# Mozart Is My Enemy



## Captainnumber36

I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!

We are enemies forever!


----------



## jdec

OK. Next thread.


----------



## Hermastersvoice

Stupid. Isn’t his music emotionally driven, sometimes to excess. I can’t think of a single piece of his music which isn’t tingled with emotion, by sadness in particular. Even EKNM.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Take off you red nose please enough already.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Hermastersvoice said:


> Stupid. Isn't his music emotionally driven, sometimes to excess. I can't think of a single piece of his music which isn't tingled with emotion, by sadness in particular. Even EKNM.


Not really, it's superficially joyous, it lacks the depth of the romantics, beeths in particular!


----------



## Captainnumber36

What do you all think of my latest pop instrumental piece?


----------



## Captainnumber36

It's called "Island Tour" after a famous tour that the rock band "Phish" did that emphasized the funk, but I embraced their spacey side.


----------



## Bluecrab

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


Yet a couple of days ago you called him the was the king of composers and claimed that every single one of his works was genius.

Come on.. stop trolling. It violates the TOS.


----------



## jdec

Captainnumber36 said:


> I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!


Don't worry, that is not necessary at all, believe me, even if you tried hard, you could never be anything like Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you all think of my latest pop instrumental piece?


Satie via Glass.

Pop my ***.

Mozart's bust

Is nonplust.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> ...believe me, even if you tried hard, you could never be anything like Mozart.


"Cramer, Cramer! We shall never be able to do anything like that!" -Beethoven, after a performance of Mozart's C minor Piano Concerto


----------



## Larkenfield

For those with mixed feelings, he might still be worth keeping around, at least as a “frienemy”. You never know when he might come in handy like when everyone else seems to fail.


----------



## Dimace

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you all think of my latest pop instrumental piece?


Try to put your hands ''deeper" into the piano to help the volume of the sound, which is rather tiny. The moment you are continuously playing something between P and fP this is crucial for your sound outcome. Your theme is not bad, but the development isn't very good. You can not expose something again and again and then change only the tonality (this is good, but after a good development) Nevertheless you can play something to the piano and this is good. One single note is better than thousand words.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Dimace said:


> Try to put your hands ''deeper" into the piano to help the volume of the sound, which is rather tiny. The moment you are continuously playing something between P and fP this is crucial for your sound outcome. Your theme is not bad, but the development isn't very good. You can not expose something again and again and then change only the tonality (this is good, but after a good development) Nevertheless you can play something to the piano and this is good. One single note is better than thousand words.


What if I'm not going for development, but rather attempting to model my structures of pop song formulas? What do you say then, and how does your opinion on the work change?


----------



## Captainnumber36

I will take your critique to play deeper into the piano to heart though.


----------



## JeffD

I did not know people stood for things musically. I don't stand for anything musically.


----------



## Captainnumber36

JeffD said:


> I did not know people stood for things musically. I don't stand for anything musically.


I do! I embrace more emotional depth in my music.


----------



## Captainnumber36

It isn't fair to say there isn't emotional depth to Mozart, but Beethoven seemed to be more on edge and compose like it was life or death where it seemed more like gymnastics to Mozart.


----------



## Dimace

Captainnumber36 said:


> What if I'm not going for development, but rather attempting to model my structures of pop song formulas? What do you say then, and how does your opinion on the work change?


What I hear is not a pop song but a composition, which must have rules. It is exactly as we are writing a text or a book. We MUST have a plot (a story) to tell and, after, to make a prologue, slowly to develop our story (with some surprises for the reader, not to be monotonous) and at the end to write a good epilogue. A, B. C, D... You have done a quite good A and after you forgot the other letters. You are Beethoven's fun. Just listen a simple piece from him. You will notice how he makes progress throughout his composition. Also, the rhythm is important. Try to change it when you can. TA TA TA TA but also TATA, TATA, and TATATA, TA etc... And the most important. The MOST beautiful theme, in a continuous repetition will be soon or later indifferent for the listener. Keep ELEMENTS of it and NOT the whole entity!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Dimace said:


> What I hear is not a pop song but a composition, which must have rules. It is exactly as we are writing a text or a book. We MUST have a plot (a story) to tell and, after, to make a prologue, slowly to develop our story (with some surprises for the reader, not to be monotonous) and at the end to write a good epilogue. A, B. C, D... You have done a quite good A and after you forgot the other letters. You are Beethoven's fun. Just listen a simple piece from him. You will notice how he makes progress throughout his composition. Also, the rhythm is important. Try to change it when you can. TA TA TA TA but also TATA, TATA, and TATATA, TA etc... And the most important. The MOST beautiful theme, in a continuous repetition will be soon or later indifferent for the listener. Keep ELEMENTS of it and NOT the whole entity!


I really do understand where you are coming from and what you are saying, but I'm really trying to compose classical/jazz influenced pop tunes. If you break this work down, it is Intro-->Verse--->Chorus-->Verse-->Chorus-->bridge-->Outro (same as intro) which is pop formulas 101.

It is another thing to say you don't think it works, and as it is, is boring, however. I for one enjoy what I am attempting to do!


----------



## Captainnumber36

I think once I get bass and drums on it, it will fill out more!


----------



## DaveM

Dimace said:


> Try to put your hands ''deeper" into the piano to help the volume of the sound, which is rather tiny. The moment you are continuously playing something between P and fP this is crucial for your sound outcome...


The 'tinny' or 'tiny' (whichever was meant) sound is a typical (likely spinet) upright piano sound and 'putting your hands deeper into the piano' will not fix it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'll take this thread is meant as a joke, after the other one calling Amadeus the greatest. My personal love/hate relationship is with atonal music.


----------



## Portamento

I love jokes. Jokes are _funny_.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll take this thread is meant as a joke, after the other one calling Amadeus the greatest. My personal love/hate relationship is with atonal music.


Ya, I have respect for Mozart, no doubt. I also think he didn't produce a bad work, not all stand out as unique, but they are all of high quality. That is what lead me to make the other thread.

However, that being said, I do prefer the drama of the Romantics and dream-like quality of the impressionists!


----------



## Marinera

Lol, is this a post to rile up Mozartian fandom? 

If you serious though try slow movements from his piano sonatas or 2mov. from piano concerto no.23, but I believe , you just want to get a reaction


----------



## Captainnumber36

Marinera said:


> Lol, is this a post to rile up Mozartian fandom?
> 
> If you serious though try slow movements from his piano sonatas or 2mov. from piano concerto no.23, but I believe , you just want to get a reaction


I was really just being playful. I do enjoy and respect Mozart. I feel I compose as effortlessly as Mozart but as dramatic as Beethoven.


----------



## Marinera

Captainnumber36 said:


> I was really just being playful. I do enjoy and respect Mozart. I feel I compose as effortlessly as Mozart but as dramatic as Beethoven.


Thought so. I imagined you typing that post with great glee :lol:


----------



## SixFootScowl

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll take this thread is meant as a joke, ....


Either that or the OP is manic depressive.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fritz Kobus said:


> Either that or the OP is manic depressive.


I am diagnosed as such!


----------



## Captainnumber36

40 and 41 are highly regarded as his finest, are there any others regarded as highly for Mozart?


----------



## KenOC

Captainnumber36 said:


> 40 and 41 are highly regarded as his finest, are there any others regarded as highly for Mozart?


39 is first rate and often grouped with 40 and 41 as Mozart's finest symphonies. But almost as popular are 35, 36, and 38. The last has one of the best opening movements in all of Mozart's symphonies.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Captainnumber36 said:


> 40 and 41 are highly regarded as his finest, are there any others regarded as highly for Mozart?


I am not familiar with Mozart's music. One thing that put me off was the seemingly great number of symphonies. Would be hard to get my ears around all that. Same problem with Haydn. Also, there is Beethoven, whom I like very much and so I had little time for looking back, but instead looked forward to Mendelssohn, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Saint-Saens symphonies, and most recently Nielsen.

As for the manic depression, my hope is you don't have it too bad. And I think this thread was started more in frustration at your last Mozart thread not working out quite as you had hoped, but it is a learning process.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not familiar with Mozart's music. One thing that put me off was the seemingly great number of symphonies. Would be hard to get my ears around all that. Same problem with Haydn. Also, there is Beethoven, whom I like very much and so I had little time for looking back, but instead looked forward to Mendelssohn, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Saint-Saens symphonies, and most recently Nielsen.
> 
> As for the manic depression, my hope is you don't have it too bad. And I think this thread was started more in frustration at your last Mozart thread not working out quite as you had hoped, but it is a learning process.


To be honest, I forgot about my last thread completely when creating this one. I kind of just go with what I feel, spontaneously! But like I said, I dig Wolf, I was jus messin' around and havin' some fun, tryin' to be cute.

But, I am going to perform with a Mozart Bust on my piano.


----------



## Luchesi

Oh no! One hears such sounds and what can one say, but -
Captainnumber36!


----------



## Dimace

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not familiar with Mozart's music. One thing that put me off was the seemingly great number of symphonies. Would be hard to get my ears around all that. Same problem with Haydn. Also, there is Beethoven, whom I like very much and so I had little time for looking back, but instead looked forward to Mendelssohn, Mahler, Rachmaninov, Saint-Saens symphonies, and most recently Nielsen.
> 
> As for the manic depression, my hope is you don't have it too bad. And I think this thread was started more in frustration at your last Mozart thread not working out quite as you had hoped, but *it is a learning process.*


I'm quite sure that our friend will learn both piano and composition because I have seen an interest from his site for improvements, my dear Fritz. He will put, as I told him, his hands deeper into the keys, he will not retract them so often away from them, he will not move his shoulders when he has no to do it and with the help of the right pedal his piano will sound quasi like a Steinway. (ok, this is an exaggeration, but the improvement will be significant) I'm proud owner of 3 pianos and 2 Flügel and I know how you can improve your sound drastically without a lot of effort. (you also have you piano very close to the wall, as I saw. Keep always 20 to 30 cm distance. Use some curtains if you can afford them to ease the sound...) Next week, our friend, if he wants, he will try to play the SAME piece the way I told him. Everyone will se how better it will be with the help of physic and dynamic...


----------



## Captainnumber36

Dimace said:


> I'm quite sure that our friend will learn both piano and composition because I have seen an interest from his site for improvements, my dear Fritz. He will put, as I told him, his hands deeper into the keys, he will not retract them so often away from them, he will not move his shoulders when he has no to do it and with the help of the right pedal his piano will sound quasi like a Steinway. (ok, this is an exaggeration, but the improvement will be significant) I'm proud owner of 3 pianos and 2 Flügel and I know how you can improve your sound drastically without a lot of effort. (you also have you piano very close to the wall, as I saw. Keep always 20 to 30 cm distance. Use some curtains if you can afford them to ease the sound...) Next week, our friend, if he wants, he will try to play the SAME piece the way I told him. Everyone will se how better it will be with the help of physic and dynamic...


I really love this response, it made me laugh, and I kind of took it seriously too.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Dimace said:


> I'm quite sure that our friend will learn both piano and composition because I have seen an interest from his site for improvements, my dear Fritz. He will put, as I told him, his hands deeper into the keys, he will not retract them so often away from them, he will not move his shoulders when he has no to do it and with the help of the right pedal his piano will sound quasi like a Steinway. (ok, this is an exaggeration, but the improvement will be significant) I'm proud owner of 3 pianos and 2 Flügel and I know how you can improve your sound drastically without a lot of effort. (you also have you piano very close to the wall, as I saw. Keep always 20 to 30 cm distance. Use some curtains if you can afford them to ease the sound...) Next week, our friend, if he wants, he will try to play the SAME piece the way I told him. Everyone will se how better it will be with the help of physic and dynamic...


You should post some examples of playing "deeper into the piano". I wont be moving the piano, since I'd have to hire folks to do that. The shoulder thing I can work on!

You aren't telling me to add development to the piece, are you? That probably won't happen.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Lang Lang and Gould are my two piano heroes for Classical, though I want to play more like Lang Lang.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fritz Kobus said:


> I am not familiar with Mozart's music. One thing that put me off was the seemingly great number of symphonies. Would be hard to get my ears around all that. Same problem with Haydn.


One reason why the classical period composers wrote so many symphonies is because the conception of 'symphony' was different back then. Initially, they were much smaller in scale back then, functioned essentially the same as overtures. If you look at symphonies by J Christian Bach or CPE Bach, for example, you'll notice that a huge number of them are relatively short, 6~10 minute works.
"Prior to the 18th century, the symphony and the overture were almost interchangeable, with overtures being extracted from operas to serve as stand alone instrumental works, and symphonies were tagged to the front of operas as overtures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overture
It wasn't until late classical period symphonies started becoming large, becoming stand-alone works on their own. Hence, Haydn and Mozart are credited for developing the form in its infant stage, building a foundation for Beethoven and the Romantics.

Another reason is that the symphony served as "composition practice" for the young Mozart under JC Bach's instruction, he wrote his first at 8, by the time he was 17, he had already written 25 symphonies. 




There are still good ones in the range 20~30,
In the last thread, I wrote that "I think the early symphonies are unique in their own ways, albeit not as mature as Linz, Prague, and the last three.
For example, the 23th contains a memorable oboe solo section in the middle, 
25th is well known for its "Sturm and Drang" quality.
26th has a gorgeous C minor middle section that anticipates his later pieces of the structure, E flat- C minor - E flat.
(9th and 22nd piano concertos and sinfonia concertante for violin and viola)
and also there's the famous 29th".

the slow movement from 34th is also good: 



greater number of his piano concertos were written in his age of maturity, try the slow movements of the 9th, 15th, 17th, 18th of his piano concertos. 




my suggestion for you to get familiar with Mozart is to listen to the more interesting movements first,
the slow movement of the 39th juxtaposes 'two opposing elements' in the way Chopin would later do with his 2nd Ballade. 



I like the driving energy of the finale to the 36th, "Linz". There's much melodic quality woven in witty counterpoint: 




More than Beethoven, Mozart favored one-movement works for his 'experiments'. Even in the piano works, his most harmonically daring works, such as the 'proto-romantic' Rondo in A minor K511, or Fantasy in C minor K475 are one-movement works (not 'piano sonatas')
Mozart utilizes the contrabassoon, an instrument newly developed at the time, to great effect, in this miscellaneous orchestral work, Mauerische Trauermusik K477.




The motivic build in Die Zauberflote Overture 



 is masterful. (much like the scherzo from Beethoven's 9th) I consider it as one of his best "symphonic" movements.
It is this mastery of motivic build that I admire so much about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, in works such as the outer movements of Piano Concerto No.20 in D minor ( 



 / 



 ) 
(fun fact: the 20th was Joseph Stalin's favourite Mozart)


----------



## Rogerx

Mozart Really is the King of Composers

Is this for real ????????????


----------



## SixFootScowl

Captainnumber36 said:


> I really love this response, it made me laugh, and I kind of took it seriously too.


This is good. He sees much potential in your playing, just need some fine tuning and of course, practice, practice, and practice.

as for moving the piano, well can you at least hang a heavy blanket or something between it and the wall?


----------



## SixFootScowl

hammeredklavier said:


> Another reason is that the symphony served as "composition practice" for the young Mozart under JC Bach's instruction, he wrote his first at 8, by the time he was 17, he had already written 25 symphonies.


Your entire post is very informative and I appreciate it, but wanted to focus on this one item for a brief comment that similarly Mendelssohn wrote a dozen or so string symphonies as a child, I think I recall, for composition practice, or perhaps just for the fun of it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> Lang Lang and Gould are my two piano heroes for Classical, though I want to play more like Lang Lang.


Do you have a teacher?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dimace said:


> I'm quite sure that our friend will learn both piano and composition because I have seen an interest from his site for improvements, my dear Fritz. He will put, as I told him, his hands deeper into the keys, he will not retract them so often away from them, he will not move his shoulders when he has no to do it and with the help of the right pedal his piano will sound quasi like a Steinway. (ok, this is an exaggeration, but the improvement will be significant) I'm proud owner of 3 pianos and 2 Flügel and I know how you can improve your sound drastically without a lot of effort. (you also have you piano very close to the wall, as I saw. Keep always 20 to 30 cm distance. Use some curtains if you can afford them to ease the sound...) Next week, our friend, if he wants, he will try to play the SAME piece the way I told him. Everyone will se how better it will be with the help of physic and dynamic...


You think he is going to eliminate bad habits and improve technique on the basis of a few comments? By his age he should already have established solid foundations. In any case it depends on what he wants to achieve - if it's to remain an amateur and just play and compose for himself - might as well leave him alone.


----------



## Dimace

Captainnumber36 said:


> Lang Lang and Gould are my two piano heroes for Classical, though I want to play more like Lang Lang.


Play like yourself, dear friend. Sit down, play, stand up! Period.


----------



## Dimace

stomanek said:


> You think he is going to eliminate bad habits and improve technique on the basis of a few comments? By his age he should already have established solid foundations. In any case it depends on what he wants to achieve - if it's to remain an amateur and just play and compose for himself - might as well leave him alone.


I remember that I was 38 and I had students 70, 75 years old. Yes, I believe he can improve in every aspect of his music. He can go to a conservatory to start music theory (basics) Then to study classical harmony (this is the MUST) Then to learn counterpoint (this is the way, to start from something small and to go to something much bigger) and French Fugue (know begins the serious part, which will drive us deep to music notation) and finally he can study classical (and after, if he likes modern)composition. I saw a young man in this video. He can make it. The Piano Story, because of its mechanics, will be more difficult. I saw that he made his video filming his legs, instead filming his hands. The next one will be ONLY hands. I can write down till tomorrow what he could improve. But this is not the German method. He must learn from his imperfections (and the suggestions)step by step and gradually improve his piano playing.

Every day, we see in the streets young men doing things much worse than playing the piano. This man he can play like a hobby or he can have more ambitions. For me is the same! In a time everyone is with one cell phone or one tablet in his hand, this one is trying to learn music. (with his own way which needs improvements) If we can help him, just a little, let us do it. After all he is very spontaneous and that, generally speaking, is good for any kind of art.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dimace said:


> I remember that I was 38 and I had students 70, 75 years old. Yes, I believe he can improve in every aspect of his music. He can go to a conservatory to start music theory (basics) Then to study classical harmony (this is the MUST) Then to learn counterpoint (this is the way, to start from something small and to go to something much bigger) and French Fugue (know begins the serious part, which will drive us deep to music notation) and finally he can study classical (and after, if he likes modern)composition. I saw a young man in this video. He can make it. The Piano Story, because of its mechanics, will be more difficult. I saw that he made his video filming his legs, instead filming his hands. The next one will be ONLY hands. I can write down till tomorrow what he could improve. But this is not the German method. He must learn from his imperfections (and the suggestions)step by step and gradually improve his piano playing.
> 
> Every day, we see in the streets young men doing things much worse than playing the piano. This man he can play like a hobby or he can have more ambitions. For me is the same! In a time everyone is with one cell phone or one tablet in his hand, this one is trying to learn music. (with his own way which needs improvements) If we can help him, just a little, let us do it. After all he is very spontaneous and that, generally speaking, is good for any kind of art.


Sorry I did not know you are a piano teacher - you know more than me then. I have no doubt he can improve from where he is now - though as you have indicated he has much to do. There are many very talented young pianists trying to get into conservatoires so there is competition. He really needs 1 - 2 lessons a week with a good teacher to guide him, if he has the will, and money, to take this path. It depends on where he wants to take it.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> You think he is going to eliminate bad habits and improve technique on the basis of a few comments? By his age he should already have established solid foundations. In any case it depends on what he wants to achieve - if it's to remain an amateur and just play and compose for himself - might as well leave him alone.


I feel such negativity from you and would advise to loosen up a bit.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Do you have a teacher?


no, all i do is compose these days.


----------



## Jacck

finally some Mozart depreciation thread :lol:
"Confession time. I have never really liked Mozart, and at many a moment have even counted myself a Mozart hater.
I dislike all of the hype surrounding his name. The last time I was in Vienna I was horrified by the plethora of Mozart bon bons, cakes, and other kitsch. There was even a flag with Mozart wearing the national football team colours.
G.B. Shaw once lamented the "scandalous neglect" of Mozart's music. I have always lamented that his music is not more neglected. Or at least that he be counted as only one highly interesting composer amongst many others.
Mozart did little to nothing to develop music. There is practically nothing new or of interest that could be ascribed to him. Bach, on the other hand, married the contrapuntal-imitative tradition with the newly emerging diatonic-homophonic style, and even composed in every imaginable key-a complete novelty at the time. Both Haydn and Beethoven came up with substantial innovations and developments in both form and style.
As far as the First Viennese School goes, I have always preferred Haydn to Mozart. Haydn is a much more skilled composer in his mastery of counterpoint, dialectic, form, and structure. You particularly notice this in Haydn's breathtakingly virtuosic handling of sonata form structure, which leaves Mozart quite in the shade. Mozart would have agreed with me. When I hear a professional musician confess to preferring Haydn to Mozart, I know that this musician is someone whose views demand respect. Only the bon bon worshipping masses blindly accept that Mozart is the Musical Messiah."
http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-hate-mozartand-so-should-you.html


----------



## Captainnumber36

Jacck said:


> finally some Mozart depreciation thread :lol:
> "Confession time. I have never really liked Mozart, and at many a moment have even counted myself a Mozart hater.
> I dislike all of the hype surrounding his name. The last time I was in Vienna I was horrified by the plethora of Mozart bon bons, cakes, and other kitsch. There was even a flag with Mozart wearing the national football team colours.
> G.B. Shaw once lamented the "scandalous neglect" of Mozart's music. I have always lamented that his music is not more neglected. Or at least that he be counted as only one highly interesting composer amongst many others.
> Mozart did little to nothing to develop music. There is practically nothing new or of interest that could be ascribed to him. Bach, on the other hand, married the contrapuntal-imitative tradition with the newly emerging diatonic-homophonic style, and even composed in every imaginable key-a complete novelty at the time. Both Haydn and Beethoven came up with substantial innovations and developments in both form and style.
> As far as the First Viennese School goes, I have always preferred Haydn to Mozart. Haydn is a much more skilled composer in his mastery of counterpoint, dialectic, form, and structure. You particularly notice this in Haydn's breathtakingly virtuosic handling of sonata form structure, which leaves Mozart quite in the shade. Mozart would have agreed with me. When I hear a professional musician confess to preferring Haydn to Mozart, I know that this musician is someone whose views demand respect. Only the bon bon worshipping masses blindly accept that Mozart is the Musical Messiah."
> http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-hate-mozartand-so-should-you.html


He does need to be beaten up a bit...but I still love a lot of his output!


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> finally some Mozart depreciation thread :lol:
> "Confession time. I have never really liked Mozart, and at many a moment have even counted myself a Mozart hater.
> I dislike all of the hype surrounding his name. The last time I was in Vienna I was horrified by the plethora of Mozart bon bons, cakes, and other kitsch. There was even a flag with Mozart wearing the national football team colours.
> G.B. Shaw once lamented the "scandalous neglect" of Mozart's music. I have always lamented that his music is not more neglected. Or at least that he be counted as only one highly interesting composer amongst many others.
> Mozart did little to nothing to develop music. There is practically nothing new or of interest that could be ascribed to him. Bach, on the other hand, married the contrapuntal-imitative tradition with the newly emerging diatonic-homophonic style, and even composed in every imaginable key-a complete novelty at the time. Both Haydn and Beethoven came up with substantial innovations and developments in both form and style.
> As far as the First Viennese School goes, I have always preferred Haydn to Mozart. Haydn is a much more skilled composer in his mastery of counterpoint, dialectic, form, and structure. You particularly notice this in Haydn's breathtakingly virtuosic handling of sonata form structure, which leaves Mozart quite in the shade. Mozart would have agreed with me. When I hear a professional musician confess to preferring Haydn to Mozart, I know that this musician is someone whose views demand respect. Only the bon bon worshipping masses blindly accept that Mozart is the Musical Messiah."
> http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-hate-mozartand-so-should-you.html


Don't you think that each of us have different life experiences, chemical make-ups and personalities which will in some way determine the flavour of music we enjoy?


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Don't you think that each of us have different life experiences, chemical make-ups and personalities which will in some way determine the flavour of music me enjoy?


of course. That is not my text, by the way. I just copypasted it to add some fuel for a flame war :lol:
I actually really started to appreciate Mozart. I really love his string quintets and I even started liking his piano concertos and symphonies (which I disliked before). I still dislike his operas though. Mozart has a strange harmonic language and strange melodies, which are either hit or miss, ie you either love it or hate it.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> of course. That is not my text, by the way. I just copypasted it to add some fuel for a flame war :lol:
> I actually really started to appreciate Mozart. I really love his string quintets and I even started liking his piano concertos and symphonies (which I disliked before). I still dislike his operas though. Mozart has a strange harmonic language and strange melodies, which are either hit or miss, ie you either love it or hate it.


I realised you were quoting. Mozart's harmonic language strange? It's the opposite for me.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Jacck said:


> of course. That is not my text, by the way. I just copypasted it to add some fuel for a flame war :lol:
> I actually really started to appreciate Mozart. I really love his string quintets and I even started liking his piano concertos and symphonies (which I disliked before). I still dislike his operas though. Mozart has a strange harmonic language and strange melodies, which are either hit or miss, ie you either love it or hate it.


All his Operas sound the same. I much prefer Fidelio and Pelleas Et Mellisande


----------



## Jacck

Captainnumber36 said:


> All his Operas sound the same. I much prefer Fidelio and Pelleas Et Mellisande


my most favorite operas are Salome (Strauss) and Ring (Wagner) and Tote Stadt (Korngold) and the The Legend of the Invisible City of Kitezh (Rimsky-Korsakov), but I have yet much to discover in this genre. I tried a Mozart opera several times and was never able to finish it. It appealed to me neither musically nor dramatically.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> finally some Mozart depreciation thread :lol:
> "Confession time. I have never really liked Mozart, and at many a moment have even counted myself a Mozart hater.
> I dislike all of the hype surrounding his name. The last time I was in Vienna I was horrified by the plethora of Mozart bon bons, cakes, and other kitsch. There was even a flag with Mozart wearing the national football team colours.
> G.B. Shaw once lamented the "scandalous neglect" of Mozart's music. I have always lamented that his music is not more neglected. Or at least that he be counted as only one highly interesting composer amongst many others.
> Mozart did little to nothing to develop music. There is practically nothing new or of interest that could be ascribed to him. Bach, on the other hand, married the contrapuntal-imitative tradition with the newly emerging diatonic-homophonic style, and even composed in every imaginable key-a complete novelty at the time. Both Haydn and Beethoven came up with substantial innovations and developments in both form and style.
> As far as the First Viennese School goes, I have always preferred Haydn to Mozart. Haydn is a much more skilled composer in his mastery of counterpoint, dialectic, form, and structure. You particularly notice this in Haydn's breathtakingly virtuosic handling of sonata form structure, which leaves Mozart quite in the shade. Mozart would have agreed with me. When I hear a professional musician confess to preferring Haydn to Mozart, I know that this musician is someone whose views demand respect. Only the bon bon worshipping masses blindly accept that Mozart is the Musical Messiah."
> http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-hate-mozartand-so-should-you.html


Well just on opinion and a lot of that is untrue - in opera and piano concerto alone - Mozart advanced those forms considerably. It's really enough to dismiss all his opinions based on that ignorance alone. However - I note the he goes on to review and rave about Harnoncourt's recording of Mozart's late symphonies.

*As always with Harnoncourt, there is no long lined fluidity here, nor mindless smoothness cultivated as an end in itself. It is all drama, angularity, bite, impact, and, ultimately, great vision. It brings tears of joy to an old Mozart hater like me. After all, it is only the kitsch Mozart bon bon worship I dislike intensely. If Mozart were indeed neglected, as he was in Shaw's day, I would be the first to sing his praises. For I fear that despite all of the blind worship, these mindless Mozart fetishists don't really understand Mozart anyway. Instead they lazily lapse into tedious stereotypes about their Musical Bon Bon Messiah. To truly love Mozart it is important to learn first to hate him.
*

A strange way to look at it. His reasoning is also circular. "If you agree with me that Haydn's works are more innovative etc - I know you know what you are talking about"


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart never registered on my consciousnes, one way or another, until I was in my 50s. Then my appreciation came as a sudden revelation. Sometimes it can be a matter of timing, being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to hear something, otherwise it might not happen. There’s no explaining it, and that’s what makes it interesting.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart never registered on my consciousnes, one way or another, until I was in my 50s. Then my appreciation came as a sudden revelation. Sometimes it can be a matter of timing, being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, otherwise it might not happen. There's no explaining it, and that's what makes it interesting as one goes through life.


Same with me - I was indifferent to Mozart - not even Amadeus moved me. I heard - by sheer chance - K467 on a tape that a friend had recorded some Kate Bush on on one side. The tape auto flipped over and that's when I heard K467 - I thought - that's amazing, not knowing who it was. My friend had just written pc 21 on the tape label. I asked him and he said - oh that's just Mozart - sorry, I meant to tape over that with the hounds of love.

I probably would not be on this board now spreading the good news had it not been for that tape.


