# Why I Believe Mozart is So Successful



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

- He had witty memorable melodies (this is where I think he has Haydn beat) 
- His music is the perfect length, and never bores the listener (Beethoven could go over the top here).
- The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.
- There is great diversity in his music (something I feel Bach lacked in).

This really might make him the greatest composer *IN THEORY*, at least mainstream society recognizes him as such (for the most part).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'm waiting to see if you'll call him your enemy again  I don't think that list is what makes him the greatest, or even great. 

He said Handel understood effect (better than any composer he knew), but I think he learned from Handel and surpassed him on effect. He knew how to use dissonance, etc. for certain effects that he wanted.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm waiting to see if you'll call him your enemy again  I don't think that list is what makes him the greatest, or even great.
> 
> He said Handel understood effect (better than any composer he knew), but I think he learned from Handel and surpassed him on effect. He knew how to use dissonance, etc. for certain effects that he wanted.


Hahaha, he's not my enemy anymore .

When you say effect, do you mean having control over what the listener will feel?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> - He had witty memorable melodies (this is where I think he has Haydn beat)
> - His music is the perfect length, and never bores the listener (Beethoven could go over the top here).
> - The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.
> - There is great diversity in his music (something I feel Bach lacked in).
> ...


I see this thread as a kind of provocation.

What is perfect lenght to you? How does Beethoven go over the top in that? Are you aware that Mozart makes more use of dissonance than many of his contemporaries? How does Bach lack diversity? Why would these four considerations of yours _necessarily_ make Mozart _the_ greatest composer, and which mainstream society recognizes him as such?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I see this thread as a kind of provocation.
> 
> What is perfect lenght to you? How does Beethoven go over the top in that? Are you aware that Mozart makes more use of dissonance than many of his contemporaries? How do Bach lack diversity?


Perfect length is not a time frame, but rather the ability to keep the listener engaged. I feel Beethoven can get boring and laborious. It may be so Mozart used more dissonance, but it never sounds "bad" like atonal work today.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

To me Mozart is great because he touches my heart.
His music has something that goes straight to the heart
whether happy or sad or anything in between.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.





















Phil loves classical said:


> I'm waiting to see if you'll call him your enemy again


Remember the time our Beethoven-loving Captain created anti-Mozart threads every week. Those good old days


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Perfect length is not a time frame, but rather the ability to keep the listener engaged. I feel *Beethoven can get boring and laborious*. It may be so Mozart used more dissonance, but it never sounds "bad" like atonal work today.


Interesting that you feel this way. I tend to remain more engaged when listening to Beethoven because he usually develops much more his material, and I dislike some of Mozart's early operas (before _Idomeneo_ and _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_), particularly because I'm not too fond of two or three hours of secco recitatives.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Hahaha, he's not my enemy anymore .
> 
> When you say effect, do you mean having control over what the listener will feel?


Yup, also just certain things on how it would strike the listener, not just the mood or emotion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Not to mention the sheer joy of his music. There are certainly other emotions present, but it seems he always ends sunny side up!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> Interesting that you feel this way. I tend to remain more engaged when listening to Beethoven because he usually develops much more his material, and I feel Mozart can get boring and laborious in some of his early operas (before _Idomeneo_ and _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_), particularly because I'm not too fond of two or three hours of secco recitatives.


I'm not trying to say Mozart is CERTAINLY the greatest, moreso throwing it out there as a suggestion because of what I'm attempting to describe in the OP. It's great you enjoy Beethoven, I mean not to offend. Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I agree. His success is a solid indication of his ingenuity and almost peerless invention and originality. I have read all of his surviving letters (translated into English) and it shows he wanted to write the best, the newest music for his audience and for his employer/patrons. Now of course he also wrote music for his own performance and for a smaller audience and for friends, including top professional musicians and composers. But Mozart wrote music for his audience, he did not alienate.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Of the three most revered classical composers, Bach, Beethoven and Mozart, Mozart is the least interesting to me. I much prefer Haydn.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Beethoven usually develops much more his material


I don't think this is true. What Beethoven really came up with was new ways of development, and "greater space". I talked about this in https://www.talkclassical.com/68580-do-you-agree-bernstein-3.html#post1956603








these can't really be compared with, for example:




in terms of use of counterpoint and thematic variation.



Allerius said:


> I feel Mozart can get boring and laborious in some of his early operas (before _Idomeneo_ and _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_), particularly because I'm not too fond of two or three hours of secco recitatives.


Two and three hours of secco recitatives? Are we listening to the same music? 
La finta giardiniera (all recitatives omitted):


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Just a very sweeping thought, and I may be way off the mark, but maybe it is that Beethoven is like a dry red wine while Mozart is like Champaign. The masses will readily take to the sweetness of Champaign, but would have to develop a taste for dry wine.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not trying to say Mozart is CERTAINLY the greatest, moreso throwing it out there as a suggestion because of what I'm attempting to describe in the OP. It's great you enjoy Beethoven, I mean not to offend. Cheers! :cheers:


You don't need to attack other composers in order to praise Mozart. And I agree that he is great.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ArtMusic said:


> I agree. His success is a solid indication of his ingenuity and almost peerless invention and originality. I have read all of his surviving letters (translated into English) and it shows he wanted to write the best, the newest music for his audience and for his employer/patrons. Now of course he also wrote music for his own performance and for a smaller audience and for friends, including top professional musicians and composers. *But Mozart wrote music for his audience, he did not alienate.*


I don't think any composer wants to alienate his/her audience. They just might not make it a priority to appeal to the overwhelming majority, but I believe they all have someone in mind, or some part of an audience's sensibility they want to appeal to.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

SixFootScowl said:


> Just a very sweeping thought, and I may be way off the mark, but maybe it is that Beethoven is like a dry red wine while Mozart is like Champaign. The masses will readily take to the sweetness of Champaign, but would have to develop a taste for dry wine.


