# Is Mozart over-rated?



## Guest

Read this blog from an American composer, Arnold Rosner, and see if you agree or disagree with what he has to say about Mozart. Don't, please, use the old chestnut "but I wonder what HIS work is like" as a counter-argument. It's what he says and your responses that interest me:

http://www.sequenza21.com/rosner.html

It caused a furore on another messageboard!! But some were in agreement.


----------



## Ramako

Oh not this again!


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> Oh not this again!


Sorry, I didn't realize it had been posted here before! Please ignore if it has already been discussed!!


----------



## violadude

No, he's not. But he might appear to be so because other composers of that era are under-rated.


----------



## Ramako

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Sorry, I didn't realize it had been posted here before! Please ignore if it has already been discussed!!


I'm sorry CountenanceAnglaise for seeming so negative. If it remains a rational discussion then that's great. However when I first joined there was a massive argument on the forum which was not curbed by the mods for some time. I shall now contribute to the discussion in the hope it will remain so (I have no problem with re-discussing things, just not re-arguing them!)

I agree with violadude. In the Classical era before Beethoven there is a tendency to think:

Mozart

Haydn

Other people


----------



## DavidA

The man writes with all the reasoning of a complete idiot.


----------



## Kieran

When they say he's divine, they over-rate him, that's true...


----------



## violadude

Ramako said:


> I'm sorry CountenanceAnglaise for seeming so negative. If it remains a rational discussion then that's great. However when I first joined there was a massive argument on the forum which was not curbed by the mods for some time. I shall now contribute to the discussion in the hope it will remain so (I have no problem with re-discussing things, just not re-arguing them!)
> 
> I agree with violadude. In the Classical era before Beethoven there is a tendency to think:
> 
> Mozart
> 
> Haydn
> 
> Other people


There is a similar tendency in the Baroque era:

Bach

Handel

Vivaldi (maybe Telemann)

Everyone else.


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> No, he's not. But he might appear to be so because other composers of that era are under-rated.


On Mozart's death, one of his most highly esteemed contemporaries (Kozeluch) said, "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> On Mozart's death, one of his most highly esteemed contemporaries (Kozeluch) said, "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


There's probably some truth to that. Who knows what Mozart would have come up with had he lived during the "Beethoven era." Or perhaps he would have reached a certain point on his own that would have influenced Beethoven.


----------



## jhar26

DavidA said:


> The man writes with all the reasoning of a complete idiot.


Yep. But unfortunately that's always the most effective way to get some attention, and he's probably aware of that.


----------



## Weston

I have to admit that Mozart is _not_ overrated, especially if so many people love his music. Even Beethoven admired it. I like some of it -- most of it I still dislike, but that's just me. Just because it doesn't gel with me doesn't mean it's overrated. It just means there are certain musical mannerisms I find annoying. I reckon his music doesn't need my support. It will carry on with or without me.

I think there is a tendency in the more hardcore classical listeners to not want to admit to liking a warhorse like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart. They are the obvious choices and they make us sound like tyro fans, a bit like a rock fans saying they like The Beatles. We feel we must have something obscure to champion or we're just posers.

Addendum: the blog post did not warrant comment. He is trying too hard to be outrageous.


----------



## oogabooha

"overrated" is a really opinionated thing to say, so it's nothing objective. that being said, I do think he is overrated. Mozart to me is like what the Beatles are to me; overrated, but certainly not terrible.


----------



## Webernite

What makes this even worse than the previous attacks on Mozart is that he also dismisses Haydn and early Beethoven.


----------



## Sid James

Re what Mr. Rosner says, this quote by him is fact, a professor of music said it here in a talk on Mozart & the Classical Era which I attended:

"But in the classical era of music history, even the composers fail to meet my condition. Inheriting an already sparse choice of two principal scales, 95% of the time they choose the brighter and lighter major; minor is too serious for them."

& re his kind of tongue in cheek comments about the requeim, I'd add its ironic its one of Mozart's most famous work that is not actually by him. So maybe Victor Borge's by now cliched comedy sketch "A Mozart Opera by Borge" (its on youtube, several versions of it) is just as genuine a work by Mozart as the Requeim?

Only joking of course (can we joke about Mozart, is it allowed?).

Its no surprise that his most popular symphonies played live are the two G minor ones, numbers 25 and 40.

But what he says about a person getting older and hearing the deeper/darker aspects of Mozart, I think it varies with individuals. Some people I know always loved him, from their younger years on and their love has not dimmed in older age. Some did not like him and grew to like him. Personally, I like him but he's not one of my favourites overall. Sometimes the stuff by him that sounds the same just irritate me - the violin sonatas are a prime example, except that famous one in E minor, K. 304, surprise surprise one of his 5-10% works in a minor key!

Then again, I like his _Eine Kliene Nachtmusik_, which some others online say they hate cos its a warhorse. I also like the _Clarinet Quintet_, the_ Great Mass in C_, a number of his string quartets, and so on.

But another fact is that he did a good deal of rehash, but so did other greats of the Classical and Baroque eras, it was their stock in trade. I don't see any problem in that. He and others like him are cliched in part due to how unique they where. When you hear a bit of his music, you know its him. & Mozart did play around with the conventions of the time and was creative in many ways of course. I think he was a genius. But it doesn't mean I have a desire to listen to everything by him. But its the same with other composers. I pick and chose from what they offer. I don't like it when people build these absolutes and we all have to worship at the altar of a composer, any composer.


----------



## mmsbls

I don't know Arnold Rosner so I can't tell if he's kidding. The argument in his essay certainly strikes me as being facetious. He's basically saying that Mozart doesn't write in minor keys enough and is too cheery. That's like saying a baker is not good because he rarely uses chocolate. Personally, I find Mozart quite capable of writing exquisitely sad music although I agree that he does not write consistently sad works.



jhar26 said:


> Yep. But unfortunately that's always the most effective way to get some attention, and he's probably aware of that.


I agree completely. If Rosner's intent was either to get attention or to write satire, he succeeded. If his intent was to convince anyone that Mozart is overrated, his argument is quite poor.


----------



## Sid James

I would add to my longer post earlier on this thread that Mozart was revered by composers like Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. I would think Schubert too. Beethoven actually wanted to study with Mozart, but he had to go back up to Bonn from Vienna to attend to his mother when she was dying. By the time he got back to Vienna, Mozart was dead and the job of teaching him fell to Haydn. Beethoven did not get on with ol' papa and claimed to have not learnt a thing from him. In any case, Beethoven saw Mozart as one of his compositional idols. What I draw from that is how Mozart's formal innovations and technical brilliance at least - I mean just listen to things like that amazing ending of the Sym. #41 - did make big impacts on Beethoven and others later.

