# “Music, even in horror situations, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music" (Mozart)



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

*“Music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.” (W. A. Mozart)*


These are the words of the prophet.

How do you translate this abstract idea into music technique? Melody, harmony, diatonic scales and so on: the techniques used by Mozart were not arbitrary, but they were well studied to accomplish the goal.

However, what happens if you replace the idea expressed by Mozart with:

*“Your music must not be accessible and gratificant, otherwise you are a failed composer who doesn't make art and only wants to please the crowd”*

??

Probably, it happens that the well studied music techniques to please yourself and the crowd are thrown away.






Is there anything bad in composing this kind of music? Of course not!
The bad part is that the modern phylosophy of classical music discriminates the contemporary classical music composers who, like Mozart, want to please themselves and the public. Obviously, if this is your goal, you will use the same basic music techniques used by Mozart and many persons will call your pieces "pastiches".

In this forum I've read things like "a contemporary composer can not be taken seriously if he/she uses the techniques of the classical period", but some persons almost described this kind of composers as "failed composers with an audience of monkeys".

My thought about this subject is really simple: a classical music composer must be totally free to compose what he/she really wants to compose, without to be judged for his choice. The same principle must be applied for the public: we don't want to be judged because we prefer the conservative composers. You should simply listen to your prefered contemporary composers. Do you like Scelsi? It's fine.


I've also read some discussions that asked why does classical music suffer of a so low consideration today.
Maybe the explanation is contained in this discussion.
Mozart wanted to please himself and the crowd, but his music is perceived as "distant": many persons can't connect with so old music.
It would be a task of the contemporary classical music composers to create classical music with which the persons of today can connect more easily, so that they will also develop a curiosity for the old classical music and give it a chance, but if we tell them that they don't have to please the crowd (otherwise they are failed composer) it's obvious that classical music will die and that many persons will listen to popular music, which still uses the good, old techniques to give pleasure to human ears.

This is where the film music composers join the chat. Many persons snob them, but they are doing much more than anyone to keep classical music alive. I know for sure that some persons develop a curiosity towards classical music thanks to film music.

If you don't agree with me you don't have to argue with me, but with Mozart. I'm only a lost sheep following its shepherd. However, did Mozart knew that he was composing the so called "art music"?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Music should be whatever a composer wants it to be.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Mozart was not "the prophet", he was an artist, and artists all have their own views on what art should be.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

It's a misattributed quote.

The passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.
Letter by Mozart, as quoted in a journal entry (12 December 1856) _The Journal of Eugene Delacroix_ as translated by Walter Pach (1937), p. 521. The quote is not found in any authentic letter by Mozart.



Mozart had his own "ideas for methods for composing", but didn't have any "personal philosophical ideas" of what music had to be like.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Music sensibilities have evolved since the time of Mozart. It may have been true then, but dissonances that would have been rejected outright as "noise" may be fine nowadays. 

Commonly held beliefs by those living in the 18th Century, like using mercury for teething babies, have changed since then.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't find the Scelsi piece "painful". The sound production is mostly in line with the traditional way of making a beautiful sound. If the guy was destroying the double bass with a chainsaw I would also doubt that this was music, but this piece is, although I am not overly impressed at first hearing, clearly sounds like music (i.e. not repulsively ugly on purpose) and is also quite clearly in the same tradition of Western art music Mozart belongs to. 

Mozart apparently found the col legno effects in the finale of the 5th violin concerto and noisy "turkish" percussion in the Abduction perfectly acceptable. There is a similar quote from a letter discussing several pieces in that opera. IIRC Mozart is defending some comparably distant tonal relations (at least for a simple singspiel) and he argues something like that Osmin is out of himself with rage and therefore the music has to express this rage with some uncommon features but still within good taste. In one of Osmin's arias there are sforzato chords that supposedly depict him cracking his whip. 
Later, Mozart used rather strange pseudo-archaic music for Pedrillo's song ("Im Morgenland gefangen war") that also sticks out clearly among the "typical" pieces of this comic opera (like the drunk duet "Vivat Bacchus").


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's a misattributed quote.
> 
> The passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.
> Letter by Mozart, as quoted in a journal entry (12 December 1856) _The Journal of Eugene Delacroix_ as translated by Walter Pach (1937), p. 521. The quote is not found in any authentic letter by Mozart.
> ...


