# What if Mozart hadn't died so young?



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Can you even imagine what would Mozart have composed in the mature years of his life if he hadn't died so young?

For example if he lived to be 57 like Beethoven, or even 77 like Haydn?

Beethoven composed both 5th and 9th Symphony as well as his late string quartets including Grosse Fugue, at age (35+ years) when Mozart was already dead.

Also, Requim is one of the greatest works of Mozart, yet it is his last one. If he continued composing at the level of Requiem and surpassing this level, who knows what would he have to offer to us if he hadn't died?


----------



## Boccherini (Mar 29, 2010)

Another vacuous thread.
Cultivating hypothetical illusions like "What would have been, if..." is quite pointless and pathetic, especially when future repair is unavailable.

I wonder what would be your 4th hit


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> I wonder what would be your 4th hit


Forumnal ******** No. 4 for violin and orchestra in D minor.


----------



## David58117 (Nov 5, 2009)

Well, I for one suspect he would of wrote a lot more music, many of which might of been very very good...but that's just me. ::sarcasm::


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Whistlerguy said:


> Can you even imagine what would Mozart have composed in the mature years of his life if he hadn't died so young?


For Gawd's sake, you couldn't have come up with a more naff thread if you tried. This is baby-forum material. At least you might have tried to jazz it up a bit such as, for example, along the following lines to try to make at least slightly interesting:

http://www.talkclassical.com/4005-add-20-years-their.html

or

http://www.talkclassical.com/8251-mozart-romantic-composerer.html

or

http://www.talkclassical.com/7688-just-wondering.html

Makes me wonder where all the more interesting members have gone to lately.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

OK; maybe my idea was good but it was poorly presented, maybe other posters could still save this thread. I'm still beginner when it comes to classical music, I hope I don't bother you too much with my questions.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Whistlerguy said:


> OK; maybe my idea was good but it was poorly presented, maybe other posters could still save this thread. I'm still beginner when it comes to classical music, I hope I don't bother you too much with my questions.


I won't let this thread succumb!

If Mozart lived to be older, he would have become famous more quickly than it actually took for his music to start getting appreciation. Also, he probably would have gone past K 1000. Oh, and he would have finished that Requiem... although, maybe he wouldn't have created it in the first place??

Maybe he would have created another flute concerto or 2...


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If I had four wheels I'd be a Cadillac !


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I read a book, which compiled all of Mozart's surviving letters (hundreds of them) written mostly to his family (translated to English). It offered a fascinating insight to Mozart as a person; a middle class individual who generally had a bright outlook in life, who loved his parents, sister and wife. He was very human in that respect. Many letters also revealed invaluable insight to how he regarded the competencies of musicians, bands and fellow composers, and general artistic matters about the music of his time. 