----------



## SixFootScowl

stomanek said:


> Same with me - *I was indifferent to Mozart *- not even Amadeus moved me. I heard - by sheer chance - K467 on a tape that a friend had recorded some Kate Bush on on one side. The tape auto flipped over and that's when I heard K467 - I thought - that's amazing, not knowing who it was. My friend had just written pc 21 on the tape label. I asked him and he said - oh that's just Mozart - sorry, I meant to tape over that with the hounds of love.
> 
> I probably would not be on this board now spreading the good news had it not been for that tape.


Indifferent. That is where I am at with Mozart. I did listen to the first video in post 40 and enjoyed it, but that may have been due to the nice animated graphical representation of the music, which was fun to watch.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Same with me - I was indifferent to Mozart - not even Amadeus moved me. I heard - by sheer chance - K467 on a tape that a friend had recorded some Kate Bush on on one side. The tape auto flipped over and that's when I heard K467 - I thought - that's amazing, not knowing who it was. My friend had just written pc 21 on the tape label. I asked him and he said - oh that's just Mozart - sorry, I meant to tape over that with the hounds of love.
> 
> I probably would not be on this board now spreading the good news had it not been for that tape.


What did you like before?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mozart may not have been the most technicaly innovative, but he introduced emotion like never before. He was the true Romantic pioneer. Music before him sounded more formal and less personal. By saying you prefer Romanticism to him is to neglect his contributions as one of its pioneers. Nowhere in Bach or Haydn do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works. The Rondo, forgot which K number, heralded Chopin much later. Many actually think is Chopin without knowing it is Mozart


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> What did you like before?


I never bothered with classical music at all until I was about 24/25. Before 20 I was into Pink Floyd and Queen plus generally liked pop music that was in the charts - we are talking early 80s. Then I went several years without really actively listening to music at all. At some point I picked up a walkman (tape player) and started listening to a greatest classics tape to keep me amused when I was out walking around the city. That's when I first realised classical music was worth listening to. It was a typical rag bag - some Beethoven - a Handel aria (I know that my redeemer liveth)- a Weber piece (inv to the dance), Rossini thieving magpie, tchaik ballet snippets - some others plus the last mvt of a Mozart horn concerto. Even then I wasnt into Mozart - the horn concerto mvt was probably my least favourite until one day an old man saw me and said what are you listening to - I said - classical - and I gave him the headphone. That mozart mvt was playing - a smile lit up his face - and he said - that's lovely. I shrugged. It's almost like someone was poking me on the shoulder strongly. I went on like this for another year - buying vol 2 eventually. I was certainly more interested in Beethoven at that time - sy 5 and 6 in particular - I think I had a tape with Karajan conducting. Then another year went by and I heard the piano concerto as I have already described.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart may not have been the most technicaly innovative, but he introduced emotion like never before. He was the true Romantic pioneer. Music before him sounded more formal and less personal. By saying you prefer Romanticism to him is to neglect his contributions as one of its pioneers. Nowhere in Bach or Haydn do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works. The Rondo, forgot which K number, heralded Chopin much later. Many actually think is Chopin without knowing it is Mozart


This?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I feel such negativity from you and would advise to loosen up a bit.


Well - if you want everybody to stay positive and happy - dont post videos of yourself playing your own compositions.

There's a part of the forum for that and you might get some constructive feedback there.


----------



## EdwardBast

Jacck said:


> finally some Mozart depreciation thread :lol:
> Mozart did little to nothing to develop music. *There is practically nothing new or of interest that could be ascribed to him.* Bach, on the other hand, married the contrapuntal-imitative tradition with the newly emerging diatonic-homophonic style, and even composed in every imaginable key-a complete novelty at the time. Both Haydn and Beethoven came up with substantial innovations and developments in both form and style.
> 
> As far as the First Viennese School goes, I have always preferred Haydn to Mozart. Haydn is a much more skilled composer in his mastery of counterpoint, dialectic, form, and structure. You particularly notice this in Haydn's breathtakingly virtuosic handling of sonata form structure, which leaves Mozart quite in the shade. Mozart would have agreed with me.
> http://thinkclassical.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-i-hate-mozartand-so-should-you.html


Opera and the concerto were greatly advanced under Mozart's hand. And I see no basis for saying Haydn was more skilled in any of the areas you mention. It is true that Haydn was more experimental with form and put more overt emphasis on contrapuntal writing in his instrumental music. But this I would attribute to aesthetic sensibilities and preferences rather than to greater skill. Nor would I fault a composer for writing perfect examples of more established forms, as Mozart did.

Note that the above is coming from someone who listens more to Haydn than to Mozart.


----------



## Xisten267

Is this thread for real?



Larkenfield said:


> Mozart never registered on my consciousnes, one way or another, until I was in my 50s. Then my appreciation came as a sudden revelation. Sometimes it can be a matter of timing, being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to hear something, otherwise it might not happen. There's no explaining it, and that's what makes it interesting.


I would like to say that I always loved Mozart, since I started listening to classical, that is. The beauty and depth of his music never failed to move me, and I value even his _juvenilla_ stuff, such as the symphonies Nos. 11 and 12 with their solar melodies. He has always been one of my absolute favorite composers.



Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart may not have been the most technicaly innovative, but he introduced emotion like never before. He was the true Romantic pioneer. Music before him sounded more formal and less personal. By saying you prefer Romanticism to him is to neglect his contributions as one of its pioneers. Nowhere in Bach or Haydn do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works. The Rondo, forgot which K number, heralded Chopin much later. Many actually think is Chopin without knowing it is Mozart


J.S. Bach apart, I agree.


----------



## Jacck

EdwardBast said:


> Opera and the concerto were greatly advanced under Mozart's hand. And I see no basis for saying Haydn was more skilled in any of the areas you mention. It is true that Haydn was more experimental with form and put more overt emphasis on contrapuntal writing in his instrumental music. But this I would attribute to aesthetic sensibilities and preferences rather than to greater skill. Nor would I fault a composer for writing perfect examples of more established forms, as Mozart did.
> Note that the above is coming from someone who listens more to Haydn than to Mozart.


I am not the author of the text and having no musical education, I do not feel myself qualified to really evaluate historical contributions of individual composers to the advancement of music. I personally feel that Mozart did innovate, but not so much as some other composers. I also do not put much stock into innovation. Haydn was probably more innovative than Mozart and Mozarts music seems to be the evolution from Haydn. Both were romantic pioneers with their Sturm und Drang music. Whoever said above that Haydn has no emotion is wrong


----------



## hammeredklavier

Fritz Kobus said:


> Indifferent. That is where I am at with Mozart. I did listen to the first video in post 40 and enjoyed it, but that may have been due to the nice animated graphical representation of the music, which was fun to watch.


I did write that Mozart wrote the 25th symphony at 17. You could try the second video, Mauerische Trauermusik (and others) as well if you really want, or some of my recommendations in the other threads Mozart vs Beethoven (yet again) / Mozart Really is the King of Composers
This is Albert Einstein's favourite. The second movement starting at 6:51 is quite profound in my opinion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Nowhere in Bach or Haydn do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works.


Although I agree with everything you say, except that stuff like the slow movement from JS Bach's Violin concerto in D minor BWV 1043 never fails to amaze me everytime.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart never registered on my consciousnes, one way or another, until I was in my 50s. Then my appreciation came as a sudden revelation. Sometimes it can be a matter of timing, being lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to hear something, otherwise it might not happen. There's no explaining it, and that's what makes it interesting.


I love those moments when something that had seemed insignificant suddenly becomes deeply meaningful! For me this could not happen with Mozart because he was the first composer I listened to (as an eight year old, I think) - Bruno Walter conducting symphonies 35 and 40 and then Klemperer's Magic Flute. Mozart has always been at the heart of my music passion.


----------



## Enthusiast

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


I am missing something, I think. It is all too postmodern. A week ago you start a thread that Mozart is King and now this. I assume it is not click bate but am not sure I get the purpose.


----------



## Bluecrab

Phil loves classical said:


> Nowhere in Bach... do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works.


Please, speak for yourself and not the rest of us. I hear much more emotional depth in Bach, especially in his religious works, than in Mozart. And from having been around here a few years, I know I'm not alone. This is all subjective.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> Please, speak for yourself and not the rest of us. I hear much more emotional depth in Bach, especially in his religious works, than in Mozart. And from having been around here a few years, I know I'm not alone. This is all subjective.


I took it that he was speaking for himself.

A lot of people don't hear any emotion in Mozart and that is their chief complaint with his music. Perfect but cold.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Bluecrab said:


> Please, speak for yourself and not the rest of us. I hear much more emotional depth in Bach, especially in his religious works, than in Mozart. And from having been around here a few years, I know I'm not alone. This is all subjective.


Ya, Bach's masses and B. Concertos really move me in a spiritual way like no other composer. Mozart, when he truly moves me, it appeals more to my sophistication.

Beethoven is more emotional for me.

In my music, I don't really think about what I'm doing, I just let it come out of me, not unlike Mozart. So I do think it is proper that I have a Mozart bust on my piano, even though I sound nothing like him.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bluecrab said:


> Please, speak for yourself and not the rest of us. I hear much more emotional depth in Bach, especially in his religious works, than in Mozart. And from having been around here a few years, I know I'm not alone. This is all subjective.


I'll go out on a limb here, and say it is not all subjective. Bach's music was more formal. You can inject loads of emotion by interpretation, but Mozart had a controlled instability in his writing that was able to project more emotion. I would say there is no comparison of emotion in Bach's B Minor Mass and St. Matthew Passion with the Lacrimosa from Mozart's Requiem, regardless of interpretation. Or Bach's Solo Violin Sonata No. 1 (the most emotional work to me by Bach) with Mozart's late piano works. The form of expression in the writing in Mozart was unprecedented in its time.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll go out on a limb here, and say it is not all subjective. Bach's music was more formal. You can inject loads of emotion by interpretation, but Mozart had a controlled instability in his writing that was able to project more emotion. I would say there is no comparison of emotion in Bach's B Minor Mass and St. Matthew Passion with the Lacrimosa from Mozart's Requiem, regardless of interpretation. Or Bach's Solo Violin Sonata No. 1 (the most emotional work to me by Bach) with Mozart's late piano works. The form of expression in the writing in Mozart was unprecedented in its time.


I think it is all subjective. A lot of it all depends on how the work impacts the listener, not everyone processes in the same way!


----------



## Captainnumber36

Enthusiast said:


> I am missing something, I think. It is all too postmodern. A week ago you start a thread that Mozart is King and now this. I assume it is not click bate but am not sure I get the purpose.


I just give in to my spontaneous nature, I don't think too much before I post.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> Well - if you want everybody to stay positive and happy - dont post videos of yourself playing your own compositions.
> 
> There's a part of the forum for that and you might get some constructive feedback there.


I just don't care much for the energy you put out, it feels pompous to me, and I never resonate well with that. But do carry on as you see fit! We can remain civil.


----------



## Pyotr

Captainnumber36 said:


> What do you all think of my latest pop instrumental piece?


First of all, Is that spinet tuned? Could you play the Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier for us? It's the only way to tell. Both book 1 and book 2 please.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bluecrab said:


> I hear much more emotional depth in Bach, especially in his religious works, than in Mozart. And from having been around here a few years, I know I'm not alone. This is all subjective.


In religious works, I don't think one is deeper than the other. they 'feel different' to me.
I've seen some people saying they prefer Mozart's C minor mass over Bach's B minor mass. Some other people say otherwise. I think this is a matter of subjective taste. Bach's B minor mass is indeed a work of superb craftsmanship, but some people do find it too formal and cold. The Most Boring Pieces of Classical Music


----------



## Captainnumber36

Pyotr said:


> First of all, Is that spinet tuned? Could you play the Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier for us? It's the only way to tell. Both book 1 and book 2 please.


I need to give it a good fixing up! I hope to tour with it, it is the piano I've had since childhood!

I really should learn some pieces, I still know how to read music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> I just don't care much for the energy you put out, it feels pompous to me, and I never resonate well with that. But do carry on as you see fit! We can remain civil.


And I don't resonate well with amateur music on the general discussion board. No offence but I think there is a performance section if you want an opinion on your compositions and playing ability. I note that you arrived on this board asking what everyone thinks of your interpretation of Bach - which if I may say - is a bit presumptuous.

In any case, music is a very very serious art and business. I think if you really want to get somewhere with your playing and composing - you need more formal training along the lines Dimace has outlined.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> And I don't resonate well with amateur music on the general discussion board. No offence but I think there is a performance section if you want an opinion on your compositions and playing ability. I note that you arrived on this board asking what everyone thinks of your interpretation of Bach - which if I may say - is a bit presumptuous.
> 
> In any case, music is a very very serious art and business. I think if you really want to get somewhere with your playing and composing - you need more formal training along the lines Dimace has outlined.


1. It's an opinion that it is amateur.
2. I don't claim it to be in the same vein/artistic vision as the composers, it is very much me and no one but me.
3. I'm not one for following any kind of rules, I have never cared about them, I just do me, and if that gets me nowhere, so be it. 
4. If I were signed to a label, I would be very much open to taking critique from a producer of my choice to create a product.
5. I don't claim my performances to be in the same vein/artistic vision of Classical composers. I could never see anything I do going over well in a concert hall, nor would I ever want to do something as such.
6. I actually want to see Classical Music come out of that concert hall atmosphere. At least, add rock and roll lighting to it. 
7. I understand some are more traditionalist when it comes to Classical, for different reasons, some snobby, some pure.
8. I find your attitude unwelcoming.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> I personally feel that Mozart did innovate, but not so much as some other composers. Haydn was probably more innovative than Mozart and Mozarts music seems to be the evolution from Haydn. music.


Mozart, in his early period, was deeply influenced by Haydn's style. (as Haydn was a seasoned composer of age 40 by the time Mozart was 15) But as Mozart entered his maturity as a composer, Haydn was also getting inspired by Mozart's work. Haydn called him the greatest composer ever after hearing the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to him. After Mozart's death, Haydn wrote 'The Creation' oratorio which references the introduction from Mozart's 'Dissonance' String Quartet and 'The Seasons' oratorio which references the slow movement from Mozart's Symphony No.40 in G minor. I think Mozart was just as innovative as Haydn was.

"It's therefore important to realize that Beethoven not only knew Mozart's fugue, but even made a copy of it in his own handwriting. We must assume he was impressed by this work." https://unheardbeethoven.org/search....ntifier=hess37




"I think this is gorgeous music but if you hadn't told me I would never guess that it was Mozart" 
-Glenn Gould


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> 1. It's an opinion that it is amateur.
> 2. I don't claim it to be in the same vein/artistic vision as the composers, it is very much me and no one but me.
> 3. I'm not one for following any kind of rules, I have never cared about them, I just do me, and if that gets me nowhere, so be it.
> 4. * If I were signed to a label,* I would be very much open to taking critique from a producer of my choice to create a product.
> 5. I don't claim my performances to be in the same vein/artistic vision of Classical composers. I could never see anything I do going over well in a concert hall, nor would I ever want to do something as such.
> 6. I actually want to see Classical Music come out of that concert hall atmosphere. At least, add rock and roll lighting to it.
> 7. I understand some are more traditionalist when it comes to Classical, for different reasons, some snobby, some pure.
> 8. I find your attitude unwelcoming.


Have you auditioned for a label? You should put together a promo CD and send it around.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart may not have been the most technicaly innovative, but he introduced emotion like never before. He was the true Romantic pioneer. Music before him sounded more formal and less personal. *By saying you prefer Romanticism to him is to neglect his contributions as one of its pioneers.* *Nowhere in Bach or Haydn do you hear emotion like the middle movements in Mozart's Piano C 22, 23, 24, or his late solo piano works. *The Rondo, forgot which K number, heralded Chopin much later. Many actually think is Chopin without knowing it is Mozart


Nowhere in Mozart do I "hear emotion" like the middle movements of Bach's violin, harpsichord or Bandenburg concertos, or his St. Anne Prelude and Fugue, or his chorale prelude "Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele," or the "Et incarnatus" and "Crucifixus" from the B-Minor Mass, or the "Air for the G-string," or the D-minor Chaconne for violin, or...

I prefer both Bach and much of Romanticsm to Mozart. I do not believe that Mozart "pioneered" Romanticism.

Mozart is Mozart, Bach is Bach, and Romanticism is Romanticism.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

This thread seems to have blown up with discussion from what was an OP with low-key trolling.

This thread can continue if you all chill out and not let this fly off the handle. Peace! ☮

And take care Captainnumber36, making people feel bad for not seeing it your way (and vice versa other people making you feel bad for your opinions) is not good discussion. Learn about each other's perspective, or walk away.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> Nowhere in Mozart do I "hear emotion" like the middle movements of Bach's violin, harpsichord or Bandenburg concertos, or his St. Anne Prelude and Fugue, or his chorale prelude "Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele," or the "Et incarnatus" and "Crucifixus" from the B-Minor Mass, or the "Air for the G-string," or...
> 
> *I prefer both Bach and much of Romanticsm to Mozart.* I do not believe that Mozart "pioneered" Romanticism.


Similar view/taste here to Captainnumber36's. That's fine guys.


----------



## Bluecrab

Phil loves classical said:


> Bach's music was more formal.


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Both composers wrote within the formal constraints of the Western diatonic tradition. Are you suggesting that Mozart's music was somehow informal?



Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart had a controlled instability in his writing that was able to project more emotion.


Again, this is your subjective opinion, based on your emotional reaction to Mozart's music. Myriad Bach enthusiasts will disagree.



Phil loves classical said:


> I would say there is no comparison of emotion in Bach's B Minor Mass and St. Matthew Passion with the Lacrimosa from Mozart's Requiem, regardless of interpretation.


And I, and countless others, would disagree. Surely you see the pattern.



Phil loves classical said:


> ...Bach's Solo Violin Sonata No. 1 (the most emotional work to me by Bach)...


And I find the aria that opens and closes the Goldberg Variations, as brief as it is, to be as emotionally moving as anything else that Bach ever composed. All this means is that all of us react differently to any given work.


----------



## jdec

I admire Bach's Mass in B minor and really love some of its parts, but if I had to, I would trade it for both Mozart's Great Mass in C minor and Requiem (even if they are unfinished), without any doubt.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bluecrab said:


> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Both composers wrote within the formal constraints of the Western diatonic tradition. Are you suggesting that Mozart's music was somehow informal?
> 
> Again, this is your subjective opinion, based on your emotional reaction to Mozart's music. Myriad Bach enthusiasts will disagree.
> 
> And I, and countless others, would disagree. Surely you see the pattern.
> 
> And I find the aria that opens and closes the Goldberg Variations to be as emotionally moving as anything else that Bach ever composed. All this means is that all of us react differently to any given work.


It is rare to see Mozart enthusiasts comparing with Bach to the latter's disadvantage.

I have done it with Beethoven - but would not touch JS Bach.


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart, in his early period, was deeply influenced by Haydn's style. (as Haydn was a seasoned composer of age 40 by the time Mozart was 15) But as Mozart entered his maturity as a composer, Haydn was also getting inspired by Mozart's work. Haydn called him the greatest composer ever after hearing the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to him. After Mozart's death, Haydn wrote 'The Creation' oratorio which references the introduction from Mozart's 'Dissonance' String Quartet and 'The Seasons' oratorio which references the slow movement from Mozart's Symphony No.40 in G minor. I think Mozart was just as innovative as Haydn was.


"Haydn called him the greatest composer ever after hearing the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to him."

I should look it up ....but I think he was telling his father this - about the young man. When I first heard it I thought it was flowery writing, typical, from that century. It turns out it to be a statement ahead of its time, but I wonder how much of it is thrown off as just courtesy toward the father.

These letters and writings are difficult to interpret from our vantage point today. Writing was such a big part of life back then that people put their artistic flair into everything they scribbled. We shouldn't take it all without metaphor or exaggeration. And then again, this is possibly the worst example of the point I'm trying to make.. lol but look at the letters by Chopin. He was quite two-faced. I can't remember it clearly, but he was all affectionate about a piece that Schumann had sent him, but in private he said there was no music in it!

A gripe - why are we not given a larger box to type in? This is a discussion forum after all.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> "Haydn called him the greatest composer ever after hearing the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to him."
> 
> I should look it up ....but I think he was telling his father this - about the young man. When I first heard it I thought it was flowery writing. typical, from that century. It turns out it to be a statement ahead of its time, but I wonder how much of it is thrown off as just courtesy toward the father.


Haydn told Leopold, "Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."
I know what you mean. I'm just saying Haydn also regarded Wolfgang highly and was inspired by his work.


----------



## jdec

Luchesi said:


> "Haydn called him the greatest composer ever after hearing the 6 quartets Mozart dedicated to him."
> 
> I should look it up ....but I think he was telling his father this - about the young man. When I first heard it I thought it was flowery writing. typical, from that century. It turns out it to be a statement ahead of its time, *but I wonder how much of it is thrown off as just courtesy toward the father.
> *


Haydn began that phrase to Leopold as: "_*Before God and as an honest man* I tell you that your son..._". This implies to me more than just mere courtesy, unless Haydn really was not "an honest man" (nor a God believer).

On other occasion, Haydn also said about Mozart: "Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years."


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Similar view/taste here to Captainnumber36's. That's fine guys.


My views/taste has nothing to do with Captainnumber36's.

I was responding to the claims made by Phil loves classical. It wasn't my main purpose to express my tastes, but to question his claims. The idea that there is "more emotion" in Mozart than in Bach is really insupportable, and possibly meaningless. It certainly means nothing to one who is far more deeply moved by Bach's music than by Mozart's.

As far as taste is concerned, forced to choose, I could live without all of Mozart's religious music, and virtually all religious works of the Classical era, to keep the B-minor Mass, Handel's Messiah, and other religious works of the Baroque. If I had to define the difference between Mozart and Bach, I'd say that Mozart's music is more personal and even sentimental (at least when it isn't being pseudo-Baroque, but to a degree even when it is), while Bach's is more impersonal or transpersonal and transcendental. Technically, this has largely to do with the gradual demotion of fugal or quasi-fugal counterpoint from being a basic language of musical thought and sensibility, as it is with Bach, to being an expressive device or associative gesture, which it progressively became in subsequent periods. Which style or composer is more "emotional" is the wrong question, since they're expressing different things, and the intensity of emotional response to those things resides in the listener's own sensibility.

I find Mozart (and Haydn too) much more convincing and inspiring in instrumental forms, especially chamber music, a genre which seems to me much better suited to the sensibility of the Classical style than oratorios and masses.


----------



## KenOC

I have always assumed Haydn was simply making an honest observation. If memory serves, we have the quote second-hand, contained in a letter from Leopold to (I think) his wife.


----------



## PlaySalieri

jdec said:


> Haydn began that phrase to Leopold as: "_*Before God and as an honest man* I tell you that your son..._". This implies to me more than just mere courtesy, unless Haydn really was not "an honest man" (nor a God believer).
> 
> On other occasion, Haydn also said about Mozart: "Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years."


Given how Mozart is now regarded and widely accepted to be the great composer he was when alive - I think we can accept Haydn's words at face value - who better to know what he was talking about. He might have just said "Your son is a rare gift from God to the world" - but he actually places him at the top - ahead of himself, Handel and Bach. Of course we assume Leopold reported his words accurately but the force of conviction in the words is such I would have thought it unlikely he would have had the wits to invent such a thing.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Given how Mozart is now regarded and widely accepted to be the great composer he was when alive - I think we can accept Haydn's words at face value - who better to know what he was talking about. He might have just said "Your son is a rare gift from God to the world" - but he actually places him at the top - ahead of himself, Handel and Bach. Of course we assume Leopold reported his words accurately but the force of conviction in the words is such I would have thought it unlikely he would have had the wits to invent such a thing.


I wouldn't assume that Haydn was trying to "rate" Mozart higher than Bach, or that he would even be interested in doing such a thing. "The greatest composer I know" can most sensibly be taken to refer to composers contemporary with Haydn himself. It might be a propos to note that when Haydn heard a portion of the B-minor Mass he was quite shaken and said something to the effect that nothing would ever equal it.

Composers make a lot of statements about other composers. Like other people, they are moved by emotion as well as reason, and are known to contradict themselves and change their minds.


----------



## hammeredklavier

jdec said:


> I admire Bach's Mass in B minor and really love some of its parts, but if I had to, I would trade it for both Mozart's Great Mass in C minor and Requiem (even if they are unfinished), without any doubt.


I wouldn't choose one over the other as I need them both. I also like Bach's stuff like G minor Mass and Cantata 54 very much it feels like he has 'something' Mozart doesn't (and Mozart has 'something' Bach doesn't). Even Mozart's Fantasy in F minor K608 sounds somewhat different from Bach in terms of ornamentation and treatment of subjects. But then Bach's stuff like the Fantasy and Fugue in G minor BWV564 is also very awe-inspiring. To me, they were very unique composers. Then whenever I'm tired of listenning to them I go to Beethoven, Haydn, and various other composers and then come back later when I feel like to.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't assume that Haydn was trying to "rate" Mozart higher than Bach, or that he would even be interested in doing such a thing. "The greatest composer I know" can most sensibly be taken to refer to composers contemporary with Haydn himself. It might be a propos to note that when Haydn heard a portion of the B-minor Mass he was quite shaken and said something to the effect that nothing would ever equal it.
> 
> Composers make a lot of statements about other composers. Like other people, they are moved by emotion as well as reason, and are known to contradict themselves and change their minds.


I accept your assessment.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't assume that Haydn was trying to "rate" Mozart higher than Bach, or that he would even be interested in doing such a thing. "The greatest composer I know" can most sensibly be taken to refer to composers contemporary with Haydn himself.


"_Before God, and as an honest man, I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person *or by name*. He has taste, and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition._"

He of course knew Bach/Handel by name.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> My views/taste has nothing to do with Captainnumber36's.
> 
> I was responding to the claims made by Phil loves classical. It wasn't my main purpose to express my tastes, but to question his claims. The idea that there is "more emotion" in Mozart than in Bach is really insupportable, and possibly meaningless. It certainly means nothing to one who is far more deeply moved by Bach's music than by Mozart's.
> 
> As far as taste is concerned, forced to choose, I could live without all of Mozart's religious music, and virtually all religious works of the Classical era, to keep the B-minor Mass, Handel's Messiah, and other religious works of the Baroque. If I had to define the difference between Mozart and Bach, I'd say that Mozart's music is more personal and even sentimental (at least when it isn't being pseudo-Baroque, but to a degree even when it is), while Bach's is more impersonal or transpersonal and transcendental. Technically, this has largely to do with the gradual demotion of fugal or quasi-fugal counterpoint from being a basic language of musical thought and sensibility, as it is with Bach, to being an expressive device or associative gesture, which it progressively became in subsequent periods. Which style or composer is more "emotional" is the wrong question, since they're expressing different things, and the intensity of emotional response to those things resides in the listener's own sensibility.
> 
> I find Mozart (and Haydn too) much more convincing and inspiring in instrumental forms, especially chamber music, a genre which seems to me much better suited to the sensibility of the Classical style than oratorios and masses.


Thanks, you say -

" Technically, this has largely to do with the gradual demotion of fugal or quasi-fugal counterpoint from being a basic language of musical thought and sensibility, as it is with Bach, to being an expressive device or associative gesture, which it progressively became in subsequent periods."

Can we think of a later composer who had his first musical thoughts about a new work coming to him in fugal sounds and connections between moving voices? Perhaps late Beethoven, but we can't know. Mendelssohn?

When I listen to famous atonal works I think of them as attempts to elevate fugue writing. It really helps with listening and for following the composer's thinking, but again, we can't know.


----------



## jdec

hammeredklavier said:


> I wouldn't choose one over the other as I need them both. I also like Bach's stuff like G minor Mass and Cantata 54 very much it feels like he has 'something' Mozart doesn't (and Mozart has 'something' Bach doesn't). Even Mozart's Fantasy in F minor K608 sounds somewhat different from Bach in terms of ornamentation and treatment of subjects. But then Bach's stuff like the Fantasy and Fugue in G minor BWV564 is also very awe-inspiring. *To me, they were very unique composers. Then whenever I'm tired of listenning to them I go to Beethoven, Haydn, and various other composers and then come back later when I feel like to.*


Me too. I need Bach and many other composers too. I was just stating that in this case personally I'm more spiritually moved by the 2 unfinished Mozart's Masses than by Bach's one in B minor, as much as I admire the latter too. (I have listened to these 3 works countless times for about 30 years already, since they are among my very favorite sacred works).


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> I have always assumed Haydn was simply making an honest observation. If memory serves, we have the quote second-hand, contained in a letter from Leopold to (I think) his wife.


Yes, thanks. It's very tricky. Famous statements acquire a life of their own.

... But I'm not saying that Haydn didn't mean every word. I'm sure he was quite shocked at the young Mozart. When you explore Haydn's minor works of those years, and slightly before, you can see how Mozart showing off his skill would have been unexpected and remarkable to someone experienced and knowledgeable.