I've never liked the idea of "forcing" music on myself. If I am inclined to listen repeatedly, I'll do so.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> - He had witty memorable melodies (this is where I think he has Haydn beat)
> - His music is the perfect length, and never bores the listener (Beethoven could go over the top here).
> - The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.
> - There is great diversity in his music (something I feel Bach lacked in).
> ...


IMO, it is his operas that are his greatest achievement.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Allerius said:


> You don't need to attack other composers in order to praise Mozart. And I agree that he is great.


I wasn't attacking them, that's just how I feel about the situation.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think this is true. What Beethoven really came up with was new ways of development, and "greater space".


Beethoven expanded the development sections and codas of his sonata forms to unprecedented levels, and you will find this information in any book of history of music that you read.



hammeredklavier said:


> Two and three hours of secco recitatives? Are we listening to the same music?


Most Mozart operas contain many secco recitatives, and you know that.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I remembered professor Robert Greenberg taking about Bach in his lectures, calling Bach's 400+ chorales something like a guide book to all composers (basically for harmonization). He says he do not compose chorales, but when he needs inspiration while composing, he always looks into some of Bach's chorales for help. Also, he mentioned that many consider Bach as the greatest composer due to technical perfection and aesthetic beauty of his works. I think some composers put Bach on the top for the same reasons.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Beethoven expanded the development sections and codas of his sonata forms to unprecedented levels, and you will find this information in any book of history of music that you read.


Compare




with





Op.31 No.2/i:

























A lot of it is prolonged chords, pauses, passages in unison, slow recitatives (each taking 30 seconds ~ 1 minute in duration)
I would just say it's a different way of development. (I still acknowledge his innovations)


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

You all should have waited for hammeredklavier to post first. It was a bit rude of you. That's what I did.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ethereality said:


> You all should have waited for hammeredklavier to post first. It was a bit rude of you. That's what I did.


He is very knowledgeable. A treasure to the site!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> A lot of it is prolonged chords, pauses, passages played in unison, long recitatives (each taking 30 seconds ~ 1 minute)
> I would just say it's a different way of development.


No, Mozart's development sections tend to be smaller, and this is due to his method of composition (usually using long melodies that do not develop so well instead of small motifs like those by Haydn and Beethoven). In many moments, when Mozart wants to expand his sonata forms, like in K. 516, he does so by expanding the exposition/recapitulation, not the development section.

See a professional musician talking about the two composers here.

At 6:19 in the mentioned video:

"...listen how Beethoven takes the themes and goes further with his development section. It's not necessarily longer in this case* which his later sonatas really did but listen how he really tears it up in the development of the Op. 40 no. 2 in G major sonata..."

*: But it is. The development section of the Beethoven sonata in this case has twice the lenght of the one by Mozart. Just count the playing time of both in the video if you don't believe me.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I am lost, one day you love him and some days you don't . :angel:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> No, Mozart's development sections tend to be smaller, and this is due to his method of composition (usually using long melodies that do not develop so well instead of small motifs like those by Haydn and Beethoven). In many moments, when Mozart wants to expand his sonata forms, like in K. 516, he does so by expanding the exposition/recapitulation, not the development section.






 ( 8:00 ~ 9:35 )

Op.131/iv:




 ( 16:06 ~ 16:52 )

























This is what we call "development" in Beethoven. I won't presume to claim Beethoven doesn't do it well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Instead of the four long arias that, say, Handel would have given us, we hear, simultaneously, four voices blended, four characters in four different moods singing simultaneously: Idomeneo in despair over his rash vow; Idamante resolved to prove his manhood; Ilia comforting them both; and Elettra tormented by jealousy. Though there are similarly complex pages in Scarlatti and a few earlier composers, Mozart's is by common consent the first great ensemble in opera, a forerunner of the trio in Der Rosenkavalier, the quartet in Rigoletto, the quintet in Die Meistersinger.
The other advances Mozart made in Idomeneo, over a century of earlier opere sere, are-I should say-three. First there is a new musical continuity. Previous operas had been rigidly sectioned off into arias in which the soloists were given ample opportunity for vocal display and even more ample opportunity to acknowledge applause. In Idomeneo, the first aria melts into the following recitative, even as the overture had melted easily into it. This is an anticipation of the techniques of Wagner, but that apostle of musical continuity was well into his forties when he decided that this was the right way to write overture and aria. Mozart knew as much early in his twenties. 
*The most famous of the Wagnerian methods of continuity is the leitmotif: the short recurrent theme that carries reminiscences and new implications with every new appearance. But a hundred years before Wagner's Tristan, Mozart, in Idomeneo, experimented with something quite similar*, our second new advance over earlier operatic writing: the brief, recurrent phrase pervading the score, changing its form, instrumentation, harmonization, and rhythm as it develops its ever new-associations. On the first page of the overture we hear of these. It is a five-note descending figure:






It soon comes to dominate the overture, depicting the Sturm und Drang, the storm and stress of the sea-music. A few pages later, it reappears in the recitative, as Ilia remembers the fall of Troy, and it appears again in the accompaniment to the aria that follows. Then when Ilia's beloved, Idamante, tells her that he will make her forget her past sufferings, it appears again, much brighter in color. It recurs quietly when King Idomeneo comes safely to land, and a moment later it accompanies his realization that now he will have to keep his vow to the sea god, and sacrifice to him the first living thing he finds on shore. It recurs once again when he looks fatefully on that victim, his own son, and the son doesn't understand why his father tears himself away from his embrace. 
The English critic David Cairns has suggested that by this time the theme has come to bear associations both of nature's cruelty and of our own inner sufferings. In Act II it forms part of the musical line of the powerful aria "Fuor del mar," where Idomeneo sings of both the storm at sea and the storm within himself. It then hovers over the little duet of the two lovers in Act III. And it reappears when Idomeneo finally tells his subjects that he must sacrifice his own son. There it leads to a passage of more chromatic intensity than anyone had ever heard in an opera house before.
And finally, our melodic fragment leads gently into the last recitative, when Idomeneo turns over the kingdom to his son. There it is stated four times over, canonically, by the four separate string sections of the orchestra.
A third new element in Idomeneo is the wholly unprecedented attention to orchestral color. The young Mozart was excited that the finest orchestra in the world, the Mannheim ensemble, was following the elector to Munich for the premiere. It was a virtuoso ensemble. According to a description of the day, "Its piano was a vernal breath, its forte was thunder, its crescendo a cataract, its diminuendo a crystal stream murmuring as it evanesced into the distance." All of those effects Mozart wrote into Idomeneo, using muted tympani, muted trumpets, and massed trombones. The sea that surges and foams around the island of Crete is suggested, in the overture and the storm music, by swirling strings. The color conjured up in those passages is, for me, a kind of grayish green. But many more colors are suggested throughout the opera, especially by the woodwind writing. This was virtuoso music for its day, and music of a wholly new loveliness."
< First Intermissions: Twenty-One Great Operas Explored, Explained, and Brought to Life from the Met / M. Owen Lee / P. 8~10 >