I think that overrated is a term often used on these forums just to underpin a person's opinion of some composer or a piece of music. Its the same with all composers. To some people virtually any composer with a wig is automatically better than one without. So its just based on personal opinion and one's underlying values and bias. But of course, not many people will come to admit those, maybe for fear of being attacked. But hopefully that sort of behaviour is a thing of the past on this forum?


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> I don't know Arnold Rosner so I can't tell if he's kidding. ....


Same too with a minority of posters on this forum. Dunno if they're laughing with you or at you. Whether they're on your side or rubbing your face in verbal dog poo. But seriously who cares if someone makes a joke about a dead composer? Or maybe does a 'send up' of some aspects of a composer's style that does have a grain of truth in it? Is the problem in discomfiting those who just can't accept the possibility that others might not have the same values or tastes as you?

Maybe even ol' Wolfie would laugh at this and make one of his poo jokes...


----------



## kv466

I'm actually glad this re-surfaced. Reminds me of why I truly only care about one opinion.


----------



## Crudblud

I don't have much love for Mozart's music at all, but I think Rosner is being just a little bit heavy handed here.


----------



## violadude

Ok, I've actually read the article now. What I have to say is that all the juicy emotional content in Mozart is heard between the lines, apparently this author doesn't know how to do that.


----------



## BurningDesire

Its not so much an anti-Mozart essay as a diatribe against the Classical period, with Mozart as the focal point. While I agree with some of his assertions on that period, to a degree, I would not dismiss the entire period or the many great works from it. I do see the Classical aesthetic as a mostly bland one, but there's plenty of music that was great in spite of it, including music by Mozart. That being said, Mozart and that period in general are over-rated. X3


----------



## GreenMamba

I will say, I think he has a point about the Tuba Mirum, and the B section of the D minor quartet, and the trumpet in PC 20's coda. i actually appreciate this sort of musical criticism versus pretending that the great's were always perfect. But these criticisms aren't enough to ruin these works, let alone Mozart's standing. 

Anyway the blog post is nearly six years old now.


----------



## Ukko

OK, I admit it. I don't understand the concept behind "overrated" as a general group verdict; it doesn't work. I think there may be a horde of people who find it necessary to rate some aspect or aspects of Mozart's music against some standard(s), but those are all individual 'ratings', based on individual standards and expectations.

This particular thread brings calls up the subject of blogs. So many of them seem to be created and used as the puddle to be the big frog in. There seems to be no understanding that the sum of blogs of that kind strongly resembles a chorus of peepers.


----------



## jani

Weston said:


> I have to admit that Mozart is _not_ overrated, especially if so many people love his music. Even Beethoven admired it. I like some of it -- most of it I still dislike, but that's just me. Just because it doesn't gel with me doesn't mean it's overrated. It just means there are certain musical mannerisms I find annoying. I reckon his music doesn't need my support. It will carry on with or without me.
> 
> I think there is a tendency in the more hardcore classical listeners to not want to admit to liking a warhorse like Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mozart. They are the obvious choices and they make us sound like tyro fans, a bit like a rock fans saying they like The Beatles. We feel we must have something obscure to champion or we're just posers.
> 
> Addendum: the blog post did not warrant comment. He is trying too hard to be outrageous.


Not admitting to like something obvious ( If the person likes it)just because he/she is afraid what his/her friends or colleagues think makes that person a poser as well.


----------



## stanchinsky

I think the problem with Mozart is that he's inconsistent. Sometimes I get the impression, especially in some of his keyboard works, that he's just writing a quick tune for the fun of it. But when he's really trying the results are as good as music can get in my opinion. I sort of agree with Rosner's critique of the Tuba Mirum movement, not because I think it's as bad as he does (is it really the worst couple of music ever?) but because as he points out, it follows an incredible and dramatic opening and thus, kind of feels out of place. I understand his point in regards to Mozart's infrequent use of minor keys, but some of this is due to the musical culture of that time which he did hint at in the article. Major keys can be very moving as well, who doesn't love this?


----------



## jani

One thing that i love in Mozart is that his music is always smooth, there are no edges .

(That's the best way i can explain it, i know it can be a bit confusing but that is the best way i can explain it.)


----------



## Stargazer

I personally don't like Mozart much...sure he has a couple pieces I really enjoy but overall he just doesn't do it for me. Now, with that said, I still think he is a great composer and I fully respect and admire his contributions to music, as well as his obvious talent. I just don't personally enjoy his music all that much, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is indeed good music.


----------



## Vaneyes

What a kerfuffle. As Sid mentioned, worse things have been said at TC, of composers on both sides of the fence. And more recently than a 2006 blog.

Goodness, cut this poor man a break. In addition to free speech entitlement, he's spent 30 years teaching at a Community College.

What's worse than TC slight? Only maybe a professor's rating. I'm quite surprised he wasn't "duded" to death.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=355606

FYI, a 1994 Rosner interview, twelve years prior to his sin of all sins.

http://www.bruceduffie.com/rosner2.html


----------



## Novelette

I go through cycles with Mozart, love and hate.

Like all [I realize that such an absolute is a bold statement] composers, or even artists generally, the bulk of his output is undistinguished, however well-done it is. But his great works are truly spectacular. His pathos is wonderfully energetic, sometimes tragic, and full of tireless invention. In my eyes, his most distinguished work lies in his operas.

While I generally prefer Haydn's music, and think that Haydn is unfairly relegated vis-a-vis Mozart, I must give Mozart his due.

Over-rated? I don't think it's quite that easy. If people enjoy Mozart, whether because of a cult of veneration, or out of genuine enjoyment, we should let them.

But I will say that whether it's Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Bach, Berlioz, Tchaikovsky, etc., etc., people [and I'm frequently guilty of this too] neglect worlds of wonderful music by lesser known composers. Enjoy your Mozart, enjoy your Haydn, enjoy whomever else... But please don't forget those other great masters whose lives were also devoted to their art.


----------



## Novelette

violadude said:


> Ok, I've actually read the article now. What I have to say is that all the juicy emotional content in Mozart is heard between the lines, apparently this author doesn't know how to do that.