----------



## Kieran

I just logged in and haven't had time to read the whole thread, but how swift the mighty fall! Next week's thread: Mozart was an illiterate tramp who played piano like a nazi... :devil:


----------



## Jacck

Mozart was the offspring of an Archangel & and an advanced Alien civilization


----------



## Luchesi

jdec said:


> Haydn began that phrase to Leopold as: "_*Before God and as an honest man* I tell you that your son..._". This implies to me more than just mere courtesy, unless Haydn really was not "an honest man" (nor a God believer).
> 
> On other occasion, Haydn also said about Mozart: "Posterity will not see such a talent again in 100 years."


CPE Bach was more profound in his conceptions than Mozart was during that time.

Haydn might not have known of these sonatas or he might've thought that it was all too eccentric.


----------



## PlaySalieri

jdec said:


> Me too. I need Bach and many other composers too. I was just stating that in this case personally I'm more spiritually moved by the 2 unfinished Mozart's Masses than by Bach's one in B minor, as much as I admire the latter too. (I have listened to these 3 works countless times for about 30 years already, since they are among my very favorite sacred works).


The B Minor is a legendary mass - but like you - the music from, in particular the c minor mass - I just couldn't do without - the whole thing is stunning from start to where Mozart laid down his quill. I remember introducing this mass to some Hungarians who oddly, did not know it - all Catholics (not like the heathen I am) and they were all beaming the next day - saying they had never experienced such joy through music and moreover - their faith was fully confirmed.


----------



## Xisten267

stomanek said:


> It is rare to see Mozart enthusiasts comparing with Bach to the latter's disadvantage.


One of three people of this site who voted in the poll below prefer Mozart's Requiem to Bach's Mass in B minor. Even if Bach won the poll, it illustrates that a considerable part of the current users of this forum may rate some Mozart works higher than some of Bach's.

B Minor Mass (Bach) or Requiem (Mozart): Poll


----------



## PlaySalieri

Allerius said:


> One of three people of this site who voted in the poll below prefer Mozart's Requiem to Bach's Mass in B minor. Even if Bach won the poll, it illustrates that a considerable part of the current users of this forum may rate some Mozart works higher than some of Bach's.
> 
> B Minor Mass (Bach) or Requiem (Mozart): Poll


Its an unfortunate poll pairing. A far better one would be the b minor or the c minor - two of the monumental 18thC masses and probably the two best masses ever composed. I know the Mozart is not complete - but it is undeniably all by Mozart and all the complete parts are fully scored. It lasts 50 minutes or so even in its incomplete state.


----------



## Xisten267

stomanek said:


> Its an unfortunate poll pairing. A far better one would be the b minor or the c minor - two of the monumental 18thC masses and probably the two best masses ever composed. I know the Mozart is not complete - but it is undeniably all by Mozart and all the complete parts are fully scored. It lasts 50 minutes or so even in its incomplete state.


The Mozart Mass do not have most of the important Credo part, plus the Agnus Dei, while the Bach has awesome ones. This I think would be enough for most members to vote for Bach again - but then, I think that hardly any sacred vocal work could beat Bach's monumental mass in a poll here, except perhaps his own passions. I may be wrong of course.

I think that the Kyrie, Laudamos Te, Domine Deus, Et Incarnatus Est and Cum Sanctu Spiritu from Mozart's are celestial pieces of music though, and in my opinion they are amongst the higher peaks of vocal music that I know.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allerius said:


> The Mozart Mass do not have most of the important Credo part, plus the Agnus Dei, while the Bach has awesome ones. This I think would be enough for most members to vote for Bach again - but then, I think that hardly any sacred vocal work could beat Bach's monumental mass in a poll here, except perhaps his own passions. I may be wrong of course.
> 
> I think that the Kyrie, Laudamos Te, Domine Deus, Et Incarnatus Est and Cum Sanctu Spiritu from Mozart's are celestial pieces of music though, and in my opinion they are amongst the higher peaks of vocal music that I know.


I put Beethoven's Missa Solemnis above them all.


----------



## Xisten267

Fritz Kobus said:


> I put Beethoven's Missa Solemnis above them all.


It's difficult for me to choose between it and Bach's B minor as my absolute favorite mass. The only part that I have some difficulty with in the Missa Solemnis is the Dona Nobis Pacem. But the Sanctus... it's divine I think. And the Kyrie, Gloria and Credo are as great as anything that Bach or Mozart composed for choir, this in my opinion and from what I know of course.

I have Beethoven's mass with Karajan, Herreweghe, Giulini, Baremboim, Thielemann and Toscanini. I haven't heard the latter yet, and my personal preference for the other five is Giulini's.


----------



## jdec

Bach's Mass in Bm is an almost 2 hour long work. Either of Mozart Great Mass in C minor or the Requiem is approx 50 minutes, that's why I did put both of them together against the B minor mass in my estimation, I think this comparison is more equivalent in "quantity" (length) of the music in these works. 

By the way, the Great Mass in C minor is missing the rest of the Credo after the"Et incarnatus est", so the Credo is not completely missing. Even as they are in their incomplete status, I find the music in these 2 Mozart's masses stunning.

And yes, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is one of the best too (actually it was my absolute favorite many years ago).


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> CPE Bach was more profound in his conceptions than Mozart was during that time.
> 
> Haydn might not have known of these sonatas or he might've thought that it was all too eccentric.


Haydn knew his CPE Bach and I doubt he would have found that one weird. Do you know the Prussian Sonatas? Even a bit earlier than the one you linked and quite famous.

And hey! I actually liked a performance by Gould!


----------



## Xisten267

jdec said:


> *Bach's Mass in Bm is an almost 2 hour long work. Either of Mozart Great Mass in C minor or the Requiem is approx 50 minutes, that's why I did put both of them together against the B minor mass in my estimation, I think this comparison is more equivalent in "quantity" (length) of the music in these works.*
> 
> By the way, the Great Mass in C minor is missing the rest of the Credo after the"Et incarnatus est", so the Credo is not completely missing. Even as they are in their incomplete status, I find the music in these 2 Mozart's masses stunning.
> 
> And yes, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is one of the best too (actually it was my absolute favorite many years ago).


Well put. I just started a poll using your idea. I'm curious about the results.

Which do you value most?


----------



## PlaySalieri

It baffles me that Mozart never finished his mass. It would be like not bothering with the last mvt of Nozze di Figaro. I can only imagine he had no financial incentive.


----------



## Captainnumber36

stomanek said:


> It baffles me that Mozart never finished his mass. It would be like not bothering with the last mvt of Nozze di Figaro. I can only imagine he had no financial incentive.


why do you keep Saliarie as your avatar? I'm really just honestly curious!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bluecrab said:


> I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Both composers wrote within the formal constraints of the Western diatonic tradition. Are you suggesting that Mozart's music was somehow informal?
> 
> Again, this is your subjective opinion, based on your emotional reaction to Mozart's music. Myriad Bach enthusiasts will disagree.
> 
> And I, and countless others, would disagree. Surely you see the pattern.
> 
> And I find the aria that opens and closes the Goldberg Variations, as brief as it is, to be as emotionally moving as anything else that Bach ever composed. All this means is that all of us react differently to any given work.





Woodduck said:


> Nowhere in Mozart do I "hear emotion" like the middle movements of Bach's violin, harpsichord or Bandenburg concertos, or his St. Anne Prelude and Fugue, or his chorale prelude "Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele," or the "Et incarnatus" and "Crucifixus" from the B-Minor Mass, or the "Air for the G-string," or the D-minor Chaconne for violin, or...
> 
> I prefer both Bach and much of Romanticsm to Mozart. I do not believe that Mozart "pioneered" Romanticism.
> 
> Mozart is Mozart, Bach is Bach, and Romanticism is Romanticism.


Ok, let's get away from saying who is more emotional (or at least who causes more emotion in which listener). There is no doubt that this form of expression is unprecedented for its time in Mozart. It was furthered by Beethoven, and later by the Romantics. Bach music was not the most rhythmically varied on a macro scale. I'm not trying to put down Bach, but there is life after Bach, and further development in expression, and form.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Haydn knew his CPE Bach and I doubt he would have found that one weird. Do you know the Prussian Sonatas? Even a bit earlier than the one you linked and quite famous.
> 
> And hey! I actually liked a performance by Gould!


I can imagine Haydn looking at a sonata score by CPE Bach and just putting it aside. Haydn didn't compose startling works. But that doesn't mean he would shun such expressions, so maybe you're right. How will we be sure?

As for Gould, like this one, wow, it sets people's hair on fire!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allerius said:


> It's difficult for me to choose between it and Bach's B minor as my absolute favorite mass. The only part that I have some difficulty with in the Missa Solemnis is the Dona Nobis Pacem. But the Sanctus... it's divine I think. And the Kyrie, Gloria and Credo are as great as anything that Bach or Mozart composed for choir, this in my opinion and from what I know of course.
> 
> I have Beethoven's mass with Karajan, Herreweghe, Giulini, Baremboim, Thielemann and Toscanini. I haven't heard the latter yet, and my personal preference for the other five is Giulini's.


I have the Missa Solemnis with Harnoncourt, Karajan, Ormandy, Rilling, Giulini, and Zinman. Ormandy was my first and so favored.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Blimey, I missed an event with this thread. 

Wonder what next week's caprice will bring? Perhaps: 'Chopin is a miserable hack, my money's now on the minimalists!'


----------



## Captainnumber36

Love Gould.    !


----------



## eugeneonagain

He was good in M*A*S*H.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> He was good in M*A*S*H.


He also wrote some good books on evolution.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Captainnumber36 said:


> why do you keep Saliarie as your avatar? I'm really just honestly curious!


Because Salieri, in the film at least - lived a tortured existence in old age understanding he lived in a world of mediocrities with him as their saint - on the basis only he could recognise the the full extent of the incarnation of godly talent in Mozart. It's the one quality that raises him above the level of the gibbering wrecks of humanity in the insane asylum he feels at one with.

Sadly in reality - I think Salieri probably considered Mozart was a good composer but he was better.


----------



## Xisten267

Fritz Kobus said:


> I have the Missa Solemnis with Harnoncourt, Karajan, Ormandy, Rilling, Giulini, and Zinman. Ormandy was my first and so favored.


I really like Ormandy. The Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto with him and Pearlman is my favorite performance of the work. You made me curious about his Missa Solemnis.

...Also about Rilling's. I didn't know he had recorded a Missa Solemnis. I've been very impressed with some Bach cantatas by him. When I want to show someone how genius Bach was, and don't want to use his most famous repertoire, I usually go for BWV 209 with Rilling.


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> I can imagine Haydn looking at a sonata score by CPE Bach and just putting it aside. Haydn didn't compose startling works. But that doesn't mean he would shun such expressions, so maybe you're right. How will we be sure?
> 
> As for Gould, like this one, wow, it sets people's hair on fire!


Haydn composed startling works(!), including a number of startling symphonies, like 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67 and quartets, beginning with the last two of the Op. 20 set. The influence of CPE is strong in many of these works.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Haydn composed startling works(!), including a number of startling symphonies, like 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67 and quartets, beginning with the last two of the Op. 20 set. The influence of CPE is strong in many of these works.


Thanks for that opinion. Maybe living in those times I would have been startled by them, that's not what I meant.. Haydn was 16 years younger. I don't think of him as 'younger' when I play their sonatas. I feel a little sorry for what I would call their predicaments, but coming up as a dirt poor child Haydn was probably quite content.

It's funny how I arrive at these viewpoints merely by reading a little of their bios and playing their pieces. I should definitely just explore the best of what they wanted to be known by and totally ignore all these other realities. Is that what you do?


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Because Salieri, in the film at least - lived a tortured existence in old age understanding he lived in a world of mediocrities with him as their saint - on the basis only he could recognise the the full extent of the incarnation of godly talent in Mozart. It's the one quality that raises him above the level of the gibbering wrecks of humanity in the insane asylum he feels at one with.
> 
> Sadly in reality - I think Salieri probably considered Mozart was a good composer but he was better.


Here's the moving scores of 2 Salieri piano concertos.

bflat





c major





from 1773 while Mozart was 17


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> Thanks for that opinion. Maybe living in those times I would have been startled by them, that's not what I meant.. Haydn was 16 years younger. I don't think of him as 'younger' when I play their sonatas. I feel a little sorry for what I would call their predicaments, but coming up as a dirt poor child Haydn was probably quite content.
> 
> It's funny how I arrive at these viewpoints merely by reading a little of their bios and playing their pieces. I should definitely just explore the best of what they wanted to be known by and totally ignore all these other realities. Is that what you do?


Oh, I agree about the sonatas. I definitely prefer CPE's sonatas (and concertos) to Haydn's. CPE was a virtuoso player, so this isn't surprising. Haydn's startling stuff is in other genres.

As for exploring: I recently made a project of making sure I had heard every one of Haydn's symphonies. I had heard many of them before, of course, but there were some I wasn't sure about or didn't remember hearing. I took notes!  My big revelation this time through was how many masterpieces there are in the 60s (not the 1760s, but nos. 60-69). I am currently doing the same for Haydn's string quartets. I've conducted similar surveys with CPE Bach's concertos, symphonies and sonatas (lots of sight reading there).


----------



## Portamento

Well, this thread turned into a **** storm pretty fast...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Portamento said:


> Well, this thread turned into a **** storm pretty fast...


I think it served its purpose before the second post.


----------



## APL

This thread is like an avalanche. In the bad terms!


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> He also wrote some good books on evolution.


And he's a pretty good kicker for the San Francisco Forty-Niners.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, I agree about the sonatas. I definitely prefer CPE's sonatas (and concertos) to Haydn's. CPE was a virtuoso player, so this isn't surprising. Haydn's startling stuff is in other genres.
> 
> As for exploring: I recently made a project of making sure I had heard every one of Haydn's symphonies. I had heard many of them before, of course, but there were some I wasn't sure about or didn't remember hearing. I took notes!  My big revelation this time through was how many masterpieces there are in the 60s (not the 1760s, but nos. 60-69). I am currently doing the same for Haydn's string quartets. I've conducted similar surveys with CPE Bach's concertos, symphonies and sonatas (lots of sight reading there).


I know very little about the symphonies. It takes so much time. The sonatas and variations and quartets and piano trios - and 11th piano concerto and popular cello concerto, trumpet concerto I can help people with. The famous symphonies, a little. 7 last words, The Creation, a little. But Haydn hasn't been like CPE, Clementi, Mozart or Hummel for me as a pianist. Yes, lots of sight reading and run throughs. If I had a week for each substantial work, but... how many years would that be?


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Mozart was a flash in the pan. Beethoven is the truly immortal one. Beethoven never died but in fact recreated himself over the decades. He has been Lord Byron, William Jennings Bryan, Stymie of the Little Rascals, a street corner tap dancer, and most recently Barack Obama. He is said to be considering a life as a door handle for the Canadian Prime Minister. 

Forget Mozart. Worship Beethoven.


----------



## janxharris

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Mozart was a flash in the pan. Beethoven is the truly immortal one. Beethoven never died but in fact recreated himself over the decades. He has been Lord Byron, William Jennings Bryan, Stymie of the Little Rascals, a street corner tap dancer, and most recently Barack Obama. He is said to be considering a life as a door handle for the Canadian Prime Minister.
> 
> Forget Mozart. Worship Beethoven.


I only enjoy a handful of Mozart works, but to describe him as a 'flash in the pan' is obviously wrong.


----------



## DavidA

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


Good! You can be sure of an audience of zero! :lol:


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

janxharris said:


> I only enjoy a handful of Mozart works, but to describe him as a 'flash in the pan' is obviously wrong.


Improvisational comedy, dude. Lighten up.

He was the magnificent shoe horn of the musical bourgeois.


----------



## janxharris

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Improvisational comedy, dude. Lighten up.
> 
> He was the magnificent shoe horn of the musical bourgeois.


I'm still light. Hard to know what you are saying.


----------



## beetzart

Captain, enough with this Mozart for a minute, I _need_ to know your opinion,as of today, of Schubert. It is very important I get to know this, thank you. If he is your enemy, too, I'll be distraught.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

janxharris said:


> I'm still light. Hard to know what you are saying.


How much simpler can I make it?

Mozart is the shimmering orange peel of the industrial proletariat.

He is a chameleon flash which brightened the maudlin future of all musical endeavors and still rains down its cosmic presence today. His Daedalus wings shroud the very poinsettia of musical history.

Yet he is not Beethoven.


----------



## eugeneonagain

beetzart said:


> Captain, enough with this Mozart for a minute, I _need_ to know your opinion,as of today, of Schubert. It is very important I get to know this, thank you. If he is your enemy, too, I'll be distraught.


He's not my enemy, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish his 'music' from a squeaky floorboard.


----------



## jdec

Oldhoosierdude said:


> How much simpler can I make it?
> 
> Mozart is the shimmering orange peel of the industrial proletariat.
> 
> He is a chameleon flash which brightened the maudlin future of all musical endeavors and still rains down its cosmic presence today. His Daedalus wings shroud the very poinsettia of musical history.
> 
> *Yet he is not Beethoven*.


Nor Beethoven Is Mozart. 
Beethoven is Beethoven, and Mozart is Mozart.

How much simpler than that?


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Nor Beethoven Is Mozart.
> Beethoven is Beethoven, and Mozart is Mozart.
> 
> How much simpler than that?


Indeed. When it's all come down to the Law of Identity, what's left to say?


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> Nor Beethoven Is Mozart.
> Beethoven is Beethoven, and Mozart is Mozart.
> 
> How much simpler than that?


Having a sense of humor might make things simpler.


----------



## larold

_Mozart was a flash in the pan. Beethoven is the truly immortal one._

Insofar as one can determine the limitless expanse of the universe to be the "pan" (that in this case has no edge or corners) then I can agree Mozart was a flash -- the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen, one that has maintained greatness through countless revolutions in Europe, two world wars, the nuclear, Internet and cell phone ages.

In all this time there has never been a better opera written than Don Giovanni or The Marriage of Figaro and no one has written a symphony where all the themes previously played in the music were revisited in the final movement other than Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony. Nor has there been better writing for woodwinds, another composer being the first to play woodwinds before strings in a symphony, or anyone in God's great kingdom that even wrote 27 piano concertos worth talking about, much less playing or listening to.

And wrote 700 other compositions all at the level of the greatest composers in history.

I wholeheartedly agree Beethoven is immortal and, on these terms, also agree Mozart is a flash in the pan -- a flash that has shined continuously since he wrote his first mass age 4 about 1760 whose essence will continue to fill the universe as long as people listen to and play music.


----------



## Woodduck

larold said:


> _Mozart was a flash in the pan. Beethoven is the truly immortal one._
> 
> Insofar as one can determine the limitless expanse of the universe to be the "pan" (that in this case has no edge or corners) then I can agree Mozart was a flash -- the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen, one that has maintained greatness through countless revolutions in Europe, two world wars, the nuclear, Internet and cell phone ages.
> 
> In all this time there has never been a better opera written than Don Giovanni or The Marriage of Figaro and no one has written a symphony where all the themes previously played in the music were revisited in the final movement other than Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony. Nor has there been better writing for woodwinds, another composer being the first to play woodwinds before strings in a symphony, or anyone in God's great kingdom that even wrote 27 piano concertos worth talking about, much less playing or listening to.
> 
> And wrote 700 other compositions all at the level of the greatest composers in history.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree Beethoven is immortal and, on these terms, also agree Mozart is a flash in the pan -- a flash that has shined continuously since he wrote his first mass age 4 about 1760 whose essence will continue to fill the universe as long as people listen to and play music.


Well. Live and learn.


----------



## Bluecrab

Woodduck said:


> Well. Live and learn.


Indeed, indeed.

We are fortunate to have learned so many objectively verifiable facts about Mozart from that single post. My gratitude is boundless.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Having a sense of humor might make things simpler.


Yep, and that's exactly what I intended with my very simplistic reply, to be a bit humorous.


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> _Mozart was a flash in the pan. Beethoven is the truly immortal one._
> 
> Insofar as one can determine the limitless expanse of the universe to be the "pan" (that in this case has no edge or corners) then I can agree Mozart was a flash -- the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen, one that has maintained greatness through countless revolutions in Europe, two world wars, the nuclear, Internet and cell phone ages.
> 
> In all this time there has never been a better opera written than Don Giovanni or The Marriage of Figaro and no one has written a symphony where all the themes previously played in the music were revisited in the final movement other than Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony. Nor has there been better writing for woodwinds, another composer being the first to play woodwinds before strings in a symphony, or anyone in God's great kingdom that even wrote 27 piano concertos worth talking about, much less playing or listening to.
> 
> And wrote 700 other compositions all at the level of the greatest composers in history.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree Beethoven is immortal and, on these terms, also agree Mozart is a flash in the pan -- a flash that has shined continuously since he wrote his first mass age 4 about 1760 whose essence will continue to fill the universe as long as people listen to and play music.


Mozart was obviously a genius, but suggesting he was 'the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen' is mere opinion.

My opinion doesn't count for much either.


----------



## Blancrocher

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


Assuming you're referring to Leopold Mozart, I could probably get behind this.


----------



## SixFootScowl

larold said:


> _Mozart was a flash in the pan. _


_

Must be a long duration flash because he is still very popular today._


----------



## eugeneonagain

'Big pan' I say. Like a star you can still see the light long after it has ceased shining.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Mozart was obviously a genius,* but suggesting he was 'the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen' is mere opinion.*
> 
> My opinion doesn't count for much either.


An opinion that has some compelling evidence to support it.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> An opinion that has some compelling evidence to support it.


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


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

The reality of Mozart or non Mozart. That is the question at hand. As a traveler in both astral plains I see each side of the argument. A numerical analysis produces the number 947μ. 

Very revealing!


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> ...and no one has written a symphony where all the themes previously played in the music were revisited in the final movement other than Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony...


I'm not hearing the main theme of the third movement in the finale - at what point is it heard?


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> I'm not hearing the main theme of the third movement in the finale - at what point is it heard?


The themes were all introduced in the final movement. Here is an analysis.


----------



## KenOC

Phil loves classical said:


> The themes were all introduced in the final movement. Here is an analysis.


Yes, a very good video. Among other things, it shows how five themes (or motifs) used throughout the final movement are combined in a passage in the coda. These themes are _not _from previous movements.

"...the coda, during which 5 of the previously introduced themes are combined at once, in five-part invertible counterpoint."


----------



## janxharris

KenOC said:


> ...These themes are _not _from previous movements...


That appears to be correct.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I'm not hearing the main theme of the third movement in the finale - at what point is it heard?


That's a superb performance - I only meant to check it out for a few moments and ended up watching the whole thing. Great energy and pace. I will probably be contradicted but I don't think, in the outer movements - I have ever seen the players working so hard - barely a moment to take a breath and turn the pages.


----------



## Euler

larold said:


> Nor has there been better writing for woodwinds, another composer being the first to play woodwinds before strings in a symphony, or anyone in God's great kingdom that even wrote 27 piano concertos worth talking about, much less playing or listening to.


Ah this is bugging me. I know most of Mozart's music by heart but can't bring to mind a symphony starting without strings. Which is it?? Among his concertos K. 450 starts with oboe and bassoon (although the cello and bass enter after the quarter-bar anacrusis).

BTW Mozart did not write 27 piano concertos.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Euler said:


> BTW Mozart did not write 27 piano concertos.


We know...someone else wrote them.


----------



## fluteman

eugeneonagain said:


> We know...someone else wrote them.


I assume that Euler means that the first four are typically not counted, as although they are brilliant, they are arranged from material by other composers. So, that leaves 23. More interesting is the point about scoring for woodwinds before strings in a symphony. I wasn't aware Mozart did that either, although by the time of the Linz and Prague symphonies his orchestrations had reached great heights of sophistication and effectiveness. Those symphonies start with string and wind choirs together, as separate but equal partners.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Of course. Who do you think I am, Robert Newman?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Euler said:


> Ah this is bugging me. I know most of Mozart's music by heart but can't bring to mind a symphony starting without strings. Which is it?? Among his concertos K. 450 starts with oboe and bassoon (although the cello and bass enter after the quarter-bar anacrusis).
> 
> BTW Mozart did not write 27 piano concertos.


I have listened to the first 4 and consider them to be on a par with lesser mature composers from those times. I dont see why they should not be counted as they are, as far as I know - reworkings of JC Bach concertos.

But I can live with 23.


----------



## fluteman

stomanek said:


> I have listened to the first 4 and consider them to be on a par with lesser mature composers from those times. I dont see why they should not be counted as they are, as far as I know - reworkings of JC Bach concertos.
> 
> But I can live with 23.


They are pretty good for the work of an 11-year old. And I certainly don't care if you count them or not. More significant imo is larold's point about Mozart's creative and pioneering use of woodwinds, an approach adopted in a big way by Beethoven in his symphonies and chamber works such as the superb Septet op. 20. You really have to go all the way to Debussy for the next major advance in that area.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Mozart was obviously a genius, but suggesting he was 'the greatest flash of musical intelligence and creativity the world has ever seen' is mere opinion.
> 
> My opinion doesn't count for much either.


That's what I don't like about the expressions "great" or "greatest". They are vague words that don't hold much meaning when people's tastes differ. There is a general agreement on many works, but in some cases, something that's really great for one person might not be so great to another. I think there are no "greatest composers" or "greatest music", only music so inspiring they continue to influence countless other composers. I like to think expressions like "the most influential", is more telling than "the greatest" about the achievements of a composer and value of his work. Good music withstands the test of time inspiring future generations- that's how classical music survives in people's minds through ages.


----------



## Iota

Oldhoosierdude said:


> How much simpler can I make it?
> 
> Mozart is the shimmering orange peel of the industrial proletariat.
> 
> He is a chameleon flash which brightened the maudlin future of all musical endeavors and still rains down its cosmic presence today. His Daedalus wings shroud the very poinsettia of musical history.


He he. A post that goes some way to brightening my maudlin future. 

For the nothing it's worth, tonight we ate in a London restaurant where every 15 minutes the servers broke out into well known operatic scenes (all jobbing professionals I think) which I found highly uninvolving until near the end of the the evening when they began 'Soave il Vento' and a little bit of me broke inside. Luckily I'd checked my Daedalus wings in at the cloakroom, otherwise I fear the cost of broken chandeliers might have been high.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Iota said:


> He he. A post that goes some way to brightening my maudlin future.
> 
> For the nothing it's worth, tonight we ate in a London restaurant where every 15 minutes the servers broke out into well known operatic scenes (all jobbing professionals I think) which I found highly uninvolving until near the end of the the evening when they began 'Soave il Vento' and a little bit of me broke inside. Luckily I'd checked my Daedalus wings in at the cloakroom, otherwise I fear the cost of broken chandeliers might have been high.


Which restaurant - I need to avoid it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> That's what I don't like about the expressions "great" or "greatest". They are vague words that don't hold much meaning when people's tastes differ. There is a general agreement on many works, but in some cases, something that's really great for one person might not be so great to another. I think there are no "greatest composers" or "greatest music", only music so inspiring they continue to influence countless other composers. I like to think expressions like "the most influential", is more telling than "the greatest" about the achievements of a composer and value of his work. Good music withstands the test of time inspiring future generations- that's how classical music survives in people's minds through ages.
> View attachment 110335


I think the term "great composer" is in such common usage it cannot be so readily dismissed. There is also as much disagreement about who influenced who and by how much so shifting terminology doesn't help that much if you are arguing that the evaluation of composers and their music is so subjective that any statement made pertaining to it is meaningless. Most if not all educated people would agree that Michaelangelo is one of arts greatest craftsmen - and even those who dont like the music of Mozart would agree that he is one of the world's greatest composers. So clearly there is some kind of objective evaluation going on. I don't much like the music of Schoenberg - but from everything I know he is one of the greatest figures in 20thC music. You see?


----------



## Jacck

I managed to listen to the whole Le nozze di Figaro yesterday and I liked in it the end !
I think one reason that might have kept me from enjoying Mozart operas is the comical aspect. They are all comedies. And I like more serious music. This is part of the problem - I perceive Mozart as a composer that is not that serious. He writes soap operas about silly subjects (Don Juan, Figaro) to entertain the masses. I like Mozart best, when he is serious. His sinfonia concertante that was written after the death of his mother, or his string quintets, which is not comical music written for entertainment.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> I managed to listen to the whole Le nozze di Figaro yesterday and I liked in it the end !
> I think one reason that might have kept me from enjoying Mozart operas is the comical aspect. They are all comedies. *And I like more serious music. *This is part of the problem - I perceive Mozart as a composer that is not that serious. He writes soap operas about silly subjects (Don Juan, Figaro) to entertain the masses. I like Mozart best, when he is serious. His sinfonia concertante that was written after the death of his mother, or his string quintets, which is not comical music written for entertainment.


Lighten up mate! :lol:


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I managed to listen to the whole Le nozze di Figaro yesterday and I liked in it the end !
> I think one reason that might have kept me from enjoying Mozart operas is the comical aspect. They are all comedies. And I like more serious music. This is part of the problem - I perceive Mozart as a composer that is not that serious. He writes soap operas about silly subjects (Don Juan, Figaro) to entertain the masses. I like Mozart best, when he is serious. His sinfonia concertante that was written after the death of his mother, or his string quintets, which is not comical music written for entertainment.