The point is, if one was to purely speculate what could have happened based largely on just what music he wrote, and not knowing anything much else about the thinking and personality of the artist himself, then I think it's really as good a guess as you having "faith" in believing just about anything that Mozart could have written to suit your own fantasy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm not hugely familiar with Mozart's output, but judging form some of his late works - the last few symphonies and the _Requiem_ (though how much of that is exactly Mozart is difficult to tell?), he probably would have even further developed the sonata form, like Beethoven came to do in the early C19th. Maybe he would have gotten away from the earlier "galante" style and moved towards something more expressive (like Beethoven). But as people have pointed out above, this is mere speculation. Some composers, though they may show brilliance and innovation in their earlier years, become conservative and inflexible in the end. This is what happened to Saint-Saens, and probably a host of others who are now lesser-known to us. Others, like Rachmaninov & Sibelius found that they were unable to "move with the times" and their output in their final decades were either sporadic (like the former) or virtually non-existent (like the latter). Of course, for both these guys, thier suffering from depression was a major issue there. Then you get other composers like Janacek and Carter, whose best output is from the final decades of their lives. So (like any people), composers are all different, and their output (or developments in style, or lack thereof) really depends on many unpredictable factors that come into play once they get past the age of say 50...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mozart's achievements from his last years... and the lightening speed at which he was working... only lead me to suspect he would have continued to surpass himself... and eventually may have surpassed even Bach!! (And I say this as one who has also frequently stated "Bach is God!") One can only fantasize about where he might have gone after the final stupendous movement of the _Jupiter Symphony_? Would he continue to learn from Bach and build symphonic works of an ever-increasing contrapuntal complexity? Then there's the _Requiem_. How would it have been finished? Even in its fragmentary state it is already an amazing work. And what of further choral works? But most important of all... the operas. These are the core of Mozart's oeuvre and genius. If asked to name the greatest opera ever written, more often than not I would choose _Le Nozze di Figaro_... unless I chose _Don Giovanni_... or the _Magic Flute_. Mozart had already revolutionized opera... repeatedly. I can only imagine him building upon the Magic Flute with further efforts toward German opera... comic opera... a _Singspiel_ directed more at the larger population than the wealthy aristocrats. And then (Gasp! the thought of it depresses me!) might he not have eventually taken up Haydn and Johann Peter Salomon's invitation to come to London where he most likely would have been commissioned (like Haydn) to produce further symphonies and operas... and where (like Haydn) he would have been exposed to the marvelous examples of Handel's choral works... and then who knows? How might Mozart have responded to Handel's _Messiah_ and Haydn's _Creation_???


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> . and then who knows? How might Mozart have responded to Handel's _Messiah_ and Haydn's _Creation_???


I have always suspected that for Beethoven to be great, God had to take Mozart away.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> I have always suspected that for Beethoven to be great, God had to take Mozart away.


I hope you are joking. "God had to take Mozart away". Yes, the smartest comment I heard on this board ...


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

I find this thread interesting - nutty as it may seem - and many are the music historians that have wondered and discussed this issue. As the garbage heap is strangely besides musical history, like no other big name, I doubt that he would have drifted against sentimentality or romanticism. The sad and refined tonality in the last works, differs greatly from the intellectual and contrapunctual richness in the 1780s. But as early as 1788 in K551, the "12" is heard, and in K465 (1785) he was stubbornly defending his "dissonances" despite attacks from other composers.

I'd say that Mozart and not Wagner, would perhaps be the one that broke with tonality. But in a total different way, frugal and intellectual, nothing like the extatic and passionate music in Tristan as that opera sails firmly against atonality.


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

Boccherini said:


> Another vacuous thread.
> Cultivating hypothetical illusions like "What would have been, if..." is quite pointless and pathetic, especially when future repair is unavailable.
> 
> I wonder what would be your 4th hit





Opal said:


> For Gawd's sake, you couldn't have come up with a more naff thread if you tried. This is baby-forum material. At least you might have tried to jazz it up a bit such as, for example, along the following lines to try to make at least slightly interesting:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/4005-add-20-years-their.html
> 
> ...


He's only been on for a month. Give the guy a break.



whistlerguy said:


> OK; maybe my idea was good but it was poorly presented, maybe other posters could still save this thread. I'm still beginner when it comes to classical music, I hope I don't bother you too much with my questions.


I'm a beginner too, and unfortunately there are some (rather rude, I must say) people here who think you have to know everything about music before you can post here.

The threads mentioned by Opal are the same idea, just with a year number added on (What if Mozart had lived 20 more years, for example).

Quite often I have many ideas about topics to start, but refrain from posting them down to sheer intimidation.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

I just try to think of it in terms of things happened as they happened and there is nothing we can do about it. Although it makes perect sense to think Mozart would have achieved something astonishing had he lived longer, it's just not very therapeutic to want something we can never have. Much of Mozart's passion and individuality which made his music so great also contributed to the financial and health difficulties that may have led him to an early death. In this respect, you can't seperate his body of work from the brevity of his life.

What I find to be an even greater shame is Pergolesi dying in his mid-20's. The man hadn't even reached maturity and he already composed his sublime Stabat Mater only to swiftly fall victim to tuberculosis.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

What I find to be an even greater shame is Pergolesi dying in his mid-20's. The man hadn't even reached maturity and he already composed his sublime Stabat Mater only to swiftly fall victim to tuberculosis.