[ 8:00 ~ 12:00 ]
[ 26:00 ~ 32:30 ]
[ 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 ]
[ 1:44:30 ~ 1:50:00 ]
[ 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 ]
[ 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 ]


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rogerx said:


> I am lost, one day you love him and some days you don't . :angel:


hahah, you'll never let me live it down. I've been praising Mozart for some time now, .


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> This is what we call "development" in Beethoven. I won't presume to claim Beethoven doesn't do it well.


Your point...?



hammeredklavier said:


> "Instead of the four long arias that, say, Handel would have given us, we hear, simultaneously, four voices blended, four characters in four different moods singing simultaneously: Idomeneo in despair over his rash vow; Idamante resolved to prove his manhood; Ilia comforting them both; and Elettra tormented by jealousy. Though there are similarly complex pages in Scarlatti and a few earlier composers, Mozart's is by common consent the first great ensemble in opera, a forerunner of the trio in Der Rosenkavalier, the quartet in Rigoletto, the quintet in Die Meistersinger.
> The other advances Mozart made in Idomeneo, over a century of earlier opere sere, are-I should say-three. First there is a new musical continuity. Previous operas had been rigidly sectioned off into arias in which the soloists were given ample opportunity for vocal display and even more ample opportunity to acknowledge applause. In Idomeneo, the first aria melts into the following recitative, even as the overture had melted easily into it. This is an anticipation of the techniques of Wagner, but that apostle of musical continuity was well into his forties when he decided that this was the right way to write overture and aria. Mozart knew as much early in his twenties.
> *The most famous of the Wagnerian methods of continuity is the leitmotif: the short recurrent theme that carries reminiscences and new implications with every new appearance. But a hundred years before Wagner's Tristan, Mozart, in Idomeneo, experimented with something quite similar*, our second new advance over earlier operatic writing: the brief, recurrent phrase pervading the score, changing its form, instrumentation, harmonization, and rhythm as it develops its ever new-associations. On the first page of the overture we hear of these. It is a five-note descending figure:
> 
> ...


I didn't say anything about _Idomeneo_ and I know that it is Gluckian in it's form. What's your point citing this text?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Allerius said:


>


I find it incredibly strange Beethoven only wrote 9 symphonies to his whole ouevre. I understand his reasoning, but I don't agree with it 

Think from a practical point of view as other Classical era composers might, and not necessarily the correct pov. Sometimes what is correct isn't the bigger picture.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Your point...?


Again, I acknowledge Beethoven's innovations. What Beethoven came up with was a new, different way of development, and "greater space". I find Beethoven's Op.31 No.2/i special how it evokes "desolate" feelings. But the way to develop can't really be compared with Mozart's.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I find it incredibly strange Beethoven only wrote 9 symphonies in his whole ouevre. I understand his reasoning, but I don't agree with it
> 
> Think from a practical point of view as other Classical era composers might.


Yet, the first movement of the _Eroica_ alone is bigger than entire symphonies by Haydn and Mozart, and it's probably more dense in terms of notes per page also.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Allerius said:


> No, Mozart's development sections tend to be smaller, and this is due to his method of composition (usually using long melodies that do not develop so well instead of small motifs like those by Haydn and Beethoven). In many moments, when Mozart wants to expand his sonata forms, like in K. 516, he does so by expanding the exposition/recapitulation, not the development section.
> 
> See a professional musician talking about the two composers here.
> 
> ...


I'm with Allerius. I think it's pretty obvious Beethoven generally developed his material more than Mozart. Mozart might stack more themes end to end. Sometimes, I do wish Mozart would go a bit further.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> Yet, the first movement of the _Eroica_ alone is bigger than entire symphonies by Haydn and Mozart, and it's probably more dense in terms of notes per page also.


We can't find anything like Schubert's D.960 in Haydn or Mozart either. The 19th century was the age of big symphonies, I acknowledge Beethoven's innovations in that. But in the end they were simply different from Mozart's. (listen to the "development" of K.608, for example).


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

When talking of *development* in Mozart vs Beethoven, it's two completely different terms with different meanings. Mozart is closer to 'development' as a subject, as in the subject developing the object. Beethoven is closer to 'development' as an object, as in the object developing the subject.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm with Allerius. I think it's pretty obvious Beethoven generally developed his material more than Mozart. Mozart might stack more themes end to end. Sometimes, I do wish Mozart would go a bit further.


I tend to notice the way you talk is much like Luchesi and MR's; "Mozart is better than Handel; Beethoven is better than Mozart. Music improves as time passes; modern music is the best music". 
But this is just nonsense, I think. I don't think Mozart is an "improvement" from Bach.

Back to the topic - there was this thing in Mozart as well:



hammeredklavier said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
> "Ancient Greek mathematicians first studied what we now call the golden ratio, because of its frequent appearance in geometry; the division of a line into "extreme and mean ratio" (the golden section) is important in the geometry of regular pentagrams and pentagons."
> 
> Interestingly, some speculate that Mozart's sonata movements _generally_ tend toward this "golden ratio" of 0.618.
> ...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I do believe Mozart is more straightforward compared to Beethoven when it comes to development, but it's exactly that which makes him excel. Mozart fires idea after idea where Beethoven jumps around a bit more. I think the popular movement from Moonlight Sonata is one of Beethoven's best as cliche as that may be, it has the same flow and ease on the ear that I hear in Mozart's music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Beethoven is certainly more esoteric, but I see that as a fault and not a pro.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> See a professional musician talking about the two composers here.


