog

In celestial terms, I kind of feel that Mozart glides through heaven while Bach is in command of heaven. As for Beethoven, he's not allowed in heaven so he's Lucifer's top musician.


----------



## DBLee

At the present moment, I suppose I would say Bach. But there have been times in my life when he was my clear favorite of the three, and I wouldn't be shocked to see him regain that position someday.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

definitely Beethoven. The appeal of many or most of his works isn't something I really understand very well anymore, even though I liked his music when I was little.


----------



## trazom

janxharris said:


> Regarding Mozart and his clichés:
> 
> Symphony 23, 1st movement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symphony 40, 4th movement:





Jacck said:


> BTW: if you want to hear what I consider a typical Mozart cliché, you can hear it at 2:38-2:43


These musical clichés aren't Mozart's, though. More like late 18th century and early 19th century clichés. The first post I'm guessing is referring to the Mannheim rocket, which a lot of composers used, including Beethoven in his first piano sonata and the scherzo of his 5th symphony. The first link is actually Mozart's 25th symphony, not the 23rd. And that phrase from the string quintet, I've heard similar phrases from all the Viennese Classicists as late as one of the variations in Schubert's "Death and the Maiden quartet."


----------



## poconoron

Love all 3, but perhaps Bach as least favorite mainly because I don't quite care as much for baroque as I do the classical period.


----------



## janxharris

trazom said:


> These musical clichés aren't Mozart's, though. More like late 18th century and early 19th century clichés. The first post I'm guessing is referring to the Mannheim rocket, which a lot of composers used, including Beethoven in his first piano sonata and the scherzo of his 5th symphony. The first link is actually Mozart's 25th symphony, not the 23rd. And that phrase from the string quintet, I've heard similar phrases from all the Viennese Classicists as late as one of the variations in Schubert's "Death and the Maiden quartet."


Yes, sorry, the 25th symphony. You are right, the clichés aren't restricted to Mozart but, nonetheless, they remain objectionable to some. I do acknowledge Mozart's genius.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Respectfully, this proves nothing stomanek.


It proves he composed relatively little of top class music compared with Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I've heard this one before! It is fantastic. One of the better ones.
> 
> Give me more awesome Mozart!
> 
> As I said, I love the Piano Sonatas (all of them) Symphonies 38-41 and now 25. *What am I missing?*


Too many to mention.

As for Idomeneo - for a beginner I would listen to the other 5 great operas first - Idomeneo is quite a challenge.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> It proves he composed relatively little of top class music compared with Mozart.


I think we are all merely voicing opinions aren't we?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Yes, sorry, the 25th symphony. You are right, the clichés aren't restricted to Mozart but, nonetheless, they remain objectionable to some. *I do acknowledge Mozart's genius.*


well Brahms has cliche's too

he ends most of his orch works in exactly the same way - huge thundering chords with a fat overblown chord at the end, of the type Karajan wanted to last forever.

If you dont like Mozart you dont like it.

the nonsense you have talked makes it clear you do not acknowledge Mozart's genius


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I think we are all merely voicing opinions aren't we?


perhaps

but the poll data compiled at TC regularly places Brahms at no 5 or 6 - below Schubert but above Haydn


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> well Brahms has cliche's too
> 
> he ends most of his orch works in exactly the same way - huge thundering chords with a fat overblown chord at the end, of the type Karajan wanted to last forever.
> 
> If you dont like Mozart you dont like it.
> 
> the nonsense you have talked makes it clear you do not acknowledge Mozart's genius


Pretty inflammatory and unnecessary language stomanek.

I do find much of Mozart unlistenable, yes - but the first two movements of his 40th Symphony I find pretty stunning and various other pieces.

This doesn't have to be a fight.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> perhaps
> 
> but the poll data compiled at TC regularly places Brahms at no 5 or 6 - below Schubert but above Haydn


And?
.......................................


----------



## Star

stomanek said:


> well Brahms has cliche's too
> 
> he ends most of his orch works in exactly the same way - huge thundering chords with a fat overblown chord at the end, of the type Karajan wanted to last forever.
> 
> If you dont like Mozart you dont like it.
> 
> the nonsense you have talked makes it clear you do not acknowledge Mozart's genius


Hey calm down man! If someone doesn't like Mozart that's their loss not ours!


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> Pretty inflammatory and unnecessary language stomanek.
> 
> I do find much of Mozart unlistenable, yes - but the first two movements of his 40th Symphony I find pretty stunning and various other pieces.
> 
> This doesn't have to be a fight.


Using a term like 'unlistenable' to someone like Mozart boggles the mind! í ½í¸


----------



## janxharris

Star said:


> Using a term like 'unlistenable' to someone like Mozart boggles the mind! ������


It's the over used repeated chord progressions and tonic/dominant harmony that spoil it for me. On the plus side I'd put the first movement of his 40th in my top twenty.


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> It's the over used repeated chord progressions and tonic/dominant harmony that spoil it for me. On the plus side I'd put the first movement of his 40th in my top twenty.


 Is this the same Mozart as I listen to?


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> It proves he composed relatively little of top class music compared with Mozart.


There is no such proof. The personal preferences expressed on this thread and in TC polls prove nothing.


----------



## janxharris

Star said:


> Is this the same Mozart as I listen to?


I haven't heard all he wrote. 
I respect your love of Mozart, Star.


----------



## janxharris

Bulldog said:


> There is no such proof. The personal preferences expressed on this thread and in TC polls prove nothing.


Indeed............................


----------



## larold

<<He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?>>

I would agree Mozart was the king of the repeat. His Serenade No. 10 has as many as 30 repeats in the score. I once heard Stokowski lead his Symphony 35 without repeats; it was over in 15 minutes. I would say Bach and Beethoven also used repeats but not to the extent they stand out in some of Wolfgang's scores.


----------



## PlaySalieri

larold said:


> <<He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?>>
> 
> I would agree Mozart was the king of the repeat. His Serenade No. 10 has as many as 30 repeats in the score. I once heard Stokowski lead his Symphony 35 without repeats; it was over in 15 minutes. I would say Bach and Beethoven also used repeats but not to the extent they stand out in some of Wolfgang's scores.


Mozart rarely repeats material without some kind of variation - there is always a sound musical rationale behind the repeat and when we're talking about Mozart - it's usually worth repeating.
I used to think the 1st mvt of the prague was packed with too oft repeated motifs until I actually bothered to listen carefully for this and was surprised that themes I previously thought came back a dozen times appeared on just 2 or 3 occasions in 15 minutes.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> There is no such proof. The personal preferences expressed on this thread and in TC polls prove nothing.


maybe and maybe not

the polls seem to be remarkably consistent and appear to support my view that Mozart is held in higher esteem than Brahms at any rate.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> There is no such proof. The personal preferences expressed on this thread and in TC polls prove nothing.


dont make me put together a list of their major works


----------



## PlaySalieri

Star said:


> Is this the same Mozart as I listen to?


There are views like this aplenty on TC - we just dont hear them often. Many atonal people shun Mozart - but they seem to have enough respect and knowledge to make brazen ill informed statements about the music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> and then you can try the quintets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: if you want to hear what I consider a typical Mozart cliché, you can hear it at 2:38-2:43


That beautiful but brief passage is part of a transition from one mood to another more dramatic section of this movement - seamlessly done with taste and style.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> There are views like this aplenty on TC - we just dont hear them often. Many atonal people shun Mozart - but they seem to have enough respect and knowledge to make brazen ill informed statements about the music.


It is not brazen or ill informed to express a negative opinion regarding any composer stomanek and nobody has a monopoly on what constitutes great music.

I accept that Mozart is generally considered one of the best composers by most of those who enjoy classical music.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> There are views like this aplenty on TC - we just dont hear them often. Many atonal people shun Mozart - but they seem to have enough respect and knowledge to make brazen ill informed statements about the music.


This thread is about opinion, not about being informed. Opinions are subjective, personal assessments. Positions in charts, sales of CDs, numbers of performances etc etc etc are, of course, all objective information; which has absolutely zero to do with our own opinions of what we hear. This seems a difficult concept for some people to grasp.


----------



## Bluecrab

dogen said:


> This thread is about opinion... This seems a difficult concept for some people to grasp.


For some, difficult. For others, as this thread evinces, apparently impossible.


----------



## PlaySalieri

dogen said:


> This thread is about opinion, not about being informed. Opinions are subjective, personal assessments. Positions in charts, sales of CDs, numbers of performances etc etc etc are, of course, all objective information; which has absolutely zero to do with our own opinions of what we hear. This seems a difficult concept for some people to grasp.


agreed. but some opinions step over the line, for example, the statement

"I cant stand Mozart because his music is full of chord progressions"

with this statement we at least need to understand what chord progressions are, what their place in music is and whether Mozart's music is indeed "full" of them.

"I dont like Mozart's music because it is predictable and full of cliche's"

a similar line of enquiry is required with this statement.

"I dont like Mozart because I find it dull"

no enquiry required at all.

From what I have observed - most of the technical reasons people give for not liking Mozart are incorrect and I only ever question someone's preference when they make what I think is a statement based on a false premise or underpinned by untrue observations.


----------



## Manxfeeder

stomanek said:


> From what I have observed - most of the technical reasons people give for not liking Mozart are incorrect and I only ever question someone's preference when they make what I think is a statement based on a false premise or underpinned by untrue observations.


I should gingerly step in and add that of the three, I would give up Mozart. But that's not a statement of any lack in Mozart; it's just that Bach and Beethoven have more moments which grab me.

I also realize that I would be giving up the quintets, the piano concertos, the Da Ponte operas, some string quartets, some piano sonatas, the late symphonies, some violin concertos, the clarinet concerto and quintet, and a few sacred works.

Shucks. That's not good.

If it helps remediate me, because my grandkids are learning about classical music, yesterday I chose to introduce them to the Et Incarnatus Est from the Great Mass in C. And they in turn told me about his scatological humor.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> a similar line of enquiry is required with this statement..


I don't think any line of enquiry is necessary to justify one's subjective judgement of Mozart's music. I have no musical education to argue with precise language where exactly Mozart's music contains clichés and repetitions. I just know that there is some element in his music, which I find not that pleasant and it is a great pity, because he was no doubt a great composer. And it is not about the epoch. I can enjoy Haydn or Mysliveček and do not find the unpleasant elements in their music. Mozart's music does not seem that personal or intimate as the music of Beethoven or Schubert, and does not evoke the same deep emotions. It sounds superficial, like a collection musical clichés from the period.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> I don't think any line of enquiry is necessary to justify one's subjective judgement of Mozart's music. I have no musical education to argue with precise language where exactly Mozart's music contains clichés and repetitions. I just know that there is some element in his music, which I find not that pleasant and it is a great pity, because he was no doubt a great composer. And it is not about the epoch. I can enjoy Haydn or Mysliveček and do not find the unpleasant elements in their music. Mozart's music does not seem that personal or intimate as the music of Beethoven or Schubert, and does not evoke the same deep emotions. It sounds superficial, *like a collection musical clichés from the period.*


name me a piece in particular. just curious


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> I just know that there is some element in his music, which I find not that pleasant and it is a great pity, *because he was no doubt a great composer*.


Correct. and it's a pity you cannot understand/see the greatness in his music. Unfortunately your loss.



Jacck said:


> Mozart's music does not seem that personal or intimate as the music of Beethoven or Schubert, and does not evoke the same deep emotions. It sounds superficial, like a collection musical clichés from the period.


To you, not to many others.


----------



## Bluecrab

jdec said:


> Correct. and it's a pity you cannot understand/see the greatness in his music. Unfortunately your loss.


No. The pity is that _you_ and some others cannot comprehend that there are serious classical music lovers who simply do not like much or all of Mozart's music. AS several of us have labored to point out, it's all a matter of personal taste, and personal taste is inherently subjective.

Do you have any idea what an arrogant, presumptuous viewpoint yours is?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> No. The pity is that _you_ and some others cannot comprehend that there are serious classical music lovers who simply *do not like much or all of Mozart's music*. AS several of us have labored to point out, it's all a matter of personal taste, and personal taste is inherently subjective.
> 
> Do you have any idea what an arrogant, presumptuous viewpoint yours is?


That is incorrect.
Few Mozart fans like all of Mozart's music. As for me - I probably put a high value on maybe 200 pieces out of 600+

In addition - there is not 1 composer in the TC top 20 whose music I do not esteem highly.

So yes - it does seem odd that people who like Beethoven or Haydn, for example - cant get along with Mozart's music to the extent it is necessary to justify their dislike by characterizing it in a derogatory way.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> agreed. but some opinions step over the line, for example, the statement
> 
> "I dont like Mozart's music because it is predictable and full of cliche's"
> 
> From what I have observed - most of the technical reasons people give for not liking Mozart are incorrect and I only ever question someone's preference when they make what I think is a statement based on a false premise or underpinned by untrue observations.


Jacck gave an example #78 which you dismissed - but that type of cadence is heard again and again in Mozart.

The thread asks for one's least favourite - so what's the problem?


----------



## Star

larold said:


> <<He is repetitious, though, especially in his juvenilia, wouldn't you agree?>>
> 
> I would agree Mozart was the king of the repeat. His Serenade No. 10 has as many as 30 repeats in the score. I once heard Stokowski lead his Symphony 35 without repeats; it was over in 15 minutes. I would say Bach and Beethoven also used repeats but not to the extent they stand out in some of Wolfgang's scores.


We ought to realise that Mozart's seranades were written as background music while the nobility would talk and eat. Because Mozart was an astounding genius people want to hear them today, but they are not among his greAtest works.


----------



## Star

One thing to remember that Mozart died just as he had reached his maturity as a composer so although some of the earluermusic is sublime it's only the later works that should be considered as a measure of his greatness


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Jacck gave an example #78 which you dismissed - but that type of cadence* is heard again and again in Mozart.*
> 
> The thread asks for one's least favourite - so what's the problem?


where? examples please and more than 1


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> No. The pity is that _you_ and some others cannot comprehend that there are serious classical music lovers who simply do not like much or all of Mozart's music. AS several of us have labored to point out, it's all a matter of personal taste, and personal taste is inherently subjective.
> 
> Do you have any idea what an arrogant, presumptuous viewpoint yours is?


Yes, an arrogant viewpoint in response to a shortsighted one (i.e. "_Mozart's music sounds superficial_"). For me, no "serious" classical music lover can generalize Mozart's music as being "superficial".


----------



## jdec

janxharris said:


> Jacck gave an example #78 which you dismissed - but that type of cadence *is heard again and again in Mozart*.


I'm also interested on hearing more examples of this particular "cliché". Please give more of them janxharris.


----------



## Jacck

jdec said:


> I'm also interested on hearing more examples of this particular "cliché". Please give more of them janxharris.


I just randomly clicked on the first video that youtube offered me, it is the clarinet quintet.




Sounds almost the same like the musical phrase quoted above. Things such as this one disturb me and spoil the music for me.


----------



## Jacck

more





























this thing is just in EVERY Mozart piece. Is is necessary to go on?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

stomanek said:


> You are entitled to your view.
> 
> But in all your comments I disagree.
> 
> Mozart had tremendous range in every respect. You only, for example, need to listen to two contrasting piano concertos to hear a sample of it K466 and K488.
> 
> if Mozart's music is recognizable it's only because it has had so much exposure.


Mozart's music certainly has a lot of exposure, but the same could be said of Beethoven, if not of Bach as well.

We're clearly of differing opinions on Mozart, whom I hold in high esteem, just not as high as the other two. So let's agree to disagree.


----------



## janxharris

jdec said:


> I'm also interested on hearing more examples of this particular "cliché". Please give more of them janxharris.


Chords IV, V, I (subdominant, dominant, tonic) - videos begin at appropriate section:

Sinfonia Concertante KV 364





Violin Concerto No.3





Clarinet Concerto


----------



## janxharris

This is gorgeous:


----------



## jdec

janxharris said:


> Chords IV, V, I (subdominant, dominant, tonic) - videos begin at appropriate section:
> 
> Sinfonia Concertante KV 364
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violin Concerto No.3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarinet Concerto


Well, I wanted to hear Mozart's "exclusive" clichés. Yourself have already said that these "_clichés aren't restricted to Mozart_" and as Trazom already pointed out correctly, these are more like late 18th century and early 19th century clichés which a lot of composers used including Beethoven in some of his works, and also similar phrases heard from Viennese Classicists. Trazom gave also the example of one of the variations in Schubert's "Death and the Maiden quartet."


----------



## jdec

janxharris said:


> This is gorgeous:


Only the first 44 seconds here are genuine Mozart. I personally find other parts in the requiem even more gorgeous than this one.


----------



## Bluecrab

jdec said:


> For me, no "serious" classical music lover can generalize Mozart's music as being "superficial".


"For me." In other words, in your subjective opinion (pardon the redundancy).

I invite you to read this (warning: seriously blasphemous of Mozart).

http://classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=40629

After you have, please come back and attempt to argue to us - _objectively, logically_, not in your opinion - that Arnold Rosner was not a serious classical music lover.


----------



## janxharris

jdec said:


> Well, I wanted to hear Mozart's "exclusive" clichés. Yourself have already said that these "_clichés aren't restricted to Mozart_" and as Trazom already pointed out correctly, these are more like late 18th century and early 19th century clichés which a lot of composers used including Beethoven in some of his works, and also similar phrases heard from Viennese Classicists. Trazom gave also the example of one of the variations in Schubert's "Death and the Maiden quartet."


I'm not disagreeing. Indeed, any composer using such sequences to excess (especially without any strong melodic definition) would lose interest for me.


----------



## janxharris

jdec said:


> Only the first 44 seconds here are genuine Mozart.


I didn't know that.



> I personally find other parts in the requiem even more gorgeous than this one.


The Introitus sounds beautiful. Am listening to the rest...


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I'm not disagreeing. Indeed, any composer using such sequences to excess (especially without any strong melodic definition) would loose interest for me.


but it is a pity, because behind these annoying musical clichés, there is sometimes good music. But now, that I identified the cliché, I hear in EVERYWHERE in his music




its so annoying


----------



## jdec

Bluecrab said:


> "For me." In other words, in your subjective opinion (pardon the redundancy).
> 
> I invite you to read this (warning: seriously blasphemous of Mozart).
> 
> http://classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=40629
> 
> After you have, please come back and attempt to argue to us - _objectively, logically_, not in your opinion - that Arnold Rosner was not a serious classical music lover.


Sorry, but beforehand I'm not interested at all in reading Arnold Rosner's opinions on Mozart (besides, I don't think Rosner referred to Mozart's music as "superficial", or did he? really?). In that case, these have much more "weight" to me than Rosner's, for obvious reasons  :

http://www.spiritsound.com/music/mozartquotes.html


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> but it is a pity, because behind these annoying musical clichés, there is sometimes good music. But now, that I identified the cliché, I hear in EVERYWHERE in his music
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its so annoying


Indeed it is.................


----------



## janxharris

I do love this symphony by Mozart (40th).






Absolute genius.


----------



## Jacck

But even the 40th symphony is not completely free of that annoying cliché


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> But even the 40th symphony is not completely free of that annoying cliché


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


----------



## Star

Jacck said:


> But even the 40th symphony is not completely free of that annoying cliché


Annoying cliche to you but not the vast majority of listeners.


----------



## Bluecrab

Star said:


> Annoying cliche to you but not the vast majority of listeners.


And you know this how? Have you personally polled the "vast majority of listeners"? Could we please see the results of your poll?


----------



## Jacck

Bluecrab said:


> And you know this how? Have you personally polled the "vast majority of listeners"? Could we please see the results of your poll?


There is no need to argue. I can perfectly acknowledge, that there are many people who greatly enjoy Mozarts music. But at the same time they should acknoledge that there are people who might not enjoy Mozarts music that much. It is a matter of personal taste and no need to argue about that. I even acknowledge that Mozart was a great composer and that behind these clichés, there is some genuinly enjoyable music, even for me.


----------



## Kieran

Bluecrab said:


> "For me." In other words, in your subjective opinion (pardon the redundancy).
> 
> I invite you to read this (warning: seriously blasphemous of Mozart).
> 
> http://classicalmusicguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=40629
> 
> After you have, please come back and attempt to argue to us - _objectively, logically_, not in your opinion - that Arnold Rosner was not a serious classical music lover.


But...that's just his subjective opinion, right? What do you want? We stack up counter-opinions against him? Cos that'll be easy, but it'll take some time. There's _soooooooo_ many of them....


----------



## PlaySalieri

OK enough of this nonsense

I can see now there's not much point in providing examples of Mozartian "cliches" if to me each one sounds as wonderful as the next.

All I can say if it bothers you, don't listen.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

> Mozart is the most inaccessible of the great masters.
> (Artur Schnabel)


I love that Mozart is infinitely complex for the likes of Schnabel, Richter and Gilels (both of whom said very similar things)*; but for people who sound like they took Music Theory 101, Mozart is hopelessly cliche-ridden, transparent and boring.

*Not to mention the likes of Shostakovitch and Ligeti, big Mozart fans both.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> OK enough of this nonsense
> 
> I can see now there's not much point in providing examples of Mozartian "cliches" if to me each one sounds as wonderful as the next.
> 
> All I can say if it bothers you, don't listen.


It may be nonsense to you (and there is no need to use such inflammatory language), but the thread is actually asking for members to do exactly what I and others have been posting. It's merely our subjective opinion.

If it bothers you don't participate in the thread.


----------



## Bulldog

I've been listening a lot the past few weeks to a Chandos disc having Mozart's piano concertos 9 and 17. I love those two concertos, especially the last movement of no. 9 and the first movement of no. 17. In fact, that last movement of no. 9 is my favorite final movement of all piano concertos I've ever heard.


----------



## Kieran

BiscuityBoyle said:


> I love that Mozart is infinitely complex for the likes of Schnabel, Richter and Gilels (both of whom said very similar things)*; but for people who sound like they took Music Theory 101, Mozart is hopelessly cliche-ridden, transparent and boring.
> 
> *Not to mention the likes of Shostakovitch and Ligeti, big Mozart fans both.


Yeah, but since you like cliches, you'll know the one that says that Wolfie is too simple for novices and too difficult for masters. I've seen even great musicians play mozart with completely the wrong tone, because they didn't understand the music...


----------



## Kieran

Bulldog said:


> I've been listening a lot the past few weeks to a Chandos disc having Mozart's piano concertos 9 and 17. I love those two concertos, especially the last movement of no. 9 and the first movement of no. 17. In fact, that last movement of no. 9 is my favorite final movement of all piano concertos I've ever heard.


Yeah, it has that wonderful change of pace midway through. I think #22 has something similar, but the last movement there isn't as powerful as #9...


----------



## Bluecrab

Jacck said:


> There is no need to argue.


I'm not arguing. I'm merely asking that Star post objectively verifiable data to support his/her premise that the "vast majority of listeners" do not find that passage an "annoying cliché."



Jacck said:


> I can perfectly acknowledge, that there are many people who greatly enjoy Mozarts music.


As can I. That's a foregone conclusion. Obviously, many think that he was the greatest composer who ever lived. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided that we acknowledge that it's a subjective opinion.



Jacck said:


> But at the same time they should acknoledge that there are people who might not enjoy Mozarts music that much. It is a matter of personal taste and no need to argue about that.


Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the issue. But as you can surely see from this thread (and countless others on this forum), some people simply cannot acknowledge that one is not ignorant of classical music, or has no taste, or (always the best) just doesn't "get it," because they are not fond of Mozart. And once again, I'm not arguing.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Mozart has some of the finest works ever written, and I know I still have more to discover, but it's hard to deny that a lot of his juvenilia utilized a lot of the same concepts.

With Beethoven, it feels like every piece is something new and fresh!


----------



## Bulldog

Taking one's personal preferences and then trying to objectify them is always a bad move.


----------



## janxharris

Captainnumber36 said:


> With Beethoven, it feels like every piece is something new and fresh!







Astonishing.


----------



## Bluecrab

Bulldog said:


> Taking one's personal preferences and then trying to objectify them is always a bad move.


I couldn't agree more. That's the point I've been trying to make for some time now. Some agree with us. Others seem not to.


----------



## Jacck

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart has some of the finest works ever written, and I know I still have more to discover, but it's hard to deny that a lot of his juvenilia utilized a lot of the same concepts. With Beethoven, it feels like every piece is something new and fresh!


Mozart might have been crippled by his father. From infancy, his father took him all over Europe to show him off as a trained monkey and it was probably at this time, that Mozart developped these clichés, and could not get rid of them for the rest of his life. If his father let him flower and mature on his own, he might have reached real greatness. That is at least a theory. 
Actually, I discovered the cliché even in Mysliveček. But then, they were friends with Amadeus


----------



## Kieran

Bluecrab said:


> I'm not arguing. I'm merely asking that Star post objectively verifiable data to support his/her premise that the "vast majority of listeners" do not find that passage an "annoying cliché."
> 
> As can I. That's a foregone conclusion. Obviously, many think that he was the greatest composer who ever lived. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, provided that we acknowledge that it's a subjective opinion.
> 
> Ah, now we arrive at the crux of the issue. But as you can surely see from this thread (and countless others on this forum), some people simply cannot acknowledge that one is not ignorant of classical music, or has no taste, or (always the best) just doesn't "get it," because they are not fond of Mozart. And once again, I'm not arguing.


Ah you are arguing, come on now, don't be modest. :lol:

Firstly, I'll give you your second point, while saying the first one is just you being argumentative, and then I'll hone in on your third point.

I doubt anybody here really cares if somebody places Mozart in the disposable spot of the Big 3. But, speaking for myself, when I read stuff that I think is wrong in category or is simply misguided opinion - ie, Mozart is light, Mozart's music is 90% cliche, etc - then I see this as an opportunity to engage. I don't see anything wrong with this, it's a discussion forum, after all. Would you agree?

I would also say accept it if others would similarly help me out with my Bach trouble. Because regardless of which side of whatever fence we all sit on, it's one thing to dislike the great composers, that's a matter of subjective taste, but it's another to make statements which are open to fair challenge...


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> But even the 40th symphony is not completely free of that annoying cliché


Funny that you criticize that musical phrase calling it a "_annoying cliché_" whereas Bernstein dedicates comments to this tonic-dominant relationship on this lecture, from 1:10 onwards:






You seem to find "trivialities" in what others find a purpose. Yes, again a pity.


----------



## Bulldog

Bach problems can be solved. For many years, I just couldn't appreciate Bach's organ music. I tried different equipment, different performers, different times of the day, etc. Then I acquired a box set of organ works played by Lionel Rogg on Harmonia Mundi. All of a sudden, everything was working for me. I loved this piece, that piece, dozens of pieces one after another. Was it Rogg, was it me, was it the placement of the stars? I don't know, but it's a fantastic feeling when that lightbulb goes on.


----------



## Kieran

Bulldog said:


> Bach problems can be solved. For many years, I just couldn't appreciate Bach's organ music. I tried different equipment, different performers, different times of the day, etc. Then I acquired a box set of organ works played by Lionel Rogg on Harmonia Mundi. All of a sudden, everything was working for me. I loved this piece, that piece, dozens of pieces one after another. Was it Rogg, was it me, was it the placement of the stars? I don't know, but it's a fantastic feeling when that lightbulb goes on.


That's it. Sometimes we need the stars to align. It happened twice for me, recently with the cello suits, and previously with the Goldberg variations - but, I'm still a hold out. The concertos sound one-note to me, and of course, I'm never gonna love the creepy harpsichord. There's hope for me with the church music, and I'll suss out the organ work you mentioned, thanks!


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart has some of the finest works ever written, and I know I still have more to discover, *but it's hard to deny that a lot of his juvenilia utilized a lot of the same concepts.
> 
> With Beethoven, it feels like every piece is something new and fresh!*


With Beethoven's juvenillia works? examples?


----------



## janxharris

Beethoven sounding a little like Mozart (iv, v, i cadence):


----------



## janxharris

Kieran said:


> That's it. Sometimes we need the stars to align. It happened twice for me, recently with the cello suits, and previously with the Goldberg variations - but, I'm still a hold out. The concertos sound one-note to me, and of course, I'm never gonna love the creepy harpsichord. There's hope for me with the church music, and I'll suss out the organ work you mentioned, thanks!


Sublime:


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mozart has some of the finest works ever written, and I know I still have more to discover, but it's hard to deny that a lot of his juvenilia utilized a lot of the same concepts.
> 
> With Beethoven, it feels like every piece is something new and fresh!