I've tried Don Giovanni twice but could get beyond half an hour - you think I should persevere?


----------



## janxharris

Actually - I meant Cosi Fan Tutti


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> I've tried Don Giovanni twice but could get beyond half an hour - you think I should persevere?


I don't know. What worked for me is not to watch the operas and not to care whate they are about - because they indeed are soap operas - but to listen to them musically. I listened to a Kleiber version. There are comical light-hearted passeges interspersed with quite beautiful arias such as this one




it was about the mind-set in my case, ie not taking the operas seriously, but see them as light-hearted comedies that do not take themselves that seriously.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I don't know. What worked for me is not to watch the operas and not to care whate they are about - because they indeed are soap operas - but to listen to them musically. I listened to a Kleiber version. There are comical light-hearted passeges interspersed with quite beautiful arias such as this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was about the mind-set in my case, ie not taking the operas seriously, but see them as light-hearted comedies that do not take themselves that seriously.


Thanks. I still have a problem with the harmonic language of a good proportion of classical period music.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris said:


> Thanks. I still have a problem with the harmonic language of a good proportion of classical period music.


yes, the classical period is difficult to get into. Probably the most difficult era. Both the romantic and the baroque seem to contain more emotion. Still, I found Mozart far harder than other composers of that era. Haydn or CP Bach were much easier than Mozart for me. Try some of the Haydn quartets. They opened my eyes to the classical period


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> I managed to listen to the whole Le nozze di Figaro yesterday and I liked in it the end !
> I think one reason that might have kept me from enjoying Mozart operas is the comical aspect. They are all comedies. And I like more serious music. This is part of the problem - I perceive Mozart as a composer that is not that serious. He writes soap operas about silly subjects (Don Juan, Figaro) to entertain the masses. I like Mozart best, when he is serious. His sinfonia concertante that was written after the death of his mother, or his string quintets, which is not comical music written for entertainment.


First of all - well done for listening to the whole of Nozze.

Secondly - while the opera buffa are comedies - Mozart wouldnt have the reputation he has if he just laughed like a fool through the whole thing. The farce that happens in act 4 for example is hilarious and the joke is on everybody - but the forgiveness scene is serious I assure you and a perfect contrasting climax to the entire opera. Also - do you think the count's raging against figaro etc when he realises they are attempting to thwart his plans is purely comic? It's more or less spot on and sums up the whole rotten feudal power the rich had over their underlings - same with Figaro's 1st act one aria - the smouldering discontent of revolutionary emotion is in the words and music.

Mozart als0 composed purely serious opera - Idomeneo and Clemenza di Tito plus some fine early examples, Lucio Silla.


----------



## Razumovskymas




----------



## Razumovskymas

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and *that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!*
> 
> We are enemies forever!


I don't think Beethoven would be any good if he tried to be everything Mozart is not.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> Try some of the Haydn quartets. They opened my eyes to the classical period


You should like these then







Razumovskymas said:


> I don't think Beethoven would be any good if he tried to be everything Mozart is not.


Also the second subject of the second movement of Op.59 No.3 vaguely reminds me of that of Mozart's 36th


----------



## Iota

stomanek said:


> Which restaurant - I need to avoid it.


The Bel Canto restaurant on Bayswater Rd, London. 
I should add that although it's really not my kind of thing (somebody had booked it for a birthday celebration) plenty of people seemed to really enjoy it, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge them their fun. One guy on our table was in tears he found it so lovely.

As far as Mozart as a proto-Romantic goes (which I believe somebody mentioned earlier in the thread), that to me has a ring of truth to it. More a feeling than anything else, but if one compares Mozart and Haydn for example (both of whom I have a surpassingly deep regard for) in relatively similar areas (chamber music perhaps) there seems much to identify them as being in a similar stylistic tradition, but at times having a markedly a different sensibility. When Mozart's toe seems to be stepping at times towards a more overtly self-revealing mode of expression, Haydn seems to stay more regularly within Classical mores. 
It's a vague thing, I mean the late-Enlightenment sensibilities that seem to spill so compulsively and beautifully out of Mozart, with one whirl of the quill can quite quickly seem to become some kind of early romantic leaning. And I imagine there may be some Haydn not currently springing to mind that may exhibit similar tendencies. Perhaps personality as much as conscious musical decision can also play a part in such matters.

Anyway, a subjective, completely unscholarly and vague impression, and I say it while not, by a long shot, knowing all of their music.


----------



## Woodduck

Iota said:


> The Bel Canto restaurant on Bayswater Rd, London.
> I should add that although it's really not my kind of thing (somebody had booked it for a birthday celebration) plenty of people seemed to really enjoy it, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge them their fun. One guy on our table was in tears he found it so lovely.
> 
> As far as Mozart as a proto-Romantic goes (which I believe somebody mentioned earlier in the thread), that to me has a ring of truth to it. More a feeling than anything else, but if one compares Mozart and Haydn for example (both of whom I have a surpassingly deep regard for) in relatively similar areas (chamber music perhaps) there seems much to identify them as being in a similar stylistic tradition, but at times having a markedly a different sensibility. When Mozart's toe seems to be stepping at times towards a more overtly self-revealing mode of expression, Haydn seems to stay more regularly within Classical mores.
> It's a vague thing, I mean the late-Enlightenment sensibilities that seem to spill so compulsively and beautifully out of Mozart, with one whirl of the quill can quite quickly seem to become some kind of early romantic leaning. And I imagine there may be some Haydn not currently springing to mind that may exhibit similar tendencies. Perhaps personality as much as conscious musical decision can also play a part in such matters.
> 
> Anyway, a subjective, completely unscholarly and vague impression, and I say it while not, by a long shot, knowing all of their music.


I think most can hear the subjective or personal quality of emotion in Mozart that many have called "proto-romantic." I would only point out that there have always been composers, and individual works, whose music seemed more emotive than the prevailing norm during their time. I think immediately of the intense chromatic harmony of some of the Italian madrigalists (Gesualdo, Marenzio, etc.), the rich dissonance and free form of Purcell's consort music for viols, the profound poignancy of so many slow movements in Bach, and the startling expressive gestures of C.P.E. Bach, all of which have been called "proto-romantic." Mozart is typically Classical in his structural thinking, and whether his more emotionally intense moments represent any Romantically self-conscious desire to "reveal himself" is debatable.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Actually - I meant Cosi Fan Tutti


If you cant even recall the name of the opera you've listened to how do you expect anybody to take your opinions on music seriously and comment accordingly? You might tell us you like piece X when you actually listened to piece Y.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Iota said:


> The Bel Canto restaurant on Bayswater Rd, London.
> I should add that although it's really not my kind of thing (somebody had booked it for a birthday celebration) plenty of people seemed to really enjoy it, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge them their fun. One guy on our table was in tears he found it so lovely.
> 
> As far as Mozart as a proto-Romantic goes (which I believe somebody mentioned earlier in the thread), that to me has a ring of truth to it. More a feeling than anything else, but if one compares Mozart and Haydn for example (both of whom I have a surpassingly deep regard for) in relatively similar areas (chamber music perhaps) there seems much to identify them as being in a similar stylistic tradition, but at times having a markedly a different sensibility. When Mozart's toe seems to be stepping at times towards a more overtly self-revealing mode of expression, Haydn seems to stay more regularly within Classical mores.
> It's a vague thing, I mean the late-Enlightenment sensibilities that seem to spill so compulsively and beautifully out of Mozart, with one whirl of the quill can quite quickly seem to become some kind of early romantic leaning. And I imagine there may be some Haydn not currently springing to mind that may exhibit similar tendencies. Perhaps personality as much as conscious musical decision can also play a part in such matters.
> 
> Anyway, a subjective, completely unscholarly and vague impression, and I say it while not, by a long shot, knowing all of their music.


I suppose if people know what to expect that is ok then. I hope the food is good.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

If one cannot feel something when listening to Mozart, all I can suggest is a visit to a cardiologist. I never understood the level of bashing Mozart gets from people who will then turn and praise Beethoven. I think Ludwig would give such a person a swift smack on the back of their head.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> If you cant even recall the name of the opera you've listened to how do you expect anybody to take your opinions on music seriously and comment accordingly? You might tell us you like piece X when you actually listened to piece Y.


It's possible my confusion stems from Mozart's extensive use of tonic dominant harmony - for me, this makes different works sound extremely similar. This is just my perception, fwiw.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> It's possible my confusion stems from *Mozart's extensive use of tonic dominant harmony *- for me, this makes different works sound extremely similar. This is just my perception, fwiw.


That's just normal for the period. But you could say that because of it Mozart's subtleties, especially his chromatic passages, are all the more telling.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> That's just normal for the period. But you could say that because of it Mozart's subtleties, especially his chromatic passages, are all the more telling.


Indeed it is normal for the period. It's possible that some (myself included) focus on a work's harmony with an interest and preference for hearing original progressions. For others this might not be such an issue.

I might be missing the subtleties you mention.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Indeed it is normal for the period. It's possible that some (myself included) focus on a work's harmony with an interest and preference for hearing original progressions. For others this might not be such an issue.
> 
> I might be missing the subtleties you mention.


Coming from a youthful love of Wagner and drenched in the complex chromaticism of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal,_ I was slow to appreciate Mozart, and he is still not a favorite. But his Classical "limitations" no longer get in the way of my enjoying him when I'm in the mood, and certainly of appreciating his genius. His ability to use harmony ingeniously and expressively is something you may appreciate more with time.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> Coming from a youthful love of Wagner and drenched in the complex chromaticism of _Tristan_ and _Parsifal,_ I was slow to appreciate Mozart, and he is still not a favorite. But his Classical "limitations" no longer get in the way of my enjoying him when I'm in the mood, and certainly of appreciating his genius. *His ability to use harmony ingeniously and expressively* is something you may appreciate more with time.


As in the development section of his 40th symphony - quite astonishing.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> As in the development section of his 40th symphony - quite astonishing.


It is. So is his characteristic abilty to slide almost imperceptibly into recapitulation in work after work where many composers tend to announce what they're doing in a relatively ham-handed way (see Brahms).

Try the slow movement of his String Quintet in D, K593. The harmonic changes are extraordinary, and there's a passage that will turn your head around 360 degrees.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Mozart was a master at changing moods quickly. I often go to the romance movement of the 20th piano concerto. To go from this swaying and lovely tone to utter chaos within a breath, is incredible. 





Completely out of nowhere, the ship is caught in a storm. And slowly Mozart brings us back to calmer waters, and it's all a wonderful and thrilling experience. You can see why Beethoven cherished his copies of this work. That was the kind of waters he would be a master at sailing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It's possible my confusion stems from Mozart's extensive use of tonic dominant harmony - for me, this makes different works sound extremely similar. This is just my perception, fwiw.


The music of the orchestra and voice of Don Giovanni is not remotely similar to Cosi - dont try to cover up your ignorance and incompetence as a critical listener. Its like saying you cant tell the difference between mozart and beethoven's c minor piano concertos because they are in the same key.


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart has his own language and vocabulary, and when one truly gets familiar with it through sufficient exposure over time-it can't be rushed-it becomes readily apparent how diverse and distinctive his great works are, keeping in mind that no composer on earth has ever batted 1000.

He's been considered over the years by many as the personification of the Classical era in music, whose roots go back and were inspired by ancient Greek or Roman principles and style in art and literature, _generally associated with harmony, restraint, and adherence to recognized standards of form and craftsmanship, especially from the Renaissance to the 18th century_... The Age of Beethoven and his evolution into Romanticism hadn't happened yet, and consequently, Mozart does not deserve to be condemned for not being Beethoven.

Any composer who has a recognizable style does not necessarily mean that he's repeating himself though there may be some similarity between works. The great composers have an instantly recognizable style and it comes from something inherent within the composer and music. Something of his characteristic techniques and approach will be found in everything he does and not without variations within a given context.


----------



## eugeneonagain

He may have had his own language eventually, but he learned a lot of it from previous composers. Listen to the quartets of Maddelena Lombardini (from 1769) and like me you may initially think "Oh yes, very Mozartian!", yet he hadn't even written his No.1 until a year later.

_Thanks go to Klassik for this information._


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Mozart's extensive use of tonic dominant harmony


I think Mozart could have broken all rules and become the biggest rebel of music if he wanted to, (like Rebel's Les Elemens, for example, which was pretty 'revolutionary' for its time. 



 ) but he chose to retain his classicism because that's what he perceived as beautiful. You don't listen to Mozart for the chromaticism. You listen how it's cleverly contained (along with diatonicism) in the golden rules of classicism-- like literary devices of classical poetry or literature. 
People tend to think more complex or revolutionary-sounding the music is, the more innovation in music. But what's the point of doing all kinds of revolutionary stuff (in regards to development of music) *if it fails to inspire* future composers continuously?
I think it was Woodduck who said that "complexity is only worth it if it enriches meaning". I agree with his point.





_"The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose. 
Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart. 
But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor. 
And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."_

----
Also, I don't necessarily think Mozart "pioneered" Romanticism, but he perfected Classicism to a point he 'indirectly' forced future composers to pursue a more different path (Romanticism). In my view, that's how music history progressed -- successors try to be different from their predecessors, try to be original by not doing the exact same thing as their predecessors.

Beethoven: "I've taken a new path."
Count: "Something was wrong with the old path?"


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Mozart was my worst enemy now he is my best friend.


----------



## Luchesi

Oldhoosierdude said:


> Mozart was my worst enemy now he is my best friend.


Does it matter who wrote the stuff?


----------



## Phil loves classical

For those that think Mozart is a safe composer. Here is the most Romantic-pioneering piece (no I won't shy away from that term). The opening of Beethoven's Pathetique seems obviously modelled after it. Controversial for its time, and it proclaimed by Brahms to be Modernist (at the time).


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

That's what is so wonderful about Mozart. He painted with so many colours, and did it well. He wrote piano works that are so odd for what you normally expect from Wolfy.


----------



## Woodduck

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> That's what is so wonderful about Mozart. He painted with so many colours, and did it well. He wrote piano works that are so odd for what you normally expect from Wolfy.


Mozart wrote quite a few pieces in atypical styles, and must have enjoyed the challenges. His late piano fantasies stand in a tradition of quasi-improvisational, free-form keyboard music that goes back at least to Fresobaldi's toccatas of the early Baroque and continues with Buxtehude, J.S. Bach and son C.P.E. Mozart clearly made a study of these composers, which bore fruit in these piano works and in the quasi-Baroque writing of his late choral works.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> The music of the orchestra and voice of Don Giovanni is not remotely similar to Cosi - dont try to cover up your ignorance and incompetence as a critical listener. Its like saying you cant tell the difference between mozart and beethoven's c minor piano concertos because they are in the same key.


I note you didn't actually address what I said - Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony.

Using inflammatory language as you do is unnecessary.

Forum rules:

_Guidelines for General Behavior
»Trolling« is not welcome. A »troll« is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or inflammatory messages with the deliberate intent to bait users into responding, ranging from subtle jibes to outright personal attacks._


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I note you didn't actually address what I said - Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony.
> 
> Using inflammatory language as you do is unnecessary.
> 
> Forum rules:
> 
> _Guidelines for General Behavior
> »Trolling« is not welcome. A »troll« is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or inflammatory messages with the deliberate intent to bait users into responding, ranging from subtle jibes to outright personal attacks._


As Woodduck indicated Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony was normal for the time - so claiming you cant tell the difference between one work and another from those times really puts limitations on you as a listener and makes me question whether you have any musical sense beyond the ability to recognise certain obvious characteristics of different musical styles.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> As Woodduck indicated Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony was normal for the time - so claiming you cant tell the difference between one work and another from those times really puts limitations on you as a listener and makes me question whether you have any musical sense beyond the ability to recognise certain obvious characteristics of different musical styles.


So very true. Whatever we say about music, it is unchanged. It is what it is. Our comments are really about ourselves.


----------



## KenOC

hammeredklavier said:


> Beethoven: "I've taken a new path."
> Count: "Something was wrong with the old path?"


IMO _Eroica _is the best film ever made about Beethoven. Aside from this, there are some real stinkers.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> As Woodduck indicated Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony was normal for the time - so claiming you cant tell the difference between one work and another from those times really puts limitations on you as a listener and makes me question whether you have any musical sense beyond the ability to recognise certain obvious characteristics of different musical styles.


The limitation, for me, is with much of the harmony of the period. Of course I can tell the difference - it was a simple mistake which I immediately corrected.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> The limitation, for me, is with much of the harmony of the period. Of course I can tell the difference - it was a simple mistake which I immediately corrected.


If you can tell the difference why did you claim Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony caused your confusion?

I think you get too fixated on certain aspects of music. Put down your "Bluff your way in music theory" pocket book and listen to the music FGS.


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> IMO _Eroica _is the best film ever made about Beethoven. Aside from this, there are some real stinkers.


Tedious! 90% of the film is set in 1 room.

the only good bit was when Beethoven said "not a landowner but a brain owner"

Amadeus is a bit of a farce - but probably is the best film ever made about a composer.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> Tedious! 90% of the film is set in 1 room.
> 
> the only good bit was when Beethoven said "not a landowner but a brain owner"
> 
> Amadeus is a bit of a farce - but probably is the best film ever made about a composer.


So, what's a better film made about Beethoven?


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> So, what's a better film made about Beethoven?


I dont know - I watched Immortal Beloved - Gary Oldman though just made Beethoven look like a depressed grumpy *******.

I dont think there are any really good films about composers.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> I dont know - I watched Immortal Beloved - Gary Oldman though just made Beethoven look like a depressed grumpy *******.
> 
> I dont think there are any really good films about composers.


The other candidate is _Copying Beethoven,_ which is pretty horrible. I stand by _Eroica _as the best Beethoven movie.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> For those that think Mozart is a safe composer. Here is the most Romantic-pioneering piece (no I won't shy away from that term). *The opening of Beethoven's Pathetique seems obviously modelled after it. *


There are also sections in Appassionata that allude to this work. 
Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 



Also, interestingly, the 1st movement of Beethoven's last sonata alludes to K546. 



 The fugue of K546 has its risposta of the subject enter with a disonance-- a seventh. This would have been very unusual in the times of baroque and some people say K546 foreshadows the fugal style of Shostakovich. Mozart obviously did innovation in music, Beethoven would have agreed this fact about his 13.5-year senior predecessor (considering the number of times he paid homage to Mozart alone). He wasn't hesitant to receive "the spirit of Mozart from the hands of Haydn". I believe the unique, highly original 'Grosse Fuge' is basically Beethoven following the footsteps of his two 'innovative' direct predecessors.

_(It's therefore important to realize that Beethoven not only knew Mozart's fugue, but even made a copy of it in his own handwriting. We must assume he was impressed by this work. https://unheardbeethoven.org/search.php?Identifier=hess37)

(Early reception of the "Haydn" Quartets was both enthusiastic and disgruntled. An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time, namely that the works were inspired, but too complex and difficult to enjoy:

Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ... [Mozart's] six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!
Giuseppe Sarti later published an attack against the "Dissonance" quartet, describing sections as "barbarous", "execrable", and "miserable" in its use of whole-tone clusters and chromatic extremes. Around this same time, Fétis printed a revision of the opening of the "Dissonance" quartet, implying that Mozart had made errors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart) )_

by the way I think K475 sounds much better on the fortepiano. 



 Tchaikovsky vocal quartet 'Night Op.88' makes reference to the Andantino section of K475. 





As for whether or not Mozart was proto-Romantic, I think it depends on how you look at it. 
You could say Romantic composers like Brahms took inspiration from the proto-Romantic side of Mozart -OR- Mozart perfected Classicism so much his successors had to seek a different path.
Either way, it's fine. I think.
I think we should refrain from thinking Romanticism is a more advanced, superior form of music than Classicism 'for everyone'. Not everyone likes Romanticism. For certain people, it's deterioration of music from the Classical and Baroque periods. One thing we cannot deny is that Mozart is one of the most influential composers in music history, like Bach and Beethoven, he had a huge variety of skills at his command.








Woodduck said:


> Mozart wrote quite a few pieces in atypical styles, and must have enjoyed the challenges. His late piano fantasies stand in a tradition of quasi-improvisational, free-form keyboard music that goes back at least to Fresobaldi's toccatas of the early Baroque and continues with Buxtehude, J.S. Bach and son C.P.E. Mozart clearly made a study of these composers, which bore fruit in these piano works and in the quasi-Baroque writing of his late choral works.


I think the terms, 'quasi-baroque style' or 'quasi-fugal style' are misleading cause 'classical style' was not something Mozart invented in the first place either. The Baroque style and classical style were both 'learned styles' from his perspective.





Pignus Futuræ Gloriæ, written by Mozart at 16, is quite impressive, not bad even compared with early works of JS Bach. http://www.jsbach.org/completeyear.html (I'm not putting down JS Bach)
Mozart developed strong familiarity with the baroque mode of composition ever since he started composing and we could say that Mozart was a baroque-classical crossover composer from the start. But because of the given circumstances at the time, he didn't get the commission to write in baroque style all the time.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> If you can tell the difference why did you claim Mozart's use of tonic dominant harmony caused your confusion?


I made a mistake about which opera but included a swipe at Mozart for overusing certain harmonic progressions.



> I think you get too fixated on certain aspects of music. Put down your "Bluff your way in music theory" pocket book and listen to the music FGS.


If you ever establish that such criticism comes from bluffing then please post your proof. Plenty of folk here have underlined the issue.

Why you have a problem with such criticism is inexplicable.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I made a mistake about which opera but included a swipe at Mozart for overusing certain harmonic progressions.
> 
> If you ever establish that such criticism comes from bluffing then please post your proof. Plenty of folk here have underlined the issue.
> 
> Why you have a problem with such criticism is inexplicable.


You and Jaack alone - post your proof that anyone else on this board has critiqued Mozart's harmonic style.

I dont know anything about musical theory but I think in 1 hour watching the right youtube videos I could learn what you know, which I can see is not much as you never elaborate beyond generalisations. If you did know anything you would not keep banging your drum about the shortcomings of classical era compositional syntax.

If you dont like the classical era dont listen to it.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> You and Jaack alone - post your proof that anyone else on this board has critiqued Mozart's harmonic style.
> 
> I dont know anything about musical theory but I think in 1 hour watching the right youtube videos I could learn what you know, which I can see is not much as you never elaborate beyond generalisations. If you did know anything you would not keep banging your drum about the shortcomings of classical era compositional syntax.
> 
> If you dont like the classical era dont listen to it.


We clearly have different criteria when it comes to judging aesthetics in music; I'd rather leave it there.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> For those that think Mozart is a safe composer. Here is the most Romantic-pioneering piece (no I won't shy away from that term). The opening of Beethoven's Pathetique seems obviously modelled after it. Controversial for its time, and it proclaimed by Brahms to be Modernist (at the time).


It's a fantasia. The genre has a long tradition, as Woodduck has pointed out. CPE Bach's were just as bold. The style is supposed to be improvisatory and experimental:






The beginning of Beethoven's Op. 13 isn't particularly similar to the Mozart fantasia. The harmonic motion and progression are quite different. Beethoven's has an overall arc of rising tension to set up the coming allegro. The whole thing elaborates the dominant. It is in a style typical for portentous slow introductions, especially the dotted rhythms - overture style, not fantasia style. The Mozart, by contrast wanders harmonically by descending sequences. The progression relaxes rather than builds tension. They both use diminished harmonies extensively, but lots of fantasias do, like the Bach above. This was typical for Beethoven and Op. 13 is a conservative example of his experimentation with diminished harmonies compared to something like the Largo e mesto of Op. 10 #3.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> There are also sections in Appassionata that allude to this work.
> Op.57:
> 
> 
> 
> K475:
> 
> 
> 
> Op.57:
> 
> 
> 
> K475:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, interestingly, the 1st movement of Beethoven's last sonata alludes to K546.
> 
> 
> 
> The fugue of K546 has its risposta of the subject enter with a disonance-- a seventh. This would have been very unusual in the times of baroque and some people say K546 foreshadows the fugal style of Shostakovich. Mozart obviously did innovation in music, Beethoven would have agreed this fact about his 13.5-year senior predecessor (considering the number of times he paid homage to Mozart alone). He wasn't hesitant to receive "the spirit of Mozart from the hands of Haydn". I believe the unique, highly original 'Grosse Fuge' is basically Beethoven following the footsteps of his two 'innovative' direct predecessors.


None of the (extremely) vague similarities you've pointed out is close to an "allusion" to Mozart. You are confusing shared language (and not much of that) with homage or conscious reference.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> It's a fantasia. The genre has a long tradition, as Woodduck has pointed out. CPE Bach's were just as bold. The style is supposed to be improvisatory and experimental:


As I said, just because music is experimental or bold it doesn't automatically make it 'extraordinary'. If we were to follow the logic 'being experimental = being great in music', atonal music would be the greatest music ever composed by mankind and Ein musikalischer Spaß K522 would be the greatest piece composed by Mozart cause it explores techniques that would later be revisited by Debussy and Stravinsky-- polytonality and whole-tone scales etc. As I said, there were composers like Jean-Féry Rebel who wrote 'revolutionary' works like Les Elemens, but they're forgotten in many quarters cause their music failed to make a great impression on generations of later composers. Complexity is worthwhile only if it enriches meaning, as Woodduck said.
CPE Bach was indeed a great composer, but using his works as examples to claim Mozart was a safe, ordinary composer is just absurd.
Music has to make an impression on generations of later composers to have influence in music history, and in that regard, Mozart's K475 fulfills that criteria to a great extent, as it inspired Romantic giants, not only Brahms (as Phil said), but also--

Beethoven: 
Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 




Grieg: 




Tchaikovsky: 




Also in terms of structural depth, thematic unity, balance etc, K475 is a splendid work, as pointed out in these articles:
http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf
_"It must be noted that, at the time when W. A. Mozart's Phantasie K. 475 was created (1785), the elements of musical fantasy - which primarily caused the accentuation of the emotional basis in music in general or, in other words, conditioned the strengthening of musical fantasy as an expression of emotional sentiment, or contributed to the emphasizing of musical-fantasy enthusiasm as a direct expression and emotion - brought about their self-alteration and self-immersion into emotions.
Namely, they seemingly immersed themselves into, or identified themselves with, the elements of the then new general tendencies of (re)animating emotionalism, which would especially develop in 19th-century music (Popović Mladjenović, 2009).
Mozart's Phantasie transcended the historical and stylistic moment in which it was created, thus what Mozart began was finished by Liszt in his piano composition, Sonata in B-minor (1852-1853). It is perfectly reasonable that Mozart's Phantasie served as a model to Franz Liszt for a typological definition of his one-movement sonata cycle."_
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_97-01/984_sub_moral_appen_PDFs/chapter-5.PDF


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> We clearly have different criteria when it comes to judging aesthetics in music; I'd rather leave it there.


NB Looks at Edwardbast post on Mozart fantasia - HE knows what he is talking about. You never talk in this detail.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> As I said, just because music is experimental or bold it doesn't automatically make it 'extraordinary'. If we were to follow the logic 'being experimental = being great in music', atonal music would be the greatest music ever composed by mankind and Ein musikalischer Spaß K522 would be the greatest piece composed by Mozart cause it explores techniques that would later be revisited by Debussy and Stravinsky-- polytonality and whole-tone scales etc. As I said, there were composers like Jean-Féry Rebel who wrote 'revolutionary' works like Les Elemens, but they're forgotten in many quarters cause their music failed to make a great impression on generations of later composers. Complexity is worthwhile only if it enriches meaning, as Woodduck said.
> *CPE Bach was indeed a great composer, but using his works as examples to claim Mozart was a safe, ordinary composer is just absurd.*
> Music has to make an impression on generations of later composers to have influence in music history, and in that regard, Mozart's K475 fulfills that criteria to a great extent, as it inspired Romantic giants, not only Brahms (as Phil said), but also--


Who is making this claim? Certainly not me. I'm making no claim whatever about Mozart's status as safe versus innovative. I'm just saying that if the fantasia is the basis of ones argument for innovation, then one has a very weak argument. The style of the Mozart fantasia is just not that extraordinary for the genre. That's sort of what the genre is about.

I encourage you to look for better evidence to support your position.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> NB Looks at Edwardbast post on Mozart fantasia - HE knows what he is talking about. You never talk in this detail.


And I agree that Mozart's harmonic language often goes above and beyond that of his contemporaries in its imagination and daring. My comments about the fantasia not being extraordinary in this respect compared to other examples of the genre does nothing to negate this. It is just a suggestion that if one wants to find evidence supporting this position, it would be better to look at his late symphonies and chamber works where such daring and imagination stands out more, rather than in the genre of the fantasia where it is expected.


----------



## larold

Arguments about whether or not Mozart was daring or displayed harmonic language akin to later generations seem frivolous. It isn't possible to compare anyone to later generations in any regard other than longevity of the art. 

Whose art has stayed with us through centuries and continues to be played, recorded, broadcast, schedule on concerts and now streamed? 

Certainly no composer of any century displayed as much imagination and courage as the Second Viennese School and the composers that followed in the 20th century. But is their music still played, still considered on a par with Mozart or Beethoven? Was it ever?