LivingPianosVideos is not an expert on matters regarding Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I tend to notice the way you talk is much like Luchesi and MR's; "Mozart is better than Handel; Beethoven is better than Handel." "Music improves as time passes; modern music is the best music".
> But this is just nonsense, I think. I don't think Mozart is an "improvement" from Bach.
> 
> Back to the topic - there was this thing in Mozart as well:


I don't say Beethoven is better than Mozart, or that Modern music is better, or that music got better with time. Maybe that is your impression.

There is no doubt about it. In the 1st movements of say, K545 and the Moonlight Sonatas, which are similar in length. There are more themes in Mozart, while in Moonlight the 3 note motif is developed much further than anything in the K545 or any Mozart Sonata, as in more transpositions and different spacing between notes, etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

As for Bach, I feel he works more in similar patterns from piece to piece, especially within a set of songs like Art of the Fugue or The Goldberg Variations.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

And, it's hard to deny Mozart's popularity with mainstream America.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And, it's hard to deny Mozart's popularity with mainstream America.


Mozart probably represents classical music to the mainstream and I don't blame them. It is actually a good way for the mainstream to start an exciting journey in discovering classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Quite interesting! I had no idea his music was considered so high brow back in the day.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Now let's listen to a lecture by a musicologist/professor of music on Mozart and the art of improvisation, and why of course Mozart is great:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

That's pretty cool to see Mozart's hand in the slides.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And, it's hard to deny Mozart's popularity with mainstream America.


Mainstream America doesn't know or care about Mozart, classical music, or any art form.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> Mainstream America doesn't know or care about Mozart, classical music, or any art form.


This seems about right:
_*
So how popular is classical music in the U.S.? According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children's music.*_ (medium.com)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> That's pretty cool to see Mozart's hand in the slides.


It certainly is. Scholars study it in great detail and it reveals at times the changes, the deletions of many parts of the greatest by Mozart. It shows that Mozart was not "taking dictation" but had to craft his music is many compositions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Mainstream America doesn't know or care about Mozart, classical music, or any art form.


Not in depth and not to the same degree as artists in other genres, but you know what I meant. But your comment is a fair one, and important to note.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> This seems about right:
> _*
> So how popular is classical music in the U.S.? According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children's music.*_ (medium.com)


Whoa. I didn't know it was that unpopular. I'm glad to have supported it more than all other genres combined by concerts, CD's, DVD's.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Whoa. I didn't know it was that unpopular. I'm glad to have supported it more than all other genres combined by concerts, CD's, DVD's.


A positive spin would be how many potential classical music lovers there are among those 99%. Just takes an introduction to an appropriate work....


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

janxharris said:


> A positive spin would be how many potential classical music lovers there are among those 99%. Just takes an introduction to an appropriate work....


That's about right, but first a 99%er has to grow tired of what they are listening to. I think that happens to most at a certain time/age. For me it was when rock and roll and R&B devolved into rap and hip hop in the 90s. However, classical music is apparently not filling that void for many.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

gregorx said:


> That's about right, but first a 99%er has to grow tired of what they are listening to. I think that happens to most at a certain time/age. For me it was when rock and roll and R&B devolved into rap and hip hop in the 90s. However, classical music is apparently not filling that void for many.


Maybe not necessarily tired (I like a lot of non-classic), but there are things that some classical music does that I don't hear in other music (that's my perspective anyway).

I tend to think that a lot of classical music (well works I enjoy) are not always easy to comprehend on a first listen. Classical, in general, is very complex - and is probably a little overwhelming initially.

I also suspect that many potential listeners would find Mozart dated..._but, again, that's just my perspective_. The potential CM fan would need music appropriate for their taste.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

Mozart is a composer I happily return to quite often, listening to his late symphs and clarinet and horn concertos as well as many piano concertos is pure joy, and not to mention operas. He wrote great overtures.

I wouldn’t compare him to Beethoven as it is a popular comparison many do. Two different composers with different approaches towards music.
I am a Beethovenian but there are times I am in need of a Mozart work like medicine. 
I am in love with the Prague Symph. I am also in love with Eroica. Hardly comparable, and thats the beauty of music.
Thats why I refrain comparing them to one another.

So, I absolutely have no issues when some call Mozart the greatest. I can understand that.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I always feel that a person's reaction to Mozart is a test of whether they are human and sane ... or not. Obviously, I'm wrong but it is what I feel.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> I always feel that a person's reaction to Mozart is a test of whether they are human and sane ... or not. Obviously, I'm wrong but it is what I feel.


My reaction to Mozart--if one can call it a reaction--is to ignore him. Why would I ignore Mozart? For one, I don't care for the librettos of his operas (neither did Beethoven). Another reason is that I like to focus on select composers, primarly for symphonic works (not talking opera here), and my preference as to early works is Beethoven who stretched the bounds of classical music. If I go with Mozart or Haydn, I am more or less solidly stuck in classical. Not to say there is no Mozart that I could or would enjoy, there is. I even have some Mozart. It's just that with the amount of time I have for listening, I prefer other composers and since a huge part of my listening is opera, that excludes Mozart for the aforementioned reason, though I do think Magic Flute would be one I should give a shot someday (actually saw it twice live in the early 1980s--sadly, before subtitles). Hardly remember a bit of it though.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Whenever I hear a Mozart piece, I like it - but I rarely go in search of Mozart. I generally don't find the passion or spirit in Mozart that I do in the Baroque, but that is just a matter of taste. 

Often I find him rather too 'neat'. But I've seen a live Magic Flute and enjoyed it, and I love the Requiem Mass in C minor. It really grabs me. 