Interesting, but it doesn't matter who said it. It's an opinion, not a fact.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

You think your or mine opinion on music would as valuable as Mozart's, because "they are only opinions anyway"? 
Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet... 
If, on the contrary, some random fact was stated (correctly), e.g. that Mozart died on december, 5th, 1791, it would not matter who stated it. 
It is precisely with opinions that it matters if it is Mozart's or some random bloke's.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> You think your or mine opinion on music would as valuable as Mozart's, because "they are only opinions anyway"?
> Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet...
> If, on the contrary, some random fact was stated (correctly), e.g. that Mozart died on december, 5th, 1791, it would not matter who stated it.
> It is precisely with opinions that it matters if it is Mozart's or some random bloke's.


Of course I think your opinion and mine are as valid as Mozart's. I wouldn't have said so otherwise. More importantly, there are accredited composers who would also disagree with Mozart, so we needn't worry about your reduction ad absurdum about random blokes on the Internet.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> You think your or mine opinion on music would as valuable as Mozart's, because "they are only opinions anyway"?
> Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet...
> If, on the contrary, some random fact was stated (correctly), e.g. that Mozart died on december, 5th, 1791, it would not matter who stated it.
> It is precisely with opinions that it matters if it is Mozart's or some random bloke's.


Mozart lived too long ago. He lived in a different world. He was trying to make a living as a poorboy providing for his growing family, and buying all the things he drooled about while seeing the world as a teenager. All these things contribute to making his voice (his sound) unique, but, to us today, it is also quite a predictable voice (in his harmony and in his letters).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> You think your or mine opinion on music would as valuable as Mozart's, because "they are only opinions anyway"?
> Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet...
> If, on the contrary, some random fact was stated (correctly), e.g. that Mozart died on december, 5th, 1791, it would not matter who stated it.
> It is precisely with opinions that it matters if it is Mozart's or some random bloke's.


It's up to you (and each of us) how much you (and each of us) agree and disagree with his views.
Of course, if you ignore what Mozart would have thought of the Grosse fuge or the Hammerklavier fugue, for example, but at the same time think he's objectively less fallible in his views than us, you're cherry-picking.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's up to you (and each of us) how much you (and each of us) agree and disagree with his views.
> Of course, if you ignore what Mozart would have thought of the Grosse fuge or the Hammerklavier fugue, for example, but at the same time think he's objectively less infallible or incorrect in his views than us, you're cherry-picking.


I agree, except that anything he would say about the Grosse Fuge would be coming from his time and not up to ours.

I remember at first thinking Beethoven went too far with that fugue, but now as I get older I understand the feeling that he was rebelling against all things, practical and transcendental.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet...


Whatabout, for example, the opinions of renowned 19th century musical figures, presented in










We gotta admit; _it's all subjective._


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's up to you (and each of us) how much you (and each of us) agree and disagree with his views.
> *Of course, if you ignore what Mozart would have thought* of the Grosse fuge or the Hammerklavier fugue, for example, but at the same time *think he's objectively less infallible or incorrect in his views than us, you're cherry-picking.*


You mean if we ignore something that never existed and that no one could know if it did? What are you talking about? And …

Huh? Could you translate that last part into a statement that makes sense in human language?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I might be off track here, but what has Mozart's opinion on dissonance or music got to do with music written long after him?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> You mean if we ignore something that never existed and that no one could know if it did? What are you talking about?


If something like those works was composed in 1791, what would Mozart have said? Can you make educated guesses, based on Mozart's views on Vogler, for example.



EdwardBast said:


> Could you translate that last part into a statement that makes sense in human language?


Kreisler is saying when figures such as Mozart have opinions on music, they carry more objective weight and credibility than when lesser mortals like us do. But then we reject opinions of renowned figures whenever we feel like it. (Like how Kreisler himself did, with Berlioz's and Tchaikovsky's view on Handel, for instance.) If we say opinions of renowned figures have more objective validity than ours, -and yet use them as absolute authority only when they agree with ours , -isn't it "cherry-picking"?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> I might be off track here, but what has Mozart's opinion on dissonance or music got to do with music written long after him?


You know what I'm talking about, Mr. mikeh. After all, you once said (an opinion I respect):
"Imv, Mozart is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal."

You think it has nothing to do with the way he thought music?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HansZimmer said:


> My thought about this subject is really simple: a classical music composer must be totally free to compose what he/she really wants to compose, without to be judged for his choice. The same principle must be applied for the public: we don't want to be judged because we prefer the conservative composers. You should simply listen to your prefered contemporary composers. Do you like Scelsi? It's fine.


