# What is it about Mozart? A Confessional Thread



## Eclectic Al

I have a confession: I don't really get Mozart. I generally find that the list of "great" composers which is generally stated is very much in line with my personal list. But not Mozart.
A few works are great (for me): Clarinet Quintet (and maybe the Concerto), Symphony 40, a few Piano Concerti (or some movements thereof), and some bits of the Requiem. Beyond that, I keep trying, but my mind wanders. This doesn't add up to enough to be in my personal list of greats.
I therefore thought it would be interesting to see if there are any common themes among those who don't get Mozart.
For example, I don't do Opera at all. I am hugely into Brahms, Bach and Haydn. With Beethoven it's more recognition of greatness than a sympathy of outlook: he can persuade me, but I don't warm to him. I tend to think that Schoenberg and his gang were barking up a blind alley (sometimes to great effect), whereas Bartok was onto something.
So are there any others out there who share my deficiency? If so, please indicate your own tastes to see if there is something in common. I should be more scientific about this, but life's short.
If I get no response to this, then I guess it's just me.


----------



## consuono

I'm a big Mozart fan. A lot of his music is about as close to perfection as you can get in a 35-year life span. And I would suggest you really and truly make an effort with his Marriage of Figaro. That's one of the greatest creations in music history.

That said, it has to be admitted that the pathos entwined in Mozart's brief life didn't hurt perception of his music.


----------



## Fabulin

I was waiting until you mention that you like Brahms :lol:

Somehow, I knew it.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Thanks for the suggestion. But (another defect in me) any opera suggestions are not going to work. Nor probably any other vocal ideas. I am expecting that one thing which might come out of this exercise (if anything!) is that Mozart refuseniks may well be less into vocal music generally.
You see I am genuinely interested in why I seem to relate to Haydn, but not Mozart, when they seemed to relate to each other.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Fabulin said:


> I was waiting until you mention that you like Brahms :lol:
> 
> Somehow, I knew it.


Yep. I am expecting that there may be a Brahms/Mozart dichotomy. But why???


----------



## Eclectic Al

By the way, I was just listening to Symphony 40 again, and it's a great piece of music. What is it about that which is different from his other symphonies (even 41)?


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. But (another defect in me) any opera suggestions are not going to work. Nor probably any other vocal ideas. I am expecting that one thing which might come out of this exercise (if anything!) is that Mozart refuseniks may well be less into vocal music generally.
> You see I am genuinely interested in why I seem to relate to Haydn, but not Mozart, when they seemed to relate to each other.


De gustibus etc etc etc


----------



## Fabulin

Eclectic Al said:


> Yep. I am expecting that there may be a Brahms/Mozart dichotomy. But why???


Mozart was a melodic "god", and Brahms was a melodic "god spelled backwards".

Now insert a coin and tell me what do you think of Tchaikovsky. :tiphat:


----------



## Eclectic Al

Sorry to be hogging this (but it is my prerogative).
I listened earlier today to a very short Haydn Piano Sonata. I don't really listen to those much, and couldn't tell you which one it was 5 minutes after listening. But it was interesting! I could probably listen to it again in a week, and I wouldn't remember that it was the same one, but it would be interesting again. With Mozart Piano Sonatas, my mind wanders away. I can listen to a whole book of the WTC without that happening. Why?


----------



## Eclectic Al

Fabulin said:


> Mozart was a melodic "god", and Brahms was a melodic "god spelled backwards".
> 
> Now insert a coin and tell me what do you think of Tchaikovsky. :tiphat:


Tchaikovsky is a guilty pleasure. I like symphonies 4 and 6. Not really 5. Other than that, not much. Oh, I like the Manfred Symphony quite a lot. 6 is really moving, and 4 and Manfred are exciting. 5 is dull. The rest: even duller.


----------



## S P Summers

Mozart, Bach, and Haydn do absolutely nothing for me, personally. Even Brahms; apart from his piano concerti, I rarely listen to him. There are so many composers from the late 19th and 20th century whose music is much more interesting and entertaining to listen to.

I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


----------



## consuono

Eclectic Al said:


> Sorry to be hogging this (but it is my prerogative).
> I listened earlier today to a very short Haydn Piano Sonata. I don't really listen to those much, and couldn't tell you which one it was 5 minutes after listening. But it was interesting! I could probably listen to it again in a week, and I wouldn't remember that it was the same one, but it would be interesting again. With Mozart Piano Sonatas, my mind wanders away. I can listen to a whole book of the WTC without that happening. Why?


Why? Haydn's piano sonatas are superior to Mozart's. Subjectively, of course. But that seems to be the consensus. Mozart's piano sonatas are really not among the greatest in the genre, and I don't know why that is. Maybe deep down he just didn't like the form.


----------



## DavidA

If you don’t get Mozart, fine! Leave him for those of us who appreciate his enormous genius. Listen to what you do get


----------



## S P Summers

Eclectic Al said:


> Tchaikovsky is a guilty pleasure. I like symphonies 4 and 6. Not really 5. Other than that, not much. Oh, I like the Manfred Symphony quite a lot. 6 is really moving, and 4 and Manfred are exciting. 5 is dull. The rest: even duller.


Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto #2 in G Major, Op.44 is phenomenal. Rarely played, I like it much more than the 1st.

https://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/dc.asp?dc=D_CDA67711/2


----------



## Fabulin

Eclectic Al said:


> Tchaikovsky is a guilty pleasure. I like symphonies 4 and 6. Not really 5. Other than that, not much. Oh, I like the Manfred Symphony quite a lot. 6 is really moving, and 4 and Manfred are exciting. 5 is dull. The rest: even duller.


Excellente! You Sir seem to have an allergy to melody. It's an uncommon condition, and no cure is known, but luckily it is rather benign, and there are support groups in the circles of CM listeners. Stay strong and don't worry about Mozart!


----------



## Eclectic Al

S P Summers said:


> Mozart, Bach, and Haydn do absolutely nothing for me, personally. Even Brahms; apart from his piano concerti, I rarely listen to him. There are so many composers from the late 19th and 20th century whose music is much more interesting and entertaining to listen to.
> 
> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


Aha. you're a different category. Don't even do the Bach, Haydn thing. One thing about Haydn is that (to me) he is unpredictable in just the right predictable way. (Although maybe the piano sonatas are too unpredictable. I think they come across as very modern.) With Mozart, maybe his perfection makes him predictable. Cue outrage. :lol: There is some quote about his getting cross with someone criticising Haydn by saying he wouldn't have done that there. Mozart says he wouldn't either but that that is the point with Haydn. Is Haydn less predictable? Cue more outrage. :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> If you don't get Mozart, fine! Leave him for those of us who appreciate his enormous genius. Listen to what you do get


I'm not criticising him. I'm trying to understand my deficiency. It's a genuine puzzle.


----------



## consuono

S P Summers said:


> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


I don't know that you can have virtuosity and unpredictability at the same time. Virtuosic chance music...I guess you could do rapid chromatic octaves and scales and thirds and fourths and long triple trills and such, but even that would get predictable after a while.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Fabulin said:


> Excellente! You Sir seem to have an allergy to melody. It's an uncommon condition, and no cure is known, but luckily it is rather benign, and there are support groups in the circles of CM listeners. Stay strong and don't worry about Mozart!


Yep. I was expecting this one as well. I do guess that what is floating around here (with the vocal thing too) is that I am less into melody than other aspects of music. That may be.

Again, please note that I am genuinely not denigrating Mozart, I am just trying to work out what it is that I am missing.


----------



## Bulldog

S P Summers said:


> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


The problem with your preferences is that unpredictable music becomes quite predictable once you've listened extensively to a particular work.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


>


I knew you'd be quite quick off the mark. I hope this is perking up everyone's evening. As I say in other responses, I'm really trying to understand similarities between people who don't really get Mozart. Unfortunately, at the moment I'm virtually alone.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> Sorry to be hogging this (but it is my prerogative).
> I listened earlier today to a very short Haydn Piano Sonata. I don't really listen to those much, and couldn't tell you which one it was 5 minutes after listening. But it was interesting! I could probably listen to it again in a week, and I wouldn't remember that it was the same one, but it would be interesting again. With Mozart Piano Sonatas, my mind wanders away. I can listen to a whole book of the WTC without that happening. Why?


You might want to look at some of the posts I wrote sometime ago regarding this :
#233 , #236 , #242


----------



## mmsbls

There are plenty of people on TC who don't place Mozart high on their lists of great or favorite composers. Some here don't much enjoy the Classical era although that doesn't apply to you I assume given that you like Haydn. Some others go further saying they simply don't enjoy Mozart at all. One member said his music is similar to the slapping of ar*e cheeks. 

There is no composer whom everyone likes. Tastes vary. You obviously are aware of the high esteem to which most classical listeners hold Mozart, but if much of his music does not appeal to you, there's not too much you can do. 

There have been some threads where one or more members made similar statements to yours and tried to explain their views. The problem is that it's so personal that an detailed explanation will likely not match with another's view.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Not going well at the moment, this thread. I've got various Mozart fans telling me I'm wrong (which is fine) and someone who doesn't go along with the generally accepted Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, and probably Schubert all being quite good thesis.
No one seems to be on my Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms (but not Mozart) page. It's obviously just me.


----------



## consuono

Without specific criticisms of his music there's not much more to say than either "give it a chance" or "well, you like what you like".


----------



## Eclectic Al

mmsbls said:


> There are plenty of people on TC who don't place Mozart high on their lists of great or favorite composers. Some here don't much enjoy the Classical era although that doesn't apply to you I assume given that you like Haydn. Some others go further saying they simply don't enjoy Mozart at all. One member said his music is similar to the slapping of ar*e cheeks.
> 
> There is no composer whom everyone likes. Tastes vary. You obviously are aware of the high esteem to which most classical listeners hold Mozart, but if much of his music does not appeal to you, there's not too much you can do.
> 
> There have been some threads where one or more members made similar statements to yours and tried to explain their views. The problem is that it's so personal that an detailed explanation will likely not match with another's view.


You're probably right. What's interesting me at the moment, is that no one agrees with me. How lonely. I think I'll just have to listen to Tchaikovsky 6 and end it all.


----------



## Eclectic Al

consuono said:


> Without specific criticisms of his music there's not much more to say than either "give it a chance" or "well, you like what you like".


That's one approach, What I was hoping was that enough people might agree with me that it would be possible to see if there was something in common in their preferences. That is, not an analytical approach to the question, but more an empirical one. Unfortunately, at the moment I have a sample size of one, so that's not going to cut it!


----------



## Bulldog

Eclectic Al said:


> Not going well at the moment, this thread. I've got various Mozart fans telling me I'm wrong (which is fine) and someone who doesn't go along with the generally accepted Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, and probably Schubert all being quite good thesis.
> No one seems to be on my Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms (but not Mozart) page. It's obviously just me.


Best to forget about it and listen to the music that moves you. You can always come back to Mozart in a few years and see if anything has changed concerning your preferences. That's what I do with Vivaldi; for better or worse, the conclusion remains the same. Pettersson revealed a different outcome where I went from don't appreciate to very cool music.


----------



## hammeredklavier

S P Summers said:


> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


How much you appreciate the aesthetics can depend on your personal values. In my view, "certain later music" feels like if you remove several notes, it would still sound good. But I don't quite feel this way about the Baroque, Classical masters you mentioned. I think it's analogous to classical art vs contemporary art (in visual art), I would say contemporary stuff can look fresher on the outside, but if you look closely, classical stuff achieves just as much through intrinsic factors such as discipline and craftsmanship. I think the Baroque, Classical guys are teaching us a life lesson: _"You can still achieve so much without being pretentious."_


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> How much you appreciate the aesthetics can depend on your personal values. In my view, "certain later music" feels like you can take several notes away and it'll still sound good, but I don't quite feel this way about the Baroque, Classical masters you mentioned. I think it's analogous to Classical art vs contemporary art (in visual art), I would say contemporary stuff can be more original on the outside, but if you look differently, Classical art achieves just as much through intrinsic factors such as discipline and craftsmanship. I think the Baroque, Classical guys are teaching us a life lesson. _"You can still achieve so much without being pretentious."_


Interesting that this discussion is, I think, more fruitful than the way this thread was set up. I'm now on the other side! My general view is that you need a structure of expectations in order to deviate from them in an interesting, exciting, moving, pleasing (whatever suits you) way. If you lose the structure of expectations you lose the possibility of being interesting. Bach and Haydn (with Brahms following) are for me the masters of living within a structure but using that to generate emotion and excitement by how they manipulate it.


----------



## mmsbls

One of our members, Nereffid, did a series of composer polls simply asking people if they liked various composers (over 600). 229 members participated, but not everyone took every poll (there were many). 69 said they liked Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Brahms. More may have liked all of them but didn't participate in all the polls.

Of the 69, 3 indicated they did not like Mozart. There were 7 who liked Bach, Beethoven, and Haydn and also did not like Mozart. An additional 5 liked Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms but did not like Mozart. (I hope I did this correctly).

So perhaps you are a bit rare, but clearly there are a reasonable number who like at least 3 of Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, and Brahms who don't like Mozart.


----------



## Gray Bean

I’d add that there are some composers that I simply adore now that I didn’t “get” at all 25-30 years ago. Some of those being JS Bach, Haydn, and Verdi. I also came to the Mozart operas later in my listening career. I got into Mozart by learning his Horn Concertos in High School (I’m 53 now). Only later came to appreciate his Symphonies, Masses and operas...esp. Don Giovanni and Figaro. Maybe you’ll come to these works later in life. I still often prefer Haydn to Mozart as a symphonist but the operas are sublime...especially the Da Ponte operas.


----------



## DavidA

Gray Bean said:


> I'd add that there are some composers that I simply adore now that I didn't "get" at all 25-30 years ago. Some of those being JS Bach, Haydn, and Verdi. I also came to the Mozart operas later in my listening career. I got into Mozart by learning his Horn Concertos in High School (I'm 53 now). Only later came to appreciate his Symphonies, Masses and operas...esp. Don Giovanni and Figaro. Maybe you'll come to these works later in life. *I still often prefer Haydn to Mozart as a symphonist *but the operas are sublime...especially the Da Ponte operas.


The problem is that Mozart was only just hitting his stride as a symphonist with the last three great symphonies when he sadly died.


----------



## Eclectic Al

consuono said:


> Why? Haydn's piano sonatas are superior to Mozart's. Subjectively, of course. But that seems to be the consensus. Mozart's piano sonatas are really not among the greatest in the genre, and I don't know why that is. Maybe deep down he just didn't like the form.


I think with the Haydn piano sonatas I may indeed get there in due course. I will keep trying. I sense that they are too radical for me. Was he experimenting in a very personal way with those, rather than pleasing patrons? Genuine question, as I am not knowledgeable about the history.


----------



## isorhythm

When people say Mozart's music is predictable, what they mean is that it sounds inevitable - once you hear it, you feel it couldn't have been any other way. But it's not predictable at all.

I would suggest reading _The Classical Style_ by Charles Rosen. It may not make you like Mozart, but might give you a better idea of what people hear in him.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The OP is almost an exact mirror of my preferences. Mozart probably comes in around #10-13 on my favorite composer list, but the only works of his I'd include in my personal top 100 compositions are his Clarinet Quintet, Clarinet Concerto, 4th String Quintet (if you don't think you like Mozart, try this one!), and _maybe_ the last two symphonies. Generally I love his chamber music, like his piano music, later symphonies, and sacred choral music a lot (though my mind always wanders off in the Requiem after the thrilling opening sequence and Dies Irae), am lukewarm on most of his concerti (yes, even the famous piano concerti) and don't much care for the operas. For me he is more of a composer I put on when I want to "de-stress" and "relax" rather than to deeply engage my mind. I have never been able to understand the depths of sublime profundity that people say they find in the 20th piano concerto, Requiem, Don Giovanni, and Figaro. Maybe it's just because I'm a very analytical person who wants to overthink everything and I get intensely annoyed at his repetitive harmonies (cadence that goes like this: ascending chromatic scale - da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da TRIIIILLLLLL-doo-doo-doo - AAARRRGGHH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY). Sometimes I get frustrated, wondering why he is considered such a genius when I can see little deeper in him than beguiling tunes and the occasional deeply inspired moment. I can understand that even in Bach, my favorite composer, there are lots of repetitive harmonies and figurations but I always find Bach so deliriously unpredictable and challenging, marrying emotional sensousness and intellectual rigor in perfect proportion. The only Mozart works I feel that way about are his fantasias for piano (which are strikingly composed), the 40th symphony, the 24th piano concerto, and lots of his chamber works. But when I'm in the mood for him, he hits the spot just like a chocolate bonbon. I do love Haydn, BTW, and think he is just as consistent across all genres as Mozart.


----------



## S P Summers

Bulldog said:


> The problem with your preferences is that unpredictable music becomes quite predictable once you've listened extensively to a particular work.


Even if that's the case, that's just the type of music I'm attracted to. Perhaps that's why I have such a gigantic music collection. 

I go through phases with pieces/composers that I listen to daily, and listen to my albums that are more abstract or avant-garde in nature in rotation.

I'm not constantly listening to Xenakis, Schoenberg, and Wyschnegradsky, for example; but I'll listen to them occasionally. Sorabji and Messiaen used to be in that category, but I listen to both of them quite frequently now.

There's no shortage of incredible, unpredictable music!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

S P Summers said:


> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


These don't check those boxes for you?


----------



## Eclectic Al

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Mozart was only just hitting his stride as a symphonist with the last three great symphonies when he sadly died.


Indeed, who knows what Mozart might have achieved , given a longer life. Perhaps my respect for Schubert is because his String Quintet, say, seems so wise, an old man's music, in a way that I don't get with Mozart. Is that because Schubert felt mortality calling with a certainty that Mozart did not? Apologies if my lack of interest in the history means that this is nonsense.


----------



## ORigel

I have some trouble with Mozart and I listen to Haydn more. I still consider him the best composer of concerti.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The OP is almost an exact mirror of my preferences. Mozart probably comes in around #10-13 on my favorite composer list, but the only works of his I'd include in my personal top 100 compositions are his Clarinet Quintet, Clarinet Concerto, 4th String Quintet (if you don't think you like Mozart, try this one!), and _maybe_ the last two symphonies. Generally I love his chamber music, like his piano music, later symphonies, and sacred choral music a lot (though my mind always wanders off in the Requiem after the thrilling opening sequence and Dies Irae), am lukewarm on most of his concerti (yes, even the famous piano concerti) and don't much care for the operas. For me he is more of a composer I put on when I want to "de-stress" and "relax" rather than to deeply engage my mind. I have never been able to understand the depths of sublime profundity that people say they find in the 20th piano concerto, Requiem, Don Giovanni, and Figaro. Maybe it's just because I'm a very analytical person who wants to overthink everything and I get intensely annoyed at his repetitive harmonies (cadence that goes like this: ascending chromatic scale - da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da TRIIIILLLLLL-doo-doo-doo - AAARRRGGHH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY). Sometimes I get frustrated, wondering why he is considered such a genius when I can see little deeper in him than beguiling tunes and the occasional deeply inspired moment. I can understand that even in Bach, my favorite composer, there are lots of repetitive harmonies and figurations but I always find Bach so deliriously unpredictable and challenging, marrying emotional sensousness and intellectual rigor in perfect proportion. The only Mozart works I feel that way about are his fantasias for piano (which are strikingly composed), the 40th symphony, the 24th piano concerto, and lots of his chamber works. But when I'm in the mood for him, he hits the spot just like a chocolate bonbon.


Someone agrees with me at last! The only difference is I'm more partial to Piano Concerto 23. I'll have a bit more of a go at 24! I am not familiar with the fantasies.


----------



## S P Summers

consuono said:


> I don't know that you can have virtuosity and unpredictability at the same time...


Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Ornstein
Gershwin
Messiaen
Dohnányi
Scriabin
Khachaturian
Ives
Bartók
Feinberg
Liszt
Ginastera
Schoenberg
Sorabji
Rzewski


----------



## S P Summers

Allegro Con Brio said:


> These don't check those boxes for you?


I'll give the chromatic fantasia and BWV 830 another listen. I'm not a fan of the keyboard concerti, sadly. It's really not the type of music I listen to for recreational purposes.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Eclectic Al said:


> Someone agrees with me at last! The only difference is I'm more partial to Piano Concerto 23. I'll have a bit more of a go at 24! I am not familiar with the fantasies.


Oh, the slow movement of PC 23 is maybe my favorite individual Mozart movement (almost sounds like a Chopin nocturne!), but the outer movements don't do much for me. For No. 24 it's the complete opposite. Do check out the fantasias; Hammeredklavier would be more than happy to break down every bar of them and tell you how they're masterpieces of the keyboard and how they anticipate Wagner's harmonies - it's quite a different kind of music than you might be expecting from Mozart.


----------



## S P Summers

Eclectic Al said:


> I think with the Haydn piano sonatas I may indeed get there in due course. I will keep trying. I sense that they are too radical for me. Was he experimenting in a very personal way with those, rather than pleasing patrons? Genuine question, as I am not knowledgeable about the history.


I need to revisit these sonatas. What are some of the most "radical" of them all?


----------



## S P Summers

isorhythm said:


> When people say Mozart's music is predictable, what they mean is that it sounds inevitable - once you hear it, you feel it couldn't have been any other way. But it's not predictable at all.
> 
> I would suggest reading _The Classical Style_ by Charles Rosen. It may not make you like Mozart, but might give you a better idea of what people hear in him.


I absolutely love Charles Rosen's playing, I own several of his albums. I'm going to buy that book.

Check out this album:


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh, the slow movement of PC 23 is maybe my favorite individual Mozart movement (almost sounds like a Chopin nocturne!), but the outer movements don't do much for me. For No. 24 it's the complete opposite. Do check out the fantasias; Hammeredklavier would be more than happy to break down every bar of them and tell you how they're masterpieces of the keyboard and how they anticipate Wagner's harmonies - it's quite a different kind of music than you might be expecting from Mozart.


Yep, it's probably the slow movement of PC 23, and perhaps that I got into it first. I will try the fantasias, although it is telling that your suggestion is that I might like them because they are not what you would expect from Mozart. With Bach I like things because they are what you would expect from Bach!


----------



## Eclectic Al

S P Summers said:


> I need to revisit these sonatas. What are some of the most "radical" of them all?


As I said, I'm no expert, and can't tell one from the other. They just seem to me weird. I play piano (badly) and with Bach and Beethoven I can make sense (if not play them); with Mozart it just seems like passage-work to no purpose; and with Haydn I'm baffled. I suspect they are written by someone who is beyond me. A poster who is knowledgeable may have recommendations. My suggestion is Hob XVI, 50, but perhaps because it is comprehensible. Which is not the point.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Eclectic Al said:


> As I said, I'm no expert, and can't tell one from the other. They just seem to me weird. I play piano (badly) and with Bach and Beethoven I can make sense (if not play them); with Mozart it just seems like passage-work to no purpose; and with Haydn I'm baffled. I suspect they are written by someone who is beyond me. Someone who is knowledgeable may have recommendations. My suggestion is Hob XVI, 50, but perhaps because it is comprehensible. Which is not the point.


I've learned quite a bit of Mozart (it's right at the level I can play without making any mistakes) and it's really all about phrasing and articulation. There are a couple sonatas where the musical material is interesting in itself (Nos. 8, 12, 14, 18) but mostly I'm interested in how pianists use their touch and delivery to convey the emotions from the very simple scores. Listen to Arrau, Pires, Gould, and Say play the sonatas and you'll hear the difference!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I have never been able to understand the depths of sublime profundity that people say they find in the 20th piano concerto, Requiem, Don Giovanni, and Figaro. Maybe it's just because I'm a very analytical person who wants to overthink everything and I get intensely annoyed at his repetitive harmonies (cadence that goes like this: ascending chromatic scale - da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da TRIIIILLLLLL-doo-doo-doo - AAARRRGGHH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY). Sometimes I get frustrated, wondering why he is considered such a genius when I can see little deeper in him than beguiling tunes and the occasional deeply inspired moment.


















I don't think you need to make such a huge deal out of something that's inherent in the language of all 18th century masters using all those capital letters. You sound more like you're taking this as a chance to mock, yet again, exaggerating things way out of proportion. =) Personally, I can live without anything Schubert wrote. All his lieder are sentimental exercises of vamps and padding. Just look at Erlkonig, for example. It sounds like a 4-minute long machine gun. In instrumental works, he always strikes me like a "clown" trying too hard to be a master of form. Whenever I look at stuff like:



hammeredklavier said:


> The way he modulates and everything.. sounds too much like compositional exercises rather than actual serious works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If look at certain sections of the Rosamunde quartet, in each measure it goes like - all the voices start on note A, the next measure, on note D, the next, on G, the next, on C.. (Wow..)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in the development section, this gets multipled 4~5 times. (Wow..)


The emperor is butt-naked right in front of all of us and I always get an urge in the inside to make threads, crying out to everyone "why can't you see it?!". I could write what I _honestly feel_ in those threads about "greatest 19th century/Romantic piano sonatas", but I won't. About the "naked emperor", numbered D960. =)


----------



## Kieran

I've read the thread, and you sound to me, brother, like a man on the brink of a great obsession. You're like the gent in the old movies who wrings his hands and asks his pal, "what the dickins is it about her, she irritates me so, if I never see her again, it's far too early!"

Fear not. Take out your pulse and check it. Which is your favourite form of music? You don't like opera, eh? The Maestro is blocked from you there, for the moment. But say you like string quartets, or chamber music in general. You have the magnificent six quartets he composed for Haydn. No need to listen to them all at once - try K421 for size first. Of if a string trio is more your shine, there's K563, a work of grandeur. Look into the piano quartets, the piano quintet, K452 (I think, from memory), these are musical forms Mozart invented, to try fund his business. His great violin sonatas. He had such a range that there might be a way in for you somewhere. Personally, I think the way in is through the slow movements, as you appreciate in his 23rd PC. But look at his 9th, with its innovative opening, that wild first movement followed by a slow, drunken lurch, followed by a galloping romp in the third movement, where - more innovation - he stops the movement to insert a dance.

If you look at Mozart not as an inveterate chocolate box composer with sweet, simple, unchallenging music, an arch-establishment figure, but come at it from his direction, you might appreciate him more. The working musician, composing works like his great string quintets, K515 and K516, where he hoped an avenue of revenue might open up. Miracles, but hope scorned. There's so much of it, in so many different forms, I feel you're close to that wonderful moment in the movie where you suddenly realise, "by Jove, I cannot live without her, I tell you, I love her!" :devil:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> Was he experimenting in a very personal way with those, rather than pleasing patrons? Genuine question, as I am not knowledgeable about the history.


There are some examples. The slow movement of F major K533; I recently discussed its possible connection to Wagner: https://www.talkclassical.com/63373-harmonic-similarities-wagner-mozart-3.html#post1815993
Also, there's a video of Charles Hazlewood discussing the "innovations" in A minor K310: 



Fantasy-sonata C minor K475/457: https://www.talkclassical.com/58678-cyclic-form-classical-works-5.html#post1819989



hammeredklavier said:


> K457 Adagio / Op.13 "Pathetique"
> Fantasie K397 / Op.31 No.2 "Tempest"
> K394 Prelude / Op.51 "Waldstein"
> Fantasie K475 / Op.57 "Appassionata"
> Fantasie K475 / Op.57 "Appassionata"
> Btw, I read somewhere once that the A flat major andante from Fantasie K608 for mechanical organ, (which Beethoven studied at the time he was writing Pathetique) was probably another source of inspiration for the sonata's slow movement.


I find the ending of K394 fugue to be one of the most moving moments of keyboard music utilizing major second dissonances: 




Also look at:


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> Mozart's piano sonatas are really not among the greatest in the genre, and I don't know why that is. Maybe deep down he just didn't like the form.


You keep stating this as if it is fact, it is not. Why do you think so many of the greatest musicians in the world have recorded his sonatas, and continue to make recordings of them? Simply because they say 'Mozart' on them?


----------



## Manxfeeder

Eclectic Al said:


> Again, please note that I am genuinely not denigrating Mozart, I am just trying to work out what it is that I am missing.


I'm interested in this thread. I've often wondered what I'm missing. I mean, for Mahler's last word to be "Mozart," well, that wouldn't necessarily be mine.

Personally, I prefer Haydn over Mozart as well. He's more fun, rhythmic, plays with the orchestration, but when he gets serious, wow (like the Seven Last Words). I don't like his slow movements, though. But his string quartets and his big two oratorios are wonderful, as are his late masses.

Having said that, I've dipped my toes enough into Mozart that I really do like a ton of his music, though I won't admit it to myself. He tends more to subtlety and elegance, whereas Haydn is more rough-hewn. And he is a supreme melodist. What stand out to me are his late symphonies and piano concertos. And though I don't like opera, his three Da Ponte operas have won me over to the degree that I own recordings of all three (it's the psychological insight he puts into his characters).


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> The problem is that Mozart was only just hitting his stride as a symphonist with the last three great symphonies when he sadly died.


Bernstein's analysis on Mozart's 40th: 



I think that from early on, Mozart found his "own voice", while Haydn and Beethoven are distinctively unique themselves (in terms of innovations in monothematicism and its motivic working), -but Mozart also feels different, if you look at the harmony of K184 (which is one of many early Mozart works I appreciate, such as string quartets, K157, K159, K168, K173, and the famous "little" G minor symphony K183)

*[ 2:00~2:30 ]*





I always think Divertimento K334 could count as a "string symphony" (because in the early-mid Classical era, the distinctions between symphony - divertimento - overture were vague.) and this goes beyond the realm of divertimentos, anticipating Mozart's own Haydn quartets. Look at the way he masterfully creates contrast and tension with chromaticism in sections like:

*[ 3:00~3:40 / 7:45~8:45 / 9:50~10:10 / 25:00~26:00 ]*





His other neglected "chamber orchestral" works:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think you need to make such a huge deal out of something that's inherent in the language of all 18th century masters using all those capital letters. You sound more like you're taking this as a chance to mock, yet again, exaggerating things way out of proportion. =) Personally, I can live without anything Schubert wrote. All his lieder are exercises of vamps and padding. Just look at Erlkonig, for example. It sounds like a 4-minute long machine gun. In instrumental works, he always strikes me like a "clown" trying too hard to be a master of form. Whenever I look at stuff like:
> 
> The emperor is butt-naked right in front of all of us and I always get an urge in the inside to make threads, crying out to everyone "why can't you see it?!". I could write what I _honestly feel_ in those threads about "greatest 19th century/Romantic piano sonatas", but I won't. About the "naked emperor", numbered D960. =)


I don't know why you take it so personally when Mozart is criticized. I admit that I was a little over the top in the quoted post, and for that I apologize. But to say I was "mock[ing] yet again" is a blatant exaggeration. I find Mozart's use of that Classical-era cadence figure to be more frequent than Haydn (who's admittedly the only other Classical period composer I am intimately familiar with). I'm not an anti-Mozart crusader by any means. I would hate to trade in his entire ouevre for anyone else who isn't in my top 5 composers for fear of losing such gems as the slow movements of his 9th and 17th piano concerti and all the other works of his I've expressed admiration for. It's just that I find those deeply affecting moments for me to be comparatively rare within his output. I'm not prepared to debate the formal implications of his compositional style, because I don't think about how well something is composed when I listen to it, I think about how it moves me. And I'm sorry that you always feel you must drag Schubert into all these conversations. All this is simple personal preference.