It's worthy advice a bit like 'eat up your greens', but I really should listen and get to know more Mozart. 
I should cocoa.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Ingélou said:


> Whenever I hear a Mozart piece, I like it - but I rarely go in search of Mozart. I generally don't find the passion or spirit in Mozart that I do in the Baroque, but that is just a matter of taste.
> 
> Often I find him rather too 'neat'. But I've seen a live Magic Flute and enjoyed it, and I love the Requiem Mass in C minor. It really grabs me.
> 
> ...


The surplus of recordings await you when you're ready to dive in!


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The surplus of recordings await you when you're ready to dive in!


Talking of recordings, have you heard the late symphs. with Staatskapelle Dresden conducted by Sir Colin Davis?
I listened to them recently and like the performance and recordings very much.
Give it a shot if you haven't, quite good.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> - He had witty memorable melodies (this is where I think he has Haydn beat)
> - His music is the perfect length, and never bores the listener (Beethoven could go over the top here).
> - The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.
> - There is great diversity in his music (something I feel Bach lacked in).
> ...





Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm rather shocked by the amount of those in favor of greatness to total subjectivity. .


Somebody seems to be ambivalent. Not sure what 'IN THEORY' means.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Somebody seems to be ambivalent. Not sure what 'IN THEORY' means.


The total subjectivist mindset is so counterintuitive or à rebours that even they have to grasp for objective terminology.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> small motifs like those by *Haydn* and Beethoven


Btw, Mozart is actually better than Joseph Haydn at working with small motifs and being inventive with phrases.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I always feel that a person's reaction to Mozart is a test of whether they are human and sane ... or not. Obviously, I'm wrong but it is what I feel.


I get what you mean Enthusiast.

Mozart may be my favorite composer, at least from a humanitarian perspective.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, Mozart is actually better than Joseph Haydn at working with small motifs and being inventive with phrases.


I like this comparison between the styles of Haydn and Mozart made at Reddit:

"Generalizations: Haydn's themes tend to short and succinct, and his development of them very long and eventful by comparison. Mozart is rather the opposite, his themes are long and highly developed while their development is often quite short in comparison. Haydn uses the theme and variations form in the slow movements much more often than Mozart. Haydn's orchestration is usually more adventurous, or at least more extraverted, and Mozart's more subtle. Neither composer uses the minor keys very often, but when Mozart does, it's for a telling effect, while Haydn is more restrained. Both composers are influenced by the Italian comic opera tradition, but Mozart is a much more overtly based on a vocal style, while Haydn is more instrumentally grounded. Haydn often uses melodies that have a grounding in Middle European folk tradition, Mozart much less so. Both composers excel at counterpoint (Mozart had his father Leopold as a teacher, who used Handel and Hasse as a model, while Haydn learned from Handel's rival, Nicola Porpora), but Mozart's counterpoint is somewhat more naturally idiomatic "Baroque" than Haydn's, who sounds more modern and perhaps a bit stiff. Mozart's signature instrumental form is the piano concerto, a form Haydn rarely indulged in. Haydn, on the other hand, wrote concertos for instruments Mozart never cared for, like the trumpet or the cello. Mozart's operas are one of the glories of Western civilization, but Haydn realized very quickly this was one field in which he could not compete, and gave up, aside from the very late Orfeo. Haydn turned the string quartet and symphony into his laboratory, as Mozart did with the piano concerto. Haydn often comes close to 'program music', in that he sometimes uses what we would today call 'sound effects' (animal noises, explosions, etc..) and conceptual forms (the 'Farewell' symphony), while Mozart tends to be more abstract, although not too much should be made of this."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Somebody seems to be ambivalent. Not sure what 'IN THEORY' means.


It means I adhere to a complete subjectivist mindset, but believe there COULD be something objectively great about Mozart's music due to the reasons in the OP, but will never claim it to be for sure.

Time will tell whose music survives, though, if you consider that to be an indication of greatness.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I like this comparison between the styles of Haydn and Mozart made at Reddit:


I know it, since I've been to that page before, but doesn't seem very accurate. 
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035322
https://www.talkclassical.com/54405-haydn-muscular-mozart-22.html#post2035596


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Allerius said:


> Yet, the first movement of the _Eroica_ alone is bigger than entire symphonies by Haydn and Mozart, and it's probably more dense in terms of notes per page also.


It seems odd to critique Mozart for not developing his material to the same extent as later masters when he was of course composing in the classical idiom and his themes and ideas are developed to exactly the correct degree in terms of what he wanted to do in the composition.

I would challenge you to listen to the first mvt of K467 - and tell me if Beethoven composed such an expansive well developed intro to a concerto - maybe he did - the VC for example - but not surpassed it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Axter said:


> Talking of recordings, have you heard the late symphs. with Staatskapelle Dresden conducted by Sir Colin Davis?
> I listened to them recently and like the performance and recordings very much.
> Give it a shot if you haven't, quite good.


I just put it on, thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> It seems odd to critique Mozart for not developing his material to the same extent as later masters when he was of course composing in the classical idiom and his themes and ideas are developed to exactly the correct degree in terms of what he wanted to do in the composition.
> I would challenge you to listen to the first mvt of K467 - and tell me if Beethoven composed such an expansive well developed intro to a concerto - maybe he did - the VC for example - but not surpassed it.


Malcolm Bilson explains how Mozart does something new in every bar in K.333/i:




 (3:02~5:40)
K.464/iv is also superior to J. Haydn's static monothematic style.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It means I adhere to a complete subjectivist mindset, but believe there COULD be something objectively great about Mozart's music due to the reasons in the OP, but will never claim it to be for sure..


If 'there could be something objectively great', not to mention your entire OP, then you do not have a 'complete subjective mindset'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> If 'there could be something objectively great', not to mention your entire OP, then you do not have a 'complete subjective mindset'.


Sure there can be, if you don't hold to be 100% true that there is something objectively great. But, let's not make this another objective/subjective thread.

What are your thoughts on Mozart? Are you a fan?