I agree with that, and I think that on the whole its closer to what happens in the real world as opposed to online. Unfortunately its easy to judging people for what they seem not to be rather than accepting them for what they are. Its the complete opposite of a real conversation between people who, though they may disagree, still have some level of trust in and respect for eachother.

Online, snobbism is often used as a defence, basically like another type of logical fallacy. In other words, _it doesn't matter what you say, my argument is stronger because I have better taste_ (or whatever). Prima facie, that's absurd, and I think that the best thing is to ignore that sort of behaviour.

As for the rest of what you say, Mozart's statement comes from a time when the ground was shifting in terms of aesthetics. The notion of sublime was beginning to form, and its even apparent in his own music (probably the _Sturm und Drang_ pieces, definitely _Don Giovanni_). You already had the power of nature as expressed in music, but come the 1820's and you get Schubert in his late works expressing psychological depth in a way that was pretty much unprecedented.

Composers like Scelsi did compose for a limited audience. If you look at the link to the Divertimento Ensemble (a member of which played the piece you posted), they also play contemporary composers like Saariaho, and others like Ligeti, Birtwistle, Kagel and even Schoenberg. They're based in Milian, which also has an active classical music scene including the famous La Scala opera.

There are many small ensembles like this which specialise in modern and contemporary music. They don't cancel out or compete with established classical music, but compliment it. Same can be said of film music, which is increasingly being performed by orchestras worldwide.

There's a whole lot of music out there, catering for different listeners. If you live in a city of a decent size, you'll have a chance of experiencing this yourself. That's why its not worth getting too bogged down in what happens on this forum.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of course it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet...


"Brahms even struggled to get to the Theater an der Wien in Vienna for the premiere of Strauss’s operetta Die Göttin der Vernunft in March 1897 before his death. Perhaps the greatest tribute that Brahms paid to Strauss was his remark that he *would have given anything** to have written The Blue Danube waltz*. An old anecdote recounts that when Strauss’s wife Adele asked Brahms to autograph her fan, he wrote the first few notes of the “Blue Danube” waltz, and then *wrote the words “Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms!**”* ("Leider nicht von Johannes Brahms!") underneath. "


Random "elitist" blokes on TC,


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Sid James said:


> I agree with that, and I think that on the whole its closer to what happens in the real world as opposed to online. Unfortunately its easy to judging people for what they seem not to be rather than accepting them for what they are. Its the complete opposite of a real conversation between people who, though they may disagree, still have some level of trust in and respect for eachother.
> 
> Online, snobbism is often used as a defence, basically like another type of logical fallacy. In other words, _it doesn't matter what you say, my argument is stronger because I have better taste_ (or whatever). Prima facie, that's absurd, and I think that the best thing is to ignore that sort of behaviour.


Sid, you are probably too sensible to stay in touch with the dreaded 'film' thread but you should know that this thread we find ourselves in is mostly a naive, assumptive and inflammatory strawman response from the OP to comments of mine in the other thread. If you're interested on why we are here, just read page 69 in the film thread...Why do many people think that classical music composed... The fun starts from post 1370 cf. (my bad). The following is culled from experiences in the real musical world and not just my opinion.

It's patently obvious to me and anyone else involved in music composition above amateur level, that a (concert hall) composer who is intent on finding their own voice, and/or their own way of composing music - one that is not commercial or utilitarian (in other words, a personal expression) - will not be writing in a style that is a few hundred years old and will not be ignoring the last hundred years of development. This is a fact even if it might be an unpalatable one for some who bemoan an alleged demise of the simple triad and associated bits n bobs to do with composing on top of it.

Another fact is that those who constantly write in the style of Mozart et al - excluding the notable and brilliant exception of Deutscher - are almost exclusively amateur composers who use notation software. Now to make things clear to the OP who has a tendency to miss out on nuance, I believe (and have said so before on TC), that the DAW and notation software are great democratisers for composers, pro and amateur, giving all a chance to express themselves however they wish. It's all good, I'm all for it and have no issue with whatever style is chosen. In fact apeing style can be very useful as technical exercise and a valuable learning tool, or perhaps its value will be measured as a diluted form of expression for those not willing to move on stylistically. Add to that the mindful benefits one can acquire from composing, no matter what that style or level of competence is, and the whole venture can be very fruitful and rewarding. Beyond all of that and after lessons have been learnt, copying serves no real purpose for the seriously minded and committed composer's further development other than to perhaps to adversely stifle any latent ability if they suddenly decide to 'settle' and have no further ambition to go and find what they are artistically capable of without the crutches of another composer.