The technique of creating music is not what gives it lasting power. It is the content of the music and the way it relates to us.


----------



## eugeneonagain

While this thread has been wending its merry way I've been listening to some Mozart; alongside other music, including 'second Viennese school' music. Not caring a jot about the trivial quarrels.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> As for whether or not Mozart was proto-Romantic, I think it depends on how you look at it.
> You could say Romantic composers like Brahms took inspiration from the proto-Romantic side of Mozart -OR- Mozart perfected Classicism so much his successors had to seek a different path.
> Either way, it's fine. I think.
> I think we should refrain from thinking Romanticism is a more advanced, superior form of music than Classicism 'for everyone'. Not everyone likes Romanticism. For certain people, it's deterioration of music from the Classical and Baroque periods.
> 
> I think the terms, 'quasi-baroque style' or 'quasi-fugal style' are misleading cause 'classical style' was not something Mozart invented in the first place either. The Baroque style and classical style were both 'learned styles' from his perspective.
> 
> Mozart developed strong familiarity with the baroque mode of composition ever since he started composing and we could say that Mozart was a baroque-classical crossover composer from the start. But because of the given circumstances at the time, he didn't get the commission to write in baroque style all the time.


When you try to make numerous points in a single post it's difficult to respond to them. The statements above refer to things I've said, so I'm extracting them for further discussion.

There is music in every period that suggests, in one way or another, sounds and styles that will become more common later. As I've pointed out, we can find music suggestive of Romanticism all the way back to the Renaissance, which isn't surprising since "Romanticism" embraces an extraordinarily wide range of sounds and styles, including many "archaisms" adopted directly from earlier periods. It shouldn't surprise us that Mozart occasionally sounds "Romantic"; so do _ Sturm und Drang_ symphonies of Haydn, keyboard works of C.P.E. Bach, numerous pieces by his father J.S., and so on back in time. Romanticism was a cultural movement that engendered distinct changes in both the expressive intent and the forms of music, changes in which even Beethoven did not participate more than occasionally; his work is arguably more an expansion of late Classical ideals than a Romantic outpouring (though I'm not going to argue it, preferring to let Beethoven have a period to himself. ) I have the feeling that talk of Mozart being "proto-romantic" is more an attempt to score points for him than an actual description of his music.

I agree that Romantic music is not superior to Classical or Baroque music. But I can't avoid a sneaking suspicion that people eager to find Romanticism in Mozart secretly think that it is. 

I say that Mozart sometimes wrote music in "quasi-baroque" style because it was not the current style of his time and not the language, so to speak, that he was born speaking, and because his use of Baroque forms and techniques, however skillful, doesn't generally produce something that we would think was written by a Baroque composer. I fail to see anything misleading about the term. What's misleading is to say that "the Baroque style and Classical style were both 'learned styles' from his perspective." Obviously, everything is learned, but learning your native language by listening to your parents speak and learning a foreign language by studying it are quite different processes.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> It's a fantasia. The genre has a long tradition, as Woodduck has pointed out. CPE Bach's were just as bold. The style is supposed to be improvisatory and experimental:


I believe that astonishing fantasia has the subtitle, "C.P.E. Bachs Empfindungen" (C.P.E. Bach's Feelings). See, Mozarteans? You don't have to be a Romantic to have feelings.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I believe that astonishing fantasia has the subtitle, "C.P.E. Bachs Empfindungen" (C.P.E. Bach's Feelings). See, Mozarteans? You don't have to be a Romantic to have feelings.


Listening to the fantasy - it sounds much more improvisatory than Mozart's fantasias - if you know what I mean - there are moments when you sense the pianist is experimenting and looking for a way forward. In Mozart's best fantasies, K397,396,475 for example - there's a much tighter unity, direction and sense of structure. I dont know if this is good or bad - or perhaps Mozart was just such a genius at the KB his mind was racing ahead while he was improvising - paving a structured, musically sound way forward.

The only other comment I would make is - while there are some beautiful passages and there's a lot of adventurous invention going on - I don't think this work is on the same level as Mozart's best minor key fantasies.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Listening to the fantasy - it sounds much more improvisatory than Mozart's fantasias - if you know what I mean - there are moments when you sense the pianist is experimenting and looking for a way forward. In Mozart's best fantasies, K397,396,475 for example - there's a much tighter unity, direction and sense of structure. I dont know if this is good or bad - or perhaps Mozart was just such a genius at the KB his mind was racing ahead while he was improvising - paving a structured, musically sound way forward.
> 
> The only other comment I would make is - while there are some beautiful passages and there's a lot of adventurous invention going on - I don't think this work is on the same level as Mozart's best minor key fantasies.


C.P.E. Bach certainly was an experimenter. His music is full of surprises. That fantasy was one of his last works and is possibly the most "out there" thing he did, although I don't know anywhere near all his keyboard music. I'd agree with you that Mozart's works are more structured. We could add J.S. Bach to the mix:






As I listen that fugue again after a long time it occurs to me that Beethoven must have heard something he liked.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I remain firmly convinced that Mozart reincarnated as an atonal musical score.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> The style of the Mozart fantasia is just not that extraordinary for the genre. That's sort of what the genre is about.


But then why did so many Romantics pay homage to the work? I don't think the modern piano does a good job capturing character of the piece in a convincing manner.







stomanek said:


> Listening to the fantasy - it sounds much more improvisatory than Mozart's fantasias - if you know what I mean - there are moments when you sense the pianist is experimenting and looking for a way forward. In Mozart's best fantasies, K397,396,475 for example - there's a much tighter unity, direction and sense of structure.


Capriccio in C K395 also has lots of improvisatory passages, but Prelude and Fugue in C major K394 seems more 'refined'.
The ending of Adagio in B minor K540 creates atmosphere like that of a Field or Chopin Nocturne. Perhaps the most effective use of early fortepiano dynamics is in Sonata in A minor K310 



 . Also the introduction and conclusion of Organ Fantasy in F minor K594 are other-worldly.






btw some people seem to have this misconception that anything dark and turbulent from the classical period has to do with Sturm und Drang. But that movement ended in 1780 with various composers producing some minor-key symphonies and something like Maurerische Trauermusik K477 



 is really a piece that belongs in a different class, which makes Sturm and Drang or 'Empfindsamer Stil' works of lesser known composers look like a 'tempest in a teapot' in comparison imo.


----------



## regenmusic

Mozarts Requiem for a Thread.

I find i like Mozart, but I like him better if I turn the YouTube speed up to 1.5 I like to hear him as a fluttering complex vibrato, ever joyous and inventive. Played at the "right speed" he is a little predictable, but I have always sensed I gain something by listening to his music. I think people's brains are a little different and some types of people like Mozart, and others find him too predictable. I take a different approach, I want to hear all of him, I just want to hear it more quickly.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> Listening to the fantasy - it sounds much more improvisatory than Mozart's fantasias - if you know what I mean - there are moments when you sense the pianist is experimenting and looking for a way forward. In Mozart's best fantasies, K397,396,475 for example - there's a much tighter unity, direction and sense of structure. I dont know if this is good or bad - or perhaps Mozart was just such a genius at the KB his mind was racing ahead while he was improvising - paving a structured, musically sound way forward.
> 
> The only other comment I would make is - while there are some beautiful passages and there's a lot of adventurous invention going on - I don't think this work is on the same level as Mozart's best minor key fantasies.


I always thought fantasias are supposed to sound improvisatory - that tight unity and direction, at least the kind that's readily perceptible, are optional, if not detrimental to the spirit of the form. On this theory, paving a "structured, sound way forward" just means you're not pushing hard enough. Everyone has got a limit to what they can fully control. If you aren't pushing that, or convincing people you're pushing it, you're not in fantasy land.


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> But then why did so many Romantics pay homage to the work? I don't think the modern piano does a good job capturing character of the piece in a convincing manner.


I wasn't using extraordinary in reference to quality or aesthetic value. The fantasia was on offer as proof of Mozart as an innovator in harmonic language and form. That was the realm in which I was saying the work isn't so extraordinary.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I always thought fantasias are supposed to sound improvisatory - that tight unity and direction, at least the kind that's readily perceptible, are optional, if not detrimental to the spirit of the form. On this theory, paving a "structured, sound way forward" just means you're not pushing hard enough. Everyone has got a limit to what they can fully control. If you aren't pushing that, or convincing people you're pushing it, you're not in fantasy land.


True - but you can also push too far - and then you might just be left with a collection of unconnected ideas. One of Mozart's hallmarks is structural unity - and it may well be that even his fantasy world was limited by that discipline he had - or musical sense that everything should be just so. Still K475 in the fast passages does demonstrate some kind of uncontrollable cognitive dissonance going on before everything is brought back to order.

Fantasy land is not just about pushing the boundaries and allowing structure to fly out of the window - the nature of the themes, moods, those other worldly utterances can take one there - and this is where I think Mozart wins.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> It's a fantasia. The genre has a long tradition, as Woodduck has pointed out. CPE Bach's were just as bold. The style is supposed to be improvisatory and experimental:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The beginning of Beethoven's Op. 13 isn't particularly similar to the Mozart fantasia. The harmonic motion and progression are quite different. Beethoven's has an overall arc of rising tension to set up the coming allegro. The whole thing elaborates the dominant. It is in a style typical for portentous slow introductions, especially the dotted rhythms - overture style, not fantasia style. The Mozart, by contrast wanders harmonically by descending sequences. The progression relaxes rather than builds tension. They both use diminished harmonies extensively, but lots of fantasias do, like the Bach above. This was typical for Beethoven and Op. 13 is a conservative example of his experimentation with diminished harmonies compared to something like the Largo e mesto of Op. 10 #3.


But Mozart's predates this one by Bach by a couple years. The Pathetique doesn't need to follow it that closely to be influenced. Generally it follows a loud chord and a few soft chords pattern before a section with smoother lyrical lines. It sounds more similar to me than the 3rd piano concerto which is supposed to be modelled from Mozart's no. 24, which I still have to wrap my head around how.


----------



## Iota

Woodduck said:


> ... Mozart is typically Classical in his structural thinking, and whether his more emotionally intense moments represent any Romantically self-conscious desire to "reveal himself" is debatable.


Oh absolutely, I debate it with myself! As I said it's just a somewhat vague impression. Though I'd say even within the 'constraints' of the Classical tradition I'm not sure that personal qualities don't bubble to the surface at times, even though I know we were talking about the intent of Romantic self-revelation rather than any unwitting disclosures.

Thanks for posting that arresting/surprising CPE Bach above (#222) (brilliantly executed too by Robert Hill I think, method acting through its improvisatory nature). 
The first comment on the video about northern and southern galant styles seemed interesting, the former (of which CPE is an exponent) leading directly to Romanticism, making CPE Bach the true proto-Romantic, I don't know how widely accepted or not it is. Though I'd imagine that any attempt to latterly impose any neat starting or finishing lines on these things might end up being a pretty futile endeavour, as things don't tend to evolve neatly.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> True - but you can also push too far - and then you might just be left with a collection of unconnected ideas. One of Mozart's hallmarks is structural unity - and it may well be that even his fantasy world was limited by that discipline he had - or musical sense that everything should be just so. Still K475 in the fast passages does demonstrate some kind of uncontrollable cognitive dissonance going on before everything is brought back to order.
> 
> Fantasy land is not just about pushing the boundaries and allowing structure to fly out of the window - the nature of the themes, moods, those other worldly utterances can take one there - and this is where I think Mozart wins.


I agree with the above. But I might differ with you on the relative strangeness of the Mozart versus the CPE Fantasia I linked to. Whereas you thought the CPE was more free form and the Mozart more structured, I'm not so sure. They sound equally "out there" to me, but I will have to do more comparative listening to come to a conclusion.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> I believe that astonishing fantasia has the subtitle, "C.P.E. Bachs Empfindungen" (C.P.E. Bach's Feelings). See, Mozarteans? *You don't have to be a Romantic to have feelings. *


Absolutely. I personally find the ending of Mozart Rondo in A minor K511 more emotive than that of Chopin Ballade No.4 in F minor and Fantasia in F minor for organ K608 more than Liszt Mazeppa, Transcendental Etude No.4 in D minor.



Woodduck said:


> I say that Mozart sometimes wrote music in "quasi-baroque" style because it was not the current style of his time and not the language, so to speak, that he was born speaking, and because his use of Baroque forms and techniques, however skillful, doesn't generally produce something that we would think was written by a Baroque composer.


But then Bach was considered old-fashioned in his time and Handel died after Mozart was born. Were Bach and Handel neglecting their native language (classicism) in favor of a foreign language (baroque)?








Iota said:


> The first comment on the video about northern and southern galant styles seemed interesting, the former (of which CPE is an exponent) leading directly to Romanticism, making CPE Bach the true proto-Romantic,


But whatabout the Italian bel canto opera composers, Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini. Weren't they just as "Romantic" as the other early Romantics?

I think we shouldn't concern ourselves with semantics too much. Regardless of the objective fact Mozart inspired many Romantics,-- some people think Mozart was proto-Romantic, others don't think he was. Arguing whether he was proto-Romantic, seems like an endless quarrel over trifles to me. It doesn't really matter that much to me as long as they acknowledge Mozart was a milestone in history of music in one way or another. There were crap/good composers in every period. I care about the quality of the music and skills of the composers (which differs case by case) far more than whether or not they were romantic/classical/baroque etc.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> I agree with the above. But I might differ with you on the relative strangeness of the Mozart versus the CPE Fantasia I linked to. Whereas you thought the CPE was more free form and the Mozart more structured, I'm not so sure. They sound equally "out there" to me, but I will have to do more comparative listening to come to a conclusion.


Listening to the two fantasies - for all its strangeness or perhaps because of it I can say that the CPE I find almost incoherent. There is no sense that it is going anywhere or that it has anything to say. That's my honest opinion - though I have heard it just twice. K475 - is more than an experiment in pf improvisation - each new section seems to follow on naturally and musically from the one before - relating in some way I cannot describe to everything that has been hitherto played. And the sublime spine tingling end section starts from where the fantasy began - wringing - as far as I can perceive - every last drop of inspiration and emotion - nothing is left unsaid or unrealised. It feels complete. I was listening to the CPE for something similar but it didnt happen - the piece just fades out - I even skipped back to the start to check - maybe I missed it. I know what you're going to say - I am using K475 as a yardstick to measure the CPE. Maybe you could illuminate for me what exactly I am missing.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> But then why did so many Romantics pay homage to the work? I don't think the modern piano does a good job capturing character of the piece in a convincing manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capriccio in C K395 also has lots of improvisatory passages, but Prelude and Fugue in C major K394 seems more 'refined'.
> The ending of Adagio in B minor K540 creates atmosphere like that of a Field or Chopin Nocturne. Perhaps the most effective use of early fortepiano dynamics is in Sonata in A minor K310
> 
> 
> 
> . Also the introduction and conclusion of Organ Fantasy in F minor K594 are other-worldly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw some people seem to have this misconception that anything dark and turbulent from the classical period has to do with Sturm und Drang. But that movement ended in 1780 with various composers producing some minor-key symphonies and something like Maurerische Trauermusik K477
> 
> 
> 
> is really a piece that belongs in a different class, which makes Sturm and Drang or 'Empfindsamer Stil' works of lesser known composers look like a 'tempest in a teapot' in comparison imo.


The perf on that fortepiano with Sofronitsky playing - didnt like it - too fast at the start and her left hand sounds mechanical. People on youtube have left some flattering comments but it didnt work for me - sounds like a diploma level student playing it.


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart is one of the greatest of all time, but there's absolutely no sense of narrative in Mozart's Rondo A minor-none-when compared to the immediate emotional, narrative and story-telling appeal of Chopin's Ballade No. 4 in F minor. How clear does it have to be that there was a different intent behind each one? Nevertheless, both works are a beautiful expression of sentiment and have their own interest. They came from different worlds though both have certain qualities of creative expression and imagination... As wonderful as Mozart's Rondo is, one can hear the formal constraints that sometimes box it in that Chopin's Ballade is not inhibited by. Chopin was able to freely let himself go without those formal constraints, and that's what his gift was to the world that those with a Mozart fixation are apparently unable to understand, let alone appreciate. Both composers were geniuses in their respective worlds and brought something unique to the art.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart is one of the greatest of all times, but there's absolutely no sense of narrative in Mozart's Rondo A minor-none-when compared to the immediate emotional, narrative and story-telling appeal of Chopin's Ballade No. 4 in F minor. How clear does it have to be that there was a different intent behind each one? Nevertheless, both works are a beautiful expression of sentiment and have their own interest. But both came from different worlds though both have certain qualities of creative expression and imagination... As wonderful as Mozart's Rondo is, one can hear the formal constraints that sometimes boxes it in that Chopin's Ballade is not inhibited by. Chopin was able to freely let himself go without those formal restraints, and that's what his gift was to the world that those with a Mozart fixation are apparently unable to understand, let alone appreciated. Both composers were giants in their respective worlds and neither will be forgotten.


I know every measure and every note of Ballade No.4 in F minor Op.52- I have played it myself. Note that I said "I personally think". It doesn't matter how narrative or freely-conceived the work is. It doesn't move me like the Mozart Rondo does. If you think the Chopin Ballade is more emotive than the Mozart Rondo, that's ok. I respect your opinion. In turn, I want you respect mine. Ok? I don't need you keep telling me how Chopin is free from formal constraints. I already know, but it still doesn't move me like Mozart and Bach do. That's what's important to me. If you ask my frank opinion, he has a lot more notes, but they sound 'banal' to me. It's like using a bunch of words in a sentence and not achieving the desired effect. We talked about this earlier. Great melodists? I know how great Chopin was. I even awknowledged him as a great melodist.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart is one of the greatest of all time, but there's absolutely no sense of narrative in Mozart's Rondo A minor-none-when compared to the immediate emotional, narrative and story-telling appeal of Chopin's Ballade No. 4 in F minor. How clear does it have to be that there was a different intent behind each one? Nevertheless, both works are a beautiful expression of sentiment and have their own interest. But both came from different worlds though both have certain qualities of creative expression and imagination... As wonderful as Mozart's Rondo is, one can hear the formal constraints that sometimes box it in that Chopin's Ballade is not inhibited by. Chopin was able to freely let himself go without those formal constraints, and that's what his gift was to the world that those with a Mozart fixation are apparently unable to understand, let alone appreciate. Both composers were geniuses in their respective worlds and brought something unique to the art.


I like Chopin generally - but this Ballade I cant seem to get on with - a rambling piece.


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> But then Bach was considered old-fashioned in his time and Handel died after Mozart was born. Were Bach and Handel neglecting their native language (classicism) in favor of a foreign language (baroque)?
> 
> I think we shouldn't concern ourselves with semantics too much. Regardless of the objective fact Mozart inspired many Romantics,-- some people think Mozart was proto-Romantic, others don't think he was. Arguing whether he was proto-Romantic, seems like an endless quarrel over trifles to me.


There's good reason to apply the word "quasi-Baroque" to Mozart's essays in Baroqueness. I'm baffled as to why you object to it, especially since you claim to dislike "semantics." And no, Bach and Handel were not neglecting their native language, Classicism, since the idea that Classicism was their native language is bizarre.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Mozart is one of the greatest of all time, but there's absolutely no sense of narrative in Mozart's Rondo A minor-none-when compared to the immediate emotional, narrative and story-telling appeal of Chopin's Ballade No. 4 in F minor. How clear does it have to be that there was a different intent behind each one? ... As wonderful as Mozart's Rondo is, *one can hear the formal constraints that sometimes box it in that Chopin's Ballade is not inhibited by.* *Chopin was able to freely let himself go without those formal constraints, and that's what his gift was to the world that those with a Mozart fixation are apparently unable to understand, let alone appreciate. *


There certainly is a different intent behind the Mozart and the Chopin, but I don't think these pieces justify a judgment that Mozart is boxed in by formal constraints and that Chopin's gift to the world was dispensing with them. The implication that Mozart wanted to express emotions that his musical forms would not permit him to, while Chopin was not inhibited by formal constraints and could actually express those emotions, appears to be based on an assumption that form is essentially constraining or inhibiting. On the contrary, I think form is the essential vehicle of expression.

Composers who know what they're doing find just those forms which allow them to say what they want to say. They may even employ certain forms because they enjoy playing with form, and may not be directly concerned with what their music "says." Musical form is itself an expressive vehicle, but the idea that a composer has feelings and then looks for a form in which to express them is not even an accurate description of a Romantic artist's typical creative approach. Copland said that a composition begins, not with an inner feeling, but with an inner singing.

Classical and Romantic forms are expressive of the sensibilities of their respective eras. Chopin's forms don't represent a release from Mozart's fancied prison. And as far as Chopin is concerned, his structures are generally pretty tight-knit, as in most early Romantic music. I don't think the rambling narrative of the fourth ballade is typical of him, and frankly I think the piece's Romantic gestures would be more powerful if they were a bit more "boxed in" by large-scale formal constraints (as they are, for example, in the Ballade #1 in G minor: 



). Expressiveness can dissipate with too much freedom, like water without a glass to contain it.


----------



## tdc

stomanek said:


> It baffles me that Mozart never finished his mass. It would be like not bothering with the last mvt of Nozze di Figaro. *I can only imagine he had no financial incentive*.


And/or the work hadn't gestated long enough. Sometimes artists put down works letting them stew in the subconscious for a while until the right 'solution' comes to them, fitting the work. Whatever the reason it is a shame he never managed to finish it, however what we have of it still qualifies as a masterpiece.


----------



## regenmusic

"I need a text which stimulates me; it must be something moral, uplifting. Texts such as Mozart composed I should never have been able to set to music. I could never have got myself into a mood for licentious texts. I have received many librettos, but, as I have said, none that met my wishes." 

(Beethoven to young Gerhard von Breuning.)


----------



## jdec

regenmusic said:


> "I need a text which stimulates me; it must be something moral, uplifting. Texts such as Mozart composed I should never have been able to set to music. I could never have got myself into a mood for licentious texts. I have received many librettos, but, as I have said, none that met my wishes."
> 
> (Beethoven to young Gerhard von Breuning.)


The result was that he composed only one opera which as good as it is, is not commonly regarded as great as Mozart's best ones.

"_Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece._" - Camille Saint-Saens


----------



## KenOC

If Beethoven hadn't spent so much time on that damned opera, we might have a couple more symphonies, or another set of quartets. A very worthy trade, I say.

"Beethoven has often sacrificed the beautiful for the sake of the new and peculiar. Therefore, one should above all have expected peculiarity, novelty and a certain originality in this, his first theatrical product. But precisely these qualities are what are found the least." --1806 review


----------



## Merl

KenOC said:


> If Beethoven hadn't spent so much time on that damned opera, we might have a couple more symphonies, or another set of quartets. A very worthy trade, I say.
> 
> "Beethoven has often sacrificed the beautiful for the sake of the new and peculiar. Therefore, one should above all have expected peculiarity, novelty and a certain originality in this, his first theatrical product. But precisely these qualities are what are found the least." --1806 review


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## fliege

> I don't know. What worked for me is not to watch the operas and not to care whate they are about


I think that works well for most opera, TBH. When I find out what they're singing about I generally come away disappointed.


----------



## Jacck

fliege said:


> I think that works well for most opera, TBH. When I find out what they're singing about I generally come away disappointed.


probably true. When I started with opera, I followed the libretti and tried to understand the text, but that is very demanding - follow the music, follow the text etc. Now I just read a synopsis of the story, and enjoy the music and do not care what they sing about. I do it even with Czech opera, where I could understand the text if I paid enough attention to it (I rarely do).


----------



## WildThing

Jacck said:


> probably true. When I started with opera, I followed the libretti and tried to understand the text, but that is very demanding - follow the music, follow the text etc. Now I just read a synopsis of the story, and enjoy the music and do not care what they sing about. I do it even with Czech opera, where I could understand the text if I paid enough attention to it (I rarely do).


Yuck -- who wants to put in effort? We all know that nothing good can come from something demanding. All us opera fans who like to follow the libretto as we listen must be delusional!


----------



## Jacck

WildThing said:


> Yuck -- who wants to put in effort? We all know that nothing good can come from something demanding. All us opera fans who like to follow the libretto as we listen must be delusional!


that is not the reason why you are delusional. You are delusional because you project hostile intent on a completely neutral text.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Jacck said:


> probably true. When I started with opera, I followed the libretti and tried to understand the text, but that is very demanding - follow the music, follow the text etc. Now I just read a synopsis of the story, and enjoy the music and do not care what they sing about. I do it even with Czech opera, where I could understand the text if I paid enough attention to it (I rarely do).


I came to love the music of the Mozart operas before fully exploring the text and story. That seems silly but I was inexperienced as a listener - still the music did make more sense to me once I started going through translations of the dialogue or subtitles on video productions. I think Mozart responded to quality material - that is one reason why the Impressario is such a silly piece - the overture is fine - but the short opera is hardly worth a listen.


----------



## WildThing

Jacck said:


> that is not the reason why you are delusional. You are delusional because you project hostile intent on a completely neutral text.


I don't see any hostile intent. Just ignorance.


----------



## Jacck

WildThing said:


> I don't see any hostile intent. Just ignorance.


I am simply describing my experience with opera: that I find it easier to first absorb just the music without worrying about the text and only later, if I am interested, I will dig deeper and follow the libretto. I find it too difficult to do both at once from the beginning, so I tackle it stepwise.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> Listening to the two fantasies - for all its strangeness or perhaps because of it I can say that the CPE I find almost incoherent. There is no sense that it is going anywhere or that it has anything to say. That's my honest opinion - though I have heard it just twice. K475 - is more than an experiment in pf improvisation - each new section seems to follow on naturally and musically from the one before - relating in some way I cannot describe to everything that has been hitherto played. And the sublime spine tingling end section starts from where the fantasy began - wringing - as far as I can perceive - every last drop of inspiration and emotion - nothing is left unsaid or unrealised. It feels complete. I was listening to the CPE for something similar but it didnt happen - the piece just fades out - I even skipped back to the start to check - maybe I missed it. I know what you're going to say - I am using K475 as a yardstick to measure the CPE. Maybe you could illuminate for me what exactly I am missing.


The two works are about as different as two works in the same genre can be. The Mozart is theatrical, even operatic. It arrests you from the start with numinous, almost threatening portent. With its contrasting themes, dramatic closing material (on diminished harmony with tremolo), and formal tension, it is like the counterpart from the other direction of a sonata quasi una fantasia: a fantasia quasi una sonata. The themes are different characters retaining their own identities, played off against one another. Its expression is thrilling and extroverted.

The Bach is introverted and contemplative. One must approach it with a completely different set of expectations than for the Mozart. Its drama is subtle and encapsulated in the initial contrast between the simple chordal idea with which it starts and the florid, sequential passages that follow: a dark initial condition followed by a longing for something else, something unattainable. This section is repeated in a broadly varied form starting in B minor. The third recurring element, which follows the varied repetition, is the first of several cadenza like flurries which usually play themselves out and then collapse back into the opening chords. The initial opposition of the first two ideas, rather than being aggravated and dramatized, develops largely in the opposite direction: a series of fascinating hybrid forms, often disguised through new figurations (although there is a long passage where the harmonies of the original idea flower into a series of bold moves approaching non sequitur). This melding, variation approach along with the tendency to elide and obscure cadences, can make the work sound wandering and unstructured. But sorting out and recognizing the elements of these hybrid forms affords a rare and exquisite pleasure not found in more obviously structured forms. Here is a better performance than the one I posted (I chose the first largely because it included a scrolling score):


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> NB Looks at Edwardbast post on Mozart fantasia - HE knows what he is talking about. You never talk in this detail.


As I have said before, I consider a number of Mozart's more mature pieces as works of genius, but I certainly don't enjoy the sort of Mozart we hear so, so very often in his oeuvre - where tonic / dominant harmony dominates (almost without exception). An obvious example would be 'Papageno's Song' from 'The Magic Flute'. Even allowing for his modulation (an A major chord leading to the dominant), I, for one, am painfully reminded of 'Agadoo' by 'Black Lace' - a huge hit in the UK in 1984. This from wikipedia:

_In a poll for Q magazine in 2003, a panel of music writers voted "Agadoo" as the worst song of all time, saying: "It sounded like the school disco you were forced to attend, your middle-aged relatives forming a conga at a wedding party, a travelling DJ act based in Wolverhampton, every party cliche you ever heard."
_
Add to this Mozart's (again, relentlessly) repeated IV, V, I cadences then one can make a strong case for disliking such material.

You did ask stomanek, but if it works for you then that is fine.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> As I have said before, I consider a number of Mozart's more mature pieces as works of genius, but I certainly don't enjoy the sort of Mozart we hear so, so very often in his oeuvre - where tonic / dominant harmony dominates (almost without exception). An obvious example would be 'Papageno's Song' from 'The Magic Flute'. Even allowing for his modulation (an A major chord leading to the dominant), I, for one, am painfully reminded of 'Agadoo' by 'Black Lace' - a huge hit in the UK in 1984. This from wikipedia:
> 
> _In a poll for Q magazine in 2003, a panel of music writers voted "Agadoo" as the worst song of all time, saying: "It sounded like the school disco you were forced to attend, your middle-aged relatives forming a conga at a wedding party, a travelling DJ act based in Wolverhampton, every party cliche you ever heard."
> _
> Add to this Mozart's (again, relentlessly) repeated IV, V, I cadences then one can make a strong case for disliking such material.
> 
> You did ask stomanek, but if it works for you then that is fine.