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> - He had witty memorable melodies (this is where I think he has Haydn beat)
> - His music is the perfect length, and never bores the listener (Beethoven could go over the top here).
> - *The consonance makes it pleasant to listen to, and in the end I think that's what we want.*
> - There is great diversity in his music (something I feel Bach lacked in).
> ...


It's interesting that you say that. I myself like consonance and listen to very little music that is heavily weighted towards dissonance. But judging from the responses on my thread from last night....I apparently have bad taste for preferring consonance.

My brother and I have a long-standing argument about dissonance


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> It's interesting that you say that. I myself like consonance and listen to very little music that is heavily weighted towards dissonance. But judging from the responses on my thread from last night....I apparently have bad taste for preferring consonance.
> 
> My brother and I have a long-standing argument about dissonance


huh? I stated that I agreed with you!


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> huh? I stated that I agreed with you!


oh i didnt see your reply! Good to know I'm not alone here in having bad taste! :lol:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I always feel that a person's reaction to Mozart is a test of whether they are human and sane ... or not. Obviously, I'm wrong but it is what I feel.


In what way Enthusiast?


----------



## Bigbang (Jun 2, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm waiting to see if you'll call him your enemy again  I don't think that list is what makes him the greatest, or even great.
> 
> He said Handel understood effect (better than any composer he knew), but I think he learned from Handel and surpassed him on effect. He knew how to use dissonance, etc. for certain effects that he wanted.


You do not state the composer on this quote but Beethoven is the one who stated Handel used "effect" or simple means to achieve great effects.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Bigbang said:


> You do not state the composer on this quote but Beethoven is the one who stated Handel used "effect" or simple means to achieve great effects.


Handel's work of genius; minimal material, maximum effect, nothing is wasted, nothing bombastic.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Bigbang said:


> You do not state the composer on this quote but Beethoven is the one who stated Handel used "effect" or simple means to achieve great effects.


I was referring to Mozart who said this.

"Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt... though he often saunters, in the manner of his time, this is always something there."


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

consuono said:


> The total subjectivist mindset is so counterintuitive or à rebours that even they have to grasp for objective terminology.


Subjectivism is counterintuitive? Where does that come from?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> It seems odd to critique Mozart for not developing his material to the same extent as later masters when he was of course composing in the classical idiom and his themes and ideas are developed to exactly the correct degree in terms of what he wanted to do in the composition.
> 
> I would challenge you to listen to the first mvt of K467 - and tell me if Beethoven composed such an expansive well developed intro to a concerto - maybe he did - the VC for example - but not surpassed it.


I'm trying to avoid yet another Mozart vs Beethoven heated debate here, so I'll only tell you that in my opinion both composers reached a state near to perfection in some of their works, albeit using different means. Beethoven's development sections tend to be much more expansive and exploratory though, and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I'm trying to avoid yet another Mozart vs Beethoven heated debate here, so I'll only tell you that in my opinion both composers reached a state near to perfection in some of their works through the use of different means. Beethoven's development sections tend to be much more expansive and exploratory though, and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.


But if you look closely, you'll see they're only stylistically different. Again, listen to stuff like K.192/iii, 257/iii; I think Mozart had the advantages of the late 18th century, while Beethoven, of the early 19th century. I agree with you that Beethoven was a different genius from Mozart.

Take a look at Mozart's vespers and the idea of recapitulating with Minor doxology (_"Gloria patri"_) in each of the movements. (Rhythmically they share the common concept: one long (or multiple slurred) note(s) followed a shorter note, "Glo-----ri-a...")

Dixit dominus [ 2:51 ]
Confitebor tibi [ 8:14 ]
Beatus vir [ 13:03 ]
Laudate pueri [ 16:42 ]
Laudate dominum [ 20:09 ]
Magnificat anima [ 27:09 ]





Dixit dominus [ 2:54 ]
Confitebor tibi [ 7:27 ]
Beatus vir [ 12:09 ]
Laudate pueri [ 15:42 ]
Laudate dominum [ 19:19 ]
Magnificat anima [ 24:51 ]


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> I'm trying to avoid yet another Mozart vs Beethoven heated debate here, so I'll only tell you that in my opinion both composers reached a state near to perfection in some of their works, albeit using different means. Beethoven's development sections tend to be much more expansive and exploratory though, and this is not an opinion, it's a fact.


I agree, but uh oh. One of the subjectivist evangelists might object. :lol:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> But if you look closely, you'll see they're only stylistically different. Again, listen to stuff like K.192/iii, 257/iii; I think Mozart had the advantages of the late 18th century, while Beethoven, of the early 19th century. I agree with you that Beethoven was a different genius from Mozart.


The quote below is from Roy Bennett's _History of Music_, a respectful source that comes from the University of Cambridge (translated by me as my version is not in English):

"Adopting the Classical forms used by Haydn and Mozart, Beethoven modified and expanded them. His works tend to have more weight and their scope is much greater. In the development section in a movement in sonata form, he employs a much more deepened exploratory search of the ideas chosen to be discussed. He gives more importance to the coda, sometimes continuing to explore it's material in a way that it results in a second development section. The slow movements show more emotional intensity; the Minuet is transformed in the brilliant and vigorous Scherzo; and the final movement grows in weight and importance, in a way to balance with the first."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Allerius said:


> The quote below is from Roy Bennett's _History of Music_, a respectful source that comes from the University of Cambridge (translated by me as my version is not in English):
> 
> "Adopting the Classical forms used by Haydn and Mozart, Beethoven modified and expanded them. His works tend to have more weight and their scope is much greater. In the development section in a movement in sonata form, he employs a much more deepened exploratory search of the ideas chosen to be discussed. He gives more importance to the coda, sometimes continuing to explore it's material in a way that it results in a second development section. The slow movements show more emotional intensity; the Minuet is transformed in the brilliant and vigorous Scherzo; and the final movement grows in weight and importance, in a way to balance with the first."