Agreed, Violadude. The polyphonists of the 16th, and their venerating successors [Fux, for instance], had a rule that accompaniment by way of endless sixths or thirds should be avoided lest the hearers be drowned and jaded by excessive mellifluousness [among other, technical reasons of thereby destroying voice-independence, etc.].

I think that a similar thing happens to people who know only the great bombastic and ostensible emotionalism of the Romantic and post-Romantic eras, they might become so accustomed to the exuding emotion that the subtlety of earlier music sounds dry and sterile.

Haydn's Piano Trio in F Minor, Hob. XV: F1, although not extravagantly tragic, is morose and dark. But its pathos is subtle and refined.

But perhaps I exaggerate the point a little bit.


----------



## Rapide

Mozart, over-rated or whatever. The reality is any composer on the planet who wrote a single note would secretly or maybe openly dream of being that well admired. Merzbow or Mozart or Madonna.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mozart is a special case; the performer either shines or fails, being totally exposed and naked; his music is a "passive receptacle" for players to fill. In this sense, he is very "yang" as opposed to "yin," and expecting him to compete with the (relative) bombast of, say. Beethoven, is missing the point.


----------



## arpeggio

*Arpeggio's First Law of Music Appreciation*

arpeggio's first law of music appreciation: No matter how great a composer is there is at least one sourpuss out their who dislikes him. :scold:


----------



## Novelette

millionrainbows, it's a good point.

With many of Mozart's piano works, I find them easy enough. But I lack the peculiar touch to give Mozart's music its appropriate sound. I am really good at making Mozart sound like Chopin [with and without Chopin-esque rubato], but that's pushing it a little bit.


----------



## trazom

With the number of original threads like these that pop up, I'd say Mozart is the most misunderstood of the great composers.


----------



## samurai

trazom said:


> With the number of original threads like these that pop up, I'd say Mozart is the most misunderstood of the great composers.


Do you believe that he is so misunderstood because of the relative ease and speed with which he turned out so many of his works when compared to other composers? In this sense, he is definitely a genius, I would say.


----------



## Ukko

Vaneyes said:


> What a kerfuffle. As Sid mentioned, worse things have been said at TC, of composers on both sides of the fence. And more recently than a 2006 blog.
> 
> Goodness, cut this poor man a break. In addition to free speech entitlement, he's spent 30 years teaching at a Community College.
> 
> What's worse than TC slight? Only maybe a professor's rating. I'm quite surprised he wasn't "duded" to death.
> 
> http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=355606


Yikes! No wonder the blog. that link to the 'rate your professor' page reveals a lot about the raters. I like:

"Easiness2

Helpfulness1

Clarity2

Rater Interest2

He grades the exams harsh.I got A on all my classes except for music."

Achieved an A in English too, on doubt.


----------



## quack

On doubt indeed.


----------



## Sid James

Novelette said:


> ...
> ...
> Over-rated? I don't think it's quite that easy. If people enjoy Mozart, whether because of a cult of veneration, or out of genuine enjoyment, we should let them.


There is that veneration thing, definitely. Live fast die young (maybe the James Dean...or Jimi Hendrix? of his day).

Then you got the fact that the whole of Salzburg's tourist industry can thank Wolfie for its existence...as well as maybe _The Sound of Music_? In any case, Wolfie thought the town to be a backwater.

Then him in floating Austria's chocolate industry with those bon bons.

What about Mozart music notation software?

& this economic growth all done by a dead guy. WOW!

*I am exaggerating a bit, but hey, I own shares in Salzburg, the bon bons and the software! I aim to do a merger of all this and call it Mozart Inc.


----------



## Novelette

You're right, Sid James.

Those insufferable bon bons are especially obnoxious. I'm terribly allergic, so my bitterness toward them is two-fold.


----------



## Sid James

Novelette said:


> You're right, Sid James.


Of course I'm right. I always am. :lol:



> ...
> Those insufferable bon bons are especially obnoxious. I'm terribly allergic, so my bitterness toward them is two-fold.


Well that's a shame. But nothing's stopping you from getting photographed with Wolfie himself promoting his favourite treat.

Ok I'll stop the corny...um chocolatey?...jokes now.


----------



## DavidA

I think we have to say that like most composers not everything Mozart wrote was 'great. Some of the music he wrote was just background music for the gentry to eat to. But being Mozart and a complete genius he managed to produce music which is very good and listenable to and we can enjoy. When he really put his mind to it as the da Ponte operas he produced music which has never been bettered if ever equalled. Whenever I listen to them I always wonder how someone could produce music as good as this.

As for the gentleman criticising he is probably a sixth rate composer himself anyway. I certainly have never heard of him. He certainly loses too many opportunities of keeping his mouth shut. People who say things like this frankly only make fools of themselves as everyone who is sensible knows it is untrue what they are saying. 

As for the chocolate industry at Salzburg that is hardly Mozarts fault. It certainly has no bearing on his compositions. Neither do the appalling modern productions of his operas at Salzburg. They appear to be the product of halfwits who want to make your name to themselves, done for the benefit of the simpleminded.


----------



## starthrower

Not by me. When I hear a Mozart piece I like, I'll be ready to praise him.


----------



## DavidA

starthrower said:


> Not by me. When I hear a Mozart piece I like, I'll be ready to praise him.


Is this Mozart or your own taste?


----------



## starthrower

^^^^
I guess it's just my taste. If I were a musician, I could probably appreciate the musical invention in his works. As a listener, I just don't like the sound of it. That said, there is an awful lot of his music I haven't heard. I might enjoy some of the piano sonatas, but I never cared for his symphonic writing. Same for Haydn.


----------



## Weston

To say Mozart is overrated might be based on what Mozart you've heard. For much of my life this is what all Mozart sounded like to me:


__
https://soundcloud.com/alienart%2Fmozart-to-me

Well, okay. To be fair that definitely is not Mozart, but that's what Mozart sounded like to me.


----------



## vertigo

Yeah. Also, Shakespeare was an overated author and Aristotle an overated philosopher. 
Unfortunately it's like that with everything nowadays.
Morons argue for laughably idiotic positions in the hopes of getting attention.
It is harder to analyze and understand genius than making empty idiotic statements like this.

When everyone around you tells you that the sky's blue and you insist it's red, it probably means you're just an idiot.
Certainly the 250 years of studying Mozart's music by thousands of people and the almost universally held belief by the people that matter, the musicians and musicologists, that he is one of the two most important composers who EVER lived, all direct to the fact that this guy is either an idiot or an attention who.re.