Mozart's juvenalia vs full-grown Luigi? Hmmm. Too close to call! :lol:

Check this out:






Been listening to this a lot lately - it was composed during the orgiastic few weeks of summer in 1788, when he composed his final 3 symphs, a few sonatas and piano trios, and other stuff besides...


----------



## Jacck

Kieran said:


> That's it. Sometimes we need the stars to align. It happened twice for me, recently with the cello suits, and previously with the Goldberg variations - but, I'm still a hold out. The concertos sound one-note to me, and of course, I'm never gonna love the creepy harpsichord. There's hope for me with the church music, and I'll suss out the organ work you mentioned, thanks!


I find Bach much easier to get into than Mozart. The Brandenburg concertos or the double violin concerto are just beautiful, peaceful music


----------



## Captainnumber36

My point being is that Mozart matured musically (perhaps never as a man ) late in his life in relation to the age he died. This means there is a lot of juvenilia work to sift through to find the gold of mature Mozart. And there are also some great Juvenilia works that aren't to be missed.

With Beethoven, we get all mature works for the most part.

I'm not judging them based on age, but the quality of the output and abundance of it over each composer's lifetime.


----------



## Captainnumber36

As we speak, I'm listening to the 41st Symphony by Mozart!


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> My point being is that Mozart matured musically (perhaps never as a man ) late in his life in relation to the age he died. This means there is a lot of juvenilia work to sift through to find the gold of mature Mozart. And there are also some great Juvenilia works that aren't to be missed.
> 
> With Beethoven, we get all mature works for the most part.
> 
> I'm not judging them based on age, but the quality of the output and abundance of it over each composer's lifetime.


I disagree on this, and most especially on the idea he didn't mature as a man. This seems based on erroneous 19th century fictions, which were regurgitated in the movie Amadeus.

As for maturing musically, come on. He gave us so much music in his final 15 years that is simply astounding that it would take the Hubble telescope wearing a pair of spectacles to find something that lacks "maturity", whatever that means. I only use it in comparison with any other great composers...


----------



## Jacck

another stunning masterpiece from Bach - Chaconne for solo violin


----------



## Kieran

Janxharris and Jacck - thanks for the recommendations! :tiphat:


----------



## Star

Captainnumber36 said:


> My point being is that Mozart matured musically (perhaps never as a man ) late in his life in relation to the age he died. This means there is a lot of juvenilia work to sift through to find the gold of mature Mozart. And there are also some great Juvenilia works that aren't to be missed.
> 
> With Beethoven, we get all mature works for the most part.
> 
> I'm not judging them based on age, but the quality of the output and abundance of it over each composer's lifetime.


Just looking at Mozart's mature works then. In quantity and quality they rival any other composer.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> I disagree on this, and most especially on the idea he didn't mature as a man. This seems based on erroneous 19th century fictions, which were regurgitated in the movie Amadeus.
> 
> As for maturing musically, come on. He gave us so much music in his final 15 years that is simply astounding that it would take the Hubble telescope wearing a pair of spectacles to find something that lacks "maturity", whatever that means. I only use it in comparison with any other great composers...


I was totally joking on the maturing as a man part, but was referencing his love of fart jokes and his famous lick me in the a*** composition.

Many people say Mozart reached a point of transitioning from juvenilia to mature output. I think my exposure to Mozart has been through first hearing lots of his juvenilia and a few pieces of his more mature works which may have tainted my opinion of him. I'll take a listen to what you posted above.

What else do you recommend?


----------



## Bluecrab

Kieran said:


> Ah you are arguing, come on now, don't be modest. :lol:


Well, Kieran, it's really not my intent to argue. But if you see my posts as argumentative, I'll grant that that's probably not unreasonable. But honestly, I'm not trying to start arguments.



Kieran said:


> I doubt anybody here really cares if somebody places Mozart in the disposable spot of the Big 3. But, speaking for myself, *when I read stuff that I think is wrong in category or is simply misguided opinion - ie, Mozart is light, Mozart's music is 90% cliche, etc* - then I see this as an opportunity to engage. I don't see anything wrong with this, it's a discussion forum, after all. Would you agree?


Yes, unequivocally. But please not what I've bolded from your post. That, to me at least, is obviously opinion. It can't be proved or disproved. And no, if folks want to engage in lively discussions about their opinions about this or that composer or work, then I agree... it's a discussion forum. Have at it. 



Kieran said:


> I would also say accept it if others would similarly help me out with my Bach trouble. Because regardless of which side of whatever fence we all sit on, it's one thing to dislike the great composers, that's a matter of subjective taste, but it's another to make statements which are open to fair challenge...


But what is your "Bach trouble"? Do you mean that you don't care for Bach's music? If so, I don't really know why you would refer to that as "trouble." We all like what we like. Many people don't like Bach (not me - I love his music). I don't think you have any "Bach trouble." I'd respectfully suggest that you listen to what you like, and not spend time on what you don't. And most of us know, after lots of listening, what we like and what we don't.

btw, I trust that you've noticed that I've not made one negative statement about Mozart in this entire thread.

Thanks for your response.


----------



## trazom

Jacck said:


> Mozart might have been crippled by his father. From infancy, his father took him all over Europe to show him off as a trained monkey and it was probably at this time, that Mozart developped these clichés, and could not get rid of them for the rest of his life. If his father let him flower and mature on his own, he might have reached real greatness. That is at least a theory.
> Actually, I discovered the cliché even in Mysliveček. But then, they were friends with Amadeus


They weren't clichés at the time Mozart was writing them. They were inherent aspects of the Classical era's musical syntax that he absorbed from other composers and used to great effect. That other contemporaries of his and composers after him used these same musical gestures with less success is testament to Mozart's skill. The fact is, Mozart already WAS developing into a mature composer on his own by his late teens in Salzburg to the dismay of his own father and the Archbishop, who lamented that Mozart should write more Missa Brevis and less of the various and complex instrumental works(the violin concerti, symphonies 21-29, the first string quintet, etc) he was composing, and he DID reach "real greatness" the notion that he didn't is odd, to say the least. If having your music consistently performed, studied, and listened to worldwide over 200 years after your death isn't greatness, I don't know what is.


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> I was totally joking on the maturing as a man part, but was referencing his love of fart jokes and his famous lick me in the a*** composition.


Given how intense and driven he was, this relief valve into scat-humour is probably actually a sign of good mental health.



Captainnumber36 said:


> What else do you recommend?


The wind serenades, K361 and K388, I think, off the top of my head. The Haffner and Posthorn Serenades - especially the 3rd and 4th movements of the Posthorn, which contain some of the finest writing for winds you'll ever hear. The piano quartets, and the piano quintet. The slow set of PC #22, which is like a movement for winds, accompanied by piano. The f-sharp minor second movement of PC #23, which is music that make a grown man feel unsteady on his feet.

I'm sure you're familiar with most of it. For me, Mozart was all about opera - and he _only_ got to compose 7 in his final ten years. But look at the the amount of other imperishable masterpieces he also composed in that same period, and listen to how he developed each form he composed in, and I think you'll be amazed...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Kieran said:


> Mozart's juvenalia vs full-grown Luigi? Hmmm. Too close to call! :lol:
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been listening to this a lot lately - it was composed during the orgiastic few weeks of summer in 1788, when he composed his final 3 symphs, a few sonatas and piano trios, and other stuff besides...


This is really good! Thanks for sharing. It has real passion and reminds me more of Beethoven than Mozart in it's fury.


----------



## Kieran

Bluecrab said:


> But what is your "Bach trouble"? Do you mean that you don't care for Bach's music? If so, I don't really know why you would refer to that as "trouble." We all like what we like. Many people don't like Bach (not me - I love his music). I don't think you have any "Bach trouble." I'd respectfully suggest that you listen to what you like, and not spend time on what you don't. And most of us know, after lots of listening, what we like and what we don't.
> 
> btw, I trust that you've noticed that I've not made one negative statement about Mozart in this entire thread.
> 
> Thanks for your response.


Thanks Bluecrab! I agree, we're all flashing around opinions and hopefully some good comes out of it. Usually for me it does, because I get to learn from the posters here, most of whom I'd easily say know more music and more about music than me.

With Bach, the problem is the same as the one with Wagner, for me. These men are giants who've created so much music that's just waiting for me to enrich myself with - and I can't get into it. Yet. But I've gotten a few suggestions tonight - and I also take on board your own words, that after a while, we just get to know what we like, and maybe that's enough!


----------



## Jacck

trazom said:


> They weren't clichés at the time Mozart was writing them. They were inherent aspects of the Classical era's musical syntax that he absorbed from other composers and used to great effect. That other contemporaries of his and composers after him used these same musical gestures with less success is testament to Mozart's skill. The fact is, Mozart already WAS developing into a mature composer on his own by his late teens in Salzburg to the dismay of his own father and the Archbishop, who lamented that Mozart should write more Missa Brevis and less of the various and complex instrumental works(the violin concerti, symphonies 21-29, the first string quintet, etc) he was composing, and he DID reach "real greatness" the notion that he didn't is odd, to say the least. If having your music consistently performed, studied, and listened to worldwide over 200 years after your death isn't greatness, I don't know what is.


I meant that for me personally (subjectively) he might have been even greater if he could abandon these clichés (which subjectively speaking spoil his music for me a little). There is no doubt that he was already great as he was. I really can hear this musical phrase (spoken of above) everywhere in his music. It is just omnipresent in his works.




Otherwise the music is great. I really like the quartets and they showed me that he indeed is a great composer


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> This is really good! Thanks for sharing. It has real passion and reminds me more of Beethoven than Mozart in it's fury.


Well, perhaps someday you'll describe Beethoven's furies as being Mozartian. 

But I hope you'll see that there's a lot more to Mozart than selling candy to tourists...


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think in the end, Beethoven is my man. I just prefer his music!


----------



## Bluecrab

Kieran said:


> That's it. Sometimes we need the stars to align. It happened twice for me, recently with the cello suits, and previously with the Goldberg variations...


In my opinion (argh - that word again! ), two of Bach's finest works. The Cello Suites are wonderful Sunday morning music. And the aria from the GV is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard.

Since you obviously appreciate Mozart's technical prowess, you might find this interesting. It's an analysis of the canons in the Goldberg Variations. Downright mathematical... not unlike 20th century composers like Bartok and Elliot Carter.

http://www2.nau.edu/tas3/goldbergcanons.html


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I was totally joking on the maturing as a man part, but was referencing his love of fart jokes and his famous lick me in the a*** composition.
> 
> Many people say Mozart reached a point of transitioning from juvenilia to mature output. I think my exposure to Mozart has been through first hearing lots of his juvenilia and a few pieces of his more mature works which may have tainted my opinion of him. I'll take a listen to what you posted above.
> 
> *What else do you recommend?*


Do you like sacred music? I love it, even if I'm not a religious man at all . This is just a taste of Mozart's Great Mass in C minor, the introductory _Kyrie_:






I like how the _Kyrie eleison_ section ("Lord have mercy upon us") from 0:00 to 2:13 has a dramatic fearful character and set in the minor, like if the "implorers" had some kind of fear to God Father ; and then the more gentle _Christe eleison_ ("Christ have mercy upon us") from 2:14 to 5:01 set in the major, without that same kind of "fear", like if Christ was a more noble-minded sympathetic entity. Then again _Kyrie eleison_ in the minor. For me, Mozart giving real meaning to these simple words/lyrics thru the music.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think in the end, *Beethoven is my man*. I just prefer his music!


Exactly my feelings some 25 years ago. Nobody touched him then.


----------



## Jacck

then you can also try the Kyrie eleison by Bach and by Beethoven for comparison 









so who wrote the best kyrie eleison?


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Do you like sacred music? I love it, even if I'm not a religious man at all . This is just a taste of Mozart's Great Mass in C minor, the introductory _Kyrie_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how the _Kyrie eleison_ section ("Lord have mercy upon us") from 0:00 to 2:17 has a dramatic fearful character and set in the minor, like if the "implorers" had some kind of fear to God Father ; and then the more gentle _Christe eleison_ ("Christ have mercy upon us") from 2:18 to 5:01 set in the major, without that same kind of "fear", like if Christ was a more noble-minded sympathetic entity. Then again _Kyrie eleison_ in the minor. For me, Mozart giving real meaning to these simple words/lyrics thru the music.


It reminds me of Bach's Mass work...it unfortunately isn't completely doing it for me, but I do enjoy it!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Jacck said:


> then you can also try the Kyrie eleison by Bach and by Beethoven for comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so who wrote the best kyrie eleison?


Wow, that Beethoven Kyrie is astonishing!


----------



## Boston Charlie

BiscuityBoyle said:


> I love that Mozart is infinitely complex for the likes of Schnabel, Richter and Gilels (both of whom said very similar things)*; but for people who sound like they took Music Theory 101, Mozart is hopelessly cliche-ridden, transparent and boring.
> 
> *Not to mention the likes of Shostakovitch and Ligeti, big Mozart fans both.


Tchaikovsky was a huge fan of Mozart, called Mozart a "musical Christ." I think it was Mozart's sense of balance that appealed to T.

T was very critical of his own works; seemed frustrated that his own symphonies didn't achieve Mozart's sense of seamlessness and balance; but who wouldn't be disappointed when you use Mozart as your benchmark?


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> It reminds me of Bach's Mass work...it unfortunately isn't completely doing it for me, but I do enjoy it!


Well, it did not do it for me either the first hearings. Then it suddenly clicked, and now I have loved this mass for years.


----------



## Kieran

Bluecrab said:


> In my opinion (argh - that word again! ), two of Bach's finest works. The Cello Suites are wonderful Sunday morning music. And the aria from the GV is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard.
> 
> Since you obviously appreciate Mozart's technical prowess, you might find this interesting. It's an analysis of the ca (I think)nons in the Goldberg Variations. Downright mathematical... not unlike 20th century composers like Bartok and Elliot Carter.
> 
> http://www2.nau.edu/tas3/goldbergcanons.html


That's really interesting, thanks for that! The version I have is the Glenn Gould from 1955 (I think), which tends to come highly recommended...


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> then you can also try the Kyrie eleison by Bach and by Beethoven for comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so who wrote the best kyrie eleison?


I know these works extremely well. I love both Mass in b minor and the Missa Solemnis. I love both of those Kyries. I perhaps love Mozart's in C minor even more.

The one you put from Beethoven is the Mass in C major. I definitely believe Mozart's Great mass in C minor is a superior work.


----------



## Bluecrab

Kieran said:


> That's really interesting, thanks for that! The version I have is the Glenn Gould from 1955 (I think), which tends to come highly recommended...


Try the '81 version. Much slower, much more pensive. For example, in the '55 version, the opening aria lasts 2:00 (IIRC). In the '81 version, it lasts 3:00. And since you mentioned earlier that you don't like the sound of the harpsichord, try any of Bach's keyboard works by Gould on piano. In case you're interested, Keith Jarrett recorded the GV and the WTC, but both on harpshichord. He's a real purist.


----------



## Blancrocher

Bluecrab said:


> Try the '81 version. Much slower, much more pensive. For example, in the '55 version, the opening aria lasts 2:00 (IIRC). In the '81 version, it lasts 3:00. And since you mentioned earlier that you don't like the sound of the harpsichord, try any of Bach's keyboard works by Gould on piano. In case you're interested, Keith Jarrett recorded the GV and the WTC, but both on harpshichord. He's a real purist.


Don't forget the great GG Salzburg performance of 1959, which also includes Mozart btw.


----------



## jdec

Kieran said:


> That's really interesting, thanks for that! The version I have is the Glenn Gould from 1955 (I think), which tends to come highly recommended...


You may also want to try Perahia's rendition one day, which I like a lot as well as Gould's. The difference with Gould's (either 1955 or 1981) is that Perahia does the repeats in most of the variations (AABB vs AB), with some added ornamentation in those repeats. It's also a highly regarded version.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I really don't listen to much if any Bach or Mozart, but I sure like Beethoven.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Reading through some of the comments remind me of the scene in Amadeus where the emperor criticizes Mozart for having too many notes - just cut a few and it will be perfect, he advises

Mozart replied

which few did you have in mind?


----------



## Genoveva

The so-called "cliches" in Mozart's music as illustrated by several examples given earlier don't bother me in a negative way, as appears to be the case with one or two individuals. I just accept the kind of thing they refer to as minute (in the sense of very short) linking portions in an overall piece or movement that normally has great beauty and demonstrates much skill of composition.

Besides, it was probably all part of the conventions of music of the times, and without such short linking sections the audiences/customers of the day may have felt there was something a bit odd about the work as a whole. It's not that Mozart was alone in doing this kind of thing, but I would suspect there's a similar sort of thing in Haydn. I'm not going to bother to investigate the matter any further, as it's of no consequence if there is similar.

Certainly in some of Beethoven's chamber music I find some occasional instances of mildly irritating sections when, for example, there's a tinkle on the piano saying to the violin "_can you hear me, violin_", and the almost immediate and highly predictable "_yes I hear you piano_", kind of exchange. It's not a "cliche" as such but that kind of thing can also be tedious.

In threads of this nature, I feel almost duty bound to pay lip service to Mozart and Beethoven, and I do enjoy their music a great deal, but I quite often prefer later chamber music altogether, of the type typified by Schumann, Mendelssohn and Brahms. The cliche type of idiosyncracies of late classical era music were largely washed out by that time.


----------



## Star

Blancrocher said:


> Don't forget the great GG Salzburg performance of 1959, which also includes Mozart btw.


Yes the Mozart came before he went completely mad.


----------



## larold

<<I truly think Bach and Beethoven are more monumental, and more consistent in quality and innovation throughout their careers but that is not as important to me.>>

I think if you compare the ages of the composers when they constructed their greatest works you'll find, I believe, Mozart was the most uniform throughout his career.

He died age 35, Beethoven age 57, Bach age 65. The latter two developed almost all their most important ("more monumental and more consistent") works after age 35. Among those works that would fit in this category only Beethoven's Eroica symphony was written prior to his age 35. Everything else came later.

That means Mozart wrote all his operas, the C minor mass and requiem mass, all his concertos including all 27 for piano/keyboard, all the piano sonatas, and everything else in 35 years. He had a fully realized career in time when most people are just beginning to develop and flower.

In their first 35 years, Bach and Beethoven were not what they became. Had they died age 35 neither would be considered among the top classical music composers of all time. And Bach surely would never have been considered to have written anything very monumental.


----------



## Jacck

larold said:


> In their first 35 years, Bach and Beethoven were not what they became. Had they died age 35 neither would be considered among the top classical music composers of all time. And Bach surely would never have been considered to have written anything very monumental.


but compare Mozart against Schubert or Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn composed this when he was 12


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> but compare Mozart against Schubert or Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn composed this when he was 12


Are you really trying to imply that Mendelssohn was superior to Mozart, even when the former lived longer than the latter?


----------



## San Antone

My least favorite of Bach, Beethoven & Mozart is Mozart. 

I listen to Bach the most often of these three (in fact more often than most classical composers, period); followed by Beethoven, but much less often than Bach; and I very rarely, verging on never, listen to Mozart.


----------



## Jacck

jdec said:


> Are you really trying to imply that Mendelssohn was superior to Mozart, even when the former lived longer than the latter?


no, not really. I dislike the endless comparisons and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
He composed his piano concerto when he was 13! and I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> no, not really.* I dislike the endless comparisons *and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
> He composed his piano concerto when he was 13! and I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart


And you just asked to compare Mozart to Mendelssohn and Schubert...


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> no, not really. I dislike the endless comparisons and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
> He composed his piano concerto when he was 13! a*nd I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart*


I do, this specific piano concerto by Mendelssohn definitely does not reach the heights of Mozart's best in my view. Recording history has given their proper place to these works. And believe it or not, I'm a great admirer of Mendelssohn (and Schubert, and many others) and really love many of his works, including the other ones you mention above.

By the way, you said Mendelssohn "composed _his_ piano concerto...". It's not his only piano concerto, there are also other 3 (No.1 in G minor, No. 2 in D minor, and a unfinished No.3 in E minor), being the No.1 in G minor my favorite one, a work I really like.


----------



## Jacck

jdec said:


> And you just asked to compare Mozart to Mendelssohn and Schubert...


no, I just named them as examples of composers who were also child prodigies. Saint-Saens could be added to the bunch too. Some candles burn bright and fast, other burn slower. For example in physics (a discipline I know much more about then music), if you do not make significant contributions before 30, you will most likely never make them. All the great physicists develloped their revolutionary theories around 20. There are some exceptions such as Schrödinger, who published his famous equation around 40. It is probably different in music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

larold said:


> <<I truly think Bach and Beethoven are more monumental, and more consistent in quality and innovation throughout their careers but that is not as important to me.>>
> 
> I think if you compare the ages of the composers when they constructed their greatest works you'll find, I believe, Mozart was the most uniform throughout his career.
> 
> He died age 35, Beethoven age 57, Bach age 65. The latter two developed almost all their most important ("more monumental and more consistent") works after age 35. Among those works that would fit in this category only Beethoven's Eroica symphony was written prior to his age 35. Everything else came later.
> 
> That means Mozart wrote all his operas, the C minor mass and requiem mass, all his concertos including all 27 for piano/keyboard, all the piano sonatas, and everything else in 35 years. He had a fully realized career in time when most people are just beginning to develop and flower.
> 
> In their first 35 years, Bach and Beethoven were not what they became. Had they died age 35 neither would be considered among the top classical music composers of all time. And Bach surely would never have been considered to have written anything very monumental.


I think there is a difference between quality and perfection. Beethoven had more rough edges in his music, but were bolder and more innovative, while Mozart was on average played more safe, but polished his works. Just about all of Beethoven's symphonies are not nearly as polished as Mozart's, but are generally more bold, and innovative. I would hate to bring age, and what if's into the equation. We only need to just look at what was written in their lifetimes as a whole. Some composers are early bloomers, but don't live up to their potential. Saint Saens and Mendelssohn had huge starts but tapered off in development early, and didn't quite live up to their "potential". R. Strauss wrote all the music we know in the first half of his life. If they met some end early, we would have speculated they would continue to shake the music world, but they haven't.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Phil loves classical said:


> I think there is a difference between quality and perfection. Beethoven had more rough edges in his music, but were bolder and more innovative, while Mozart was on average played more safe, but polished his works.


A very interesting comparison that make me think of the difference between a studio recording (more polished) vs a live performance (more rough edges). I like the rough edges. I have nothing against Mozart beyond what Beethoven had against him and on balance Beethoven highly admired Mozart's musical abilities, but simply didn't care for Mozart's opera subject matter.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> no, I just named them as examples of composers who were also child prodigies....


Yes you did, you asked to compare Mozart to Mendelssohn or Schubert in post #205.


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> Some candles burn bright and fast, other burn slower. For example in physics (a discipline I know much more about then music), if you do not make significant contributions before 30, you will most likely never make them.


This argument obviously cannot apply to Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. so it's unnecessary.


----------



## jdec

Phil loves classical said:


> *Saint Saens and Mendelssohn had huge starts but tapered off in development early, and didn't quite live up to their "potential".* R. Strauss wrote all the music we know in the first half of his life. If they met some end early, we would have speculated they would continue to shake the music world, but they haven't.


And do you notice this same tendency in Mozart? was his music in "decline" at the end of his life? nope, it wasn't one bit, on the contrary.

By the way, you are wrong on R. Strauss, he wrote some of his best music being quite old (Metamorphosen, Four Last Songs, Horn Concerto No. 2, Oboe concerto), in his late 70s and 80s. _Der Rosenkavalier_ and _Elektra_ were also composed in the 2nd half of his life.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> no, not really. I dislike the endless comparisons and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
> He composed his piano concerto when he was 13! and I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart


Mendelssohn is comparable with Mozart as a child prodigy - he arguably composed better music as a 16 y/o than Mozart. But I am afraid that is where the comparison must end. He did not fulfill his promise to the extent Mozart did. Yes the VC is one of the great VCs - probably the only adult work of Men that puts him in the stellar league. He composed some fine symphonies - chamber music, solo piano and a couple of reasonable piano concertos - but certainly nothing in comparison to the vast treasury left behind by Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> no, I just named them as examples of composers who were also child prodigies. Saint-Saens could be added to the bunch too. Some candles burn bright and fast, other burn slower. For example in physics (a discipline I know much more about then music), if you do not make significant contributions before 30, you will most likely never make them. All the great physicists develloped their revolutionary theories around 20. There are some exceptions such as Schrödinger, who published his famous equation around 40. *It is probably different in music.*


Yes it is - most composers best works are composed between 40-60. Haydn was 70 odd when he composed his great London symphonies.

Mozart's works are all early works, so are Schubert's


----------



## Bulldog

Jacck said:


> no, not really. I dislike the endless comparisons and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
> He composed his piano concerto when he was 13! and I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart


Just my opinion, but I consider both Mendelssohn piano concertos to pale in comparison to Mozart's. Listening to them is a chore for me.


----------



## Genoveva

Jacck said:


> no, not really. I dislike the endless comparisons and rankings of composers. I do, however, think that Mozart is overrated (as if everything he wrote was divinely supernaturally perfect and could never be matched or criticized) and Mendelssohn is underrated (he was maligned by Wagner because he was a Jew). Mendelssohn wrote several amazing pieces, for example Octet in E-flat Major, Violin Concerto, Elias oratorio, Songs Without Words, Scottish symphony, Piano trios, Piano concertos.
> *He composed his piano concerto when he was 13!* and I do not think it is in any way inferior to piano concertos by Mozart


Which piano concerto was that?


----------



## Art Rock

I also wondered, so I checked (Wiki link). That is now known as his PC "0". The first piano concerto as we know it came 9 years later.


----------



## Jacck

Genoveva said:


> Which piano concerto was that?


Mendelssohns piano concertos 1 (PC 0). I honestly find it subjectively more enjoyable than most Mozart's piano concertos. Mozart's music might be technically more perfect, I struggle to like it, however. Most of his piano concertos sound almost the same to me. As stated above, I enjoy his string quartets and quintets the most. Mendelssohn composed also a fabulous double concerto


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> Mendelssohns piano concertos 1. I honestly find it subjectively more enjoyable than most Mozart's piano concertos. Mozart's music might be technically more perfect, I struggle to like it, however. *Most of his piano concertos sound almost the same to me*. As stated above, I enjoy his string quartets and quintets the most.


Really? are we listening to the same Mozart?


----------



## trazom

Jacck said:


> but compare Mozart against Schubert or Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn composed this when he was 12


It's an enjoyable and accomplished little piece but it doesn't really leave the same impression on me as the full missa solemnis Mozart wrote at the same age. 



. I think it goes without saying that the demands for composing a complete solemn mass are different than a string symphony or a 3-minute piece for piano and voice.


----------



## Phil loves classical

jdec said:


> And do you notice this same tendency in Mozart? was his music in "decline" at the end of his life? nope, it wasn't one bit, on the contrary.
> 
> By the way, you are wrong on R. Strauss, he wrote some of his best music being quite old (Metamorphosen, Four Last Songs, Horn Concerto No. 2, Oboe concerto), in his late 70s and 80s. _Der Rosenkavalier_ and _Elektra_ were also composed in the 2nd half of his life.


Yeah, I think it wasn't Strauss, Maybe Berlioz that didn't write anything in the 2nd half of his life. I agree Mozart didn't have the decline, but I just don't buy the argument when comoaring to Beethoven that he would have surpassed his works in innovation.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> Yeah, I think it wasn't Strauss, Maybe Berlioz that didn't write anything in the 2nd half of his life. I agree Mozart didn't have the decline, but I just don't buy the argument when comoaring to Beethoven that he would have surpassed his works in innovation.


Rossini put down his quill at 30


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Phil loves classical said:


> I think there is a difference between quality and perfection. ...... R. Strauss wrote all the music we know in the first half of his life. If they met some end early, we would have speculated they would continue to shake the music world, but they haven't.


That's a bit sweeping re Richard Strauss. The last decade of his life saw several important works: Oboe Concerto, Metamorphosen, 2nd Horn Concerto and, of course, Four Last Songs.


----------



## larold

<<_I think there is a difference between quality and perfection. Beethoven had more rough edges in his music, but were bolder and more innovative, while Mozart was on average played more safe, but polished his works. Just about all of Beethoven's symphonies are not nearly as polished as Mozart's, but are generally more bold, and innovative. I would hate to bring age, and what if's into the equation. We only need to just look at what was written in their lifetimes as a whole.>>_

I'd like to know that difference. Otherwise, pardon me but I cannot agree with your assessment.