Nah... I'd take another 10 or 15 years of Mozart... or Schubert, damn it!... over Pergolesi any day. But then again... even at 65, J.S. Bach died far too young. Give me another 10 years of him composing over anyone.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

... or any if these could have turned into a second Sibelius and compose nothing anymore for decades.....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> ... or any if these could have turned into a second Sibelius and compose nothing anymore for decades.....


Possible. But I think Mozart was a compulsive scribbler. He just had to compose (he was financially broke most of the time anyway)!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

OH!

What if Vasily Kalinnikov didn't die so young?  If you know who he is, comment.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> ... or any if these could have turned into a second Sibelius and compose nothing anymore for decades.....


...or into Saint-Saens, who became a conservative old fossil (despite his brilliance when he was younger)...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> OH!
> 
> What if Vasily Kalinnikov didn't die so young?  If you know who he is, comment.


I have a CD with his symphonies IIRC. Haven't played them for a while.


----------



## Pianoforte (Jul 27, 2007)

This question may seem strange and is certainly no reflection of my lifestyle but was Mozart known to have ever used narcotics or was he known to be a heavy drinker? I suspect the answer to both is a resounding no but when imagining if he had lived in to old age I wonder if the fame would have brought out a destructive side in him and he could have gone on to tarnish his memory. Personally I think he would have continued to produce masterpieces and become a more prominent teacher and mentor founding an institution that would exist today.

From what I've learnt about Mozart I also imagine he would have become a widely known personality and after dinner speaker. Widely known perhaps not for all the right reasons!


----------



## violadamore2 (Mar 6, 2010)

If Mozart had lived longer I think he would have bumped up against the rising romantic movement and become a relic in his time like Bach became old fashioned even before he died.


----------



## wolf (May 16, 2009)

Pianoforte said:


> This question may seem strange and is certainly no reflection of my lifestyle but was Mozart known to have ever used narcotics or was he known to be a heavy drinker? I suspect the answer to both is a resounding no...


Actually there is a witness describing Mozart drunk, "then he drank much strong wine, and spoke not a word of sense afterwards", but that was during his poor period, when remembering his successful years, it's very obvious that Mozart was depressed of the conversation taking part. So as to brand him as an alcoholic because of that, is not very plausible.

As for drugs, there HAS been speculation (moneylenders? Opiumdebts?) why his businesses was in such an awful state, and also he is constantly referrong to some sort of mystery man and money, while corresponding with Constanze. Many believe this mystery was only about som financial arrangement, but if so, why all the secresy?

On the other hand, in very few European countries (among them Sweden and France) there were any difficulties *at all* in getting opium legally from any pharmacist. Most ppl had opium or Laudanum at home. Drug problems didn't arise, when ppl had them they worked anyway. Alcohol was the big addiction drug, the only one really until a bit of coke in the 1920's - which says something about the "dangerousness" of opium...

Cocaine wasn't there yet, nor hemp - oh it was there but NOONE used it - nor had Morphine been invented yet. In his later years Mozart smoke tobacco pipe. Personally I do not believethe drug theory, but not for reasons that "my hero" mustn't be a drug addict. Rather the contrary, I'd feel more connected to him. 

But there are so few reasons for believing it. Interesting question though.


----------



## lazurm (Mar 16, 2012)

On the contrary. Mozart had finally achieved pure artistic freedom, even in his own words, his letters describes his situation as such. I believe that once free from previous constraints, his unending creativity, need for expression, willingness to push the envelopes unboundingly would easily segue him into the Romantic era as one of its founders in the least, and an excellent example of the best that Romantic music could achieve.



violadamore2 said:


> If Mozart had lived longer I think he would have bumped up against the rising romantic movement and become a relic in his time like Bach became old fashioned even before he died.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Yes, he would have then lived longer and no, we don't know 'who knows what else he may have...'