----------



## mmsbls

If one felt that Louis Spohr were the greatest composer ever, perhaps it would make sense to say, "_I_ overrate Louis Spohr." The statement, "Mozart is overrated", seems to say "The classical music community values Mozart higher than the classical music community values Mozart." I'm not really sure how that can be.

And of course that would be true of any composer.


----------



## moody

Ramako said:


> Oh not this again!


I thought I'd say "Oh no,not again".


----------



## dionisio

Colombus' egg.


----------



## Sid James

DavidA said:


> ...
> As for the chocolate industry at Salzburg that is hardly Mozarts fault. It certainly has no bearing on his compositions. Neither do the appalling modern productions of his operas at Salzburg. They appear to be the product of halfwits who want to make your name to themselves, done for the benefit of the simpleminded.


As far as I know, the Salzburg festival before the 2nd world war was a place not only focussed on Mozart, but also other things, incl. new music. For example, Britten's work to secure his reputation on the European music scene, VAriations on a Theme of Frank Bridge, was premiered there. But after the war, Salzburg was made into a shrine for Mozart and also Richard Strauss by Herbert von Karajan. Some new music continued to be performed there, but it became more a festival of the past than of what was happening in the present in music. I think since Karajan's death the new directors have attempted to rectify this but maybe the damage has been done, its an anachronism, thus you have what you're calling "appalling modern productions." I couldn't care less about what productions are like of his operas, but I wonder what Mozart would say to this shrine built to him at a place he basically wanted to get away from as quickly as possible.

So no its not Mozart's fault but I think its ok to kind of question this whole 'Mozart industry' which is paraded as something nobody can question. Like a sacred cow or fetishes, this kind of thing and many other 'you can't touch them' attitudes among some fans of certain composers is what I think is a thing that they make controversial, but it really isn't. Its same as questioning anything. Virtually nothing is sacred in today's world, but some people want to keep this as an exception to that. Well, why?


----------



## Guest

I didn't imagine how many people would respond to this thread. Yes, the original article by Rosner is six years old but still calculated to arouse emotions. I agree with Sid about the "Mozart Industry" and I saw that everywhere in evidence when I lived in Vienna. Off-putting! Couldn't help thinking back to Mozart's day and the pauper's funeral when so many people are exploiting his memory these days to make money themselves.

In the final analysis we will respond to these kinds of blogs about Mozart, or any other composer, based on our own love of his music. It's very easy to justify how wonderful a composer is if we love his music and, after all, that's really how it should be. Despite Rosner and others, Mozart is sure to have a future in perpetuity!!


----------



## vertigo

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I didn't imagine how many people would respond to this thread. Yes, the original article by Rosner is six years old but still calculated to arouse emotions. I agree with Sid about the "Mozart Industry" and I saw that everywhere in evidence when I lived in Vienna. Off-putting! Couldn't help thinking back to Mozart's day and the pauper's funeral when so many people are exploiting his memory these days to make money themselves.
> 
> In the final analysis we will respond to these kinds of blogs about Mozart, or any other composer, based on our own love of his music. It's very easy to justify how wonderful a composer is if we love his music and, after all, that's really how it should be. Despite Rosner and others, Mozart is sure to have a future in perpetuity!!


Mozart did not have a pauper's funeral.


----------



## Rapide

vertigo said:


> Mozart did not have a pauper's funeral.


What did he have? A state funeral?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Sid James said:


> Virtually nothing is sacred in today's world, but some people want to keep this as an exception to that. Well, why?


Because most people will get up and defend something which is sacred to _them_, be it an idea or a favorite composer, and that is a good thing. It would be a truly sad world if nobody held anything sacred any more.


----------



## vertigo

Rapide said:


> What did he have? A state funeral?


Google is your friend:

The funeral arrangements were made by Mozart's friend and patron Baron Gottfried van Swieten. Describing his funeral, the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians states, "Mozart was buried in a common grave, in accordance with contemporary Viennese custom, at the St. Marx Cemetery outside the city on 7 December." Jahn (1856) wrote that Salieri, Süssmayr, van Swieten and two other musicians were present.[13]
The tale of a storm and snow is false; the day was calm and mild."[14]
*The common belief that Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave is also without foundation. The "common grave" referred to above is a term for a grave belonging to a citizen not of the aristocracy. It was an individual grave, not a communal grave; but after ten years the city had the right to dig it up and use it for a later burial. The graves of the aristocracy were spared such treatment.[15]*


----------



## Rapide

Here we go again, "scared cows" thing ...

ACCEPT THIS: MOST LISTENERS WOULD HAVE A FAVOURITE COMPOSER OR TWO OR THREE OR TEN ... WHAT IS WRONG TO BE PROUD OF ONE'S FAVOURITE(S) IN AN INTERNET DISCUSSION FORUM DEDICATED TO SUCH MUSIC?


----------



## BurningDesire

Weston said:


> To say Mozart is overrated might be based on what Mozart you've heard. For much of my life this is what all Mozart sounded like to me:
> 
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/alienart%2Fmozart-to-me
> 
> Well, okay. To be fair that definitely is not Mozart, but that's what Mozart sounded like to me.


That actually sounds pretty good. I wish Mozart sounded more like that sometimes


----------



## Bone

As a "bicycle pump" player, I have to say that Rosner puts his pity in the wrong box: the "Tuba Mirum" has several arpeggiated chords, but also several beautiful linear passages for the instrument. Anyway, I appreciate the music of Mozart and, while I am not sure he is a top 20 for me as a listener, his esteemed place in history looks pretty secure.


----------



## oogabooha

stanchinsky said:


> I think the problem with Mozart is that he's inconsistent. Sometimes I get the impression, especially in some of his keyboard works, that he's just writing a quick tune for the fun of it. But when he's really trying the results are as good as music can get in my opinion.


I actually love that about him, actually. He was able to use music as a tool for getting many of his emotions out, and clearly recognized that it wasn't supposed to be serious all of the time (and who _is?_). I wouldn't consider it inconsistent, I guess I would just consider it realistic according to human emotion.


----------



## kv466

I find it both amusing and confusing that so many don't like Mozart around here yet they haven't even bothered to sit down and listen to all of his works! Unless you can sit there and listen to snippets and say, "that's kv608" or "that's kv174", then keep loving your Ligeti or Cage or whoever _you_ feel is _not_ overrated and leave the Master to those who truly believe.