I don't think you know Mozart very well; he was highly innovative and did many things that had never before been done. He perfected the piano concerto. He was the first to begin a symphony by using a woodwind before strings. He wrote a mass that is better than Beethoven's lesser mass when he was 12. He wrote better music for woodwinds in the harmomiemusik era than had ever been written. Mozart was an innovator, a creative genius, and second to none as a composer.

The comment about age seems curious; why shouldn't it matter that Mozart did more in 35 years either Beethoven or Bach? He did more at an early age than any composer. Many of us feel he did more than any other composer, period. Even those that don't like him can't say otherwise about his body of piano concertos and operas: they exceed anyone in history in quantity and quality.


----------



## hpowders

I know I am in the minority and I really couldn't care less, but I find the music of Bach, Mozart and Haydn for that matter, more durable and less tiresome on repeated listenings; more delightful, in fact, over the years, than Beethoven's music is.


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> Even those that don't like him can't say otherwise about his body of piano concertos and operas: they exceed anyone in history in quantity and quality.


You are claiming to have an objective opinion on this?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Coming back to another poster's point that Mozart is full of cliche's of the time.
OK I had my ears tuned into this while listening yesterday to some of Mozart's early piano sonatas.

Yes indeed there are mannerisms and passages that feel characteristic of the time - but so what? The music is generally so beautifully crafted and pregnant with wonderful ideas etc - it would be a wonder if anyone could replace those "offending" bars with something else and not diminish the piece.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> You are claiming to have an *objective opinion* on this?


an opinion - by its nature - is subjective.

it's obviously an opinion that is agreed with by some and not others.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Coming back to another poster's point that Mozart is full of cliche's of the time.
> OK I had my ears tuned into this while listening yesterday to some of Mozart's early piano sonatas.
> 
> Yes indeed there are mannerisms and passages that feel characteristic of the time - but so what? The music is generally so beautifully crafted and pregnant with wonderful ideas etc - it would be a wonder if anyone could replace those "offending" bars with something else and not diminish the piece.


Certainly it was the style of the time and when the melody is strong such cadences become less apparent.

I have posted that my favourite piece by Mozart is his 40th symphony; assuming you rate this piece too, would you cite other pieces that you think are as good or better?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Certainly it was the style of the time and when the melody is strong such cadences become less apparent.
> 
> I have posted that my favourite piece by Mozart is his 40th symphony; *assuming you rate this piece too, would you cite other pieces that you think are as good or better?*


I could - but there's no guarantee you wont find them ridden with cliches

I prefer sy 41 myself.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I could - but there's no guarantee you wont find them ridden with cliches
> 
> I prefer sy 41 myself.


I do know that piece thanks. It is impressive.


----------



## janxharris

Second movement of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto:


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Second movement of Mozart's 23rd Piano Concerto:


ah well -

you are going in the right direction.


----------



## Luchesi

I like the way Kissin plays this, but it's one of my least favorite pieces.

Beethoven was not always transcendental but sometimes earthy, according to Robert Schumann.

from wiki
"Despite the late opus number, the work's composition has been dated between 1795 and 1798.[2] Beethoven left the piece unpublished and incomplete; it was published in 1828 by Anton Diabelli, who obscured the fact that it had been left unfinished."

This famous announcer really thought it was a late work?


----------



## BachIsBest

I don't get why so many people are such big Beethoven fans. Both Bach and Mozart's music has such a timeless perfection that Beethoven's, and any other composer (except maybe Schubert) music is lacking. Not to mention Beethoven's music's lack of dissonance that tends to make his music less 'interesting'. I'm not saying Beethoven's music is bad, merely that I don't find it quite on the same level as Mozart's and especially Bach's.

I also don't understand why a modern listener would care how revolutionary the music was at the time as our ears, having already been adjusted to the revolution, are immune to its shock value.


----------



## Luchesi

BachIsBest said:


> I don't get why so many people are such big Beethoven fans. Both Bach and Mozart's music has such a timeless perfection that Beethoven's, and any other composer (except maybe Schubert) music is lacking. Not to mention Beethoven's music's lack of dissonance that tends to make his music less 'interesting'. I'm not saying Beethoven's music is bad, merely that I don't find it quite on the same level as Mozart's and especially Bach's.
> 
> I also don't understand why a modern listener would care how revolutionary the music was at the time as our ears, having already been adjusted to the revolution, are immune to its shock value.


Beethoven started with the musical ideas of his youth and look what he accomplished in his middle and late periods. It's impressive even to the casual listener. Bach and Mozart grew in this manner, but even people of today might need help to hear the specifics of this growth (development).


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

BachIsBest said:


> I don't get why so many people are such big Beethoven fans. Both Bach and Mozart's music has such a timeless perfection that Beethoven's, and any other composer (except maybe Schubert) music is lacking. Not to mention Beethoven's music's lack of dissonance that tends to make his music less 'interesting'. I'm not saying Beethoven's music is bad, merely that I don't find it quite on the same level as Mozart's and especially Bach's.
> 
> I also don't understand why a modern listener would care how revolutionary the music was at the time as our ears, having already been adjusted to the revolution, are immune to its shock value.


Where does one even begin with this?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Where does one even begin with this?


Around the 21 March 1685


----------



## PlaySalieri

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Where does one even begin with this?


no need to

he prefers Mozart and Bach


----------



## Star

BachIsBest said:


> I *don't get why so many people are such big Beethoven fans.* Both Bach and Mozart's music has such a timeless perfection that Beethoven's, and any other composer (except maybe Schubert) music is lacking. Not to mention Beethoven's music's lack of dissonance that tends to make his music less 'interesting'. I'm not saying Beethoven's music is bad, merely that I don't find it quite on the same level as Mozart's and especially Bach's.
> 
> I also don't understand why a modern listener would care how revolutionary the music was at the time as our ears, having already been adjusted to the revolution, are immune to its shock value.


 Just cannot see why people make statements like that. Beethoven's lack of dissonance? Are we listening to the same guy? When listening to Beethoven I can see why anyone would be a fan I feel the same listening to the other two, btw! I think what we need to realise is that greatness lay in a different region for each of them


----------



## janxharris

Star said:


> Just cannot see why people make statements like that. Beethoven's lack of dissonance? Are we listening to the same guy?


Indeed - Julian Johnson here on Beethoven's Eroica:


----------



## janxharris

Actually - listening to Mozart's 41st Symphony again, I am hearing cliché upon cliché. For me, it does have some good moments, especially the finale, but I'm not a fan particularly.

I'm am just clarifying what I wrote earlier (for what it's worth). Nobody need be offended.


----------



## janxharris

Captainnumber36 said:


> Mine would have to be Bach. I can really love some Baroque music, and Bach's in particular, but sometimes I find his to be the least engaging for me. It's too focused on math, theory, and conceptualizing music for my tastes.


I'd put Beethoven first, warts and all, and Bach least favourite.


----------



## tdc

Star said:


> Beethoven's lack of dissonance? Are we listening to the same guy?


Beethoven _did_ use dissonance very differently (and essentially less so) than Bach or even Mozart though. I think it is a valid reason for enjoying his music less than Bach's.

I got the following Brahms quote from a post by member silentio in the Beethoven vs. Mozart thread:



> In one of the conversations with Heuberger, *Brahms* stated that:
> *
> "What, however, is much weaker in Beethoven, for example, than in Mozart and especially in Sebastian Bach is the use of dissonances. You don't find dissonances, true dissonances, used any longer in Beethoven as in Mozart. Just look at Idomeneo!... What splendid dissonances, what harmonies!!".*
> 
> Mind you this was not from a Brahms in his cocky younger years. It was at the very end of his career, after he has spent a life time studying Bach, Mozart and Beethoven.


Being a listener that responds strongly to a composer's use of harmony the above is also a big part of the reason why I enjoy Beethoven's music less than Bach or Mozart as well. Beethoven tended to use things like phrasing and dynamics or (volume/loudness) to create drama and tension in his music, to me it seems less effective than harmony and makes the over all impact of his music seem weaker, and in a sense less sophisticated. I do acknowledge that Beethoven excelled in other areas though, especially with form.


----------



## janxharris

tdc said:


> "What, however, is much weaker in Beethoven, for example, than in Mozart and especially in Sebastian Bach is the use of dissonances. You don't find dissonances, true dissonances, used any longer in Beethoven as in Mozart. *Just look at Idomeneo!... What splendid dissonances, what harmonies!!*"


What do you think Brahms would have cited in particular from Idomeneo?


----------



## Lionheart

I'm surprised to see all the baroque bashing going on on this site. 
I wonder whether all these people who claim it all sounds the same, is too mathematical and not emotional enough have actually heard a proper historically informed performances of these pieces?

The 20th century produced a lot of horrible generic sounding performances of baroque music, done by conductors who had no business recording anything but romantic music. Perhaps that's why some people are turned off by it?

Luckily Harnoncourt put an end to that.
I challenge anyone to listen to these two pieces without being moved:


----------



## larold

<<Ev_en those that don't like him can't say otherwise about his body of piano concertos and operas: they exceed anyone in history in quantity and quality...You are claiming to have an objective opinion on this? _>>

I note you question my authority but don't challenge the statement. Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## larold

<<_I don't get why so many people are such big Beethoven fans. Both Bach and Mozart's music has such a timeless perfection that Beethoven's, and any other composer (except maybe Schubert) music is lacking. Not to mention Beethoven's music's lack of dissonance that tends to make his music less 'interesting'. I'm not saying Beethoven's music is bad, merely that I don't find it quite on the same level as Mozart's and especially Bach's.>>_

There's an old canard that Beethoven's heroics can become too wearisome, Bach's ecclesiastics too rigorous, but Mozart stays the man for all seasons. I never agreed with that either. After about 30 years of collecting and listening a lot I found Beethoven too much too often. That doesn't diminish his role in the art form, however; he remains among the three greatest by almost any standard.

Just as people underestimate Mozart by failing to hear or understand his most dramatic works, there is a side to Beethoven many don't see. He wrote the only song cycle in history (An die Ferne geliebte) that is four songs in one, he wrote a lot of wonderful, inventive early chamber music (the Trio for Piano, Clarinet and Cello in G major and the Quintet for Oboe, Three Horns and Bassoon in E flat among them,) and he had many moments of humor with music (try the "Rage Over A Lost Penny" or even the third piano sonata) that counterbalance his heroics.

The greatest composers are all multifaceted. If you don't hear that, or don't know it, you don't know them well. That is a commonality I hear around here.


----------



## janxharris

Lionheart said:


> I'm surprised to see all the baroque bashing going on on this site.
> I wonder whether all these people who claim it all sounds the same, is too mathematical and not emotional enough have actually heard a proper historically informed performances of these pieces?
> 
> The 20th century produced a lot of horrible generic sounding performances of baroque music, done by conductors who had no business recording anything but romantic music. Perhaps that's why some people are turned off by it?
> 
> Luckily Harnoncourt put an end to that.
> I challenge anyone to listen to these two pieces without being moved:


Anything without singing? - I struggle with the vocals to be honest.

Also, we should probably stick to the limits set in the thread...


----------



## tdc

janxharris said:


> What do you think Brahms would have cited in particular from Idomeneo?


I think there are examples interspersed throughout the work he might cite. An example is from about 25:54-28:02 here:


----------



## Star

janxharris said:


> Indeed - Julian Johnson here on Beethoven's Eroica:


Oh one of these guys who waffle on the bbc


----------



## janxharris

Star said:


> Oh one of these guys who waffle on the bbc



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


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Actually - listening to Mozart's 41st Symphony again, I am hearing cliché upon cliché. For me, it does have some good moments, especially the finale, but I'm not a fan particularly.
> 
> I'm am just clarifying what I wrote earlier (for what it's worth). Nobody need be offended.


No - we're not offended

neither are the top conductors who, in a poll, placed sy no 41 as the 3rd greatest symphony in the history of music.


----------



## Blancrocher

stomanek said:


> neither are the top conductors who, in a poll, placed sy no 41 as the 3rd greatest symphony in the history of music.


I'd be interested in a link to this poll if it's available.


----------



## Jacck

stomanek said:


> No - we're not offended
> neither are the top conductors who, in a poll, placed sy no 41 as the 3rd greatest symphony in the history of music.


was in anonymous? They might have been afraid to point out that the emperor wears no clothes, in other not to ruin their reputations.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Blancrocher said:


> I'd be interested in a link to this poll if it's available.


https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler


----------



## Captainnumber36

Lionheart said:


> I'm surprised to see all the baroque bashing going on on this site.
> I wonder whether all these people who claim it all sounds the same, is too mathematical and not emotional enough have actually heard a proper historically informed performances of these pieces?
> 
> The 20th century produced a lot of horrible generic sounding performances of baroque music, done by conductors who had no business recording anything but romantic music. Perhaps that's why some people are turned off by it?
> 
> Luckily Harnoncourt put an end to that.
> I challenge anyone to listen to these two pieces without being moved:


These are both great! Thanks.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think in the end, we all have _some_ love for all three!


----------



## jdec

Jacck said:


> was in anonymous? They might have been afraid to point out that the emperor wears no clothes, in other not to ruin their reputations.


Oh, come on


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think in the end, we all have _some_ love for all three!


I have a lot of love for all three.


----------



## Captainnumber36

I'm listening to Mozart's Symphony 1, and it is splendid! I can listen to just about any Classical when I'm in the mood for it, but I think the majority of my listening goes to Beethoven b/c I find him the most interesting.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

tdc said:


> Beethoven _did_ use dissonance very differently (and essentially less so) than Bach or even Mozart though. I think it is a valid reason for enjoying his music less than Bach's.
> 
> I got the following Brahms quote from a post by member silentio in the Beethoven vs. Mozart thread:
> 
> Being a listener that responds strongly to a composer's use of harmony the above is also a big part of the reason why I enjoy Beethoven's music less than Bach or Mozart as well. Beethoven tended to use things like phrasing and dynamics or (volume/loudness) to create drama and tension in his music, to me it seems less effective than harmony and makes the over all impact of his music seem weaker, and in a sense less sophisticated. I do acknowledge that Beethoven excelled in other areas though, especially with form.


I agree about dynamics. It's not really what moves me in music as much as other visceral effects and I never understood the premium placed on it in keyboard music.

The comment about dissonance is really interesting. Most days I have very little to do with Beethoven, but I can definitely say that I find Wagner to be a less dissonant composer than his antecedents......because the dissonances are usually a part of larger harmonies that do not sound dissonant, as opposed to moments from Mozart where they are quite exposed.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm listening to Mozart's Symphony 1, and it is splendid!


Not bad for an 8-year-old kid composer.


----------



## Captainnumber36

jdec said:


> Not bad for an 8-year-old kid composer.


I can listen to Mozart Juvenilia in moderation!  Everything in moderation, I say!


----------



## tdc

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> The comment about dissonance is really interesting. Most days I have very little to do with Beethoven, but I can definitely say *that I find Wagner to be a less dissonant composer than his antecedents*......because the dissonances are usually a part of larger harmonies that do not sound dissonant, as opposed to moments from Mozart where they are quite exposed.


Interesting comment, are you sure you didn't mean to write Beethoven there? I have not noticed a lack of dissonance in Wagner. I can certainly hear less dissonance in Haydn and Beethoven, and out of the Romantics perhaps Berlioz and Dvorak relatively speaking. Wagner however strikes me as a composer who often used dissonance and was highly expressive harmonically.


----------



## PlaySalieri

tdc said:


> Interesting comment, are you sure you didn't mean to write Beethoven there? I have not noticed a lack of dissonance in Wagner. I can certainly hear less dissonance in Haydn and Beethoven, and out of the Romantics perhaps Berlioz and Dvorak relatively speaking. Wagner however strikes me as a composer who often used dissonance and was highly expressive harmonically.


name me a work by Mozart with significant dissonance

g minor quintet by any chance?


----------



## Kieran

Captainnumber36 said:


> Everything in moderation, I say!


What a coincidence! I always say, "everything in moderation - except moderation. Let's have that in abundance!" :tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> No - we're not offended
> 
> neither are the top conductors who, in a poll, placed sy no 41 as the 3rd greatest symphony in the history of music.


Interesting article and poll; certainly surprising to me.


----------



## janxharris

The BBC Music Magazine top 10
1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)
6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)


----------



## janxharris

I must say I find this poll quite astonishing.


----------



## tdc

stomanek said:


> name me a work by Mozart with significant dissonance
> 
> g minor quintet by any chance?


Yes that is a good example, also Idomeneo, the Requiem, Symphony No. 25,38,40 Piano Concerto No. 20 etc.

You can hear it in a lot of his works it is just that Mozart used it more sparingly than a J.S. Bach or Wagner. He also had an incredible ability of using dissonance in a way that did not seem to bring too much attention to itself. Subtle but powerful.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

Barely resolved dissonance is only one feature of harmonic ambiguity in this incredibly complex piece






And of course the famous "Dissonance" quartet


----------



## KenOC

The opening of Mozart's "Dissonance" Quartet was certainly in Beethoven's mind when he wrote the opening of his own Op. 59 No. 3 Quartet, also in C major.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Wow, 19 pages and nearly 300 posts in six days!

It's impossible for me to have a least favourite of three great contributors who all shaped music in their own way. These sorts of threads ought to be put out to grass; we need to learn to embrace things with a wider perspective and stop setting up competitions.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I must say I find this poll quite astonishing.


Are you surprised because it differs strongly from your tastes or that it differs from your understanding of the music world's top symphonies?

The only one that surprises me somewhat is Mahler 3. I was not aware that people viewed it quite that highly.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Beethoven easily. His music is overly pompous and vulgar, and probably some of the most overrated music ever. His works that aren't overplayed are simply just forgettable. 

Mozart is probably the greatest composer of all time. He mastered the limits he was constrained to at the time, and even managed to fill his weekly compositions with emotion and unique innovations that changed the dynamic of music during his time.

Imagine what he could have done had he not died so young?

Bach is also amazing, not in his ensemble works (which I detest), but his phenomenal organ pieces.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

Also you should be a fan of Mozart regardless. The dude wrote a cantata called "Lick My ***" and a sequel, "Lick My *** Nice and Clean"


----------



## hpowders

It always distills down to musical taste. For me, I'd rather listen to Mozart, Bach and even Haydn over Beethoven.

Beethoven rarely gets a play....and when he does, it's one of four works: Missa Solemnis, Diabelli Variations, Hammerklavier Sonata and the Violin Concerto.

Perhaps in 2019 I will choose one of the above.

Meanwhile, enjoying the Mozart and Haydn Piano Sonatas; Haydn's Paris and London Symphonies-so perfect in their sonata form; Bach WTC, Keyboard Partitas and organ works.

Like what you like. Who cares if someone prefers one composer over another. Life’s too short to waste time arguing about it.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Are you surprised because it differs strongly from your tastes or that it differs from your understanding of the music world's top symphonies?
> 
> The only one that surprises me somewhat is Mahler 3. I was not aware that people viewed it quite that highly.


Indeed - though I consider all the pieces good (excepting the Mahler 3 which I don't know), none would feature in my top ten.

Keeping within the limits of the OP - regarding the Beethoven - I have always considered 3 and 9 to have fantastic moments but that they obviously (or so I thought - this poll perhaps proves otherwise) suffered from being overly long and verbose.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Art Rock said:


> Beethoven, clearly. Bach is my #1, Mozart would come in around #10, Beethoven around #20-30.
> 
> Beethoven for me is a strange mix of excellent works (symphonies 5+6, string quartets, lots of piano sonatas, violin concerto, piano concertos 3+4), but also works I never need to hear again, no matter how popular they are (symphony 9, triple concerto, cello sonatas, Missa solemnis).


The Missa Solemnis? Im curious as to why. It's not a huge piece except with academics and big classical music fans, so I don't think its overplayed. And its one of his most interesting and complex.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I must say I find this poll quite astonishing.


I dont find it surprising.

Beethoven's 2 best symphonies and Mozart's jupiter - widely acknowledged as the pinnacal of the symphony n the 18th C.


----------



## Art Rock

mathisdermaler said:


> The Missa Solemnis? Im curious as to why. It's not a huge piece except with academics and big classical music fans, so I don't think its overplayed. And its one of his most interesting and complex.


I simply don't like it. In general, the way Beethoven wrote for voices does not work for me.


----------



## Jacck

E Cristobal Poveda said:


> Also you should be a fan of Mozart regardless. The dude wrote a cantata called "Lick My ***" and a sequel, "Lick My *** Nice and Clean"


what an adolescent scatological sense of humor. I hope the real Mozart did not laugh about his own jokes the same way the actor in the movie Amadeus does


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I dont find it surprising.
> 
> Beethoven's 2 best symphonies and Mozart's jupiter - widely acknowledged as the pinnacal of the symphony n the 18th C.


It's certainly interesting to know the views of such conductors...and of the views of those posting here.


----------



## Genoveva

For me the odd ones out in the symphony list given above are Brahms (1) and Mahler (3). I would have expected to see either Brahms (4) or Brahms (3), and rather than Mahler (3) I would have thought either Schubert (9) or Dvorak (9) would balance things up rather better.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> For me the odd ones out in the symphony list given above are Brahms (1) and Mahler (3). I would have expected to see either Brahms (4) or Brahms (3), and rather than Mahler (3) I would have thought either Schubert (9) or Dvorak (9) would balance things up rather better.


the full list

1. Beethoven 3 
2. Beethoven 9
3. Mozart 41
4. Mahler 9 
5. Mahler 2 
6. Brahms 4 
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 
8. Brahms Symphony 1 
9. Tchaikovsky 6 
10. Mahler 3 
11 Beethoven 5
12 Brahms 3
13 Bruckner 8
14 Sibelius 7
15 Mozart 40
16 Beethoven 7
17 Shostakovich 5
18 Brahms 2
19 Beethoven 6
20 Bruckner 7

Yes it seems a bit odd to see 3 Mahler in the top 10

but bear in mind these armies of symphony orchestras play a lot of Mahler - need to justify having a 120 piece orch.

Mozart is little played on the symphony concert circuit - need only 45 players or so. Same with Haydn. It's all big band 19thC symphonies bar Mozart and Beethoven - there is no Haydn and incredible no Schubert. It's hard to imagine that conductors out there on average thought of Bruckner's 7th before Schubert's 8th/9th or indeed Dvorak 9


----------



## larold

For added perspective, other polls in BBC Music using the same formula listed the younger Kleiber (Carlos) as either best or favorite conductor and Mozart's Marriage of Figaro as best or favorite opera.

The method is to ask 50 people (musicians, conductors, singers, executives) to list their top 3 of whatever and take the results from it. There were no fan votes.

So it is a popularity contest which would make the result having three Mahler symphonies in the top 20 no surprise. Every orchestra on earth schedules Mahler on subscription concerts now. For most orchestras today Mahler is as oft-scheduled as Beethoven.

The bigger surprise to me was Kleiber winning the conductor's popularity contest. He apparently was good at helping people feel good about themselves even though he wasn't so good at keeping scheduled appearances.

<<the full list

1. Beethoven 3 
2. Beethoven 9
3. Mozart 41
4. Mahler 9 
5. Mahler 2 
6. Brahms 4 
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique 
8. Brahms Symphony 1 
9. Tchaikovsky 6 
10. Mahler 3 
11 Beethoven 5
12 Brahms 3
13 Bruckner 8
14 Sibelius 7
15 Mozart 40
16 Beethoven 7
17 Shostakovich 5
18 Brahms 2
19 Beethoven 6
20 Bruckner 7>>


----------



## Biffo

Jacck said:


> what an adolescent scatological sense of humor. I hope the real Mozart did not laugh about his own jokes the same way the actor in the movie Amadeus does


There is nothing adolescent about Mozart's scatological sense of humour. In the 18th century it was commonplace. The whole Mozart family, including the stern Leopold, shared the same sense of humour, much to the embarrasment of the editors and translators of their letters in the more prudish late 19th century.

Forget anything you have seen in the movie 'Amadeus', it is not a biopic and makes free and loose with history and biography.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It's certainly interesting to know the views of such conductors...and of the views of those posting here.


Indeed

perhaps it will make you think a little and explore?

I sense you are in your early 20s or late teens. Many listeners start out as you do - many impressionable young people can take on board a point of view that is not their own - it only needs an impressive musical theory teacher to tell you what is wrong with this or that music and you will, unless you are careful - assume a similar POV. I am not saying that has happened with you - but you might find, like many others on this board - those sounds that you were dismissing as cliches when you were young and under the wing of a mentor, with passing years - COULD sound like masterstrokes.


----------



## Genoveva

Biffo said:


> There is nothing adolescent about Mozart's scatological sense of humour. In the 18th century it was commonplace. The whole Mozart family, including the stern Leopold, shared the same sense of humour, much to the embarrasment of the editors and translators of their letters in the more prudish late 19th century.
> 
> Forget anything you have seen in the movie 'Amadeus', it is not a biopic and makes free and loose with history and biography.


I have only ever seen "Amadeus" once. It was once too many. "_We are not amused_".


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> I have only ever seen "Amadeus" once. It was once too many. "_We are not amused_".


It's a shame - I have seen films, notable about Beethoven, Paganini - that do them some kind of justice. But Amadeus is a freak film, it has moments - but overall is an embarrassment to watch. There may yet come a great film about Mozart but it would need a very special director - someone with immense knowledge and skill.


----------



## WildThing

Oh, I think _Amadeus_ is a tremendous movie! Not a reliable or accurate biography of course, and while I found the portrayal of Mozart to be a bit over-the-top in some respects, I feel ultimately it works because of the way the character is contrasted with Salieri to bring out greater truths about human nature. Anyone who has had to put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are can feel envy and dislike for someone who possesses natural gifts they don't have, and makes what they do look so easy. Anyone who has a position or station or life that someone else comes along and disrupts, possibly garnering lavish praise in the process, can relate. But even those who don't identify with any of the characters of the film can appreciate the entertaining storytelling, the deft mix of myth and fact, be drawn in by the acting, cinematography, etc. These are just some of the reasons why I think it's a great movie, and Roger Ebert does a great job at discussing many of it's merits:

Amadeus Movie Review


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> It's certainly interesting to know the views of such conductors...and of the views of those posting here.


You can see the views of a somewhat larger group of TC members by looking at the TalkClassical Top Recommended Symphonies (significant poll of TC members).

The results in the TC poll for the Conductor's top 10 are:

Beethoven 3 - 3
Beethoven 9 - 1
Mozart 41 - 4
Mahler 9 - 18
Mahler 2 - 2
Brahms 4 - 10
Berlioz - 21
Brahms 1 - 27
Tchaikovsky 6 - 13
Mahler 3 - 81

The only major difference is Mahler 3. Interesting that every Mahler symphony except 7 was voted higher than 3.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> It's a shame - I have seen films, notable about Beethoven, Paganini - that do them some kind of justice. But Amadeus is a freak film, it has moments - but overall is an embarrassment to watch. There may yet come a great film about Mozart but it would need a very special director - someone with immense knowledge and skill.


It's a movie, not a documentary. I thought it a great film; kept my interest from beginning to end.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Indeed
> 
> perhaps it will make you think a little and explore?
> 
> I sense you are in your early 20s or late teens. Many listeners start out as you do - many impressionable young people can take on board a point of view that is not their own - it only needs an impressive musical theory teacher to tell you what is wrong with this or that music and you will, unless you are careful - assume a similar POV. I am not saying that has happened with you - but you might find, like many others on this board - those sounds that you were dismissing as cliches when you were young and under the wing of a mentor, with passing years - COULD sound like masterstrokes.


I am much older than that 

I have always had an issue with what I consider such clichés. This isn't a criticism reserved for Mozart alone; most composers, especially if they write a lot of music, tend to slip into repeating themselves in some way. I'm sure you would concur to some extent.

I would put Mozart's 40th in my top ten symphonies.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> You can see the views of a somewhat larger group of TC members by looking at the TalkClassical Top Recommended Symphonies (significant poll of TC members).
> 
> The results in the TC poll for the Conductor's top 10 are:
> 
> Beethoven 3 - 3
> Beethoven 9 - 1
> Mozart 41 - 4
> Mahler 9 - 18
> Mahler 2 - 2
> Brahms 4 - 10
> Berlioz - 21
> Brahms 1 - 27
> Tchaikovsky 6 - 13
> Mahler 3 - 81
> 
> The only major difference is Mahler 3. Interesting that every Mahler symphony except 7 was voted higher than 3.