NEXT!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mozart loved opera, so I can guess that if he lived for another thirty years he would have written another forty operas at least.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Mozart would have become Haydn and written 15,000 cookie-cutter symphonies. Money is money, after all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Re: the last two posts. 

Good thing he checked out at age 35!


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Judging by most other "stars" who die young I'd say he would have went on to be rather mediocre in later life. Perhaps he would have still have created good music but I doubt it could lived up to his previous accomplishments. Very few people if any are able to sustain that level of brilliance. People tend to reach a peak and it's all down hill from then on. It normally just depends how far they fall.

People who die "young" or at least before their time normally haven't had the time to disappoint and there for die with an untarnished catalogue of work. I'm not big on pop music but I doubt *John Lennon*, *Jim Morrison*, *Jimi Hendrix* et al would be as highly regarded today if they had not died when they did.

Look at *Jean-Luc Godard* he is still alive and making films yet has not made anything anyway near as good as his *New-Wave* films since 1967. *Woody Allen* is another example as are the *Rolling Stones* and *Bob Dylan* of individuals that have pasted their creative best.


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

If he hadn't died so young. he would have live longer.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

My name could have been _kv888._


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Lenfer said:


> Judging by most other "stars" who die young I'd say he would have went on to be rather mediocre in later life. Perhaps he would have still have created good music but I doubt it could lived up to his previous accomplishments. Very few people if any are able to sustain that level of brilliance. People tend to reach a peak and it's all down hill from then on. It normally just depends how far they fall.


For me, this is a little nonsense. In the pop world it might be true because rock is all about revolution and energy and shock and yes, rock musicians tend to do all of these much better when they're young and hungry. Growing old usually doesn't suit them, "settling down" is usually anathema for the rock mentality. And when one grows old whether you like it or not you start to calm down and settle down a little.

But you also have more experience, more knowledge, more skills. Yes, if you reach such an age when you start to show signs of mental senility that's a different story. But this whole "die young before you go down" is a ridiculous cliche sold by the pop culture. Reading about the will reveal how many of the great composers produced their greatest works as they got older. Curiously, most every composer's best-regarded jobs tend to be their latest ones (again, not a rule). Even MOZART himself: most of his most admired works are in the upper 400s of the Kochel catalog, and that one is somewhat chronological (as opposed to Bach's WV). Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and 9th symphony and last quartets were not composed "when he was young" were they? Real art takes craft and knowledge and work.

If Mozart had died older his works would probably have been even more amazing, or maybe not, but evidence of most composers (and the level of quality of his last works, from the last symphonies to Zauberflote to the Clarinet Concerto to the unfinished Requiem) show he was really just going upwards and his music getting even more amazing.

I'm actually sad Mozart didn't have time to compose much more music. How good it would have been if he had lived to compose KV888! How better it would be if Beethoven would have had a chance to compose a 10th, Schubert more song cycles, etc.

I found it a ridiculous pop culture cliches applied where it doesn't fit.

The only one happy about Mozart's early passing was one Franz Xaver Sussmayr....


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> Judging by most other "stars" who die young I'd say he would have went on to be rather mediocre in later life.


Utter nonsense, for the reasons noted by tgtr0660 and lazurm.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Hmmm, I have a different opinion re your post. Hendrix was a miraculous prodigy and was so far beyond the 'cutting edge' of his day that everyone would still be trying to catch up if he were alive and well - Bob Dylan won a Grammy in 2007 for his all new 'Modern Times' and is still working, Monteverdi ('Coronation of Poppea') = his greatest operatic masterpiece at aged 74, never mind the great late madrigals, Verdi ('Otello' at 74 and 'Falstaff' at 80) = two of his finest works, Copland, who died at 90, turned more to conducting, but his last decade was plundered by Alzheimer's, also Janacek, whose best works showed up in his late life, and Igor Stravinsky b. 1882 and was doing some 'serial' composition in 1968, and finally Elliot Carter who just premiered a 15+ minute work for flute and orchestra at aged 101. This is just a short list of composers who were vitally creative in old or near old age. Still, it's all crystal ball stuff where Mozart is concerned. I'm just thankful for the more than 600 K#'s that he left us (and, I know you are too). 