----------



## Ukko

quack said:


> On doubt indeed.


Oh, you think the rater just had a typo problem?


----------



## Guest

vertigo said:


> Google is your friend:
> 
> The funeral arrangements were made by Mozart's friend and patron Baron Gottfried van Swieten. Describing his funeral, the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians states, "Mozart was buried in a common grave, in accordance with contemporary Viennese custom, at the St. Marx Cemetery outside the city on 7 December." Jahn (1856) wrote that Salieri, Süssmayr, van Swieten and two other musicians were present.[13]
> The tale of a storm and snow is false; the day was calm and mild."[14]
> *The common belief that Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave is also without foundation. The "common grave" referred to above is a term for a grave belonging to a citizen not of the aristocracy. It was an individual grave, not a communal grave; but after ten years the city had the right to dig it up and use it for a later burial. The graves of the aristocracy were spared such treatment.[15]*


Was Mozart not a musical aristocrat? I think the funeral unworthy, given that the 'aristocrats' who were spared have long-since disappeared into oblivion. So, you get the point of my original comment?


----------



## starthrower

kv466 said:


> I find it both amusing and confusing that so many don't like Mozart around here yet they haven't even bothered to sit down and listen to all of his works! Unless you can sit there and listen to snippets and say, "that's kv608" or "that's kv174", then keep loving your Ligeti or Cage or whoever _you_ feel is _not_ overrated and leave the Master to those who truly believe.


I don't know about kv numbers, but I do like piano concerto no. 21. As far as sitting down to listen to all of Mozart's works, I don't have the time. I'm not one of these life of leisure folks who buy 100 CD sets of their favorite composers.

But the main issue I have with the classical world is that there is too much focus on the past. Almost all new or relatively new music (the past 100 years) is given short shrift.


----------



## ProudSquire

Far from it, but then again, I tend to rate Mozart Highly above a lot of composers. I say if Mozart's overrated, then good for him, I certainly if were a composer wouldn't want to be underrated.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I don't know about kv numbers, but I do like piano concerto no. 21. As far as sitting down to listen to all of Mozart's works, I don't have the time. I'm not one of these life of leisure folks who buy 100 CD sets of their favorite composers.
> 
> But the main issue I have with the classical world is that there is too much focus on the past. Almost all new or relatively new music (the past 100 years) is given short shrift.


Well the simple fact of the matter is that so much of classical music (don't know the exact figures, but willing to hazard a guess that it is more than 95%) is more than 100 years old. 
I think the other problem is that much of that "older" classical music appeals more to traditional notions of harmony that most people find appealing in music. Let's face it - more people are going to find a Beethoven symphony enjoyable than are going to enjoy most of the output of Schoenberg or Messiaen. And the 20th century had a lot of those kinds of composers, so the music of the past 100 years is not going to be received as well by as many people. We can haggle over why that is, and whether or not it should be, but it simply is.

As to the original question - is Mozart over-rated? The fact that we are even discussing the music of a man who died over 200 years ago suggests not. Clearly there is something to his music that has caused it to endure so well. History has a tendency to dispose of the over-rated. And one of the biggest appeals of a Mozart, or a Beethoven, is that the music they wrote has not only remained popular with people who avidly enjoy classical music, but is also even more widely recognized among those who don't typically listen to classical music. Hum a few bars of Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and see who doesn't recognize it, or some of his other more famous works. Can you do that with Schoenberg or Messiaen? Or Berg? That doesn't mean they are bad, but it is hard to claim the man is over-rated when his music, to this day, has such universal appeal.


----------



## Guest

I found this on another forum and it is only tangentially related to this thread. It was a response to a comment *that Bach was over-rated*, and this was the person's response - of which I can only whole-heartedly concur. As I couldn't express it better myself I've 'borrowed' it (if it's yours, please forgive me). It's very moving and I mean to pay its author a compliment:

"Bach overrated?

I will admit that Bach's pedantry and pressing need to supply new works to several churches sometimes led him to write mediocre work. I think particularly of the numerous cantata and mass solo or duet arias which in my opinion are often uninspired and formulaic, and bring to mind one of his sons' description of him as "the old wig." However, his music was just as likely to be richly inspired. Offhand and with pretty wide experience, I cannot think of one chorus from his religious works that is not inspired, and many of them are among the supreme works of Western music. Examples from among many, many could include The Magnificat in D (where even the arias are all first rate), Cantata No. 50, a one-movement masterpiece of a chorus that literally knocks one's socks off, or just about any chorus from the B Minor Mass. Cum Sancto Spiritu from the Mass I would place up against just about any single movement in Western music for sheer shivering greatness. The combination of Gloria In Excelsis immediately followed by Et In Terra Pax is enough to being one to one's knees. The series of choruses Et incarnatus Est, Crucifixus, Et Resurrexit and Et In Spiritum Sanctum has to be one of the most profound and moving meditations in all of music. Then of course there are the great Passions, with the St.Matthew probably foremost among them, all full of marvelous music.

Likewise the orchestral works, such as the early ones from Cothen or the later Zimmerman's Coffeehouse concertos, are very richly inspired almost without exception. The Orchestral Suites, those paragons of joyousness? Keyboard Concerto No. 1 in D Minor with its thundering first movement? The Violin Concerto in E Major with its classical sweetness that brings to mind the beautiful grace of ancient Greek art? The Double Violin Concerto? Please, sir, you must be joking.

To my mind the keyboard suites tend to be a little formulaic, but the other instrumental works for solo or small group are of very high quality. The Goldberg Variations. The Fifth Brandenburg with its monumental cadenza. Has the sheer cozy woody beauty of stringed instruments playing with and against each other ever been more fully realized than in the Sixth Brandenburg? The Chaconne from the Violin Partita No. 2 all by itself is a high monument of Western culture. Outside of Bach you can find works which equal these (you tend to think of Beethoven) but not really surpass them.

I should mention his supreme craftsmanship, and his perfection of the most complicated counterpoint, for instance in The Musical Offering where the high technical achievement is surpassed by the serene spiritual emotions repeatedly evoked by the music. In hundreds of his works, the bass line alone, which is never routine, is more worth listening to than most other composers' main melodic lines.

All this is to not even speak of his influence on Western music as one of the prime explorers of the furthest reaches of harmony, whose pioneering experiments in this dimension were hardly even appreciated until the Romantic era. And the influence of only the Well-Tempered Clavier on possibly every important successive composer is incalculable. But I did not even mention these pedagogical factors before, because I was speaking of Bach purely as a creator."