Out of sheer genuine curiosity, who are your top 10 favorite composers? Or you could post them in the dedicated thread that is currently going on if you don't want to derail too much here.


----------



## tdc

For people that subjectively aren't into Mozart, it is not a big deal. I'm not into Beethoven or Haydn. As far as much of the flashy virtuosity we encounter in the Romantic era, it does not really interest me at all, unless it seems to be there for a reason relating to the logic and undiluted expressive potential of the music. For the majority of listeners there are some big name composers they don't like as much, I think this is pretty normal.

Actually I get a little suspicious when someone appears to like every big name composer they are 'supposed' to like. Maybe they are just posers? Or perhaps they are trying to appear completely objective as if they are not at all influenced by their own tastes?

I think it is important to understand _why_ some composers are rated highly, but it is pretty natural not to enjoy every style of music equally, or perhaps not to enjoy some of it at all, even if it is by one of the masters.


----------



## Ethereality

I get Mozart. I don't really get Brahms as much, even though he's a good composer, I don't grasp his detailed stiffness being better than when Dvorak captures memorable and interesting movement. Germanic and Austrian harmony and rhythm can be a little more humdrum, even Mahler, it feels a little more square and stiff and makes it a little harder to care about.


----------



## tdc

Ethereality said:


> I don't really get Brahms as much, even though he's a good composer, I don't grasp his detailed stiffness being better than when Dvorak captures memorable and interesting movement.


Brahms was a weird one for me because his overall aesthetic is not what I'm initially attracted to in music. At first he did not stand out to me, nor did I even like his music. Over time I began to notice a very attractive appeal beneath the 'surface' of the music. There is also a strength in craftsmanship, it retains its freshness and has a certain durability. When I listen to him now I get much enjoyment, indeed he is among my favorite composers, yet I can still simultaneously hear the aspects of his music that I didn't like at first. On the surface sometimes his music can seem rather average, even dull. I don't hear it that way now, but I can see why some do.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I mostly agree. I've always loved Haydn for being what Mozart isn't. The rougher edges around his melodies and expositions make them more interesting to me, sometimes sacrificing tunefulness to juke you or be be unorthodox rhythmically. The same thing I love about Handel.

The closest I have come to "getting" Mozart was through a shift in my emotional disposition. I exited a period in my life where the wild passion of the romantics and the stress/terror of Schoenberg, Xenakis, and etc spoke me to the most, and I began to internally crave music that was gentle and comforting. 

Mozart didn't suddenly become a favorite of mine, but I felt receptive to something like the quintet for piano and winds, which previously I'd written off as one of the most boring masterpieces ever. Gradually I reacted to Mozart's delicate melodies the same way I would coo and melt at the sight of my baby nephews.

Before this, I typically listened to Mozart more than composers I liked 10 times as much, just trying to understand. For about 5 years probably, and nothing changed. I gave a similar effort to the serialists and other weirdos to no avail, only to finally catch on when, again, the circumstances of my life left me wanting that sound naturally.

If you just dont get it after trying extensively, I think your only option is to wait a really long time. Listen yourself sick of everything you do like and then maybe what sounds fresh will be what you didnt like before.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I don't know why you take it so personally when Mozart is criticized. I admit that I was a little over the top in the quoted post, and for that I apologize. But to say I was "mock[ing] yet again" is a blatant exaggeration.


I don't think it's an exaggeration. =) I still remember you saying things like this 4 times in a row across threads like a month ago. You haven't done this for other composers. =)



Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find Mozart's use of that Classical-era cadence figure to be more frequent than Haydn (who's admittedly the only other Classical period composer I am intimately familiar with). I'm not an anti-Mozart crusader by any means. I would hate to trade in his entire ouevre for anyone else who isn't in my top 5 composers for fear of losing such gems as the slow movements of his 9th and 17th piano concerti and all the other works of his I've expressed admiration for.


But it's not more frequent in Mozart. =) If you listen carefully to each Haydn concerto, string quartet. 



 Let's not forget Mozart also wrote works like missa breves K192, K194, maurerische trauermusik K477. You keep sounding like you're just trying to brand negative images about a composer you don't like. =)



Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's just that I find those deeply affecting moments for me to be comparatively rare within his output. I'm not prepared to debate the formal implications of his compositional style, because I don't think about how well something is composed when I listen to it, I think about how it moves me. And I'm sorry that you always feel you must drag Schubert into all these conversations. All this is simple personal preference.


But you said you're an analytical person. =) I also care about how music moves me, unfortunately, aside from some great tunes like the ones in the arpeggione sonata, Ave Maria - to me, Schubert never goes beyond the pleasant. I mean, his sense and skill in form and voice-leading are so evident, right in front of our eyes. But remember, I didn't write about what I truly felt in that thread about "The greatest 19th century piano sonatas".
Also, about Schubert, I've seen people trying to _"steal credit"_ from Mozart to build Schubert's reputation. Arguments like "I don't find Mozart inspired, I don't know why he's considered such a genius in the history of classical music. But with Schubert, I don't find these issues", which, if said plenty of times enough, can eventually lead to conclusions like "Mozart is overrated, Schubert is underrated in comparison, in the history of classical music." 
You're right. (As you said, _"All this is simple personal preference."_) I too think the conclusion of much a "genius" a composer is or "inspired" his music is objectively shouldn't be made from "how much his music moves me".



Allegro Con Brio said:


> Out of sheer genuine curiosity, who are your top 10 favorite composers?


Why? I find that exercise a huge bore. =) I don't care about other people's lists and I don't expect other people to care for mine.
It's like asking a random person you see on a street what their 10 favorite athletes or celebrities are. =)
All that matters to me, is if people like you are _unfairly trying to brand negative images_ about a composer (in this case, Mozart) they don't like. I'm just kindly asking you to reconsider your attitude. =)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Gradually I reacted to Mozart's delicate melodies the same way I would coo and melt at the sight of my baby nephews.


This nails it for me. When I'm most in a mood to be responsive to his music and with his best work, the purity and symmetry of the music strikes me as being virgin, unadultered, absolutely inspired in all its components. The Clarinet Quintet is probably what best represents this for me, but even then I'm not always in the mood to appreciate it. Like I said, when I'm stressed or feel pessimistic about the world (not an infrequent occurrence nowadays) Mozart can show me the light.


----------



## tdc

Mozart's music sounds to me as written by someone who has passed through life's trials, and come full circle to a new sense of youthfulness. A youthfulness mixed with wisdom that has been tempered by life's trials, it's ups and downs. Perhaps somewhat like the tarot card The Sun.

Haydn's music (though undeniably well crafted) comes across to me as composed by someone with less emotional maturity, less depth, less experience, less brilliance.

I understand Haydn was among the greatest innovators in music, he was also arguably the greatest orchestrator in the classical era. I know he was great, I just don't find his individual compositional voice very interesting. I'm not into the humor in his music, for me that is not what music is about, it seems to reduce it to something rather silly and trivial. Its just not my thing.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think it's an exaggeration. =) I still remember you saying things like this 4 times in a row across threads like a month ago. You haven't done this for other composers. =)
> 
> But it's not more frequent. =) If you listen carefully to each Haydn concerto, string quartet.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget Mozart also wrote works like missa breves K192, K194, maurerische trauermusik K477. You keep sounding like you're just trying to brand negative images about a composer you don't like. =)
> 
> But you said you're an analytical person. =) I also care about how music moves me, unfortunately, aside from some great tunes like the ones in the arpeggione sonata, Ave Maria - to me, Schubert never goes beyond the pleasant. I mean, his sense and skill in form and voice-leading are so evident, right in front of our eyes. But remember, I didn't write about what I truly felt in that thread about "greatest 19th century piano sonatas".
> Also, about Schubert, I've seen people trying to _"steal credit"_ from Mozart to build Schubert's reputation. Arguments like "I don't find Mozart inspired, I don't know why he's considered such a genius in the history of classical music. But with Schubert, I don't find these issues", which, if said plenty of times enough, can eventually lead to conclusions like "Mozart is overrated, Schubert is underrated in comparison, in the history of classical music."
> You're right. (As you said, _"All this is simple personal preference."_) I too think the conclusion of much a "genius" a composer is or "inspired" his music is objectively shouldn't be made from "how much his music moves me".
> 
> Why? I find that exercise a huge bore. =) I don't care about other people's list and I don't expect other people to care for mine.
> It's like asking a random person you see on a street what their 10 favorite athletes or celebrities are. =)
> All that matters to me, is if people like you are _unfairly trying to brand negative images_ about a composer (in this case, Mozart) you don't like. I'm just kindly asking you to reconsider your attitude. =)


Where are you getting any of this...? Reread the post you are replying to. Allegro Con Brio never said he does not like Mozart; on the contrary I'm pretty sure he placed Mozart somewhere in his top 10 in that other thread he was talking about. And please, try and string two sentences together without dragging Schubert's name into it. Come on, I'm sure you can form _some_ argument without dragging his name through the mud, even if it does take you a little extra effort.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> It's all music that delights me, but rarely astonishes me.





Allegro Con Brio said:


> This nails it for me. When I'm most in a mood to be responsive to his music and with his best work, the purity and symmetry of the music strikes me as being virgin, unadultered, absolutely inspired in all its components. The Clarinet Quintet is probably what best represents this for me, but even then I'm not always in the mood to appreciate it. Like I said, when I'm stressed or feel pessimistic about the world (not an infrequent occurrence nowadays) Mozart can show me the light.


No offense, =) but I'm often amazed how many people who say things like these have preference for certain long-winded late 19th century symphonies. For me, they're music to listen to while doing something else. How can you listen to _all that with a sane mind_, it's just beyond me.




btw, I'm not necessarily talking about Mahler's 5th, (which is used in this video)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

> I don't think it's an exaggeration. =) I still remember you saying things like this 4 times in a row across threads like a month ago. You haven't done this for other composers. =)


That example was not of me "mocking" Mozart, I was simply expressing my preference. I try not to disrespect anyone's opinions on here and simply state my own. I've expressed similar sentiments for Tchaikovsky, Schumann and others. If you've interpreted my words as being derogatory, I apologize once more and I will try harder in the future to be more sensitive.



> But it's not more frequent. =) If you listen carefully to each Haydn concerto, string quartet.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget Mozart also wrote works like missa breves K192, K194, maurerische trauermusik K477. You keep sounding like you're just trying to brand negative images about a composer you don't like. =)


Mozart is in my top 15 composers. I don't dislike him by any stretch of the imagination. I just think that his masterpieces are scattered infrequently throughout his less-inspired work, rather than with such composers as Bach and Brahms where I THINK their concentration of masterpieces is higher. Inspired by your advocacy, I listened to Maurerische Trauermusik the other week and didn't enjoy it too much. But another work that you've proselytized for, the Rondo in A Minor for keyboard, struck me as being very ingenious.



> But you said you're an analytical person. =) I also care about how music moves me, unfortunately, aside from some pretty tunes like the one in Arpeggione sonata, Ave Maria - to me, Schubert never goes beyond the pleasant. I mean, his sense and skill in form and voice-leading are so evident, right in front of our eyes. But remember, I didn't write about what I truly felt in that thread about "greatest 19th century piano sonatas".
> Also, about Schubert, I've seen people trying to _"steal credit"_ from Mozart to build Schubert's reputation. Arguments like "I don't find Mozart inspired, I don't know why he's considered such a genius in history of music. But with Schubert, I don't find these issues", which, if said plenty of times enough, can eventually lead to conclusions like "Mozart is overrated, Schubert is underrated in comparison, in history of music."
> You're right. (As you said, _"All this is simple personal preference."_) I too think the conclusion of much "genius" a composer is or "inspired" his music is shouldn't be made from "how much his music moves me".


Well, I'm analytical in the sense that I prefer music to be richer than just "nice tunes." That's not only what I hear in Schubert; I hear harmonic and modulatory invention of the highest order, I hear a huge spectrum of emotions sublimated brilliantly into aural form, and a lyrical poetic instinct with shadows of darkness around every corner. In the best of Mozart I hear this too - D and C Minor Fantasias, 24th piano concerto, 40th symphony, 4th string quintet. Schubert certainly has weaknesses in my mind too (excessive repetitiveness like in his 17th sonata chief among them) but for me Schubert's hits are more frequent than his misses. And just like how we only have the youthful works of Schubert compared to the life he could have led (and the counterpoint classes he was planning on taking right before his death) we only have the youthful works of Mozart. Many of his later works showcase flashes of incredible maturity and I long to hear how he could have developed it further. In that sense I think Schubert perhaps would have outgrown his compositional faults like his struggle with developing melodies and writing polyphony, and Mozart perhaps would more frequently showcase the harmonic adventurousness that marked some of his later works. But of course, pure speculation.



> Why? I find that exercise a huge bore. =) I don't care about other people's list and I don't expect other people to care for mine.
> It's like asking a random person you see on a street what their 10 favorite athletes or celebrities are. =)
> All that matters to me, is if people like you are _unfairly trying to brand negative images_ about a composer (in this case, Mozart) you don't like. I'm just kindly asking you to reconsider your attitude. =)


I just wanted to know because outside of the classical period I've only seen you express admiration for Bach, Beethoven (with reservations), Brahms, Wagner, and Mahler. Just curious to know if you like any other composers.


----------



## tdc

Never mind misread quote.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Mozart is in my top 15 composers. I don't dislike him by any stretch of the imagination. I just think that his masterpieces are scattered infrequently throughout his less-inspired work, rather than with such composers as Bach and Brahms where I THINK their concentration of masterpieces is higher. Inspired by your advocacy, I listened to Maurerische Trauermusik the other week and didn't enjoy it too much. But another work that you've proselytized for, the Rondo in A Minor for keyboard, struck me as being very ingenious.


I still think if you're trying to compare with Brahms and Bach to prove Mozart's weakness, you're just being unfair. You're obviously showing a lot of "personal favoritism" and (possibly some "ulterior motives"), rather than doing fair criticism. 
It's also funny it was *Brahms* who, in his late years, praised Mozart for use of dissonance, harmony. And it was Wagner who praised Mozart's sense and skill with chromaticism. The kind of things you seem to be _secretly trying to attribute_ to Schubert, trying to make it seem like he was more significant than he really was, with respect to Mozart, in the history of classical music.
By citing works like the missa breves and K475, K477, I was talking about the fact they don't use Classical trill cadences (which you hate so much). 
And about harmony - give me a break please, I never hear this sort of harmony in Schubert: 



 or 



The 30-year old Schubert would have sought lessons in harmony from the 30-year old Mozart (if they were contemporaries). An inconvenient truth some people today refuse to face. =)



hammeredklavier said:


> *3:00 ~ 3:24
> 5:39 ~ 6:41
> 7:30 ~ 7:50
> 13:13 ~ 15:27*





Allegro Con Brio said:


> but for me Schubert's hits are more frequent than his misses.


Schubert's masses are weaker versions of Haydn's late six. Die Zauberharfe is a weak attempt at imitating Mozart. And please don't tell me his 600+ lieder are all good. It's amazing sometimes how people treat Vivaldi and Schubert so differently.
https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/schubert.pdf
_"All his stage works were flops."_
_"It has been said, and with truth, that Schubert holds the record for composing the most flops and he is top of this leader board by miles."_


----------



## AeolianStrains

hammeredklavier said:


> All that matters to me, is if people like you are _unfairly trying to brand negative images_ about a composer (in this case, Mozart) you don't like. I'm just kindly asking you to reconsider your attitude. =)


Why do you care so much about "brand image"? As if people will stop buying Mozart records?  No one cares about such a petty thing, but being social creatures, others' tastes are interesting.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> Sorry to be hogging this (but it is my prerogative).
> I listened earlier today to a very short Haydn Piano Sonata. I don't really listen to those much, and couldn't tell you which one it was 5 minutes after listening. But it was interesting! I could probably listen to it again in a week, and I wouldn't remember that it was the same one, but it would be interesting again. With Mozart Piano Sonatas, my mind wanders away. I can listen to a whole book of the WTC without that happening. Why?


As far as Mozart piano sonatas, I would check out Christoph Eschenbach. I really did not listen much to his sonatas until I heard Eschen(bach), get the pun. Now I have various artists including Uchida/Brendel. I do not think Haydn surpasses Mozart in this dept, he just wrote sonatas that are easy to enjoy. After listening to Mozart sonatas I noticed I am getting a more profound enjoyment from them so I do think they are above child's play--one must have it to pull it off. I find even Mozart early work very compelling, like the divermentos and wind serenades, violin sonatas. In other words, Mozart is good from day one. I have noticed Mozart works really are not brought up in the forum that much except the famous works so my advice is ignore what is famous and sit back and listen FOR NO REASON. One of the 5 violin concertos? Hardly a mention here anywhere.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> Thanks for the suggestion. But (another defect in me) any opera suggestions are not going to work. Nor probably any other vocal ideas. I am expecting that one thing which might come out of this exercise (if anything!) is that Mozart refuseniks may well be less into vocal music generally.
> You see I am genuinely interested in why I seem to relate to Haydn, but not Mozart, when they seemed to relate to each other.


Well, no as his mass in c minor and other masses are not like opera. It will grow on you perhaps but I seldom listen to opera except some sampler cds.


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> By the way, I was just listening to Symphony 40 again, and it's a great piece of music. What is it about that which is different from his other symphonies (even 41)?


Well, for starters the finale points toward the romantic period. Being in g minor gives it that thrilling type of angst that I like and it is my favorite Mozart symphony.


----------



## Bigbang

consuono said:


> Why? Haydn's piano sonatas are superior to Mozart's. Subjectively, of course. But that seems to be the consensus. Mozart's piano sonatas are really not among the greatest in the genre, and I don't know why that is. Maybe deep down he just didn't like the form.


Please! Mozart and a piano is like, well, other than maybe the human voice, no other instrument is given as much attention. I do not think scholars would agree Mozart sonatas are inferior to Haydn at all. Only so much attention can be given to writing music and Mozart was no different. His sonatas are simple for some and profound for others, and I find I can easily listen to them without tiring as it does not wear on me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> I accept your apology, but I still think if you're trying to compare with Brahms and Bach to prove Mozart's weakness, you're just being unfair. You're obviously showing a lot of "personal favoritism" and (possibly some "ulterior motives"), rather than doing fair criticism.
> It's also funny it was *Brahms* who, in his late years, praised Mozart for use of dissonance, harmony. And it was Wagner who praised Mozart's sense and skill with chromaticism. The kind of things you seem to be _secretly trying to attribute _to Schubert, trying to make it seem like he was more significant than he really is, with respect to Mozart, in the history of classical music.
> By citing works like the missa breves and K475, K477 was talking about the fact they don't use the Classical trill cadences (which you hate so much).
> And about harmony - give me a break please, I never hear this sort of harmony in Schubert:
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> The 30-year old Schubert would have sought the 30-year old Mozart for lessons in harmony (if they were contemporaries). An inconvenient truth some people today refuse to face. =)


I don't care whether a composer was "significant in the history of classical music." I care about whether I connect with his music. Is the chamber music of Florent Schmitt and Joseph Jongen "significant in the history of classical music?" Of course not! But it's _great_ music! I could say the same for so many other "off the beaten path" composers that I love. I mentioned Bach and Brahms because they are my two personal standards against which I compare all music. Mozart is your personal standard; that's perfectly fine. Again, opinion/preference. I've tempered my position as much as I'm willing to go. I'd be willing to learn from you about the glories of Mozart - I love discovering music that other people are passionate about, and I truly _do_ want to learn to love Mozart as the classical music world "says" I should. But your passion for Mozart leaves a sour taste in my mouth because you bash so many other composers - I believe such negativity is inherently antithetical to the spirit of this forum (if you want to try and dig up an instance of me talking about a composer as an "amateur" as if it were objective truth as you've talked about Schubert, I will quickly apologize for the double standard). All I ask in return is that you not label people as dislikers of Mozart if they offer even the slightest criticism of Mozart.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mozart was a melodic genius, and master of form. He has a way of tying parts together seamlessly, and in interesting ways. He knew how to bring out the best of each instrument. The accompaniment is always spot on, not too thick in texture (something some Romantics can learn from, haha). This was the first work that I loved, and still love. Check out how everything flows, it's frightening.

Haven't listened to it in a while. And I'm thinking where've I been lately. I read somewhere and feel exactly the same, that Mozart brings the heart and mind together in some elevated place.


----------



## Bigbang

Phil loves classical said:


> Mozart was a melodic genius, and master of form. He has a way of tying parts together seamlessly, and in interesting ways. He knew how to bring out the best of each instrument. The accompaniment is always spot on. This was the first work that I loved, and still love. Check out how everything flows, it's frightening.
> 
> Haven't listened to it in a while. And I'm thinking where've I been lately. I read somewhere and feel exactly the same, that Mozart brings the heart and mind together in some elevated place.


Even Beethoven knew Mozart was a genius to be respected so I do not let lesser opinions worry me, and I get it if some cannot readily get him right off.

A shout out to finale to piano concerto 15...what a movement and used in Amadeus.


----------



## consuono

Bigbang said:


> Please! Mozart and a piano is like, well, other than maybe the human voice, no other instrument is given as much attention. I do not think scholars would agree Mozart sonatas are inferior to Haydn at all. Only so much attention can be given to writing music and Mozart was no different. His sonatas are simple for some and profound for others, and I find I can easily listen to them without tiring as it does not wear on me.


Scholars might not, but I think pianists who've played sonatas by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would rank Mozart third. I know Richter did. Playing Mozart's sonatas I feel "let down" in a way that I don't when I'm playing Bach, Haydn or Beethoven. They're just not music of the same quality as his other work. They're the weakest part of his catalog imo.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Scholars might not, but I think pianists who've played sonatas by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would rank Mozart third. I know Richter did. Playing Mozart's sonatas I feel "let down" in a way that I don't when I'm playing Bach, Haydn or Beethoven. They're just not music of the same quality as his other work. They're the weakest part of his catalog imo.


Richter was also a pianist with "unpopular opinions" like "whenever I hear the Chopin "Funeral March' Sonata, I want to vomit." 
I also play the piano, but I always consider the kind of things you've said as "typical stereotypes about Mozart" that exist in the classical piano community. We discussed these things already, remember.
#233 , #236 , #242

*[ 4:50 ]*










You even told me: 


consuono said:


> Well I'm not a Nietzsche fan really and Nietzsche developed a personal animus toward Wagner. Plus he was really good at flinging bile. It's interesting that apparently Nietzsche thought Wagner was really good in short spurts but couldn't really handle big works. *Personally though I'd rather listen to Chopin's complete nocturnes than the entire Ring cycle. In the words of the oft-mentioned but hard-to-attribute quip, "Wagner has lovely moments but ugly half-hours".*





consuono said:


> Well, subjectively speaking it could be said those 10 bars got to the heart of the matter instead of a long-winded 45 minutes.


By the same logic, I could argue Mozart's, Haydn's, Beethoven's sonatas are "just different"


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

I naturally like Beethoven and Schubert, but I did not naturally like Mozart. I am similar in a position to you, but now I am not totally repulsed as I once was. I think the issue is that my temperament is too far from Mozart. Why all this lightness, and play, and da di da di dum? I would much prefer big dynamic shifts and stormy, surly sounds. To me, to like Mozart, I had to change my expectations. If Beethoven is a great surging wave approaching you, Mozart is a small pond with crystal clear water. I like Mozart now occasionally when something happens in my life and I feel a want for balance and simplicity. The first String Quintet and Clarinet Concerto do this well for me. Otherwise, I want the bombast and the raw power.


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> Scholars might not, but I think pianists who've played sonatas by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would rank Mozart third. I know Richter did. Playing Mozart's sonatas I feel "let down" in a way that I don't when I'm playing Bach, Haydn or Beethoven. They're just not music of the same quality as his other work. They're the weakest part of his catalog imo.


You say pianist*s*, but I notice Richter is the only one you name when discussing this.

Pianists will have their own quirky tastes just like anyone, I am interested in their opinions, but realize they too have their own subjective biases.

Mozart's sonatas are so far removed from Beethoven's I'm not sure the use in comparing them, they aren't meant to do the same things.

With Beethoven everything is always so grandiose, I find it a bit much, personally. His music always comes across as though he is showing that he is the biggest and best and it begins to grate. Again this is not what music I enjoy is about... always so big and over the top. It is as though he was compensating for something, if you catch my drift.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Richter was also a pianist with "unpopular opinions" like "whenever I hear the Chopin "Funeral March' Sonata, I want to vomit."
> I also play the piano, but I always consider the kind of things you've said as "typical stereotypes about Mozart" that exist in the classical piano community. We discussed these things already, remember.


It isn't really a "stereotype" so much as an opinion. There are a couple of Mozart sonatas that I like. I don't play them, I don't seek them out to listen to them, but they're OK. There are some Beethoven sonatas that I like more than others. Same with Haydn. There are Bach keyboard works that I like more than others. I don't understand the requirement to think that every bit that came from Mozart's mind and pen was sheer genius. It wasn't. There hasn't been a composer yet that batted 1.000. Not even Bach, and certainly not Mozart.

I can sort of understand Richter's opinion there about the Chopin. "Familiarity breeds contempt".


> Well, subjectively speaking it could be said those 10 bars got to the heart of the matter instead of a long-winded 45 minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> By the same logic, I could argue Mozart's, Haydn's, Beethoven's sonatas are "just different"
Click to expand...

Sometimes 10 minutes can be as vacuous as 45 minutes, and vice versa. They are different. And some I like more than others.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> You say pianist*s*, but I notice Richter is the only one you name when discussing this.


 I've heard and read the sentiment quite a bit. 


> Mozart's sonatas are so far removed from Beethoven's I'm not sure the use in comparing them, they aren't meant to do the same things.


But they're similar enough that we can compare them, like we compare so much else on this forum. They differ in that Beethoven reached beyond the Haydn and Mozart models. That's why they're "so far removed".



> With Beethoven everything is always so grandiose, I find it a bit much, personally. His music always comes across as though he is showing that he is the biggest and best and it begins to grate. Again this is not what music I enjoy is about... always so big and over the top. It is as though he was compensating for something, if you catch my drift.


And that's fine. But the statement "with Beethoven everything is so grandiose" is simply not true. I wouldn't call Opp. 28, 78, 79, 109 and 110 "grandiose".
And if Beethoven was "compensating for something", goodness knows what Wagner's and Mahler's problem was.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Why is this forum constantly so obsessed with personal tastes and preferences? We're supposed to be discussing music here, not economics.


----------



## consuono

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Why is this forum constantly so obsessed with personal tastes and preferences? We're supposed to be discussing music here, not economics.


I don't know if that's sarcasm, but I don't know how you discuss music *without* personal tastes and preferences, unless we get into the physics of a vibrating string or something.


----------



## Aloevera

Eclectic Al said:


> As I said, I'm no expert, and can't tell one from the other. They just seem to me weird. I play piano (badly) and with Bach and Beethoven I can make sense (if not play them); with Mozart it just seems like passage-work to no purpose


I suspect this is the issue. Playing it can leave the player not understanding the music for sure. I remember listening a lot of Mozart and liking it a lot , but when actually playing it, I always seem to think "is this it?" It seems just technical sophistry with a bunch of scales and arpegios thrown together mechanically.

What I think is that Mozart is pretty easy to 'kind of play' as in get the notes down, but you kind of have to way be a way higher level than the apparent difficulty. The musicality is pretty subtle and if you're trying to catch your breath with the scales, or if you have a hard time keeping rhythm or trying too hard to stay in rhythm that you cant focus all your energy to the subtle expressions, you're going to have a bad time. I know because I'm currently trying to play something too hard for me. Pretty much, what I learned is that you kind of have to play it as if its incredibly easy, and if its not incredibly easy its too hard.

The same isn't not true with other composers to the same extent especially when the musicality isn't so subtle.

Edit: Also to add - part of the reason for it to not 'make sense' is that they wern't written for the grand piano or any of the instruments that we have now. So much of its style made sense on those particular instruments but may not make as much sense with the current instruments


----------



## janxharris

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ...and I get intensely annoyed at his repetitive harmonies (cadence that goes like this: ascending chromatic scale - da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da TRIIIILLLLLL-doo-doo-doo - AAARRRGGHH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY)...


At last - someone who feels the same way as me. I'm not alone.

And I, too, make an exception regarding his 40th symphony - on the whole a great piece.



S P Summers said:


> Mozart, Bach, and Haydn do absolutely nothing for me, personally. Even Brahms; apart from his piano concerti, I rarely listen to him. There are so many composers from the late 19th and 20th century whose music is much more interesting and entertaining to listen to.
> 
> I can't listen to predictable music, which is all that baroque and classical is. I need originality, unpredictability, and piano virtuosity. I have difficulty with any piece that doesn't check those three boxes.


Quite startling to read this - though I'm not as absolute as you are, their (ie Mozart, Bach and Haydn) predictability is extremely irritating.

No offence to lovers of those composers.


----------



## janxharris

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh, the slow movement of PC 23 is maybe my favorite individual Mozart movement (almost sounds like a Chopin nocturne!)


I agree...again.


----------



## Ethereality

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Why is this forum constantly so obsessed with personal tastes and preferences? We're supposed to be discussing music here, not economics.


You're one of the only ones who likes all these composers  Maybe people don't understand the music enough to talk about it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

janxharris said:


> At last - someone who feels the same way as me. I'm not alone.
> And I, too, make an exception regarding his 40th symphony - on the whole a great piece.
> Quite startling to read this - though I'm not as absolute as you are, their (ie Mozart, Bach and Haydn) predictability is extremely irritating. No offence to lovers of those composers.


I can understand your position. I would say if you should be critical of 18th century practices like "predictability and cadences in Mozart", you should at least judge other 18th century masters by the same criteria, (like how you and S P Summers did). I even said on several occasions that the "powdered wig" quality in Mozart doesn't appeal to everyone, and agreed with your view that "music is subjective". I understand people can perceive music differently. I'm willing to respect other people's views and preferences including Allegro Con Brio's.










But I often wonder why people think _it's cool_ to mock Mozart, especially? It's still a mystery to me why there is a constant attempt to make Mozart out to be the Icon of Classical Era Tafelmusik, even in this thread,
when Schubert has 600+ lieder that are so "mass-produced", nobody has even listened to them all. And to me, Schubert never reaches anything like the sense of pain and anxiety expressed in the chromatic dissonant fugue of Mozart's K546. I'm not impressed by the et incarnatus est in Schubert's 4th mass, for example. I think Mozart packs way more punch with spatzenmesse K220, spaurmesse K258, or credomesse K257. I think Schubert is just lackluster in comparison, a one-trick pony who is only good at song-writing:

View attachment 126171


I admit I've been harsh toward Allegro Con Brio, but I still remember him saying several things that were troubling: like one time when he said Mozart's requiem and 20th piano concerto (which are ranked around the same place as Schubert's quintet and winterreise) are _"ridiculously overrated"_ in the TC's List of Most Recommended Works. I mean, if you're saying _"ridiculously overrated"_, as opposed to just saying _"overrated"_, you're obviously expressing a malicious attitude. 
While surfing on this forum, I come across a lot of old threads and keep noticing that there are many with anti-Mozart topics. I admit I overreacted a little, but Allegro Con Brio's behavior reminded me of some member who used be infamous for anti-Mozart activity:



BurningDesire said:


> *triiiiiillllllllllllllll* duheeuheeuheeuheeuheeuhhhhh bum bee bum.
> okay, the thread is finished, with Mozart's favorite little trill cadence. Mods, do your job and lock the thread that nobody likes, please.