Well here we go again.

what are you saying? - that Papageno's much beloved song from the magic flute is on par with Agadoo - a song which I agree is one of the worst in the history of pop.

You obviously have no ear for Mozart and I dont want to waste any more time on your nonsense.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> ...what are you saying? - that Papageno's much beloved song from the magic flute is on par with Agadoo...


I am saying that yes - and the harmony does equate which you didn't address.



> You obviously have no ear for Mozart


I clearly stated I do have an ear for him.



> and I dont want to waste any more time on your nonsense.


You challenged me (and rather provocatively so) for a more detailed response and nothing in your post actually counters what I said.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> As I have said before, I consider a number of Mozart's more mature pieces as works of genius, but I certainly don't enjoy the sort of Mozart we hear so, so very often in his oeuvre - where tonic / dominant harmony dominates (almost without exception). An obvious example would be 'Papageno's Song' from 'The Magic Flute'.


You criticized Mozart for the "extensive use of tonic and dominant harmony" and you bring one song from an opera of his?
Think of it this way, how else would you 'describe' the sheepishness of Papageno better with music, in a way that it is structurally contrasted with the darker side of the opera.




would this sort of chromaticism suit him better? 




it's not like modern pop music, where they use 4 chords over and over almost 100% of the time, cause they can't think of anything better.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I am saying that yes - and the harmony does equate which you didn't address.
> 
> I clearly stated I do have an ear for him.
> 
> You challenged me (and rather provocatively so) for a more detailed response and nothing in your post actually counters what I said.


As I said I am not trained in musical theory so your technical comments on Mozart's music I have no way of knowing if they are justified or not and I just go on the basis of my own aesthetic evaluative powers which are the same as everyone else's.

If you are saying Agadoo uses the same harmonic devices as the papageno aria - even if that is true - there are no other parallels. There may well be many repertoire pieces that share technical similarities with modern pop songs. I don't really know what that proves.

There are countless pulp fiction novels that share structural similarities with masterworks of the 19thC - so? Poets today also write sonnets of varying degrees of quality. Shakespeare also wrote sonnets. So? What is your point? Are you saying the bulk of Mozart's music has no more merit than a lot of pop music with which it shares certain technical similarities?

Then are Shakeseare's sonnets much less good than at once thought because so many people have replicated their style. Jane Austen's novels are no better than Barbara Cartland.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> *I consider a number of Mozart's more mature pieces as works of genius, but I certainly don't enjoy the sort of Mozart we hear so, so very often in his oeuvre* - where tonic / dominant harmony dominates (almost without exception). An obvious example would be 'Papageno's Song' from 'The Magic Flute'. Even allowing for his modulation (an A major chord leading to the dominant), I, for one, am painfully reminded of 'Agadoo' by 'Black Lace' - a huge hit in the UK in 1984. This from wikipedia:
> 
> _In a poll for Q magazine in 2003, a panel of music writers voted "Agadoo" as the worst song of all time, saying: "It sounded like the school disco you were forced to attend, your middle-aged relatives forming a conga at a wedding party, a travelling DJ act based in Wolverhampton, every party cliche you ever heard."
> _
> Add to this Mozart's (again, relentlessly) repeated IV, V, I cadences then *one can make a strong case for disliking such material.*




I fail to see why it's necessary to make a "case" for disliking something, or how acknowledging Mozart's genius and disliking some of his work are facts which need affect or qualify each other in any way. Where do we find an argument here? An argument for what?

It would seem to limit the range of one's tastes rather severely to dislike music merely because it's harmonically simple.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I've heard many great musicians and composers say that the person whose ear matters most, is the untrained one. So those of us who would play the fly if it landed on the score (legend of Harry James' sight reading abilities), and those of us who can't even snap in time need not dictate which arguments on what "sounds great" are valid. I can hardly take a decent picture of my family, but that doesn't mean I cannot appreciate what Stanley Kubrick did. 

I'm a musician, I can look at a score and follow along well enough, but I'm by no means going to go into it at a Leonard Bernstein level. I liked Mozart before I knew the names of the instruments he was being played on. I appreciated the sounds I heard, and the feelings I felt while listening.


----------



## Phil loves classical

WildThing said:


> Yuck -- who wants to put in effort? We all know that nothing good can come from something demanding. All us opera fans who like to follow the libretto as we listen must be delusional!


I find the music in some operas hard to follow without referencing the libretto to know what is going on in the plot, like Verdi's Otello, and others. You would hear a cymbal crash and hollering after a quiet passage seemingly out of nowhere. Even with Puccini this can happen outside of the arias. With Mozart it's no problem the musical numbers are more tightly structured into separate arias, duets, recitatives, etc. and generally don't have sudden, huge changes in dynamics.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> [/B]
> 
> I fail to see why it's necessary to make a "case" for disliking something, or how acknowledging Mozart's genius and disliking some of his work are facts which need affect or qualify each other in any way. Where do we find an argument here? An argument for what?
> 
> It would seem to limit the range of one's tastes rather severely to dislike music merely because it's harmonically simple.


You may have a point regarding my (possible) limited taste range. I'll have a bit of a think before responding properly.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Phil loves classical said:


> I find the music in some operas hard to follow without referencing the libretto to know what is going on in the plot, like Verdi's Otello, and others. You would hear a cymbal crash and hollering after a quiet passage seemingly out of nowhere. Even with Puccini this can happen outside of the arias. With Mozart it's no problem the musical numbers are more tightly structured into separate arias, duets, recitatives, etc. and generally don't have sudden, huge changes in dynamics.


Totally agree... for me, I need to know the plot of an opera before I can actually just sit and listen to it. Otherwise, it can bore me quickly or leave me in confusion due to the details you mentioned.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> [/B]
> 
> I fail to see why it's necessary to make a "case" for disliking something, or how acknowledging Mozart's genius and disliking some of his work are facts which need affect or qualify each other in any way. Where do we find an argument here? An argument for what?
> 
> It would seem to limit the range of one's tastes rather severely to dislike music merely because it's harmonically simple.


Music that has a high degree of originality is preferable to the obverse is it not? Saturating your work with repeated chord progressions (that are already commonly used by others) dilutes the impact does it not? You've mentioned subtleties but perhaps that's not always enough to cover this up. I guess it's possible that some don't perceive such chord progressions in the same way that I and others do.

Mozart had a crust to earn and his output would have been decimated had he rejected what I perceive as banal.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Music that has a high degree of originality is preferable to the obverse is it not? Saturating your work with repeated chord progressions (that are already commonly used by others) dilutes the impact does it not?


But Mozart didn't saturate his work with repeated chord progressions and didn't dilute his impact on history of music




_"I owe very, very much to Mozart; and if one studies, for instance, the way in which I write for string quartet, then one cannot deny that I have learned this directly from Mozart. And I am proud of it!"_

_"An anonymous early reviewer, writing in Cramer's Magazin der Musik in 1789, gave a judgment characteristic of reaction to Mozart's music at the time, namely that the works were inspired, but too complex and difficult to enjoy:

Mozart's works do not in general please quite so much [as those of Kozeluch] ... [Mozart's] six quartets for violins, viola, and bass dedicated to Haydn confirm ... that he has a decided leaning towards the difficult and the unusual. But then, what great and elevated ideas he has too, testifying to a bold spirit!
Giuseppe Sarti later published an attack against the "Dissonance" quartet, describing sections as "barbarous", "execrable", and "miserable" in its use of whole-tone clusters and chromatic extremes. Around this same time, Fétis printed a revision of the opening of the "Dissonance" quartet, implying that Mozart had made errors. When the publishers, Artaria, sent the quartets to Italy for publication, they were returned with the report "the engraving is full of mistakes". However, Heinrich Christoph Koch noted that these works were praiseworthy for "their mixture of strict and free styles and the treatment of harmony". Favorable reports of the quartets came soon after their publication from newspapers in Salzburg and Berlin. In the early 19th century, Jérôme-Joseph de Momigny wrote an extended analysis of No. 15 in D minor, K. 421. Momigny used the setting of text based on Dido's Lament to discuss the emotional and expressive qualities of the first movement of this work."_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Quartets_(Mozart)#Critical_reception


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Music that has a high degree of originality is preferable to the obverse is it not?* Saturating your work with repeated chord progressions (that are already commonly used by others) dilutes the impact does it not?* You've mentioned subtleties but perhaps that's not always enough to cover this up. I guess it's possible that some don't perceive such chord progressions in the same way that I and others do.
> 
> Mozart had a crust to earn and his output would have been decimated had he rejected what I perceive as banal.


I dont know how far true it is the Mozart dilutes his work with chord progressions. Perhaps Wooduck or Edwardbast could comment on this statement. How far true is it and how far valid is it as a criticism if true.

Let's say it's true - how would Mozart's music be if he did not saturate his music with chord progressions? For example - if say, PC 23 is saturated with chord progressions - it seems to me - this strategy is a good thing because it produces, in Mozart's hands at least - wonderful music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

stomanek said:


> I dont know how far true it is the Mozart dilutes his work with chord progressions. Perhaps Wooduck or Edwardbast could comment on this statement. How far true is it and how far valid is it as a criticism if true.
> 
> Let's say it's true - how would Mozart's music be if he did not saturate his music with chord progressions? For example - if say, PC 23 is saturated with chord progressions - it seems to me - this strategy is a good thing because it produces, in Mozart's hands at least - wonderful music.


Based on some of his posts, I think janxharris is saying that Mozart's music is made up of repetitions of the same chord progressions, like the 4 chords of pop music. 



As expected for his time, Mozart is firmly rooted in tonal music. As explained by Bernstein, 



 balance and contrast are important elements of the music of this period. Arguing how Mozart lacks in atonal or polytonal elements just seems absurd to me. It's like complaining how Bach's orchestration is not richly varied as Ravel's or how boring or dry his counterpoint is to one's subjective taste, without acknowledging his master craftsmanship and the level of impact he had on music history.
You could apply the same argument to many the early Romantics using the same bag of tricks too, as I have done in Great melodists?

This harmonic analysis on the 1st movement of the 20th concerto shows how much harmonic variety, richness there is in the single movement alone.




I think one good thing about Mozart is that he doesn't spam his chromaticism. He uses it where it is appropriate, and when he does, he uses it as effectively as possible.
_"The 24th opens with a truly remarkable theme. It sounds as though it might have been composed 150 years later, with, what was for Mozart's day, an outrageously chromatic melody that uses all 12 notes of the chromatic scale. So unique is it that in 1953 the German composer Giselher Klebe (1925 - 2009) used it as a tone row in his 12-tone Symphony for Strings. And yet, it's stunningly moving, hauntingly beautiful in a dark and numinous way... Several year later, Beethoven commented to a composer friend during a performance of this Concerto that they "would never be able to write anything like that," so envious were they of its mastery and mystery. Indeed, audiences have been as beguiled by it ever since."_ https://www.musicprogramnotes.com/mozart-piano-concerto-no-24-in-c-minor-k491/


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I dont know how far true it is the Mozart dilutes his work with chord progressions. Perhaps Wooduck or Edwardbast could comment on this statement. How far true is it and how far valid is it as a criticism if true.
> 
> Let's say it's true - how would Mozart's music be if he did not saturate his music with chord progressions? For example - if say, PC 23 is saturated with chord progressions - it seems to me - this strategy is a good thing because it produces, in Mozart's hands at least - wonderful music.


There is a grain of factual truth in Janx's complaint. Composers of this era shared a common harmonic language and the same sequences of harmonies can be heard in the music of many composers. A lot of these common progressions are relatively simple by the standards of late 19thc and 20thc music and they tend to be frequently repeated within and among works. Is this a meaningful criticism of Mozart? No, because he was composing in the late 18thc(!), because he used the common language with uncommon skill and imagination, and because inventing novel progressions just wasn't a central aesthetic focus at that time. In short, Janx's complaint just means Janx doesn't like the style of the High Classical Era. He's bringing foreign, anachronistic values to bear.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with not liking Mozart because one has a taste for more modern harmony. But I don't see the point in criticizing Mozart because he didn't compose in a style that didn't exist in his day.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> There is a grain of factual truth in Janx's complaint. Composers of this era shared a common harmonic language and the same sequences of harmonies can be heard in the music of many composers. A lot of these common progressions are relatively simple by the standards of late 19thc and 20thc music and they tend to be frequently repeated within and among works. Is this a meaningful criticism of Mozart? No, because he was composing in the late 18thc(!), because he used the common language with uncommon skill and imagination, and because inventing novel progressions just wasn't a central aesthetic focus at that time. In short, Janx's complaint just means Janx doesn't like the style of the High Classical Era. He's bringing foreign, anachronistic values to bear.
> 
> Of course, there's nothing wrong with not liking Mozart because one has a taste for more modern harmony. But I don't see the point in criticizing Mozart because he didn't compose in a style that didn't exist in his day.


Yes - it does seem weird and he does seem to have a thing about chord progressions and certain cadences. But that's like saying Shakespeare is limited because he used iambic pentameter in his plays - forgetting the magic of the figurative language, rhyme, allusion etc.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> There is a grain of factual truth in Janx's complaint. Composers of this era shared a common harmonic language and the same sequences of harmonies can be heard in the music of many composers. A lot of these common progressions are relatively simple by the standards of late 19thc and 20thc music and they tend to be frequently repeated within and among works. Is this a meaningful criticism of Mozart? No, because he was composing in the late 18thc(!), because he used the common language with uncommon skill and imagination, and because inventing novel progressions just wasn't a central aesthetic focus at that time. In short, Janx's complaint just means Janx doesn't like the style of the High Classical Era. He's bringing foreign, anachronistic values to bear.
> 
> Of course, there's nothing wrong with not liking Mozart because one has a taste for more modern harmony. But I don't see the point in criticizing Mozart because he didn't compose in a style that didn't exist in his day.


Yes, but what still leaves me baffled; I occasionally see janxharris defending modern pop music on TC (genre of music that is mostly characterized by simplest repetitions of chord progressions and lack of development and structure 



) 
which makes me wonder "what's he thinking? Does he think Mozart is even worse than modern pop music?" I'm trying to understand his musical tastes, at the same time it leaves me baffled how one can praise modern pop music but criticize Mozart for use of chord progressions.

janxharris criticizes Mozart for 'tonic and dominant' cadences but seriously, look at the number of times Bach ends his pieces with picardy thirds and pedal points in WTC. Does that make WTC a formulaic work? NO. 
As much as I praise Schumann's melodies in his symphonies and piano concerto, I recognize how texturally simple they are compared to Mozart's. I think one should think twice before blaming Mozart for simplicity, by comparing with other composers around his time period. Mozart is probably among the last composers of his time who should be blamed for being formulaic.






I find Mozart's style richly varied. He has good command of other styles such as in Fugue in G minor K401, while I know some people apparently like to diminish this stuff by saying things like "it's not that amazing, it's a good 'copy' of the baroque style." etc. But trust me, there were lots and lots of composers after Bach and Handel who couldn't even do it this good-- 'Copying' is also a valuable skill. There were composers who failed to meet the expectations and standards set by their predecessors cause they just weren't skillful enough to 'copy' them.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Music that has a high degree of originality is preferable to the obverse is it not? Saturating your work with repeated chord progressions (that are already commonly used by others) dilutes the impact does it not? You've mentioned subtleties but perhaps that's not always enough to cover this up. I guess it's possible that some don't perceive such chord progressions in the same way that I and others do.
> 
> Mozart had a crust to earn and his output would have been decimated had he rejected what I perceive as banal.


You've received a number of good, thoughtful responses to this. Mine will be to say simply that you are desperately rationalizing your tastes. Don't. You like harmony more complex than was prevalent during Mozart's time, and you think this indicates a deficiency on his part. It doesn't. Complexity is of no value for its own sake. When Mozart needed more harmonic complexity, he wrote more complex harmony. But that doesn't make the music better or more "original." Moreover, originality, like complexity, is of no value for its own sake. Read the quote beneath EdwardBast's posts: _"Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people." _Mozart was more than talented, everyone knew it already, and being original was not the motivation for his harmonic choices. He wanted to write excellent music. He did so. If you don't like it, don't blame him for not meeting your personal standards for what's interesting. Listen for what's there, not for what you wish were there. You may still not be satisfied, but it's a start.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> You've received a number of good, thoughtful responses to this. Mine will be to say simply that you are desperately rationalizing your tastes. Don't. You like harmony more complex than was prevalent during Mozart's time, and you think this indicates a deficiency on his part. It doesn't. Complexity is of no value for its own sake. When Mozart needed more harmonic complexity, he wrote more complex harmony. But that doesn't make the music better or more "original." Moreover, originality, like complexity, is of no value for its own sake. Read the quote beneath EdwardBast's posts: _*"Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people."* _Mozart was more than talented, everyone knew it already, and being original was not the motivation for his harmonic choices. He wanted to write excellent music. He did so. If you don't like it, don't blame him for not meeting your personal standards for what's interesting. Listen for what's there, not for what you wish were there. You may still not be satisfied, but it's a start.


And there is that quip I've heard attributed to an old Dutch master: "He painted it his own way because he didn't know how to do it right."


----------



## Luchesi

I assume that Mozart composed for his public reputation with less dissonance than he did when he was privately commissioned to express himself in quartets, for example.

I don't know. I would have to look at each, case-by-case. And of course it gets complicated because he developed a slightly new 'sound' through the decades. His early use of dissonance is almost nonexistent. 'Just suspensions.

As we know dissonance is a relative thing. What would be wildly dissonant in those years would just be curious to us today.


----------



## geralmar

Captainnumber36 said:


> I represent the Romantics/Impressionists/Emotionally driven music and Mozart is the antithesis of all I stand for musically. I plan to put a band together with me fronting it of bass, drums and piano (me) of all my instrumental pop compositions. I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


I remain a bit confused: Is "Mozart is My Enemy" supposed to be the name of your band?


----------



## JeffD

Captainnumber36 said:


> I for one enjoy what I am attempting to do!


That is all that matters. Enjoy it. Life is so damn short and health is always fleeting. Do what you like. Its legal everywhere.

It is irrelevant what others think or do not think. Or even if they hear it or do not hear it. Do it. Do it. Do it till you're satisfied.


----------



## janxharris

Woodduck said:


> You've received a number of good, thoughtful responses to this. Mine will be to say simply that you are desperately rationalizing your tastes. Don't. You like harmony more complex than was prevalent during Mozart's time, and you think this indicates a deficiency on his part. It doesn't. Complexity is of no value for its own sake. When Mozart needed more harmonic complexity, he wrote more complex harmony. But that doesn't make the music better or more "original." Moreover, originality, like complexity, is of no value for its own sake. Read the quote beneath EdwardBast's posts: _"Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people." _Mozart was more than talented, everyone knew it already, and being original was not the motivation for his harmonic choices. He wanted to write excellent music. He did so. If you don't like it, don't blame him for not meeting your personal standards for what's interesting. Listen for what's there, not for what you wish were there. You may still not be satisfied, but it's a start.


I don't think it has anything to do with such supposed rationalizing. Repeating harmonic progressions without something happening melodically leaves me free to deem a passage as practically plagiaristic. Since we both agree on Mozart's genius but do not find him as a favourite then I'm not sure what the issue is.



> Originality is a device untalented people use to impress other untalented people and to protect themselves from talented people.


This quote is obviously unsupportable since it does not distinguish the genuine from the not so. A strong case may be made, however, that unoriginal music of the sort we agree occurred in the 18th century is objectively bad music. Who wants to keep hearing phrases and passages one has heard previously, whether in the current work or in other works of the period?


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with such supposed rationalizing. Repeating harmonic progressions without something happening melodically leaves me free to deem a passage as practically plagiaristic. Since we both agree on Mozart's genius but do not find him as a favourite then I'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> This quote is obviously unsupportable since it does not distinguish the genuine from the not so. A strong case may be made, however, that unoriginal music of the sort we agree occurred in the 18th century is objectively bad music. Who wants to keep hearing phrases and passages one has heard previously, whether in the current work or in other works of the period?


I agree with Woodduck that you are "desperately rationalizing your tastes." In some obvious sense the statements you make about Mozart's music are not _why_ you dislike the music (or like it much less than others). Mozart is one of the most beloved composers consistently rated as a favorite by high percentages of listeners, yet they hear the same aspects of his music as you do.

I dislike country music, am bored by golf, and hate alcoholic drinks. I could probably find aspects of those things that differ from things I enjoy, but a true explanation would require a much deeper understanding of brain processes specific to me. You don't like Mozart. Fine. Most here do, but plenty do not. I may be misunderstanding your purpose on this thread, but you give the impression that you have found aspects of Mozart's music that _ought to make everyone dislike Mozart_. Clearly that's not the case. You might as well criticize a great painter for using too much blue or green.

I may be mistaking your purpose, but why work so hard to convince others that there is an objective reason that Mozart's music is flawed and people should not like that music as much as they do? Do you believe that we will read what you say, think a bit more about it, and suddenly have an epiphany - "Aha, I've been mistaken my whole life! Of course, I don't like Mozart."


----------



## Phil loves classical

janxharris said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with such supposed rationalizing. Repeating harmonic progressions without something happening melodically leaves me free to deem a passage as practically plagiaristic. Since we both agree on Mozart's genius but do not find him as a favourite then I'm not sure what the issue is.
> 
> This quote is obviously unsupportable since it does not distinguish the genuine from the not so. A strong case may be made, however, that unoriginal music of the sort we agree occurred in the 18th century is objectively bad music. Who wants to keep hearing phrases and passages one has heard previously, whether in the current work or in other works of the period?


I can sympathize with Janx regarding earlier Mozart. Some of the stuff he wrote at the time was not really creative, and sort of run of the mill. Like this symphony, which I do think has some banal lines. Does it really need to be heard or performed today? Not really in my view, when his other contemporaries like CPE Bach, Salieri and Michael Haydn are as obscure as they are.






So that I don't give the wrong impression, Mozart is one of my fave composers. I listen to his piano concertos #22 and 27 more than anything else, and feel they are inimitable and endlessly creative.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> I agree with Woodduck that you are "desperately rationalizing your tastes." In some obvious sense the statements you make about Mozart's music are not _why_ you dislike the music (or like it much less than others). Mozart is one of the most beloved composers consistently rated as a favorite by high percentages of listeners, yet they hear the same aspects of his music as you do.
> 
> I dislike country music, am bored by golf, and hate alcoholic drinks. I could probably find aspects of those things that differ from things I enjoy, but a true explanation would require a much deeper understanding of brain processes specific to me. You don't like Mozart. Fine. Most here do, but plenty do not. I may be misunderstanding your purpose on this thread, but you give the impression that you have found aspects of Mozart's music that _ought to make everyone dislike Mozart_. Clearly that's not the case. You might as well criticize a great painter for using too much blue or green.
> 
> I may be mistaking your purpose, but why work so hard to convince others that there is an objective reason that Mozart's music is flawed and people should not like that music as much as they do? Do you believe that we will read what you say, think a bit more about it, and suddenly have an epiphany - "Aha, I've been mistaken my whole life! Of course, I don't like Mozart."


Your assertion than I 'don't like Mozart' is false mmsbls. With respect, I don't think you have been following closely. I certainly don't like a lot of it though.

Though I don't think that my arguments _ought to make everyone dislike Mozart_, I am often surprised that the issue isn't raised by others as problematic. I'm not sure that citing a painter's overuse of a particular colour is appropriate.

I am not working harking hard to convince anyone mmsbls - rather, I am simply responding to posts that are skeptical of my argument.

Quite simply, it irritates me to be listening to a particular work of Mozart (or any other composer of the period) only to find I am hearing a phrase or progression I have heard myriad times before. I don't have a problem if others aren't bothered by such moments.


----------



## Luchesi

I'm enjoying reading both sides of this issue. I would say the same thing about Renaissance music.

Phil, Mozart was only how old in 1770? So that's unfair.

Medieval and Renaissance music to me are quite too predictable. There are a FEW exceptions, of course.

Added: 
We have to remember that in those olden times people weren't analyzing music for music theory accomplishments and they surely weren't buying recordings to listen to over and over. The music was more of a background for other activities, religious and secular.

Even in Mozart's time we have images of crowds enjoying much of his music as a background, a social happening, a night on the town. How seriously did the aristocracy take music?


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Your assertion than I 'don't like Mozart' is false mmsbls. With respect, I don't think you have been following closely. I certainly don't like a lot of it though.
> 
> Though I don't think that my arguments _ought to make everyone dislike Mozart_,* I am often surprised that the issue isn't raised by others as problematic.* I'm not sure that citing a painter's overuse of a particular colour is appropriate.
> 
> I am not working harking hard to convince anyone mmsbls - rather, I am simply responding to posts that are skeptical of my argument.
> 
> Quite simply, it irritates me to be listening to a particular work of Mozart (or any other composer of the period) only to find I am hearing a phrase or progression I have heard myriad times before. I don't have a problem if others aren't bothered by such moments.


Maybe because that's because nobody here but you sees it as a problem.

Clearly it does bother you that such a large number of us dont throw our hands up in dismay when Mozart uses a chord progression or cadence he has used before. You think that other composers dont repeat themselves? Listen to some Mahler or Tchaikovsky or Brahms - even Beethoven. And Verdi of course - oomp pah pah.

As others have pointed out but which you ignore - Mozart employed common musical language uncommonly well. Im sorry but the way he used those chord progressions, cadences and chords 3, iv v vi (or whatever) sound pretty good to me. Its a great shame that of those composers who followed Mozart and had at their disposal a greater range of harmonic language and techniques only a very few could get anywhere near him. You may not agree with that statement - but it's a widely held view in the world of classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> I'm enjoying reading both sides of this issue. I would say the same thing about Renaissance music.
> 
> Phil, Mozart was only how old in 1770? So that's unfair.
> 
> Medieval and Renaissance music to me are quite too predictable. There are a FEW exceptions, of course.
> 
> Added:
> We have to remember that in those olden times people weren't analyzing music for music theory accomplishments and they surely weren't buying recordings to listen to over and over. The music was more of a background for other activities, religious and secular.
> 
> Even in Mozart's time we have images of crowds enjoying much of his music as a background, a social happening, a night on the town. How seriously did the aristocracy take music?


Teen or not, should that Mozart symphony be heard more than this?


----------



## Larkenfield

A few comments. There has been controversy over the years about the true authorship of Mozart's 11th Symphony, and as a longtime Mozart devotee, I personally do not accept that it was written by him when his earlier symphonies sounded far superior.

The work is believed to have been written in 1770, when the Austrian composer was 14 years old. For a long time, the work was considered composed by Mozart unquestionably, but its status has been challenged in 2008 because 19th-century copies of the score attribute it respectively to Leopold Mozart, father of the composer, and to Carl Dittersdorf, the Austrian composer, violinist and silvologist.

No wonder some listeners repeatedly downgrade some of Mozart's early works as perhaps unworthy when he may not have written them at all, and his so-called 11th Symphony is a good example. It sounds tired, dull and bogus, like a very conventional symphony written by somebody else, and I do not accept it as authentic. It's known that Mozart studied works and had manuscripts of other composers and sometimes they've been attributed to him by those who really should be able to hear or tell the difference.

Mozart Symphony No. 4, written at the age of nine, is entirely genuine, sounds like him, and was written five years earlier than his supposed 11th. Or is one to assume that he became less talented as a composer of genius five years later to the one he was at nine? I don't think so. His genuine symphonies show ideally crafted works of grace, balance and inventiveness, full of spark and sparkle, the sudden changes from major to minor keys, their bubbling rhythmic propulsiveness, etc. etc. Even at nine, he was already one of the finest composers in Europe.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Maybe because that's because nobody here but you sees it as a problem.


Perhaps you missed Phil loves classical's post.



> Clearly it does bother you that such a large number of us dont throw our hands up in dismay when Mozart uses a chord progression or cadence he has used before. You think that other composers dont repeat themselves? Listen to some Mahler or Tchaikovsky or Brahms - even Beethoven. And Verdi of course - oomp pah pah.


You are accusing me of lying? I am totally at peace with people loving Mozart. Of course other composers repeat themselves though this thread is focused on Mozart.



> As others have pointed out but which you ignore - Mozart employed common musical language uncommonly well. Im sorry but the way he used those chord progressions, cadences and chords 3, iv v vi (or whatever) sound pretty good to me. Its a great shame that of those composers who followed Mozart and had at their disposal a greater range of harmonic language and techniques only a very few could get anywhere near him. You may not agree with that statement - but it's a widely held view in the world of classical music.