----------



## Ukko

Bach and Mozart were tradesmen. I wonder why there is any shred of down-putting in that designation.


----------



## jani

starthrower said:


> I don't know about kv numbers, but I do like piano concerto no. 21. As far as sitting down to listen to all of Mozart's works, I don't have the time. I'm not one of these life of leisure folks who buy 100 CD sets of their favorite composers.
> 
> *But the main issue I have with the classical world is that there is too much focus on the past. Almost all new or relatively new music (the past 100 years) is given short shrift.*


*
*
It tells that the majority of the audience likes more about the older styles of classical music.
What's the solution for the composer? Compose in older styles, attach some mythology to your music and you.
Use tricks to get some attention. Like Beethovens music was partly introduced to the Viennese trough the improvisation duels etc... Even on his own time he was also known as a persona etc...


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Well the simple fact of the matter is that so much of classical music (don't know the exact figures, but willing to hazard a guess that it is more than 95%) is more than 100 years old.
> I think the other problem is that much of that "older" classical music appeals more to traditional notions of harmony that most people find appealing in music. Let's face it - more people are going to find a Beethoven symphony enjoyable than are going to enjoy most of the output of Schoenberg or Messiaen. And the 20th century had a lot of those kinds of composers, so the music of the past 100 years is not going to be received as well by as many people. We can haggle over why that is, and whether or not it should be, but it simply is.
> 
> As to the original question - is Mozart over-rated? The fact that we are even discussing the music of a man who died over 200 years ago suggests not. Clearly there is something to his music that has caused it to endure so well. History has a tendency to dispose of the over-rated. And one of the biggest appeals of a Mozart, or a Beethoven, is that the music they wrote has not only remained popular with people who avidly enjoy classical music, but is also even more widely recognized among those who don't typically listen to classical music. Hum a few bars of Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and see who doesn't recognize it, or some of his other more famous works. Can you do that with Schoenberg or Messiaen? Or Berg? That doesn't mean they are bad, but it is hard to claim the man is over-rated when his music, to this day, has such universal appeal.


Yes, more people are going to find a Mozart or Beethoven symphony appealing because they haven't been exposed to anything else. And as far as universal appeal goes, I bet most folks have no interest beyond those famous few bars of music that everybody knows.

And there are many other modern composers to listen to besides Schoenberg or Messiaen. Plenty of stuff to enjoy easily enough if given a few listens. It's interesting to note that with a composer like Stravinsky, only his early innovative ballet scores have universal appeal, while his neo-classical works are only appreciated by avid classical listeners. This may haven proven true for several other modern composers if they had only been given the exposure.


----------



## oogabooha

DrMike said:


> Well the simple fact of the matter is that so much of classical music (don't know the exact figures, but willing to hazard a guess that it is more than 95%) is more than 100 years old.
> I think the other problem is that much of that "older" classical music appeals more to traditional notions of harmony that most people find appealing in music. Let's face it - more people are going to find a Beethoven symphony enjoyable than are going to enjoy most of the output of Schoenberg or Messiaen. And the 20th century had a lot of those kinds of composers, so the music of the past 100 years is not going to be received as well by as many people. We can haggle over why that is, and whether or not it should be, but it simply is.
> 
> As to the original question - is Mozart over-rated? The fact that we are even discussing the music of a man who died over 200 years ago suggests not. Clearly there is something to his music that has caused it to endure so well. History has a tendency to dispose of the over-rated. And one of the biggest appeals of a Mozart, or a Beethoven, is that the music they wrote has not only remained popular with people who avidly enjoy classical music, but is also even more widely recognized among those who don't typically listen to classical music. Hum a few bars of Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and see who doesn't recognize it, or some of his other more famous works. Can you do that with Schoenberg or Messiaen? Or Berg? That doesn't mean they are bad, but it is hard to claim the man is over-rated when his music, to this day, has such universal appeal.


I doubt that your guess about the density of classical music is remotely correct. Just like there were many artists back then, there are certainly many artists now. You're talking about a society that now has an oversaturation of music to the point where it's very difficult to not be assaulted by textbooks. Even then, _overrated isn't an objective statement_. There are plenty of people and artists in history who I don't like (and I'm sure you don't like) and we're still talking about them. Also, people in Mozart and Beethoven's time weren't just APPRECIATED. Like there is today, you had to have patrons and some form of career to actually show the world your music. What if there was a composer more in touch with humanity (although I doubt it) than Beethoven, but s/he was never discovered and died out?

Even then, you mention that age is necessary, and then you go back to talk about Schoenberg and completely ignore how old his music is. You're contradicting yourself. If Schoenberg wasn't relevant, why would we be talking about him right now? Wait 200 years after his death and then tell me that he doesn't compare to Mozart.



jani said:


> [/B]
> It tells that the majority of the audience likes more about the older styles of classical music.
> What's the solution for the composer? Compose in older styles, attach some mythology to your music and you.
> Use tricks to get some attention. Like Beethovens music was partly introduced to the Viennese trough the improvisation duels etc... Even on his own time he was also known as a persona etc...


oh dear. that is where music goes to die! harkening back to older techniques to impress the current audience? If Beethoven had done that, we wouldn't even have his music! Unfortunately a lot of classical music has become a museum (but those works have stood the test of time for a reason), but to tell composers to model themselves after history is so trite...it's just lame.

the majority of the public only enjoys mozart and beethoven because that's all they've been exposed to. just like in museums, there _can_ be modern art amongst the classical sculptures. It's about expressing yourself through music, but just being in different periods. Certain styles are characteristic of certain periods, but you can't just recreate that. There are many great tonal composers today (just like there are any other type of music).


----------



## Vaneyes

Hilltroll72 said:


> Yikes! No wonder the blog. that link to the 'rate your professor' page reveals a lot about the raters. I like:
> 
> "Easiness2
> 
> Helpfulness1
> 
> Clarity2
> 
> Rater Interest2
> 
> He grades the exams harsh.I got A on all my classes except for music."
> 
> Achieved an A in English too, on doubt.


When I attended university (eons ago, before internet), each prof was required to hand out a rating card one time during the course. I expect not much has changed with that system.

Online rating is widespread now, and as you've seen in some instances, can be nonsensical. I would think as tenured prof/member of a teachers union, Rosner doesn't have to give a first thought about those. Too, as a composer I expect he's developed thick rhino skin.