BurningDesire said:


> Yo mods? You there? *whistles* I guess it was a deceptive cadence after all. Still don't see this thread locked. I'm not the only one asked for it to be locked. *taps foot*





BurningDesire said:


> Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Debussy are among my biggest heroes as composers.


----------



## Eclectic Al

OK.
What I'm getting from this thread is that there do some to be some common factors among the Mozart refuseniks, in particular in relation to the Mozart pieces which they mention as great or their favourites: Symphony 40, Clarinet Quintet, slow movement of Piano Concerto 23, come up for example (and I will give PC24 another go).
That was the aim of this thread. It was certainly not to create a forum where people would claim that Mozart was no good (which is not my opinion - for what it's worth - and not the opinion of people like Haydn, who might be a bit more knowledgeable than me - as someone politely pointed out).

So is there something about the pieces I mention above which is unusual for some reason in Mozart's output, which means that people who aren't readily drawn to Mozart do appreciate these greatly?

The other point which was made earlier that did ring true with me was the extent to which melody mattered. That was in connection with a claim that Brahms didn't do melody (which I think is a bit harsh). Is it possible to make sense of the idea that melody matters more to some than to others, and those people are more likely to find Mozart great?

Take Symphony 40 as a key example. Is it less dependent on melody for its impact than some other pieces of his? Is the rhythmic element more pronounced? (You will realise from this that I am no musical theorist.)


----------



## janxharris

Sublime imho:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I don't think one has to be an expert in musical theory in this context, because I don't think that's what ultimately lies at the heart of this discussion. What I *do* think lies there is quite simply the fact that tastes differ. The 40th symphony, PC24 and the slow movt.of PC23 all unfold predominantly in minor keys and I suspect that's no coincidence. My bet is that those who like these pieces but not other works by Mozart generally regarded as at least their equals simply prefer music with more openly tangible heft and that you, Al, are one of them, which of course is fine.

Back in the 80s the late Peter Shaffer of "Amadeus" fame wrote a quite wonderful article for the "NY Times" covering some of these subjects and explaining what he found in Mozart's music. I'd love to quote the whole thing in the present context, but I'll confine myself to the following paragraph, which references C19 views about Mozart but could just as easily have pointed to some of the arguments still being raised today, e.g.in this thread:

"Nobody has suffered more than Mozart from sentimental misjudgment. The last century dealt with the glory of his composure by calling him 'mellifluous', as if he were really just the Fragonard of music. To the nineteenth century - which prized the _evidence_ of effort - he was not wholly serious: charming, of course, but a little lightweight, graceful beyond measure, but lacking in muscle. The truth, of course, is entirely other. Try cutting into Mozart: you will soon find out where the muscle is. It runs right through the tissue of the music, and totally resists the knife."


----------



## Flamme

There is something about him...


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> My bet is that those who like these pieces but not other works by Mozart generally regarded as at least their equals simply prefer music with more openly tangible heft and that you, Al, are one of them, which of course is fine.


I'm all for a bit of heft.


----------



## Flamme

He is indeed of highest quality but maybe it is most ppl look him only through ''Eine Kleine Nahtmusic'' or the ''Requiem'', like I did many years ago, when he is so much more...


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The OP is almost an exact mirror of my preferences. Mozart probably comes in around #10-13 on my favorite composer list, but the only works of his I'd include in my personal top 100 compositions are his Clarinet Quintet, Clarinet Concerto, 4th String Quintet (if you don't think you like Mozart, try this one!), and _maybe_ the last two symphonies. Generally I love his chamber music, like his piano music, later symphonies, and sacred choral music a lot (though my mind always wanders off in the Requiem after the thrilling opening sequence and Dies Irae), am lukewarm on most of his concerti (yes, even the famous piano concerti) and don't much care for the operas. For me he is more of a composer I put on when I want to "de-stress" and "relax" rather than to deeply engage my mind. I have never been able to understand the depths of sublime profundity that people say they find in the 20th piano concerto, Requiem, Don Giovanni, and Figaro. Maybe it's just because I'm a very analytical person who wants to overthink everything and I get intensely annoyed at his repetitive harmonies (cadence that goes like this: ascending chromatic scale - da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da TRIIIILLLLLL-doo-doo-doo - AAARRRGGHH IT DRIVES ME CRAZY). Sometimes I get frustrated, wondering why he is considered such a genius when I can see little deeper in him than beguiling tunes and the occasional deeply inspired moment. I can understand that even in Bach, my favorite composer, there are lots of repetitive harmonies and figurations but I always find Bach so deliriously unpredictable and challenging, marrying emotional sensousness and intellectual rigor in perfect proportion. The only Mozart works I feel that way about are his fantasias for piano (which are strikingly composed), the 40th symphony, the 24th piano concerto, and lots of his chamber works. But when I'm in the mood for him, he hits the spot just like a chocolate bonbon. I do love Haydn, BTW, and think he is just as consistent across all genres as Mozart.


Thanks for the recommendations. Just listened to the 4th String Quintet and enjoyed it. I am very keen on Schubert's later string quartets and quintet, and I got a Schubertian feeling with this bit of Mozart. I have previously listened to some of Mozart's string quintets, but given up without necessarily hitting number 4 - can't be sure. Anyway, good choice.
I also just listened to the 24th piano concerto again, but wasn't really drawn: perhaps it was not a good performance - I had Barenboim kicking around and so listened to that. Perhaps try the Fantasias soon.


----------



## jegreenwood

Eclectic Al said:


> Thanks for the recommendations. Just listened to the 4th String Quintet and enjoyed it. I am very keen on Schubert's later string quartets and quintet, and I got a Schubertian feeling with this bit of Mozart. I have previously listened to some of Mozart's string quintets, but given up without necessarily hitting number 4 - can't be sure. Anyway, good choice.
> I also just listened to the 24th piano concerto again, but wasn't really drawn: perhaps it was not a good performance - I had Barenboim kicking around and so listened to that. *Perhaps try the Fantasias soon.*


Start with K 475. . . .


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

consuono said:


> I don't know if that's sarcasm, but I don't know how you discuss music *without* personal tastes and preferences, unless we get into the physics of a vibrating string or something.


It wasn't sarcasm. To address your point, there are plenty of ways of doing so: discussing the theory behind a work, its history, the composer's own thoughts about it, the cultural relevance of music, the musical relevance of culture, etc. There are also plenty of ways of addressing the (at least as important!) subjective side of music (in a manner that might be insightful to others) without making it into a horse race. Of course all of this can be found in this forum and even in this thread. Yet many people seem keen on stating and restating how much they like composer X or piece Y as if their personal ranking of the canon is a meaningful thing (some people will even try to "elevate" their preferences to a supposedly objective status). Often there will be some kind of vague descriptor justifying these preferences, but in the end it's mostly people talking about what music they like rather than, say, what the music means to them. Why do you think that is? Recently, a member here (science) started a thread on the prevalence of witty, opinionated one-liners on this forum. I think this is in the same vein.



Ethereality said:


> Maybe people don't understand the music enough to talk about it.


This was my first thought, but there must be other factors at play. Perhaps people want their tastes validated or are intimidated bu the canon? But why?


----------



## Eclectic Al

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> This was my first thought, but there must be other factors at play. Perhaps people want their tastes validated or are intimidated bu the canon? But why?


I started this thread, so I can tell you what I was seeking. I had a number of objectives:
- See if there were others, like me, who go along with the usual best N composers (N being a small number) except for Mozart
- Find out if there was anything else in common about their preferences
- Seek indications from them of what Mozart pieces they do like, to see whether there are similarities
- See if others could recommend Mozart pieces which are broadly similar to the above.
- As a result I might discover some more Mozart that I like

As ever though the thread goes whither it will


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> I admit I've been harsh toward Allegro Con Brio, but I still remember him saying several things that were troubling: like one time when he said Mozart's requiem and 20th piano concerto (which are ranked around the same place as Schubert's quintet and winterreise) are _"ridiculously overrated"_ in the TC's List of Most Recommended Works. I mean, if you're saying _"ridiculously overrated"_, as opposed to just saying _"overrated"_, you're obviously expressing a malicious attitude.


Only if you mean expressing my opinion is "malicious" and "troubling." If I had said "Mozart's 20th piano concerto is a dumb work; anyone who likes it has bad taste" that would be malicious. All I said was _I think_ they are ridiculously (and by that I mean a _lot_) overrated, which I do. And what if I told you that I think Schubert's Quintet is also overrated (which I do) and I don't think it belongs on that tier either? You act as if I have preconceptions when I listen to music, but it all depends on my own ears. Are you a distant relative of Mozart? Is that why you take it so personally when anything negative is expressed about him? And again, Schubert makes his customary appearance in your post. I think your apparent obsession with tearing down Schubert and several others is "troubling and malicious." I'm sorry that I do not regard Mozart as one of the absolute greats. I'm sorry that you do not connect with Schubert. We've both apologized for our overreactions. I'm content to let it be right here. I only wish that you would stop acting as if those who criticize Mozart have some sort of covert deep-state agenda against him.


----------



## Coach G

I'm addicted to loud, noisy, dramatic symphonies by the likes of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, and Hovhaness; but every once in a while, and it's probably more often than not, I find myself going to Mozart, discovering things I like, the sense of balance, order, organization, seemlessness, not just pretty wall-paper music but also something of substance. In this sense, the Mozart symphonies can be very refreshing, where the listener can just enjoy the music and not second guess what type of secret war Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mahler or Shostakovich was fighting with himself as he was composing it. 

I was surprised to learn that Tchaikovsky loved Mozart. So while Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich have something of a Beethoven fixation that can be heard in their large and heavy symphonies, Tchaikovsky (also a heavy) was really after a sound that was tight and seemless like Mozart, and despite Tchaikovsky's ability to produce an endless supply of beautiful melodies, he was disappointed in himself that he couldn't weave those melodies together in a way that would emulate Mozart's ideal where the music seems to practically write itself. 

Mozart could be in a class practically by himself. Mozart is of the "Classical" period, which, when you think about it, didn't contribute much to the standard repertoire once you take out Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (...and then there's even some that say that Beethoven had one foot in the Romantic era!). So what makes Mozart rise so far above his contemporaries, many of which were fine musicians who composed pretty music of no particular substance? It's going to take a smarter person than me to explain it.


----------



## tdc

Coach G said:


> I was surprised to learn that Tchaikovsky loved Mozart. So while Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich have something of a Beethoven fixation that can be heard in their large and heavy symphonies


Brahms considered Mozart the greatest composer.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Coach G said:


> every once in a while, and it's probably more often than not, I find myself going to Mozart, discovering things I like, the sense of balance, order, organization, seamlessness,


I have those moments too, but then I will usually go for Bach or Haydn, very occasionally Mozart (- in which case it will probably be the Clarinet Quintet). For transcendent order I would reach for Bach, and to restore my mental balance it would be Haydn (sanity and wit).


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the problem with Mozart and other composers like Haydn and Handel, is that modern listeners have already been exposed to the music all around us which is harmonically, rhythmically, and texturally more complex. The simplicity of these composers eludes them. It's an acquired taste, which one must be pro-active and willing to engage with.
This was my problem as well; I had been exposed to so much complex rock and jazz that early classical music like this was just too simplistic. Many of the "themes" are just scale-run fragments, and are unrcognizable and unmemorable to most modern listeners who have been exposed to countless popular songs which exhibit more complex and modern melodies and harmonic progressions. Mozart, with his formulaic I-IV-V progressions and major triads, must sound like nursery-rhyme music to most modern people.


----------



## Coach G

tdc said:


> Brahms considered Mozart the greatest composer.


I didn't know that. I always thought that Brahms was trying to emulate Beethoven, with his first symphony being hailed as the "Tenth" and all, but I guess we learn new things everyday...very interesting to me that with Brahms being so thick and layered, and Tchaikovsky being so weighed down with sad, Russian soul, that the two would see Mozart as the ideal. Maybe it's in Mozart's sense of organization. As much as they liked drinking together, Brahms and Tchaikovsky didn't care for one another's music very much, but they each seemed to be interested in the organization of music. While Brahms music seems to strive for a kind of fine German craftsmanship, Tchaikovsky was bothered that his own musical ideas didn't seem to flow or fit together very well (at least in his own mind). Of course, if you're going to use Mozart's sense of seemless beauty as your benchmark, that's a tall order.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> Thanks for the recommendations. Just listened to the 4th String Quintet and enjoyed it. I am very keen on Schubert's later string quartets and quintet, and I got a Schubertian feeling with this bit of Mozart. I have previously listened to some of Mozart's string quintets, but given up without necessarily hitting number 4 - can't be sure. Anyway, good choice.
> I also just listened to the 24th piano concerto again, but wasn't really drawn: perhaps it was not a good performance - I had Barenboim kicking around and so listened to that. Perhaps try the Fantasias soon.


I also did not like Mozart at first and it took me 2 years to open up to him. It was a gradual process, ie I started liking only some works and then added more and more and now I like almost everything. The work that I liked first and I consider a great entry point is the Sinfonia concertante, especially the slow movement






next were the string quintets


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> Brahms considered Mozart the greatest composer.


That's like Steven Hawking saying "My favorite number is 2."


----------



## Coach G

Eclectic Al said:


> I have those moments too, but then I will usually go for Bach or Haydn, very occasionally Mozart (- in which case it will probably be the Clarinet Quintet). For transcendent order I would reach for Bach, and to restore my mental balance it would be Haydn (sanity and wit).


I hear where your coming from. For years I pretty much avoided most of Mozart, as well. So for me, now going on 39 of classical music starting with buying my first LP as a teenager in 1982 (that record included Tchaikovsky's _1812_, of course), it was a very gradual process. I like what "Millions of Rainbows" said in regard to Mozart being "an acquired taste, which one must be pro-active and willing to engage with." I mean, if Brahms and Tchaikovsky are going to hail Mozart as the greatest, then there must be something to it, right? You say that you already have a handful of Mozart numbers that you favor. Maybe that's a good start for now.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem with Mozart and other composers like Haydn and Handel, is that modern listeners have already been exposed to the music all around us which is harmonically, rhythmically, and texturally more complex. The simplicity of these composers eludes them. It's an acquired taste, which one must be pro-active and willing to engage with.
> This was my problem as well; I had been exposed to so much complex rock and jazz that early classical music like this was just too simplistic. Many of the "themes" are just scale-run fragments, and are unrcognizable and unmemorable to most modern listeners who have been exposed to countless popular songs which exhibit more complex and modern melodies and harmonic progressions. Mozart, with his formulaic I-IV-V progressions and major triads, must sound like nursery-rhyme music to most modern people.


A lot of Mozart's music does sound like this to me - somewhat naive and childlike...not all of it but most (EDIT: a lot) of what I have heard so far. 'Nursery-rhyme' music might be an appropriate description. Of course, this might not be how fans perceive his music at all or that they do and it suits their taste.


----------



## Flamme

Well, he was a Child prodigy, after all...


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> A lot of Mozart's music does sound like this to me - somewhat naive and childlike...not all of it but most of what I have heard so far. 'Nursery=rhyme' music might be an appropriate description. *Of course, this might not be how fans perceive his music at all or that they do and it suits their taste.*


Oh, no, of course not. Once you acquire the taste and learn what the game is, Mozart becomes sublime in its simplicity. It's like number theory compared to particle physics.

Additionally, I think there are a lot of options for performances of Mozart; HIP or whatever you prefer. I particularly like to hear a good piano virtuoso play the piano concertos, with those incredibly exposed, naked runs and arpeggios, which must be played perfectly evenly. What a sense of satisfaction.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, no, of course not. Once you acquire the taste and learn what the game is, Mozart becomes sublime in its simplicity. It's like number theory compared to particle physics.


A lot of the harmony of the classical era is *generally* quite straight-forward (an obvious example is how many pieces begin I, V, I), but there is clearly great contrapuntal complexity too (though I often find myself thinking that the baroque just never quite went away).

Listening to this era just becomes an endless procession of me saying, "we've heard that before".


----------



## Animal the Drummer

...which latter point illustrates one of the fundamental differences of outlook at the heart of this debate. There are those, like you and millionrainbows, who appear to equate novelty with profundity and there are those, like me and other Mozart nuts generally, who would not automatically do so. There are immense riches to be found in the perfection of the _status quo_ as well as in breaking new ground, and not all change is progress.


----------



## janxharris

Animal the Drummer said:


> ...which latter point illustrates one of the fundamental differences of outlook at the heart of this debate. There are those, like you and millionrainbows, who appear to equate novelty with profundity and there are those, like me and other Mozart nuts generally, who do not automatically do so. There are immense riches to be found in the perfection of the _status quo_. Not all change is progress.


I don't equate novelty with profundity.


----------



## millionrainbows

Animal the Drummer said:


> ...which latter point illustrates one of the fundamental differences of outlook at the heart of this debate. *There are those, like you and millionrainbows, who appear to equate novelty with profundity *and there are those, like me and other Mozart nuts generally, who would not automatically do so. There are immense riches to be found in the perfection of the _status quo_ as well as in breaking new ground, and not all change is progress.


That's an unfair characterization. We do not contradict you; you just feel that way.

Even Vivaldi sounds great when played by Giuliano Carmignola. Vivaldi is not that innovative, either.


----------



## millionrainbows

*"There are immense riches to be found in the perfection of the status quo." 
*
I think I''ll have that printed on a t-shirt; it should sell well in these times. :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

jegreenwood said:


> Start with K 475. . . .


Thanks. Did that, and thought it was OK. Will give it another go later. Sounds a bit like a chipping from Beethoven's workbench.


----------



## S P Summers

tdc said:


> Why do you think so many of the greatest musicians in the world have recorded his sonatas, and continue to make recordings of them? Simply because they say 'Mozart' on them?


I don't necessarily think that's the case, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

For example, a pianist who has recorded the piano sonatas of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Scriabin, Godowsky, Paderewski, Feinberg, Bowen, Ives, Sorabji, and Medtner; I really don't understand why a pianist would want to record Mozart sonatas if they play sonatas by the composers I just mentioned. Their sonatas are so much more interesting and enjoyable to listen to!

I'm not saying that the Mozart sonatas aren't worth performing/recording, but I do find it curious that some pianists prefer to learn, perform, and record Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven instead of Prokofiev, Godowsky, and Shostakovich.


----------



## S P Summers

Ethereality said:


> I get Mozart. I don't really get Brahms as much, even though he's a good composer, I don't grasp his detailed stiffness being better than when Dvorak captures memorable and interesting movement. Germanic and Austrian harmony and rhythm can be a little more humdrum, even Mahler, it feels a little more square and stiff and makes it a little harder to care about.


Joseph Marx and Max Reger were the pinnacle of German/Austrian harmony.


----------



## isorhythm

Some other recommendations for the Mozart-skeptical, with apologies if they've already been mentioned:

Sinfonia concertante in E flat, K 364
Rondo in A minor, K 511
Adagio in B minor, K 540


----------



## S P Summers

tdc said:


> Mozart's music sounds to me as written by someone who has passed through life's trials, and come full circle to a new sense of youthfulness. A youthfulness mixed with wisdom that has been tempered by life's trials, it's ups and downs. Perhaps somewhat like the tarot card The Sun.
> 
> Haydn's music (though undeniably well crafted) comes across to me as composed by someone with less emotional maturity, less depth, less experience, less brilliance.
> 
> I understand Haydn was among the greatest innovators in music, he was also arguably the greatest orchestrator in the classical era. I know he was great, I just don't find his individual compositional voice very interesting. *I'm not into the humor in his music, for me that is not what music is about, it seems to reduce it to something rather silly and trivial.* Its just not my thing.


What about Charles-Valentin Alkan? His music is FULL of humor, and it's far from silly and trivial!


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> A lot of Mozart's music does sound like this to me - somewhat naive and childlike...not all of it but most of what I have heard so far. 'Nursery-rhyme' music might be an appropriate description. Of course, this might not be how fans perceive his music at all or that they do and it suits their taste.


This post and much of your thread discussing Mozart's musical standing give me the impression that you feel your view of Mozart is the view that _others ought to have_. The fact that they don't sheds a negative light on them. I assume you are well aware that a high number of major composers, conductors, and performers hold Mozart in their highest esteem. Musicologists have written an enormous amount of commentary on his works. All music schools spend as much time or more on Mozart as any other composer. Surveys of essentially any classical music group from fans to professionals place Mozart in the top tier _always_. It would seem obvious that the classical music listening community as a whole decidedly does not share your view of Mozart's music.

Above you belittle Mozart's music as nursery rhyme music. Then you say it's possible fans might not perceive it that way rather than the classical musical community has determined that Mozart's music is vastly loftier, more sublime, interesting, and important than nursery rhyme music. Finally you toss up your hands and suggest that the reason people like Mozart may be that nursery rhyme music suites their taste. After all, what other reason could there be?

Many on TC have talked about their particular inability to enjoy certain composers. They generally point to themselves either saying their taste is different or asking for help in learning to like the music they presently do not. The focus is on them rather than the inability of the rest of the classical music community to understand the truth.

I know we often write posts that don't quite say what we mean, and sometime others misinterpret what we write. So, I'd like to ask if I have misunderstood your posts. Do you believe you somehow have been incapable of hearing what so many others hear in Mozart (i.e. his music is sublime, important, interesting, of the highest quality, etc.) or do you believe that others ought not to hear Mozart's music that way? I can only say your posts give me the strong impression that you think others (i.e. the entire classical music community) are mistaken in their assessment of Mozart.

Quick Note to Eclectic Al: I believe you started this thread because you are interested in why you view the music differently not because you wish to correct others' views or feel those views are wrong in some sense.


----------



## Coach G

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, no, of course not. Once you acquire the taste and learn what the game is, Mozart becomes sublime in its simplicity. It's like number theory compared to particle physics.
> 
> Additionally, I think there are a lot of options for performances of Mozart; HIP or whatever you prefer. I particularly like to hear a good piano virtuoso play the piano concertos, with those incredibly exposed, naked runs and arpeggios, which must be played perfectly evenly. What a sense of satisfaction.


Masaaki Suzuki and Jordi Savall won me over to HIP regarding Bach, and other Baroque and pre-Baroque kinds of music. For Mozart I still prefer the un-HIP: Toscanini, Szell, and of all people, Leonard Bernstein, is not bad in Mozart which is surprising to me as Bernstein wasn't known as a champion of Mozart, and you'd think that Bernstein's sense of intensity would weigh down Mozart's sense of freshness. I have the Piano Concerto #25 that Bernstein did for Columbia with the Israel Philharmonic with Bernstein as pianist and conductor, as well as all the DG recordings that Bernstein made of the Mozart symphonies with the Vienna Philharmonic, and I am quite pleased with all of it.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

With Mozart’s piano sonatas and concerti, I’m always happiest when Mitsuko Uchida is playing. Her infectious enthusiasm and passion, coupled with a superb technique that is at once fiery and lyrical, convinces me of Mozart’s greatness even if I have a little way to go until I fully share her connection with the music. I love the old-timers in the symphonies with one exception - Jordi Savall’s superb recording of the last three.


----------



## consuono

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> It wasn't sarcasm. To address your point, there are plenty of ways of doing so: discussing the theory behind a work, its history, the composer's own thoughts about it, the cultural relevance of music, the musical relevance of culture, etc. There are also plenty of ways of addressing the (at least as important!) subjective side of music (in a manner that might be insightful to others) without making it into a horse race. Of course all of this can be found in this forum and even in this thread. Yet many people seem keen on stating and restating how much they like composer X or piece Y as if their personal ranking of the canon is a meaningful thing...


All of that you mentioned though is essentially stating objective facts about this or that piece which is inevitably going to become a discussion of the subjective: "I think the underlying theoretical principles in X are much more impressive than in Y"..."music seems to have been far more relevant in the X period than in Y". That's the nature of art. It isn't so much "horse race" -- I think music competitions are horse races -- as much as it's expressing a hierarchical value of different works of art. It's why anyone who isn't ignorant holds the Art of Fugue to be "better than" or "more artistically valuable than" a handful of songs from Lady Gaga. And with the possible exception of some of those late Bach works, composers wrote music to be enjoyed, to move audiences, to say something rather than to be theoretically and objectively taken apart the way you'd analyze DNA. And even in those late Bach works the underlying objective theory was only in the service of "refreshing the spirit", and in Bach's view, as an act of worship. Art is subjective, not a science.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> This post and much of your thread discussing Mozart's musical standing give me the impression that you feel your view of Mozart is the view that _others ought to have_. The fact that they don't sheds a negative light on them. I assume you are well aware that a high number of major composers, conductors, and performers hold Mozart in their highest esteem. Musicologists have written an enormous amount of commentary on his works. All music schools spend as much time or more on Mozart as any other composer. Surveys of essentially any classical music group from fans to professionals place Mozart in the top tier _always_. It would seem obvious that the classical music listening community as a whole decidedly does not share your view of Mozart's music.


No, I do not think my view is that which others ought to have - I have said so many times on these Forums. I wonder where you got that impression?



> Above you belittle Mozart's music as nursery rhyme music. Then you say it's possible fans might not perceive it that way rather than the classical musical community has determined that Mozart's music is vastly loftier, more sublime, interesting, and important than nursery rhyme music. Finally you toss up your hands and suggest that the reason people like Mozart may be that nursery rhyme music suites their taste. After all, what other reason could there be?


I was quoting MillionRainbows on 'nursery-rhyme', but that is how I perceive a lot of his music - it's not a mock. I shouldn't have said 'most'. Apologies.

I have posted here pieces that I consider very lofty by Mozart - did you miss them?



> Many on TC have talked about their particular inability to enjoy certain composers. They generally point to themselves either saying their taste is different or asking for help in learning to like the music they presently do not. The focus is on them rather than the inability of the rest of the classical music community to understand the truth.


The thread invites opinion:


Eclectic Al said:


> *I therefore thought it would be interesting to see if there are any common themes among those who don't get Mozart.*


- which is all I am doing. I do wonder sometimes what I am missing - something in my personality that is different to those who are fans.



> I know we often write posts that don't quite say what we mean, and sometime others misinterpret what we write. So, I'd like to ask if I have misunderstood your posts. Do you believe you somehow have been incapable of hearing what so many others hear in Mozart (i.e. his music is sublime, important, interesting, of the highest quality, etc.) or do you believe that others ought not to hear Mozart's music that way? I can only say your posts give me the strong impression that you think others (i.e. the entire classical music community) are mistaken in their assessment of Mozart.


You have misinterpreted. Of course, others have made similar negative comments.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> With Mozart's piano sonatas and concerti, I'm always happiest when Mitsuko Uchida is playing. Her infectious enthusiasm and passion, coupled with a superb technique that is at once fiery and lyrical, convinces me of Mozart's greatness even if I have a little way to go until I fully share her connection with the music. I love the old-timers in the symphonies with one exception - Jordi Savall's superb recording of the last three.


I have the Uchida set of Mozart sonatas, inherited from my late mother. Would anyone care to suggest which sonata is most like Beethoven (or even Haydn, although I think his piano sonatas are too experimental for me at the moment)? I'll then see if that's an entry point for me.


----------



## isorhythm

Eclectic Al said:


> I have the Uchida set of Mozart sonatas, inherited from my late mother. Would anyone care to suggest which sonata is most like Beethoven (or even Haydn, although I think his piano sonatas are too experimental for me at the moment)? I'll then see if that's an entry point for me.


Unfortunately I don't think any of them are much like Beethoven. The last one, K 576, is my favorite. I agree with other posters that they're not among Mozart's very best work, though I like them a lot. If your general feeling is that Mozart's music lacks heft, the piano sonatas probably won't help with that.


----------



## Xisten267

Eclectic Al said:


> I have the Uchida set of Mozart sonatas, inherited from my late mother. Would anyone care to suggest which sonata is most like Beethoven (or even Haydn, although I think his piano sonatas are too experimental for me at the moment)? I'll then see if that's an entry point for me.


Try sonata No. 14. It's in a minor mode and shares small resemblances with Beethoven's _Pathétique_ sonata (his No. 8). Also, try the Fantasy No. 3 in C minor, K. 475, that could be seen as a precedent to Beethoven's _Appassionata_.

Personally, I think that all Mozart sonatas starting with the No. 7 are small gems of the pianistic repertoire, and it's always a pleasure to listen to the superb pianist Mrs. Uchida playing them. I suggest Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16 for anyone wanting to start listening to them.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Just listened to another Fantasia (K397). I think I preferred this. I thought that K475 was like a Beethoven piece, but not as gripping. K397 seemed more like Haydn, and pleasantly witty.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Schubert makes his customary appearance in your post.


"The First Viennese School is a name mostly used to refer to three composers of the Classical period in Western art music in late-18th-century Vienna: Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. (*Franz Schubert* is occasionally added to the list.)"

I don't know why you find my mentions of Schubert so disturbing. It's ok to talk about Bach (who died 6 years before Mozart was born), Beethoven, Haydn, but not Schubert (who was born 6 years after Mozart died) in this thread? Is Schubert really that _"set apart"_ from all the others?



Allegro Con Brio said:


> And what if I told you that I think Schubert's Quintet is also overrated (which I do) and I don't think it belongs on that tier either? You act as if I have preconceptions when I listen to music, but it all depends on my own ears. I'm sorry that I do not regard Mozart as one of the absolute greats. I'm sorry that you do not connect with Schubert.


If you're really the kind of "analytical person" as you claim, I think you would consider all the Schubert works in the list (including Winterreise, Death and the Maiden quartet, D960 piano sonata) far more overrated than any of the Mozart works. You would have been far more disturbed by Schubert's compositional methods. I'm sorry I don't see you as a very "analytical person". But just "some guy with a huge favoritism for Schubert". =)


----------



## Bulldog

hammeredklavier said:


> "The First Viennese School is a name mostly used to refer to three composers of the Classical period in Western art music in late-18th-century Vienna: Joseph Haydn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Ludwig van Beethoven. (*Franz Schubert* is occasionally added to the list.)"
> 
> I don't know why you find my mentions of Schubert so disturbing. It's ok to talk about Bach (who died 6 years before Mozart was born), Beethoven, Haydn, but not Schubert (who was born 6 years after Mozart died) in this thread?


You don't just talk about Schubert; you bash him at every opportunity.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allerius said:


> Try sonata No. 14. It's in a minor mode and shares small resemblances with Beethoven's _Pathétique_ sonata (his No. 8). Also, try the Fantasy No. 3 in C minor, K. 475, that could be seen as a precedent to Beethoven's _Appassionata_.
> 
> Personally, I think that all Mozart sonatas starting with the No. 7 are small gems of the pianistic repertoire, and it's always a pleasure to listen to the superb pianist Mrs. Uchida playing them. I suggest Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16 for anyone wanting to start listening to them.


Thanks. Just listened to 14, and the Pathetique similarities are indeed striking. Pathetique is "better" (IMO, although I don't really know what better means) but I will pursue a few more Mozart sonatas.
Still more interested in trying to get under the skin of the Haydn sonatas, though.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Bulldog said:


> You don't just talk about Schubert; you bash him at every opportunity.


Love Death and the Maiden. I don't really care if it's theoretically great. It's just great from a (non-rational?) human perspective.