p.s. You're exactly right about the Stones, tho. lol



Lenfer said:


> Judging by most other "stars" who die young I'd say he would have went on to be rather mediocre in later life. Perhaps he would have still have created good music but I doubt it could lived up to his previous accomplishments. Very few people if any are able to sustain that level of brilliance. People tend to reach a peak and it's all down hill from then on. It normally just depends how far they fall.
> 
> People who die "young" or at least before their time normally haven't had the time to disappoint and there for die with an untarnished catalogue of work. I'm not big on pop music but I doubt *John Lennon*, *Jim Morrison*, *Jimi Hendrix* et al would be as highly regarded today if they had not died when they did.
> 
> Look at *Jean-Luc Godard* he is still alive and making films yet has not made anything anyway near as good as his *New-Wave* films since 1967. *Woody Allen* is another example as are the *Rolling Stones* and *Bob Dylan* of individuals that have pasted their creative best.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Had he not died from illness I can still imagine Mozart prematurely conking out through overwork even if he'd composed that mega-opera that might have financially set himself up for life thus allowing him the option to take things easy. He always seemed to be hyperactive and something of a workaholic so my money would have been on him having a cardiac arrest or a serious stroke by the time he was 50 anyway. On the other hand, had he lived until, say, the 1820s and was still on top of his game perhaps his mere presence might have spurred the likes of Beethoven and Schubert to even greater heights? The one thing I can't get my head around is how his later music may have sounded but the indications (if the later symphonies, certain concertos and chamber works are anything to go by) are that he was still restlessly looking for new forms of expression, so perhaps an 'Eroica'-style seismic shift may have been just around the corner.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Whether musicians/composers tend to get better or worse with age frequently depends on their genres. Classical composers frequently get better. Beethoven is an example, and his string quartets illustrate this. Rock and rollers tend to get worse, since their success makes them soft, and the hungry/radical edge that made them successful often disappears down the drain of their Beverly Hills swimming pool. They can have decent comebacks, like Dylan, but that's rare. Jazz artists are more of a mix. Some stay creative, like Coltrane and Davis, while others fade away (possibly getting a second bite of the apple, like Art Pepper). It's better to burn out than it is to rust, quoth the somewhat rusty Neil Old.

Michelangelo apparently was quite well-to-do in his later life, and no slouch he. But that's another site altogether . . .


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

You often read about "Late-Mozart", with reference to The Magic Flute, the works of his final couple of years etc. It's decribed as 'elegaic', more stripped-bare, economic. I find the notion of Mozart having a 'late period' to be a little supple and ripe. He was only 35 when he died, the age Beethoven was moving towards his middle period. Of course, Magic Flute was 'late' for Mozart: he died not too long after.

But Mozart was definitely moving towards a different way of composing, and had he lived then this surely would have continued. He might also have tutored Beethoven in Vienna in 1792, an occurence which would have been historically significant, from a musical point of view. Who knows what they'd have made of each other, but I'm sure they'd have recognised a kindred spirit, without any need to compete. I often dream that if Mozart had lived longer he'd have composed some huge, complex piano sonatas for his pupil Beethoven to perform. And Beethoven's first great opus would have been dedicated to his teacher.

Also, depending on what else he composed, Mozart would have furthered the bounds of music even more. Symphonies, concertos, operas: it's difficult to imagine that he would have regressed in his work. On the contrary, I see very few limits. He may have eventually exhausted expression, but he certainly hadn't by the time he died. The revolutions in Europe and the freedom artists gained might have affected him, but surely his impeccable taste in composition would have given us works less explicit and more profound than other composers were capable of.