Unfortunately, that's not always the case with other professions. Online ratings can be threatening and injurious to a person's livelihood. I know of two such unwarranted issues re health professionals. They and their associations are contemplating legal action toward the accusors and the websites.


----------



## jani

> *oh dear. that is where music goes to die! harkening back to older techniques to impress the current audience? If Beethoven had done that, we wouldn't even have his music! *Unfortunately a lot of classical music has become a museum (but those works have stood the test of time for a reason), but to tell composers to model themselves after history is so trite...it's just lame.
> 
> the majority of the public only enjoys mozart and beethoven because that's all they've been exposed to. just like in museums, there _can_ be modern art amongst the classical sculptures. It's about expressing yourself through music, but just being in different periods. Certain styles are characteristic of certain periods, but you can't just recreate that. There are many great tonal composers today (just like there are any other type of music).


I know that but it was my suggestion for the composers of today, he was able to do it because his music was liked by powerful men/women of his time.
Maybe composers of today should try to impress some key figures of our times to get some publicity.


----------



## Vaneyes

kv466 said:


> I find it both amusing and confusing that so many don't like Mozart around here yet they haven't even bothered to sit down and listen to all of his works! Unless you can sit there and listen to snippets and say, "that's kv608" or "that's kv174", then keep loving your Ligeti or Cage or whoever _you_ feel is _not_ overrated and leave the Master to those who truly believe.


But you're somewhat biased, Kv466.


----------



## Vaneyes

jani said:


> I know that but it was my suggestion for the composers of today, he was able to do it because his music was liked by powerful men/women of his time.
> Maybe composers of today should try to impress some key figures of our times to get some publicity.


It was very difficult in those days. Today, I'm fairly certain he would have no problem. Asskissing/Networking, celeb brotherhood/sisterhood, are substantially more powerful.


----------



## Guest

oogabooha said:


> I doubt that your guess about the density of classical music is remotely correct. Just like there were many artists back then, there are certainly many artists now. You're talking about a society that now has an oversaturation of music to the point where it's very difficult to not be assaulted by textbooks. Even then, _overrated isn't an objective statement_. There are plenty of people and artists in history who I don't like (and I'm sure you don't like) and we're still talking about them. Also, people in Mozart and Beethoven's time weren't just APPRECIATED. Like there is today, you had to have patrons and some form of career to actually show the world your music. What if there was a composer more in touch with humanity (although I doubt it) than Beethoven, but s/he was never discovered and died out?
> 
> Even then, you mention that age is necessary, and then you go back to talk about Schoenberg and completely ignore how old his music is. You're contradicting yourself. If Schoenberg wasn't relevant, why would we be talking about him right now? Wait 200 years after his death and then tell me that he doesn't compare to Mozart.
> 
> oh dear. that is where music goes to die! harkening back to older techniques to impress the current audience? If Beethoven had done that, we wouldn't even have his music! Unfortunately a lot of classical music has become a museum (but those works have stood the test of time for a reason), but to tell composers to model themselves after history is so trite...it's just lame.
> 
> the majority of the public only enjoys mozart and beethoven because that's all they've been exposed to. just like in museums, there _can_ be modern art amongst the classical sculptures. It's about expressing yourself through music, but just being in different periods. Certain styles are characteristic of certain periods, but you can't just recreate that. There are many great tonal composers today (just like there are any other type of music).


I am not passing judgment on other composers, and I wasn't bringing up Messiaen and Schoenberg (I actually greatly enjoy Messiaen) to discredit them. My point is that, for whatever reasons (and I think a lot has to do with how much more accessible his music is to the average listener, but you may also have a very valid point, in that his greater exposure is the key, but then that begs the question as to WHY he has the greater exposure), Mozart has a more universal recognition and appeal than most composers.

In many areas, I think you will always have individuals who will try to make their mark by becoming an iconoclast - essentially to draw attention to themselves by purposely tearing down something in their field that is very popular.

Mozart is enjoyed today not only by people who have minimal exposure to classical music (and this may very much be due to the fact that they have simply been exposed to Mozart more often than others), but also by those who are deeply involved with classical music. How is it that he has spilled over into mainstream audiences? Because his appeal among classical music fans has reached such a critical level that they have managed to elevate him to the attention of others. That doesn't mean that others are in some way less deserving of our admiration as composers. It isn't a pie, where more admiration for one means less for another.

I don't know how things worked in the past - I don't know how popular Mozart was, in general, in his time. Was his popularity limited to classical music audiences of the time, just as modern composers are in our time? Did he immediately achieve universal popularity? Do the same kind of people who today have little knowledge of contemporary composers, were they to be transported back in time, would they be as ignorant of the works of Mozart? I just don't know. I suspect, though, that with most "classical" composers, their popularity spreads outside of the narrow range of those who attend classical concerts or who (in modern times) purchase classical recordings - only after time has elapsed and their works have received greater exposure. I just don't know, but that is my speculation.


----------



## waldvogel

Arnold Rosner calling Mozart overrated is equivalent to Alexander Samsonov calling Napoleon Bonaparte an uninspired general.

Arnold Rosner calling Mozart overrated is equivalent to George W. Bush saying that John Maynard Keynes knew nothing about economics.

Arnold Rosner calling Mozart overrated is equivalent to Philipp Lenard's opinions of the physics of Albert Einstein.


----------



## kv466

Vaneyes said:


> But you're somewhat biased, Kv466.


Nyahah! No,...I wrote here before that I've been using this screenname since the first days of AOL. If anything, I'm way more hardcore Beethoven than Mozart. And I have to retract a little. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't recognize every Mozart tune shouldn't opine; but they should be a little more open-minded when doing so. I've been known to greatly dislike the works of Wagner here and that is because my old boss lived and died for him (i loved my old boss, btw) and we never saw eye to eye but thanks to him I was exposed to way more than I ever would have listened to on my own and thus I am armed with the listening power. I first came on TC thinking I didn't like Prokofiev or Shostakovich and thanks to my good buddies, Samurai and Oskaar, I realized I actually do.

Dr. Mike, one of the most thoughtful and straight up answers I've ever read from you! 

Starthrower, I totally get you and where you're coming from but I don't think it's just because it's old, it's good. Dr. Mike's response puts it in perfect light and all I can add is that good is good and people will know that from the moment they are born. You know those ugly/pretty picture tests they do with babies? The same goes for music. We are born knowing what is good and not good and Mozart is just plain good; to say the least.