FWIW, from what I have heard thus far from the period, Mozart is way above the rest in my opinion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Larkenfield said:


> A few comments. There has been controversy over the years about the true authorship of Mozart's 11th Symphony, and as a longtime Mozart devotee, I personally do not accept that it was written by him when his earlier symphonies sounded far superior.
> 
> The work is believed to have been written in 1770, when the Austrian composer was 14 years old. For a long time, the work was considered composed by Mozart unquestionably, but its status has been challenged in 2008 because 19th-century copies of the score attribute it respectively to Leopold Mozart, father of the composer, and to Carl Dittersdorf, the Austrian composer, violinist and silvologist.
> 
> No wonder some listeners repeatedly downgrade some of Mozart's early works as perhaps unworthy when he may not have written them at all, and his so-called 11th Symphony is a good example. It sounds tired, dull and bogus, like a very conventional symphony written by somebody else, and I do not accept it as authentic. It's known that Mozart studied works and had manuscripts of other composers and sometimes they've been attributed to him by those who really can't hear the difference.
> 
> Mozart Symphony No. 4, written at the age of nine, is entirely genuine, sounds like him, and written five years earlier than his supposed 11th. Or is one to assume that he became less talented as a composer of genius five years later to the one he was at nine? I don't think so.


Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a controversy over the authorship. But the fact it is recorded more often than CPE Bach, Salieri, or not to mention M. Arnold's and Schnittke's symphonies and others still seems a bit "unfair" to me.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Perhaps you missed Phil loves classical's post.
> 
> You are accusing me of lying? I am totally at peace with people loving Mozart. Of course other composers repeat themselves though this thread is focused on Mozart.
> 
> FWIW, from what I have heard thus far from the period, Mozart is way above the rest in my opinion.


Phil's post refers to Mozart's juvenelia - childhood compositions. Its completely different from what you are saying as you include many mature pieces as works you consider unimaginative and ridden with cliches of the time. He also says nothing about chord progressions etc.

*Some of the stuff he wrote at the time was not really creative, and sort of run of the mill.*

Much of the childhood compositions are not good compared with his mature works. Though again - there are some superb examples from the early years.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> Teen or not, should that Mozart symphony be heard more than this?


Mature Salieri even at his best is barely worth Mozart's most commonplace early works the same goes for the bulk of composers from that era


----------



## tdc

When I'm listening to Mozart I am generally too dazzled by his constant stream of seemingly effortless genius musical ideas to take much notice in similarities of chord progressions. It is a non issue. I was listening to Alicia de Larrocha play the Piano Sonatas last evening and felt that I was certainly listening to some of the finest music ever composed.


----------



## Phil loves classical

stomanek said:


> Mature Salieri even at his best is barely worth Mozart's most commonplace early works the same goes for the bulk of composers from that era


Schaffer created the myth that Mozart at his worst is better than Salieri and the "mediocre" others at their best. David Wright says Salieri is superior to Mozart, I'm sure he was exaggerating or just plain biased there, but he is not alone in praising some of Salieri's works over the least of Mozart's


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> *Schaffer created the myth that Mozart at his worst is better than Salieri and the "mediocre" others at their best. *David Wright says Salieri is superior to Mozart, I'm sure he was exaggerating or just plain biased there, but he is not alone in praising some of Salieri's works over the least of Mozart's


I didn't take that from Amadeus so not too sure how you reached that conclusion.

Who is David Wright? I know there are people on youtube who leave comments under a Salieri overture along the lines "Better than any Mozart!"

Fair enough if that is what they believe.


----------



## Phil loves classical

stomanek said:


> I didn't take that from Amadeus so not too sure how you reached that conclusion.
> 
> Who is David Wright? I know there are people on youtube who leave comments under a Salieri overture along the lines "Better than any Mozart!"
> 
> Fair enough if that is what they believe.


Dr. David Wright is a composer, critic for MusicWebInternational.

https://www.wrightmusic.net/


----------



## Larkenfield

Phil loves classical said:


> Dr. David Wright is a composer, critic for MusicWebInternational.
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/


Mr. Wright has often been Mr. Wrong about the composers he so casually dismisses. Quote:

"Chopin is certainly not a great composer since he is a very limited composer. All his works involve the piano and he did not write anything for the stage, string quartets or symphonies. In fact, his orchestral writing has been universally condemned as very poor which it is.

"He has often been portrayed as the delightful, dashing, handsome young man of the keyboard and as a perfect gentleman. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was an extreme dandy, a narcissist, a man with an outrageous temper, psychological problems; he was a manic depressive and had other personality disorders and an overwhelming hatred of Jews. This is recorded in many of the books written about him and also shown in some of his letters, which are also published and can be purchased."

Just priceless.

Of course, there's no mention of Chopin's tuberculosis which often exacerbated his irritability, fatigue, temperamental outbursts, melancholy, and depressions.

Chopin's orchestrations, while certainly not beyond criticism, have not been "universally condemned". Wright has no appreciation or understanding that Chopin deliberately wrote them that way so he would be at the absolute center of attention in his concertos with his refined but less powerful sound than, say, someone like Franz Liszt.

'Chopin composed six known works for piano and orchestra before he turned 25 years old. Many of these were written as assignments for Jozef Elsner, his composition teacher at the Main School of Music in Warsaw. Though Chopin did not compose many works for piano and orchestra, he kept these works in his concert repertoire throughout his career.'

And they are still being played today because of the brilliance of the idiomatic writing for piano that was unprecedented at the time for its poetry, technical brilliance, and refinement.

The rest of Wright's criticism consists of an ad hominem attack on Chopin's character, though the Pole certainly wasn't beyond reproach, but he lived with George Sand for 10 years despite the unhappy break-up at the end. Adding to Mr. Wright's duplicity is of course his glowing praise of Wagner as a composer who was far more systematically anti-semitic than Chopin could have ever been. But, naturally, Wagner wrote works on a larger scale and evidently that's enough to satisfy Mr. Wright.

Overall, Harold C. Schonberg is far more astute and reliable as a music critic and historian, such as his classic _The Lives of the Great Composers,_ which devotes an entire lengthy chapter to the genius of Frederick Chopin.


----------



## Woodduck

janxharris said:


> Quite simply, it irritates me to be listening to a particular work of Mozart (or any other composer of the period) only to find *I am hearing a phrase or progression I have heard myriad times before.* I don't have a problem if others aren't bothered by such moments.


This would be at least equally true of nearly all music written before Beethoven, and as noted it's less true of Mozart than of most of his contemporaries. If you think Mozart relies on stock devices, try Schutz or Palestrina!

The idea that a work of art should be unlike anything done before is quite recent in history.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> (Quoting Wright on Chopin): "He was an extreme dandy, a narcissist, a man with an outrageous temper, psychological problems; he was a manic depressive and had other personality disorders and an overwhelming hatred of Jews. This is recorded in many of the books written about him and also shown in some of his letters, which are also published and can be purchased."


Anybody who criticizes music because of the composer's personality or opinions is a lousy critic and no musicologist at all.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> Your assertion than I 'don't like Mozart' is false mmsbls. With respect, I don't think you have been following closely. I certainly don't like a lot of it though.


Sorry if I misunderstood what you have said. Would it be fair to say:



mmsbls said:


> ...you dislike the music (*or like it much less than others*).


I assumed that from statements such as:



janxharris said:


> Add to this Mozart's (again, relentlessly) repeated IV, V, I cadences then one can make a strong case for disliking such material.


But OK, you like some of Mozart's music and dislike some of Mozart's music. You say you are "often surprised that the issue (repeated use of a phrase or progression) isn't raised by others as problematic." Given how so many people adore Mozart's music, are you ever surprised that _you_ don't like it more?


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood what you have said.


No problem.



> Would it be fair to say: (or like it much less than others).


I actually consider the best of Mozart to be above anything I have heard thus far from the period.



> But OK, you like some of Mozart's music and dislike some of Mozart's music. You say you are "often surprised that the issue (repeated use of a phrase or progression) isn't raised by others as problematic." Given how so many people adore Mozart's music, are you ever surprised that _you_ don't like it more?


I'm not surprised, no.

I consider Mozart's 40th symphony and the slow movement from the 23rd piano concerto as works of genius. I even quite like some of his Jupiter symphony.

Some of the Requiem is sublime too, imho.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> No problem.
> 
> I actually consider the best of Mozart to be above anything I have heard thus far from the period.
> 
> I'm not surprised, no.
> 
> *I consider Mozart's 40th symphony and the slow movement from the 23rd piano concerto as works of genius. I even quite like some of his Jupiter symphony.
> *
> Some of the Requiem is sublime too, imho.


This is a quite common strategy of Mozart critics.

They find a handful of works they do like to lend credibility to their view that the bulk of the composers output is not worth listening to. You cite 3 works - not even whole works. I dont think that liking these pieces supports your claim to liking Mozart. I like Debussy La Mer - its a phenomenal work - no chord progressions - brilliant. But overall I do not like Debussy - I think his piano music is pretty much lame. And it is clear you really do not like Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Anybody who criticizes music because of the composer's personality or opinions is a lousy critic and no musicologist at all.


When a guy like Wright can say about Mozart, "Neither is there any subtlety to his music" you can bet he has not only a tin ear, but a cloth ear (and every other sort of ear apart from musical ear) as well!


----------



## PlaySalieri

I am reading David Wright's oddly skewed and opinionated write up on Mozart.

I cant copy and paste from his article but he is wrong on many accounts. Not least that the haffner sy repeats material from the haffner serenade. It does not! He also claims Die Entfurung became popular not because it is good but because it is different. He focuses a lot on Mozart's crude humour - humour of the times of course. 

There's more - still going through it.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> This is a quite common strategy of Mozart critics.
> 
> They find a handful of works they do like to lend credibility to their view that the bulk of the composers output is not worth listening to. You cite 3 works - not even whole works. I dont think that liking these pieces supports your claim to liking Mozart. I like Debussy La Mer - its a phenomenal work - no chord progressions - brilliant. But overall I do not like Debussy - I think his piano music is pretty much lame. And it is clear you really do not like Mozart.


I do not understand the point of this post. There's no 'strategy'. I've stated what I like and what I don't. You're engaging in semantics.

Debussy's piano music is pretty lame? Seriously?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a controversy over the authorship. But the fact it is recorded more often than CPE Bach, Salieri, or not to mention M. Arnold's and Schnittke's symphonies and others still seems a bit "unfair" to me.






But then there are more obscure works by Mozart I consider superior and underrated compared other composers' popular works. For example, I consider the Credo-Sanctus-Benedictus of Mozart's Missa Solemnis in C K337 



 more inspired and skillfully written than Salieri's entire Requiem in C minor. Salieri's Requiem gets over a million views on youtube (in total) whereas Mozart's K337 gets like only 1/10 of that and this seems "unfair" to me. The keywords, "Salieri + Requiem" just seem like an attention grabber and free ticket to achieve popularity in the case of Salieri's Requiem in C minor; I can't help but think he's being "carried".
As for CPE Bach, you could also argue he's not getting the popularity he deserves cause everyone is just too enthusiastic about how his own father is superior to him.



Phil loves classical said:


> Schaffer created the myth that Mozart at his worst is better than Salieri and the "mediocre" others at their best. David Wright says Salieri is superior to Mozart, I'm sure he was exaggerating or just plain biased there, but he is not alone in praising some of Salieri's works over the least of Mozart's


I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)

He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than either of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)

When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri. 
"Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
"Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
"A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf

I get the impression David Wright is more appreciative about Classical period music than Romantic and Impressionist music in general. In the Debussy article he says "There was genuine success with composers writing in both traditional structures and forms than rhapsodic impressionism". (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf Page 2) 
Although he praises Liszt, Wagner, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Ravel, Bartok. but still most of the composers he mocks are Romantic and later ones: Schubert, Chopin, Elgar, Britten, Scriabin, Debussy, Delius.
He even says Dittersdorf is a fine composer in the Schubert article, although its not conventional by classical music community to think Dittersdorf is greater than Schubert, Chopin, Debussy.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> I do not understand the point of this post. There's no 'strategy'. I've stated what I like and what I don't. You're engaging in semantics.
> 
> *Debussy's piano music is pretty lame? Seriously?*


You have a double standard. Its ok for you to dismiss Mozart's music - but you raise your eyebrows when I dismiss something you like.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> But then there are more obscure works by Mozart I consider superior and underrated compared other composers' popular works. For example, I consider the Credo-Sanctus-Benedictus of Mozart's Missa Solemnis in C K337
> 
> 
> 
> more inspired and skillfully written than Salieri's entire Requiem in C minor. Salieri's Requiem gets over a million views on youtube (in total) whereas Mozart's K337 gets like only 1/10 of that and this seems "unfair" to me. The keywords, "Salieri + Requiem" just seem like an attention grabber and free ticket to achieve popularity in the case of Salieri's Requiem in C minor; I can't help but think he's being "carried".
> As for CPE Bach, you could also argue he's not getting the popularity he deserves cause everyone is just too enthusiastic about how his own father is superior to him.
> 
> I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
> But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)
> 
> He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than other of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)
> 
> When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri.
> "Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
> "Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
> "A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf
> 
> I get the impression David Wright is more appreciative about Classical period music than Romantic and Impressionist music in general. In the Debussy article he says "There was genuine success with composers writing in both traditional structures and forms than rhapsodic impressionism". (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf Page 2)
> Although he praises Liszt, Wagner, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Ravel, Bartok. but still most of the composers he mocks are Romantic and later composers: Schubert, Chopin, Elgar, Britten, Scriabin, Debussy, Delius.
> He even says Dittersdorf is a fine composer in the Schubert article, although its not conventional by classical music community to think Dittersdorf is greater than Schubert, Chopin, Debussy.


Sy no 34!

This is one of Mozart's weak symphonies - it is still better than anything Salieri composed but again we have a case where someone who is against Mozart praises a work they know not to be one of his best.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> You have a double standard. Its ok for you to dismiss Mozart's music - but you raise your eyebrows when I dismiss something you like.


Or it's fair game to criticize Mozart on a thread about disliking Mozart especially whilst giving concrete reasons why such an opinion is held.

Please, though, continue disliking Debussy's piano music...but please don't decide what constitutes liking a particular composer and force your definition on others.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Or it's fair game to criticize Mozart on a thread about disliking Mozart especially whilst giving concrete reasons why such an opinion is held.
> 
> Please, though, continue disliking Debussy's piano music...but please don't decide what constitutes liking a particular composer and force your definition on others.


Your reasons are not concrete.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Your reasons are not concrete.


The reference was to *actually* giving reasons for criticism.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> *I actually consider the best of Mozart to be above anything I have heard thus far from the period.*
> 
> I consider Mozart's 40th symphony and the slow movement from the 23rd piano concerto as works of genius. I even quite like some of his Jupiter symphony.
> 
> Some of the Requiem is sublime too, imho.





janxharris said:


> *Or it's fair game to criticize Mozart on a thread about disliking Mozart* especially whilst giving concrete reasons why such an opinion is held.


So you dislike classical period music, not just Mozart. If there are threads criticizing Haydn, Gluck, Boccherini in the future, would you say the same things you said about Mozart to them as well? (like repeated chord progressions) 
You like 40th symphony, Requiem, slow movement from 23rd piano concerto-- Shouldn't you ask yourself whether it's just the minor key that you like, and you haven't understood the intricacies and depth of his major key works?








There are people whose tastes I consider "one-dimentional" because they just like minor keys so much they even go so far as to say Mozart's 25th symphony is one of his two greatest symphonies along with the 40th, even though it clearly is not. 
Not only was Beethoven great as a composer himself, I think he had finest tastes in music history. I understand why he admired String Quartet No.18 in A MAJOR K464 so much, whereas the so called "minor-key-fans" just won't understand why. 
And I think one of the best things about Mozart is he doesn't drag on and on unlike some other composers with their long-winded utterances. 
"There are just as many notes as required, your majesty, neither more nor less."


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> So you dislike classical period music, not just Mozart. If there are threads criticizing Haydn, Gluck, Boccherini in the future, would you say the same things you said about Mozart to them as well? (like repeated chord progressions)
> You like 40th symphony, Requiem, slow movement from 23rd piano concerto-- Shouldn't you ask yourself whether it's just the minor key that you like, and you haven't understood the intricacies and depth of his major key works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are people whose tastes I consider "one-dimentional" because they just like minor keys so much they even go so far as to say Mozart's 25th symphony is one of his two greatest symphonies along with the 40th, even though it clearly is not.
> Not only was Beethoven great as a composer himself, I think he had finest tastes in music history. I understand why he admired String Quartet No.18 in A MAJOR K464 so much, whereas the so called "minor-key-fans" just won't understand why.
> And I think one of the best things about Mozart is he doesn't drag on and on unlike some other composers with their long-winded utterances.
> "There are just as many notes as required, your majesty, neither more nor less."


I find myself criticising Haydn even more so than Mozart. I'm not familiar with the music of Gluck and Bocherini.

Some of my favourites pieces are in major keys including Beethoven's Pastoral and Sibelius's 5th and 7th.


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> But then there are more obscure works by Mozart I consider superior and underrated compared other composers' popular works. For example, I consider the Credo-Sanctus-Benedictus of Mozart's Missa Solemnis in C K337
> 
> 
> 
> more inspired and skillfully written than Salieri's entire Requiem in C minor. Salieri's Requiem gets over a million views on youtube (in total) whereas Mozart's K337 gets like only 1/10 of that and this seems "unfair" to me. The keywords, "Salieri + Requiem" just seem like an attention grabber and free ticket to achieve popularity in the case of Salieri's Requiem in C minor; I can't help but think he's being "carried".
> As for CPE Bach, you could also argue he's not getting the popularity he deserves cause everyone is just too enthusiastic about how his own father is superior to him.
> 
> I've read through many of David C F Wright's articles and I too have been wondering as to whether he's really serious about his statements regarding Mozart vs Salieri.
> But it's worth noting that the amount of Mozart's works he praises in the Mozart article is great than the amount of Salieri's works he praises in the Salieri article. Also he gives more detailed and thoughtful explanations why he considers Mozart's works great (like Symphony No.34 in C K338). "Much is made of key signatures in the music of classical composers. The triumphant D major for Haydn, the allegedly profound C minor in both Mozart and Beethoven, but there is a case of glorious E flat for Mozart." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/mozart.pdf Page 5)
> 
> He occasionally does mention his view on Mozart vs Salieri in articles of other composers, but when he does, he uses the word "musician" instead of "composer" when says Salieri is superior to Mozart as in the one about Schubert. ("But the fact is that Leopold Mozart disliked Salieri since Salieri was a finer musician and always obtained posts Leopold wanted for his son, and this was simply because Salieri was a far greater musician than either of the Mozarts.") ( https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf Page 3)
> 
> When discussing examples of great composers he always quotes Mozart as one of the greats along with Beethoven, Haydn, but not Salieri.
> "Schubert could not develop his material as could great composers such as Haydn, Mozart, and especially Beethoven." (Schubert article, Page 1)
> "Take a concert described as a collection of very best in classical music. We have Haydn, Beethoven, Mozart.. so far so good. But then there is included a waltz by Johann Strauss II and a piece by Piazzolla." (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/i-know-what-i-like.pdf Page 1)
> "A recent BBC concert was announced as a remarkable event containing music by the world's very greatest composers, namely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Piazzolla...really?"
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/what-makes-a-great-composer.pdf
> 
> I get the impression David Wright is more appreciative about Classical period music than Romantic and Impressionist music in general. In the Debussy article he says "There was genuine success with composers writing in both traditional structures and forms than rhapsodic impressionism". (https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf Page 2)
> Although he praises Liszt, Wagner, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Ravel, Bartok. but still most of the composers he mocks are Romantic and later ones: Schubert, Chopin, Elgar, Britten, Scriabin, Debussy, Delius.
> He even says Dittersdorf is a fine composer in the Schubert article, although its not conventional by classical music community to think Dittersdorf is greater than Schubert, Chopin, Debussy.


I don't agree with Wright on a lot of things, Chopin, Britten, Mozart. I just added that for colour in a discussion to support that some of Salieri's and others work may not be inferior to every one of Mozart's earlier period. There is no doubt in my mind that Salieri never reached close to the heights Mozart reached.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't agree with Wright on a lot of things, Chopin, Britten, Mozart. I just added that for colour in a discussion to support that some of Salieri's and others work may not be inferior to every one of Mozart's earlier period. There is no doubt in my mind that Salieri never reached close to the heights Mozart reached.


This discussion has to make me wonder what criteria you guys use for such simplistic talk about composers' outputs. Maybe someone will give us the technical details? We could always all learn from musical analysis. It's a vast subject full of interesting but abstruse and sometimes impenetrable aesthetics (science) for the inexperienced.

"never reached close to the heights Mozart reached" ??


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> The reference was to *actually* giving reasons for criticism.


Your reasons for not liking Mozart are generic. As has been pointed out - use of chord progressions, certain chords and certain harmonies were common to music from the classical era. You have not said why you dont like Mozart in particular. If it's that you dont like classical era music as such - then its pretty much pointless to single out Mozart for his use of a musical style that was common to the era. You have given no reasons at all for not liking Mozart in particular.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> This discussion has to make me wonder what criteria you guys use for such simplistic talk about composers' outputs. Maybe someone will give us the technical details? We could always all learn from musical analysis. It's a vast subject full of interesting but abstruse and sometimes impenetrable aesthetics (science) for the inexperienced.
> 
> "never reached close to the heights Mozart reached" ??


he just means Mozart was a better composer.

that's not difficult to understand.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't agree with Wright on a lot of things, Chopin, Britten, Mozart. I just added that for colour in a discussion to support that some of Salieri's and others work may not be inferior to every one of Mozart's earlier period. There is no doubt in my mind that Salieri never reached close to the heights Mozart reached.


so Salieri's best may be better than Mozart's worst.

ok I can accept that may be true. no need to cite a crank fringe musicologist though.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> This discussion has to make me wonder what criteria you guys use for such simplistic talk about composers' outputs. Maybe someone will give us the technical details? We could always all learn from musical analysis. It's a vast subject full of interesting but abstruse and sometimes impenetrable aesthetics (science) for the inexperienced.
> 
> "never reached close to the heights Mozart reached" ??


Take this Salieri symphony (which is suggested to be his best according to Wright in his essay to say Salieri was better than Mozart) and put next to any of Mozart's #35-41. 





Take these 2 concertos and put next to any of Mozart's 17-27.






Take this opera which Berlioz admired, and is probably his most acclaimed opera and put next to Marriage of Figaro, Don G, Cosi, or Magic Flute.






The phrasing is more simplistic, less interesting modulations. Salieri didn't seem to want to take risks.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> he just means Mozart was a better composer.
> 
> that's not difficult to understand.


Really? Why wasn't Salieri a better composer if you "understand" it?


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> Take this Salieri symphony (which is suggested to be his best according to Wright in his essay to say Salieri was better than Mozart) and put next to any of Mozart's #35-41.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take these 2 concertos and put next to any of Mozart's 17-27.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take this opera which Berlioz admired, and is probably his most acclaimed opera and put next to Marriage of Figaro, Don G, Cosi, or Magic Flute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrasing is more simplistic, less interesting modulations. Salieri didn't seem to want to take risks.


Less interesting? You're not describing anything reliably.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Really? Why wasn't Salieri a better composer if you "understand" it?


From my own judgement - I dont think Salieri was capable of working around a theme and exploiting it musically to anywhere the same degree that Mozart was. He starts with an idea - tries to develop it - and then gets stuck - doesnt know what to do next and goes off in a direction which seems inconsistent with the material already introduced. His melodies are not memorable and his orchestration is merely perfunctory.

that's just to start

does that answer your question?


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Your reasons for not liking Mozart are generic. As has been pointed out - use of chord progressions, certain chords and certain harmonies were common to music from the classical era. You have not said why you dont like Mozart in particular. If it's that you dont like classical era music as such - then its pretty much pointless to single out Mozart for his use of a musical style that was common to the era. You have given no reasons at all for not liking Mozart in particular.


Your post is baffling - I dislike much Mozart for the same reason I dislike any music that relies on well-worn unoriginal material. Reasons that only pertain to Mozart aren't necessary. You actually make it sound as if I'm on trial here - just because I've dared to criticise him.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> Your reasons for not liking Mozart are generic. As has been pointed out - use of chord progressions, certain chords and certain harmonies were common to music from the classical era. You have not said why you dont like Mozart in particular. If it's that you dont like classical era music as such - then its pretty much pointless to single out Mozart for his use of a musical style that was common to the era. You have given no reasons at all for not liking Mozart in particular.


The difference is that I consider music that relies on the banal as objectively bad music.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> From my own judgement - I dont think Salieri was capable of working around a theme and exploiting it musically to anywhere the same degree that Mozart was. He starts with an idea - tries to develop it - and then gets stuck - doesnt know what to do next and goes off in a direction which seems inconsistent with the material already introduced. His melodies are not memorable and his orchestration is merely perfunctory.
> 
> that's just to start
> 
> does that answer your question?


Yes.

"..his orchestration is merely perfunctory." We can understand what that means in the analysis.

What you think he should have composed instead of getting stuck is also understandable, but opinionated, along with "melodies are not memorable". They can be reduced for content and compared with Mozart's.

"goes off in a direction which seems inconsistent" Is not a weakness for me. I remember it as a feature of his style and his search for contrasting ideas. I'd rather not hear a lot of imitation, as in JC Bach.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> *The difference is that I consider music that relies on the banal as objectively bad music.*


and as "banal" is a purely subjective evaluation it makes no sense to claim any objectvity.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> Yes.
> 
> "..his orchestration is merely perfunctory." We can understand what that means in the analysis.
> 
> What you think he should have composed instead of getting stuck is also understandable, but opinionated, along with "melodies are not memorable". They can be reduced for content and compared with Mozart's.
> 
> "goes off in a direction which seems inconsistent" Is not a weakness for me. I remember it as a feature of his style and his search for contrasting ideas. I'd rather not hear a lot of imitation, as in JC Bach.


I think given that my opinion is the prevailing one - the onus is on you to disprove it. If you think that Salieri is a better composer than Mozart - that the consensus of academic and public opinion is wrong. You must stand up and explain why.

Take into account that nobody at all would be paying any attention to Salieri's music had it not been for his association with Mozart. There are recordings now of many salieri operas - true - but record labels desperate for something new to record are now trawling through the musical archives of Europe for whatever they can find.

Salieri had no gift for melody - that Mozart was a great melodist - perhaps the greatest - is beyond dispute. Point me to a great Salieri melody - just one. Mozart's music is awash with them.


----------



## KenOC

"Of all musicians Mozart is the one from whom our epoch has taken us farthest away; he speaks only in a whisper, and the public has ceased to hear anything but shouts." -- André Gide


----------



## Red Terror

Attacking Mozart’s work is foolish. His music may not do anything for you, but the genius behind it is undeniable.


----------



## Larkenfield

If aliens landed at Carnegie Hall, I think they’d be far more interested in hearing Mozart because his name had circled the universe a few times. If they had landed to hear Salieri, I can only imagine they had come from the planet Salieri... I’ve heard his music, some of his symphonies and operas and enjoyed them, though I can’t recall any of them by name at the moment, and I can hear why he was quite popular at the time because he didn’t overwhelm his audience with complexity or content. He wrote to be appreciated then, and maybe that’s the problem and his music doesn’t transcend the age well in which he lived... He apparently was also a very political animal, examples could be cited, and better composers than he resented him for it... Unfortunately for him, I do not see the situation changing in the foreseeable future, perhaps deservedly so, unless it’s on that lonely, isolated, forgotten, political planet Salieri. He’s now remembered more as a mentor to Beethoven and Franz Liszt than as a memorable composer and through his unfortunate association with Mozart that was rarely flattering to the ambitious Italian composer. Consequently, Mozart was beamed up in celebration and Salieri is still waiting.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> I think given that my opinion is the prevailing one - the onus is on you to disprove it. If you think that Salieri is a better composer than Mozart - that the consensus of academic and public opinion is wrong. You must stand up and explain why.
> 
> Take into account that nobody at all would be paying any attention to Salieri's music had it not been for his association with Mozart. There are recordings now of many salieri operas - true - but record labels desperate for something new to record are now trawling through the musical archives of Europe for whatever they can find.
> 
> Salieri had no gift for melody - that Mozart was a great melodist - perhaps the greatest - is beyond dispute. Point me to a great Salieri melody - just one. Mozart's music is awash with them.


As a musician I'm interested that as with Salieri, Michael Haydn, Leopold and Wolfgang's son left us music.

from wiki
"Franz Xaver Wolfgang had a relatively small output (his opus numbers only go up to 30) and after 1820 he seems to have given up composing almost entirely; in particular, there is an 11-year gap (1828 to 1839) when he seems to have not written anything. Nevertheless, recordings of his music can be found today. He wrote mainly chamber music and piano music, with his largest compositions being the two piano concertos."


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> If aliens landed at Carnegie Hall, I think they'd be far more interested in hearing Mozart because his name had gotten around the universe. If they had landed to hear Salieri, I can only imagine they had come from the planet Salieri... I've heard his music, some of his symphonies and operas and enjoyed them, though I can't recall any of them by name at the moment, and I can hear why he was quite popular at the time because he didn't overwhelm the audience with complexity or content. He wrote to be appreciated then, and maybe that's the problem and his music really doesn't transcend the age in which he was living... He was apparently also a very political animal, examples could be cited, and better composers than he resented him for it... Unfortunately for him, I do not see the situation changing in the foreseeable future, perhaps deservedly so, unless it's on that lonely, isolated, forgotten, political planet Salieri. He's remembered more now as a mentor to Beethoven and Franz Liszt than as a memorable composer and through his malefic association with Mozart that never was flattering to the Italian composer.