Thank you - very interesting.


----------



## Star

Bulldog said:


> It's a movie, not a documentary. I thought it a great film; kept my interest from beginning to end.


It was a good film but in the same way as Braveheart, in that you had to forget any history you know when watching it. The problem is that the movie going public at large tend to think it is seeing facts and do the reckon that Mozart wax the giggling schoolboy in the same way as they think William Wallace wore kilts.


----------



## hpowders

Star said:


> Just cannot see why people make statements like that. Beethoven's lack of dissonance? Are we listening to the same guy? When listening to Beethoven I can see why anyone would be a fan I feel the same listening to the other two, btw! I think what we need to realise is that greatness lay in a different region for each of them


The Grosse Fugue and Hammerklavier Sonata Fugue-incredibly difficult dissonance.


----------



## Luchesi

How about least favorite of the three movies Amadeus vs Immortal Beloved vs Once Upon a Time Johann Sebastian Bach (6 hours I think).


----------



## BachIsBest

hpowders said:


> The Grosse Fugue and Hammerklavier Sonata Fugue-incredibly difficult dissonance.


I agree. Those happen to be some of my favourite Beethoven pieces; along with some of the other late quartets and Missa Solemnis.


----------



## SCSL

stomanek said:


> Brahms is great but what does his life's work amount to?
> 
> 4 great symphonies
> 1 great movement of a violin concerto (mvts 2 and 3 are 2nd rate by comparison)
> half a dozen great chamber pieces
> no opera
> 1 mass
> 2 great piano concertos
> 1 great double con
> a pile of solo piano music
> some lieder
> 
> have I missed much? + oh a pair of decent overtures.
> 
> Doesnt really compare well with Mozart's life work.
> 
> Brahms himself said he was inferior to Mozart.


As a tangent to the topic of the thread, I mostly give him credit for having discovered and selflessly encouraged Dvorak.


----------



## DreamBigKeys

Beethoven is my favorite composer not only of these Big Three but of all time. I like almost every work he made (although his cadenza to Mozart’s 20th concerto gets stale fast, I prefer Brahms’s there).

I understand Mozart but I only like his piano concertos to be honest. 

As for Bach, I think he’s important too because he laid out the rules of music, but then again, that’s all I personally think he did. 

There was already Scarlatti, Haydn, and Vivaldi making music - Bach just made rules (which later got broken by Bartok).

That’s just my opinion.


----------



## DreamBigKeys

<deleted comment>


----------



## Mal

"Once Upon a Time Johann Sebastian Bach" ?

Worst title ever! 

Or, more likely, a bad Amazon translation. Looking at the DVD cover the actual title appears to be just "Johann Sebastian Bach".


----------



## BachIsBest

DreamBigKeys said:


> Beethoven is my favorite composer not only of these Big Three but of all time. I like almost every work he made (although his cadenza to Mozart's 20th concerto gets stale fast, I prefer Brahms's there).
> 
> I understand Mozart but I only like his piano concertos to be honest.
> 
> As for Bach, I think he's important too because he laid out the rules of music, but then again, that's all I personally think he did.
> 
> There was already Scarlatti, Haydn, and Vivaldi making music - Bach just made rules (which later got broken by Bartok).
> 
> That's just my opinion.


I feel you've been misinformed. Bach's compositional style was largely rejected for the entirety of the late 18th century (with some exceptions). As the 19th century wore on Bach became increasingly well renowned among the musical elite (including composers) and even late Beethoven was influenced by Bach (Beethoven refered to Bach's mastery of counterpoint as "godlike"). However, the public was largely still oblivous to his music. By the time he really got quite a bit of recognition in the 20th century most of the standard rules of music were out the window anyways.

This is not to say Bach wasn't influential. Bach's music somewhat influenced late Beethoven, was hugely influential on late Brahms, and is one of the main reasons so many composers composed 24 preludes for the piano.

I would suggest you stick with both Mozart and Bach. Beethovens msuic is (other than the late works like missa solemnis) highly approachable for its drama and magnifacence. Mozart often seems simplistic and Bach can seema bit dry and acedemic at first but I'm pretty sure most listners grow to really quite like all of the big three (hence why they are the big three).


----------



## Gottfried

Rather than a straight expression of preference, one composer as compared to others, consider the matter in terms of genres but using labels relevant to all three:

Opera/Sacred:
Bach 
Mozart 
Beethoven

Orchestral:
Beethoven
Mozart
Bach

Chamber Ensemble:
Beethoven
Mozart
Bach

Solo:
Bach
Beethoven
Mozart


----------



## Kieran

DreamBigKeys said:


> .
> 
> There was already Scarlatti, Haydn, and Vivaldi making music ..


Glad you mentioned Vivaldi, and I know I'm going off topic here, but doesn't his music often sound like it was written much later? I listened to a violin concerto of his yesterday and it was so expressive and fiery. He doesn't get enough mentions around here.

Okay, "Bach" on topic!

And welcome to the forum! :tiphat:


----------



## DreamBigKeys

Thank you for the welcome. Hopefully I can contribute to this topic more cause my first goal is to learn a piece from each of the big three - including the 12th sonata of Beethoven, 20th concerto of Mozart (w/ Brahms’s cadenza), and a fugue by Bach.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Kieran said:


> Glad you mentioned Vivaldi, and I know I'm going off topic here,* but doesn't his music often sound like it was written much later?* I listened to a violin concerto of his yesterday and it was so expressive and fiery. He doesn't get enough mentions around here.
> 
> Okay, "Bach" on topic!
> 
> And welcome to the forum! :tiphat:


I dont see that myself. The 4 seasons concertos are far in advance of anything else, heard by me, which he composed - but even they sound like they were written in the era they come from.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Baczartoven is my least favourite.


----------



## Larkenfield

. . . . . . . . . .


----------



## musicman77

My answer would be Bach. Although I love listening to St. Matthews Passion, Mass in B Minor, Well Tempered Clavier, etcetera.
I find that occasionally I am drawn to Bach and listen to him for days or a week, but that does not happen too often. Mostly I reach for the classical and romantic eras. 

My favorite composer is Beethoven. He stirs my soul like no other. To me he stands alone.

I actually do listen to Mozart often and love his music. There is a symmetry and beauty about Mozart's music that seems to order the brain and is just right. I am a fan. 

I also listen to Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, etcetera.

But the man from Bonn is tops.


----------



## Chronochromie

I have to say Bach. He's the only one who has a handful of so-called great works that I still can't really enjoy (especially The Art of Fugue).


----------



## Woodduck

Chronochromie said:


> I have to say Bach. He's the only one who has a handful of so-called great works that I still can't really enjoy (especially The Art of Fugue).


I wonder whether Art of Fugue was really meant to be listened to. Surely not in one go, at least?


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> I wonder whether Art of Fugue was really meant to be listened to. Surely not in one go, at least?


I've wondered the same of the WTC. From the title page: "The well-tempered Clavier, or Preludes and Fugues through all the tones and semitones… For the profit and use of the studious musical young, and also for the special diversion of those who are already skilful in this study, composed and made by Johann Sebastian Bach, for the time being Capellmeister and Director of the Chamber-music of the Prince of Anhalt-Cothen. In the year 1722."

This suggests to me that its target audience was the usual audience for sheet music, that is, those who wanted to study and play it, not passive listeners like today.


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> I wonder whether Art of Fugue was really meant to be listened to. Surely not in one go, at least?


Yet I find it a wonderful listening experience in one go.  Sometimes, I immediately give it a second go. 

For me, Art of Fugue has an amazing degree of diversity within a very tight structure. Only by listening to all of it in one sitting can one capture its cumulative impact that's close to overwhelming.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> Yet I find it a wonderful listening experience in one go. Sometimes, I immediately give it a second go.
> 
> For me, Art of Fugue has an amazing degree of diversity within a very tight structure. Only by listening to all of it in one sitting can one capture its cumulative impact that's close to overwhelming.


Sure. I just doubt that Bach ever thought of his demonstration course in contrapuntal techniques as a concert piece. I've listened to the whole thing too and found it amazing.


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Sure. I just doubt that Bach ever thought of his demonstration course in contrapuntal techniques as a concert piece.


You know JSB made a concert score for two keyboards out of a pair of the fugues in Art of Fugue? I think that gives us a clue as to what he intended the collection to be. Musicians should take the fugues in the collection and turn them (imaginatively) into concert pieces.

The whole Art of Fugue does have a unifying structure I think. It is an integrated, ordered ensemble. It's not like the Chopin Preludes or Brahms's sets of late piano pieces. That also gives us a clue about how much of it Bach envisaged being performed at once.


----------



## Luchesi

When I was young I was happy to find the simpler parts of the AoF to play. I was thinking - now I'm really playing some serious Bach, compared to the short preludes that every student begins to play. Those short preludes always seemed to me to be show pieces for recitals and for the very young who have a curious talent with dexterity. But the AoF is easy to recognize, even as a young person, as a sophisticated development of the beginning notes. 

It can be the first lesson in music sophistication before a student reads any essays about theory, AND it's 'painless' and inspiring.


----------



## Larkenfield

What composer would write something called the Art of the Fugue without intending it to be instructive first? He was teaching about all fugues and not just one. He was demonstrating various ways that fugues could be written for students first, not intended as a performance work but a study work, and he left the end open as an incentive for others to try writing their own – the Art was never completed in this lifetime and it certainly could’ve been. How clear does it have to be that it was intended for students, but of course the instructive examples, like music itself, can obviously be performed. What if Beethoven had written a work called the Art of the Symphony? It would obviously have been intended to be instructive because the title would suggest that the composer was a master and knew how to do it. Bach was also a teacher and he felt a responsibility to pass on his knowledge and be instructive to others, starting with his own family. So I doubt if everything was intended to be a performance work first, and sometimes when he was being an instructor he may not have been as inspired, because that was not his purpose in setting down a method and providing examples. I would put the WTC in the same category of being intended to be instructive first and that his systematic intentions to put it down on paper to expand the use of all keys using the even tempered scale can be heard, and that it sometimes sounds instructive first and inspired second. He was being systematic in writing what he did, and it sometimes shows. It can sound somewhat tedious and labored, but that may sometimes be necessary in order to get the point across as a consistent and orderly instructor.


----------



## Mandryka

He called the Goldberg Variations "Clavier Ubung", keyboard exercises.


----------



## Mandryka

As far as I know the title Die Kunst Der Fuge doesn't occur in any autograph. Die Kunst der Fuga is on a page at the start of one of Bach's exercise books (Ms. B), but it's not written by Bach. The title may have been JS Bach's, it may have been something CPE Bach invented for the first edition -- no-one can say right now. But my point is, you can't draw any secure conclusions about Bach's intentions from the title.


----------



## Gallus

Beethoven is probably the one I listen to the least, although not by much. Sometimes I find him too 'unbalanced' to listen to, while a Mozart or Bach piece is always there as a perfect refuge from the world. But like I said, the only composer I enjoy as much overall as any of the 'big three' is Josquin.


----------



## Luchesi

"Study Bach: there you will find everything." Johannes Brahms

So human, Johann Sebastian Bach says, "Bring me a bowl of coffee before I turn into a goat."


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> "Study Bach: there you will find everything." Johannes Brahms
> 
> So human, Johann Sebastian Bach says, "Bring me a bowl of coffee before I turn into a goat."


The idea of serving coffee in a bowl is the least baffling thing about this.


----------



## Star

Woodduck said:


> The idea of serving coffee in a bowl is the least baffling thing about this.


No Starbucks in those days!


----------



## Star

Woodduck said:


> Sure. I just doubt that Bach ever thought of his demonstration course in contrapuntal techniques as a concert piece. I've listened to the whole thing too and found it amazing.


Utterly incredible!


----------



## distantprommer

If I were to be exiled to a desert island with music of only one composer, then it would be Beethoven. I suppose I could tolerate life without the music of other composers. No Bach, difficult but possible. No Mozart, almost impossible. No Beethoven; Totally impossible.


----------



## RevAvery

For me it would be Beethoven. That doesn't mean I don't like him though. I like Bach. Like Vivaldi better. Enjoy Handel too. 

But given a choice, my number 1 go to pick is Mozart every time. I can't explain it, but his music touches me like none other. 

Unless it's Elvis, of course :tiphat:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven and Bach are my favourite composers (don't ask me to choose between them!) so Mozart for me. Love some of his music but it doesn't move me the way the two Bs do.


----------



## Luchesi

JsB probably wrote enough for a desert island exile.

"I think that if I were required to spend the rest of my life on a desert island, and to listen to or play the music of any one composer during all that time, that composer would almost certainly be Bach. I really can’t think of any other music which is so all-encompassing, which moves me so deeply and so consistently, and which, to use a rather imprecise word, is valuable beyond all of its skill and brilliance for something more meaningful than that — its humanity."

Glenn Gould Wikipedia: Glenn Gould 
— Gramophone


----------



## Luchesi

RevAvery said:


> For me it would be Beethoven. That doesn't mean I don't like him though. I like Bach. Like Vivaldi better. Enjoy Handel too.
> 
> But given a choice, my number 1 go to pick is Mozart every time. I can't explain it, but his music touches me like none other.
> 
> Unless it's Elvis, of course :tiphat:


This is a refreshing video of Murray Perahia rehearsing and talking about and performing the K467 Piano Concerto. He's so musical and he knows the music so well.


----------



## Martin70

My first post here so I might as well nail my colors to the mast. My music collection points overwhelmingly to Bach, of my 2,000+ albums well over two-thirds are works written by Bach. Once upon a time it was the other way around with Bach taking about one-third of my collection, but time ticks on and the older I get the more I find Bach alone refreshes my soul.


----------



## Bulldog

Martin70 said:


> My first post here so I might as well nail my colors to the mast. My music collection points overwhelmingly to Bach, of my 2,000+ albums well over two-thirds are works written by Bach. Once upon a time it was the other way around with Bach taking about one-third of my collection, but time ticks on and the older I get the more I find Bach alone refreshes my soul.


Spoken as a true Bach enthusiast!! About half my music listening time is devoted to Bach's music, although I do have to confess that I'm currently listening to Haydn's Cello Concerto in C major performed by Coin/Hogwood (one perfect recording).

Do you prefer Bach on modern or period instruments? Piano or harpsichord?


----------



## Madiel

I guess I am a polytheist, so I can't stand the big three "concept" - is it a form of freemasonry? Roman Catholicism? advertising? :devil:
Anyway, I choose Beethoven, for me Bach is an acquired taste, Mozart was an infatuation of my youth, with LvB it's a lifelong love/admiration/veneration affair.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

It's Bach for me since Mozart and Beethoven are my favorite and second favorite composers, respectively. I'm about 50/50 with Bach, liking/loving some of his output and finding myself bored by the rest. I can appreciate what he does intellectually, but it's rare that he moves me emotionally.


----------



## Mozart555

Beethoven. As great as his music is, I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as Bach or Mozart. His historical repute has been overblown by the fact that he was deaf. Had he not been deaf he would be remembered differently today.


----------



## Madiel

Mozart555 said:


> Beethoven. As great as his music is, I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as Bach or Mozart. His historical repute has been overblown by the fact that he was deaf. Had he not been deaf he would be remembered differently today.


would you be so nice to make explicit your line of reasoning?
I mean everybody of course is entitled to his own taste - de gustibus non est disputandum - but when you say "think" then there should be an argument supporting it.


----------



## Woodduck

Mozart555 said:


> Beethoven. As great as his music is, I don't think he should be mentioned in the same breath as Bach or Mozart. His historical repute has been overblown by the fact that he was deaf. Had he not been deaf he would be remembered differently today.


Had he not been deaf he would certainly be remembered differently, but not for the reason you're suggesting. He would have been in some ways a different composer, and would not have conceived the visionary works of his final decade, works which would ensure his place among the greatest composers had he written nothing else. But about things that didn't happen there's not much else we can say.


----------



## isorhythm

Mozart, but barely, for reasons others have already said.


----------



## Guest

They change. Mozart is almost always top for me, Bach and Beethoven just underneath. Recently I have enjoyed some Beethoven string quartets but I haven't listened to much Bach.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I like my Bach as hcaB


----------



## Phil loves classical

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I like my Bach as hcaB


do you hear any interesting subliminal messages?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Yeah, G string becomes very interesting


----------



## Skakner

*Mozart* by far.
In my personal Musical Holy Trinity, I could easily replace him with *Brahms*.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Beethoven for me. Mozart and Bach are unassailable in my top and runner-up spots respectively, while Beethoven - though I'd hate to be without his music - isn't even sure of third place.


----------



## poconoron

I would need to keep Mozart and Beethoven.............so JS Bach, unfortunately.


----------



## Lisztian

Definitely Mozart at this point.


----------



## Martin70

I would agree, Mozart.


----------



## Luchesi

Martin70 said:


> I would agree, Mozart.


Mozart's works might be the easier to remember than JsB or LvB. So if you've heard them 3 or 4 times, that's enough for a while?


----------



## Ras

Captainnumber36 said:


> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


I couldn't live without any of those composers - but I'll make this deal with you: If I can keep all three of them you can have the rest of music history.


----------



## Ethereality

Ras said:


> I couldn't live without any of those composers - but I'll make this deal with you: If I can keep all three of them you can have the rest of music history.


We have ourselves a deal


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Mozart. Too violent and colorful. Bach and Beethoven are clearer.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCud8H7z7vU


----------



## Fabulin

I love some Beethoven, like some Mozart, and tolerate some Bach.


----------



## Luchesi

Fabulin said:


> I love some Beethoven, like some Mozart, and tolerate some Bach.


You prefer melodies and drama to contrapuntal lines and arithmetic back and forths?


----------



## Botschaft

Luchesi said:


> You prefer melodies and drama to contrapuntal lines and arithmetic back and forths?


There's plenty of melody and drama in Bach.



Fabulin said:


> I love some Beethoven, like some Mozart, and tolerate some Bach.


This is to say you find most of Bach intolerable and that you love none of Mozart?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

My preference:

Beethoven
Bach
Mozart


----------



## Luchesi

Waldesnacht said:


> There's plenty of melody and drama in Bach.


Well, we have to draw a line somewhere, to keep them separate (even though all three are from the same culture in the larger world). Memorable melodies? By drama I meant something nebulous like levels of building drama are levels of increasing ambiguity as the decades go by for all three.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Bach is by far my least favourite of the 3.

I love _some_ of Beethoven.

Mozart would definitely be number 1.

Wagner would be in the top 3 greatest for me.


----------



## Zauberfloete

My musical preferences have shifted several times, but some point in my life each of them has been my favourite, Mozart having being the number 1 for a few years now. Strangely enough he's the one of the three that took me longer to appreciate. I can't really pinpoint why I loved Bach in my teens but disliked Mozart, I guess was young and foolish (still foolish, just not young anymore). 

I would say Beethoven is currently my least liked of the three - not because I don't like his music but rather because I don't like the emotions it stirs in me. It's too powerful, right now. Bach earns a second place as these day I find myself easily "mentally tired" by his music. Mozart on the other hand (whether it's a lively piece or a solemn one) I never tire of.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

larold said:


> In their first 35 years, Bach and Beethoven were not what they became. Had they died age 35 neither would be considered among the top classical music composers of all time. And Bach surely would never have been considered to have written anything very monumental.


............Wow


----------



## MatthewWeflen

Given that my top 20 is as follows:
Beethoven
Sibelius
Brahms
Mozart
Tchaikovsky
Haydn
R. Strauss
Mendelssohn
Schubert
Bruckner


Bach
Schumann
Handel
Rossini
Wagner
Dvorak
J Strauss II
Copland
Williams
Holst

...the answer is Bach. I enjoy his music, but he is my least favorite of the "big 3."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> but compare Mozart against Schubert or Mendelssohn. Mendelssohn composed this when he was 12


I know everyone talks of Mendelssohn's octet as being impressive for the age he was when he wrote it. Sure it is IMPRESSIVE, but I don't think all that highly of passages like this: 



 ( I think he's slightly "overhyped" about his precociousness: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-youngest-master-2 , https://www.classical-scene.com/2009/10/24/1692/ ) sorry, I think it's chatty, and seems to me like a worse version of the finale of Beethoven's C major Razumovsky , -and in terms of expressive dissonance, I find Mozart's works from years 1773~4 more interesting.






















K.167:





















Schubert? Did he write anything interesting in his teens?





Mozart wrote this 2 weeks before his 13th birthday, btw:


----------



## consuono

larold said:


> .
> 
> He died age 35, Beethoven age 57, Bach age 65. The latter two developed almost all their most important ("more monumental and more consistent") works after age 35. Among those works that would fit in this category only Beethoven's Eroica symphony was written prior to his age 35. Everything else came later.
> 
> That means Mozart wrote all his operas, the C minor mass and requiem mass, all his concertos including all 27 for piano/keyboard, all the piano sonatas, and everything else in 35 years. He had a fully realized career in time when most people are just beginning to develop and flower.
> 
> In their first 35 years, Bach and Beethoven were not what they became. Had they died age 35 neither would be considered among the top classical music composers of all time. And Bach surely would never have been considered to have written anything very monumental.


Cantatas 106, 21, 71, the English Suites, the Orgelbüchlein, most likely the cello and violin suites and partitas and the orchestral suites, the C minor Passacaglia and Fugue...good grief. Actually I think Bach composed more substantial music at a younger age than either of the other two.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Cantatas 106, 21, 71, the English Suites, the Orgelbüchlein, most likely the cello and violin suites and partitas and the orchestral suites, the C minor Passacaglia and Fugue...good grief. Actually I think Bach composed more substantial music at a younger age than either of the other two.


Cantatas 106, 21 were written in 1707/8, Cantata 21, the English Suites in 1713/14. The C minor Passacaglia and Fugue around 1706~13.

























hammeredklavier said:


> I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20.
> It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
> _"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
> [10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
> as if "darkness" hasn't been yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
> [13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
> [21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domino morientium"_.
> [24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, an expansive double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
> [34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme.





hammeredklavier said:


> So many mentions of Mozart. I'll add a couple more examples of his.
> Mozart wrote this at 10:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it wasn't until he studied with Padre Martini in Bologna and studied Fux's Gradus ad Parnassum 5 years later, he started to become seriously good at the stuff.
> I think his Missa longa K.262 in C major (1775) is an interesting example to discuss. About how it's different in expressivity from the masterful Missa in honorem sanctissimae trinitatis (K.167, which he wrote two years earlier), and how Mozart starts to outgrow the influences of his father (and other Salzburg masters including Eberlin) in expressivity, and show-off many various aspects of contrapuntal composition (canon, fugato, double fugato, fugue, double fugue, triple fugue) with a "Look, daddy! No hands!" attitude.
> Kyrie: contains sections of double fugues in sonata-ritornello form [0:32]. It has a striking development in a darker color [1:46].
> Gloria: contains sections of expressive counterpoint, for example, _"Domine fili.."_ [4:25],
> _"miserere"_ [5:10].
> Cum sanctu spiritu [6:50] is a triple fugue with its own _"Cum sanctu spiritu"_ subject, and two separate subjects of _"amen"_ derived from the Gloria movement. Intricately developed with use of strettos.
> Credo: I like the harmonies in sections like _"Et ex patre.."_ [9:17] in the initial material. After them, there are sections of expressive double fugatos like the _"Et incarnatus est"_ [10:48] and the _"Et homo factus est"_ [11:21].
> Notice the change of mood that comes with the dramatic fugato in C minor, _"crucifixus"_ [11:41].
> The little "reverse" canonic section of _"Qui ex patre"_ [14:38] is also noteworthy.
> The _"Et vitam venturi"_ fugue [17:02], which concludes the credo movement, contains moments of dramatic use of dissonance in the form of strettos [18:10, 18:42]
> Sanctus: I like the _"hosanna"_ fugue [20:23]; short, but glorious in character.
> Benedictus: expressive counterpoint in the form of fugatos _"Benedictus qui venit.."_ [22:32].
> Listen to the top voice rising expressively, _"in no - me - ne .."_ in the F major section [23:18]
> Agnus dei: darker contrasting sections of "canonic" character, _"miserere"_ [25:02]
> The movement concludes with the serene _"Dona nobis pacem"_, composed of material derived from the Gloria movement.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Cantatas 106, 21 were written in 1707/8, Cantata 21, the English Suites in 1713/14. The C minor Passacaglia and Fugue around 1706~13.


Yep, and I still stand by the statement.


----------



## chu42

I love all three dearly so picking Mozart for me is not because he is worse, but he is the one I listen to a little bit less than Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## JakeWebster

*Beethoven* is my #1 composer in all of classical music. So dramatic and moving.

The order of the next two is hard. I don't like many pieces of either, but there is something magical about *Mozart* where when he succeeds, it's as good as Beethoven. Can't say that about Bach.

However, I don't dislike *Bach*. Although I do think he's the most overrated composer.


----------



## Luchesi

Can we tell by the lists who's a musician and who isn't?


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Can we tell by the lists who's a musician and who isn't?


I can tell those who've played the WTC and those who haven't, anyway.


----------



## ORigel

Mozart, though he is always in my top ten, and often in my top five. Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms occupy the top three spots in my list.

I used to prefer Haydn to Mozart. That has changed. Ol' Papa has more works that I like, but he never matches the profundity or subtlety of first-rate Mozart.


----------



## Handelian

JakeWebster said:


> *Beethoven* is my #1 composer in all of classical music. So dramatic and moving.
> 
> The order of the next two is hard. I don't like many pieces of either, but there is something magical about *Mozart* where when he succeeds, it's as good as Beethoven. Can't say that about Bach.
> 
> However, I don't dislike *Bach*. Although I do think he's the most overrated composer.


The mind boggles when someone says Bach is overrated when both Mozart and Beethoven recognised his genius. So you don't get it by all means but don't say he's overrated


----------



## Handelian

ORigel said:


> Mozart, though he is always in my top ten, and often in my top five. Beethoven, Bach, and Brahms occupy the top three spots in my list.
> 
> I used to prefer Haydn to Mozart. That has changed. Ol' Papa has more works that I like, but he never matches the profundity or subtlety of first-rate Mozart.


One thing we have to realise about Mozart is that we have the tragedy of him dying when he had just reached his Zenith as a composer. Imagine what he would've written if he'd have lived as long as Haydn - or even another 10 years.


----------



## Ethereality

Handelian said:


> The mind boggles when someone says Bach is overrated when both Mozart and Beethoven recognised his genius.


One has nothing to do with the other. Johann liked Dietrich. Wolfgang instead liked Johann. Jake instead likes Wolfgang.

I wouldn't hold Jake accountable to therefore like Dietrich just because his friends do. I take it you would?

Many a popular composers may call Bach and Mozart 'of the Big 3 of all time' because these other composers have a similar mindset for this popular sound. But the Big 3 didn't do other things first, that other composers care about. I don't think it's up to a socialist to determine what is more important.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Wolfgang instead liked Johann.


There were many Johanns: 
"Wolfgang liked Johann Ernst Eberlin"
"Wolfgang liked Johann Christian Bach"
"Wolfgang liked Johann Michael Haydn"
All the above three sentences would be true.
Hence with the Bachs, I tend to use their middle names: Sebastian, Friedemann, Emanuel, Christian.

Btw, I see that you reverted your avatar back to your old one. I love it. It suits you well. I wish you don't change it.



hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart portrait miniature of 'virtually unparalleled' importance to be sold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "With his pink cheeks and bright eyes Mozart looks positively cherubic, the very picture of a young man in love.
> The image is contained in an incredibly rare portrait miniature, reproduced in colour for what is thought to be the first time and about to be sold at auction after centuries of being passed down through generations of the same family.
> Sotheby's announced that it was to sell one of only two Mozart portraits which remain in private hands, with the auction house's head of books and manuscripts describing the object's significance as "virtually unparalleled".
> He said the artist had caught the very essence of Mozart. "He looks directly out at you, whereas there are lots of portrait miniatures where their eyes might as well be closed. This is different. He engages you … it is very open and friendly. You are looking at a real person."
> The 21-year-old composer gave the portrait to his 18-year-old cousin Maria Anna Thekla Mozart, with whom he had a fleeting affair, probably his first.
> He almost certainly had affection for her, although it is difficult to discern given his letters to her do not bear too much repeating. "They're quite scatological," said Roe, and for want of a better word, filthy.
> The portrait, given as a love token, clearly meant a lot to Maria Anna, given that it was found among her belongings when she died in 1841, aged 82. "She kept it for 70-odd years, which is touching," said Roe."