----------



## Xisten267

Eclectic Al said:


> Thanks. Just listened to 14, and the Pathetique similarities are indeed striking. Pathetique is "better" (IMO, although I don't really know what better means) but I will pursue a few more Mozart sonatas.
> *Still more interested in trying to get under the skin of the Haydn sonatas, though.*


There was *a game about favorite Haydn piano sonatas* here at TC a few months ago. The winners were:

1. No. 60 (Hob. 50) in C major
2. No. 31 (Hob. 46) in A flat major
3. No. 33 (Hob. 20) in C minor
4. No. 50 (Hob. 37) in D major
5. No. 62 (Hob. 52) in E flat major
6. No. 52 (Hob. 39) in G major
7. No. 1 (Hob. 8) in G major
7. No. 48 (Hob. 35) in C major
9. No. 59 (Hob. 49) in E flat major
10. No. 61 (Hob. 51) in D major

Hope that this helps.


----------



## hammeredklavier

mmsbls said:


> Above you belittle Mozart's music as nursery rhyme music. Then you say it's possible fans might not perceive it that way rather than the classical musical community has determined that Mozart's music is vastly loftier, more sublime, interesting, and important than nursery rhyme music. Finally you toss up your hands and suggest that the reason people like Mozart may be that nursery rhyme music suites their taste. After all, what other reason could there be?


I don't think janxharris is trying to "mock", but trying to assess critically (with some personal opinion). He describes (albeit negatively) the similar kind of things as Charles Hazlewood does in this video:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

I just read through this war/discussion and it's been interesting.



Eclectic Al said:


> I have a confession: I don't really get Mozart. I generally find that the list of "great" composers which is generally stated is very much in line with my personal list. But not Mozart.
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> I therefore thought it would be interesting to see if there are any common themes among those who don't get Mozart.
> For example, I don't do Opera at all. I am hugely into Brahms, Bach and Haydn. With Beethoven it's more recognition of greatness than a sympathy of outlook: he can persuade me, but I don't warm to him. I tend to think that Schoenberg and his gang were barking up a blind alley (sometimes to great effect), whereas Bartok was onto something.
> So are there any others out there who share my deficiency? If so, please indicate your own tastes to see if there is something in common. I should be more scientific about this, but life's short.
> If I get no response to this, then I guess it's just me.


I know very little compared to many here, but as the OP is asking for opinions along a specific line of thought, I will state mine. Hopefully I will be able to use the right words in expressing my own personal opinion so as to not set off a skirmish.

First of all. I like Mozart. I took music history in college and learned of his many contributions to the overall development of western music and for that reason alone, I believe he SHOULD be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Beethoven. I believe his music to be well crafted, groundbreaking and visionary. I also believe that later composers built upon principles and concepts that Mozart employed and as in so doing his legacy is an influence on the styles of many who followed after him. I think the use of the word 'genius' is fair to apply to him.

All that said, I agree with a several of the OP's viewpoints. While there are not a small number of Mozart's works that I enjoy, I find myself to be frequently "more interested" by the works of other composers. That is NOT to say that I find Mozart uninteresting, but rather I frequently find other composers MORE interesting. Furthermore I tend to need to be in the "right mood" for Mozart than I do with other composers. I often find his music charming, but I'm not always in the mood for charming.

I also am not an opera fan, though I do try to listen to them and hopefully something will click. I have to say that Figaro is a highlight to me in an overall form of music that I don't really enjoy listening to. I am also not a fan of choral music, but his Requiem is one of my favorite works, though I can probably only listen to it a couple of times a year.

I like Bach as well, though I don't really have fun listening to quite a bit of his music. That said, I find his Brandenburgs, Orchestral Suites and his Violin concerti are always a treat to listen to.

I LOVE Beethoven's symphonies. To me they represent the reason why I love classical music: they make me feel something. Mozart makes me feel something at times as well, but it's more often than not peacefulness or tranquility. As I said, I find his music charming more than anything else. I experience a broader range of emotions when listening to other composers though.

To restate: I like Mozart and think he is one of the greatest of all time. I just don't listen to him that much.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> Scholars might not, but I think *pianists* who've played sonatas by Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would rank Mozart third. They're just not music of the same quality as his other work. They're the weakest part of his catalog imo.


Take a look at Alfred Brendel's essay on Mozart's keyboard works:
I know he also praised other composers, Beethoven, Schubert, but I'm just citing him as an example of world-class pianists who don't think lowly of Mozart's keyboard works.
(Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures, By Alfred Brendel, Page 14)
"... Richard Strauss had perceived how the whole range of human sensivity was distilled in Mozart's purely instrumental creations. To him, the effort to erect a unified style of Mozart interpretation in the face of these infinitely subtle and richly shaped images of the human soul seemed foolish and superficial. Mozart's solo works contain the same diversity. After a year of preoccupation with this repertory I was myself surprised, by how effortlessly and naturally the performer of this music can fill large halls. ..."



isorhythm said:


> Unfortunately I don't think any of them are much like Beethoven. The last one, K 576, is my favorite. I agree with other posters that they're not among Mozart's very best work, though I like them a lot. If your general feeling is that Mozart's music lacks heft, the piano sonatas probably won't help with that.


But let's not forget, aside from fantasies for piano or organ, Mozart also wrote 4-hand sonata masterpieces. 
K448 , K497 , K521






The analysis is not in English, but you get the idea. He combines counterpoint with Classical forms in a way Haydn and Beethoven don't. I think the problem is that people keep trying to find "Beethoven" in Mozart, when they must find "Mozart" in Mozart.
Look at the way he resolves major seventh dissonance in this, for example. I find it skillful:

*[ 0:35 ]*





and the chromaticism in this:





As mentioned previously, this is what I think as one of the most profound moments in keyboard music using major second dissonances:

*[ 8:50 ]*






also the harmony in this:

*[ 12:00 ]*


----------



## Eclectic Al

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I just read through this war/discussion and it's been interesting.
> 
> To restate: I like Mozart and think he is one of the greatest of all time. I just don't listen to him that much.


Great. A bit of balance. However, you say you don't listen to Mozart that much: what about Haydn? Sturm und Drang or London Symphonies in particular or String Quartets (op 76 particularly if you're not into them). I feel that the general attitude to classical music downplays Haydn, and that caused me to ignore his works for years. Having rectified that, I think that when you say that Mozart influenced those who came after him and was a genius I have no desire to quibble (even if I also don't frequently dust him off), but would note that Haydn pretty well invented the forms that others then used (but not necessarily improved), so talk about influence! Poor old Papa Haydn. It's almost as though having fathered the world of classical music is a defect.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

Eclectic Al said:


> Great. A bit of balance. However, you say you don't listen to Mozart that much: what about Haydn? Sturm und Drang or London Symphonies in particular or String Quartets (op 76 particularly if you're not into them). I feel that the general attitude to classical music downplays Haydn, and that caused me to ignore his works for years. Having rectified that, I think that when you say that Mozart influenced those who came after him and was a genius I have no desire to quibble (even if I also don't frequently dust him off), but would note that Haydn pretty well invented the forms that others then used (but not necessarily improved), so talk about influence! Poor old Papa Haydn. It's almost as though having fathered the world of classical music is a defect.


Well, as the thread you posted is about Mozart I limited my comments to that. Historically I understand that Haydn was a major composer of the classical period and would say many of the same things about his music that I would of Mozart's. However, my own experience with Haydn's music is very limited. Had he been the subject of this thread, I would not have posted. I intend to explore his music more fully at some point, but my explorations of the later composers have captivated my attention (and affections) more than those of the Classical or Baroque period (for now).


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Take a look at Alfred Brendel's essay on Mozart's keyboard works:
> I know he also praised other composers, Beethoven, Schubert, but I'm just citing him as an example of world-class pianists who don't think lowly of Mozart's keyboard works.
> (Music, Sense and Nonsense: Collected Essays and Lectures, By Alfred Brendel, Page 14)
> "... Richard Strauss had perceived how the whole range of human sensivity was distilled in Mozart's purely instrumental creations. To him, the effort to erect a unified style of Mozart interpretation in the face of these infinitely subtle and richly shaped images of the human soul seemed foolish and superficial. Mozart's solo works contain the same diversity. After a year of preoccupation with this repertory I was myself surprised, by how effortlessly and naturally the performer of this music can fill large halls. ..."
> ...


I'd say that Brendel went way overboard because of the name underneath the title. If Mozart's piano sonatas are "infinitely subtle and richly shaped images of the human soul" full of "diversity", then I don't know how you'd describe the Well Tempered Clavier or Beethoven's sonatas.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I'd say that Brendel went way overboard because of the name underneath the title. If Mozart's piano sonatas are "infinitely subtle and richly shaped images of the human soul" full of "diversity", then I don't know how you'd describe the Well Tempered Clavier or Beethoven's sonatas.


I don't know why you would keep comparing Mozart to Bach and Beethoven. Last time I checked you criticized Wagner by citing the quote "some fine moments but ugly quarter-hours", to praise Chopin's Nocturnes at the expense of Wagner's Ring Cycle.
I'm sorry I don't fully share you and other people's enthusiasm for all that "rambling of trill and tremolos" in Beethoven Op.109, Op.111 or the "fugal attempts" in Op.106, Op.110. I prefer Mozart K394, K608 any day. 
Like the Schubert problem, it's a topic sensitive to some people, so I'll say no more than this.


----------



## mmsbls

janxharris said:


> No, I do not think my view is that which others ought to have - I have said so many times on these Forums. I wonder where you got that impression?


OK, fair enough.



janxharris said:


> You have misinterpreted. Of course, others have made similar negative comments.


Thanks. I think what threw me is the comment that fans of Mozart might like him because his music sounds like nursery rhyme music. I think you did not mean it the way that sounds.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know why you would keep comparing Mozart to Bach and Beethoven. Last time I checked you criticized Wagner by citing the quote "some fine moments but ugly quarter-hours", to praise Chopin's Nocturnes at the expense of Wagner's Ring Cycle.
> I'm sorry I don't fully share you and other people's enthusiasm for all that "rambling of trill and tremolos" in Beethoven Op.109, Op.111 or the "fugal attempts" ...


And I'm sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for some melodic snippets and scales over an Alberti bass. I just don't.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

If I were to give one example to show Mozart at his most sublime (IMO of course) it would be this. When I play it, I'm moved to the brink of tears.


----------



## Bigbang

consuono said:


> It isn't really a "stereotype" so much as an opinion. There are a couple of Mozart sonatas that I like. I don't play them, I don't seek them out to listen to them, but they're OK. There are some Beethoven sonatas that I like more than others. Same with Haydn. There are Bach keyboard works that I like more than others. I don't understand the requirement to think that every bit that came from Mozart's mind and pen was sheer genius. It wasn't. There hasn't been a composer yet that batted 1.000. Not even Bach, and certainly not Mozart.
> 
> I can sort of understand Richter's opinion there about the Chopin. "Familiarity breeds contempt".
> 
> Sometimes 10 minutes can be as vacuous as 45 minutes, and vice versa. They are different. And some I like more than others.


I think there is a little misunderstanding here. All the music he wrote came from a mind that was rooted in some phenomenal state of music. Virtually no composer can come close to this mind that Mozart had. In fact, I have read he was the "greatest" natural genius who ever lived. Well, Issac Newton also gets mention a lot too. So Mozart was not really struggling for inspiration to write a particular piece, he merely decided on what to write and for what purpose. You see, he lived in a bubble of ideas that never stopped so it was simply about where he was in his life. I am sure if some rich people begged him to write sonatas for a purpose that was more advanced if you will, then so be it. But it is not correct to say Mozart could not always tapped his genius mind as if his sonatas lacked genius inspiration. I am listening to Brendal/Mozart k 310, enjoyed every minute, not even boring, and will finish the cd with other piano works.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If I were to give one example to show Mozart at his most sublime (IMO of course) it would be this. When I play it, I'm moved to the brink of tears.
> ...


That's lovely, sweet and graceful in its way but the only time I'm really "moved to the brink of tears" while playing is if I'm playing the 6 part ricercar from the Musical Offering and I think "how did you do this?" or playing through the Goldbergs (as well as I can anyway) and then there's the final return of that Aria. Or that last (projected) quadruple fugue in Art of Fugue. I've never gotten any of that from Mozart's solo piano music except maybe the A minor Rondo. His concertos are another matter entirely.

Some other times I'm moved to the brink of tears...of frustration. That's usually Beethoven, Brahms and Liszt.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

consuono said:


> That's lovely, sweet and graceful in its way but the only time I'm really "moved to the brink of tears" while playing is if I'm playing the 6 part ricercar from the Musical Offering and I think "how did you do this?" or playing through the Goldbergs (as well as I can anyway) and then there's the final return of that Aria. Or that last (projected) quadruple fugue in Art of Fugue. I've never gotten any of that from Mozart's solo piano music except maybe the A minor Rondo. His concertos are another matter entirely.
> 
> Some other times I'm moved to the brink of tears...of frustration. That's usually Beethoven, Brahms and Liszt.


"Lovely, sweet, and graceful." Mozart in a nutshell for me.

Totally agree about playing Bach, BTW. The only thing I've even bothered to try and "master" from him is the Goldberg aria, and there is something so sublimely understated, unpretentious, delicate, ravishing in that piece...it moves me like nothing else. If only I had the mental dedication, focus, technique, and patience to learn at least one of the fugues from the WTC I would be a happy man.


----------



## Luchesi

mmsbls said:


> There are plenty of people on TC who don't place Mozart high on their lists of great or favorite composers. Some here don't much enjoy the Classical era although that doesn't apply to you I assume given that you like Haydn. Some others go further saying they simply don't enjoy Mozart at all. One member said his music is similar to the slapping of ar*e cheeks.
> 
> There is no composer whom everyone likes. Tastes vary. You obviously are aware of the high esteem to which most classical listeners hold Mozart, but if much of his music does not appeal to you, there's not too much you can do.
> 
> There have been some threads where one or more members made similar statements to yours and tried to explain their views. The problem is that it's so personal that an detailed explanation will likely not match with another's view.


"The problem is that it's so personal that an detailed explanation will likely not match with another's view."

That's because the problem is one of study and inexperience.


----------



## Bigbang

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If I were to give one example to show Mozart at his most sublime (IMO of course) it would be this. When I play it, I'm moved to the brink of tears.


I listened to this the other day by Alfred Brendel. Guess where you heard the theme in Beethoven's sonata? That's right---Beethoven got some of his ideas in his No 8 Pathetique sonata from none other that silly trivial Mozart.

So before we keep going on about Mozart it might be best to just spend time listening and reading what more advance musical minds might have to say....no reference to the post above.


----------



## consuono

Bigbang said:


> I think there is a little misunderstanding here. All the music he wrote came from a mind that was rooted in some phenomenal state of music. Virtually no composer can come close to this mind that Mozart had. In fact, I have read he was the "greatest" natural genius who ever lived. Well, Issac Newton also gets mention a lot too. So Mozart was not really struggling for inspiration to write a particular piece, he merely decided on what to write and for what purpose. You see, he lived in a bubble of ideas that never stopped so it was simply about where he was in his life. I am sure if some rich people begged him to write sonatas for a purpose that was more advanced if you will, then so be it. But it is not correct to say Mozart could not always tapped his genius mind as if his sonatas lacked genius inspiration. ...


I'd disagree. I think Bach had more of an awe-inspiring musical mind. And even so I'm not going to say that every ink blot he put on paper is absolute genius and that every single thing he wrote was of absolutely equal quality. That's servile idolatry in a way. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were all humans and all were fallible.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> "Lovely, sweet, and graceful." Mozart in a nutshell for me.
> 
> Totally agree about playing Bach, BTW. The only thing I've even bothered to try and "master" from him is the Goldberg aria, and there is something so sublimely understated, unpretentious, delicate, ravishing in that piece...it moves me like nothing else. If only I had the mental dedication, focus, technique, and patience to learn at least one of the fugues from the WTC I would be a happy man.


Oh, man. You've gotta do it. If you're at least at an advanced-beginner-to- intermediate level then get hold of all the Bach you can and get to work. Or even a rank beginner. I was playing some of the WTC when I was 10 or 11 or so, and I'm far from a genius.


----------



## Bigbang

BlackAdderLXX said:


> I just read through this war/discussion and it's been interesting.
> 
> I know very little compared to many here, but as the OP is asking for opinions along a specific line of thought, I will state mine. Hopefully I will be able to use the right words in expressing my own personal opinion so as to not set off a skirmish.
> 
> First of all. I like Mozart. I took music history in college and learned of his many contributions to the overall development of western music and for that reason alone, I believe he SHOULD be mentioned in the same breath as Bach and Beethoven. I believe his music to be well crafted, groundbreaking and visionary. I also believe that later composers built upon principles and concepts that Mozart employed and as in so doing his legacy is an influence on the styles of many who followed after him. I think the use of the word 'genius' is fair to apply to him.
> 
> All that said, I agree with a several of the OP's viewpoints. While there are not a small number of Mozart's works that I enjoy, I find myself to be frequently "more interested" by the works of other composers. That is NOT to say that I find Mozart uninteresting, but rather I frequently find other composers MORE interesting. Furthermore I tend to need to be in the "right mood" for Mozart than I do with other composers. I often find his music charming, but I'm not always in the mood for charming.
> 
> I also am not an opera fan, though I do try to listen to them and hopefully something will click. I have to say that Figaro is a highlight to me in an overall form of music that I don't really enjoy listening to. I am also not a fan of choral music, but his Requiem is one of my favorite works, though I can probably only listen to it a couple of times a year.
> 
> I like Bach as well, though I don't really have fun listening to quite a bit of his music. That said, I find his Brandenburgs, Orchestral Suites and his Violin concerti are always a treat to listen to.
> 
> I LOVE Beethoven's symphonies. To me they represent the reason why I love classical music: they make me feel something. Mozart makes me feel something at times as well, but it's more often than not peacefulness or tranquility. As I said, I find his music charming more than anything else. I experience a broader range of emotions when listening to other composers though.
> 
> To restate: I like Mozart and think he is one of the greatest of all time. I just don't listen to him that much.


Let's put it this way: Composers for the most part did not write music to "fix" us and repair emotionally damaged people. So I would say if someone needs something from Mozart akin to a "fix" then perhaps it would be better to move on and come back to Mozart after some healing from the other composers. :lol: All in fun of course. I think.


----------



## Bigbang

Since I do not think you grasped my point and you referenced Bach as well there is no point.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> And I'm sorry I don't share your enthusiasm for some melodic snippets and scales over an Alberti bass. I just don't.


----------



## hammeredklavier

If I were to give one example to show Beethoven at his most sublime (IMO of course) it would be this. When I play it, I'm moved to the brink of tears.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> View attachment 136864
> 
> View attachment 136865


Two of my least favorite Beethoven sonatas. Yes...? :lol:


----------



## consuono

I do love this one however:


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> If I were to give one example to show Beethoven at his most sublime (IMO of course) it would be this. When I play it, I'm moved to the brink of tears.


The second and last movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 is indeed sublime and profound, the final measures especially. Unfortunately Mozart never achieved such in his solo piano writing. He probably would have if he had lived longer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

"Ironically, the first major composer to personify the Italian cause was an admirer of German music. This was the charismatic Rossini. Far from thinking Mozart a 'barbarian', he paid him the following perceptive tribute: 'The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony.'" (The Triumph of Music: Composers Musicians And Their Audiences 1700 To The Present, By Tim Blanning)

"Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked Chopin up in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint." (The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter)


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> I'd disagree. I think Bach had more of an awe-inspiring musical mind. And even so I'm not going to say that every ink blot he put on paper is absolute genius and that every single thing he wrote was of absolutely equal quality. That's servile idolatry in a way. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart were all humans and all were fallible.


Tchaikovsky: "I bow before the greatness of some of his works, but I do not love Beethoven. My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear. He created heaven and earth, just as He created me, but still, even though I cringe before Him, there is no love. Christ, on the contrary, awakens precisely and exclusively feelings of love. Yes, He was God, but at the same time a man. He suffered like us. We are sorry for Him, we love in Him His ideal human side. And if Beethoven occupies in my heart a place analogous to God, Lord of Sabaoth, then Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he. [...] It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has [...] In Mozart I love everything because we love everything in a person whom we truly love. Above all I love Don Giovanni, as it was thanks to this work that I found out what music is. Until then (till the age of 17) I had known nothing apart from pleasant Italian semi-music. Of course, whilst I do love everything in Mozart, I won't claim that every minor work of his is a masterpiece. No! I know that any one of his sonatas, for example, is not a great work, and yet I love every sonata of his precisely because it is his - because this musical Christ touched it with his radiant hand."


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> "Ironically, the first major composer to personify the Italian cause was an admirer of German music. This was the charismatic Rossini. Far from thinking Mozart a 'barbarian', he paid him the following perceptive tribute: 'The Germans have always been at every time the greatest harmonists and the Italians the greatest melodists. But from the moment that the North produced a Mozart, we of the South were beaten on our own ground, because this man rises above both nations, uniting in himself all the charms of Italian melody and all the profundity of German harmony.'" (The Triumph of Music: Composers Musicians And Their Audiences 1700 To The Present, By Tim Blanning)
> 
> "Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked Chopin up in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords. That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint." (The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter)


The problem with pronouncements like that from that time period is that knowledge of Bach's music at that time probably didn't extend much further than the WTC. Remember that Beethoven considered Handel the greatest composer ever, and Mozart might've agreed. (Beethoven also held Salieri in high regard.) The publication of Bach's complete works didn't begin until 1851 and took decades.


----------



## Bigbang

Allerius said:


> Try sonata No. 14. It's in a minor mode and shares small resemblances with Beethoven's _Pathétique_ sonata (his No. 8). Also, try the Fantasy No. 3 in C minor, K. 475, that could be seen as a precedent to Beethoven's _Appassionata_.
> 
> Personally, I think that all Mozart sonatas starting with the No. 7 are small gems of the pianistic repertoire, and it's always a pleasure to listen to the superb pianist Mrs. Uchida playing them. I suggest Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16 for anyone wanting to start listening to them.


I commented on this sonata compared to Beethoven sonata. Did not realize you brought it up in earlier post as I was responding to another post. I agree with your comments.


----------



## aioriacont

I strongly recommend to anyone I know who thinks Mozart is trivial and not deep, to give our dear genius more chances.
I once was like this, I really underestimated this amazing composer who is currently my top third one, right before Bach and Schubert. Until last year, I considered him trivial music, how wrong I was! He is actually very deep. And he can be much more inaccessible than one thinks. He is actually a grower. 
The more one listens to Mozart, the more they will realise how much a genius he is, and how many of his works are actually underrated (for example, his Masses and various other vocal works apart from the well known operas).

For me, Bach, Schubert and Mozart are the amazing triad of all music. And Beethoven comes close!


----------



## consuono

I love Mozart overall. I just don't care too much for his piano sonatas.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> I love Mozart overall. I just don't care too much for his piano sonatas.


Same here. I don't think he would be nearly the major composer he is, if all he wrote were those.


----------



## Bigbang

Phil loves classical said:


> Same here. I don't think he would be nearly the major composer he is, if all he wrote were those.


The problem with this obsession on sonatas in this post is the same thing can be said about his violin concertos. Or divertimentos. Some of the serenades. The issue I have is the "obsession" to drive everything into absolutes. For many people, Mozart touches them regardless of the music. I have said this before that they best way IMO to get into classical music is to get into a composer. Once a person gets Mozart then it is not that hard to listen to his lesser output (if that is what some call it).

No one brings up his violin sonatas or concertos...probably for the same reason.


----------



## consuono

Bigbang said:


> The problem with this obsession on sonatas in this post is the same thing can be said about his violin concertos. Or divertimentos. Some of the serenades. The issue I have is the "obsession" to drive everything into absolutes. ...


My viewpoint on Mozart is probably the opposite of "absolute". I actually love the violin concertos as well as most of the divertimentos and serenades that I've heard. His last 10 or so symphonies and piano concertos are some of the very greatest music ever written. Ditto the Marriage of Figaro, Così fan tutte and Don Giovanni. Now I haven't heard enough of his violin sonatas to form an opinion. An "absolute" viewpoint is that if I don't particularly like one item or set of items in the Mozart catalog, then something must be lacking in my understanding because Mozart was a great genius so, come on, get with it! The thing is I would imagine that every composer who ever lived has a certain degree of unevenness in output. Every single one of them, regardless of their genius. It's being human. The same applies to literature. Some Shakespeare plays are "greater" than others. But still some people love Love's Labour's Lost and The Comedy of Errors, and that's fine too. There are some Rembrandt paintings and etchings that I appreciate or that move me more than others. Now my best wouldn't come within light years of Rembrandt's worst, but I'm not an artist. Just a member of the audience.


----------



## tdc

Bigbang said:


> So Mozart was not really struggling for inspiration to write a particular piece, he merely decided on what to write and for what purpose. You see, he lived in a bubble of ideas that never stopped so it was simply about where he was in his life. I am sure if some rich people begged him to write sonatas for a purpose that was more advanced if you will, then so be it. But it is not correct to say Mozart could not always tapped his genius mind as if his sonatas lacked genius inspiration.


This is pretty much how I see it in relation to the sonatas as well, they are what he wanted them to be. If you try to compare them to the last symphonies or his great operas and call them 'minor works', so be it. However I think not all music is supposed to serve the same function. Sometimes I am in the mood for something grand and sometimes I am in the mood for something smaller and more intimate.

I appreciate the fact they are different from much of his other work, show another facet of his genius, therefore provide another entry point into his music. Millionrainbows a member who appears not to get Mozart at all as far as I can tell, has posted that in the past that he enjoys listening to Mozart's piano sonatas, as far as I can recall these are the only Mozart works he has ever said that about.

For me Mozart's piano sonatas essentially symbolize the ideal in the genre. (I'm not saying there are not other masterpieces by other composers in the repertoire.) However, a lot of it is not what I consider ideal, for example Beethoven's gargantuan efforts. Much of this to me crosses the line of good taste. When I hear of decent musicians practicing the intro to the hammerklavier sonata for months on end and still cannot get it to sound good, or when piano teachers suggest when learning the sonatas they don't generally practice all of a sonata at a practice session but work on isolated movements. I'm sorry that is just a little too much. What is the point of learning a sonata if you can't even practice the thing in full? Beethoven, calm down genius. I think with Beethoven music became in some ways slightly ridiculous, self-centered and over blown. I have no desire to ever learn a Beethoven sonata.


----------



## hammeredklavier

aioriacont said:


> The more one listens to Mozart, the more they will realise how much a genius he is, and how many of his works are actually underrated (for example, his Masses and various other vocal works apart from the well known operas).
> For me, Bach, Schubert and Mozart are the amazing triad of all music. And Beethoven comes close!


True. Stuff like Laudate pueri dominum (Vesperae solennes de dominica K321) or Viaticum in domino morientum (Litaniae de venerabili altaris sacramento K243) can make you wonder "is this really Mozart?"


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> ... When I hear of decent musicians practicing the intro to the hammerklavier sonata for months on end and still cannot get it to sound good, or when piano teachers suggest when learning the sonatas they don't generally practice all of a sonata at a practice session but work on isolated movements. I'm sorry that is just a little too much. What is the point of learning a sonata if you can't even practice the thing in full? Beethoven, calm down genius. I think with Beethoven music became in some ways slightly ridiculous, self-centered and over blown. I have no desire to ever learn a Beethoven sonata.


Do you play the piano? That's how many musicians practice and memorize: a measure at a time, a phrase at a time, a page at a time. Richter memorized page by page. I'm doing something like that now with Bach's BWV 831: measures 1-40 and now 41-77, working on being able to play it with clarity. Just because something can be played easily at first glance all the way through doesn't make it musically superior. Sometimes you need to raise your technique to meet the demands of the music. Mozart's piano writing in his greatest concertos is much more challenging.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> Not going well at the moment, this thread. I've got various Mozart fans telling me I'm wrong (which is fine) and someone who doesn't go along with the generally accepted Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, and probably Schubert all being quite good thesis.
> No one seems to be on my Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms (but not Mozart) page. It's obviously just me.


Yes, I'd say it's just you. And I'm just me. I'm not a fan of Mozart either (of the works of his to which I have listened, that is). People follow their own path - I like Haydn's and Beethoven's symphonies, but I've not really pursued Bach (he didn't do symphonies) and among Mozart's 41 are fewer of interest to me than among Haydn's 104 and Ludwig's 9.

If you're looking for anything else we might have in common, I'm no fan of opera either.

Oh, and you're not "wrong". You can't be "wrong" about what you like and what you don't like, though you might have made a mistake in your use of the word 'great'.

And no, I don't do Brahms either. As for the rest of the 19th C, meh, until much later (Debussy, Mahler) and then it's Russian and Finnish 20thC all the way


----------



## janxharris

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think janxharris is trying to "mock", but trying to assess critically (with some personal opinion). He describes (albeit negatively) the similar kind of things as Charles Hazlewood does in this video:


Interesting video.

"Nursery-world analogy...this small child inside...toy trumpet-like moments...out of the nursery..." (Charles Hazelwood)


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Why is this forum constantly so obsessed with personal tastes and preferences? We're supposed to be discussing music here, not economics.


According to my therapist we are an obsessive and needy lot.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Mozart is awesome imo but like what you want to!!!! he's not some "proven genius" and it's all up to personal taste 

the joy of music is the emotion and feeling. Richard Atkinson videos may be informative as to what the composer was doing on a technical level, but they're not helpful indicating why a piece is "good" or not. that's up to you. 

might i recommend 1984's Amadeus by the way? I'm not trying to swerve your opinion, I just think it's a really great movie with some interesting things to say about jealousy and evil.


----------



## janxharris

mmsbls said:


> OK, fair enough.
> 
> Thanks. I think what threw me is the comment that fans of Mozart might like him because his music sounds like nursery rhyme music. I think you did not mean it the way that sounds.


Indeed - apologies for lack of clarity; I meant no disrespect. I think it is possible to enjoy a composer even if the listener interprets the 'meaning' to be child-like in it's expression - as long as it presented in an intelligent way.

Interestingly, I always 'see' child-like images when listening to the beginning of the first movement of Mahler's 9th symphony - though, of course, the mood alters and becomes much darker quite quickly.


----------



## tdc

consuono said:


> Do you play the piano? That's how many musicians practice and memorize: a measure at a time, a phrase at a time, a page at a time. Richter memorized page by page. I'm doing something like that now with Bach's BWV 831: measures 1-40 and now 41-77, working on being able to play it with clarity. Just because something can be played easily at first glance all the way through doesn't make it musically superior. Sometimes you need to raise your technique to meet the demands of the music. Mozart's piano writing in his greatest concertos is much more challenging.


Yes, you've asked me that before. I understand practicing is taken slowly as you describe, I'm not contesting that. Still, at some point don't you enjoy playing through a work in its entirety? Those Beethoven sonatas are seriously unwieldy, even if memorized I don't think I would often want to play through something like that, nor make a listener sit through an entire performance. I suppose in general I like pieces that aren't as long, with some exceptions. Longer pieces should be exceptionally good to justify their length in my view. I know most people find Beethoven's lengths justified, admittedly I am in the minority here.

It comes back to my earlier point. If someone is looking for Beethoven you will not find him in Mozart's sonatas, and vice versa. They are very different. Mozart's are deceptively simple and actually more nuanced than they appear on the surface. I find them brilliantly constructed, playful and inventive gems of masterful proportions.