Some amateur stylistic efforts are extremely well done and to a composer with something to say, writing in a style so well _shoul_d be a stepping stone on the path to a more individual approach as they develop their skills and voice, if not it's likely a waste of ability and opportunity imv. I've always encouraged that approach and amateurs may be surprised at how far they could potentially go with the right mindset and attitude. Whether or not they have the time to do so is of course the decisive factor one has to accept and respect. In that case, I'm all for composing of any sort and will always encourage it if only for the benefits it can bestow.

However when judging how good pastiche, or music 'in the style of' actually is, one has to inevitably compare it to Mozart et al and that's a comparison whose outcome tends not to be favourable to the music often posted anonymously online with computer playback - Mozart 'wuz 'ere' and he was no amateur. Therefore in the long run and for the reasons stated above as well as others, it makes no sense to me that composers of any level might continually attempt to compete with the past masters, especially those who have already said all that needs to be said with expressive brilliance, technical perfection and great genius in a time far removed and irrelevant to the now. I see doing so as such a fatuous waste of talent and such a shame. As always YMMV.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> You know what I'm talking about, Mr. mikeh. After all, you once said (an opinion I respect):
> "Imv, Mozart is too easy to listen to with 21stC hindsight and I feel that music these days has more traits worth exploring than immediacy of appeal."
> 
> You think it has nothing to do with the way he thought music?


I should have referenced the OP for my post and not your part of the conversation HK, sorry. I feel honoured to have been quoted by you though, please, just call me Mike..


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> Sid, you are probably too sensible to stay in touch with the dreaded 'film' thread but you should know that this thread we find ourselves in is mostly a naive, assumptive and inflammatory strawman response from the OP to comments of mine in the other thread. If you're interested on why we are here, just read page 69 in the film thread...Why do many people think that classical music composed... The fun starts from post 1370 cf. (my bad). The following is culled from experiences in the real musical world and not just my opinion.
> 
> It's patently obvious to me and anyone else involved in music composition above amateur level, that a (concert hall) composer who is intent on finding their own voice, and/or their own way of composing music - one that is not commercial or utilitarian (in other words, a personal expression) - will not be writing in a style that is a few hundred years old and will not be ignoring the last hundred years of development. This is a fact even if it might be an unpalatable one for some who bemoan an alleged demise of the simple triad and associated bits n bobs to do with composing on top of it.
> 
> ...


First of all, this discussion is not exactly a reply to your post.
I already started to think about this discussion weeks ago and since the other discussion was going OT, I thought that it was the right moment to open this discussion and redirect the topic here.

This means that this is not a discussion ad personam created specifically for you, but to discuss about a biased position that it's not rare in the classical music world and that can be summarized as: "if a piece has more keys and it's more chaotic is better", which seems to be also the position of @Luchesi, because he's a pianist and he likes challenging pieces, but the perspective of a pianist doesn't take in consideration the experience of the consumer of music.
Very often, the "adagio/andante cantabile" is my favourite movement in classical music. For a pianist might be less challenging than a chaotic allegro, but what about the emotional impact for the listener? Does it have any relevance?
In film music the adagio/andante cantabile is probably the most used format because it's emotionally effective.

Now, although the argument "this piece is not complex" makes sense when used against a really rudimental piece like this one (title "La Panirora", used in swiss elementary schools in the first lessons of the flute)...






...it doesn't make so much sense when it comes to compare the quality of a piece with a decent elaboration with an other one which is super complex, because although it's very likely that they are both better than a really trite piece like "La Panirora", it's not necessarily true that the second one is better than the first one.


Now, what does this have to do with the argument of tonality? According to me, the two things are related, because the mindsetting of tonality is to limit the number of keys in a determined melodic segment so that it sounds good: reduced complexity in favour of catchyness.
On the other hand, if you think that complex=better, why not to remove that silly rules so that you can use more keys in a segment?
And the point is this: I think that "reduced complexity" means "higher quality" for the consumer of music. Is this a universal value? Not, but this rule works for my ears, and I don't understand why some persons stigmatize composers who want to respond to my values (and the ones of @DaveM, apparently) when the easiest solution is that everyone simply listen to composers who satisfy their expectations. "How much good is a composer" must be measured on how much is able to satisfy the expectations of his audience: you can't base your judgement on supposed universal values that are presented as they were objective facts and reinforced with the mantra "I'm a composer and I know what I'm speaking about, unlike you".