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> One has nothing to do with the other. Johann liked Dietrich. Wolfgang instead liked Johann. Jake instead likes Wolfgang.
> 
> I wouldn't hold Jake accountable to therefore like Dietrich just because his friends do. I take it you would?
> 
> Many a popular composers may call Bach and Mozart 'of the Big 3 of all time' because these other composers have a similar mindset for this popular sound. But the Big 3 didn't do other things first, that other composers care about. I don't think it's up to a socialist to determine what is more important.


'Socialist' ? Do you live on this planet?


----------



## mikeh375

For me, in order of preference, it's Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Bach imv is unparalleled and between the other two I find I will put on Mozart before Beethoven but that might be because I still have boxed sets unopened from the complete Mozart Edition and feel the need to at least listen to them once. I do like Beethoven too of course but these days, my taste often prefers a purer aesthetic, one less troubled and more 'pure'.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mikeh375 said:


> I still have boxed sets unopened from the complete Mozart Edition and feel the need to at least listen to them once.


I've heard you talking about your complete Mozart edition many times. I'm just curious, do you also have a complete Bach edition? For instance, how many of the cantatas have you listened to?


----------



## mikeh375

hammeredklavier said:


> I've heard you talking about your complete Mozart edition many times. I'm just curious, do you also have a complete Bach edition? For instance, how many of the cantatas have you listened to?


I've heard probably about 15% of the cantatas over the years, so they are a blind spot but are on the listening bucket list as what I have heard is wonderful. No, I don't have a complete set of Bach, just plenty of individual cd's and scores however my time for listening is drastically reduced by my time for writing such is the way it is.
Re. the Mozart Edition, I doubt I'll get through all of the operas because if it come to it, the likes of the Bach Cantatas may have to take precedence...


----------



## ORigel

Handelian said:


> One thing we have to realise about Mozart is that we have the tragedy of him dying when he had just reached his Zenith as a composer. Imagine what he would've written if he'd have lived as long as Haydn - or even another 10 years.


Because he died 10 years early, we've missed Mozart's responses to The Creation, Op 76 and 77 quartets, and Beethoven's early piano sonatas.

If Mozart lived longer than that, I don't know what would have happened. Would he had retired after several years? Would he have been an arch-traditionalist against Beethoven's revolution? Could Mozart have changed the course of musical history?


----------



## RogerWaters

Mozart without doubt. Despite his genius, his music is lighter and less metaphysical than the two Bs. 

It seems to me to be over-socialised, in comparison - designed to please people as opposed to providing them with a revelation (not that a revelation cannot be ‘pleasing’, in a deeper sense).


----------



## Handelian

RogerWaters said:


> Mozart without doubt. Despite his genius, his music is lighter and less metaphysical than the two Bs.
> 
> It seems to me to be over-socialised, in comparison - designed to please people as opposed to providing them with a revelation (not that a revelation cannot be 'pleasing', in a deeper sense).


Sorry but if you don't think that works like the da Ponte operas are not a 'revelation' in musical terms I don't know what is.

'Lighter'. Just what is meant by that meaningless term? The end of don Giovanni is 'lighter'?


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> Because he died 10 years early, we've missed Mozart's responses to The Creation, Op 76 and 77 quartets, and Beethoven's early piano sonatas.


Sorry, I always think of the Creation and Op.76, Op.77 as weaker (the Fantasia of No.6 is good though) "creations" after Mozart's. I don't think Mozart would have been affected by any of those if he lived longer and achieved greater maturity (to eclipse Joseph even more). I hate to say it, I'm constantly disturbed by Joseph Haydn enthusiasts' "propaganda" to try make it seem as if Joseph did something really significant in the course of classical music history, as if he was the "Bach of the late 18th century". In reality, Mozart had shown him "the way" with the K.499 quartet of 1786 and the quintets of 1787. But Joseph still didn't seem to "get it". No.54 No.2, which was written in 1788, pretty much proves this.
post1968180
post1969282
post1973473
post1977379








ORigel said:


> If Mozart lived longer than that, I don't know what would have happened. Would he had retired after several years? Would he have been an arch-traditionalist against Beethoven's revolution? Could Mozart have changed the course of musical history?


Whether an artist is an arch-traditionalist or a revolutionary also depends to some extent on how you look at them. As I said before, take a look at:
Piano Sonata No. 15 in F Major, K. 533: II. Andante: 



 (5:05 ~ 5:35)
Richard Wagner "Tristan und Isolde" - Prelude: 



 (7:00 ~ 7:30)
Mozart: String Quartet No.16 In E Flat, K.428 - 2. Andante con moto:


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Mozart without doubt. Despite his genius, his music is lighter and less metaphysical than the two Bs.
> It seems to me to be over-socialised, in comparison - designed to please people as opposed to providing them with a revelation (not that a revelation cannot be 'pleasing', in a deeper sense).


You expressed this view of yours before, and it's somewhat understandable. Some people never come to terms with the rococo elements in his music. But I think the way Mozart utilizes them makes him "the Ravel of the 18th century" -he can be just as profound and powerful as Beethoven or Wagner, at the same time he's preoccupied with the idea of "life and death" like Schubert, albeit in an interestingly different way. This Mozart biopic from 1991 portrayed this side of Mozart really well (look at part 3):



hammeredklavier said:


> part 1:
> 
> 
> 
> part 2:
> 
> 
> 
> part 3:


----------



## SixFootScowl

I probably posted this a couple years ago, but how many look thorough all the old posts, so here goes again. I rarely listen to Bach or Mozart but can't really say which I like least. If I only had those two to choose from, well Mozart has symphonies and operas, Bach does not. Not sure which I would favor until if I ever listen to a lot of their music. Thankfully I have more choices so my all time favorite for instrumental music is Beethoven.


----------



## Handelian

SixFootScowl said:


> I probably posted this a couple years ago, but how many look thorough all the old posts, so here goes again. I rarely listen to Bach or Mozart but can't really say which I like least. If I only had those two to choose from, well Mozart has symphonies and operas, Bach does not. Not sure which I would favor until if I ever listen to a lot of their music. Thankfully I have more choices so my all time favorite for instrumental music is Beethoven.


The main point is that we have the choice to listen to what we like so you can leave JSB and Mozart to those of us who enjoy them.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Handelian said:


> The main point is that we have the choice to listen to what we like so you can leave JSB and Mozart to those of us who enjoy them.


Did he ever say other people aren't allowed to enjoy them?


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I can tell those who've played the WTC and those who haven't, anyway.


Yes, there is the tactile experience in addition to the sound and the other experiences (following the music theory logic and playing with others).


----------



## Luchesi

ORigel said:


> Because he died 10 years early, we've missed Mozart's responses to The Creation, Op 76 and 77 quartets, and Beethoven's early piano sonatas.
> 
> If Mozart lived longer than that, I don't know what would have happened. Would he had retired after several years? Would he have been an arch-traditionalist against Beethoven's revolution? Could Mozart have changed the course of musical history?


Mozart would have been in his 60s when LvB began his 3rd period. But Mozart's new works might've derailed LvB somewhat, or maybe they would have accelerated his revolutionary explorations.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Mozart would have been in his 60s when LvB began his 3rd period. But Mozart's new works might've derailed LvB somewhat, or maybe they would have accelerated his revolutionary explorations.


TBH I think if Mozart had lived longer his music probably would've sounded similar to Beethoven's, but maybe with more of an emphasis on melody. I think he would've gone "back to Bach" in terms of contrapuntal structure just like Beethoven did at the end, while, like Beethoven, putting his own individual stamp on it.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> You expressed this view of yours before, and it's somewhat understandable. Some people never come to terms with the rococo elements in his music. But I think the way Mozart utilizes them makes him "the Ravel of the 18th century" -he can be just as profound and powerful as Beethoven or Wagner, at the same time he's preoccupied with the idea of "life and death" like Schubert, albeit in an interestingly different way. This Mozart biopic from 1991 portrayed this side of Mozart really well (look at part 3):


That documentary is very impressive (production values) and engaging. 'Compared to the usual fare..


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> TBH I think if Mozart had lived longer his music probably would've sounded similar to Beethoven's, but maybe with more of an emphasis on melody. I think he would've gone "back to Bach" in terms of contrapuntal structure just like Beethoven did at the end, while, like Beethoven, putting his own individual stamp on it.


If such late works of Mozart's became available to LvB, what would he have had to bequeath to us mere mortals? ... what would he have had to rebel against? Surely his awareness would have found new avenues, while all the while praising Mozart. Did he ever criticize Mozart's simple elements like we do today? I don't know.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> If such late works of Mozart's became available to LvB, what would he have had to bequeath to us mere mortals? ... what would he have had to rebel against? Surely his awareness would have found new avenues, while all the while praising Mozart. Did he ever criticize Mozart's simple elements like we do today? I don't know.


Well Mozart's career was apparently on the upswing at the time of his death. If he had lived on he may have eventually become as renowned as Haydn in his lifetime and may have put Beethoven in the shade. I wonder what direction Mozart's solo piano music would've taken in particular. But it's all counter-factual anyway.


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> Well Mozart's career was apparently on the upswing at the time of his death. If he had lived on he may have eventually become as renowned as Haydn in his lifetime and may have put Beethoven in the shade. I wonder what direction Mozart's solo piano music would've taken in particular. But it's all counter-factual anyway.


Mozart was as renowned as Haydn by the time he died. He was a very famous free-lance musician.


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I always think of the Creation and Op.76, Op.77 as weaker (the Fantasia of No.6 is good though) "creations" after Mozart's. I don't think Mozart would have been affected by any of those if he lived longer and achieved greater maturity (to eclipse Joseph even more). I hate to say it, I'm constantly disturbed by Joseph Haydn enthusiasts' "propaganda" to try make it seem as if Joseph did something really significant in the course of classical music history, as if he was the "Bach of the late 18th century". In reality, Mozart had shown him "the way" with the K.499 quartet of 1786 and the quintets of 1787. But Joseph still didn't seem to "get it". No.54 No.2, which was written in 1788, pretty much proves this.
> post1968180
> post1969282
> post1973473
> post1977379
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether an artist is an arch-traditionalist or a revolutionary also depends to some extent on how you look at them. As I said before, take a look at:
> Piano Sonata No. 15 in F Major, K. 533: II. Andante:
> 
> 
> 
> (5:05 ~ 5:35)
> Richard Wagner "Tristan und Isolde" - Prelude:
> 
> 
> 
> (7:00 ~ 7:30)
> Mozart: String Quartet No.16 In E Flat, K.428 - 2. Andante con moto:


Mozart thought highly of Haydn, thought that he was an equal.

Mozart was affected by the Opus 33 set; they inspired his quartets dedicated to Haydn. So I think the Op 76 and 77 would have inspired another ambitious set of string quartets. Mozart's string quintets were more sublime than the late Haydn quartets, but were his string quartets more sublime than them? I don't know.

Likewise, I am sure the Creation would have inspired a response from Mozart.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> Mozart was as renowned as Haydn by the time he died. He was a very famous free-lance musician.


Well, not quite but he was probably on his way. He wasn't as successful as Beethoven later was at freelancing.


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I always think of the Creation and Op.76, Op.77 as weaker (the Fantasia of No.6 is good though) "creations" after Mozart's. I don't think Mozart would have been affected by any of those if he lived longer and achieved greater maturity (to eclipse Joseph even more). I hate to say it, I'm constantly disturbed by Joseph Haydn enthusiasts' "propaganda" to try make it seem as if Joseph did something really significant in the course of classical music history, as if he was the "Bach of the late 18th century". In reality, Mozart had shown him "the way" with the K.499 quartet of 1786 and the quintets of 1787. But Joseph still didn't seem to "get it". No.54 No.2, which was written in 1788, pretty much proves this.
> post1968180
> post1969282
> post1973473
> post1977379
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether an artist is an arch-traditionalist or a revolutionary also depends to some extent on how you look at them. As I said before, take a look at:
> Piano Sonata No. 15 in F Major, K. 533: II. Andante:
> 
> 
> 
> (5:05 ~ 5:35)
> Richard Wagner "Tristan und Isolde" - Prelude:
> 
> 
> 
> (7:00 ~ 7:30)
> Mozart: String Quartet No.16 In E Flat, K.428 - 2. Andante con moto:


Also, compare Ode to Joy to this:


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> Well, not quite but he was probably on his way. He wasn't as successful as Beethoven later was at freelancing.


That's quite subjective, but I understand how you've gotten that impression.


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> Well, not quite but he was probably on his way. He wasn't as successful as Beethoven later was at freelancing.


He actually was when it came to writing music.


----------



## Handelian

ORigel said:


> Mozart thought highly of Haydn, thought that he was an equal.
> 
> Mozart was affected by the Opus 33 set; they inspired his quartets dedicated to Haydn. So I think the Op 76 and 77 would have inspired another ambitious set of string quartets. Mozart's string quintets were more sublime than the late Haydn quartets, but were his string quartets more sublime than them? I don't know.
> 
> Likewise, I am sure the Creation would have inspired a response from Mozart.


Haydn of course thought Mozart was the greatest composer who ever lived.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> He actually was when it came to writing music.


But not at making a comfortable living at it.


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> But not at making a comfortable living at it.


That is a myth actually. He lived comfortably. The problem was he spent money as fast as he got it.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> That is a myth actually. He lived comfortably. The problem was he spent money as fast as he got it.


:lol: OK, Mozart died as rich and famous as Haydn. Got it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Handelian said:


> That is a myth actually. He lived comfortably. The problem was he spent money as fast as he got it.


there are sources that say otherwise, 




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_Berlin_journey#Leipzig_again
"from the point of view of applause and glory this concert was absolutely magnificent but the profits were wretchedly meager" (letter, 16 May 1789).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#1788–90
"Toward the end of the decade, Mozart's circumstances worsened. Around 1786 he had ceased to appear frequently in public concerts, and his income shrank. This was a difficult time for musicians in Vienna because of the Austro-Turkish War: both the general level of prosperity and the ability of the aristocracy to support music had declined."


----------



## Handelian

consuono said:


> :lol: OK, Mozart died as rich and famous as Haydn. Got it.


Why don't you read what I say? He never got rich because he lived up to his means.


----------



## RogerWaters

Handelian said:


> The main point is that we have the choice to listen to what we like so you can leave JSB and Mozart to those of us who enjoy them.


You must be the new DavidA around here.

Have you even read the thread title? It signals that the discussion is dedicated to singling out which of the three big guns we like least.

You're like one of those people who go to a clearly-indicated Christmas party and then object that it's a Christmas party and not a faith-indeterminate party.


----------



## consuono

Handelian said:


> Why don't you read what I say? He never got rich because he lived up to his means.


I did read what you wrote. You said Mozart was as renowned as Haydn. That simply isn't true.


----------



## RogerWaters

Handelian said:


> Sorry but if you don't think that works like the da Ponte operas are not a 'revelation' in musical terms I don't know what is.
> 
> 'Lighter'. Just what is meant by that meaningless term? The end of don Giovanni is 'lighter'?


I'm not talking about formal musical terms, I'm talking about the content of the music, or what it expresses. Mozart's music undoubtedly expresses lighter sentiments, generally speaking. I yhink you'd have to be a buffoon not to sense this.

The end of don Giovanni is one single example. Of course Mozart wrote some somewhat 'heavier' music. What I'm talking about is in general terms. Mozart generally wrote lighter music, i.e. music that expressed (content) more jolly sentiments, or when not jolly, sighs that ultimately resolve again into pleasantness.

I'm listening to the g minor quintet right now, and it's amazing how pleasant it is! Comparing this to a Beethoven minor-key quartet is like comparing a Watteau painting with a David Casper Frederick: both are 'revelations' in formal terms, but they express very different sentiments.


----------



## ORigel

consuono said:


> I did read what you wrote. You said Mozart was as renowned as Haydn. That simply isn't true.


Perhaps not in his time. That quickly changed, though.


----------



## Luchesi

my mistake 

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 15 characters.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I'm listening to the g minor quintet right now, and it's amazing how pleasant it is! Comparing this to a Beethoven minor-key quartet is like comparing a Watteau painting with a David Casper Frederick: both are 'revelations' in formal terms, but they express very different sentiments.


"As an example of Mozart's deceptive simplicity, Kapilow pinpoints a passage from the String Quintet in G minor, K. 516, a piece he calls one of Mozart's most incredible. At the piano, Kapilow demonstrates how what is heard on the surface of a simple musical phrase is not the whole story.
"First, he's bursting our bubble into thinking that this is a simple four-bar passage," Kapilow says. The four measures sound harmless at first, but then Mozart develops the phrase. He copies, but transforms elements of the music in surprising ways, overlapping and passing phrases to various instruments. But after all that complexity, Kapilow says, Mozart re-tools the theme yet again, making it sound much simpler.
"It's kind of like a hologram," Kapilow says. "On the one hand, whenever the surface looks simple, there's always something subtly subversive and asymmetrical underneath balancing it. However, when the surface seems complicated, there's some wonderful, simple, symmetrical balancing agent underneath. And that's what makes Mozart's music great.""

Robert Levin: "What the 19th century did to Mozart was, it turned Mozart into the definition of taste, of elegance, of beauty. In short it turned Mozart into a fashion model; a beautiful face, a mask. And as a result of that, it cultivated an attitude toward Mozart performance in which things needed to be smooth, things needed to be poised, things needed to be beautiful. And of course what starts by being a notion of beauty ends up being rather prettified, and so we get performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him, rather than to enliven him. And to turn Mozart into an object which is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty is to me unforgivable because his music teems with all of the disorder of the human condition."


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I'm not talking about formal musical terms, I'm talking about the content of the music, or what it expresses. Mozart's music undoubtedly expresses lighter sentiments, generally speaking. I yhink you'd have to be a buffoon not to sense this. Of course Mozart wrote some somewhat 'heavier' music. What I'm talking about is in general terms. Mozart generally wrote lighter music, i.e. music that expressed (content) more jolly sentiments, or when not jolly, sighs that ultimately resolve again into pleasantness.


"I know of no other composer as fundamentally transformed while writing in minor keys, and none except Gesualdo and Wagner, who made such unforgettable use of chromaticism. (For Wagner himself, Mozart was 'the great Chromatiker'.)"
< Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures , By Alfred Brendel , Page 14>

Charles Hazlewood: "Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief."

Again, watch the biopic I linked to and think about it:


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> Perhaps not in his time. That quickly changed, though.


"In 1799 the leading musical periodical of the day published a diagram created by Kollmann in the form of a "sun of composers". Johann Sebastian Bach was at the center, the man from whom all true musical wisdom proceeded, surrounded by George Frideric Handel, Carl Heinrich Graun and Joseph Haydn, and they in turn were surrounded by other composers."


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> TBH I think if Mozart had lived longer his music probably would've sounded similar to Beethoven's, but maybe with more of an emphasis on melody. I think he would've gone "back to Bach" in terms of contrapuntal structure just like Beethoven did at the end, while, like Beethoven, putting his own individual stamp on it.


"it has been argued that the Bach influence on Mozart has been overrated"
View attachment 146020

As I pointed out previously, Mozart's contrapuntal expressions before his "Bach period" are also interesting.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> "it has been argued that the Bach influence on Mozart has been overrated"


It could also be argued that Bach's influence on those other influencers of Mozart was also underrated. It could be that Bach wasn't as obscure as we might sometimes think.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> It could also be argued that Bach's influence on those other influencers of Mozart was also underrated. It could be that Bach wasn't as obscure as we might sometimes think.


To what extent do you think were the Salzburg masters, J.E. Eberlin (1702~1762), L. Mozart (1719~1787), A.C. Adlgasser (1729~1777), M. Haydn (1737~1806) influenced by Sebastian?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, it's just a topic I'm constantly interested in and eager to investigate more about.
Btw, I think M. Haydn's Missa sancti Hieronymi (1777) is a contrapuntal masterpiece.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> To what extent do you think were the Salzburg masters, J.E. Eberlin (1702~1762), L. Mozart (1719~1787), A.C. Adlgasser (1729~1777), M. Haydn (1737~1806) influenced by Sebastian?
> I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, it's just a topic I'm constantly interested in and eager to investigate more about.
> Btw, I think M. Haydn's Missa sancti Hieronymi (1777) is a contrapuntal masterpiece.


I have no idea, hammeredklavier. I'm just throwing out the possibility. I take it that Bachian counterpoint was considered backward-looking in the mid-18th century anyway but I think it would be safe to assume that all you mentioned had some knowledge of the elder Bach...which is not to say that Bach was the *only* contrapuntal influence. But I think he probably loomed larger than we might sometimes think.

I take it also that Mozart became a little less enthusiastic about Eberlin as he got more into Bach's music anyway.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Handelian said:


> The main point is that we have the choice to listen to what we like so you can leave JSB and Mozart to those of us who enjoy them.


Not that I think their music is not good, i just have other priorities.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> TBH I think if Mozart had lived longer his music probably would've sounded similar to Beethoven's, but maybe with more of an emphasis on melody. I think he would've gone "back to Bach" in terms of contrapuntal structure just like Beethoven did at the end, while, like Beethoven, putting his own individual stamp on it.


Btw, I think a lot of people neglect the fact that Mozart was just about to start his "second period" as a catholic music composer when he died.

"According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness:
Church music . . . was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it." <The Cambridge Companion to Mozart , edited by Simon P. Keefe , Page 127>

"Mozart wrote the Vesperae de Dominica in Salzburg in 1779, the same year as the Coronation Mass - a work, which the composer himself held in high esteem. It was no doubt this work that Mozart presented to Baron van Swieten when he later sought to introduce himself to the Viennese musical world as a composer of church music in the serious _stile antico_."






"In April 1791, Mozart applied to become the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral, and was designated by the City Council to take over this job following the death of the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hofmann. This never took place, since Mozart died (December 1791) before Hofmann did (1793)".

"Otta Biba has made a strong case that Mozart never lost interest in sacred music and the church style. ... The motet 'Ave verum corpus', K. 618 was written in June 1791 for the feast of Corpus Christi and can be seen as a test for his pending appointment at St Stephen's."

"When exactly it (K.341) was completed is uncertain, but the eminent scholar H. C. Robbins Landon reasons that it was not as late as suggested by those who have called it an "audition" piece for the post of Kapellmeister at Vienna's St. Stephen's Church, which would have been around 1788."






"Papa must not worry, for God is ever before my eyes. I realize His omnipotence and I fear His anger; but I also recognize His love, His compassion, and His tenderness towards His creatures. He will never forsake His own. If it is according to His will, so let it be according to mine. Thus all will be well and I must needs be happy and contented." -letter to his father, 25 October 1777

"As death, when we come to consider it closely, is the true goal of our existence, I have formed during the last few years, such close relations with this best and truest friend of mankind, that his image is not only no longer terrifying to me, but is indeed very soothing and consoling! And I thank my God for graciously granting me the opportunity of learning that death is the key which unlocks the door to our true happiness." -letter to his father, 4 April 1787


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, I think a lot of people neglect the fact


Godd info. I could never be so stoic under such primitive conditions.


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> "As an example of Mozart's deceptive simplicity, Kapilow pinpoints a passage from the String Quintet in G minor, K. 516, a piece he calls one of Mozart's most incredible. At the piano, Kapilow demonstrates how what is heard on the surface of a simple musical phrase is not the whole story.
> "First, he's bursting our bubble into thinking that this is a simple four-bar passage," Kapilow says. The four measures sound harmless at first, but then Mozart develops the phrase. He copies, but transforms elements of the music in surprising ways, overlapping and passing phrases to various instruments. But after all that complexity, Kapilow says, Mozart re-tools the theme yet again, making it sound much simpler.
> "It's kind of like a hologram," Kapilow says. "On the one hand, whenever the surface looks simple, there's always something subtly subversive and asymmetrical underneath balancing it. However, when the surface seems complicated, there's some wonderful, simple, symmetrical balancing agent underneath. And that's what makes Mozart's music great.""


What was the point of this response? I acknowledge Mozart's formal brilliance.

However, what he is expressing, via this formal brilliance, is lighter than Bach and Beethoven. Because I like 'heavier' music, I like mozart less than the other two.

While sometimes interesting, it seems your main reason for existing is to quote slabs of text at people about Mozart. If we're lucky they will be relevant to the point we were making.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> While sometimes interesting, it seems your main reason for existing is to quote slabs of text at people about Mozart. If we're lucky they will be relevant to the point we were making.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "heavy" and "light" though. Do you think these are "heavy"?
























(compared to say, 



 or 



) 
If so, can you explain your reasoning?

The video I linked to (



) is completely relevant to our discussion, especially because you said:



RogerWaters said:


> I'm listening to the g minor quintet right now, and it's amazing how pleasant it is!


It explains why the quintet not simply "pleasant".
You even called us "buffoons" for not agreeing with you:



RogerWaters said:


> I yhink you'd have to be a buffoon not to sense this.


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "heavy" and "light" though. Do you think these are "heavy"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (compared to say,
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> )
> If so, can you explain your reasoning?
> 
> The video I linked to (
> 
> 
> 
> ) is completely relevant to our discussion, especially because you said:
> 
> It explains why the quintet not simply "pleasant".
> You even called us "buffoons" for not agreeing with you:


Please don't misquote me. I said you would have to be a buffoon for thinking Mozart's music wasn't generally lighter, in emotional tone, to Beethoven or Bach's.


----------



## tdc

RogerWaters said:


> Please don't misquote me. I said you would have to be a buffoon for thinking Mozart's music wasn't generally lighter, in emotional tone, to Beethoven or Bach's.


There is some truth to what you say, but on the other hand I can see why some may feel your idea is incomplete or needs to be expanded on. I see in Mozart's music something similar to an other-worldly perspective, laughter at the divine comedy. In our human toil we often don't see it from that perspective.

There certainly is something that I would describe as an 'awareness of darkness' in Mozart's music. In fact to my ears Mozart was more adept at expressing darkness compared to Beethoven, though the general character or surface of the music generally is more humorous and joyous.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> There is some truth to what you say, but on the other hand I can see why some may feel your idea is incomplete or needs to be expanded on. I see in Mozart's music something similar to an other-worldly perspective, laughter at the divine comedy. In our human toil we often don't see it from that perspective.
> 
> There certainly is something that I would describe as an 'awareness of darkness' in Mozart's music. In fact to my ears Mozart was more adept at expressing darkness compared to Beethoven, though the general character or surface of the music generally is more humorous and joyous.


Yes, it's what you bring to it. Your experiences, your outlooks, your dreads. Bach and Beethoven are less malleable for our own uses and personal expressions. It's his language, his vocabulary. B and B are more intense from their own egos, but I don't know the words to describe this..


----------



## Handelian

RogerWaters said:


> Please don't misquote me. I said you would have to be a buffoon for thinking Mozart's music wasn't generally lighter, in emotional tone, to Beethoven or Bach's.


Frankly I think you would have to be inept for taking such a superficial view of Mozart and not seeing the darkness below the surface


----------



## Ethereality

I would bet on my life that Bach and Beethoven are the much 'darker' composers. I find Mozart to be the 'heaviest,' the weightiest, the most profound. His music seems fairly balanced and complete in the first aspect, emotional character. This equaler balance doesn't seem to effect the quality of his emotional contribution, but it's misunderstood by those who enjoy darker music.

I mean, I see people confusing darkness with profoundness a lot of the time, in Beethoven for instance, and if 'emotional depth' is the same as profoundness, then Bach should be your guy, but I think the issue is more intellectual.


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> I would bet on my life that Bach and Beethoven are the much 'darker' composers. However, I find Mozart's music to be the 'heaviest,' the weightiest and most vigorous and profound.


The problem is we can just bandy about with semantics. Each composer had his distinctive voice.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> Can we tell by the lists who's a musician and who isn't?


Do you have to play Bach in order to love him?


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you have to play Bach in order to love him?


 Of course not, but not being able to express one's disapproval in a way that's a little more informed is a dead giveaway. Still, to each his/her own.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Of course not, but not being able to express one's disapproval in a way that's a little more informed is a dead giveaway. Still, to each his/her own.


is their opinion not as highly regarded?


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> is their opinion not as highly regarded?