I have never suggested that something easy to play is superior, I actually think difficulty is not especially important, within reason. If a work is so difficult only someone like Liszt can do it justice (as Wagner claimed with Beethoven's Hammerklavier) maybe its a bit excessive. However, it seems that you are suggesting that the difficulty of Mozart's concertos makes them better. I do agree that the concerto is a form where Mozart is especially adept, but for me this is not related to the fact that these works are more challenging to perform.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Probably relevant for this thread, but I post it also because it's such a good quote:

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Antoine de Saint-Exupery


----------



## Animal the Drummer

My dear sir, that in a nutshell is exactly why I love and revere Mozart's music. 

In addition to Peter Shaffer's brilliant "NY Times" article from the 80s, the following from Stephen Hough is also on point here:

"In Beethoven we sense someone wrestling with his material - Jacob struggling with the angel; but Mozart *is* the angel - Gabriel appearing without effect or toil. His compositional skill is worn so lightly it seems like an aura rather than clothing. All the shavings from his workbench have been cleared away, but then we realise that the carpentry was pure Creation in the first place, not craft.

Mozart is the only composer I know who is able to explore every human mood and emotion - with all their messiness, ambivalence, roughness, brokenness - and present them to us in a circle of perfection, yet without triviality. He is able to find words for the unsayable, and then to make them rhyme. In his most joyful music we are aware that unalloyed happiness is rare, perhaps non-existent in human experience; and in his most sad or tragic moments the pity is always deflected from the ego, but remains deeply personal."


----------



## Jacck

Animal the Drummer said:


> Mozart is the only composer I know who is able to explore every human mood and emotion - with all their messiness, ambivalence, roughness, brokenness - and present them to us in a circle of perfection, yet without triviality. He is able to find words for the unsayable, and then to make them rhyme. In his most joyful music we are aware that unalloyed happiness is rare, perhaps non-existent in human experience; and in his most sad or tragic moments the pity is always deflected from the ego, but remains deeply personal."


it would be instructive, if you could provide some examples of all those emotions in Mozart - a sad music, an angry music, an anxious music, a longing music, a melancholic music.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I can give you any number of works by Mozart in which these things can all be found, above all "The Marriage of Figaro" which I consider the greatest work of art ever created in any medium. With respect, however, to ask for them one by one is to miss part of the point Stephen Hough is making in that quote when he writes that Mozart's music shows us that "unalloyed happiness is rare, perhaps non-existent in human experience" and that "in his most sad or tragic moments the pity is always deflected from the ego". Mozart doesn't present over-simplified emotions in "glorious Technicolor" - he combines them, in a way which is both intensely personal and stunningly universal, the latter because life is rarely so simple as to slice things up in a simple way. Perhaps another quote from Shaffer's article may help:

"Over and over as one listens, a joyful shadow, a shadowed joy, seems to pass swiftly over the music, as a cloud passes across a spring landscape, bringing with it a quite excruciating emotion for which there is no precise name, save perhaps that of the composer. A hearing of the slow movement of the Clarinet Quintet will evoke this effect at any time."


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> This post and much of your thread discussing Mozart's musical standing give me the impression that you feel your view of Mozart is the view that _others ought to have_. The fact that they don't sheds a negative light on them. I assume you are well aware that a high number of major composers, conductors, and performers hold Mozart in their highest esteem. Musicologists have written an enormous amount of commentary on his works. All music schools spend as much time or more on Mozart as any other composer. Surveys of essentially any classical music group from fans to professionals place Mozart in the top tier _always_. It would seem obvious that the classical music listening community as a whole decidedly does not share your view of Mozart's music.
> 
> Above you belittle Mozart's music as nursery rhyme music. Then you say it's possible fans might not perceive it that way rather than the classical musical community has determined that Mozart's music is vastly loftier, more sublime, interesting, and important than nursery rhyme music. Finally you toss up your hands and suggest that the reason people like Mozart may be that nursery rhyme music suites their taste. After all, what other reason could there be?
> 
> Many on TC have talked about their particular inability to enjoy certain composers. They generally point to themselves either saying their taste is different or asking for help in learning to like the music they presently do not. The focus is on them rather than the inability of the rest of the classical music community to understand the truth.
> 
> I know we often write posts that don't quite say what we mean, and sometime others misinterpret what we write. So, I'd like to ask if I have misunderstood your posts. Do you believe you somehow have been incapable of hearing what so many others hear in Mozart (i.e. his music is sublime, important, interesting, of the highest quality, etc.) or do you believe that others ought not to hear Mozart's music that way? I can only say your posts give me the strong impression that you think others (i.e. the entire classical music community) are mistaken in their assessment of Mozart.
> 
> Quick Note to Eclectic Al: I believe you started this thread because you are interested in why you view the music differently not because you wish to correct others' views or feel those views are wrong in some sense.


Hey, why don't you pick on somebody your own size?


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> I was quoting MillionRainbows on 'nursery-rhyme', but that is how I perceive a lot of his music - it's not a mock. I shouldn't have said 'most'. Apologies.


I don't think any apology is necessary. I think *mmsbls* misinterpreted our shared characterization of Mozart's music as coming across somewhat simplistically; simple chord changes, limited harmonic range (compared to late Romanticism), and other obvious features which could just as easily be construed as being positive. Examples:

(negative) simple = (positive) uncluttered

(negative) nursery rhyme-like = (positive) refreshingly naive and child-like

etc.

Of course, _no one _wants to be characterized or labelled, do they? Too bad, this is the real world!


----------



## Phil loves classical

Bigbang said:


> The problem with this obsession on sonatas in this post is the same thing can be said about his violin concertos. Or divertimentos. Some of the serenades. The issue I have is the "obsession" to drive everything into absolutes. For many people, Mozart touches them regardless of the music. I have said this before that they best way IMO to get into classical music is to get into a composer. Once a person gets Mozart then it is not that hard to listen to his lesser output (if that is what some call it).
> 
> No one brings up his violin sonatas or concertos...probably for the same reason.


No obsession, just my personal evaluation. I can see Beethoven taking something from K310, etc. But considering the piano repertoire that came after Mozart, there is nothing really that elevated. Haydn's piano sonatas are in no way inferior to Mozart's, but don't get as much exposure. Mozart is a legend, and deserves it based on his more major works, and that naturally would elevate some of his lesser works above others. I was an avid Mozart collector and fanboy, and bought pretty much everything he wrote, but there is some I just don't listen to anymore after exploring other composers.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> Tchaikovsky: "I bow before the greatness of some of his works, but I do not love Beethoven. My attitude towards him reminds me of how I felt as a child with regard to God, Lord of Sabaoth. I felt (and even now my feelings have not changed) a sense of amazement before Him, but at the same time also fear. He created heaven and earth, just as He created me, but still, even though I cringe before Him, there is no love. Christ, on the contrary, awakens precisely and exclusively feelings of love. Yes, He was God, but at the same time a man. He suffered like us. We are sorry for Him, we love in Him His ideal human side. And if Beethoven occupies in my heart a place analogous to God, Lord of Sabaoth, then Mozart I love as a musical Christ. Besides, he lived almost like Christ did. I think there is nothing sacrilegious in such a comparison. Mozart was a being so angelical and child-like in his purity, his music is so full of unattainably divine beauty, that if there is someone whom one can mention with the same breath as Christ, then it is he. [...] It is my profound conviction that Mozart is the highest, the culminating point which beauty has reached in the sphere of music. Nobody has made me cry and thrill with joy, sensing my proximity to something that we call the ideal, in the way that he has [...] In Mozart I love everything because we love everything in a person whom we truly love. Above all I love Don Giovanni, as it was thanks to this work that I found out what music is. Until then (till the age of 17) I had known nothing apart from pleasant Italian semi-music. Of course, whilst I do love everything in Mozart, I won't claim that every minor work of his is a masterpiece. No! I know that any one of his sonatas, for example, is not a great work, and yet I love every sonata of his precisely because it is his - because this musical Christ touched it with his radiant hand."


Pardon me if I offend anyone, but I think Tchaikovsky's towards Beethoven is largely due to Tchaikovsky's having a "gay" sensibility. This characterization of Beethoven (as "God") has a curiously archetypal ring of patriarchy and "father" to it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> it would be instructive, if you could provide some examples of all those emotions in Mozart - a sad music, an angry music, an anxious music, a longing music, a melancholic music.


Okay, easy. Minor = sad, Major = happy.

Diminished = anxious.

Angry = loud

Longing = alternating major and minor. :lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

BlackAdderLXX said:


> Well, as the thread you posted is about Mozart I limited my comments to that. Historically I understand that Haydn was a major composer of the classical period and would say many of the same things about his music that I would of Mozart's. However, my own experience with Haydn's music is very limited. Had he been the subject of this thread, I would not have posted. I intend to explore his music more fully at some point, but my explorations of the later composers have captivated my attention (and affections) more than those of the Classical or Baroque period (for now).


Sorry about the Haydn pitch. It's just that I take every opportunity to push his music, whatever the topic.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think any apology is necessary. I think *mmsbls* misinterpreted our shared characterization of Mozart's music as coming across somewhat simplistically; simple chord changes, limited harmonic range (compared to late Romanticism), and other obvious features which could just as easily be construed as being positive. Examples:
> 
> (negative) simple = (positive) uncluttered
> 
> (negative) nursery rhyme-like = (positive) refreshingly naive and child-like
> 
> etc.
> 
> Of course, _no one _wants to be characterized or labelled, do they? Too bad, this is the real world!


Did you see this:

"Nursery-world analogy...this small child inside...toy trumpet-like moments...out of the nursery..." (Charles Hazelwood - on Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20)

?


----------



## Flamme

millionrainbows said:


> Hey, why don't you pick on somebody your own size?


Dont play with fire brah!!!


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, easy. Minor = sad, Major = happy.
> 
> *Diminished = anxious.*
> 
> Angry = loud
> 
> Longing = alternating major and minor. :lol:


Nonsense, diminished is creepy old house and ghosts....


----------



## Luchesi

Phil loves classical said:


> No obsession, just my personal evaluation. I can see Beethoven taking something from K310, etc. But considering the piano repertoire that came after Mozart, there is nothing really that elevated. Haydn's piano sonatas are in no way inferior to Mozart's, but don't get as much exposure. Mozart is a legend, and deserves it based on his more major works, and that naturally would elevate some of his lesser works above others. I was an avid Mozart collector and fanboy, and bought pretty much everything he wrote, but there is some I just don't listen to anymore after exploring other composers.


To be fair, we should listen to what Mozart might've been listening to, and then explore the expression he broadened and enhanced from JC Bach et al. And then he left them completely behind, so, can we find the works at that juncture in his output? The ninth Piano Concerto?


----------



## Caryatid

I have no reservations about ranking Mozart in the highest tier of composers. He wrote plenty of lesser works, but so did Beethoven. Artists are to be judged by their greatest achievements.

I'll concede that I'm not a fan of his way of writing for the piano, even in the concerti. The piano was a young instrument and suffered from limitations that only began to loosen substantially in the years after his death. When I listen to one of the concerti, I enjoy the opening but my interest flags during the development, largely because the piano runs out of memorable material. The mature concerti are huge dramatic conceptions orchestrally - they have no parallel in the 18th-century, to my knowledge - but the pianos of the time were too slight to elicit writing of the same magnitude. If Mozart had lived another thirty years... but he didn't.

A few of the sonatas are great - the A minor, for example. But my favourite Mozart is in the chamber music. The late string quintets and quartets, the string trio, the clarinet quintet, the quintet for piano and winds, the piano quartets - here he is is full of inspiration and his usual tropes and formulas are used only sparingly. The first movement of the C major string quintet has been compared to the _Eroica _symphony, and that seems fair enough to me.

And then what about something like this?


----------



## 20centrfuge

Eclectic Al said:


> I have a confession: I don't really get Mozart. I generally find that the list of "great" composers which is generally stated is very much in line with my personal list. But not Mozart.
> A few works are great (for me): Clarinet Quintet (and maybe the Concerto), Symphony 40, a few Piano Concerti (or some movements thereof), and some bits of the Requiem. Beyond that, I keep trying, but my mind wanders. This doesn't add up to enough to be in my personal list of greats.
> I therefore thought it would be interesting to see if there are any common themes among those who don't get Mozart.
> For example, I don't do Opera at all. I am hugely into Brahms, Bach and Haydn. With Beethoven it's more recognition of greatness than a sympathy of outlook: he can persuade me, but I don't warm to him. I tend to think that Schoenberg and his gang were barking up a blind alley (sometimes to great effect), whereas Bartok was onto something.
> So are there any others out there who share my deficiency? If so, please indicate your own tastes to see if there is something in common. I should be more scientific about this, but life's short.
> If I get no response to this, then I guess it's just me.


I'm fairly similar to you with Mozart and Beethoven. I really like some of Mozart's Piano Concertos, the overture to Don Giovanni, the Serenade "Gran Partita" and a few other works. Though I don't go gaga over everything he wrote, I recognize that he had an amazing gift for melody and that his music has a clarity that is special. I would consider him one of the greats even though he isn't one I listen to a lot. Beethoven is similar. I love a few works, and recognize his genius but he isn't one I listen to very much.

I also agree that pure 12-tone music isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It ignores a lot of the basic power of the harmonic series which is nature, after all. Does that mean I despise all 12 tone music? No. I like some of it and I think it is a useful tool for any modern composer to consider. But if I were forced to choose either ONLY tonal music or ONLY 12 tone music, it would be an easy choice.

and yes, Bartok rules.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Caryatid said:


> I have no reservations about ranking Mozart in the highest tier of composers. He wrote plenty of lesser works, but so did Beethoven. Artists are to be judged by their greatest achievements.
> 
> I'll concede that I'm not a fan of his way of writing for the piano, even in the concerti. The piano was a young instrument and suffered from limitations that only began to loosen substantially in the years after his death. When I listen to one of the concerti, I enjoy the opening but my interest flags during the development, largely because the piano runs out of memorable material. The mature concerti are huge dramatic conceptions orchestrally - they have no parallel in the 18th-century, to my knowledge - but the pianos of the time were too slight to elicit writing of the same magnitude. If Mozart had lived another thirty years... but he didn't.
> 
> A few of the sonatas are great - the A minor, for example. But my favourite Mozart is in the chamber music. The late string quintets and quartets, the string trio, the clarinet quintet, the quintet for piano and winds, the piano quartets - here he is is full of inspiration and his usual tropes and formulas are used only sparingly. The first movement of the C major string quintet has been compared to the _Eroica _symphony, and that seems fair enough to me.
> 
> And then what about something like this?


I agree with every word of this post


----------



## hammeredklavier

tdc said:


> Millionrainbows a member who appears not to get Mozart at all as far as I can tell, has posted that in the past that he enjoys listening to Mozart's piano sonatas, as far as I can recall these are the only Mozart works he has ever said that about.


This is similar to what I feel about Phil loves classical, from the whole time I've spent on this forum. Again, he says in this thread he's "an avid enthusiast who has bought pretty much everything Mozart wrote". But a few fantasies, late concertos/symphonies, sonatas are pretty much everything in Mozart he references everytime he discusses Mozart. And I still remember him claiming that "Salieri's works such as his requiem (which I still find unimpressive for the typical Italian way over-emphasizing melody over harmony and orchestration [Sorry, Michael Haydn and Adolph Hasse are much better]) are just as good as Mozart's lesser works", "Hindemith is more relevant to our age than Mozart is". And I remember another time when we were discussing use of harmony and counterpoint in Bach and Mozart, he tried to argue that "Mozart just wasn't daring enough in use of dissonance", by discussing certain passages of scales in Mozart's concertos, (which made me wonder if he knew stuff like K167 [et incarnatus est], K173 [4th movement], or K394 at all.)
And again, in this thread; he resorts to the same old logic: "There are other composers who wrote better stuff than Mozart's lesser works."
But why not look at it this way: Beethoven's lesser sonatas like 19th, 20th, 25th, 26th, etc get way more views on youtube than Clementi's Op.34 No.2 or Hummel's Op.81. Is Beethoven's 30th sonata, with its 2-minute long trill on B, the greatest thing ever written for the piano? (Some think it is, according to a recent poll). And shouldn't we be asking ourselves how many works in the Classical era are "more neglected" than Choral Fantasie, (which wouldn't have been as popular as it is today had it not been for the success of Beethoven's own 9th symphony) ?
I'm starting to wonder why I've never seen Phil talking about Beethoven the same way he does about Mozart. Actually, I remember a lot of instances of Phil defending Beethoven about his use of melody, harmony. 
I don't hate Beethoven, I'm just curious about certain people's "attitude toward certain greats", which I perceive as "double standards".









Neglected and Over-loved Eras of Classical Music


Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a huge Mozart fan





Phil loves classical said:


> I'm a huge Mozart fan, remember?


Suuuuuure, you are =)


----------



## Guest

This is explicitly a thread for those who don't get Mozart. In the same way that Mozart fan threads should be left alone by Mozart sceptics, perhaps fans might give those sceptics some room here?

All that asserting WAM's greatness achieves is irritation, not understanding.


----------



## hammeredklavier

MacLeod said:


> This is explicitly a thread for those who don't get Mozart.


Also for the "propagandists", who try to damage composers' reputations =).



MacLeod said:


> In the same way that Mozart fan threads should be left alone by Mozart sceptics, perhaps fans might give those sceptics some room here?


I think that the 'Mozart skeptics' were given enough room during the period of 2008~2018. Now is the time for something different =), don't you think? Something more 'interactive' =), allowing full "freedom of speech" to both sides =).

_"Mozart fan threads were left alone by Mozart skeptics"_












Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids





poconoron said:


> StlukesguildOhio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I can't say I've ever really come across any real body of Beethoven hatred here. I think we had a clique of Beethoven "fanboys" some time back who dismissed Mozart as "light" music.
> 
> 
> 
> This is right on target. It seems much more prevalent among Beethoven lovers to denigrate Mozart than the other way around.
Click to expand...


----------



## hammeredklavier

Jacck said:


> it would be instructive, if you could provide some examples of all those emotions in Mozart - a sad music, an angry music, an anxious music, a longing music, a melancholic music.


*[ 3:05 ]*






*[ 3:00 ]*






*[ 4:38 ]*


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> I think that the 'Mozart skeptics' were given enough room during the period of 2008~2018.


You're entitled to your view, but I beg to differ.



hammeredklavier said:


> Now is the time for something different =), don't you think? Something more 'interactive' =), allowing full "freedom of speech" to both sides =).


No, I don't think (not least because I'm not a fan of "full" freedom of speech).

And what's with the link to a post from 9 years ago in a thread that started 12 years ago? It rather proves my point - a dedicated place for the devotee of Mozart.


----------



## Coach G

MacLeod said:


> This is explicitly a thread for those who don't get Mozart. In the same way that Mozart fan threads should be left alone by Mozart sceptics, perhaps fans might give those sceptics some room here?
> 
> All that asserting WAM's greatness achieves is irritation, not understanding.


The thread is identified as a "confessional". I don't know much about the catechism but if I were to confess my sins to a priest I might expect him to counsel me regarding my repentence and redemption. So why shouldn't posters here point out how and what to listen for in Mozart for all those who struggle?


----------



## Guest

Coach G said:


> The thread is identified as a "confessional". I don't know much about the catechism but if I were to confess my sins to a priest I might expect him to counsel me regarding my repentence and redemption. So why shouldn't posters here point out how and what to listen for in Mozart for all those who struggle?


You'd have to ask the OP how literal he intended to be re confessional.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

MacLeod said:


> This is explicitly a thread for those who don't get Mozart. In the same way that Mozart fan threads should be left alone by Mozart sceptics, perhaps fans might give those sceptics some room here?
> 
> All that asserting WAM's greatness achieves is irritation, not understanding.


The thread soon morphed, courtesy of the original poster himself, into one bringing in those who *do* get Mozart with an invitation to explain their enthusiasm. Speaking for myself I have no problem whatever with Mozart sceptics joining what you refer to as "fan threads" - challenge and debate are part of the fun here - but with respect the idea that this thread should be left to you/them holds no water.

Bald declarations of the kind you describe in your final sentence can indeed be irritating, but that goes for fans and critics alike.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> Bald declarations of the kind you describe in your final sentence can indeed be irritating, but that goes for fans and critics alike.


Which was more my point. I should correct and say that only those fans who have little to say but bald statements of the kind we agree are irritating, should give the sceptics room.

(Note to other readers - I didn't say "shouldn't be here")


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> The thread soon morphed, courtesy of the original poster himself, into one bringing in those who *do* get Mozart with an invitation to explain their enthusiasm. Speaking for myself I have no problem whatever with Mozart sceptics joining what you refer to as "fan threads" - challenge and debate are part of the fun here - but with respect the idea that this thread should be left to you/them holds no water.
> 
> Bald declarations of the kind you describe in your final sentence can indeed be irritating, but that goes for fans and critics alike.


Oh dear. That's me.
My primary objective was to see if people who were generally in the mainstream regarding who they think is "great" (ie including Bach, Beethoven, and others who are highly regarded by many - Haydn, Brahms, Schubert for example) but struggled to include Mozart in that group had something in common.
I wasn't directly criticising or praising Mozart, but just intrigued because I generally go along with the "greats", with that exception. In no way was I even saying he didn't produce any great works, just that for me there are relatively few that I relate to. I get the classical period, but not Mozart so much, which is puzzling because he is seen by many as central to that (including by Haydn and Brahms, say, who ought to have some knowledge of these matters).
This naturally led to suggestions (from fans) of works which might appeal to people who warm more naturally to Beethoven or Haydn, which is great. It has also been entertaining to see those who revere the man stating their position, although I don't think that was really the point.
Anyway, I do think some things are coming out of this relevant to my aim.
Keep on sparring. I'm enjoying it.


----------



## Luchesi

Animal the Drummer said:


> The thread soon morphed, courtesy of the original poster himself, into one bringing in those who *do* get Mozart with an invitation to explain their enthusiasm. Speaking for myself I have no problem whatever with Mozart sceptics joining what you refer to as "fan threads" - challenge and debate are part of the fun here - but with respect the idea that this thread should be left to you/them holds no water.
> 
> Bald declarations of the kind you describe in your final sentence can indeed be irritating, but that goes for fans and critics alike.


Posters know that Mozart and Beethoven are apples and oranges, but they want to show how well they know specifics -- very different specifics about each of them. They know they're apples and oranges but they keep it up.


----------



## hammeredklavier

At least none of Mozart's works gets lofty unofficial titles like "New Testament of Music" =)


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Posters know that Mozart and Beethoven are apples and oranges, but they want to show how well they know specifics -- very different specifics about each of them. They know they're apples and oranges but they keep it up.


I don't think they really are apples and oranges in the way a Mozart-Hendrix comparison would be. Both worked within pretty much the same media, and Beethoven's worked developed from Mozart's influence (along with Haydn's and Handel's and, more distantly really, Bach's...among others).


----------



## Couchie

Only Mozart can take something a dumb as the Marriage of Figaro, and move you tears purely through a revelation of a most perfected beauty so far beyond what you yourself are capable of imagining, so far removed from daily experience of the imperfections of this flawed world, that you can only describe it as being of "God". That's Mozart!


----------



## consuono

Couchie said:


> Only Mozart can take something a dumb as the Marriage of Figaro...


I don't think the storyline is "dumb" at all. For its day it was revolutionary anti-aristocrat thinking. The genius was in moving the focus from the political - which is what would be hammered relentlessly today - to the personal.


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> For me Mozart's piano sonatas essentially symbolize the ideal in the genre. (I'm not saying there are not other masterpieces by other composers in the repertoire.) However, a lot of it is not what I consider ideal, for example Beethoven's gargantuan efforts. Much of this to me crosses the line of good taste. When I hear of decent musicians practicing the intro to the hammerklavier sonata for months on end and still cannot get it to sound good, or when piano teachers suggest when learning the sonatas they don't generally practice all of a sonata at a practice session but work on isolated movements. I'm sorry that is just a little too much. What is the point of learning a sonata if you can't even practice the thing in full? Beethoven, calm down genius. *I think with Beethoven music became in some ways slightly ridiculous, self-centered and over blown. I have no desire to ever learn a Beethoven sonata.*


Curious. I love Beethoven and think that his sonatas are my ideal of pianistic music. They can be long, intense and technical (such as the marvel that is the _Hammerklavier_) but also, as you don't seem to be aware, small, lighthearted, lyrical and not that difficult to perform (piano sonatas Nos. 18, 19, 24 and 25 come to mind). The man was a genius and his music is much more versatile than you seem to realize. Many of his pieces aren't either "gargantuan" nor "self-centered", and "ridiculous" and "over blown" are offensive adjectives that I wouldn't associate to Beethoven at all.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> I don't think they really are apples and oranges in the way a Mozart-Hendrix comparison would be. Both worked within pretty much the same media, and Beethoven's worked developed from Mozart's influence (along with Haydn's and Handel's and, more distantly really, Bach's...among others).


Mozart and Beethoven are as different as Mozart and Carl Maria von Weber, or Mozart and Cherubini.

Beethoven regarded *Cherubini* as the greatest of his contemporaries.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Eclectic Al said:


> Oh dear. That's me.
> My primary objective was to see if people who were generally in the mainstream regarding who they think is "great" (ie including Bach, Beethoven, and others who are highly regarded by many - Haydn, Brahms, Schubert for example) but struggled to include Mozart in that group had something in common.
> I wasn't directly criticising or praising Mozart, but just intrigued because I generally go along with the "greats", with that exception. In no way was I even saying he didn't produce any great works, just that for me there are relatively few that I relate to. I get the classical period, but not Mozart so much, which is puzzling because he is seen by many as central to that (including by Haydn and Brahms, say, who ought to have some knowledge of these matters).
> This naturally led to suggestions (from fans) of works which might appeal to people who warm more naturally to Beethoven or Haydn, which is great. It has also been entertaining to see those who revere the man stating their position, although I don't think that was really the point.
> Anyway, I do think some things are coming out of this relevant to my aim.
> Keep on sparring. I'm enjoying it.


Why "Oh dear", Al? It's a great thread and you started it off. Take a bow, man. :tiphat:


----------



## Couchie

consuono said:


> I don't think the storyline is "dumb" at all. For its day it was revolutionary anti-aristocrat thinking. The genius was in moving the focus from the political - which is what would be hammered relentlessly today - to the personal.


I meant dumb as in silly, not defective.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> Mozart and Beethoven are as different as Mozart and Carl Maria von Weber, or Mozart and Cherubini.
> 
> Beethoven regarded Cherubini as the greatest of his contemporaries.


But not as different as apples and oranges. I don't know what Cherubini has to do with it.


Couchie said:


> I meant dumb as in silly, not defective.


I don't think it's all that "silly" though either. The Magic Flute storyline, maybe.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> But not as different as apples and oranges. I don't know what Cherubini has to do with it.


For you, are Mozart and LvB the most similar of all those composers? I don't see it.


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> For you, are Mozart and LvB the most similar of all those composers? I don't see it.


There are a lot of similarities, especially in early Beethoven. I also hear the influence of Haydn and Handel in a lot of Beethoven. Like all composers Beethoven was the sum of his influencers mixed with his own voice. He didn't just pop out of nowhere as orange to Mozart's apple.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> There are a lot of similarities, especially in early Beethoven. I also hear the influence of Haydn and Handel in a lot of Beethoven. Like all composers Beethoven was the sum of his influencers mixed with his own voice. He didn't just pop out of nowhere as orange to Mozart's apple.


You really can't compare early works. It's too confusing. Look at Wagner's early works. Or Chopin's. Too confusing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> The second and last movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 is indeed sublime and profound, the final measures especially. Unfortunately Mozart never achieved such in his solo piano writing. He probably would have if he had lived longer.


Here's another thing Mozart never achieved:

*[ 1:35 ]*


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> You really can't compare early works. It's too confusing. Look at Wagner's early works. Or Chopin's. Too confusing.


What do you mean "confusing"? The same composer wrote early and late. Beethoven's music developed as he got older but it doesn't mean he threw away all influences. Same with Wagner. Chopin's styles I don't think were radically different from age 20 to age 35.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Here's another thing Mozart never achieved:


Yeah, we get it. Mozart was the greatest of all time and every note he put to paper was sheer perfection. Give it a rest.


----------



## Luchesi

consuono said:


> What do you mean "confusing"? The same composer wrote early and late. Beethoven's music developed as he got older but it doesn't mean he threw away all influences. Same with Wagner. Chopin's styles I don't think were radically different from age 20 to age 35.


By analyzing the juvenilia, Mozart's IQ was determined to be 135 and Beethoven's was only 120. I was surprised of the seriousness of this. Any psychologists in here?


----------



## consuono

Luchesi said:


> By analyzing the juvenilia, Mozart's IQ was determined to be 135 and Beethoven's was only 120. I was surprised of the seriousness of this. Any psychologists in here?


Oh, good grief.


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> By analyzing the juvenilia, Mozart's IQ was determined to be 135 and Beethoven's was only 120. I was surprised of the seriousness of this. Any psychologists in here?


That can't be right, where did you read that?


----------



## millionrainbows

Flamme said:


> Dont play with fire brah!!!


Hey, I don't care if he's a silverback or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> Millionrainbows a member who appears not to get Mozart at all as far as I can tell, has posted that in the past that he enjoys listening to Mozart's piano sonatas, as far as I can recall these are the only Mozart works he has ever said that about.





hammeredklavier said:


> This is similar to what I feel about Phil loves classical, from the whole time I've spent on this forum. Again, he says in this thread he's "an avid enthusiast who has bought pretty much everything Mozart wrote". But a few fantasies, late concertos/symphonies, sonatas are pretty much everything in Mozart he references everytime he discusses Mozart. And I still remember him claiming that "Salieri's works such as his requiem (which I still find unimpressive for the typical Italian way over-emphasizing melody over harmony and orchestration [Sorry, Michael Haydn and Adolph Hasse are much better]) are just as good as Mozart's lesser works", "Hindemith is more relevant to our age than Mozart is". And I remember another time when we were discussing use of harmony and counterpoint in Bach and Mozart, he tried to argue that "Mozart just wasn't daring enough in use of dissonance", by discussing certain passages of scales in Mozart's concertos, (which made me wonder if he knew stuff like K167 [et incarnatus est], K173 [4th movement], or K394 at all.)
> And again, in this thread; he resorts to the same old logic: "There are other composers who wrote better stuff than Mozart's lesser works."


So what are we doing now, bringing up our past "record" of offenses of the last twenty years? 
Why don't you try to get us on some ancient sexual impropriety incidents!


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> So what are we doing now, bringing up our past "record" of offenses of the last twenty years?
> Why don't you try to get us on some ancient sexual impropriety incidents!


Yeah I've found that with hammeredklavier anything you say can and will be used against you in the Court of Mozart, so you'd better have an attorney present. :lol:


----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> Curious. I love Beethoven and think that his sonatas are my ideal of pianistic music. They can be long, intense and technical (such as the marvel that is the _Hammerklavier_) but also, as you don't seem to be aware, small, lighthearted, lyrical and not that difficult to perform (piano sonatas Nos. 18, 19, 24 and 25 come to mind). The man was a genius and his music is much more versatile than you seem to realize. Many of his pieces aren't either "gargantuan" nor "self-centered", and "ridiculous" and "over blown" are offensive adjectives that I wouldn't associate to Beethoven at all.


Yes, you have some good points. I just looked through his sonatas, and they aren't all as long and epic as I had remembered. I think it is because people mostly revere and talk about his 'big' works. Those ones stick out in my mind.