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Oh I think this OP is _exactly_ a response to comments in the other thread, your not fooling me.
Who said that folks shouldn't listen to music they like? Who said that atonal or even complex tonal music is better than simple music?
Who is stigmatising composers who write simply? Writing simply is often a prerequisite for FM and it's a good idea in serious music and all other genres for that matter, to be as succinct and to the point as possible.
The real world beyond your preferences frowns on pastiche and writing in styles long gone for concert music with many a good reason, but not simplicity in music, because achieving that even in complex music is an admirable and desirable goal. Rant at the real world, not me and look out for nuanced writing in responses from me before you kick off with your assumptions.
oh and if that last sentence is dedicated to me, then you've crossed a line.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> Another fact is that those who constantly write in the style of Mozart et al





> However when judging how good pastiche, or music 'in the style of' actually is, one has to inevitably compare it to Mozart et al


NO NO NO... wait! This is a strawman!!!

No one has ever said that the modern composers must produce music with the Mozart's style. @DaveM and I are simply saying that we expect classical music to be tonal and there is a large space for creativity in tonal music, namely the possibility to compose music in hundreds of different styles.

This symphony of Joly Braga Santos is a good example (Dave seems to like very much the fourth movement, posted in the discussion about film music).
In the discussion in wich I posted the symphony, someone wrote that Joly Braga Santos is a neoclassical composer, which apparently doesn't mean that you compose pastiches of Beethoven or Mozart, but that your music follows some very basic rules that were normal in the classical period, including tonality.

Does this symphony sound like a Mozart's symphony? It's simply a tonal symphony of 1950.






The point of view of Dave and me is very simple: we prefer neoclassical composers in respect to the contemporary/modern composers who threw away tonality, but a neoclassical composer is not supposed to sound like Mozart (film music, which is usually tonal, it's also not a pastiche of Mozart).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

NO NO NO...wait...oh....it's just another misunderstanding from our illustrious film composer.
... jeez read the post again Hans. I wasn't suggesting composers should write in Mozart's style....sigh. Mozart came up because he is your proxy for simplicity and a major part of the dichotomy in your OP. I went on to use him as the thrust of my response to the veiled and untrue implications in the OP. Do keep up if you can and whilst your at it you'll hopefully answer my post above.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> oh jeez read the post again Hans. I wasn't suggesting composers should write in Mozart's style. Mozart came up because he is part of the dichotomy in your OP. Do keep up if you can and whilst your at it, answer my post above.


The OP doesn't suggest in any way that a composer MUST create music in the Mozart's style. In the quote, Mozart seems to simply suggest that music should be always melodic. @Forster is right about the fact that it's only his opinion, but the point is that it's the opinion of one of the fathers of classical music, so it can not be dismissed so easily.

As suggested by Dave in the discussion of film music, Vivaldi, J.S. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovsky (and other great composers of the pre-revuolutionary era) are the composers who keep classical music alive today. In other words, The Four Seasons, The Swan Lake, The Nutcracker, Beethoven's symphonies and sonatas, Mozart's symphonies and sonatas, piano sonatas of Chopin, the toccata and fugue of J.S. Bach, and so on... (all example of melodic music) are still the most considered works of classical music.

That said, if Mozart was great in his own tonal style, maybe Joly Braga Santos is great in his own tonal style (which is not a pastiche of Mozart) and he clearily doesn't agree about the fact that to write tonal classical music today doesn't make sense from an artistic point of view.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Mozart's opinion on dissonance and melodic structure or accessibility has no bearing whatsoever on the great majority of todays music from concert hall composers ...period. The people whose opinions matter to young and older composers today where, or still are alive during the 20th and 21stC. The sooner you realise that the more cogent and informed your arguments might be. I'm only the messenger but I also happen to agree with the message.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> The passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.


To my opinion, it depends on the listener when some music reaches the point of "causing disgust" or of being "painful to the ear".

Furthermore, Mozart did not define at which point music remains music and when it stops to remain music.