Am I obliged to regard it highly? I'm as free to discount an opinion as anyone is to discount the WTC.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Am I obliged to regard it highly?


No. Your not obliged to answer the question either.


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> No. Your not obliged to answer the question either.


And you're not obliged to understand that that *is* my answer.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Am I obliged to regard it highly? I'm as free to discount an opinion as anyone is to discount the WTC.


I was asking if the opinion of musicians is more highly regarded in general, not by you in particular.


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I was asking if the opinion of musicians is more highly regarded in general, not by you in particular.


No, you asked if you have to be a musician to love Bach, remember? Anyway enough. I've answered.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> No, you asked if you have to be a musician to love Bach, remember? Anyway enough. I've answered.


yes I remember that was my first question. Then I asked another question.


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> yes I remember that was my first question. Then I asked another question.


Right. "Is there opinion not as highly regarded?" No, not by me it isn't.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> I would bet on my life that Bach and Beethoven are the much 'darker' composers. I find Mozart to be the 'heaviest,' the weightiest, the most profound. His music seems fairly balanced and complete in the first aspect, emotional character. This equaler balance doesn't seem to effect the quality of his emotional contribution, but it's misunderstood by those who enjoy darker music.
> ...


That seems like an awful lot of objective statements about something that's supposed to be so subjective.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Right. "Is there opinion not as highly regarded?" No, not by me it isn't.


Interesting. I wonder if this is the general consensus.

So a non-musicians judgement regarding a piece or a composer cannot, should not and does not have the same weight as that of a musicians?

I'm genuinely interested, not arguing.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Bulldog

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> So a non-musicians judgement regarding a piece or a composer cannot, should not and does not have the same weight as that of a musicians?


That for individuals to decide. Personally, I'm not very interested in a musician's opinion of other musicians; that's not their expertise.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> There certainly is something that I would describe as an 'awareness of darkness' in Mozart's music. In fact to my ears Mozart was more adept at expressing darkness compared to Beethoven, though the general character or surface of the music generally is more humorous and joyous.


I also know what RogerWaters is talking about. I think in certain aspects Mozart can sound "fluffy" whereas Beethoven sounds "majestic": 







^(It feels like Beethoven is grandiosely saying "I am Beethoven" in these moments.)

But I think there's far more to Mozart's rococo aesthetics than just being "fluffy" -there are his ways to "change character" and "raise tension" with carefully controlled chromaticism, -with expressions so clean and crisp that Ravel would have admired. 












It's also what I appreciate about Michael Haydn, whose idiomatic language I find closest to Mozart. I like his ways to create and resolve dissonance on his white 'classical canvas'. 
Missa sancti Gabrielis in C: 




 (6:43~7:03)
Missa sancti Joannis Nepomuceni in C:








 (1:18~1:26)
Missa sancti Hieronymi in C: 




Symphony in C (28th):




Beethoven simply went his "own way", I don't think he ever emulated these aspects of classicism fully, (he still has his own unique, artistic expression).


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you have to play Bach in order to love him?


No. ``````````````````````


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you have to play Bach in order to love him?


Definitely not. It does enhance your appreciation though in certain ways.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> That seems like an awful lot of objective statements about something that's supposed to be so subjective.


We had a whole debate on this earlier, with nobody paying attention. Characteristics are observable, you can describe objective facts about music.

The only time I made a truly subjective claim is when I say "I find Mozart to be... more profound and weightier." The more objective claim is, there is less pure darkness or negativity to Mozart's music, and it's because that claim is more specific:

At least in my observation, if Beethoven is being dark and negative a lot of the time, not even emotionally dark like minor keys, but moreso conceptually dark, his intense use of rhythms and dynamics in Major keys and his _brooding_ developments, then he is being so purely.

When Mozart is being dark, he is also being light. His emotional sensitivity to both sides I find to be more enlightening and complex, that with Mozart I feel I get a 2-for-1 deal on life philosophy, but I wouldn't characterize it as dark as Beethoven. If one is contrastingly brighter than they're not darker.

In my opinion, calling Mozart darker than the other two, is an *insult* to Mozart. His music is of the intellect. I'm on this forum where darkness is supposed to be more profound and weighty, but I think Mozart is more profound and weighty. This is where I think the misunderstanding of his music comes from.

When I say misunderstanding, I'm referring to a misunderstanding of why he is so loved. Not a misunderstanding of why _you_ should love him. There seems to be some goal to make this issue of the Big 3 about 'objective quality.' I don't believe in any Big 3 that's greater than anyone else's favorite composer. If I were forced to name one 'great' composer, I would choose Bruckner. Only for the pure argument that those who doubt he is the greatest may simply lack the capacity to discern his music. He's not a favorite of mine.

There are people of valid learning who don't think Bach is great, or Beethoven. How about Bruckner, or Haydn or Telemann? The only interesting perspective to hold on this, in my opinion, is a new one, since the old perspective ie. 'The Big 3', is already understood fine for the subjective perspective it is. A new perspective on greatness doesn't _change_ my love of Mozart. That is because it is mostly useless fantasizing.


----------



## consuono

> ...The more objective claim is, there is less pure darkness or negativity to Mozart's music, and it's because that claim is more specific:
> 
> At least in my observation, if Beethoven is being dark and negative a lot of the time, not even emotionally dark like minor keys, but moreso conceptually dark, his intense use of rhythms and dynamics in Major keys and his brooding developments, then he is being so purely.
> 
> When Mozart is being dark, he is also being light.


That's also subjective though without a clear, precise definition of "pure darkness or negativity". Mozart's being simultaneously "dark and light" can also reflect the conventions of the Classical era in which he worked, which also applied to Haydn...and from which, it could be argued, Beethoven broke free, at least to a greater extent than Mozart did.


> In my opinion, calling Mozart darker than the other two, is an insult to Mozart. His music is of the intellect.


How are "dark" and "of the intellect" mutually exclusive? The music of Bach and Beethoven is also "of the intellect". Is BWV 582 *really* not as "intellectual" as K. 525? Come on.


> There are people of valid learning who don't think Bach is great, or Beethoven.


If someone can't at least discern the greatness of these, then I would question the validity of that person's learning.


----------



## hammeredklavier

^I find some of what Ethereality says to be long-winded "empty rhetorics" with obscure, riddle-like meanings. (It's also what makes him adorable, like MR. -Sorry, Mr. Ethereality). It's just his "way of talking", you just have to get used to it. But I don't think he's doing it just to get a rise out of people. If I were you, I wouldn't take everything he says so seriously. There was a time I used to react to his comments as seriously as you, but I don't anymore. He used to write long pages of posts on the rankings he made on composers and frustrated some people.



Jerome said:


> Just stopping into TC to see what has changed... and nothing has changed. I'm pretty sure gibberish like this is why I lost interest in this forum and haven't posted in almost a year.


----------



## consuono

Well, anyway...for the record I love all 3 of the "Big 3" and of course many others besides. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Ethereality

I didn't say it wasn't subjective, I agree with you now that you've changed your mind. Before you said I "was making objective statements that sounded subjective," and in one swooping post I had to correct your argument fully. The terms darkness and negativity are _more_ objective than the term quality, because theyre so *widely* agreed upon musically, referring to aspects like minor tones, off-tones, and harsh effects on the ears. These aren't fully objective terms though, hence why I used English to clearly say that. I don't get the point of repeating my own argument for me. These terms also have nothing to do with heaviness imo, which sounds more up to debate. I think Mozart's and Brahms's vertical writing sounds fairly heavy. I've never known anyone who believed in objective greatness in music who has said anything of profound interest. I feel sorry for their cognitive limitations.



consuono said:


> How are "dark" and "of the intellect" mutually exclusive? The music of Bach and Beethoven is also "of the intellect". Is BWV 582 *really* not as "intellectual" as K. 525? Come on.
> If someone can't at least discern the greatness of these, then I would question the validity of that person's learning.


I don't really see an objective point here. You're defending an opinion, just as I am. I would disagree with you. I think Mozart goes beyond characterizing his music as more 'bright or dark', because he's so well balanced here it doesn't apply. *Of course* darkness on it's own probably has nothing to do with the intellect. It would be like saying the sound of a piano is highly intellectual enough that we don't need composers.

Your points are just all over the map, to me. The only thing truly interesting about you are your opinions, when you try to have some. Do that more.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> ^I find some of what Ethereality says to be long-winded "empty rhetorics" with obscure, riddle-like meanings. (It's also what makes him adorable, like MR. -Sorry, Mr. Ethereality). It's just his "way of talking", you just have to get used to it.


There is some truth to the fact that some people here see the world so black and white, they can't understand the richer truth which exists within the possibilities and diversity all around them. My writing style accounts for the truth which exists within peoples' perspectives--it's not an unusual style. Some people can only see their own perspective, thus they cling to similar minds to make them feel better. There's nothing _morally_ wrong with that, they just end up boring people who matter a lot. It's ethically harmful to themselves and doesn't win them arguments. They'll just end up more shut in in the long run.


----------



## consuono

> I agree with you now that you've changed your mind. Before you said I "was making objective statements that sounded subjective,"


No, that's absolutely not what I said. I said you were using objective language in describing what you're otherwise always preaching is utterly subjective. Good that you've seen the light, though.


> I think Mozart goes beyond characterizing his music as more 'bright or dark', because he's so well balanced here it doesn't apply.


And Bach and Beethoven aren't? That sort of objective measurement is one I'm sure you can demonstrate. 


> Of course darkness on it's own has nothing to do with the intellect.


 The dichotomy was yours, perfesser.


> Your points are just all over the map.


Ever heard of "projection"? :lol:


----------



## Ethereality

But you think the word 'great' is objective. You simply speak a different version of English than I do.



> That sort of objective measurement is one I'm sure you can demonstrate.


Perhaps I can make a large analysis comparing my thoughts on the Big 3, using personal terminology.



> The dichotomy was yours, perfesser.


You're inferring too much that was never written.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> But you think the word 'great' is objective. You simply speak a different version of English than I do.
> 
> Perhaps I can make a large analysis comparing my thoughts on the Big 3, using personal terminology.
> 
> You're inferring too much that was never written.


Well the term "great" does impart an objective meaning relative to the "not so great", wouldn't you say? Unless it's all "great" in which case there really isn't any "great" since the term is meaningless.

Here's what you can do, E. Just say "I have to say I prefer Mozart above the others. I know I shouldn't and I know it violates every subjective fiber of my subjective being, but nevertheless I do and I beg your forgiveness for doing so...although Bruckner is the greatest though he's not my favorite...now shut up peasants I'm a smart guy..."


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> E. Just say "I have to say I prefer Mozart above the others.


Ethereality doesn't seriously prefer Mozart above the others; he's just messing with your mind. I know it cause I've seen him talk like this on this forum over a hundred times already.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Just say "I have to say I prefer Mozart above the others. I know I shouldn't and I know it violates every subjective fiber of my subjective being, but nevertheless I do and I beg your forgiveness for doing so...although Bruckner is the greatest though he's not my favorite...now shut up peasants I'm a smart guy..."


Every English speaker I've known and most every historical artist has said "This is awesome" "This is the best" without ever agreeing. It's just the similar-minded group formed throughout the years at Talk Classical who have divised a hilarious cult ideology for themselves without ever defining the word greatness. Reminds me of a Bible verse "It has never been comprehended, though we believe in it." Your position failed before you started writing the very first word. You backed your position up by posting a piece and saying "I can't trust those who don't think this is great (or implied: as great as Mozart)." I'm frankly afraid of people like you. I don't fear individuals, people who are virtuous enough to defend their opinions for themselves.

All it is is a status priviledge on your behalf. Has nothing to do with reality and other groups of audiophiles. You just have some commonality with some people here.

I mean, what's worse is getting a few people to agree with you, and agree with the (subjective smattering of) composers who may agree with your one item, and then thinking that's something awesome. Not accusing you of doing that, but wouldn't be surprised if you think that means you made a valid truth judgement. To me you made a valid nonsense judgement.



hammeredklavier said:


> Ethereality doesn't seriously prefer Mozart above the others; he's just messing with your mind. I know it cause I've seen him talk like this on this forum over a hundred times already.


Haha. I'm both confused and amused by this. Amused because it has very little relevance to the sub-topic.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Every English speaker I've known and most every historical artist has said "This is awesome" "This is the best" without ever agreeing. It's just the similar-minded group formed throughout the years at Talk Classical who have divised a hilarious cult ideology for themselves without ever defining the word greatness. Reminds me of a Bible verse "It has never been comprehended, though we believe in it."


Your biblical exposition is about as accurate as your music criticism. Maybe leave both alone?


> Your position failed before you started writing the very first word. You backed your position up by posting a piece and saying "I can't trust those who don't think this is great (or implied: as great as Mozart)."


I didn't do or say either of those. I said I view with deep suspicion the validity of the learning of someone who would call any of the Big 3 less than great.


> I'm frankly afraid of people like you.


No wonder.


> Ethereality doesn't seriously prefer Mozart above the others; he's just messing with your mind.


Seems to me he/she is messing more with his/her own mind.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Ethereality said:


> Reminds me of a Bible verse "It has never been comprehended, though we believe in it."


Haha, as pointed out this is not in the bible.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I agree with you now that you've changed your mind. Before you said I "was making objective statements that sounded subjective," and in one swooping post I had to correct your argument fully.


Nothing is more compelling and gratifying than having someone "correct our arguments fully" in one "swooping" statement.



> I've never known anyone who believed in objective greatness in music who has said anything of profound interest. I feel sorry for their cognitive limitations.


Exactly how sorry do you feel? A bit sorry? Very sorry? Deeply sorry? Does it make you weep and keep you awake at night? Maybe you're sorry merely because you wouldn't know a thing of "profound interest" if it fell on you.



> The only thing truly interesting about you are your opinions, when you try to have some. Do that more.


Perhaps you won't feel as sorry for others if they "try to have opinions"? It's at least nice to hear that having more opinions might make them interesting to you. But how interesting? A bit? Very? Deeply?

This is really remarkable bovine doodoo, Mr. Ethereality (more ether than reality, surely). Is there an online course we can take to learn to be as self-inflated, insensitive and offensive as you?


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Haha, as pointed out this is not in the bible.


He's no doubt misremembering John 1:5.
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Maybe you're sorry merely because you wouldn't know a thing of "profound interest" if it fell on you.


Speak of the devil himself. Riveting post, duck. How long did it take you to string this one together from random weeds and garbage from your sink. 30 seconds? 40?


----------



## Ethereality

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Haha, as pointed out this is not in the bible.


It actually is within many religious texts. Bible or not, who gives a duck.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> It actually is within many religious texts. Bible or not, who gives a duck.


I'm starting to have serious doubts about the validity of your learning. :lol:


----------



## Ethereality

I do too. It's called open-mindedness. It's different from a person constantly ejecting vomit essays from their mouth with an appeal to their audience.


----------



## RogerWaters

Handelian said:


> Frankly I think you would have to be inept for taking such a superficial view of Mozart and not seeing the darkness below the surface


I do. That is perfectly consistent with Mozart being, _generally_, lighter in emotional tone.

Are you saying that Mozart is, in fact, no lighter than Beethoven, _*generally speaking*_?!


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> I do too. It's called open-mindedness. It's different from a person constantly ejecting vomit essays from their mouth with an appeal to their audience.


Another strange pair of supposed opposites which aren't mutually exclusive. I'm not the one posting stuff that looks like a Molly Bloom stream of consciousness. (By the way, it would be from the right index finger and not the mouth in my case. :lol: )


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> I do. That is perfectly consistent with Mozart being, _generally_, lighter in emotional tone.
> Are you saying that Mozart is, in fact, no lighter than Beethoven, _*generally speaking*_?!


You're entitled to your opinion, but please do re-read my previous posts https://www.talkclassical.com/54703-least-favorite-big-three-28.html#post1981165 and try to reconsider. 
I think that this moment, in the G minor quintet finale, for example-




(which is reminiscent of the minuet's G major trio:




)
is a prime example of "happy sadness" or "sad happiness" in his music.



hammeredklavier said:


> Robert Levin: "What the 19th century did to Mozart was, it turned Mozart into the definition of taste, of elegance, of beauty. In short it turned Mozart into a fashion model; a beautiful face, a mask. And as a result of that, it cultivated an attitude toward Mozart performance in which things needed to be smooth, things needed to be poised, things needed to be beautiful. And of course what starts by being a notion of beauty ends up being rather prettified, and so we get performances of Mozart that tend to embalm him, rather than to enliven him. And to turn Mozart into an object which is just simply nice, pleasant, pretty is to me unforgivable because his music teems with all of the disorder of the human condition."


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Interesting. I wonder if this is the general consensus.
> 
> So a non-musicians judgement regarding a piece or a composer cannot, should not and does not have the same weight as that of a musicians?
> 
> I'm genuinely interested, not arguing.


 What's sort of judgment are you thinking about?

originality (historical importance in the development of music)

cleverness (effectiveness with the elements of music everyone was using at the time and before)

enduring value of the work (whether it just fits in today by some quirke of luck)


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> Speak of the devil himself. Riveting post, duck. How long did it take you to string this one together from random weeds and garbage from your sink. 30 seconds? 40?


Not long at all, since there was no need to search the sink. Your interminable, repetitive, obtuse, opaque rambles provide a ready supply of witless snark and pompous bloviation, poorly conceived and poorly expressed. Is English your second language? Better try for a third.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> What's sort of judgment are you thinking about?
> 
> originality (historical importance in the development of music)
> 
> cleverness (effectiveness with the elements of music everyone was using at the time and before)
> 
> enduring value of the work (whether it just fits in today by some quirke of luck)


I meant judgement or opinion. Is a non musicians_ opinion_ not to be as highly esteemed as a musicians?

Of course the musician will know more of "what's going on" in the piece at a technical level, but does that mean they have a better judgement of what's beautiful, powerful, etc?

Do you consciously use some criteria (as mentioned above) in judging a piece of music?


----------



## Ethereality

_Message deleted._


----------



## Handelian

RogerWaters said:


> I do. That is perfectly consistent with Mozart being, _generally_, lighter in emotional tone.
> 
> Are you saying that Mozart is, in fact, no lighter than Beethoven, _*generally speaking*_?!


I am saying you are taking an incredibly superficial view of Mozart


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I meant judgement or opinion. Is a non musicians_ opinion_ not to be as highly esteemed as a musicians?
> 
> Of course the musician will know more of "what's going on" in the piece at a technical level, but does that mean they have a better judgement of what's beautiful, powerful, etc?
> 
> Do you consciously use some criteria (as mentioned above) in judging a piece of music?


 For me, (and this apparently doesn't work for everyone in this forum) I try to find pieces with the greatest of musical phrases put together in the greatest packages, put together with historical integrity.

If you are going to compile a list of the greatest Chess games you don't care about the list from a youngster who merely has fun playing skittles. You would ask a grandmaster, who has the experience and technical knowledge to give you a list that will help you save time, inspire you, and educate you into the future about CM.

If you can't follow it it's not the music's fault or his fault. You need more listening and exposure to the aesthetics.


----------



## RogerWaters

Handelian said:


> I am saying you are taking an incredibly superficial view of Mozart


Why?

Why on earth is it superficial to perceive that Mozart's music is generally not as dark and stormy as, say, Beethoven?


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> Why? Why on earth is it superficial to perceive that Mozart's music is generally not as dark and stormy as, say, Beethoven?


I have to agree with Handelian. You haven't given any proper explanation or examples to back up your point. All you do is repeating the same vague statement ad-nauseam. I asked you how are the dances from Op.130 (with the alternative finale) or Choral fantasie, or the slow movements of the 6th, 8th symphonies really "heavy" compared to the examples of Mozart I have given, and I haven't yet got a proper answer from you: Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> I have to agree with Handelian. You haven't given any proper explanation or examples to back up your point. All you do is repeating the same vague statement ad-nauseam. I asked you how are the dances from Op.130 (with the alternative finale) or Choral fantasie, or the slow movements of the 6th, 8th symphonies really "heavy" compared to the examples of Mozart I have given, and I haven't yet got a proper answer from you: Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart.


I think the issue isn't that Mozart is ALWAYS "light" or Beethoven is ALWAYS heavier; I think Mozart is generally lighter than Beethoven. It reflects the aesthetics of the people Mozart was composing for. Mozart composed more "light" entertainment music like serenades and divertmenti.

Even Don Giovanni is humorous in most parts.

That is one of the great things about Mozart-- he raises your spirits.


----------



## Ethereality

Change of topic. Their range of their school:

*Mozart* = The representative of the Classical period
*Bach* = The representative of the Classical genre
*Beethoven* = The representative of all music

ie. Lovers or Champions of the Classical/Baroque period, Mozart is king. For champions of the Classical genre, Bach is the father here. Beethoven is father of those whose personal scope is very broad and open.

Just an observation of fanbases I've noticed.

Our forum community leans more towards the bottom and middle, but there are more Classic communities who would favor Mozart the most. There are also even rarer communities who center around Stravinsky or Wagner. For instance, Prokofiev says Stravinsky sounds like Bach on the wrong notes but that's not how a Stravinskian generally hears the music, likewise a Wagnerian mostly hears the original facets of the composer, his 'concept' and ideology.

Mozart has the most popular 'focused' school. Bach is also as popular but the other schools, Bach, Beethoven, are less focused, ie. give more praise to others (wider.) The Wagnerian school is very interesting intellectually although it's a bit newer and more obscure. No school is incorrect, ie. I notice some composers have their own schools at their online forum these days. Jwfan.com is highly Williams-centric in their aesthetic beliefs and dedicated in their music exploration.

There are then composers who are very popular but really don't have a school of adamant followers. They aren't a #1 favorite for individuals but they float around the greats space.

So essentially, if there are 'greatest' composers, this is one possible way I can devise to find them. To look at who are the no. 1s of various groups.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> For me, (and this apparently doesn't work for everyone in this forum) I try to find pieces with the greatest of musical phrases put together in the greatest packages, put together with historical integrity.
> 
> If you are going to compile a list of the greatest Chess games you don't care about the list from a youngster who merely has fun playing skittles. You would ask a grandmaster, who has the experience and technical knowledge to give you a list that will help you save time, inspire you, and educate you into the future about CM.
> 
> If you can't follow it it's not the music's fault or his fault. You need more listening and exposure to the aesthetics.


I think that is somewhat of a false equivalency. In your analogy the child playing with skittles would represent the music lover who is not a musician and the grand master - the musician. But I'm not talking about people who know nothing about classical music or are not experienced listeners, only that they are not musicians, so it doesn't seem fair to compare them to the child in your analogy who knows nothing of chess. I accept that in any area there are experts but even if the experts say one thing the whole mass of people may disagree. What are we judging in a piece of music ultimately? Technique, skill, cleverness, originally are all great but isn't it ultimately the beauty or "power" of a piece, or great melody? Things which any human being has the capacity to perceive and appreciate.

Personally I have listened to Bach a lot but I am yet to perceive the greatness attributed to him and his music by so many others. I still think I must be missing something but if the penny doesn't drop after continued listening ill have to make a judgment as to where I think his music ranks in comparison to those I think are great.


----------



## hammeredklavier

ORigel said:


> I think the issue isn't that Mozart is ALWAYS "light" or Beethoven is ALWAYS heavier; I think Mozart is generally lighter than Beethoven. It reflects the aesthetics of the people Mozart was composing for. Mozart composed more "light" entertainment music like serenades and divertmenti.
> Even Don Giovanni is humorous in most parts.
> That is one of the great things about Mozart-- he raises your spirits.


This tells me you haven't gone through Beethoven's numerous lesser works, including the WoOs. (Dimace is another member who sounds like he hasn't.) Also, for instance, the Turkish march and the Dervish chorus from the Die Ruinen von Athen -How "heavy" are they? 
I'm sorry to say this, but to me, even smart people seem to somehow "turn their brains off" when it comes to late Beethoven. In the recent <Beethoven's most overrated work> thread , I could have ranted about how they are "not seeing the naked emperor", but I didn't. I didn't want to get needlessly whiny about the issue.
Of course there's stuff like the Grosse fuge, I know, but there are also dance movements that sound much like early 19th century landler, frankly (and don't even contain mood contrast like Mozart K.499 or even K.334, a divertimento). The Grosse fuge is indeed creatively artistic, but doesn't sound as dark to me as Mozart's K.608 and K.546. 
These, for instance, make me want to dance and sing in a frilly dress:

Beethoven : String Quartet No.13 - IV. Alla danza tedesca, Allegro Assai
String Quartet No. 15 in A Minor, Op. 132: II. Allegro ma non tanto

Just imagine if someone else other than Beethoven, -such as Paganini or Cherubini, wrote something like them. How would it have been treated?
I hate to say it, but the missa solemnis for instance, also feels a bit "homogenous" in mood throughout, to me, in comparison to:


hammeredklavier said:


> I find this to be the most interesting work Mozart wrote at 20.
> It consists of 9 movements, but there are elements of contrast and connections between them:
> _"hostia sancta"_ (9:24), which comes after the dark, solemn _"verbum caro factum"_ (8:03) feels brighter by contrast, but it also has its dark elements of contrast constantly injecting a sense of tension, within itself:
> [10:55]: _"stupendum supra omina miracula"_,
> as if "darkness" hasn't been yet fully achieved, it naturally leads through a transition to the darkest movement of the work,
> [13:45]: _"tremendum ac vivificum"_.
> [21:48]: the diminished 7th that concludes _"dulcissimum convivium"_ leads to the diminished 7th that opens the 'otherworldly' _"viaticum in domino morientium"_.
> [24:04]: _"pignus futurae gloriae"_, an expansive double fugue styled distinctively unique from the Baroque tradition.
> [34:25]: _"miserere nobis"_ (the final movement) quotes _"kyrie eleison"_ (the first movement) and develops on the theme.


Nowhere does Beethoven get "edgy" like this - [ 9:21 ~ 10:04 ]
(don't get me wrong, I still think all these works of Beethoven are fine masterpieces. I'm just being honest about some "reservations" I have about them, in regards to this topic we're discussing. Since you people keep asking for it.)

RogerWaters talks like those countless Beethoven and Chopin enthusiasts I've encountered on the net . (I mean those people who think stuff like scherzo in B flat MINOR Op.31 or Fantaisie in F MINOR Op.49 is really "dark".) I've had enough bad memories with them already. 
RogerWaters' points are well-taken. Let's stop this ugly debate and move onto another topic.

Btw, it's not even surprising to me that, even on this forum, people have been saying things like this from time to time:


Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I think that is somewhat of a false equivalency. In your analogy the child playing with skittles would represent the music lover who is not a musician and the grand master - the musician. But I'm not talking about people who know nothing about classical music or are not experienced listeners, only that they are not musicians, so it doesn't seem fair to compare them to the child in your analogy who knows nothing of chess. I accept that in any area there are experts but even if the experts say one thing the whole mass of people may disagree. What are we judging in a piece of music ultimately? Technique, skill, cleverness, originally are all great but isn't it ultimately the beauty or "power" of a piece, or great melody? Things which any human being has the capacity to perceive and appreciate.
> 
> Personally I have listened to Bach a lot but I am yet to perceive the greatness attributed to him and his music by so many others. I still think I must be missing something but if the penny doesn't drop after continued listening ill have to make a judgment as to where I think his music ranks in comparison to those I think are great.


This is a huge subject in the huge subject of aesthetics. I can only offer what I think about..

I imagine a great composer saying I'm going to compose an enduring work in such and such a category. Do they succeed? Yes, they usually do.

But there are some pieces by a great composer that are left on the wayside. Can we look at these pieces and understand why they were left behind? I think we can with musical analysis.

If we look at a nursery song score and a song by the Beatles can't we readily see which has more value? It's not about listening to it or the production values. It comes down to the amount of information in the score (and other objective values which are important for the success of a piece). If we say that the simple song with a simple background has more value for the nursery school child that reinforces the idea that subjectivity wastes our time.


----------



## SanAntone

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I think that is somewhat of a false equivalency. In your analogy the child playing with skittles would represent the music lover who is not a musician and the grand master - the musician. But I'm not talking about people who know nothing about classical music or are not experienced listeners, only that they are not musicians, so it doesn't seem fair to compare them to the child in your analogy who knows nothing of chess. *I accept that in any area there are experts but even if the experts say one thing the whole mass of people may disagree.* What are we judging in a piece of music ultimately? Technique, skill, cleverness, originally are all great but isn't it ultimately the beauty or "power" of a piece, or great melody? Things which any human being has the capacity to perceive and appreciate.
> 
> Personally I have listened to Bach a lot but I am yet to perceive the greatness attributed to him and his music by so many others. I still think I must be missing something but if the penny doesn't drop after continued listening ill have to make a judgment as to where I think his music ranks in comparison to those I think are great.