I admit sometimes I get too worked up about Beethoven and go a bit too far. Sorry if I offended. Look, he was one of the greatest, but his music just irks me and I don't know exactly why. Even those short sonatas, I can't listen to them. It's weird it actually gives me the desire to want to fight him when I listen to his music. I don't want to kill Beethoven, I don't want to erase his music, I'm glad his music gives other people joy. I would try not to hurt his hands. I just want to beat him up a little bit.


----------



## consuono

tdc said:


> ....
> I admit sometimes I get too worked up about Beethoven and go a bit too far. Sorry if I offended. Look, he was one of the greatest, but his music just irks me and I don't know exactly why. Even those short sonatas, I can't listen to them. It's weird it actually gives me the desire to want to fight him when I listen to his music. I don't want to kill Beethoven, I don't want to erase his music, I'm glad his music gives other people joy. I would try not to hurt his hands. I just want to beat him up a little bit.


Sounds to me that someone got frustrated about not being able to make it through the Waldstein :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Couchie said:


> I meant dumb as in silly, not defective.


Come to think of it, Couchie (who looks harmless with his avatar) was also another fervent Beethoven enthusiast, who once expressed contempt for Mozart in big bold scary red letters.



Couchie said:


> On the contrary his solo keyboard work is dull to listen to and even more of a chore to play.
> As a piano student you typically have to choose between a Beethoven or Mozart sonata for exam classical-era requirements. *NOBODY PICKS MOZART.*





Couchie said:


> I'm not saying Mozart is superficial, just that his overall aesthetic is mostly light and whimsical. Yes, even his later stuff (have you seen The Magic Flute?) Which is great in and of itself. People attempting to ascribe Mozart a Beethoven/Wagner/Brahms-esque ultraseriousness do him absolutely no favours because that isn't who Mozart is and why he's great.


I don't know why I remember these things so well =). Maybe because I have good memory or because they're memorable, -more than Beethoven's _own melodies_. =) So you see this _common theme_ among many people: "In order for you to love Beethoven, (at least _like him just enough_ to be "tolerant" about his "faults"), you must _dislike_ Mozart."

I still respect all you people's views. After all, music is subjective. And again, I acknowledge that the "powdered wig" of Mozart is not something everyone can connect with. And I also consider Beethoven to be a genius in his own unique ways, but I still think he shouldn't be the Arbiter God figure who defines what "objective musical depth" is all the time - I don't think he should be the yardstick to objectively measure "musical depth" in all other composers. =)



Arent said:


> Are his works mere exercises in sentimentality and poetic or heroic affectation, or does he approach a *Beethoven-esque level of depth*? What say you?


Look through the score of the Choral fantasy, or Pastoral symphony for example - those pages and pages of early 19th-century Landler-like music (that's essentially what it is, isn't it?) with minimal use of accidentals. The fact that the composer was wetting himself over some programmatic fantasy daydreams, (or his signature display of "bam-bam-bams"), would not be good enough a reason to make me admire the piece more than Mozart's K334 (for example). =)


----------



## Xisten267

tdc said:


> Yes, you have some good points. I just looked through his sonatas, and they aren't all as long and epic as I had remembered. I think it is because people mostly revere and talk about his 'big' works. Those ones stick out in my mind.
> 
> I admit sometimes I get too worked up about Beethoven and go a bit too far. Sorry if I offended. Look, he was one of the greatest, but his music just irks me and I don't know exactly why. Even those short sonatas, I can't listen to them. It's weird it actually gives me the desire to want to fight him when I listen to his music. I don't want to kill Beethoven, I don't want to erase his music, I'm glad his music gives other people joy. I would try not to hurt his hands. I just want to beat him up a little bit.


Blind spot indeed. But I bet that you couldn't Beathoven...


----------



## Bluecrab

consuono said:


> Yeah I've found that with hammeredklavier anything you say can and will be used against you in the Court of Mozart, so you'd better have an attorney present. :lol:


Indeed. And bear in mind that it will be an ecclesiastical court. Because Mozart is God.


----------



## DavidA

Bluecrab said:


> Indeed. And bear in mind that it will be an ecclesiastical court. Because Mozart is God.


It does make me smile when people say that Mozart is God. I do think the Almighty could have managed his finances better


----------



## Flamme

He was a gambler right? No surprise then we have a chain of betting houses here that bear his name!!!https://www.mozzartbet.com/en#/


----------



## millionrainbows

Since Beethoven was more Romantic, and more dramatic, there's always the chance that he can sound 'corny' or melodramatic with all those diminished chords (The Perils of Pauline); while Mozart is always cool, detached, understated.

This 'forcefulness' of Beethoven is also very masculine and patriarchal. We're sick of these qualities in men, aren't we? Especially in our leaders. We need the light touch, now more than ever. We need Mozart to remind us that Men can be redefined.


----------



## Flamme

Sure u meant *refined.


----------



## millionrainbows

Flamme said:


> Sure u meant *refined.


No, I meant "redefined." Men of today are stuck in a limbo. The idea of fatherhood is disparaged. Here's Zappa on this, at about 4:15:


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

millionrainbows said:


> No, I meant "redefined." Men of today are stuck in a limbo. The idea of fatherhood is disparaged. Here's Zappa on this, at about 4:15:


Not sure what this video has to do with the discussion/war, but thanks for posting this video. Zappa called it almost 30 years ago.


----------



## millionrainbows

BlackAdderLXX said:


> Not sure what this video has to do with the discussion/war, but thanks for posting this video. Zappa called it almost 30 years ago.


It's my doing. I compared Mozart to Beethoven in post #235, saying Beethoven was too patriarchal.
...Unless you're including that post as well, in which case I am duly insulted. :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> This is similar to what I feel about Phil loves classical, from the whole time I've spent on this forum. Again, he says in this thread he's "an avid enthusiast who has bought pretty much everything Mozart wrote". But a few fantasies, late concertos/symphonies, sonatas are pretty much everything in Mozart he references everytime he discusses Mozart. And I still remember him claiming that "Salieri's works such as his requiem (which I still find unimpressive for the typical Italian way over-emphasizing melody over harmony and orchestration [Sorry, Michael Haydn and Adolph Hasse are much better]) are just as good as Mozart's lesser works", "Hindemith is more relevant to our age than Mozart is". And I remember another time when we were discussing use of harmony and counterpoint in Bach and Mozart, he tried to argue that "Mozart just wasn't daring enough in use of dissonance", by discussing certain passages of scales in Mozart's concertos, (which made me wonder if he knew stuff like K167 [et incarnatus est], K173 [4th movement], or K394 at all.)
> And again, in this thread; he resorts to the same old logic: "There are other composers who wrote better stuff than Mozart's lesser works."
> But why not look at it this way: Beethoven's lesser sonatas like 19th, 20th, 25th, 26th, etc get way more views on youtube than Clementi's Op.34 No.2 or Hummel's Op.81. Is Beethoven's 30th sonata, with its 2-minute long trill on B, the greatest thing ever written for the piano? (Some think it is, according to a recent poll). And shouldn't we be asking ourselves how many works in the Classical era are "more neglected" than Choral Fantasie, (which wouldn't have been as popular as it is today had it not been for the success of Beethoven's own 9th symphony) ?
> I'm starting to wonder why I've never seen Phil talking about Beethoven the same way he does about Mozart. Actually, I remember a lot of instances of Phil defending Beethoven about his use of melody, harmony.
> I don't hate Beethoven, I'm just curious about certain people's "attitude toward certain greats", which I perceive as "double standards".
> 
> View attachment 136902
> 
> 
> Neglected and Over-loved Eras of Classical Music
> 
> Suuuuuure, you are =)


If it satisfies you, I'll say Beethoven would not be considered the major composer he is if he only wrote the stuff in his early period. I think that is stronger than what I said about Mozart's piano sonatas. I don't recall ever saying that Mozart was not "daring enough in his use of dissonance", in fact, I recall I said the opposite more than once, but I just don't have the interest in pulling it up.


----------



## Flamme

millionrainbows said:


> No, I meant "redefined." Men of today are stuck in a limbo. The idea of fatherhood is disparaged. Here's Zappa on this, at about 4:15:


I dont even know anymore brah...I was always a sensitive and gentle child, more prone 2 (day and night)dreaming and spiritual than materialistic and ''manly''...But l8ly I have become pretty rouugh and ''tuf'' because life made me change...I now c my ''softness'' brought me nothing but woe and sufferning...I need 2 transform and develop a ''thick skin''...I now I got it in me, Im just a bit afraid of what will be born if the '''old me'' dies...Im not sure how Moz approached this question, was he more of a ''bardic'' or ''fighting'' type...Im a bit of both and thats both my curse and my blessing.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> If it satisfies you, I'll say Beethoven would not be considered the major composer he is if he only wrote the stuff in his early period. I think that is stronger than what I said about Mozart's piano sonatas. I don't recall ever saying that Mozart was not "daring enough in his use of dissonance", in fact, I recall I said the opposite more than once, but I just don't have the interest in pulling it up.


Your favoritism for that long "rambling of tremolos and trills" in Beethoven Op.111 second movement shows yet again. I admit the final bits of the variation movement are good. I can see what Beethoven was trying to get at (like Chopin's Polonaise Fantaisie). It's a better version of Beethoven's own Fantasie Op.77, but I think he would have managed it better if he was actually good with melody. And I don't understand the abnormal hype that's going on in the classical community about this piece honestly. Beethoven's piano sonatas on the whole are not the "New Testament of Music". They just don't match Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier in terms of quality of each piece. In Beethoven's Op.110, he pretends like he would turn the initial fugue into an inversion fugue. In Fantasie K608, Mozart doesn't write on score that he would turn the initial fugue into a chromatic double fugue, but he still achieves it. I don't feel this sort of powerful "operatic drama" in Beethoven's keyboard music. No wonder why Beethoven copied out K608 in full, I think he knew he would never achieve anything like it. 
On the whole Beethoven does a lot of bambams and tinklings on the keyboard, but he lacks a bit of substance (to me). There's just no need to get this pretentious. If there's a set of keyboard pieces that should be accused for being too well-known and highly-regarded, it's the "New Testament of Music".

I say again. Beethoven never managed to replicate many things in Mozart. Because "they were above his pay grade". He copied out the score of K426/K546 by hand in full and still couldn't manage to assimilate the technique and style. Just look at the development section of that Op.111 first movement. A weak attempt at writing something like K426/K546. It's a pity that Mozart didn't live long enough to teach him how to do it. I find the chromaticism of K533 way more interesting than any of that. Just look at the score of Op.106. It's a disaster. Beethoven just can't control himself.

This is frankly one of the reasons why I think Brahms said the things he did in his last years. ("Beethoven is weak in his use of dissonance, he only wrote conventional variations") Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Beethovenian-centric standards is really bizarre. It's people like you who make Beethoven look like a thief, not giving proper credit to composers before Beethoven every time, failing to see the elephant in the room.

And Mozart's concertos and sonatas are pretty much all you talk about regarding Mozart, while pretending like you do listen to everything in Mozart. I was merely stating the fact.



Phil loves classical said:


> In counterpoint there is always harmonic thinking, both vertical and horizontal, but not the other way around. I would say most of Mozart's music did include counterpoint, even though not as striking or dramatic as Bach.





Phil loves classical said:


> I think Mozart uses more passing notes like in his scale runs in his piano concertos, more rhythmically varied, and focuses on harmonizing more on the triad or chord (as does Beethoven and Telemann) over longer stretches than Bach, which gives it its lyricism. Bach's counterpoint includes more 2nds and 7ths, and has more emphasis on the shorter term, and more chord changes over a given period of time. That's my gut feel.


----------



## flamencosketches

hammeredklavier said:


> Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Beethovenian-centric standards is really bizarre.


Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Mozart-centric standards is really bizarre.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> ...Beethoven's piano sonatas on the whole are not the "New Testament of Music". They just don't match Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier in terms of quality of each piece. ...


I'm sorry, but Mozart's piano sonatas don't meet the level of either. Berating Beethoven's last sonatas just to try to heighten this or that scrap that Mozart wrote down for solo keyboard just makes you look like a crank. I don't think Mozart devotee and specialist Uchida would even say that.


----------



## Eclectic Al

hammeredklavier said:


> Your favoritism for that long "rambling of tremolos and trills" in Beethoven Op.111 second movement shows yet again. I admit the final bits of the variation movement are good. I can see what Beethoven was trying to get at. (like Chopin's Polonaise Fantaisie) It's a better version of Beethoven's own Fantasie Op.77, but I think he would have managed it better if he was actually good with melody. And I don't understand the abnormal hype that's going on in the classical community about this piece honestly. Beethoven's piano sonatas on the whole are not the "New Testament of Music". They just don't match Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier in terms of quality of each piece. In Beethoven's Op.110, he pretends like he would turn the initial fugue into an inversion fugue. In Fantasie K608, Mozart doesn't write on score that he would turn the initial fugue into a chromatic double fugue, but he still achieves it. I don't feel this sort of powerful "operatic drama" in Beethoven's keyboard music. No wonder why Beethoven copied out K608 in full, I think he knew he would never achieve anything like it.
> On the whole Beethoven does a lot of bambams and tinklings on the keyboard, but he lacks a bit of substance (to me). There's just no need to get this pretentious. If there's a set of keyboard pieces that should be accused for being too well-known and highly-regarded, it's the "New Testament of Music".
> 
> I say again. Beethoven never manged to replicate many things in Mozart. Because "they were above his pay grade". He copied out the score of K426/K546 by hand in full and still couldn't manage to assimilate the technique and style. Just look at the development section of that Op.111 first movement. A weak attempt at writing something like K426/K546. It's a pity that Mozart didn't live long enough to teach him how to do it. I find the chromaticism of K533 way more interesting than any of that. Just look at the score of Op.106. It's a disaster. Beethoven just can't control himself.
> 
> This is frankly one of the reasons why I think Brahms said the things he did in his last years. ("Beethoven is weak in his use of dissonance, he only wrote conventional variations") Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Beethovenian-centric standards is really bizarre. It's people like you who make Beethoven look like a thief, not giving proper credit to composers before Beethoven every time, failing to see the elephant in the room.
> 
> And Mozart's concertos and sonatas are pretty much all you talk about regarding Mozart, while pretending like you do listen to everything in Mozart. I was plainly stating the fact.


Hello hammeredklavier.
A genuine question for you, given your reference to Brahms and his opinions re Mozart and Beethoven that you quote. What do you think about the late Brahms piano pieces Opp 116-119? I love them, just to avoid hiding my motivation in asking.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> What do you think about the late Brahms piano pieces Opp 116-119? I love them, just to avoid hiding my motivation in asking.


I think they're ok. I like the "reharmonization" (harmonizing a melody differently each time it returns) in this one, for example.


----------



## Rambler

Wrong thread so deleted


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> Your favoritism for that long "rambling of tremolos and trills" in Beethoven Op.111 second movement shows yet again. I admit the final bits of the variation movement are good. I can see what Beethoven was trying to get at. (like Chopin's Polonaise Fantaisie) It's a better version of Beethoven's own Fantasie Op.77, but I think he would have managed it better if he was actually good with melody. And I don't understand the abnormal hype that's going on in the classical community about this piece honestly. Beethoven's piano sonatas on the whole are not the "New Testament of Music". They just don't match Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier in terms of quality of each piece. In Beethoven's Op.110, he pretends like he would turn the initial fugue into an inversion fugue. In Fantasie K608, Mozart doesn't write on score that he would turn the initial fugue into a chromatic double fugue, but he still achieves it. I don't feel this sort of powerful "operatic drama" in Beethoven's keyboard music. No wonder why Beethoven copied out K608 in full, I think he knew he would never achieve anything like it.
> On the whole Beethoven does a lot of bambams and tinklings on the keyboard, but he lacks a bit of substance (to me). There's just no need to get this pretentious. If there's a set of keyboard pieces that should be accused for being too well-known and highly-regarded, it's the "New Testament of Music".
> 
> I say again. Beethoven never manged to replicate many things in Mozart. Because "they were above his pay grade". He copied out the score of K426/K546 by hand in full and still couldn't manage to assimilate the technique and style. Just look at the development section of that Op.111 first movement. A weak attempt at writing something like K426/K546. It's a pity that Mozart didn't live long enough to teach him how to do it. I find the chromaticism of K533 way more interesting than any of that. Just look at the score of Op.106. It's a disaster. Beethoven just can't control himself.
> 
> This is frankly one of the reasons why I think Brahms said the things he did in his last years. ("Beethoven is weak in his use of dissonance, he only wrote conventional variations") Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Beethovenian-centric standards is really bizarre. It's people like you who make Beethoven look like a thief, not giving proper credit to composers before Beethoven every time, failing to see the elephant in the room.
> 
> And Mozart's concertos and sonatas are pretty much all you talk about regarding Mozart, while pretending like you do listen to everything in Mozart. I was plainly stating the fact.


Said *the guy who can't even listen to an entire prelude and fugue from the WTC*. :lol: Since the Beethoven works are so bad, why don't you create something better and show us? :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allerius said:


> Said *the guy who can't even listen to an entire prelude and fugue from the WTC*. :lol:


I can. It's just that I don't want to listen to too much of good things all at the same time.
I'm sorry if I offended you with that post, #242. (That was one post I didn't want you to see.) Please add me to your ignore list if you haven't done so already.



Allerius said:


> Since the Beethoven works are so bad, why don't you create something better and show us? :lol:


This is what I should be saying to some people here about Mozart works. =)


----------



## Xisten267

hammeredklavier said:


> I can. It's just that I don't want to listen to too much of good things all at the same time.
> I'm sorry if I offended you with that post, #242. (That was one post I didn't want you to see.) Please add me to your ignore list if you haven't done so already.


Oh, but I'm now interested in knowing what an amazing genius such as you have to say on those weak composers, Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert and the other guys. You convinced me: they all su%$. Now please show me your compositions for I want to know perfection in music, don't be shy. :lol:

P.S.: Don't forget to listen to minutes 3-4 of K. 617 and to the last seconds of K. 193 before to warm up, but careful to not listen to those seconds too much! :lol:


----------



## Xisten267

Interesting that expressing dislike for anything about Mozart is a total sin around here, but saying things like the ones below about Beethoven is acceptable. Double standards?



hammeredklavier said:


> I have a vague idea what Brahms meant cause the way Beethoven uses dissonance in moments like Grave, ma non troppo of Op.135 for example is ridiculously funny :lol:.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Beethoven was _actually_ struggling to overcome his deafness :lol:
> In the Grosse Fuge's bangy dotted homorhythms, he's seems to be saying "I can't hear anything! Dammit!" :lol: (Don't get me wrong, I do like the piece)
> 
> Beethoven tried to do stuff like the beginning of Mozart K465 in the beginning of Op.59 No.3, but he didn't really achieve it. His attempts ended up being "bang! bang!", "bam! bam!"





hammeredklavier said:


> I can say that the first movement of Op.111 is the best movement in Beethoven's late piano sonatas --- Because it reminds me of Mozart K475, K426/K546
> 
> You can have the rest. :lol: All that boogie woogie and minimalism with tremolos and trills
> Please God, have we have SOME dissonance!!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## premont

Allerius said:


> Interesting that expressing dislike for anything about Mozart is a total sin around here, but saying things like the ones below about Beethoven is acceptable. Double standards?


Classical music is an enormous area - enough material for several lives, so some prioritizing is necessary. For this reason I am first and foremost occupied with the composers, which do the most for me. This is solely a question of temper, and a question of feeling one mentally related to the composer and his music. So I have my preferences, and Mozart is not among them. Of course I have listened to lots of his music, and I can easily acknowledge his greatness and see no reason to denigrate him. It is really that simple.


----------



## consuono

Allerius said:


> ...
> P.S.: Don't forget to listen to minutes 3-4 of K. 617 and to the last seconds of K. 193 before to warm up, but careful to not listen to those seconds too much! :lol:


:lol: Oh, and K. 394, which contains the most exquisite and ingenious counterpoint for keyboard ever produced by the human brain. It puts anything by Bach to shame.


----------



## millionrainbows

Flamme said:


> I dont even know anymore brah...I was always a sensitive and gentle child, more prone 2 (day and night)dreaming and spiritual than materialistic and ''manly''...But l8ly I have become pretty rouugh and ''tuf'' because life made me change...I now c my ''softness'' brought me nothing but woe and sufferning...I need 2 transform and develop a ''thick skin''...I now I got it in me, Im just a bit afraid of what will be born if the '''old me'' dies...Im not sure how Moz approached this question, was he more of a ''bardic'' or ''fighting'' type...Im a bit of both and thats both my curse and my blessing.


Then if you choose the "tuf" path, stay away from booze. And I guarantee there will come a day when you will need to call on your softer side. Or looking back on times you wish you had done so.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Mozart just got distracted by what he had to go through to make a living. His later symphonies, 39, 40, & 41 show what he could do when he was fully engaging his powers.


----------



## 1996D

flamencosketches said:


> Your obsession for continually attacking things that don't meet your Mozart-centric standards is really bizarre.


Composers would tell you themselves that Mozart is the standard.


----------



## 1996D

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mozart just got distracted by what he had to go through to make a living. His later symphonies, 39, 40, & 41 show what he could do when he was fully engaging his powers.


All his symphonies and concertos are excellent, people might not have the competence to hear it though. His music is demanding and the creativity is overwhelming to those that aren't high level musicians.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> Composers would tell you themselves that Mozart is the standard.


Some would say Bach or Beethoven is the standard. Some would say all three plus a few more.


1996D said:


> All his symphonies and concertos are excellent, people might not have the competence to hear it though. His music is demanding and the creativity is overwhelming to those that aren't high level musicians.


They aren't uniformly excellent. His symphonies 1-34, although they're quite pleasant pieces, aren't heard and studied nearly as often as 35-41. Similarly with his piano concertos.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> They aren't uniformly excellent. His symphonies 1-34, although they're quite pleasant pieces, aren't heard and studied nearly as often as 35-41. Similarly with his piano concertos.


All his concertos, not just the piano ones. His _sinfonia concertante_ is also majestic, hear it with Oistrakh and be spellbound. Mozart's melodic ability is beyond any other composer and he gave love to all instruments - flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, horn, harp - he is the law for all soloists along with Bach.

Baroque music can be a bit one dimensional emotionally though, so I'd say Mozart is the standard.



> Some would say Bach or Beethoven is the standard. Some would say all three plus a few more.


They're all good, but Mozart is Mozart: every child musician falls in love with him; there is nothing like the first love.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> ...
> Baroque music can be a bit one dimensional emotionally though, so I'd say Mozart is the standard.


No, that is a statement that just wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.



> They're all good, but Mozart is Mozart: every child musician falls in love with him; there is nothing like the first love.


Neither would that. When I first started playing the piano as a kid, it was Bach and Beethoven that I wanted to learn. With all due respect to Mozart.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> No, that is a statement that just wouldn't hold up under scrutiny.
> 
> Neither would that. When I first started playing the piano as a kid, it was Bach and Beethoven that I wanted to learn. With all due respect to Mozart.


Mozart has 'the piece to play' for most instruments.

You can't deny that Baroque music sounds old fashioned and that its nature feels insular. Music had much more cultural development and flourished completely in the Classical era.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> Mozart has 'the piece to play' for most instruments.


Not the cello.



> You can't deny that Baroque music sounds old fashioned and that its nature feels insular. Music had much more cultural development and flourished completely in the Classical era.


"Old fashioned"? The Art of Fugue feels far more "modern" than anything in Mozart. And let's face it, neither composer wrote anything within the past 200 years or so.


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> Mozart has 'the piece to play' for most instruments.
> 
> You can't deny that Baroque music sounds old fashioned and that its nature feels insular. Music had much more cultural development and flourished completely in the Classical era.


Mozart is of course one of the greatest composers ever and I love, love his music, but it's my opinion that not even him achieved what J.S. Bach did in some of his major pieces such as the _Art of Fugue_ and the _Mass in B minor_. I believe that one of the greatest peaks of human creativity in music comes from the Baroque era, mainly from J.S. Bach of course but also from other great names such as Telemann, Vivaldi, Rameau, Monteverdi, the Couperins (Louis and François), Handel, Lully and many others, and that one of the reasons for it to be played and enjoyed so frequently in classical music circles today is due to it not being old fashioned at all.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> "Old fashioned"? The Art of Fugue feels far more "modern" than anything in Mozart. And let's face it, neither composer wrote anything within the past 200 years or so.


That's true, yet Bach doesn't have many pieces to explore, he has excellent masterworks, and then a whole lot of old fashioned very Baroque sounding larger scale works. In contrast Mozart not only has exquisite melodies in all his works, but music had developed to a point where more forms were available to work with, and of course his own innovations to form. It's a joy to explore every single piece he wrote; his orchestration is modern and can hold up at a large-scale.

Bach is at his best with solo instruments.


----------



## 1996D

Allerius said:


> Mozart is of course one of the greatest composers ever and I love, love his music, but it's my opinion that not even him achieved what J.S. Bach did in some of his major pieces such as the _Art of Fugue_ and the _Mass in B minor_. I believe that one of the greatest peaks of human creativity in music comes from the Baroque era, mainly from J.S. Bach of course but also from other great names such as Telemann, Vivaldi, Rameau, Monteverdi, the Couperins (Louis and François), Handel, Lully and many others, and that one of the reasons for it to be played and enjoyed so frequently in classical music circles today is due to it not being old fashioned at all.


You have a point, but I can't imagine using Baroque orchestration - it just sounds inferior. The harpsichord sounds awful and out of tune; the strings are always mechanical; the instruments don't blend well as a whole.

I love Baroque music, but always Chamber Baroque music, and preferably solo instrument. Orchestration evolved so much in the Classical era there is truly nothing to take from the Baroque.


----------



## consuono

> Bach is at his best with solo instruments.


I would have to disagree with that as well. I think Bach was at his greatest in his choral/vocal music.

But like so much else musical it's subjective. It's fine if you and hammeredklavier and whoever else think Mozart was the greatest composer of all time. There are indeed some great composers/musicians in history who would agree. I really don't see any point in denigrating Mozart beyond my criticism of his piano sonatas which is also subjective. There's no question he was one of the greatest ever.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> I would have to disagree with that as well. I think Bach was at his greatest in his choral/vocal music.
> 
> But like so much else musical it's subjective. It's fine if you and hammeredklavier think Mozart was the greatest composer of all time. There are indeed some great composers/musicians in history who would agree. I really don't see any point in denigrating Mozart beyond my criticism of his piano sonatas which is also subjective. There's no question he was one of the greatest ever.


Bach's Mass is great no doubt, but the solo violin, cello, and piano works are where he shows off. The depths of creativity of those works in such a short amount of time is breathtaking.

They also somehow sound timeless and not bound by anything.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> Bach's Mass is great no doubt, but the solo violin, cello, and piano works are where he shows off. The depths of creativity of those works in such a short amount of time is breathtaking.
> 
> They also somehow sound timeless and not bound by anything.


Well we can agree that there is a lot of great music by many great composers for which we can be grateful, and we all have our own personal reactions to it. As the cliché goes, it's all good.


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> You have a point, but I can't imagine using Baroque orchestration - it just sounds inferior. The harpsichord sounds awful and out of tune; the strings are always mechanical; the instruments don't blend well as a whole.
> 
> I love Baroque music, but always Chamber Baroque music, and preferably solo instrument. Orchestration evolved so much in the Classical era there is truly nothing to take from the Baroque.


It's an opinion of course, but I think that Baroque instruments can be used effectively to create good music nowadays, even in the mainstream. For example, I always liked the "harpsichord" (actually a synthesizer) solos of the Orc suite side of the soundtrack to the successful Blizzard game _*Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz4INLEmh_I&t=1240_, of 1995. The organ in the Yes album _*Close to the Edge*_ also sounds very badass to me. I think that what makes a timbre sound modern or not is the context of it's use, and not a particularity of an instrument.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> You have a point, but I can't imagine using Baroque orchestration - it just sounds inferior. The harpsichord sounds awful and out of tune; the strings are always mechanical; the instruments don't blend well as a whole.
> 
> I love Baroque music, but always Chamber Baroque music, and preferably solo instrument. Orchestration evolved so much in the Classical era there is truly nothing to take from the Baroque.


This recording is on modern instruments, but I'm impressed by the delicacy of the orchestration here, and Bach's choral music in particular is full of things like this. Bach (and Handel and other Baroque masters) knew the coloring they wanted to achieve and how to do it, I think.




There's also this from BWV 18 (sorry, HIP fans, but what can I say...yes, it's Rilling).




I think the orchestration here is also beautiful, again with modern instruments:


----------



## 1996D

Allerius said:


> It's an opinion of course, but I think that Baroque instruments can be used effectively to create good music nowadays, even in the mainstream. For example, I always liked the "harpsichord" (actually a synthesizer) solos of the Orc suite side of the soundtrack to the successful Blizzard game _*Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness*_, of 1995. The organ in the Yes album _*Close to the Edge*_ also sounds very badass to me. I think that what makes a timbre sound modern or not is the context of it's use, and not a particularity of an instrument.


Yes I get what you're saying, but altogether the Baroque orchestra was improved upon during the Classical period. Mozart's exact orchestration can be used today; I actually learned how to properly orchestrate the most from Mozart. There arguably isn't an improvement after him; imo Respighi's and Ravel's orchestration sounds over the top, very much like what Liszt did to the piano.

It's not true creative depth but superficial showmanship - like a woman getting plastic surgery and applying a large amount of make-up. I truly feel like Classical orchestration is the pinnacle of beauty in music, and Mahler's is perhaps the only exception to that rule, yet only at times; in specific moments.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> This recording is on modern instruments, but I'm impressed by the delicacy of the orchestration here, and Bach's choral music in particular is full of things like this. Bach (and Handel and other Baroque masters) knew the coloring they wanted to achieve and how to do it, I think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also this from BWV 18 (sorry, HIP fans, but what can I say...yes, it's Rilling).


Yes, it works.

But without the choir it wouldn't, Baroque music is therefore limited in that way. The symphonic orchestra and form were pioneered and perfected by Mozart.

His orchestration is superior to Haydn's and Beethoven's, and really to anyone, although what Wagner and Mahler did is also of note.


----------



## Xisten267

1996D said:


> Yes I get what you're saying, but altogether the Baroque orchestra was improved upon during the Classical period. Mozart's exact orchestration can be used today; I actually learned how to properly orchestrate the most from Mozart. There arguably isn't an improvement after him; imo Respighi's and Ravel's orchestration sounds over the top, very much like what Liszt did to the piano.
> 
> It's not true creative depth but superficial showmanship - like a woman getting plastic surgery and applying a large amount of make-up. I truly feel like Classical orchestration is the pinnacle of beauty in music, and Mahler's is perhaps the only exception to that rule, yet only at times; in specific moments.


I share the perspective of composer Aaron Copland in his excellent book _What to Listen For in Music_ that orchestration tends to improve with time because new technologies make new timbres available and the composers have to respond to it, and I think that you should take into account that the baroque composers had a much more restricted palette of sounds to work with than the composers of eras that came after them. Also, I think that Mozart was a world-class orchestrator relative to his time (anyone that thinks otherwise should listen to _Idomeneo_ for example, that he composed with the Mannheim orchestra in mind and is very complete in it's instrumentation), but in absolute terms I much prefer the sounds of the great orchestras of a Mahler, a Wagner, a Ravel or a Strauss. So we disagree here.