Had he lived to Papa Haydn's age, he may also have tutored Schubert. Imagine the effect these great musical geniuses would have on each other? And while this is going on, Mozart is composing two operas a year. Ah! We can always dream...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

*Major works of Mozart's later period*

Piano concerto no. 43 in C minor K888. Composed in January 1807
Symphony no. 60 in D major K934. Composed in November 1808
Three Masonic string quartets K1028 to 1030. Composed in three weeks in winter 1809
Composed many Italian operas between 1810 and 1821. Was a rival of Rossini.
Composed many Masonic cantatas in the last ten years of his life from 1823 to 1833 and also wrote seven operas in French in the late 1820s.
His last work composed in August 1833 is a rather crude four voice canon called "Arsch Lecken" (K1927) to his own words that he wrote as a sort of farewell to his life as he knew he wasn't really going to be going on for much longer.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> *Major works of Mozart's later period*. . . Three Masonic string quartets K1028 to 1030. Composed in three weeks in winter 1809 . . .


I'm no expert on Mozart numbering, but I cannot find these. I see String Quartets Nos. 21-23 as being his last, but they seem to be tyically numbered in the high K.500s.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

misterjones said:


> I'm no expert on Mozart numbering, but I cannot find these. I see String Quartets Nos. 21-23 as being his last, but they seem to be tyically numbered in the high K.500s.


You haven't been look hard enough. I bet you're real glad you joined this Forum, to find out about all the works that were composed by Mozart after his death. It's a miracle isn't it. They're slowly coming to light.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

"Oh, I see," said the blind man, as he picked up his hammer and saw. A joke. I didn't look at the symphony and piano concerto numbers, which would have been the dead give-away (for me).


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Whistlerguy said:


> Can you even imagine what would Mozart have composed in the mature years of his life if he hadn't died so young?
> 
> For example if he lived to be 57 like Beethoven, or even 77 like Haydn?
> 
> ...


Old thread, but I couldn't agree more. I believe Mozart's creative power would have only increased even beyond what he'd already accomplished, but that he would have taken notice of what Beethoven was doing-and vice versa. He would have realized that after the French Revolution with the executions and then Napoleon shaking up the world, life had irrevocably changed and he would have adjusted with new masterworks that were more emotionally expressive, experimental and free, not that he hadn't been before. But the demands of the audience would have changed and it was the beginning of the rise of the middle class. He would have had to change or starve as the momentum of the Romantic era was inevitably beginning to build. He would have evolved and not let Beethoven hog the limelight. I believe he would have been magnificent in the new era because he would have still been the same genius that he was during the Classical era with all his creative power intact. I believe he also would have been keenly interested in what Schubert was doing and Schubert would have greatly profited by knowing Mozart. But it's too late now, all water under the bridge, and one can only be grateful for the legacy all three left humanity that the greatest musicians in the world continue to be inspired by.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

The original poster abandoned this website in 2012; so this post will be moot. Anyway, the life expectancy for a European male, 1750-1800, was 37 years. Therefore, dying at age 35 wouldn't have been considered particularly abnormal at the time. So maybe Mozart was actually allowed a "full lifetime" and we needn't mourn too much what might-have-been. (Not that I necessarily believe my own argument. Just rationalizing.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

geralmar said:


> The original poster abandoned this website in 2012; so this post will be moot. Anyway, the life expectancy for a European male, 1750-1800, was 37 years. Therefore, dying at age 35 wouldn't have been considered particularly abnormal at the time. So maybe Mozart was actually allowed a "full lifetime" and we needn't mourn too much what might-have-been. (Not that I necessarily believe my own argument. Just rationalizing.)


In the good old days, average life span was dragged down a whole lot by the high rates of infant mortality. If you survived the first couple of years, you could expect a reasonably long life (on average). Old age was more or less the same as ever, three score and ten.

Mozart's death (and Schubert's) were both considered premature at the time, and commented on by other composers.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Ken makes a good point - life expectancy for adults in any era would be more accurate if infant mortality rates were kept as a separate statistic.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

elgars ghost said:


> Ken makes a good point - life expectancy for adults in any era would be more accurate if infant mortality rates were kept as a separate statistic.


Which causes me to mourn all the great composers we lost at age 2.


----------