Your sentence that I bolded is true more often than not, IMO. "Experts" have pushed music that the average listener is not interested in. I would sooner trust the average person's opinion over an expert's, whom often has a rarefied taste, based on their education, and sometimes obsessions outside the norm.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Your sentence that I bolded is true more often than not, IMO. "Experts" have pushed music that the average listener is not interested in. I would sooner trust the average person's opinion over an expert's, whom often has a rarefied taste, based on their education, and sometimes obsessions outside the norm.


However, SanAntone, if we follow that through then most of the music you've been advocating here would be entirely forgotten. You've described there a good portion of "modern music".


----------



## KenOC

Expert versus unwashed listener -- a few years back there was a minor furor over a paper analyzing, with some rigor, this very issue. The basis of the study was the apparent existence of two "lists" of classical works, one of music favored by the experts and the other of music favored by the "normal" listener. 

The conclusion, reached after some probably superfluous statistical analysis, was that there was almost no overlap between the two lists.


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I think that is somewhat of a false equivalency. In your analogy the child playing with skittles would represent the music lover who is not a musician and the grand master - the musician. But I'm not talking about people who know nothing about classical music or are not experienced listeners, only that they are not musicians, so it doesn't seem fair to compare them to the child in your analogy who knows nothing of chess. I accept that in any area there are experts but even if the experts say one thing the whole mass of people may disagree. What are we judging in a piece of music ultimately? Technique, skill, cleverness, originally are all great but isn't it ultimately the beauty or "power" of a piece, or great melody? Things which any human being has the capacity to perceive and appreciate.
> 
> *Personally I have listened to Bach a lot but I am yet to perceive the greatness attributed to him and his music by so many others. I still think I must be missing something but if the penny doesn't drop after continued listening ill have to make a judgment as to where I think his music ranks in comparison to those I think are great.*


I don't want to sound condescending but if you become fascinated with the logic and the historical development of music theory and the history of music before Bach and you learn to play Bach beyond the rudimentary level I think you would appreciate Bach as much or more than most Bach lovers.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> Expert versus unwashed listener -- a few years back there was a minor furor over a paper analyzing, with some rigor, this very issue. The basis of the study was the apparent existence of two "lists" of classical works, one of music favored by the experts and the other of music favored by the "normal" listener.
> 
> The conclusion, reached after some probably superfluous statistical analysis, was that there was almost no overlap between the two lists.


That's common sense, And it's the same with any other technical subject.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> However, SanAntone, if we follow that through then most of the music you've been advocating here would be entirely forgotten. You've described there a good portion of "modern music".


I advocate or more accurately respond to what I see as unfair and harsh judgment of new music. It is motivated by a desire to encourage a more friendly environment for new music to get heard, without closed minds. However, I am very much aware of how often this music sounds "ugly" to an average listener. I don't see myself as saying new music is better than traditional classical music, or telling people they have bad taste if they don't appreciate new music. All I hope to accomplish is for experienced listeners to give new music a fair chance.

Maybe I was also thinking of other arts, painting, sculpture, poetry, where experts have pushed work the average person considers ridiculous or insulting.


----------



## consuono

> Maybe I was also thinking of other arts, painting, sculpture, poetry, where experts have pushed work the average person considers ridiculous or insulting.


I think it's happened more often in music, though. (edit) ...or at least just as often. You're a fan of John Cage, I know, and I'm not making this another debate on Cage. But his music or Ferneyhough's or Saunders' is hardly being propelled by a groundswell of popular "plebeian" demand. It's been generally top-down. The same could probably be said for Stravinsky, Bartok and Ives though.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I think it's happened more often in music, though. (edit) ...or at least just as often. You're a fan of John Cage, I know, and I'm not making this another debate on Cage. But his music or Ferneyhough's or Saunders' is hardly being propelled by a groundswell of popular "plebeian" demand. It's been generally top-down. The same could probably be said for Stravinsky, Bartok and Ives though.


You don't 'like it' so what's your solution for the rest of us? This is the kind of unanswerable question I have when I hear such criticisms. But maybe you do have an answer..


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> You don't 'like it' so what's your solution for the rest of us?


Listen for yourself and come to your own conclusions.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I think it's happened more often in music, though. (edit) ...or at least just as often. You're a fan of John Cage, I know, and I'm not making this another debate on Cage. But his music or Ferneyhough's or Saunders' is hardly being propelled by a groundswell of popular "plebeian" demand. It's been generally top-down. The same could probably be said for Stravinsky, Bartok and Ives though.


It is true that much of the music from C20/21 has a smaller audience than the established repertory, and I agree that it has been promoted primarily by the academic or professional critical communities. But, it may also be true that the composers you listed have received a friendlier reception among a non-classical audience. Members of the band Sonic Youth are John Cage fans, and often experimental classical music is appreciated by experimental rock or jazz musicians and their fans while the traditional classical audience might shun it.

None of this is an issue of concern for me. All I hope for is a climate on boards like TC where new music can be discussed without so much negative vitriol.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> None of this is an issue of concern for me. All I hope for is a climate on boards like TC where new music can be discussed without so much negative vitriol.


The problem though is that "I don't like this...I think it's formless and void" is considered "negative vitriol". We're not allowed to pass any negative judgement on modern music. I've been told so. Now Wilhelm Theophilus there doesn't get Bach. I'm secure enough in Bach's achievement to shrug it off and say "well that's too bad, dude. It's your loss" and let it go at that.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> The problem though is that "I don't like this...I think it's formless and void" is considered "negative vitriol". We're not allowed to pass any negative judgement on modern music. I've been told so. Now Wilhelm Theophilus there doesn't get Bach. I'm secure enough in Bach's achievement to shrug it off and say "well that's too bad, dude. It's your loss" and let it go at that.


It has been more than saying "I don't like this." It's been called noise, not even music, or complaints that it should be segregated from the classical music forums. And the composers are charlatans, snookering their audience.

But I don't want to have this same argument yet again.

"Shrug it off and say "well that's too bad, dude. It's your loss" - this pretty much sums up how my response to the kind of vitriol I just described has evolved.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> It has been more than saying "I don't like this." It's been called noise, not even music, or complaints that it should be segregated from the classical music forums. And the composers are charlatans, snookering their audience.
> 
> But I don't want to have this same argument yet again.
> 
> "Shrug it off and say "well that's too bad, dude. It's your loss" - this pretty much sums up how my response to the kind of vitriol I just described has evolved.


Maybe you haven't, but I was challenged to a fistfight or something over that garbage. And then when I responded fairly tactfully I was suspended from the forum. So please. And anyone has a right to say such and such is noise and not music. I've read that that describes Wagner and even Beethoven on occasion. Bach is a coldly mechanical "sewing machine". Mozart is fluff. I don't know why the leading contemporary lights should be immune. If you want them to be in the same league as the other "classical" composers, they have to be subjected to the same criticism without the "well they're artists and we have no right to criticize the deeply personal expression of an artist and it's all subjective anyway" stuff.


----------



## RogerWaters

ORigel said:


> I think the issue isn't that Mozart is ALWAYS "light" or Beethoven is ALWAYS heavier; I think Mozart is generally lighter than Beethoven. It reflects the aesthetics of the people Mozart was composing for. Mozart composed more "light" entertainment music like serenades and divertmenti.
> 
> Even Don Giovanni is humorous in most parts.
> 
> That is one of the great things about Mozart-- he raises your spirits.


Thank you ORigel.

This is obvious to anyone with a smidgeon of common sense. Mozart was not some kind of God who completely transcended the human all too human realm of socio-historical contingency i.e. style, and, as it happened, the classical style was generally 'lighter' than than the Romantic style.

I would suggest, further, that much of Mozart's lightness stems from his own personality as well as the post-roccoco classical style.

None of this isn't to say Mozart didn't compose some emotionally 'heaver' music: the requiem, some of the later piano concertos, The G minor symphony, etc.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> Listen for yourself and come to your own conclusions.


Many assume that art is created for people to 'like' (whatever we decide 'like' means). To me that always sounded like something a parent would tell a child, either being helpful or protective -- or just dismissive as parents often are..
Cage was a figure in art decades ago who tried some things. He shouldn't have? It wasn't art? It wasn't helpful? It wasn't his?
He appreciated all the notoriety to help him with his new projects.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Maybe you haven't, but I was challenged to a fistfight or something over that garbage. And then when I responded fairly tactfully I was suspended from the forum. So please. And anyone has a right to say such and such is noise and not music. I've read that that describes Wagner and even Beethoven on occasion. Bach is a coldly mechanical "sewing machine". Mozart is fluff. I don't know why the leading contemporary lights should be immune. If you want them to be in the same league as the other "classical" composers, they have to be subjected to the same criticism without the "well they're artists and we have no right to criticize the deeply personal expression of an artist and it's all subjective anyway" stuff.


Fair enough. I am sorry you were suspended from the forum (for the record, I have never reported any post, or anyone or complained to moderators about anything posted on TC), and don't think anyone should be censored for expressing negative opinions about new music, or any music. I have always believed in the idea that the response to speech you object to is not censorship and suppression of it but the expression of the ideas in contrast to it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

RogerWaters said:


> This is obvious to anyone with a smidgeon of common sense. Mozart was *not some kind of God* who completely transcended the human all too human realm of socio-historical contingency


Beethoven wasn't flawless either:

Here's a piano trio he wrote for his aristocratic patron:




 ( 8:00 ~ 9:35 )
In the development, there is this section where there are nothing but scales in thirds played by the strings in pizzicato, accompanied with trills, scales in thirds by the piano.





 (17:13 ~ 17:24)













 ( 16:06 ~ 16:52 )


----------



## RogerWaters

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wasn't flawless either


Did anyone say he was?


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wasn't flawless either:
> 
> Here's a piano trio he wrote for his *aristocratic* patron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 8:00 ~ 9:35 )
> In the development, there is this section where there are nothing but scales in thirds played by the strings in pizzicato, accompanied with trills, scales in thirds by the piano.


Huh, I actually love the Archduke Sonata. I never thought there would have been anything 'pedestrian' about it, though it certainly doesn't lessen my enjoyment of it at all.

I was listening to one of his cello sonatas while reading the score thinking to myself, "Weird, I can play most of this" and then read afterwards that it was written for an amateur aristocratic patron, who I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's the same one.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Many assume that art is created for people to 'like' (whatever we decide 'like' means). To me that always sounded like something a parent would tell a child, either being helpful or protective -- or just dismissive as parents often are.. ....


I'm not going to debate about John Cage all over again because to tell you the truth, apart from a handful of his works I know nothing about him. But if art isn't for people to "like" or (better) appreciate and if it doesn't nourish the spirit in some way, what's it for? An exercise in ego? Something for a tiny collection of critics or university faculty to notice and then maybe attract some commission/government money to start the cycle again?
This little mini-debate started by someone asking if the opinion of a non-musician is as "valued" as that of a musician. A musician's opinion is more likely to be better-informed and to be backed by a wider range of reference. Still, "first impressions" etc from a non-musician are still valuable. A great work of art should be accessible on many levels.


SanAntone said:


> Fair enough. I am sorry you were suspended from the forum (for the record, I have never reported any post, or anyone or complained to moderators about anything posted on TC), and don't think anyone should be censored for expressing negative opinions about new music, or any music. I have always believed in the idea that the response to speech you object to is not censorship and suppression of it but the expression of the ideas in contrast to it.


I'd like to make clear that I wasn't referring to you. That was in that 20th century music thread that attracted a couple of outright trollish types, one of whom strangely was never even called out by the mods (sock puppet?). I never report comments, not even on that occasion. The suspension...meh. So I spent a couple of weeks in the TC jail. No big deal.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wasn't flawless either:
> 
> Here's a piano trio he wrote for his aristocratic patron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 8:00 ~ 9:35 )
> In the development, there is this section where there are nothing but scales in thirds played by the strings in pizzicato, accompanied with trills, scales in thirds by the piano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (17:13 ~ 17:24)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see the problem with that. The piano is merely accompanying the singers. I love that work. There are similar passages in the Waldstein sonata (with no singers!). It's about effect and color, I guess. Not everything has to be this divinely crafted bit of otherworldly chromaticism. I love the Archduke Trio too.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wasn't flawless either:
> 
> Here's a piano trio he wrote for his aristocratic patron:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ( 8:00 ~ 9:35 )
> In the development, there is this section where there are nothing but scales in thirds played by the strings in pizzicato, accompanied with trills, scales in thirds by the piano.


I'm almost (but not quite) sure that you know how hopelessly idiotic this observation is. The PHYSICAL COMPONENTS of the music in this passage are scales and trills. Similarly, a human brain is, PHYSICALLY, about 73% water. Knowing this will do almost nothing to help us understand the human brain, although it may help us understand why you think that passage shows that Beethoven "wasn't flawless."

This "criticism" belongs in the trash can inhabited by the "musicology" of David C. F. Wright.

(Just by the way, I've never noticed any flaws in the Archduke Trio. Guess I've been musically obtuse for the last seven decades.)


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Luchesi said:


> I don't want to sound condescending but if you become fascinated with the logic and the historical development of music theory and the history of music before Bach and you learn to play Bach beyond the rudimentary level I think you would appreciate Bach as much or more than most Bach lovers.


This is exactly why I asked do you have to be able to play Bach in order to love him. To which a few people said no.

On listening alone, if you never studied the music or played Bach would he be considered as great as he is? On listening alone, on pure listening experience does Bach please, or move the listener as much as WAM and Lud?


----------



## tdc

I like the Archduke Trio a lot. I've been a little harsh on Beethoven again lately, but the guy was a brilliant musician, no doubt. I was triggered by sixfootscowl's new signature! Blech!!!

I may have to start a thread on that...debating it.


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Personally I have listened to Bach a lot but I am yet to perceive the greatness attributed to him and his music by so many others. I still think I must be missing something but if the penny doesn't drop after continued listening ill have to make a judgment as to where I think his music ranks in comparison to those I think are great.


Which works / composers do you resonate with?


----------



## Handelian

tdc said:


> I like the Archduke Trio a lot. I've been a little harsh on Beethoven again lately, but the guy was a brilliant musician, no doubt. I was triggered by sixfootscowl's new signature! Blech!!!
> 
> I may have to start a thread on that...debating it.


Beethoven was a brilliant musician? That is a matter for debate by members of TC?


----------



## tdc

Handelian said:


> Beethoven was a brilliant musician? That is a matter for debate by members of TC?


No, just simply having sixfootscowl's signature 'Mozart composed for next Saturday, Beethoven composed for eternity' the topic to discuss/debate.


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> This is exactly why I asked do you have to be able to play Bach in order to love him. To which a few people said no.
> 
> On listening alone, if you never studied the music or played Bach would he be considered as great as he is? On listening alone, on pure listening experience does Bach please, or move the listener as much as WAM and Lud?


Yes.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> Which works / composers do you resonate with?


My favourite composers would be Mozart and Wagner, Maybe that's a strange top two to have but these are the two composers who's music I have loved the most.

After these two I like pieces from lots of composers from Haydn to Sibelius, Telemann to Dvorak. Not keen on modern composers past the romantic era though.

As well as Bach I have struggled to love Brahms and Chopin two others considered great by so many. I love _some_ of Beethoven.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

consuono said:


> Yes.


Listening now, thanks.


----------



## consuono

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Listening now, thanks.


Cool beans. And that's not even scratching the surface. This one got my attention when I was a kid -- before I even had a clear idea what a fugue is -- and it's never left me.


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> My favourite composers would be Mozart and Wagner, Maybe that's a strange top two to have but these are the two composers who's music I have loved the most.
> 
> After these two I like pieces from lots of composers from Haydn to Sibelius, Telemann to Dvorak. Not keen on modern composers past the romantic era though.
> 
> As well as Bach I have struggled to love Brahms and Chopin two others considered great by so many. I love _some_ of Beethoven.


Thanks.

It seems that your experience is not uncommon and forums such as this help one to realise this. I, too, struggle with Bach... but also Mozart...in fact most of the music written before Beethoven's middle period (but there are exceptions).

Have you heard Bach's D minor double violin concerto (BWV 1043? I do think it extraordinarily good.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I'm almost (but not quite) sure that you know how hopelessly idiotic this observation is. The PHYSICAL COMPONENTS of the music in this passage are scales and trills. Similarly, a human brain is, PHYSICALLY, about 73% water. Knowing this will do almost nothing to help us understand the human brain, although it may help us understand why you think that passage shows that Beethoven "wasn't flawless."
> This "criticism" belongs in the trash can inhabited by the "musicology" of David C. F. Wright.
> (Just by the way, I've never noticed any flaws in the Archduke Trio. Guess I've been musically obtuse for the last seven decades.)


I admit I was being pedantically unfair about Beethoven in that comment. I guess I was too frustrated with these people "not listening to me". But you must know, I'm not like DavidA, who says things like _"Look dear boy~! Mozart expresses human emotions better than anyone else~!"_ (a view which I find to be way "too much drama"). Deep down, I actually think Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert are all "apples and oranges", each having a unique, different flavor. I'm also willing to respect the view of anyone who considers Mozart "pleasant" while Beethoven, "majestic" -but the way some people described Mozart/Beethoven in this thread seemed unfair and unreasonable to me, that it disturbed me a little. So I got a bit "obsessed" again, I guess (in posts #484 , #502). Sorry about that, lol.
Btw, it's been a while we since the last time we discussed Mozart and Beethoven in the main forum, I'm reminded of those "good old days". Seeing your posts makes me happy; you're like a "shining angel" to me, Mr. Woodduck, lol. :angel:



hammeredklavier said:


> Some people never come to terms with the rococo elements in his music. But I think the way Mozart utilizes them makes him "the Ravel of the 18th century" -he can be just as profound and powerful as Beethoven or Wagner, at the same time he's preoccupied with the idea of "life and death" like Schubert, albeit in an interestingly different way. This Mozart biopic from 1991 portrayed this side of Mozart really well (look at part 3):


^basically summarizes my stance regarding this topic, lol.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It seems that your experience is not uncommon and forums such as this help one to realise this. I, too, struggle with Bach... but also Mozart...in fact most of the music written before Beethoven's middle period (but there are exceptions).
> 
> Have you heard Bach's D minor double violin concerto (BWV 1043? I do think it extraordinarily good.


Yes I know it, its a beautiful piece, but its not a piece I find myself wanting to go back to.

Have you tried these to get into Mozart?


----------



## Handelian

tdc said:


> No, just simply having sixfootscowl's signature 'Mozart composed for next Saturday, Beethoven composed for eternity' the topic to discuss/debate.


You have to put these composers in the historical context which they wrote. Both JSB and Mozart wrote in the context of composer performers, one for the church and one secular. They were not particularly thinking of themselves as writing music for eternity but rather earning a living by doing what they did best. Haydn was the same, employed as a servant, churning out music for the court. It is only when we come to Beethoven that we get the more romantic idea of writing for eternity. Of course where towering geniuses concerned the music is eternal anyway as in Bach and Mozart and the best of Haydn. But these men had no concept of writing for eternity as such


----------



## Agamenon

Art Rock said:


> Beethoven, clearly. Bach is my #1, Mozart would come in around #10, Beethoven around #20-30.
> 
> Beethoven for me is a strange mix of excellent works (symphonies 5+6, string quartets, lots of piano sonatas, violin concerto, piano concertos 3+4), but also works I never need to hear again, no matter how popular they are (symphony 9, triple concerto, cello sonatas, Missa solemnis).


:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Yes I know it, its a beautiful piece, but its not a piece I find myself wanting to go back to.
> 
> Have you tried these to get into Mozart?


I haven't heard these pieces before but just listened - whilst recognising the great skill it takes to compose such works they're not for me.

Thanks for suggesting them anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Handelian said:


> You have to put these composers in the historical context which they wrote. Both JSB and Mozart wrote in the context of composer performers, one for the church and one secular. They were not particularly thinking of themselves as writing music for eternity but rather earning a living by doing what they did best. Haydn was the same, employed as a servant, churning out music for the court. It is only when we come to Beethoven that we get the more romantic idea of writing for eternity. Of course where towering geniuses concerned the music is eternal anyway as in Bach and Mozart and the best of Haydn. But these men had no concept of writing for eternity as such


Bach also wrote secular cantatas, and Mozart wrote for the catholic church during his Salzburg period.

Mass in B minor
"Other explanations are less event-specific, involving Bach's interest in 'encyclopedic' projects (like The Art of Fugue) that display a wide range of styles, and *Bach's desire to preserve some of his best vocal music in a format with wider potential future use* than the church cantatas they originated in (see "Movements and their sources" below)."

Johann Adolph Hasse
"In 1771, when hearing 15-year-old Mozart's opera Ascanio in Alba, Hasse is reported to have made the prophetic remark: "This boy will cause us all to be forgotten.""

So, as early as the 18th century, composers knew they would be either remembered or forgotten by the posterity for the work they did, didn't they?



hammeredklavier said:


> "According to his first biographer, Franz Xaver Niemetschek, who is generally an accurate witness:
> Church music . . . was Mozart's favourite form of composition. But he was able to dedicate himself least of all to it." <The Cambridge Companion to Mozart , edited by Simon P. Keefe , Page 127>
> *"Mozart wrote the Vesperae de Dominica in Salzburg in 1779, the same year as the Coronation Mass - a work, which the composer himself held in high esteem. It was no doubt this work that Mozart presented to Baron van Swieten when he later sought to introduce himself to the Viennese musical world as a composer of church music in the serious stile antico."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In April 1791, Mozart applied to become the Kapellmeister at St. Stephen's Cathedral, and was designated by the City Council to take over this job following the death of the then-ailing incumbent, Leopold Hofmann. This never took place, since Mozart died (December 1791) before Hofmann did (1793)".
> "Otta Biba has made a strong case that Mozart never lost interest in sacred music and the church style. ... The motet 'Ave verum corpus', K. 618 was written in June 1791 for the feast of Corpus Christi and can be seen as a test for his pending appointment at St Stephen's."


Beethoven wrote piano sonatas essentially to make a living. There are masterpieces, but was every one of them written for "self-expression" and for "eternity"? 








^aren't some of them more like "improvisations"?

compared to, say:


> Haydn Quartets (Mozart)
> "Mozart's published dedication page (1 September 1785):
> To my dear friend Haydn,
> A father who had resolved to send his children out into the great world took it to be his duty to confide them to the protection and guidance of a very celebrated Man, especially when the latter by good fortune was at the same time his best Friend. Here they are then, O great Man and dearest Friend, these six children of mine. ..."


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

janxharris said:


> I haven't heard these pieces before but just listened - whilst recognising the great skill it takes to compose such works they're not for me.
> 
> Thanks for suggesting them anyway.


You've judged them after one listen?


----------



## Handelian

hammeredklavier said:


> Bach also wrote secular cantatas and Mozart wrote for the catholic church during his Salzburg period.
> 
> Mass in B minor
> "Other explanations are less event-specific, involving Bach's interest in 'encyclopedic' projects (like The Art of Fugue) that display a wide range of styles, and *Bach's desire to preserve some of his best vocal music in a format with wider potential future use* than the church cantatas they originated in (see "Movements and their sources" below)."
> 
> Johann Adolph Hasse
> "In 1771, when hearing 15-year-old Mozart's opera Ascanio in Alba, Hasse is reported to have made the prophetic remark: "This boy will cause us all to be forgotten.""
> 
> So, as early as the 18th century, composers knew they would be either remembered or forgotten by the posterity for the work they did, didn't they?
> 
> Beethoven wrote piano sonatas essentially to make a living. There are masterpieces, but was every one of them written for "self-expression" and for "eternity"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> compared to, say:


Of course you can find quotes one way or the other. We are talking about generally how musicians were regarded in those days and how they regarded themselves. Beethoven wrote music to make a living. He had to stop performing because of his deafness and writing music was the only means he had of making a living. But that was entering then the more romantic shift as with people like Goerthe


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You've judged them after one listen?


I did. I'll try and listen again later.


----------



## janxharris

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You've judged them after one listen?


FWIW, I re-listened to the Divertimento - same reaction.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You've judged them after one listen?


It's no use telling janxharris to listen again and again. I know he doesn't like 18th-century elements such as this, 




he told us many times already.


----------



## Handelian

janxharris said:


> FWIW, I re-listened to the Divertimento - same reaction.


Well of course you're not actually listening to one of Mozart's most profound pieces in the divertimento - you are listening to a piece which was written as background music when he was a lad. You need to listen to Mozart mature pieces to come to any sort of judgement.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus

Handelian said:


> Well of course you're not actually listening to one of Mozart's most profound pieces in the divertimento - you are listening to a piece which was written as background music when he was a lad. You need to listen to Mozart mature pieces to come to any sort of judgement.


I thought pieces like this might help as an introduction.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Handelian said:


> But that was entering then the more romantic shift as with people like Goerthe


The idea behind this feels "romantic" as well:





"But for whose soul is this requiem?"




"It's for me. A requiem."


----------



## janxharris

Handelian said:


> Well of course you're not actually listening to one of Mozart's most profound pieces in the divertimento - you are listening to a piece which was written as background music when he was a lad. You need to listen to Mozart mature pieces to come to any sort of judgement.


Indeed. I still enjoy the G minor symphony.


----------



## Handelian

hammeredklavier said:


> The idea behind this feels "romantic" as well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But for whose soul is this requiem?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It's for me. A requiem."


I'm talking about concepts not music. The requiem was written for a commission


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I'm not going to debate about John Cage all over again because to tell you the truth, apart from a handful of his works I know nothing about him. But if art isn't for people to "like" or (better) appreciate and if it doesn't nourish the spirit in some way, what's it for? An exercise in ego? Something for a tiny collection of critics or university faculty to notice and then maybe attract some commission/government money to start the cycle again?
> This little mini-debate started by someone asking if the opinion of a non-musician is as "valued" as that of a musician. A musician's opinion is more likely to be better-informed and to be backed by a wider range of reference. Still, "first impressions" etc from a non-musician are still valuable. A great work of art should be accessible on many levels.
> I'd like to make clear that I wasn't referring to you. That was in that 20th century music thread that attracted a couple of outright trollish types, one of whom strangely was never even called out by the mods (sock puppet?). I never report comments, not even on that occasion. The suspension...meh. So I spent a couple of weeks in the TC jail. No big deal.


"A great work of art should be accessible on many levels."

What is logic behind that? Is it an emotional appeal? A great work of art s/b original and clever and effective. Accessible to who?

I realize we're taught to believe what you've stated, but a work will be accessible to some and not others.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> It's no use telling janxharris to listen again and again. I know he doesn't like 18th-century elements such as this,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he told us many times already.


Though I find things like 9:18 and on to be fairly boring. Beethoven at times seems overly too concerned with simplistic aesthetics, this can be said of Bach too. Mozart is leading the poll in 'least heavy' musician, by that I'm personally confused.

No responses to my last post. I thought it was highly interesting conceptually, but people here have their own 'taste'  The idea of greatness can not even be about 'how popular' or accessible a composer becomes, but by how singled out they are by individual taste groups.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> TBH I think if Mozart had lived longer his music probably would've sounded similar to Beethoven's, but maybe with more of an emphasis on melody.


----------



## Luchesi

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> This is exactly why I asked do you have to be able to play Bach in order to love him. To which a few people said no.
> 
> On listening alone, if you never studied the music or played Bach would he be considered as great as he is? On listening alone, on pure listening experience does Bach please, or move the listener as much as WAM and Lud?


It's unfortunate, I guess, that students have to do all the work I talked about before they (on a personal level) can experience enough to discern greatness in a difficult composer. Chopin? Schubert? Bach? Schoenberg? they're very different but they all have their critics. People will ignore their time and place and the level of dissonance (the kinds of ambiguity) available to them.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> "A great work of art should be accessible on many levels."
> 
> What is logic behind that? Is it an emotional appeal? A great work of art s/b original and clever and effective. Accessible to who?
> 
> I realize we're taught to believe what you've stated, but a work will be accessible to some and not others.


I have always thought that all works of art must stand on their own merits, without any props or crutches to "make them accessible." If a work is only accessible to a small group of scholars, it is so marginal as to become irrelevant.