----------



## 1996D

Allerius said:


> I share the perspective of composer Aaron Copland in his excellent book _What to Listen For in Music_ that orchestration tends to improve with time because new technologies make new timbres available and the composers have to respond to it, and I think that you should take into account that the baroque composers had a much more restricted palette of sounds to work with than the composers of eras that came after them. Also, I think that Mozart was a world-class orchestrator relative to his time (anyone that thinks otherwise should listen to _Idomeneo_ for example, that he composed with the Mannheim orchestra in mind and is very complete in it's instrumentation), *but in absolute terms I much prefer the sounds of the great orchestras of a Mahler, a Wagner, a Ravel or a Strauss.*


What they gain in timbre they lose in depth. There comes a great temptation to stray away from pure musical creation into gimmicks and showmanship. The true essence of the music is lost, covered underneath the excess and decadence - at times with Ravel there isn't even an essence - it's just superficial ornamentation. There are moments in the works of all the composers you listed where ornaments take over the creative musical essence - that which Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven had plentiful amounts of.

Not that there isn't anything to take from the former composers, but it can get excessive very quickly, and one has to remember that the soul of the music is what's most important. Orchestration can very easily take away from that.


----------



## consuono

1996D said:


> But without the choir it wouldn't, Baroque music is therefore limited in that way. The symphonic orchestra and form were pioneered and perfected by Mozart.
> 
> His orchestration is superior to Haydn's and Beethoven's, and really to anyone, although what Wagner and Mahler did is also of note.


I think it would be lovely and delicate instrumental writing even without the vocal parts. Mozart's orchestra was for the most part inherited from Haydn and J. C. Bach. And absolutely, he was brilliant in using it, no question.


----------



## 1996D

consuono said:


> I think it would be lovely and delicate instrumental writing even without the vocal parts. Mozart's orchestra was for the most part inherited from Haydn and J. C. Bach. And absolutely, he was brilliant in using it, no question.


But he improves upon Haydn, in his last symphonies he reaches a new level. It sounds so perfect it's hard to notice, but the way he blends counterpoint is of his own; he makes things work that shouldn't be able to work. There is just more depth in Mozart than in Haydn.

Although yes the development of Classical orchestration was a group effort.


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> What they gain in timbre they lose in depth. There comes a great temptation to stray away from pure musical creation into gimmicks and showmanship. The true essence of the music is lost, covered underneath the excess and decadence.


I think you could apply this sort of argument to all other elements of music, not just orchestration. But I wonder what's the point. Expanding the emotional elements beyond their limits was the whole point of the 19th century aesthetics. I can sort of see the point when other people say Mozart lacks the "poetic content" of Beethoven and Schubert. To some people it matters a lot. To me, it matters very little, because it's not necessarily what I look for in an artist. To varying degrees, personal values and subjective opinions can come into play when determining what's good or bad. I find the concepts of containment and control: 'order vs chaos', 'diatonicism vs chromaticism' in Mozart phenomenally interesting. But for some people, this is seen as "boring classicism" (a.k.a. "powdered wig").


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> All his symphonies and concertos are excellent, people might not have the competence to hear it though. His music is demanding and the creativity is overwhelming to those that aren't high level musicians.


You are in a position to determine who is and who isn't an elite musician? So all the posters who are, to a greater or lesser degree, less than enthusiastic about Mozart (in addition see Personal blind spots) are deemed by you as lesser musicians (or music lovers)?


----------



## tdc

I like 1996D's enthusiasm, but I think he sometimes gets his preferences mixed up with objectivity. As far as orchestration, it is a difficult thing to separate from composition itself. We tend to like the orchestration of music that we enjoy. Baroque orchestration of composers like Monteverdi and Bach sounds outstanding to me, and I disagree with your view about Bach's emotional impact relative to any composer. I don't think his music has been improved on, but of course it is good music moved on and that other composers mastered styles that he did not work with. 

I like the sound of Mozart's orchestration more than any classical era composer too, but I've read comments that both Charles Rosen and Rimsky Korsakov feel that Haydn was the most skilled at orchestration out of all the classical era composers. Personally I think that those two knew more about orchestration than I do, (and probably you too), so it is interesting to think about. But as far as the over all sound and impact of Mozart compared to Haydn, I agree with you. I think it is mostly because his actual compositional ability was superior rather than the orchestration itself, (not that he wasn't also an excellent orchestrator). 

As far as Ravel, I think most people make a bigger deal out of his orchestration than he did. He was a meticulous craftsmen in all aspects of composition, and this meticulousness contributed to the sound of his orchestration. At the moment my favorite Ravel pieces are some of his solo piano works, so the orchestration itself isn't really the big factor as to why I am drawn to his music, again it is his compositional ability. 

It would seem baroque and modernism are styles you don't resonate with to the same degree as classicism and romanticism, and your tastes are valid. That said, I think you (like anyone else) have your blind spots, I think Debussy and Ravel are pretty much blind spots for you. You don't really get what they are doing, or why it is good. I think everyone has these areas, so I think it is good to acknowledge none of us know everything about music, and none of our opinions on it are completely objective.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> That's true, yet Bach doesn't have many pieces to explore.


This is simply incorrect.

One game to play is to think if only one composer was allowed to you, to listen to or perform, who would it be? For me there is no doubt that it would be JS Bach, and in part that would be precisely because there is so much to explore.

Here's William Blake:
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower 
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand 
And Eternity in an hour

I think Bach achieves this, in even just one Fugue, and you can then keep going. So many masterpieces.


----------



## Eclectic Al

tdc said:


> As far as Ravel, I think most people make a bigger deal out of his orchestration than he did. He was a meticulous craftsmen in all aspects of composition, and this meticulousness contributed to the sound of his orchestration. At the moment my favorite Ravel pieces are some of his solo piano works, so the orchestration itself isn't really the big factor as to why I am drawn to his music, again it is his compositional ability.


Indeed, I think there was a thread on "best orchestrator" and Ravel won hands down (if I remember right).
However, I also am strongly attracted to his solo piano music. He sometimes seems to be aspiring towards perfection with the simplest of materials. There is childlike wonder coming from exquisite sophisticated craftsmanship.

Some of his pieces are even playable, although maybe Gaspard de la Nuit is not in that category for many.

Is he one of the most underrated composers? Is that because he is sometimes just seen as an orchestrator?

Then there's some lovely chamber music: Introduction & Allegro, String Quartet, Trio for Piano, Violin & Cello, for example.

There's such a sense of loneliness and yearning in his music, bound in by his technical excellence. The first movement of the trio above is heart-breaking.


----------



## Bigbang

Tchaikov6 said:


> Mozart is awesome imo but like what you want to!!!! he's not some "proven genius" and it's all up to personal taste
> 
> the joy of music is the emotion and feeling. Richard Atkinson videos may be informative as to what the composer was doing on a technical level, but they're not helpful indicating why a piece is "good" or not. that's up to you.
> 
> might i recommend 1984's Amadeus by the way? I'm not trying to swerve your opinion, I just think it's a really great movie with some interesting things to say about jealousy and evil.


Mozart is not some proven genius? Every composer is a product of the times they live in. Of course it is about preferences and I have no issue whatsoever if someone say they do not get this or that composer. The problem is when they cross the line of their supposed expertise and start comparing composers to each other to defend their lack of not getting Mozart, for example. I am not particularly impress with why some posters dislike Mozart's compositions, as if they can explain it away. If I see anything here in this thread it is about the "need" to listen to music to fill a void, more or less, and I can get this sense in many of the postings.

Mozart has been studied in detail regarding his "genius" and it is clear that regardless of "taste preference" he is one of a kind miracle, no exaggeration is needed.


----------



## janxharris

Bigbang said:


> Mozart is not some proven genius? Every composer is a product of the times they live in. Of course it is about preferences and I have no issue whatsoever if someone say they do not get this or that composer. The problem is when they cross the line of their supposed expertise and start comparing composers to each other to defend their lack of not getting Mozart, for example. I am not particularly impress with why some posters dislike Mozart's compositions, as if they can explain it away. If I see anything here in this thread it is about the "need" to listen to music to fill a void, more or less, and I can get this sense in many of the postings.
> 
> Mozart has been studied in detail regarding his "genius" and it is clear that regardless of "taste preference" he is one of a kind miracle, no exaggeration is needed.


In what way is it wrong to compare composers? Your last sentence essentially compares him to all others - though I may have misunderstood your meaning.

There are lots of composers that may be considered one of a kind geniuses, including Mozart.


----------



## Bigbang

janxharris said:


> In what way is it wrong to compare composers? Your last sentence essentially compares him to all others - though I may have misunderstood your meaning.
> 
> There are lots of composers that may be considered one of a kind geniuses, including Mozart.


Composers are in a time period. They work with the music they have available, and also what the public wants or demands (Haydn was good at this then, not so much now) so as time goes on, some composers fade away in the unknown, some get revived (ever heard of JS Bach lol) and if there's something in the music that can speak to us today and tomorrow it will survive another day. Mozart music survive due to scholars mostly in the early days and then the recordings start. Who championed Mozart? People played his sonatas in homes as well as other composers that continued his staying power. I think "genius" is overrated as a word, and I think of it as something of accomplishment where someone creates or does something that changes the environment of which it came from. In this forum I am seeing comments like, 'Mozart ain't doing it for me so he ain't no genius all the time either!' This is really missing the point. I never ever read anything of learned amateurs or scholars who make comparisons of Mozart or composers based on what it does for them. But, Mozart in somewhat unique in history in how he composed and the volume of his music that survived. There are other prodigies on record (Mendelssohn/Schubert) who seem to have the "touch" but do not quite make the cut in the allure of their genius and the output. Beethoven (my favorite composer) is another type of genius who seemed for the first time in history write music which married emotion and musical forms in a way that allowed his music to survive up through today by consumers, and might add, allowed other composer to get in on the act.

I like Mozart's music. The reason is because I cannot get "fix" when I listen. There are many time I pass on Mozart because I "need" to listen to another composers but then I tire of this as well. But, if I sit and turn off my analytic mind and just listen to Mozart's music (including his earliest music) I am easily able to just enjoy it as is. No need to torment myself as to why.

There are many people who view Mozart as their musical savior though, and for them, they NEED Mozart.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I can understand some people's argument that Mozart's sonatas are unambitious, but I don't see the point in their continual attitude of trying to "prove" his sonatas are "not great". If you think about it - That's what Mozart is about, across all the genres. Did he write any symphonies in the scale of Beethoven's 3rd or 9th? No. Why not then criticize Mozart about his symphonies as well? 
Likewise, it would also be a little presumptuous to say Mozart's concertos are "objectively" superior to Beethoven's. There are always people who can't stand Mozart's powdered wig and would rather prefer Beethoven. Conversely, I think Beethoven has a different flavor from Mozart even in his most Mozartian moments. Beethoven is Beethoven, Mozart is Mozart.
Ask yourselves: what other sets of keyboard works written in the late 18th century are "better" than Mozart's (and Haydn's) piano sonatas?

[ W. A. Mozart Sonata K333, Ivo Sillamaa, fortepiano ]

The dissonant chords in this feel chaotic, but Mozart's sense of control is always there, making things not sound "inflated":













The idea is somewhat reminiscent of the ending of the A minor fugue of Bach's WTC Book I, but the sense of drama is Mozartian. Think of the ending of Rondo K511, or "a cenar teco" from Don Giovanni:

*[ 10:15 ]*





I also like this fugue he wrote at 17. He had his own voice, even before he encountered Bach's WTC, AOTF, MO:


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> I like 1996D's enthusiasm, but I think he sometimes gets his preferences mixed up with objectivity. As far as orchestration, it is a difficult thing to separate from composition itself. We tend to like the orchestration of music that we enjoy. Baroque orchestration of composers like Monteverdi and Bach sounds outstanding to me, and I disagree with your view about Bach's emotional impact relative to any composer. I don't think his music has been improved on, but of course it is good music moved on and that other composers mastered styles that he did not work with.
> 
> I like the sound of Mozart's orchestration more than any classical era composer too, but I've read comments that both Charles Rosen and Rimsky Korsakov feel that Haydn was the most skilled at orchestration out of all the classical era composers. Personally I think that those two knew more about orchestration than I do, (and probably you too), so it is interesting to think about. But as far as the over all sound and impact of Mozart compared to Haydn, I agree with you. I think it is mostly because his actual compositional ability was superior rather than the orchestration itself, (not that he wasn't also an excellent orchestrator).
> 
> As far as Ravel, I think most people make a bigger deal out of his orchestration than he did. He was a meticulous craftsmen in all aspects of composition, and this meticulousness contributed to the sound of his orchestration. At the moment my favorite Ravel pieces are some of his solo piano works, so the orchestration itself isn't really the big factor as to why I am drawn to his music, again it is his compositional ability.
> 
> It would seem baroque and modernism are styles you don't resonate with to the same degree as classicism and romanticism, and your tastes are valid. That said, I think you (like anyone else) have your blind spots, I think Debussy and Ravel are pretty much blind spots for you. You don't really get what they are doing, or why it is good. I think everyone has these areas, so I think it is good to acknowledge none of us know everything about music, and none of our opinions on it are completely objective.


Both Debussy and Ravel have enjoyable pieces, but the depth isn't there. No one would compare them to Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, because they are more superficial composers.

It comes down to whether you prefer abstraction or superficial sensation. It can be compared to when people start talking about what they did in their day and start describing physical things and events, as opposed to having a philosophical conversation, or simply discussing abstract ideas.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I do agree with hammeredklavier here.
I am definitely not trying to prove that Mozart isn't great (as if I could), and I don't think that's a particularly worthy aim. I am trying to understand why others think he is great, but I struggle to get it - when I do get it for the other acknowledged greats (Bach and Haydn in particular, and Beethoven if you're a bit more in need of psychological treatment).


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> Both Debussy and Ravel have enjoyable pieces, but the depth isn't there.


Debussy - agree with you.
Ravel - I'm less sure.

I think there are depths in Ravel. He moves me, in a way that many composers don't. Another thread beckons: Debussy v Ravel. Ravel clearly wins.


----------



## Luchesi

Look at the music that they each inherited. The weaker the music of the time, the more we admire Bach and Mozart. 

Beethoven in his third period gave a lot of power to the elements of Bach and Mozart. Chopin extended Mozart and avoided LvB's brashness, as I see it. This is how I keep them organized in my mind.


----------



## trazom

tdc said:


> I like the sound of Mozart's orchestration more than any classical era composer too, but I've read comments that both Charles Rosen and Rimsky Korsakov feel that Haydn was the most skilled at orchestration out of all the classical era composers. Personally I think that those two knew more about orchestration than I do, (and probably you too), so it is interesting to think about. But as far as the over all sound and impact of Mozart compared to Haydn, I agree with you. I think it is mostly because his actual compositional ability was superior rather than the orchestration itself, (not that he wasn't also an excellent orchestrator).


Do you have the source or context these quotes from Rosen or Korsakov? It's not that I don't believe it but, at least in the case of Rosen, I find it surprising given the amount of times I've read him discussing the variety of color Mozart was able to get from the various orchestras he wrote for and the heightened sensitivity he had for the characteristics of each instrument he used.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> I also like this fugue he wrote at 17. He had his own voice, even before he encountered Bach's WTC, AOTF, MO:


But probably not before he had encountered Handel. Mozart's contrapuntal writing always seems much more Handelian than Bachian to me anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> But probably not before he had encountered Handel. Mozart's contrapuntal writing always seems much more Handelian than Bachian to me anyway.


What do you think about this, or K.546:
*VIII. Pignus [24:04]*






Here's what I wrote about missa trinitatis K.167 (another piece he wrote at 17) some time ago:

_"I find the Et vitam venturi (17:39) from Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 remarkable how, in the middle of the fugal development, Mozart starts to gradually hint, nudge, and wink at the original Credo material (18:42) with strings, and uses the material to eventually reach a climax (19:19). Not sure how to describe it, but it conceptually reminds me of what the piano does in the midst of orchestral tutti in the beginning of Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No.2 (albeit they're completely different in style and genre)."_

*[ 17:39 ]*






the chromaticism of the *et incarnatus est [9:47~11:47]* is also interesting, btw.
View attachment 135381


----------



## consuono

^ I don't say that in a negative way, really. Mozart did bind the influences together in his own voice, just as Bach did with Buxtehude, Pachelbel etc. The thing is I sense much more of Handel in his music (and Haydn's and Beethoven's too) than Bach. I don't think there was a clear and reasonably complete picture of Bach's work until the mid-to-late 19th century. Handel was apparently awesomely influential a lot earlier.


----------



## tdc

trazom said:


> Do you have the source or context these quotes from Rosen or Korsakov? It's not that I don't believe it but, at least in the case of Rosen, I find it surprising given the amount of times I've read him discussing the variety of color Mozart was able to get from the various orchestras he wrote for and the heightened sensitivity he had for the characteristics of each instrument he used.


Yes, pages 342-344 of _The Classical Style_ expanded edition. In the book Rosen does say that he considers Mozart the greatest composer of the classical era, but in the areas of piano trios and orchestration he seems to suggest Haydn was a little better.

"The orchestration of Haydn's minuets is often enchanting: Mozart was rarely so ingenious. The most memorable passages are those where the combination of different orchestral colors remains deliberately heterogeneous, totally unlike the more solidified textures of Beethoven and Mozart even when these contrast woodwinds and strings."

He then uses the minuet from Haydn's Symphony 97 as an example, and continues:

"we can see why Rimsky-Korsakov declared Haydn to be the greatest of all masters of orchestration. The oom-pah-pah of a German dance band is rendered with the utmost refinement, amazingly by kettledrums and trumpets pianissimo, and the rustic glissando (a sort of glottal stop on the first beats) is given a finicky elegance by the grace notes in the horns as well as the doubling of the melody an octave higher with the solo violin. These details are not intended to blend, but to be set in relief: they are individually exquisite."

He then goes on to talk about the first movement of Symphony 93 saying some similar things and concluding:

"In his conception of orchestration Haydn is often far closer than either Beethoven or Mozart to the coloristic ideals of much twentieth century music; the use of solo instruments isolated within the mass of orchestra, and the employment of trumpets and timpani in many of the slow movements as pure tone color recall the orchestration of Mahler more than anything else in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries."

I will finish by saying that I think a composers harmonic choices in terms of melody, chromaticism and counterpoint is more important in terms of depth and orchestral 'color' than timbre/orchestration. This is why regardless of the orchestration I find Mozart's music more colorful than Haydn. For this same reason I also disagree with Rosen that Haydn was a greater composer than Brahms, which is something he states earlier in the book.

This is also why although not inconsequential and certainly requiring a lot of knowledge and skill, I think some over rate orchestration itself in terms of musical impact.

I think an excellent composition easily survives average orchestration, but the reverse is not true. No matter how brilliant ones orchestration, that alone will not elevate an average composition.


----------



## Xisten267

^^ Does this book discuss composers in the edges of the Classical era such as Sammartini, Schubert and Weber or is it totally focused in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven? I ask because I'm considering buying it.


----------



## tdc

1996D said:


> Both Debussy and Ravel have enjoyable pieces, but the depth isn't there. No one would compare them to Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven, because they are more superficial composers.
> 
> It comes down to whether you prefer abstraction or superficial sensation. It can be compared to when people start talking about what they did in their day and start describing physical things and events, as opposed to having a philosophical conversation, or simply discussing abstract ideas.


I think this is nonsense. Actually I find Debussy more abstract, poetic and philosophical than Beethoven. Beethoven's long narrative's have exactly the verbal quality as someone chatting away. Debussy paints a world more dream-like, one that relates to concepts of the subconscious. I think some of Wagner's music pointed the way to this door, but Debussy actually walked through that door.

I think you are way off in terms of the musical depth of Debussy and Ravel, and in fact it is becoming more and more common to see them rated very highly by knowledgeable musicians. This doesn't happen with 'superficial' music.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## tdc

Allerius said:


> ^^ Do this book discuss composers in the edges of the Classical era such as Sammartini, Schubert and Weber or it's totally focused in Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven? I ask because I'm considering buying it.


Yes, it discusses a little of a number of other composers aside from those big 3, certainly it talks about Schubert and Weber.


----------



## trazom

tdc said:


> Yes, pages 342-344 of _The Classical Style_ expanded edition. In the book Rosen does say that he considers Mozart the greatest composer of the classical era, but in the areas of piano trios and orchestration he seems to suggest Haydn was a little better.
> 
> "The orchestration of Haydn's minuets is often enchanting: Mozart was rarely so ingenious. The most memorable passages are those where the combination of different orchestral colors remains deliberately heterogeneous, totally unlike the more solidified textures of Beethoven and Mozart even when these contrast woodwinds and strings."
> 
> He then uses the minuet from Haydn's Symphony 97 as an example, and continues:
> 
> "we can see why Rimsky-Korsakov declared Haydn to be the greatest of all masters of orchestration. The oom-pah-pah of a German dance band is rendered with the utmost refinement, amazingly by kettledrums and trumpets pianissimo, and the rustic glissando (a sort of glottal stop on the first beats) is given a finicky elegance by the grace notes in the horns as well as the doubling of the melody an octave higher with the solo violin. These details are not intended to be blend, but to be set in relief: they are individually exquisite."
> 
> He then goes on to talk about the first movement of Symphony 93 saying some similar things and concluding:
> 
> "In his conception of orchestration Haydn is often far closer than either Beethoven or Mozart to the coloristic ideals of much twentieth century music; the use of solo instruments isolated within the mass of orchestra, and the employment of trumpets and timpani in many of the slow movements as pure tone color recall the orchestration of Mahler more than anything else in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries."


Thank you. It looks like for first example he's limiting the discussion solely to minuet and trio movements, which to be honest, is pretty trivial, he may as well talk about how Mozart was a greater orchestrator of German dances. The second saying Haydn's orchestration is similar to Mahler's use of trumpets and timpani in the slow movements, though singling out Mahler as the "coloristic ideal" of 20th century music is strange given how notoriously varied in style orchestration in the twentieth century is. Neither explicitly state Haydn was the greater orchestrator over all. And if it was what he intended to say, it's not the first grand, sweeping statement Charles Rosen ever made that becomes less convincing when one scratched beneath its shiny veneer. I think I recall him once writing that Idomeneo would never become part of the standard repertoire because if it was ever going to "it would have happened by now!" In any case, I'm reminded why I feel Rosen is a good starting point for reading about Classical music but one eventually outgrows his writing over time.


----------



## Ethereality

So, what is it about Mozart?


----------



## Bigbang

tdc said:


> Yes, pages 342-344 of _The Classical Style_ expanded edition. In the book Rosen does say that he considers Mozart the greatest composer of the classical era, but in the areas of piano trios and orchestration he seems to suggest Haydn was a little better.
> 
> "The orchestration of Haydn's minuets is often enchanting: Mozart was rarely so ingenious. The most memorable passages are those where the combination of different orchestral colors remains deliberately heterogeneous, totally unlike the more solidified textures of Beethoven and Mozart even when these contrast woodwinds and strings."
> 
> He then uses the minuet from Haydn's Symphony 97 as an example, and continues:
> 
> "we can see why Rimsky-Korsakov declared Haydn to be the greatest of all masters of orchestration. The oom-pah-pah of a German dance band is rendered with the utmost refinement, amazingly by kettledrums and trumpets pianissimo, and the rustic glissando (a sort of glottal stop on the first beats) is given a finicky elegance by the grace notes in the horns as well as the doubling of the melody an octave higher with the solo violin. These details are not intended to blend, but to be set in relief: they are individually exquisite."
> 
> He then goes on to talk about the first movement of Symphony 93 saying some similar things and concluding:
> 
> "In his conception of orchestration Haydn is often far closer than either Beethoven or Mozart to the coloristic ideals of much twentieth century music; the use of solo instruments isolated within the mass of orchestra, and the employment of trumpets and timpani in many of the slow movements as pure tone color recall the orchestration of Mahler more than anything else in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries."
> 
> I will finish by saying that I think a composers harmonic choices in terms of melody, chromaticism and counterpoint is more important in terms of depth and orchestral 'color' than timbre/orchestration. This is why regardless of the orchestration I find Mozart's music more colorful than Haydn. For this same reason I also disagree with Rosen that Haydn was a greater composer than Brahms, which is something he states earlier in the book.
> 
> This is also why although not inconsequential and certainly requiring a lot of knowledge and skill, I think some over rate orchestration itself in terms of musical impact.
> 
> I think an excellent composition easily survives average orchestration, but the reverse is not true. No matter how brilliant ones orchestration, that alone will not elevate an average composition.


The one advantage Haydn had over practically any composer during his lifetime was Haydn was employed as court composer for Asterhazy family. He had the time and means to explore the various effects of the best players and how to orchestrate until he was satisfied. Whether this is the reason he might be viewed as a better composer in this department is outside my league. But no doubt is has its advantages whereas Mozart got some opera time and concerto time but not the same quality of players. Beethoven, we know the story...deafness.


----------



## consuono

Bigbang said:


> The one advantage Haydn had over practically any composer during his lifetime was Haydn was employed as court composer for Asterhazy family. He had the time and means to explore the various effects of the best players and how to orchestrate until he was satisfied. Whether this is the reason he might be viewed as a better composer in this department is outside my league. But no doubt is has its advantages whereas Mozart got some opera time and concerto time but not the same quality of players. Beethoven, we know the story...deafness.


I think that's an interesting point and maybe can account for some of the differences between Handel and Bach as well. For the most part, Handel was under pressure to create music that the public wanted, and Bach really didn't have to worry so much about that in quite the same way.


----------



## ORigel

Eclectic Al said:


> Not going well at the moment, this thread. I've got various Mozart fans telling me I'm wrong (which is fine) and someone who doesn't go along with the generally accepted Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, and probably Schubert all being quite good thesis.
> No one seems to be on my Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms (but not Mozart) page. It's obviously just me.


You just named my four favorite composers. I reluctantly put Mozart as fifth because I know he wrote a lot of good works. I can even see why some see him as perfect, in a way: he has very subtle emotional control in his works.

I personally get more enjoyment out of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, and Haydn. But I have to admit: Mozart was a genius.


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> It comes down to whether you prefer abstraction or superficial sensation. It can be compared to when people start talking about what they did in their day and start describing physical things and events, as opposed to having a philosophical conversation, or simply discussing abstract ideas.


"On one occasion Debussy did not hesitate to express his theory in a statement which made a sensation,-for those were the days when musical intellectualism was at its height. In praising Massenet for having understood the true role of a composer-one who does not base his art on calculations-he declared: 'Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. Take Leonardo da Vinci; take Mozart: these are the great artists!'"
(The Theories of Claude Debussy, Musicien Français, By Léon Vallas, Page 13)


----------



## ORigel

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed, who knows what Mozart might have achieved , given a longer life. Perhaps my respect for Schubert is because his String Quintet, say, seems so wise, an old man's music, in a way that I don't get with Mozart. Is that because Schubert felt mortality calling with a certainty that Mozart did not? Apologies if my lack of interest in the history means that this is nonsense.


You _don't_ find Mozart's string quintets, late piano concerti, and Clarinet Concerto "wise"?


----------



## ORigel

Ethereality said:


> I get Mozart. I don't really get Brahms as much, even though he's a good composer, I don't grasp his detailed stiffness being better than when Dvorak captures memorable and interesting movement. Germanic and Austrian harmony and rhythm can be a little more humdrum, even Mahler, it feels a little more square and stiff and makes it a little harder to care about.


Dvorak is engaging, but then I overplay the works and they wear on me. Brahms is the opposite; I have to spend much more time "getting" his works, but the pay-off is ultimately greater.


----------



## ORigel

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Oh, the slow movement of PC 23 is maybe my favorite individual Mozart movement (almost sounds like a Chopin nocturne!), but the outer movements don't do much for me. For No. 24 it's the complete opposite. Do check out the fantasias; Hammeredklavier would be more than happy to break down every bar of them and tell you how they're masterpieces of the keyboard and how they anticipate Wagner's harmonies - it's quite a different kind of music than you might be expecting from Mozart.


I love PC 24, but I always forget the slow movement whenever I'm not listening to it. It's not bad, but not memorable (to me).


----------



## ORigel

hammeredklavier said:


> I can understand your position. I would say if you should be critical of 18th century practices like "predictability and cadences in Mozart", you should at least judge other 18th century masters by the same criteria, (like how you and S P Summers did). I even said on several occasions that the "powdered wig" quality in Mozart doesn't appeal to everyone, and agreed with your view that "music is subjective". I understand people can perceive music differently. I'm willing to respect other people's views and preferences including Allegro Con Brio's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I often wonder why people think _it's cool_ to mock Mozart, especially? It's still a mystery to me why there is a constant attempt to make Mozart out to be the Icon of Classical Era Tafelmusik, even in this thread,
> when Schubert has 600+ lieder that are so "mass-produced", nobody has even listened to them all. And to me, Schubert never reaches anything like the sense of pain and anxiety expressed in the chromatic dissonant fugue of Mozart's K546. I'm not impressed by the et incarnatus est in Schubert's 4th mass, for example. I think Mozart packs way more punch with spatzenmesse K220, spaurmesse K258, or credomesse K257. I think Schubert is just lackluster in comparison, a one-trick pony who is only good at song-writing:
> 
> View attachment 126171
> 
> 
> I admit I've been harsh toward Allegro Con Brio, but I still remember him saying several things that were troubling: like one time when he said Mozart's requiem and 20th piano concerto (which are ranked around the same place as Schubert's quintet and winterreise) are _"ridiculously overrated"_ in the TC's List of Most Recommended Works. I mean, if you're saying _"ridiculously overrated"_, as opposed to just saying _"overrated"_, you're obviously expressing a malicious attitude.


I think that the 20th Piano Concerto and the Requiem may be a little overrated among Mozart's works. Are they rated so high because they are better than other top-tier Mozart works (I AM NOT DISSING THEM), I ask, or is it because they are unusually dark for Mozart? May other Mozart masses or piano concerti be equal to or better than those works?


----------



## tdc

trazom said:


> Thank you. It looks like for first example he's limiting the discussion solely to minuet and trio movements, which to be honest, is pretty trivial, he may as well talk about how Mozart was a greater orchestrator of German dances. The second saying Haydn's orchestration is similar to Mahler's use of trumpets and timpani in the slow movements, though singling out Mahler as the "coloristic ideal" of 20th century music is strange given how notoriously varied in style orchestration in the twentieth century is. Neither explicitly state Haydn was the greater orchestrator over all. And if it was what he intended to say, it's not the first grand, sweeping statement Charles Rosen ever made that becomes less convincing when one scratched beneath its shiny veneer. I think I recall him once writing that Idomeneo would never become part of the standard repertoire because if it was ever going to "it would have happened by now!" In any case, I'm reminded why I feel Rosen is a good starting point for reading about Classical music but one eventually outgrows his writing over time.


Yes, you have some good points. I appreciate his work, and I don't think I've outgrown it yet, but that doesn't mean that I don't disagree with a good number of things he says. I found his comments on Idomeneo ridiculous, the chapter on opera I found rather irritating in a lot of places actually, yet still worth the read for some of his better insights.


----------



## 1996D

hammeredklavier said:


> "On one occasion Debussy did not hesitate to express his theory in a statement which made a sensation,-for those were the days when musical intellectualism was at its height. In praising Massenet for having understood the true role of a composer-one who does not base his art on calculations-he declared: 'Music should humbly seek to please; within these limits great beauty may perhaps be found. Extreme complication is contrary to art. Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part. Take Leonardo da Vinci; take Mozart: these are the great artists!'"
> (The Theories of Claude Debussy, Musicien Français, By Léon Vallas, Page 13)


That's exactly what I meant, and he confirms it. Though Mozart had the beauty and the depth, while Debussy chose to focus on the pretty exterior.