So the quoted phrases are more or less in style of populist parties; just pretending that everyone knows what is normal and what not, as if this could be decided in an objective way.

Does anyone feel that the Sacre du printemps is painful to the ear? I don't, but I am not sure how Mozart's contemporaries could have answered.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Good point @Philidor re Le Sacre.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> It's a misattributed quote.
> 
> The passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.
> Letter by Mozart, as quoted in a journal entry (12 December 1856) _The Journal of Eugene Delacroix_ as translated by Walter Pach (1937), p. 521. The quote is not found in any authentic letter by Mozart.
> ...


I have to stress again, it's *something never said by Mozart himself.* Why do some people in this thread talk as if he actually said it?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> Mozart's opinion on dissonance and melodic structure or accessibility has no bearing whatsoever on the great majority of todays music from concert hall composers ...period. The people whose opinions matter to young and older composers today where, or still are alive during the 20th and 21stC. The sooner you realise that the more cogent and informed your arguments might be. I'm only the messenger but I also happen to agree with the message.


I've already showed the respect I have for John Williams in the discussion about film music, but you could replace John Williams (as well as many other contemporary composers) with Salieri in this scene of the film Amadeus (and I'm speaking of the music for the concert hall).






Who is that has keeped classical music alive until today?


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

The older you get, the more you appreciate Mozart.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Think these scenes would be less effective with Mozart as the background music


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

“We cannot be sure if ‘composing freely’ is a concept that Mozart would have understood or desired: all the evidence is that he yearned to be needed and appreciated—to be asked to write music because people wanted it, to show off the skills of his singers and players as well as possible, to make the most of whatever practical performing circumstances he was faced with. Yes, he wanted his audiences to enjoy his music, and to show by their attention that they were enjoying it. Yes, he wanted his music to be better, cleverer, more passionate, and more memorable than everyone else’s, and probably believed it to be so, but there is not a shred of support for the idea that he ever consciously wrote for some far-distant future.” —Nicholas Kenyon (Faber Pocket Guide to Mozart)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Just so it is clear, I don’t have problem with atonal music per se. It’s not my go-to music, but I’ve listened to enough of (atonal) Schoenberg and serial music that followed to understand its attraction for some. That said, I’ve also listened to enough of it to understand why it was never going to attract a broad swath of CM listeners the way music that preceded it did.

As I’ve said before, it was inevitable that classical music was going to change in the 20th century. The thing about the CP era was that one had some idea what music one was going to get. Nowadays, there are what seems to be a mish-mash of formats and while there seem to be quite a few composers, no one format seems to reign and there doesn’t seem to be a significant number of composers whose music is going to be heard consistently in major concert halls. Still, there are contemporary/modern CM recordings consistently available since recordings are less expensive to make than in the past and there is YouTube so there is some reason for optimism for those who love it.

I will continue to listen to more traditional CM of the past, but I wish everyone who likes contemporary/modern music all the best and don’t want to be looked on as someone who rails against it (with perhaps the exception of avant-garde music ).


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> NO NO NO... wait! This is a strawman!!!
> 
> No one has ever said that the modern composers must produce music with the Mozart's style. @DaveM and I are simply saying that we expect classical music to be tonal and there is a large space for creativity in tonal music, namely the possibility to compose music in hundreds of different styles.


That's an expectation that has not been met.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> I’ve also listened to enough of it to understand why it was never going to attract a broad swath of CM listeners the way *music that preceded it* did.


By "music that preceded it", you mean "crowd-pleasers" (Is this how you "understand it")?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> By "music that preceded it", you mean "crowd-pleasers" (Is this how you "understand" it)?


This is, at least, the 3rd time that you’ve responded to a post of mine with a pithy ‘crowd-pleasers’ comment or question. This has no meaning for me and unless you have something important to say about one of my posts, please stop.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> This has no meaning for me and unless you have something important to say about one of my posts, please stop.


Well, crowd-pleasers were crowd-pleasers. I don't deny it, since I don't need to indulge in idolatry of any composer.
I'm actually serious about this. (Remember my talk of the "double standards")


hammeredklavier said:


> _"The Queen of the Night Aria and the slow movement of Beethoven's 7th are popular because they are objectively GREAT".
> "Pachelbel's canon and The Four Seasons are popular because they are objectively POP ."_


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The OP doesn't suggest in any way that a composer MUST create music in the Mozart's style. In the quote, Mozart seems to simply suggest that music should be always melodic. @Forster is right about the fact that it's only his opinion, but the point is that it's the opinion of one of the fathers of classical music, so it can not be dismissed so easily.