To my way of thinking, art performs a function in society: to reach people, to move people, to ennoble people to make us experience a higher level of living. And by "people" I mean potentially anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean all art must be like pop music. But it also should not require an advanced degree in order to "get" it.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> I have always thought that all works of art must stand on their own merits, without any props or crutches to "make them accessible." If a work is only accessible to a small group of scholars, it is so marginal as to become irrelevant.
> ...


I don't think you can make a work of art accessible, by which I mean you can't make it "speak" to a wide-enough audience to keep it alive. Using props and crutches -- such as being pushed solely by the artistic "intelligentsia" like critics and faculty -- is just an indication of that work's weakness.


Luchesi said:


> A great work of art s/b original and clever and effective.


If it's "clever and effective" it's going to be accessible to enough people who (in Milton's words) will not willingly let it die.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> Though I find things like 9:18 and on to be fairly boring. Beethoven at times seems overly too concerned with simplistic aesthetics, this can be said of Bach too. Mozart is leading the poll in 'least heavy' musician it, by that I'm personally confused.


It can't be said any more about Bach than it can be said about Mozart. There are admittedly stretches of Mozart with that ubiquitous Alberti bass that I also find to be boring. Haydn and early-to-middle Beethoven as well.



> No responses to my last post. I thought it was highly interesting conceptually, but people here have their own 'taste'  The idea of greatness can not even be about 'how popular' or accessible a composer becomes, but by how singled out they are by individual taste groups.


Well explain the popularity then, by which I mean explain why we as a group tend to listen more to Wagner and Mahler than to the works of Czerny.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I don't think you can make a work of art accessible, by which I mean you can't make it "speak" to a wide-enough audience to keep it alive. Using props and crutches -- such as being pushed solely by the artistic "intelligentsia" like critics and faculty -- is just an indication of that work's weakness.
> If it's "clever and effective" it's going to be accessible to enough people who (in Milton's words) will not willingly let it die.


You move in mostly intellectual circles. Is that your perspective? Have you talked to average people about new works? What happened?


----------



## Luchesi

SanAntone said:


> I have always thought that all works of art must stand on their own merits, without any props or crutches to "make them accessible." If a work is only accessible to a small group of scholars, it is so marginal as to become irrelevant.
> 
> To my way of thinking, art performs a function in society: to reach people, to move people, to ennoble people to make us experience a higher level of living. And by "people" I mean potentially anyone and everyone. This doesn't mean all art must be like pop music. But it also should not require an advanced degree in order to "get" it.


It would be nice, but teach some students.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> You move in mostly intellectual circles. Is that your perspective? Have you talked to average people about new works? What happened?


Are you kidding? I'm as "average" as they come. :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> I don't think you can make a work of art accessible, by which I mean you can't make it "speak" to a wide-enough audience to keep it alive. Using props and crutches -- such as being pushed solely by the artistic "intelligentsia" like critics and faculty -- is just an indication of that work's weakness.


I don't imagine "making a work of art accessible". To me, if the art "works" it will reach someone, touch them, and they will have the experience of it. They need not know anything about it, other than it is there for them.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hammeredklavier said:


> I think that this moment, in the G minor quintet finale, for example-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (which is reminiscent of the minuet's G major trio:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> is a prime example of "happy sadness" or "sad happiness" in his music.


I think they're not quite "reccurring themes", but they still create similar impressions in gesture:


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> It would be nice, but teach some students.


I am not a teacher, further, no one needs a teacher in order to have an artistic experience. Anyone can appreciate the beauty of a landscape without being taught how; and I believe they can also appreciate any work of art - if the work itself is honest.


----------



## tdc

People often talk about alberti bass as though its kind of too repetitive, or cheap somehow, but it was actually a brilliant musical innovation. Alberti bass blurred the clear sounding chord changes of the baroque style, a key factor in making possible the expansion of sonata form that occurred in the classical era.


----------



## Ethereality

consuono said:


> Well explain the popularity then, by which I mean explain why we as a group tend to listen more to Wagner and Mahler than to the works of Czerny.


I guess it's just boring to say popularity means something when you could take any other perspective too. Okay, it's noted certain composers are more popular or 'greater' by that measure. Duly noted, but here's another mathematical perspective. As we can see Wagner does a whole lot better than other popular composers, and the Big 3 make the Top 4. Add popularity to this list if you'd like to bring W and Brahms to the Top 5, but my theory without popularity included is much too interesting.

_*Top 50 Greatest Composers of All Time according to subgroup appreciation (not popularity)*_
*Explanation*

Calculated from Art Rock's Composer Survey where a composer's final score is (P^y)/(M+x)
P = points, M = mentions, x is 1.5 accounting for small sample confidence, y is 0.85 accounting for Art Rock's faulty points system

I don't even know why I'm posting this, this forum is too boring.

1	Tallis
2	Mozart
3	Bach
4	Beethoven
5	Weinberg
6	Wolf
7	Brahms
8	Wagner
9	Mahler
10	Schubert
11	Korngold
12	Tchaikovsky
13	Dufay
14	Messiaen
15	Rimsky-Korsakov
16	Haydn
17	Handel
18	John Williams
19	Sibelius
20	Schumann
21	Josquin
22	Nielsen
23	Zemlinsky
24	Ligeti
25	Shostakovich
26	Corelli
27	Verdi
28	Dvorak
29	Vaughan Williams
30	Mendelssohn
31	Stravinsky
32	Vivaldi
33	Weber
34	Puccini
35	Monteverdi
36	Reich
37	Machaut
38	Gluck
39	Biber
40	Pergolesi
41	Rossini
42	Debussy
43	Berg
44	Liszt
45	Berlioz
46	Faure
47 Rachmaninoff
48	Ravel
49	Gesualdo
50	Webern


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> this forum is too boring.


Wait till *MR*, the King of Kreative Komments , comes back.


----------



## SanAntone

These excerpts come from a book I've just started reading, and thought they were on-point for what I've been posting here:

"For Zen students the most important thing is not to be dualistic. Our "original mind" includes everything within itself. It is always rich and sufficient within itself. You should not lose your self-sufficient state of mind. This does not mean a closed mind, but actually an empty mind and a ready mind. If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything; it is open to everything. *In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities; in the expert's mind there are few.*"

"So the most difficult thing is always to keep your beginner's mind. There is no need to have a deep understanding of Zen. Even though you read much Zen literature, you must read each sentence with a fresh mind. You should not say, "I know what Zen is," or "I have attained enlightenment." This is also the real secret of the arts: always be a beginner. Be very very careful about this point. If you start to practice zazen, you will begin to appreciate your beginner's mind. It is the secret of Zen practice."

- Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: 50th Anniversary Edition by Shunryu Suzuki


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> People often talk about alberti bass as though its kind of too repetitive, or cheap somehow, ...


All too often it is. A few times is OK, a gazillion not so much. Bach and Handel used a similar pattern on occasion but didn't drive it into the ground. I don't know how much of an "innovation" it was.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> I guess it's just boring to say popularity means something when you could take any other perspective too. Okay, it's noted certain composers are more popular or 'greater' by that measure. Duly noted, but here's another mathematical perspective. As we can see Wagner does a whole lot better than other popular composers, and the Big 3 make the Top 4. Add popularity to this list if you'd like to bring W and Brahms to the Top 5, but my theory without popularity included is much too interesting.
> ...


I care about as much about that as I do any other "greatest/bestest/worstest/mostest overunderratedest" poll in this teeny tiny subset of an online forum.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I care about as much about that as I do any other "greatest/bestest/worstest/mostest overunderratedest" poll in this teeny tiny subset of an online forum.


Why do we care about popularity and peoples' likes and dislikes when we don't even think about it while studying other technical subjects?


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> I guess it's just boring to say popularity means something when you could take any other perspective too. Okay, it's noted certain composers are more popular or 'greater' by that measure. Duly noted, but here's another mathematical perspective. As we can see Wagner does a whole lot better than other popular composers, and the Big 3 make the Top 4. Add popularity to this list if you'd like to bring W and Brahms to the Top 5, but my theory without popularity included is much too interesting.
> 
> _*Top 50 Greatest Composers of All Time according to subgroup appreciation (not popularity)*_
> 
> I don't even know why I'm posting this, this forum is too boring.




The list is absurd, and by posting it you just contributed to the boring aspect of this thread.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> All too often it is. A few times is OK, a gazillion not so much. Bach and Handel used a similar pattern on occasion but didn't drive it into the ground. I don't know how much of an "innovation" it was.


I see your point, but that sort of "cliches" was acceptable in those times. In many cases, Mozart uses them to create contrast, to juxtapose with contrapuntal sections, (ex. the first movements of K.533, K.497, or the slow movements of K.183, K.184). But I can somewhat understand your sentiment about the style; I don't consider stuff like the slow movement from Mozart's own F major concerto K.413 very remarkable in this regard. It strikes me somewhat as a "potboiler" (in the context of Mozart's style and output), I heard he didn't even bother to write the solo parts down properly. I consider this - 



 to be way better.
Even Bach has what can be seen as "cliches"; in the C sharp minor from WTC book 1, the figure shown in the score below is used almost like a typical "18th-century style accompaniment figure" in every bar of the piece once its subject enters: 



I think the use of this figure in his later stuff, such as the F sharp minor from WTC book 2 and the Gratias agimus tibi from the B minor mass shows greater maturity though.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> All too often it is. A few times is OK, a gazillion not so much. Bach and Handel used a similar pattern on occasion but didn't drive it into the ground. I don't know how much of an "innovation" it was.


When students want to quickly learn to play fake piano they will learn the stride approach and the Alberti.

wiki says
A bass consisting of a succession of broken chords (arpeggios) of an unusual kind. Domenico Alberti, a gifted Venetian amateur who was born during the early part of the Eighteenth Century and died about 1740, is credited with the invention which bears his name. His cembalo music abounds in this style of accompaniment.[7]


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> wiki says
> A bass consisting of a succession of broken chords (arpeggios) of an unusual kind. Domenico Alberti, a gifted Venetian amateur who was born during the early part of the Eighteenth Century and died about 1740, is credited with the invention which bears his name. His cembalo music abounds in this style of accompaniment.[7]


"It was named after Domenico Alberti (1710-1740/46), who used it extensively, although he was not the first to use it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberti_bass#:~:text=Alberti bass is a kind,flowing sound on the piano.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Even Bach has what can be seen as "cliches"; in the C sharp minor from WTC book 1, the figure shown in the score below is used almost like a typical "18th-century style accompaniment figure" in every bar of the piece once its subject enters:


And in the E flat major fugue from WTC I there is a pattern in the left hand that resembles Alberti bass. But it is a voice in the fugue and serves a harmonic purpose. It isn't there just as filler material to accompany a melodic line.


----------



## tdc

People often want to give credit to the big names for everything in musical development, but its not always the case. According to Charles Rosen, alberti bass and the rhythms used in 18th century comic opera were very big factors in the development of the classical style.

A lot of it is timing, and cyclical as well. I think audiences were craving something new and different, a lighter sound after the generally more serious aesthetic of the late baroque. 

Can things like alberti bass, be abused? Certainly. But I think it is interesting to see these musical features in their historical context, and how it is often simple things that end up opening up a lot of doors and musical possibilities.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> And in the E flat major fugue from WTC I there is a pattern in the left hand that resembles Alberti bass. But it is a voice in the fugue and serves a harmonic purpose. It isn't there just as filler material to accompany a melodic line.


The "accompaniment" to this: 




or this





isn't "filler material" either 

What is "filler material" anyway? Are the repeated notes in these "filler material"?:















consuono said:


> *I don't see the problem with that.* The piano is merely accompanying the singers. I love that work. There are similar passages in the Waldstein sonata (with no singers!). *It's about effect and color, I guess.* Not everything has to be this divinely crafted bit of otherworldly chromaticism. I love the Archduke Trio too.


lol. I love your "double standards".

This is like the 10th time I've seen you complain about the alberti bass, btw.


----------



## consuono

> What is "filler material" anyway?


The bass line here:




And here:




And in numerous other Mozart sonatas. And Haydn and early Beethoven as well.


> lol. I love your "double standards".


And I love yours. You're quick to point out banalities in everyone *except* Mozart, since every note that he wrote was divine and Wagner called him the "great Chromatiker" and the C minor fugue and blah blah.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> And in the E flat major fugue from WTC I there is a pattern in the left hand that resembles Alberti bass. But it is a voice in the fugue and serves a harmonic purpose. It isn't there just as filler material to accompany a melodic line.


But the machine-like use of figures like them are what puts some people off when it comes to baroque music like Bach.
Come on, are you the kind of person who would just worship stuff like "The Art of the fugue" for its "divinely-crafted complex counterpoint" without question and refuse to listen to other people who would like to hear more "variety" and "contrast" of mood in a movement/piece?:





It feels like I just endangered myself to "eternal damnation" by saying these things. (O, I'm so scared now)


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> But the machine-like use of figures like them are what puts some people off when it comes to baroque music like Bach.
> Come on, are you the kind of person who would just worship stuff like "The Art of the fugue" for its "divinely-crafted complex counterpoint" without question and refuse to listen to other people who would like to hear more "variety" and "contrast" of mood in a movement/piece?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like I just endangered myself to "eternal damnation" by saying these things. (O, I'm so scared now)


Like I said, the purpose of the Art of Fugue was to show the varieties of fugal structure by using one theme and variants of it. Other forms of "variety" within that are irrelevant. What do you expect, an andante with Alberti bass thrown in? :lol:
Incidentally that's a nice bit of Handelian counterpoint from young Wolfgang there. :lol:

Bach could do structural variety within a single movement as well:


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Incidentally that's a nice bit of Handelian counterpoint from young Wolfgang there. :lol:


Please stop labelling the Salzburgians' counterpoint "Handelian" or "Bachian", if you can't show me to what extent Michael Haydn knew of Bach or Handel, for example.



consuono said:


> Bach could do structural variety within a single movement as well:


That one's ok, but I think this




 (4:34~8:41)
or
the way this 



 (7:18~10:04) works in the context of the entire movement, is remarkable.
This one has the opening of Beethoven's 5th within itself:


----------



## consuono

> Please, stop labelling the Salzburgians' counterpoint "Handelian" or "Bachian", if you can't show me to what extent Michael Haydn knew of Bach or Handel, for example.


Handel was probably the most famous musician of the time, so I think there's a pretty good chance they were all acquainted with him.


> I think that's ok, but I think this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (4:34~8:41)
> or
> the way this
> 
> 
> 
> (7:18~10:04) works in the context of the entire movement, is remarkable


Yeah it's ok, but this is better:


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> The list is absurd, and by posting it you just contributed to the boring aspect of this thread.


This may perhaps be the most useful sample ever compiled on composers, when referring to the new mathematical principle of influence emphasis within subgroups. Perhaps some silly minds may think it 'absurd' because they can see (or most likely 'hear) no other perspectives, are unable to accept the relevance of such a thorough sampling of various taste groups. The majority's mainstream, blind opinion on this is unneeded, the statistics speak for themselves. In fact due to the principle involved, this list ends up being just as agreeable as other 'normal' lists. _Quite_ ingenious.



consuono said:


> I care about as much about that as I do any other "greatest/bestest/worstest/mostest overunderratedest" poll in this teeny tiny subset of an online forum.


Well with that being said, this list was an example preview. I've been working on compiling the taste subgroups from many communities, but the work takes much longer. Our community probably provides some of the most depth and accuracy on subgroups when it comes to available samples.

Note the main principle of exponentialism, for x >> y | x = y^3

In pop communities for instance, this gives very little weight to pop musicians, because they fit no agreeable higher ideal. Only some composers are consistently considered the 'master' of their field, namely the Top 10 on this list so far, and many other variants to be found.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> You're quick to point out banalities in everyone *except* Mozart, since every note that he wrote was divine and Wagner called him the "great Chromatiker" and the C minor fugue and blah blah.


I actually accept this criticism. But I tried to be fair as I could in post #555 though. I wouldn't actually call anything in other composers "banality" though. (I sort of believe in the idea that "if there are people liking X, there's no point calling it "banality"".) But I respect your view that alberti bass in Mozart is a "banality".


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> https://youtu.be/dNbqRC4xtEg


Terrible recordings, btw. Try this:


----------



## tdc

The bass line in k545 is filler? It goes on for only 4 measures, and the pattern is varied even within that space...


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> This may perhaps be the most useful sample ever compiled on composers, when referring to the new mathematical principle of influence emphasis within subgroups. Perhaps some silly minds may think it 'absurd' because they can see (or most likely 'hear) no other perspectives, are unable to accept the relevance of such a thorough sampling of various taste groups. The majority's mainstream, blind opinion on this is unneeded, the statistics speak for themselves. In fact due to the principle involved, this list ends up being just as agreeable as other 'normal' lists. _Quite_ ingenious.


Any list that places Tallis in the top position and John Williams higher than a number of far greater composers is absurd. I can only assume you used data from TC, which is also absurd since it is such a tiny sample size. Then You underscore its absurdity with the technical language you use to describe the methodology.


----------



## tdc

Also composers don't generally start a piece off with 'filler'. That doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> Any list that places Tallis in the top position and John Williams higher than a number of far greater composers is absurd. I can only assume you used data from TC, which is also absurd since it is such a tiny sample size. Then You underscore its absurdity with the technical language you use to describe the methodology.


Anyone who seriously agrees with your ridiculous claim, can be my new rivals. I've never read something so ignorant and unknowledgable on this forum--I'm starting to see the greater positives in others.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> The bass line in k545 is filler? It goes on for only 4 measures, and the pattern is varied even within that space...


It is in my view. Come on. Most people recognize that the Alberti bass was one of the most overused, boring clichés of the Classical era. And this is just one example from a multitude.
I think this is a more musically interesting instance of something that in spots resembles the Alberti *pattern*, or at least serves roughly the same function... and there are instances like this in Mozart's piano writing as well. It isn't by definition "bad"; it was just overdone.


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> It is in my view. Come on. Most people recognize that the Alberti bass was one of the most overused, boring clichés of the Classical era. And this is just one example from a multitude.


Music like language can contain clichés yes, how does a cliché become a cliché? Because it contains a truth or it is effective. It becomes a tool for expression. Another way to look at it is like an ingredient in a dish. Some ingredients in a meal may be more unique or exotic and some might be more simple, structural or utilitarian, but it is the combination in the right proportions that make a dish effective. I believe Mozart was a master at using the right proportions, his reputation backs this up, I think.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> ... I believe Mozart was a master at using the right proportions, his reputation backs this up, I think.


His reputation rests on works in which he transcended those clichés, especially as he matured in style. Some of his other work doesn't, in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Music like language can contain clichés yes, how does a cliché become a cliché? Because it contains a truth or it is effective. It becomes a tool for expression.





consuono said:


> Most people recognize that the Alberti bass was one of the most overused, boring clichés of the Classical era.


Both of you have good points. 
However, K.545 is not one of works I would dismiss for its use of the alberti bass. I attribute some kind of symbolic meaning to the way it starts based on the C major triad. I have some sort of "fetish" for this sort of concept. You know what I mean? (Some people may feel this way about the C major prelude from Bach WTC book 1).







hammeredklavier said:


> I think there's far more to Mozart's rococo aesthetics than just being "fluffy" -there are his ways to "change character" and "raise tension" with carefully controlled chromaticism, -with expressions so clean and crisp that Ravel would have admired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also what I appreciate about Michael Haydn, whose idiomatic language I find closest to Mozart. I like his ways to create and resolve dissonance on his white 'classical canvas'.
> Missa sancti Gabrielis in C:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (6:43~7:03)
> Missa sancti Joannis Nepomuceni in C:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1:18~1:26)
> Missa sancti Hieronymi in C:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Symphony in C (28th):


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven wasn't flawless either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (17:13 ~ 17:24)


Doesn't the Choral Fantasy get a bad rap anyway for being one of his lesser works? I've never listened to it. I've heard that the way he writes for voices in general left a lot to be desired.


----------



## Luchesi

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> Doesn't the Choral Fantasy get a bad rap anyway for being one of his lesser works? I've never listened to it. I've heard that the way he writes for voices in general left a lot to be desired.


I think of Beethoven as a composer who was often at odds with people and even his friends, and even himself, and so his output can be enjoyed (with our long view history) as outbursts of a man with unfounded energy for composing. Obsession. Different than Mozart, surely different than Bach.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

> Least Favorite of the "Big Three": Bach, Beethoven & Mozart


There was a time where I would have said Bach. Then more recently Mozart but now I would say I like all three the same. They're all excellent in their own way, and all have works that I'm not as interested in. It's kind of like Neapolitan ice cream. Sometimes you want strawberry, sometimes it's vanilla or chocolate. All are great.


----------



## Luchesi

Luchesi said:


> I think of Beethoven as a composer who was often at odds with people and even his friends, and even himself, and so his output can be enjoyed (with our long view history) as outbursts of a man with unfounded energy for composing. Obsession. Different than Mozart, surely different than Bach.


unbounded energy --- eyes don't get better with age

editing s/b allowed for two days, because you come back a day later with a fresh memory slate


----------



## Luchesi

BlackAdderLXX said:


> There was a time where I would have said Bach. Then more recently Mozart but now I would say I like all three the same. They're all excellent in their own way, and all have works that I'm not as interested in. It's kind of like Neapolitan ice cream. Sometimes you want strawberry, sometimes it's vanilla or chocolate. All are great.


It's curious how many people come to those same conclusions over time. They are very different, and for the student they contain so much that they can refer back for performing and composing, and for analyzing later music. If they hadn't composed where would we be as students? Handel and Haydn and late Liszt as substitutes?


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> Anyone who seriously agrees with your ridiculous claim, can be my new rivals. I've never read something so ignorant and unknowledgable on this forum--I'm starting to see the greater positives in others.


Here's your list:

*1 Tallis*
2 Mozart
3 Bach
4 Beethoven
*5 Weinberg*
6 Wolf
7 Brahms
8 Wagner
9 Mahler
10 Schubert
*11 Korngold*
12 Tchaikovsky
13 Dufay
14 Messiaen
15 Rimsky-Korsakov
16 Haydn
17 Handel
*18 John Williams*
19 Sibelius
20 Schumann
21 Josquin
22 Nielsen
23 Zemlinsky
24 Ligeti
25 Shostakovich
26 Corelli
27 Verdi
28 Dvorak
29 Vaughan Williams
30 Mendelssohn
31 Stravinsky
32 Vivaldi
33 Weber
34 Puccini
35 Monteverdi
*36 Reich*
37 Machaut
38 Gluck
39 Biber
40 Pergolesi
41 Rossini
42 Debussy
43 Berg
44 Liszt
45 Berlioz
46 Faure
47 Rachmaninoff
48 Ravel
49 Gesualdo
50 Webern

I've bolded a few names which I think demonstrate the absurdity of your list. Either the inclusion of the composer in a list of 50 important composers, or their placement above obviously more important composers renders your list ridiculous. You appear to be infatuated with statistical games.

Two sayings:

There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.


----------



## Luchesi

Thomas Tallis was an English composer who occupies a primary place in anthologies of English choral music. He is considered one of England's greatest composers, and he is honoured for his original voice in English musicianship


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> Thomas Tallis was an English composer who occupies a primary place in anthologies of English choral music. He is considered one of England's greatest composers, and he is honoured for his original voice in English musicianship


True. But he is not as important as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart - just to name the three most obvious examples.


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> Thomas Tallis was an English composer who occupies a primary place in anthologies of English choral music. He is considered one of England's greatest composers, and he is honoured for his original voice in English musicianship


I agree that he's one of England's greatest composers, but there is much more to the world of classical music than only England.


----------



## Ethereality

SanAntone said:


> True. But he is not as important as Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart - just to name the three most obvious examples.


He apparently is more important than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. That's precisely what this list is measuring on this forum. It's just beyond your conceptual capacity.

Now if we're measuring who is important to more _people_, a quantitative list, that's where you get your traditional Beethoven is first, Wagner twentieth, Tallis 170th, etc. It's simply a different list of greatness. This list is an example of estimating the _strength_ of opinions (how important) to those who study said composers, based on a phenomenon called reverence probability (and other variations.) To call this mere example posted 'absurd', is to call yourself absurd. It is a list of the most-loved composers by diverse popular and unpopular subgroup, and only because the statistical phenomenon allows this to be sorted by 'greatest' as a rule. As a mathematician, I don't expect you to know about this particular subject and its pros and cons, only, that you think it's 'absurd.'

One list however which makes no sense, would be to recycle famous composers' favorite composers. That is because we're already taking a popular survey of popular composers, and then working it backwards in retrospect to maximize the same direction. No, the list I posted is highly more meaningful than any you have dug around for.


----------



## SanAntone

Ethereality said:


> He apparently is more important than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. That's precisely what this list is measuring on this forum. It's just beyond your conceptual capacity.


No, he isn't more important, i.e. when you consider the larger context outside the small world of TC and your statistical games - IOW the real world.


----------



## Ethereality

You have clearly not read my posts or my theories, and would not likely show a conceptual understanding of their implications to the level I do, so I won't read your posts either. Any other person would post more reasonably.


----------



## janxharris

Ethereality said:


> You have clearly not read my posts or my theories, and would not likely show a conceptual understanding of their implications to the level I do, so I won't read your posts either. Any other person would post more reasonably.


I think it's okay to suggest that composers other than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are more 'important' (whatever that means to you) as long as it's understood to be subjective.


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> He apparently is more important than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart. That's precisely what this list is measuring on this forum. It's just beyond your conceptual capacity.
> 
> Now if we're measuring who is important to more _people_, a quantitative list, that's where you get your traditional Beethoven is first, Wagner twentieth, Tallis 170th, etc. It's simply a different list of greatness. This list is an example of estimating the _strength_ of opinions (how important) to those who study said composers, based on a phenomenon called reverence probability (and other variations.) To call this mere example posted 'absurd', is to call yourself absurd. It is a list of the most-loved composers by diverse popular and unpopular subgroup, and only because the statistical phenomenon allows this to be sorted by 'greatest' as a rule. As a mathematician, I don't expect you to know about this particular subject and its pros and cons, only, that you think it's 'absurd.'
> 
> One list however which makes no sense, would be to recycle famous composers' favorite composers. That is because we're already taking a popular survey of popular composers, and then working it backwards in retrospect to maximize the same direction. No, the list I posted is highly more meaningful than any you have dug around for.


The only person your list makes sense to is you. Rather a small sample don't you think?


----------



## Ethereality

Handelian said:


> The only person your list makes sense to is you. Rather a small sample don't you think?


It was posted as an example result analysis, so there's nothing absurd about it. No one has any proof of 'greatness' beyond their own hypothesis of the term. Lists like these show various approaches to the meaning of greatness, this qualitative, _implicit_-learning list in particular can be very useful. Second, there are plenty of people who understand these advanced concepts and implications such as sample weight and influence. Obviously it wasn't posted for you. The majority of minds here are too removed from science and trend seeking to get a use out of it.

It's also a contradiction to say something makes sense to 'me' and not to other people. Something either makes perfect sense or it doesn't, regardless if others have studied or grasp the material.



janxharris said:


> I think it's okay to suggest that composers other than Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are more 'important' (whatever that means to you) as long as it's understood to be subjective.


Spot on. The sample tastes at Talk Classical are as subjective as anything else. What this project shows however is that Classical composers, such as the ones on this list, are more likely to be considered _great_ than the popular opinions on musicians who are great, because there is less variance. It's what gives this mathematical phenomenon its defining significance. If you can't see the value in it, then you're not suited for the field.


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> It was posted as an example mathematical survey, so there's nothing absurd about it. No one has any proof of 'greatness' beyond their own understanding. Second, there are plenty of people who understand these advanced concepts and implications such as sample weight and influence. Obviously not for you or most people. Your minds are too removed from science and trend seeking to get a use out of it.
> 
> It's also a contradiction to say something makes sense to 'me' and not to other people. Something either makes perfect sense or it doesn't, regardless if others have studied or grasp the material.
> 
> Precisely. The sample tastes at Talk Classical are as subjective as anything else


Mathematical survey of one! Very scientific I must say! Plenty of people who understand these 'advanced concepts'? You and who else?


----------



## Ethereality

Thanks for posting though. I'll talk to you when we're back in your field of understanding.


----------



## Handelian

Ethereality said:


> Thanks for posting though. I'll talk to you when we're back in your field of understanding.


Which is never I hope!


----------