"_Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part._"

He couldn't have described his music any better; he demands very little from the listener.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> "Old fashioned"? The Art of Fugue feels far more "modern" than anything in Mozart. And let's face it, neither composer wrote anything within the past 200 years or so.


To be honest, Bach's Art of the Fugue doesn't really feel "modern-like" to me. It's an extensive work with lots of interwoven "cyclic" thematic ideas and fugal devices. But it feels more "common practice and tonality" than "modern-like". Someone said that this




sounded somewhat like Renaissance polyphony. I could understand that somewhat.

"That Mozart with more care could compose a really good fugue in the manner of Bach is shown by the Fugue in c for Two Pianos, K.426 (dating from either 1782 or 1783), although it also has some hair-raising dissonances that would not have been allowed in the strict style."
(Mozart, Haydn and Early Beethoven: 1781-1802: 1781-1802, By Daniel Heartz, Page 64)





Here's what I consider as "modern-like" stuff in Bach:





Mozart's K.574 (written during his visit to Leipzig in 1789) is "supposedly" his homage to the Bach piece:





From what I know, Schoenberg praised the Bach piece for its melodic use of 12 tones of the chromatic scale, and he paid homage to the Mozart piece in his Suite in G major.



hammeredklavier said:


> "An admiration for J. S. Bach remained with Mozart until his final years and is reflected in one of his last independent piano pieces, the masterly contrapuntal Gigue, K. 574, in three voices, composed at Leipzig on 16 May 1789. The piece was written into the family album of the court organist Carl Immanuel Engel, evidently as a tribute the Leipzig master, but it remains stylistically quite independent of Bach and, indeed, unlike anything else Mozart ever wrote. Particularly distinctive are the twisting angularity of the melodic lines, whose registral disparities enrich the polyphony, the bold dissonances, and the unusual pedal effects heard against shifting harmonies."
> ( Mozart's Piano Music, By William Kinderman, Page 36 )
> 
> "Schoenberg now proudly described himself as Mozart's pupil - and the final movement of the Suite, the 'Gigue', comes close to explicit homage to the G major Gigue, KV 574, in which Mozart at his most neo-Baroque and most harmonically chromatic seems almost to anticipate elements of Schoenberg's serial method."
> ( Arnold Schoenberg, By Mark Berry, Page 135 )


----------



## consuono

ORigel said:


> I think that the 20th Piano Concerto and the Requiem may be a little overrated among Mozart's works. Are they rated so high because they are better than other top-tier Mozart works (I AM NOT DISSING THEM), I ask, or is it because they are unusually dark for Mozart? May other Mozart masses or piano concerti be equal to or better than those works?


The 20th isn't one of my favorite Mozart concertos, although I'd say it's undeniably great. I think maybe it appealed to Romantics and was a model for Beethoven's third piano concerto. (I don't care so much for that one either, really.) Now another minor key concerto - Mozart's 24th - is probably my favorite concerto ever.

The Requiem I think is fraught with connotations of Mozart's own early death and a lot of legend formed around it on that account. I've always loved it, even though it's kind of sketchy and incomplete. I think the Kyrie and Recordare in particular are marvelous, although I don't know how much of the Recordare anyway is Mozart's.


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> I think this is nonsense. Actually I find Debussy more abstract, poetic and philosophical than Beethoven. Beethoven's long narrative's have exactly the verbal quality as someone chatting away. Debussy paints a world more dream-like, one that relates to concepts of the subconscious. I think some of Wagner's music pointed the way to this door, but Debussy actually walked through that door.
> 
> I think you are way off in terms of the musical depth of Debussy and Ravel, and in fact it is becoming more and more common to see them rated very highly by knowledgeable musicians. This doesn't happen with 'superficial' music.


But it's on the surface, it doesn't dig deep like Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. He's called an impressionist for a reason (and he disliked it); because his music goes nowhere; lacks a clear mission; his form poor in large scale works. He's at his best when his works are short because he hasn't the depth of character.

He hated Beethoven for a reason - he's the exact opposite - pretty and on the surface as opposed to explosive and deep.


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> To be honest, Bach's Art of the Fugue doesn't really feel "modern-like" to me. It's an extensive work with lots of interwoven "cyclic" thematic ideas and fugal devices. But it feels more "common practice and tonality" than "modern-like". ...


This is more forward-looking than any two or three measures in Mozart:




So is this:


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> That's exactly what I meant, and he confirms it. Though Mozart had the beauty and the depth, while Debussy chose to focus on the pretty exterior.
> 
> "_Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part._"
> 
> He couldn't have described his music any better; he demands very little from the listener.


In that quote, Debussy is saying that Mozart doesn't require effort on our part to enjoy his music, which is as how he feels Music should be. He also aims to do that, he is against intellectualism and extreme complication.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> The Requiem I think is fraught with connotations of Mozart's own early death and a lot of legend formed around it on that account. I've always loved it, even though it's kind of sketchy and incomplete. I think the Kyrie and Recordare in particular are marvelous, although I don't know how much of the Recordare anyway is Mozart's.







To me, the Recordare feels definitely like it was written by the same composer who wrote string quintet K.516 3rd movement. While the Domine jesu feels like it was written by the same composer who wrote string quintet K.516 1st movement.

Similarly, I hear the spirit of Beethoven's Heiliger dankgesang (Op.132) in the et incarnatus est in his Missa solemnis. I'm not exactly sure why, but I often feel the string quartet medium (with its distinct SATB voice parts) can function as some sort of an instrumental hymn, in a way. Both genres (the hymn and the string quartet) often reflect the composer's spiritual side most intimately.

Also, compare the parts of the Mozart requiem finished by Sussmayer and Levin:
agnus dei , lacrimosa , amen
with spatzenmesse K.220 (1775):
qui tollis , crucifixus ,
and misericordias domini K.222 (1775)


----------



## tdc

1996D said:


> That's exactly what I meant, and he confirms it. Though Mozart had the beauty and the depth, while Debussy chose to focus on the pretty exterior.
> 
> "_Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part._"
> 
> He couldn't have described his music any better; he demands very little from the listener.





1996D said:


> But it's on the surface, it doesn't dig deep like Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. He's called an impressionist for a reason (and he disliked it); because his music goes nowhere; lacks a clear mission; his form poor in large scale works. He's at his best when his works are short because he hasn't the depth of character.
> 
> He hated Beethoven for a reason - he's the exact opposite - pretty and on the surface as opposed to explosive and deep.


Once again you have misunderstood Debussy, and are projecting that onto his music. Debussy was ahead of his time and he foresaw the direction music was going. His words are prophetic, and a warning. You of all people should understand this. Just think of some of the post modern composers today that have forgotten this and taken their music to ridiculous extremes that few understand or even want to engage with. Perhaps it is because they have not been taught a correct approach on the principles of aesthetics. Debussy's ideas were not new, indeed we find it written in Fux's treatise on counterpoint _Gradus Ad Parnassum_: "The purpose of harmony is to give pleasure."

Perhaps some composers have forgotten this rule and decided that the purpose of harmony is to create displays of complexity to show they are cutting edge, or somehow intellectually superior to their peers, possibly? I don't know the reason some of this music was created, but I won't name names or have this degenerate into a mud slinging contest between composers. But it is clear that Debussy did not sacrifice depth anymore than Mozart or anyone, his music is generally approachable yet simultaneously quite sophisticated. His music defies conventional analysis, not reliant on formulas and is quite complex harmonically and rhythmically. He was a master of large and small forms, if you think that works like Pelleas and La Mer are not examples of a mastery of larger form you are mistaken, the test of time has proven you wrong as these (among many other works) are both accepted masterpieces in the repertoire.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> In that quote, Debussy is saying that Mozart doesn't require effort on our part to enjoy his music, which is as how he feels Music should be. He also aims to do that, he is against intellectualism and extreme complication.


Mozart's best works are his most complex. I wonder what Debussy thought of the Jupiter symphony...


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> To be honest, Bach's Art of the Fugue doesn't really feel "modern-like" to me. It's an extensive work with lots of interwoven "cyclic" thematic ideas and fugal devices. But it feels more "common practice and tonality" than "modern-like"...


And apart from the AofF, this piece here never ceases to amaze me:


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> But it's on the surface, it doesn't dig deep like Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. He's called an impressionist for a reason (and he disliked it); because his music goes nowhere; lacks a clear mission; his form poor in large scale works. He's at his best when his works are short because he hasn't the depth of character.
> He hated Beethoven for a reason - he's the exact opposite - pretty and on the surface as opposed to explosive and deep.


Are you "David Mack" C. F. Wright? XD

https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
"Debussy had unresolved problems with form and structure which encouraged a rhapsodic style, which, consequently, lacked substance. There are no real quality works of large forms, and it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written, even the stars in the premiere said so. The twenty four Preludes for piano is not a large work, but twenty four short pieces which are deliberately opposed to traditional structure and form...
...There was genuine success with composers writing in both traditional structures and forms than rhapsodic impressionism which has its obvious and evident weaknesses...
...Impressionism does not really lend itself to drama, tension or originality. Atmosphere alone is not enough."


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> Once again you have misunderstood Debussy, and are projecting that onto his music. Debussy was ahead of his time and he foresaw the direction music was going. His words are prophetic, and a warning. You of all people should understand this. Just think of some of the post modern composers today that have forgotten this and taken their music to ridiculous extremes that few understand or even want to engage with. Perhaps it is because they have not been taught a correct approach on the principles of aesthetics. Debussy's ideas were not new, indeed we find it written in Fux's treatise on counterpoint _Gradus Ad Parnassum_: "The purpose of harmony is to give pleasure."
> 
> Perhaps some composers have forgotten this rule and decided that the purpose of harmony is to create displays of complexity to show they are cutting edge, or somehow intellectually superior to their peers, possibly? I don't know the reason some of this music was created, but I won't name names or have this degenerate into a mud slinging contest between composers. But it is clear that Debussy did not sacrifice depth anymore than Mozart or anyone, his music is generally approachable yet simultaneously quite sophisticated. His music defies conventional analysis, not reliant on formulas and is quite complex harmonically and rhythmically. He was a master of large and small forms, if you think that works like Pelleas and La Mer are not examples of a mastery of larger form you are mistaken, the test of time has proven you wrong as these (among many other works) are both accepted masterpieces in the repertoire.


He had no intention of offering complexity or clarity, listen too much of his music and you'd think you were living in a different planet. He doesn't tell stories or experiences that anyone can relate too, he's focused on finding the next mysterious and decadent note.

This results in structureless music that doesn't stimulate the brain as classical music should - not with all his pieces but often. The road of decadence is what the modernist movement was protesting; Schoenberg wanted no more of sexual liberation after his wife betrayed him, and he succeeded in destroying it in music. To this day.


----------



## 1996D

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you "David Mack" C. F. Wright? XD
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
> "Debussy had unresolved problems with form and structure which encouraged a rhapsodic style, which, consequently, lacked substance. There are no real quality works of large forms, and it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written, even the stars in the premiere said so. The twenty four Preludes for piano is not a large work, but twenty four short pieces which are deliberately opposed to traditional structure and form...
> ...Impressionism does not really lend itself to drama, tension or originality. *Atmosphere alone is not enough.*"


Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## tdc

hammeredklavier said:


> Are you "David Mack" C. F. Wright? XD
> 
> https://www.wrightmusic.net/pdfs/claude-debussy.pdf
> "Debussy had unresolved problems with form and structure which encouraged a rhapsodic style, which, consequently, lacked substance. There are no real quality works of large forms, and it is accepted almost universally that his opera Pelleas and Melisande is one of the worst operas ever written, even the stars in the premiere said so. The twenty four Preludes for piano is not a large work, but twenty four short pieces which are deliberately opposed to traditional structure and form...
> ...Impressionism does not really lend itself to drama, tension or originality. Atmosphere alone is not enough."


We know there is not a lot of valid criticism of Debussy's music available when the David C.F. Wright quotes start popping up.



1996D said:


> He had no intention of offering complexity or clarity, listen too much of his music and you'd think you were living in a different planet. He doesn't tell stories or experiences that anyone can relate too, he's focused on finding the next mysterious and decadent note.
> 
> This results in structureless music that doesn't stimulate the brain as classical music should - not with all his pieces but often. The road of decadence is what the modernist movement was protesting; Schoenberg wanted no more of sexual liberation after his wife betrayed him, and he succeeded in destroying it in music. To this day.


You must be living on a different planet if you think your opinion is how most classical music lovers view Debussy. According to a recent poll posted here Debussy's Clair de Lune is the most popular piece of classical music there is right now. I know that doesn't mean it actually is the _greatest_, however it tells you it has approachability, appeal and something people can easily feel moved by. He also is widely respected among music scholars, there are a wealth of books written about him and a number of composers in recent history view him among the greatest composers. How common is it for modern era composers to be that popular and respected simultaneously? It rarely happens. I think your subjective response to Debussy doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you, you just prefer other styles of music. You have just mistaken your tastes with objective facts.


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> You must be living on a different planet if you think your opinion is how most classical music lovers view Debussy. According to a recent poll posted here Debussy's Clair de Lune is the most popular piece of classical music there is right now. I know that doesn't mean it actually is the _greatest_, however it tells you it has approachability, appeal and something people can easily feel moved by. He also is widely respected among music scholars, there are a wealth of books written about him and a number of composers in recent history view him among the greatest composers. How common is it for modern era composers to be that popular and respected simultaneously? It rarely happens. I think your subjective response to Debussy doesn't mean there is anything wrong with you, you just prefer other styles of music. You have just mistaken your tastes with objective facts.


That is a good piece, it's his best by far and of course, is short.

You make valid points, but you're forgetting that the reason we're in this mess is because of the excess of Wagner and Debussy. The opposite and equal reaction to all that sensuality was music that was purely intellectual.

Hopefully all the extremes are satiated now and we can go back to producing balanced music.


----------



## tdc

1996D said:


> That is a good piece, it's his best by far and of course, is short.
> 
> You make valid points, but you're forgetting that the reason we're in this mess is because of the excess of Wagner and Debussy. The opposite and equal reaction to all that sensuality was music that was purely intellectual.
> 
> Hopefully all the extremes are satiated now and we can go back to producing balanced music.


I don't think the mess in music has anything to do with Debussy or Wagner. I do think it is partially related to Schoenberg, and 'atonality'. I'm suspicious of Schoenberg as a person, I'm suspicious of his alleged back story. He doesn't add up to me.

But on a larger scale the problems in music are a reflection of societal problems, and our collective disconnection from the source of all life. We have been largely separated from nature and from God through technological and other means. I think this is being done intentionally, by a group of people whose intention is to make themselves the gods of this world, they do not care about God or natural law, they wish to instill their own law, their own reality, to supplant this reality. That is the reason for the push towards Artificial Intelligence.

Art is a kind of force that has a real psychological and spiritual impact, and I think there is some art that has possibly been created as a means of psychological warfare, a way to confuse our identity and our connection to this greater essence that comes from nature and from God.


----------



## 1996D

tdc said:


> I don't think the mess in music has anything to do with Debussy or Wagner. I do think it is partially related to Schoenberg, and 'atonality'. I'm suspicious of Schoenberg as a person, I'm suspicious of his alleged back story. He doesn't add up to me.
> 
> But on a larger scale the problems in music are a reflection of societal problems, and our collective disconnection from the source of all life. We have been largely separated from nature and from God through technological and other means. I think this is being done intentionally, by a group of people whose intention is to make themselves the gods of this world, they do not care about God or natural law, they wish to instill their own law, their own reality, to supplant this reality. That is the reason for the push towards Artificial Intelligence.
> 
> Art is a kind of force that has a real psychological and spiritual impact, and I think there is some art that has possibly been created as a means of psychological warfare, a way to confuse our identity and our connection to this greater essence that comes from nature and from God.


But they will lose, God takes evil and turns it into good.

We must create music now that foresees a great future even if it's still decades away. Hope for the future is a great source of happiness.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

What is even going on in this thread?


----------



## Eclectic Al

ORigel said:


> You _don't_ find Mozart's string quintets, late piano concerti, and Clarinet Concerto "wise"?


As a bit of a scratched record, I have a gap about Mozart, and I am quite willing to admit that the "problem" might be in me. It's a problem because people clearly get a great deal of satisfaction from listening to Mozart, so it would be good for me if I did too. Otherwise, it doesn't matter very much as I can just listen to other stuff.

So in answer to your question, I lose myself more in the compositions of others and then make these (perhaps fanciful) connections to wisdom, or whatever. With Mozart, I don't lose myself so much, I tend to drift into thinking about other things, while sometimes observing that the music is beautiful. I remain outside it; it's a third-party experience, not a personal one so much. Hence, I don't experience the sense that his music is wise or whatever, because I remain outside it rather than entering into it.

By the way, I'm presenting this as more of an all-or-nothing matter than it is, in order to attempt to explain.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> And apart from the AofF, this piece here never ceases to amaze me:


Sure. This is also interesting:
Bernstein's lecture on Mozart's 40th symphony
"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."


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> That is a good piece, it's his best by far and of course, is short.
> 
> You make valid points, but you're forgetting that the reason we're in this mess is because of the excess of Wagner and Debussy. The opposite and equal reaction to all that sensuality was music that was purely intellectual.
> 
> Hopefully all the extremes are satiated now and we can go back to producing balanced music.


Your hero, Mahler, was more excessive than Wagner, and he is still not responsible for the 'mess' we're in. It's the individual contribution of each composer since. Plus it's only a mess if you don't get it.


----------



## Luchesi

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is even going on in this thread?


This new reality for us has brought out some very helpful people and posts. And new, knowledgeable members!

Interesting CM folks have time! now (and maybe some untapped introspection). Anyway, I just want to thank everyone!


----------



## millionrainbows

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is even going on in this thread?


 It's just people coming out of the closet. Now, it's okay to say "Mozart sucks" because now others will know what you're talking about.


----------



## Luchesi

millionrainbows said:


> It's just people coming out of the closet. Now, it's okay to say "Mozart sucks" because now others will know what you're talking about.


I go a year or so having suspicions about Mozart's music, but most of my time with Haydn, Schubert and LvB I'm remembering how fresh Mozart sounds to me, why is that? (especially because I think he was so hamstrung by his relationships and his audiences and the sophistication level of the elements he had to work with). He excelled!

late Middle English: from Latin_ excellere_, from _ex- _'out, beyond' + _celsus _'lofty.'


----------



## flamencosketches

1996D said:


> Composers would tell you themselves that Mozart is the standard.


And I would agree with them. You've misunderstood my post as per usual. I was talking about Hammeredklavier, not Mozart.


----------



## Room2201974

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is even going on in this thread?


"It's like a Martian talking to a fungo."


----------



## Luchesi

Room and flamenco, both from The Deep South and joined exactly one year apart! Curious..


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> Room and flamenco, both from The Deep South and joined exactly one year apart! Curious..


Yes, curious how exact 31 days in January can be! Any other revelations for the group or is that all you got?


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> Sure. This is also interesting:
> Bernstein's lecture on Mozart's 40th symphony
> "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."


Yes, that's interesting. It sounds "modern" for about 15 seconds.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Your hero, Mahler, was more excessive than Wagner, and he is still not responsible for the 'mess' we're in. It's the individual contribution of each composer since. Plus it's only a mess if you don't get it.


For people that can't see patterns it would seem that the individual has a greater role, but it's only a few like Schoenberg that actually have an impact: all the others are just followers and copycats of the style and aesthetic ideology or lack thereof.

We're still in the Schoenberg wave, in its last days.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> We're still in the Schoenberg wave, in its last days.


Well hopefully that wave will collapse soon.
I think that for music in general to be great, it needs to tread the fine line between intellectual and popular. One way this was addressed in the early 20th century was by investigating folk sources: Bartok, Vaughan Williams - that sort of idea. Another way to go is just to go all out intellectual: serialism - that sort of idea. I think that is a dead end, although Webern (in particular) produced some exquisite music. You just can't keep going down that alley without noticing that there is a brick wall at the end of it.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> For people that can't see patterns it would seem that the individual has a greater role, but it's only a few like Schoenberg that actually have an impact: all the others are just followers and copycats of the style and aesthetic ideology or lack thereof.
> 
> We're still in the Schoenberg wave, in its last days.


The Schoenberg wave will still be around after you and I are 6 feet under.


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> Yes, curious how exact 31 days in January can be! Any other revelations for the group or is that all you got?


Come on, 'fess up. Now's the time.


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> Come on, 'fess up. Now's the time.


The time for what? What is it that you are trying to imply? If you can't come out and say it.......


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> The time for what? What is it that you are trying to imply? If you can't come out and say it.......


I'm learning a difficult arrangement of I'm Confessin' (with the new lyrics in 1930) to highlight the augmented V7 chord.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is even going on in this thread?


To me is seems a bit like the current riots in the US, but only verbal and about which composers are the most bestest. 
Lots of fire and tagging monuments with graffiti though...


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> I'm learning a difficult arrangement of I'm Confessin' (with the new lyrics in 1930) to highlight the augmented V7 chord.


Ah yes, the augmented V7 chord - also featured in an opera aria called _Beating A Strategic Retreat_ by a kapellmeister whose first name was Andrea.....but can't remember his last name.


----------



## millionrainbows

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is even going on in this thread?


It's like Beethoven fans talking to Mozart fans.


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> Room and flamenco, both from The Deep South and joined exactly one year apart! Curious..


Luchesi, with his curiously Italian name, awkward syntax, and appearing just after the big Italian coronavirus attack...interesting.


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> Ah yes, the augmented V7 chord - also featured in an opera aria called _Beating A Strategic Retreat_ by a kapellmeister whose first name was Andrea.....but can't remember his last name.


Yes. Now I'm writing a book about how Bach's musical intervention into the thought-process of the young King Frederick II continued Leibniz's epistemological battle against the oligarchical outlook of the Venetian-directed 'Enlightenment'.

oops, I see it's already been done.

https://archive.schillerinstitute.c...00Wi_060-thinking_through_singing__the_st.pdf


----------



## millionrainbows

Augmented V7 chord? Hey, that's Liszt territory!


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> It sounds "modern" for about 15 seconds.


You're missing the point. The point is that he had a unique way of using chromaticism to great effect, (for example, with that "passage that contains all 12 notes of the chromatic scale except the tonic note G", which is essentially a dramatic expression signifying a move to get away as far as possible from the tonic, while maintaining melodic richness. And all the 'chromatic adventures' that follow it.) And the piece inspired the later generations of composers, including modernists like Schoenberg, to a massive extent - and that's what really matters in the end.






[ 4:29 ] "The idea for the recapitulation in the first movement of Schönberg's Fourth String Quartet follows exactly the execution of Mozart's G minor Symphony KV 550 and Jupiter Symphony KV 551."
[ 5:37 ] "When I composed my Fourth String Quartet, I said this time I must compose like Mozart does it."


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> You're missing the point. The point is that he had a unique way of using chromaticism to great effect, ...


For 15 seconds. Yes Mozart employs chromaticism in a profound way. It's one of the things that separates him from Haydn. But Bach was there long before and even more profoundly, sorry. If you're going to use Mozart to club Beethoven over the head, I can use Bach in the same way against Mozart. It's a stupid game.


----------



## hammeredklavier

consuono said:


> For 15 seconds. Yes Mozart employs chromaticism in a profound way. It's one of the things that separates him from Haydn. But Bach was there long before and even more profoundly, sorry. If you're going to use Mozart to club Beethoven over the head, I can use Bach in the same way against Mozart. It's a stupid game.


I wasn't clubbing Beethoven in the head. I wasn't comparing with any other composer in that comment. Mozart's use of chromaticism isn't quite the same as Gesualdo or Bach in flavor. Mozart developed a style unique from them and inspired later generations of composers in a different way (Wagner considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker"). Clearly you're so obsessed, you keep misinterpreting everything I say.







The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought, By Josef Chytry, Page 291


----------



## Phil loves classical

hammeredklavier said:


> I wasn't clubbing Beethoven in the head. I wasn't comparing with any other composer in that comment. Mozart's use of chromaticism isn't quite the same as Gesualdo or Bach in flavor. Mozart developed a style unique from them and inspired later generations of composers in a different way (Wagner considered Mozart a "grosser Chromatiker"). *Clearly you're so obsessed, you keep misinterpreting everything I say.*
> View attachment 137199
> 
> The Aesthetic State: A Quest in Modern German Thought, By Josef Chytry, Page 291


I feel the same about you in that.


----------



## consuono

> Clearly you're so obsessed


"Obsessed"? I'm not the one camping out in these threads waiting for any slighting remark about Mozart like I'm his personal press agent.


----------



## Gray Bean

Goodness gracious me! Wow! Silliness on this Mozart thread, too. I’m beginning to see a pattern.


----------



## Room2201974

Gray Bean said:


> Goodness gracious me! Wow! Silliness on this Mozart thread, too. I'm beginning to see a pattern.


Yes, and don't look now but you're immediately put under suspicion in this thread if you're from the deep south. By whom you may ask? (Shhhhhhh, don't say it too loudly.......people who love Beethoven sooooooo much......).  

Well, this is a Mozart thread so I better say something about Moe's heart: You think you've heard Mozart? You ain't heard nothing yet until you've heard Mozart on a National Steel with a slide. It's a deep South thing!


----------



## Gray Bean

To think, I’ve been missing out! I’ve only ever heard him on the banjo. 
Of course, call me odd, but I love Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Flamme

As 4 his ''prodigness'' I will repeat what I wrote here couple of years ago...An anecdote that he allegeldy, only 7 years old, managed 2 learn by heart, from only 1 listening,and l8r repeat some famous catholic ''oratoria'' or something 2 the shock of his father, who took him 2 visit the Vtaican where the Notes of this piece were kept as an almost life-losing secret! That could signify a very vast genius and talent and also a very high iq...


----------



## Bigbang

Flamme said:


> As 4 his ''prodigness'' I will repeat what I wrote here couple of years ago...An anecdote that he allegeldy, only 7 years old, managed 2 learn by heart, from only 1 listening,and l8r repeat some famous catholic ''oratoria'' or something 2 the shock of his father, who took him 2 visit the Vtaican where the Notes of this piece were kept as an almost life-losing secret! That could signify a very vast genius and talent and also a very high iq...


Know the story. But there are many kinds of prodigies like this. However, what makes Mozart is the genius (of a very high order) born in the time and place. I cannot stress this enough...you must have the "tools" to create music that adds or develops it to a new place/forms. How many geniuses on You tube can destroy old forms or create new ones that show astounding abilities? Where is this "new" music?

For the record: I am not referring to hardworking talented composers who write music after Mozart up to today, adding their music for us to enjoy. What I am making a point on is the type of prodigy that can do something so new it changes music.

Type in Mozart on Amazon or any music site to get the point...someone is buying this stuff (or is it stuffy music

PS: I don't mean "literally" destroying old forms......


----------



## annaw

Bigbang said:


> Know the story. But there are many kinds of prodigies like this. However, what makes Mozart is the genius (of a very high order) born in the time and place. I cannot stress this enough...you must have the "tools" to create music that adds or develops it to a new place/forms. How many geniuses on You tube can destroy old forms or create new ones that show astounding abilities? Where is this "new" music?
> 
> For the record: I am not referring to hardworking talented composers who write music after Mozart up to today, adding their music for us to enjoy. *What I am making a point on is the type of prodigy that can do something so new it changes music. *
> 
> Type in Mozart on Amazon or any music site to get the point...someone is buying this stuff (or is it stuffy music
> 
> PS: I don't mean "literally" destroying old forms......


I don't think you have to necessarily be a prodigy for that. There have been many hard-working talented composers who did not compose when they were 9-years-old, who were not piano prodigies but still made something so drastically new that they changed the way classical music was and is understood. (This is meant just as a side remark and does not reduce the immense impact Mozart had on classical music.)


----------



## Bigbang

annaw said:


> I don't think you have to necessarily be a prodigy for that. There have been many hard-working talented composers who did not compose when they were 9-years-old, who were not piano prodigies but still made something so drastically new that they changed the way classical music was and is understood. (This is meant just as a side remark and does not reduce the immense impact Mozart had on classical music.)


Totally agree with your statement. I think the term "genius" is overrated but one still have to have something special going on to be that kind of composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Flamme said:


> As 4 his ''prodigness'' I will repeat what I wrote here couple of years ago...An anecdote that he allegeldy, only 7 years old, managed 2 learn by heart, from only 1 listening,and l8r repeat some famous catholic ''oratoria'' or something 2 the shock of his father, who took him 2 visit the Vtaican where the Notes of this piece were kept as an almost life-losing secret! That could signify a very vast genius and talent and also a very high iq...


I actually like this better than Allegri's own Miserere. Early music is too "formless" for my liking:


----------



## Eclectic Al

I must admit, I've never been very interested in what someone can do when they are 7, 9 (or whatever, choose a small number that you like). I am interested in what they can do absolutely, regardless of age. Child prodigies might be of interest to their parents, but not really to anyone else.
I must admit, though, that I am impressed if someone is still doing interesting stuff at an old age. Vaughan Williams composed his ninth symphony in his mid-eighties. That's more impressive to me than someone doing something at age 12. But then I can see the eighties beckoning, and am happy if I can avoid just drooling by then.


----------



## Kieran

Eclectic Al said:


> I must admit, I've never been very interested in what someone can do when they are 7, 9 (or whatever, choose a small number that you like). I am interested in what they can do absolutely, regardless of age. Child prodigies might be of interest to their parents, but not really to anyone else.
> I must admit, though, that I am impressed if someone is still doing interesting stuff at an old age. Vaughan Williams composed his ninth symphony in his mid-eighties. That's more impressive to me than someone doing something at age 12. But then I can see the eighties beckoning, and am happy if I can avoid just drooling by then.


Let's face it, great artists who continue to produce in their dotage is a great encouragement and example to youngsters starting out. Michaelangelo bashing marble with a chisel, Picasso, whoever, still displaying flexibility, eagerness, hunger, craft, long after their reputations are secure, it's marvelous because in our day and age, nobody has respect for age, for the experience of elders. But some of the greats have continued long past the age where most of us just want a sofa and a TV remote. Young prodigies are one thing, but a rarer thing is a young prodigy who didn't expire before their teen years were ended. Even rarer still, is a child prodigy like Mozart who became what his youth promised, who continued to develop in the most extraordinary way throughout his whole time on Earth...


----------



## millionrainbows

Eclectic Al said:


> I must admit, I've never been very interested in what someone can do when they are 7, 9 (or whatever, choose a small number that you like). I am interested in what they can do absolutely, regardless of age. .


Not me. I like 'em young.

BTW, I think Moe's art is very important. The work he did with Larry and Curly, not to mention Shimp...


----------



## Bigbang

Eclectic Al said:


> I must admit, I've never been very interested in what someone can do when they are 7, 9 (or whatever, choose a small number that you like). I am interested in what they can do absolutely, regardless of age. Child prodigies might be of interest to their parents, but not really to anyone else.
> I must admit, though, that I am impressed if someone is still doing interesting stuff at an old age. Vaughan Williams composed his ninth symphony in his mid-eighties. That's more impressive to me than someone doing something at age 12. But then I can see the eighties beckoning, and am happy if I can avoid just drooling by then.


I kinda agree it is a lot of hype and money making whatever out of it. But once the life is lived as in Mozart's case, even the works at that age are interesting and I sure wish Mozart was still composing up to and beyond 90...............


----------