Of course the opinion can be dismissed easily, but that's not what I did. I'm dismissing the idea that we should give Mozart's opinion primacy over any other composer's opinion. He may have been a supremely gifted composer of CPT from the classical period but he has no right to declare what CP must be for all who follow _just because he's Mozart._

As far as i can see, everyone who has expressed an opinion here on the question of what people should or shouldn't compose agrees that composers should be free to compose what they want. You certainly said it.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

These discussions of this topic tend to be rather made-up on a basis of 'but I don't like...', couched in a pseudo-academic argument. Since late Wagner, French fin de siècle, the 2nd Viennese school etc, there have been many returns to earlier forms. Both reimagined and used in a _bone fide_ way. The composer Jean Francaix whom I posted in Current Listening recently wrote consistently in a neo-classical style, a reimagined version of CP, but extended. A lot of his works are perfectly in line with the view of writing music 'for pleasure', both that of the composer and audience. He was not the only composer who wrote like that and there are plenty others even now.

It has to be remembered that as well as being entertainment, this music loosely called 'classical music' or 'art music' if you want, is also actually a continued form of art expression and that art changes and looks for the new or it ossifies. It's not like this is confined to this sort of music or even to music. It may well be that there are some expressions that really hit home with a lot of people, styles in architecture, painting etc and when that happens you see them resurface. For someone to just flat-out write music as if they were in 18thC Vienna, would take a real effort to pretend that nothing has occurred since then. To just ignore even just the harmonic developments that began as Mozart himself was reaching his untimely demise.


----------



## CopistaSignorGomez (Dec 9, 2021)

well, If someone in our days write music like Mozart , wel, give this amazing pasticcios

would like to hear a sonata, symphony , ... whatever wrote in our days in pure Galant Style

any suggestions?

For example, I aprreciate this "pasticcio", I rate it very high, of course, quotes themes for at least 3 scarlatti soanatas, but If you think, composers of the Galant era did more or less the same , them had, let's say 3 or 4 themes/motifs, and used and combined themes in a piece


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> These discussions of this topic tend to be rather made-up on a basis of 'but I don't like...', couched in a pseudo-academic argument. Since late Wagner, French fin de siècle, the 2nd Viennese school etc, there have been many returns to earlier forms. Both reimagined and used in a _bone fide_ way. The composer Jean Francaix whom I posted in Current Listening recently wrote consistently in a neo-classical style, a reimagined version of CP, but extended. A lot of his works are perfectly in line with the view of writing music 'for pleasure', both that of the composer and audience. He was not the only composer who wrote like that and there are plenty others even now.
> 
> It has to be remembered that as well as being entertainment, this music loosely called 'classical music' or 'art music' if you want, is also actually a continued form of art expression and that art changes and looks for the new or it ossifies. It's not like this is confined to this sort of music or even to music. It may well be that there are some expressions that really hit home with a lot of people, styles in architecture, painting etc and when that happens you see them resurface. For someone to just flat-out write music as if they were in 18thC Vienna, would take a real effort to pretend that nothing has occurred since then. To just ignore even just the harmonic developments that began as Mozart himself was reaching his untimely demise.


I remember someone saying that all neo-classicism or neo-romanticism is postmodern, whether or not it wants to be. You can write all the music you want in the style of Bach, or the first Viennese School, or Weber, but it will always have the context of it having been written in the present day, no matter how faithful it is.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> but it will always have the context of it having been written in the present day, no matter how faithful it is.


This is surely why the neoclassicists didn't just do that!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> Well, crowd-pleasers were crowd-pleasers. I don't deny it, since I don't need to indulge in idolatry of any composer.
> I'm actually serious about this. (Remember my talk of the "double standards")


I can only fathom what you consider to be ‘crowd-pleasers’: warhorses?, anything that is going to be bring the average listener into a concert-hall?, or what? And what does ‘idolatry of any composer’ have to do with any of this? And ‘double-standards’? Are you, directly or indirectly, still on some sort of Michael Haydn music resurrection/apologist kick that seems to get inserted into every recent thread?