Absolutely, the Beethoven last movement becomes monumental in a way found in Mozart only in the 41st symphony (that I can think of). Otherwise in the Classical era it seems too often like a little throwaway to end things. (Edit) ...oh, I just thought: the last movement of Haydn's 104th.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Absolutely, the Beethoven last movement becomes monumental in a way found in Mozart only in the 41st symphony (that I can think of). Otherwise in the Classical era it seems too often like a little throwaway to end things. (Edit) ...oh, I just thought: the last movement of Haydn's 104th.


















+the magnificats of the vespers


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

SixFootScowl said:


> My reaction to Mozart--if one can call it a reaction--is to ignore him. Why would I ignore Mozart? For one, I don't care for the librettos of his operas (neither did Beethoven). Another reason is that I like to focus on select composers, primarly for symphonic works (not talking opera here), and my preference as to early works is Beethoven who stretched the bounds of classical music. If I go with Mozart or Haydn, I am more or less solidly stuck in classical. Not to say there is no Mozart that I could or would enjoy, there is. I even have some Mozart. It's just that with the amount of time I have for listening, I prefer other composers and since a huge part of my listening is opera, that excludes Mozart for the aforementioned reason, though I do think Magic Flute would be one I should give a shot someday (actually saw it twice live in the early 1980s--sadly, before subtitles). Hardly remember a bit of it though.


Try the Klemperer recording of the Magic Flute - no boring recitatives, makes for a good listen imo.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Malx said:


> Try the Klemperer recording of the Magic Flute - no boring recitatives, makes for a good listen imo.


Complete recordings of _The Magic Flute_ have no boring recitatives, either.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

amfortas said:


> Complete recordings of _The Magic Flute_ have no boring recitatives, either.


True, as it is a Singspiel (perhaps _the_ Singspiel?): the plot evolves through spoken dialogue, not recitatives. Figaro, Don Giovanni and CFT have plenty of boring (IMO) secco recitatives though.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Allerius said:


> True, as it is a Singspiel (perhaps _the_ Singspiel?): the plot evolves through spoken dialogue, not recitatives. Figaro, Don Giovanni and CFT have plenty of boring (IMO) secco recitatives though.


I see secco recitatives as closely akin to--and no more inherently boring than--spoken dialogue. It's all in how it's performed--but from an acting, not a musical, standpoint.

But I will allow you to respond differently.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

amfortas said:


> I see secco recitatives as closely akin to--and no more inherently boring than--spoken dialogue. It's all in how it's performed--but from an acting, not a musical, standpoint.
> But I will allow you to respond differently.


Yeah, this is interesting:



Natural Horn said:


> I also often read that the recitatives are perceived as boring. I can understand that, because what is still sold as recitative in many recordings (and live performances) has nothing to do with real recitatives.
> The singing is mostly monotonous, the notes are sung as written in the score, while a harpsichord plays a chord or arpeggio now and then.
> 
> The notated note values hardly matter, however; a recitative should follow the speech rhythm (which is how it was taught in Mozart's time
> ...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

^^^ An interesting post, though I would question one passage:

_After the "Contessa, perdono" the Countess answers not "Of course I forgive you" or "I forgive you" or "How could I be angry with you" (as is the case in some bad translations), but "Più docile io sono e dico di sì." ("I am more docile [than you] and I say yes".) This is not an affectionate or emotional answer, it is not a forgiveness, but a rather resigned answer, made out of prudence._

The Countess says "sì" in reply to the Count's plea "perdono." So it *is* a forgiveness, and the music indicates it comes from an emotional source deeper than mere prudence. That said, there may well be a bittersweet note of resignation in her response--perhaps an awareness that before long the Count is likely to stray, and need forgiveness, once again.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...string of videos...


In the first two examples I don't see much deviation from the stereotypical pattern. The last two still have the definite tail-end feel. Not Beethovenian. Mozart and Haydn just don't do this:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> In the first two examples I don't see much deviation from the stereotypical pattern. The last two still have the definite tail-end feel. Not Beethovenian. Mozart and Haydn just don't do this:


Wouldn't this be stereotypical pattern?:





Even Beethoven had a hard time coming up with a concluding movement as inspired as the first two of his Eroica symphony. Some say he succeeded, while some others say he didn't.

https://www.talkclassical.com/69632-one-movement-sonata-cycle.html#post2002285


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> The quote below is from Roy Bennett's _History of Music_, a respectful source that comes from the University of Cambridge (translated by me as my version is not in English)


Btw, I think Knecht and Wranitzky (in a different way from J. Haydn and Mozart) also had some influence on Beethoven (just as the Salzburg post-Baroque master, Eberlin, influenced Mozart, but not Beethoven). Look at the continuity between the movements of the Knecht. Beethoven and J. Haydn preferred Wranitzky as the conductor of their new works.



hammeredklavier said:


> *Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)*
> 0:00 The Revolution
> 4:55 English March
> 8:32 March of the Austrians and Prussians
> ...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Wouldn't this be stereotypical pattern?


As far as Bachian chorale harmonizations go, yes.


> Even Beethoven had a hard time coming up with a concluding movement as inspired as the first two of his Eroica symphony. Some say he succeeded, while some others say he didn't.


Most say he succeeded. It's certainly not your typical Classical era ending.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> It's certainly not your typical Classical era ending.


Why am I suddenly reminded of: 
"All Bach's last movements are like the running of a sewing machine." ― Arnold Bax.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> I know that it is Gluckian in it's form.


Since you like quotes from experts or musicologists so much:

"The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score." 
< Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >

"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)."
< Opera's Second Death / Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar / P.128>










-use of chromatic half-step "slow march" as introduction for allegro/fugue 
-use of three-note fragments for fugal development
-use of motivic trills to create ominous mood
-use of three-note motifs ending in leading tone in minor





 (5:10 ~ 5:48 )





Maybe it's about time you finally admit it?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Since you like quotes from experts or musicologists so much:
> 
> "The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >
> ...


THAT again. :lol: 


hammeredklavier said:


> Why am I suddenly reminded of:
> "All Bach's last movements are like the running of a sewing machine." ― Arnold Bax.