Yes, it's a curious phenomenon that the composers of any age who haven't been elevated to be famous to the man-on-the-street give us the standard of quality of the music of their time. We can look at and play through the multitude of scores on IMSLP by little known composers and it shows us what the great composers did with the same exposures. How did this happen? What were their special insights? It wasn't just the luck of being born at the right time or place, but youthful experiences are very important.. There's one or two famous composers who started late.

For me, how did they compose such marvelous, lengthy or large scale works so quickly?


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> As a musician I'm interested that as with Salieri, Michael Haydn, Leopold and Wolfgang's son left us music.
> 
> from wiki
> "Franz Xaver Wolfgang had a relatively small output (his opus numbers only go up to 30) and after 1820 he seems to have given up composing almost entirely; in particular, there is an 11-year gap (1828 to 1839) when he seems to have not written anything. Nevertheless, recordings of his music can be found today. He wrote mainly chamber music and piano music, with his largest compositions being the two piano concertos."


Thanks for the tip. I've just listened to FXW's second piano concerto. Excellent stuff, nicely bridging Classical and Romantic, easily comparable to Hummel and Spohr. He must have been intimidated by papa, but he's as different from him as Bach's sons were from their father, or Wagner's son Siegfried was from his. I must explore FXW further.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Repeating harmonic progressions without something happening melodically leaves me free to deem a passage as practically plagiaristic.





janxharris said:


> The difference is that I consider *music that relies on the banal* as objectively bad music.





janxharris said:


>


https://chords-and-tabs.net/song/name/lucy-rose-shiver-3
"D, Bm, A, E - Repeats the whole way through."

Now I'm really at loss trying to understand your criteria for determining what constitutes banality in music.


----------



## Dimace

Larkenfield said:


> Mr. Wright has often been Mr. Wrong about the composers he so casually dismisses. Quote:
> 
> *"Chopin is certainly not a great composer since he is a very limited composer.* All his works involve the piano and he did not write anything for the stage, string quartets or symphonies. In fact, his orchestral writing has been universally condemned as very poor which it is.
> 
> "He has often been portrayed as the delightful, dashing, handsome young man of the keyboard and as a perfect gentleman. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was an extreme dandy, a narcissist, a man with an outrageous temper, psychological problems; he was a manic depressive and had other personality disorders and an overwhelming hatred of Jews. This is recorded in many of the books written about him and also shown in some of his letters, which are also published and can be purchased."
> 
> Just priceless.
> 
> Of course, there's no mention of Chopin's tuberculosis which often exacerbated his irritability, fatigue, temperamental outbursts, melancholy, and depressions.
> 
> Chopin's orchestrations, while certainly not beyond criticism, have not been "universally condemned". Wright has no appreciation or understanding that Chopin deliberately wrote them that way so he would be at the absolute center of attention in his concertos with his refined but less powerful sound than, say, someone like Franz Liszt.
> 
> 'Chopin composed six known works for piano and orchestra before he turned 25 years old. Many of these were written as assignments for Jozef Elsner, his composition teacher at the Main School of Music in Warsaw. Though Chopin did not compose many works for piano and orchestra, he kept these works in his concert repertoire throughout his career.'
> 
> And they are still being played today because of the brilliance of the idiomatic writing for piano that was unprecedented at the time for its poetry, technical brilliance, and refinement.
> 
> The rest of Wright's criticism consists of an ad hominem attack on Chopin's character, though the Pole certainly wasn't beyond reproach, but he lived with George Sand for 10 years despite the unhappy break-up at the end. Adding to Mr. Wright's duplicity is of course his glowing praise of Wagner as a composer who was far more systematically anti-semitic than Chopin could have ever been. But, naturally, Wagner wrote works on a larger scale and evidently that's enough to satisfy Mr. Wright.
> 
> Overall, Harold C. Schonberg is far more astute and reliable as a music critic and historian, such as his classic _The Lives of the Great Composers,_ which devotes an entire lengthy chapter to the genius of Frederick Chopin.


With all my respect for a man I don't know, if he has written such FFF Bul.....s, he has no place in the music, but in a asylum for psychopaths. These declarations are sick and I have great difficulty to believe that someone who lost so much his mind is working somewhere, he has a salary and access to the public. This MUST be a mistake (not from you dear friend) but from some enemies he has, or something else deeper (they want to destroy his career or I don't know what... )


----------



## Larkenfield

How about endlessly repeated and endlessly redundant posts, thread after thread after the point has been made, post after post after post on the same subject of repetition? Does that qualify as bad thinking? Just about everyone can see it but the thinker. It’s happened before that the bigger the critic, the harder the fall when it finally happens, whether it takes a month, a year, five years, 10 or 20 years, because the subject will never leave them alone until they see that they may have been badly mishearing or misrepresenting the composer. To those who are indifferent to Mozart, it doesn’t matter one way or another as important. But it’s already too late for some of his vociferous critics and there will undoubtedly be an Epiphany somewhere down the line of either acceptance or understanding. And it won’t be that Mozart had changed but that the listener’s perceptions had changed over the years. It happened to me and I’ve been amply rewarded ever since. Why? Because a genius like Mozart probably comes along only about once every 500 years.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Take these 2 concertos and put next to any of Mozart's 17-27.


I would put them next to any of Mozart's 1-5.


----------



## Luchesi

Larkenfield said:


> How about endlessly repeated and endlessly redundant posts, post after post after post on the same subject of repetition. Does that qualify as bad thinking? Just about everyone can see it but the thinker. It's happened before that the bigger the critic, the harder the fall when it finally happens, whether it takes a month, a year, five years, 10 or 20 years, because the subject will never leave them alone until they see that they may have been badly mishearing or misrepresenting the composer. To those who are indifferent to Mozart, it doesn't matter one way or another as important. But it's already too late for some of his obsessive critics and there will undoubtedly be an Epiphany somewhere down the line of either acceptance or understanding. And it won't be that Mozart changed but that the listener's perceptions changed over the years. It happened to me and I've been amply rewarded ever since.


We can complain about the use of the same figurations for audience recognition, or whatever it contributed to a recognizable style. Mozart varied them very cleverly in his piano concertos.

This complaint is from Amadeus;

MOZART
It's the best opera yet written. I know it! Why didn't they come?

SALIERI
I think you overestimate our dear Viennese, my friend. Do you
know you didn't even give them a good bang at the end of songs
so they knew when to clap?

MOZART
I know, I know. Perhaps you should give me some lessons in that.

SALIERI
(fuming)
I wouldn't presume.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> We can complain about the use of the same figurations for audience recognition, or whatever it contributed to a recognizable style. Mozart varied them very cleverly in his piano concertos.
> 
> This complaint is from Amadeus;
> 
> MOZART
> It's the best opera yet written. I know it! Why didn't they come?
> 
> SALIERI
> I think you overestimate our dear Viennese, my friend. Do you
> know you didn't even give them a good bang at the end of songs
> so they knew when to clap?
> 
> MOZART
> I know, I know. Perhaps you should give me some lessons in that.
> 
> SALIERI
> (fuming)
> I wouldn't presume.


I don't think that exchange is accurate in real life. Mozart knew well how to please audiencesl. His arias always did have a clear ending. Schaffer was making Mozart out to be some romanticized agonized genius.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> https://chords-and-tabs.net/song/name/lucy-rose-shiver-3
> "D, Bm, A, E - Repeats the whole way through."
> 
> Now I'm really at loss trying to understand your criteria for determining what constitutes banality in music.


Even if those chords were right and repeated throughout I'm not sure I understand why this would make (as you seem to suggest and imply) this music banal.

The actual chords are

Verse: D9(with major7), Bmin(with sus4), Amaj, Amaj/E

At the chorus they change:

Bmin7 x 2, F#min7, Emaj.

I don't ever confuse this song with another piece of music. Of course, I could be wrong...I haven't heard everything.


----------



## DavidA

'I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death.'

(L van Beethoven)


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> https://chords-and-tabs.net/song/name/lucy-rose-shiver-3
> "D, Bm, A, E - Repeats the whole way through."
> 
> Now I'm really at loss trying to understand your criteria for determining what constitutes banality in music.


Of course, the Lucy Rose piece was posted on another thread.


----------



## Jacck

janxharris,
try to search for what you can enjoy and not criticize in Mozart. Yes, Mozart uses some clichés, but if you can beyond that, the music is genius and really beautiful. His string quintets, Haydn quartets, piano concertos, piano sonatas are all great. The music is certainly not banal. The problem is in you and your subconscious resentment/resistance to the music, ie you concentrate to search for faults in the music, and not really on the music itself


----------



## DavidA

I happened to come across a comment that Mozart's music was 'banal' when I was listening to the sublimities of the Clarinet Concerto. I must confess I laughed out loud that anyone could make such a comment! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

'Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.'

(George Szell)


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Even if those chords were right and repeated throughout I'm not sure I understand why this would make (as you seem to suggest and imply) this music banal.
> 
> The actual chords are
> 
> Verse: D9(with major7), Bmin(with sus4), Amaj, Amaj/E
> 
> At the chorus they change:
> 
> Bmin7 x 2, F#min7, Emaj.
> 
> I don't ever confuse this song with another piece of music. Of course, I could be wrong...I haven't heard everything.


You trying to make it look not like a typical 4 chord song, but in reality it's not really that different from any other 4 chord pop songs with chord progressions that 'other people can always alter slightly'. It's perfectly ok to play it as "D, Bm, A, E - Repeats the whole way through" as indicated by the songwriter on the website. This is musical formulaic-ness in its extreme and this is why most pop songs don't require skills or talent to write or notated sheet music to play. This is the point.

How can you tolerate this type of music when you're so judgmental about Mozart?-- is what I'm asking.
I'll also remind you unlike 4 chord pop music, Mozart isn't just about harmonics-- the contrapuntal/textural/melodic variety and structural/thematic unity are objectively light years superior to Lucy Rose's.
I have to agree with others saying that you're just desperately trying to rationalize your tastes, making weird excuses.






The melodic variations in the final movement of K491, which Beethoven told Cramer "we shall never be able to do anything like that" and -- the contrast between the diatonic/harmonic exposition and chromatic/contrapuntal development, as in String Quintet in C K515 for example, or the contrast of dissonance quartet K465 -- 
You're telling me you don't hear any of these, yet you try to justify how you can add a couple more 'chords' to a typical 4-chord song in attempts to make it less banal?
Can you tell if the Minuets of K498 



 or K516 



 or the Andante of K465 



 are written in homophony or polyphony?
I have seen modern pop music fans claiming "most classical music sounds the same", do you think their opinions matter and should be taken seriously? I'd say no.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> janxharris,
> try to search for what you can enjoy and not criticize in Mozart. Yes, Mozart uses some clichés, but if you can beyond that, the music is genius and really beautiful. His string quintets, Haydn quartets, piano concertos, piano sonatas are all great. The music is certainly not banal. The problem is in you and your subconscious resentment/resistance to the music, ie you concentrate to search for faults in the music, and not really on the music itself


People keep asking me to defend my assertions. I am quite prepared to leave it.

I have both praised and criticised by the way.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> You trying to make it look not like a typical 4 chord song, but in reality it's not really that different from any other 4 chord pop songs with chord progressions that 'other people can always alter slightly'. It's perfectly ok to play it as "D, Bm, A, E - Repeats the whole way through" as indicated by the songwriter on the website. This is musical formulaic-ness in its extreme and this is why most pop songs don't require skills or talent to write or notated sheet music to play. This is the point.
> 
> How can you tolerate this type of music when you're so judgmental about Mozart?-- is what I'm asking.
> I'll also remind you unlike 4 chord pop music formulated to sell, Mozart isn't just about harmonics-- the contrapuntal/textural/melodic variety and structural/thematic unity are objectively light years superior to Lucy Rose's.
> I have to agree with others saying that you're just desperately trying to rationalize your tastes, making weird excuses.


1. The Rose was posted on another thread. I didn't cite it against Mozart.
2. No you can't just play the wrong chords and fail to change appropriately at the chorus. The chords cited are wrong.
3. Nobody needs to be able to write music in order to create great music.

I have both criticized and praised Mozart. I didn't pit Rose against Mozart but you have.


----------



## Dimace

Larkenfield said:


> How about endlessly repeated and endlessly redundant posts, thread after thread after the point has been made, post after post after post on the same subject of repetition? Does that qualify as bad thinking? Just about everyone can see it but the thinker. It's happened before that the bigger the critic, the harder the fall when it finally happens, whether it takes a month, a year, five years, 10 or 20 years, because the subject will never leave them alone until they see that they may have been badly mishearing or misrepresenting the composer. To those who are indifferent to Mozart, it doesn't matter one way or another as important. But it's already too late for some of his vociferous critics and there will undoubtedly be an Epiphany somewhere down the line of either acceptance or understanding. And it won't be that Mozart had changed but that the listener's perceptions had changed over the years. It happened to me and I've been amply rewarded ever since. Why? Because a genius like Mozart probably comes along only about once every 500 years.


Yes Sir! :tiphat:


----------



## Dimace

DavidA said:


> 'I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death.'
> 
> (L van Beethoven)


Celibitache also considers Mozart (along with Bruckner) the most complex and with enormous ''depth'' in music composer in human history (The comment made for his symphonies)


----------



## Luchesi

janxharris said:


> People keep asking me to defend my assertions. I am quite prepared to leave it.
> 
> I have both praised and criticised by the way.


I appreciate your posts more than others in here apparently.

The syndrome is, "There's something wrong on the internet, I must correct it."

In this case the replies are interesting. We can see how people think about Mozart, and maybe even feel their emotions about such a favorite.

Were the complexities of Mozart just a lucky consequence of the musical arithmetic of his harmonic school, since they sound so 'uncomplicated'?

Years ago, when I first heard Gould play Haydn's last sonata, the last movement, the idea struck me that Haydn didn't recognize that it was such a universal statement with high-fluting allusions for the young listener. I know this was heretical, but I was convinced. It fascinated me, and this is what music is able to do sometimes.. This dissension and disputating has shaped my appreciation of the older masters ever since. I guess it serves to bring them down to my level. (grin)


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> Less interesting? You're not describing anything reliably.


Mozart moves between different modes and keys in the music he writes. Salieri sticks to more generic progressions. You don't need a score to hear all of this. But in this score it is evident, especially from 6:30 and on. This is also in response to Janxharris. Mozart was way more progressive in that respect than his contemporaries and even many that came afterwards, till probably Debussy. Mixing different modes, creating different moods. Yes, it is not all imagined or herd mentality that he is that great.


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't think that exchange is accurate in real life. Mozart knew well how to please audiencesl. His arias always did have a clear ending. Schaffer was making Mozart out to be some romanticized agonized genius.


Do you think Mozart held Salieri's music in higher regard than we do today?


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart moves between different modes and keys in the music he writes. Salieri sticks to more generic progressions. You don't need a score to hear all of this. But in this score it is evident, especially from 6:30 and on. This is also in response to Janxharris. Mozart was way more progressive in that respect than his contemporaries and even many that came afterwards, till probably Debussy. Mixing different modes, creating different moods. Yes, it is not all imagined or herd mentality that he is that great.


Liszt really twisted things as you're noting in Mozart. I don't spend much time listening to Liszt.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Mozart is my first love in music! How can you hate that kind of innocence?


----------



## Luchesi

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Mozart is my first love in music! How can you hate that kind of innocence?


Yeah, twinkle twinkle! (grin)


----------



## Phil loves classical

Luchesi said:


> Do you think Mozart held Salieri's music in higher regard than we do today?


I would think so. Salieri was Beethoven and Liszt's private tutor.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> I would think so. Salieri was Beethoven and Liszt's private tutor.


Padre Martini taught Mozart counterpoint and composition, Josef Lanz taught Schubert. 
Likewise, Salieri was (only) a good teacher. I think we can concede that point. There were lots of "good teachers" in music history who weren't influential composers themselves. 
"A pro sports athlete doesn't need to be a legend player to be a good coach or manager later."


----------



## DavidA

Phil loves classical said:


> I would think so. Salieri was Beethoven and Liszt's private tutor.


Which shows you can teach a genius without being a genius.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Which shows you can teach a genius without being a genius.


Albrechtsberger was a more significant teacher of Beethoven than Salieri, but today his works are remembered even less. Nonetheless, he knew his counterpoint and voice leading inside and out, just as Salieri excelled in techniques of Italianate vocal writing.

Added: Beethoven dedicated his three Op. 12 violin sonatas to Salieri.


----------



## Dimace

Phil loves classical said:


> I would think so. Salieri was Beethoven and Liszt's private tutor.


Indeed!

But: Liszt went to Vienna at 1821. Salieri died at 1825. It is said (I wasn't there) that Salieri's last years weren't very healthy (generally speaking…) I consider Carl Czerny (Klavier) and Ferdinando Paer (composition) more as his teachers. (I repeat that you are typically correct.) Thanks.

(I consider Antonio Salieri as VERY DECENT composer. Especially his Requiem is VERY GOOD.)


----------



## Luchesi

Dimace said:


> Indeed!
> 
> But: Liszt went to Vienna at 1821. Salieri died at 1825. It is said (I wasn't there) that Salieri's last years weren't very healthy (generally speaking…) I consider Carl Czerny (Klavier) and Ferdinando Paer (composition) more as his teachers. (I repeat that you are typically correct.) Thanks.
> 
> (I consider Antonio Salieri as VERY DECENT composer. Especially his Requiem is VERY GOOD.)


Liszt was ten years old in 1821. "My teacher was the venerable so-and-so." It really doesn't matter much at all when you're so young. Bragging rights. A tip of the hat.

Yes there are impressions that will live with you, but learning to compose mature music?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Dimace said:


> Indeed!
> 
> But: Liszt went to Vienna at 1821. Salieri died at 1825. It is said (I wasn't there) that Salieri's last years weren't very healthy (generally speaking…) I consider Carl Czerny (Klavier) and Ferdinando Paer (composition) more as his teachers. (I repeat that you are typically correct.) Thanks.
> 
> (I consider Antonio Salieri as VERY DECENT composer. *Especially his Requiem is VERY GOOD.*)


You mean the one he Mozart wrote on his deathbed and Salieri tried to pass as his own? I didn't think he succeeded.


----------



## gellio

Captainnumber36 said:


> Not really, it's superficially joyous, it lacks the depth of the romantics, beeths in particular!


It certainly doesn't lack the emotional depth of the romantics. Ever hear the 2nd mov't of the Jupiter Symphony, Porgi Amor, Dove Sono and the ACT IV finale of _Le nozze di figaro_, the 2nd mov't of the 20th Piano Concerto, the 2nd mov't of the 21st Piano Concerto, the Clarinet Concerto, Mass in C Minor, Requiem, or the Clarinet Concerto) - to name a very few.

Just because YOU don't connect with Mozart's music on an emotional level, doesn't mean anything. Neither does me connecting to it emotionally. All of us connect to different things on an emotional level.

Beethoven is my favorite composer because I connect to his music on the greatest emotional level. Mozart is my second favorite composer (and the greatest composer who ever lived IMO) because his music is Devine, in every single way, including the emotions it conveys.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> Music that has a high degree of originality is preferable to the obverse is it not? Saturating your work with repeated chord progressions (that are already commonly used by others) dilutes the impact does it not?





janxharris said:


> I have both criticized and praised Mozart.


What really troubled me was your tried to balance out your argument by saying "I like a few mature pieces by Mozart" just to resort to unjust criticisms, "Mozart saturated his work with repeated chord progressions"- which did not work. 
Also you never really properly answered a bunch of my posts where I recommended many other pieces for you to listen. 
For example, what are your thoughts on watching the analysis of the D minor concerto K466? Did you like it at all? Whatabout quartets K464, K465, mass K337? Did you just ignore them?

I keep saying-- the criticism regarding "use of chord progressions" should be reserved for something like pop music (a genre you seem to be so generous about its faults). In composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, there's craftsmanship involved which pervades their work you can't just deem it as "spam" cause they had skills and good habit of writing in solid structure or rich texture like orchestral color.

you would have been much better off by saying 4 words flat out: "I don't like Mozart" with no explanation backing them.


----------



## KenOC

Captainnumber36 said:


> ...I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!


The say that a man is known for the quality of his enemies. Flattering to you, certainly. To Mozart, perhaps less so.


----------



## Luchesi

Captainnumber36 -
"...I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!

We are enemies forever!"

Since the Classical Period and its sounds were utterly replaced by about the 1830s, you're on the right side of history.


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> What really troubled me was your tried to balance out your argument by saying "I like a few mature pieces by Mozart" just to resort to unjust criticisms, "Mozart saturated his work with repeated chord progressions"- which did not work.
> Also you never really properly answered a bunch of my posts where I recommended many other pieces for you to listen.
> For example, what are your thoughts on watching the analysis of the D minor concerto K466? Did you like it at all? Whatabout quartets K464, K465, mass K337? Did you just ignore them?
> 
> I keep saying-- the criticism regarding "use of chord progressions" should be reserved for something like pop music (a genre you seem to be so generous about its faults). In composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, there's craftsmanship involved which pervades their work you can't just deem it as "spam" cause they had skills and good habit of writing in solid structure or rich texture like orchestral color.
> 
> you would have been much better off by saying 4 words flat out: "I don't like Mozart" with no explanation backing them.


Saying, as you suggest, 'I don't like Mozart,' would contradict my love of those mature pieces I have cited.

I'll have a listen to the works you cite but I'll only post back if I have something positive to say.

I have plenty of criticism for modern pop; I merely posted what I considered decent examples on a thread challenging pop's apparent emotional shallowness.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Captainnumber36 -
> "...I have a Mozart bust that I will keep on top of my piano when I perform and that will motivate me to be everything he isn't!
> 
> We are enemies forever!"
> 
> *Since the Classical Period and its sounds were utterly replaced by about the 1830s,* you're on the right side of history.


As far as composing was concerned maybe. Not as far as enjoyment however!


----------



## Dimace

Phil loves classical said:


> You mean the one he Mozart wrote on his deathbed and Salieri tried to pass as his own? I didn't think he succeeded.


I mean this one. Thanks.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dimace said:


> I mean this one. Thanks.


Its not a bad work - better than many other Salieri pieces I have heard. Michael Haydn also composed a fine requiem which is also way ahead of par for his standard.

Beautiful pieces in many ways - if not memorable.


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> Saying, as you suggest, 'I don't like Mozart,' would contradict my love of those mature pieces I have cited.
> 
> I'll have a listen to the works you cite but I'll only post back if I have something positive to say.
> 
> I have plenty of criticism for modern pop; I merely posted what I considered decent examples on a thread challenging pop's apparent emotional shallowness.


I dont think liking some parts of less than half a dozen works supports your claim to liking Mozart, as such - if that is what you are claiming. It seems to me that you dislike Mozart - but have found some pieces that have merit.

I dont like Schoenberg - but I like his piano concerto and one or two pieces. But most of the pieces I hear I dont like.

I do like Shostakovich because even though I dont know too many off his pieces - those I know I do like and it seems to me every time I heard a new Shostakovich piece I do like it.

In your cases - nearly all Mozart you hear you dont like.


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> I dont think liking some parts of less than half a dozen works supports your claim to liking Mozart, as such - if that is what you are claiming. It seems to me that you dislike Mozart - but have found some pieces that have merit.
> 
> I dont like Schoenberg - but I like his piano concerto and one or two pieces. But most of the pieces I hear I dont like.
> 
> I do like Shostakovich because even though I dont know too many off his pieces - those I know I do like and it seems to me every time I heard a new Shostakovich piece I do like it.
> 
> In your cases - nearly all Mozart you hear you dont like.


It's not for you to determine whether I decide to say I like Mozart or not.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> As far as composing was concerned maybe. Not as far as enjoyment however!


Yes, as far as serious artistic expression using music.

Prokofiev gave us his Classical Symphony. (grin)

Sergei Prokofiev - Symphony no.1, op.25


----------



## PlaySalieri

janxharris said:


> It's not for you to determine whether I decide to say I like Mozart or not.


yes it is for you to declare your likes - no matter how far these statements seem untrue and dishonest


----------



## janxharris

stomanek said:


> yes it is for you to declare your likes - no matter how far these statements seem untrue and dishonest


Who's being dishonest stomanek?


----------



## hammeredklavier

stomanek said:


> Its not a bad work


I find it amusing Mozart was already writing this kind of works age 12. For example, 
Missa Brevis K65 



 has more memorable melodies, and whenever Salieri tries to be fugal in his Requiem as in the middle of the Sanctus for example, he doesn't do it any better than Mozart's Waisenhausmesse 



, 




It almost seems unfair to me there are more people remembering Salieri wrote a requiem of his own at 54 than Mozart wrote Laudate Pueri Dominum (from Vespers K339) at 24.


----------



## Woodduck

Say, is anyone else annoyed by inferior composers who constantly rely on major and minor keys, duple and triple rhythms, quavers, semiquavers, hemidemisemiquavers, and instruments that are struck, bowed, or blown?


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> _"The most breathtaking chromatic trip of all occurs in the final movement, which begins innocently enough, and isn't too eventful tonally throughout the whole exposition. But then, again comes the development section, and all hell breaks loose.
> Do you realize that, that wild, atonal-sounding passage contains every one of the twelve chromatic tones except the tonic note G? What an inspired idea.. all the notes except the tonic.
> It could easily pass for twentieth-century music, if we didn't already know it was Mozart.
> But even that explosion of chromaticism is explainable in terms of the circle of fifths, not that I'd dream of burdening you with it. Take my word for it, that out-burst of chromatic rage is classically contained, and so is the climax of this development section, which finds itself in the unlikely key of C-sharp minor, which is as far away as you can get from the home key of G minor.
> And, again, believe me; all these phonological arrivals and departures to and from the most distantly related areas operate in the smoothest, Mozartian way, under perfect diatonic control."_


This is one of my favorite Bernstein quotes, out of his countless great ones. Mozart's amazing grasp of and facility with harmonic progression and modulation allows him to create complex, subtle and beautiful effects despite the restricted classical "rules" he operated within. That's why it's easy to write music in the "style" of Mozart, but not easy to do it on his level, to say the least.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hammeredklavier said:


> I find it amusing Mozart was already writing this kind of works age 12. For example,
> Missa Brevis K65
> 
> 
> 
> has more memorable melodies, and whenever Salieri tries to be fugal in his Requiem as in the middle of the Sanctus for example, he doesn't do it any better than Mozart's Waisenhausmesse
> 
> 
> 
> ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It almost seems unfair to me there are more people remembering Salieri wrote a requiem of his own at 54 than Mozart wrote Laudate Pueri Dominum (from Vespers K339) at 24.


Yes the early masses are much better than many people realise. I ignored them at my loss for 20 years as I assumed they would be the same level as pc 1-4. I think Mozart's flair for vocal music began to flower at a much younger age. K139 in c minor is the best of them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Say, is anyone else annoyed by inferior composers who constantly rely on major and minor keys, duple and triple rhythms, quavers, semiquavers, hemidemisemiquavers, and instruments that are struck, bowed, or blown?


Yes me - I get fed up with composers who use more than 1 crotchet in 6 bars.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Yes me - I get fed up with composers who use more than 1 crotchet in 6 bars.


Maybe I'm getting crotchety, but at my stage of life I'm unlikely to quaver in the opinion that the most noteworthy music has two crotchets every four bars, at a minim.

I suspect that people averse to crotchets are confusing "crotchet" with "crochet," "croquet," or "croquette," the avoidance of all of which is perfectly understandable, unless the croquettes are made with fresh salmon.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> Maybe I'm getting crotchety, but at my stage of life I'm unlikely to quaver in the opinion that the most noteworthy music has two crotchets every four bars, at a minim.
> 
> I suspect that people averse to crotchets are confusing "crotchet" with "crochet," "croquet," or "croquette," the avoidance of all of which is perfectly understandable, unless the croquettes are made with fresh salmon.


I find nearly all of your posts here noteworthy, but this one is a crock. You should beat it to the nearest bar.


----------



## Larkenfield

Mozart ist mein feind.
Mozart est mon ennem.
Моцарт мой враг.
Mòzhātè shì wǒ de dírén.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I find nearly all of your posts here noteworthy, but this one is a crock. You should beat it to the nearest bar.


I'll be all right. I just need a little rest.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I'll be all right. I just need a little rest.


Yes, shorter movements should help. And I really shouldn't attacca you like that. Please accept my appoggiaturas.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

27 pages and counting.


----------



## Guest

PlaySalieri said:


> I cant copy and paste from [David Wright's] article but he is wrong on many accounts.


If you save the article, open it up in a pdf reader, go to File/Document Properties/Security, you can change the settings so you can copy and paste.

It's worth noting that the 'copyright' date at the bottom of the article isn't always consistent with the date the article was written. This explains his remarkable prescience in citing Robbie Williams in his article about what makes a great composer, apparently written in 1988 (when Williams was 14)!


----------