You must be aware of the amount of wonderful CP era music composed by numerous less known or unknown composers before the 20th century which has only in recent years been available on recordings. Fwiw, much of it is also turning up on YouTube. This music can hardly be called ‘crowd-pleasers’ because it has never been given the chance to draw crowds. That occupies much of my listening time these days. Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mikeh375 said:


> Sid, you are probably too sensible to stay in touch with the dreaded 'film' thread but you should know that this thread we find ourselves in is mostly a naive, assumptive and inflammatory strawman response from the OP to comments of mine in the other thread. If you're interested on why we are here, just read page 69 in the film thread...Why do many people think that classical music composed... The fun starts from post 1370 cf. (my bad). The following is culled from experiences in the real musical world and not just my opinion.


I guessed that's where this thread came from, but no I haven't looked at it much since I stopped participation back in May. I just had a read of what I said there, and after putting my position, I had a couple of good conversations (including with you). I gave up after the final conversation with one individual who obviously didn't agree with me, which was fine, but he went on to apply logical fallacies to my argument. I got tired of needing to clarify my position, only to be served with another set of fallacies.



> It's patently obvious to me and anyone else involved in music composition above amateur level, that a (concert hall) composer who is intent on finding their own voice, and/or their own way of composing music - one that is not commercial or utilitarian (in other words, a personal expression) - will not be writing in a style that is a few hundred years old and will not be ignoring the last hundred years of development. This is a fact even if it might be an unpalatable one for some who bemoan an alleged demise of the simple triad and associated bits n bobs to do with composing on top of it.
> 
> Another fact is that those who constantly write in the style of Mozart et al - excluding the notable and brilliant exception of Deutscher - are almost exclusively amateur composers who use notation software. Now to make things clear to the OP who has a tendency to miss out on nuance, I believe (and have said so before on TC), that the DAW and notation software are great democratisers for composers, pro and amateur, giving all a chance to express themselves however they wish. It's all good, I'm all for it and have no issue with whatever style is chosen. In fact apeing style can be very useful as technical exercise and a valuable learning tool, or perhaps its value will be measured as a diluted form of expression for those not willing to move on stylistically. Add to that the mindful benefits one can acquire from composing, no matter what that style or level of competence is, and the whole venture can be very fruitful and rewarding. Beyond all of that and after lessons have been learnt, copying serves no real purpose for the seriously minded and committed composer's further development other than to perhaps to adversely stifle any latent ability if they suddenly decide to 'settle' and have no further ambition to go and find what they are artistically capable of without the crutches of another composer.
> 
> ...


I understand your argument - that imitation is unlikely to produce music of any artistic merit, although it may have value in other ways. Here, as in my conversations with you, I think that you're being balanced because what you say includes discussion of viewpoints that differ from your own. I also think that you bring valuable insight as someone who has worked in music.


----------



## hoodjem (Feb 23, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> The passions, whether violent or not, should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust; and music, even in situations of the greatest horror, should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music.
> Letter by Mozart, as quoted in a journal entry (12 December 1856) _The Journal of Eugene Delacroix_ as translated by Walter Pach (1937), p. 521. The quote is *not found in any authentic letter by Mozart*.


Well, whoever stated this, if he is suggesting that all music should "flatter and charm" the ear, then I guess I listen a great deal of non-music (and I look at a lot of ugly non-art).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> No one has ever said that the modern composers must produce music with the Mozart's style.


That's right. No one has said that, not even (especially not ) the person whose post you quoted.

The straw man is yours.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> @DaveM and I are simply saying that we expect classical music to be tonal and there is a large space for creativity in tonal music, namely the possibility to compose music in hundreds of different styles.


Why do you 'expect' it to be? Indeed there is quite a lot of tonal music from the mid-20th century - incidentally always fingered as being the era when tonal music was supposedly banished. Which is why I never understand this idea that somehow it has been suppressed in favour of music which is described by turns as: ugly, atonal, having no melody/structure..etc 

There's also that some people even complain about music which actually is completely tonal, but carries influence from post 1900 developments. I once played Othmar Schoeck's _Sommernacht_ and someone said to me: 'I can't stand that modern music'. This sort of reaction is just absurd.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

CopistaSignorGomez said:


> well, If someone in our days write music like Mozart , wel, give this amazing pasticcios
> 
> would like to hear a sonata, symphony , ... whatever wrote in our days in pure Galant Style
> 
> ...


There is an active community of performers resurrecting galant improv techniques


----------