Because you're desperate for a dig at Bach? Like I care what Arnold Bax said about anything.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Because you're desperate for a dig at Bach?


I'm not. I even said in this thread:



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't think Mozart is an "improvement" from Bach.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Since you like quotes from experts or musicologists so much:
> 
> "The traditional Baroque idiom that is developed in this fugue for two pianos lays great stress on dissonant chromatic semitones and appoggiaturas. The intensity of the fugal writing is startling, foreshadowing the fugal textures in some of Beethoven's later works, such as the first movement of the Piano Sonata in C Minor, op.111, which exploits a variant of the same idiom. Beethoven was so taken by this piece, in fact, that he copied out the entire fugue in score."
> < Mozart's Piano Music / William Kinderman / P.46 >
> ...


Mozart influenced Beethoven. The development section of the first movement of Beethoven's Op. 111 is rather small and, as such, is an obvious exception to the rule for him. So what?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

For whom is Mozart successful? He is not benefiting from it. Record labels? Just wondering. Maybe I take the title of the thread too literally.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Wranitzky symphonies also have them. Richter belonged more in tradition of the Baroque binary form, along with C.P.E. Bach, J.A. Hasse in this regard.
> 
> *Grand Symphony for the Peace with French Republic Op.31 (1797)*
> 0:00 The Revolution
> ...


I listened to this symphony and I enjoyed it, much more than Richter's #53. I won't doubt if you tell me that Wranitzky is a kind of bridge between the styles of Mozart and early Beethoven. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

SixFootScowl said:


> For whom is Mozart successful? He is not benefiting from it. Record labels? Just wondering. Maybe I take the title of the thread too literally.


For posterity, so that future generations can enjoy and study Mozart.


----------



## Creator223 (May 29, 2021)

Mozart's music is very light and cheerful(with a few exceptions). Thus, it is beloved by many people.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

janxharris said:


> This seems about right:
> _*
> So how popular is classical music in the U.S.? According to billboard/Nielsen, classical music had an overall 1% share of the market in 2019, or 12th out of 12 genres. This is the least popular music genre well behind the top four genres: R&B/hip-hop, rock & roll, pop, country, and even behind children's music.*_ (medium.com)


Seems right if one is talking about the musically illiterate recorded music market.  But why would one do that? This fails to take into account concert performances of Mozart's music, thousands upon thousands worldwide every year, printed music sales, which are likewise substantial, and the thousands of amateurs who enrich their own lives by playing Mozart in their homes.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

When records and CDs were still the main or only way of distribution of recorded music the classical market share in many European countries or Japan was 5-15%. Even higher at some times, such as the CD boom in the late 1980s. Stuff like the complete Mozart before 1991 sold far better than expected. Unfortunately this could not be sustained and one reason for this besides saturation was probably unrealistic expectations after that very successful decade until the mid1990s.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> Seems right if one is talking about the musically illiterate recorded music market.  But why would one do that? This fails to take into account concert performances of Mozart's music, thousands upon thousands worldwide every year, printed music sales, which are likewise substantial, and the thousands of amateurs who enrich their own lives by playing Mozart in their homes.


I think you have a point there.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

The only reason Mozart is well-known nowadays is the marketing campaign that says that listening to Mozart makes babies smarter. If not for the dishonest Mozart Effect campaign, Mozart would be a name only known to historians specializing in Classical Period music and masochists. Hoffstedder and Wesley would be elevated to their proper places in Classical Music history. :devil:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

origel said:


> the only reason mozart is well-known nowadays is the marketing campaign that says that listening to mozart makes babies smarter. If not for the dishonest mozart effect campaign, mozart would be a name only known to historians specializing in classical period music and masochists. Hoffstedder and wesley would be elevated to their proper places in classical music history. :devil:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Good job Rogerx!


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Good job Rogerx!


There is another one , but I left that out. I think you know which one I mean.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bumping this thread for his b-day!  I still think a lot of this OP is true. It doesn't imply best, it's just offering why he is so loved in the hearts of the masses.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Bumping this thread for his b-day!  I still think a lot of this OP is true. It doesn't imply best, it's just offering why he is so loved in the hearts of the masses.


Depends on your time zone, it's January 28th here now.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rogerx said:


> Depends on your time zone, it's January 28th here now.


I'm on Eastern Time in the states. It just turned midnite, so it's the 28th here too now.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mozart is my favorite composer for many reasons, but I do think he exemplifies many of what I consider the fundamental pillars of artistic greatness: pleasurable accessibility, craftsmanship, originality, innovation, influence, depth etc. In many respects, I think Mozart's pleasurable accessibility has been a barrier to many who expect classical music to be much more overtly challenging, or to more overtly express some kind of emotional or spiritual struggle as in Beethoven or Wagner. 

However, the second you stop focusing on Mozart's miraculous ear for "sticky" melodies you immediately start to hear his immaculate craftsmanship such as his deft handling of harmonic complexities; yet even in a work as ingeniously complex as the Jupiter Symphony's finale the complexity never overwhelms or overpowers the listener. There's no "look at me, aren't I clever?" effect. It's all perfectly harmonious that it can even go completely unrecognized if one isn't used to recognizing polyphonic music. 

As for originality it's readily apparent when one listens to Mozart's contemporaries, and a large part of that was how effortlessly he absorbed musical influences of his own time and before him. It's why his works just became so much richer over time as well. Innovation... well, just look at how revolutionary his concertos and operas were. Obviously there were great concertos and operas before him, but Mozart absolutely elevated these genres to a new standard that all composers after had to follow. The influence goes without saying (just look at how many composers list him as one). 

As for depth, perhaps more than any of the other great composers I'm constantly finding relatively unheralded works by Mozart that are, at the very least, truly superb, but in many case are outright masterpieces. An example would be the Divertimento in E-flat major, K.563. Rarely hear this mentioned when the subject of Mozart's best works come up, but... just listen to the thing! If that's not a masterpiece, then what is?


----------