----------



## Ukko

kv466 said:


> [...]
> Starthrower, I totally get you and where you're coming from but I don't think it's just because it's old, it's good. Dr. Mike's response puts it in perfect light and all I can add is that good is good and people will know that from the moment they are born. You know those ugly/pretty picture tests they do with babies? The same goes for music. We are born knowing what is good and not good and Mozart is just plain good; to say the least.


I'd say that from shortly after birth we recognize some music instinctively as not-good. Eventually we will come to appreciate aspects of some of that music - even to the degree that it comes over to the good side. That is, unless we remain 'babies-at-heart'. _Rite of Spring_ is just too damn scary for a baby to think it's good.


----------



## Guest

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'd say that from shortly after birth we recognize some music instinctively as not-good. Eventually we will come to appreciate aspects of some of that music - even to the degree that it comes over to the good side. That is, unless we remain 'babies-at-heart'. *Rite of Spring is just too damn scary for a baby to think it's good.*


Unless you play it as the soundtrack to a movie with dinosaurs! ;D


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> Bach and Mozart were tradesmen. I wonder why there is any shred of down-putting in that designation.


In the same way as Shakespeare was a tradesman.


----------



## DavidA

Why not let Wolfir speak for himself. To me one of the sublimest pieces of music ever written.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wi7UsXW1As


----------



## poconoron

Over-rated? Absolutely not. For his melodic genius alone, he is among the Greats.
See article below for "What pop music owes to the classical masters"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/24/what-pop-music-owes-classical-masters


----------



## Kieran

DavidA said:


> Why not let Wolfir speak for himself. To me one of the sublimest pieces of music ever written.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Wi7UsXW1As


That's beautiful, David, music nobody else could compose, and not in that way, either. Wolfie's over-rated the way food is over-rated, breathing is over-rated and water is over-rated...


----------



## DavidA

I'm just watching a DVD of Cosi fan Tutte. Cannot imagine better music.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I'm just watching a DVD of Cosi fan Tutte. Cannot imagine better music.


I can - his Magic Flute! Or his Divertimento in E flat major. Or his Sinfonia Concertante! (sorry, Cosi is a fine opera, but not my favorite of his works).

I will say this, though - Mozart is the only composer that has been able to make me like opera.


----------



## DavidA

DrMike said:


> I can - his Magic Flute! Or his Divertimento in E flat major. Or his Sinfonia Concertante! (sorry, Cosi is a fine opera, but not my favorite of his works).
> 
> I will say this, though - Mozart is the only composer that has been able to make me like opera.


When ever I listen to Mozarts operas I always think that the one I'm listening to is the greatest ever written. Then I think of the rest! Perhaps the best thing is just to enjoy them all


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> When ever I listen to Mozarts operas I always think that the one I'm listening to is the greatest ever written. Then I think of the rest! Perhaps the best thing is just to enjoy them all


IMO, Mozart's operas stand alongside Monteverdi's 'Coronation of Poppea' and 'Return of Ulysses from Patria' as glories of the art form.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I have been away from this board a while. But here we go again.

As the years pass I feel more and more that Mozart is in fact under rated. If you consider the facts - the achievments - the sheer breadth of his output - the fact he is played today with as much enthusiasm as ever - that among other notable composers I can only find Delius who did not think him special. 

Beethoven is a noteworthy judge - he paid homage to Mozart in many of his earlier works - the piano quintet for example - and the c minor piano concerto - he played Mozart's minor key concertos. R Strauss and Mahler both championed Mozart's operas and conducted them. Schubert was influenced deeply by his music and idolised him. Tchaikovsky considered him in divine terms - so why should we pay attention when an unknown figure in modern times pours scorn on him? 

I have said it before and I will say it again - is Shakespeare over rated? Is Davinci over rated?

The people who have an axe to grind against Mozart would have the world believe he is not in the company of Michelangelo, Raphael, Tolstoy, Dickens etc etc - but if anything - he is more alive today than any of those - and the equal of any great artist who has walked this planet.


----------



## Guest

Well, this thread certainly did engender some emotion and excellent responses, despite it's unpromising start!!!


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> I have been away from this board a while. But here we go again.
> 
> As the years pass I feel more and more that Mozart is in fact under rated. If you consider the facts - the achievments - the sheer breadth of his output - the fact he is played today with as much enthusiasm as ever - that among other notable composers I can only find Delius who did not think him special.
> 
> Beethoven is a noteworthy judge - he paid homage to Mozart in many of his earlier works - the piano quintet for example - and the c minor piano concerto - he played Mozart's minor key concertos. R Strauss and Mahler both championed Mozart's operas and conducted them. Schubert was influenced deeply by his music and idolised him. Tchaikovsky considered him in divine terms - so why should we pay attention when an unknown figure in modern times pours scorn on him?
> 
> I have said it before and I will say it again - is Shakespeare over rated? Is Davinci over rated?
> 
> The people who have an axe to grind against Mozart would have the world believe he is not in the company of Michelangelo, Raphael, Tolstoy, Dickens etc etc - but if anything - he is more alive today than any of those - and the equal of any great artist who has walked this planet.


I wouldn't say Delius was a composer of note, actually. Now he is of less note IMO.

After Mozart's death a benefit concert was held for his widow. The concerto played was K466 with one L van Beethoven as soloist. I wouldn't have minded a ticket for THAT concert!


----------



## Mahlerian

stomanek said:


> As the years pass I feel more and more that Mozart is in fact under rated. If you consider the facts - the achievments - the sheer breadth of his output - the fact he is played today with as much enthusiasm as ever - that among other notable composers I can only find Delius who did not think him special.


Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Messiaen, and Stockhausen all recognized Mozart's place in musical history as well. I think classical music listeners who pride themselves on listening to "serious" music and can't find much "serious" in Mozart are misguided, and have difficulty hearing all of the aspects of Mozart's art. Note the article's emphasis on expression of the human condition. Mozart was not out to write expressive music in the Romantic sense, although his music is certainly expressive and communicative on its own terms.


----------



## Ramako

stomanek said:


> The people who have an axe to grind against Mozart would have the world believe he is not in the company of Michelangelo, Raphael, Tolstoy, *Dickens* etc etc - but if anything - he is more alive today than any of those - and the equal of any great artist who has walked this planet.


Mozart and Dickens are certainly not on the same level.

Just to clarify in case of misinterpretation - this is not a comparison in Dickens' favour.


----------



## peeyaj

This is gold..

Excerpts:

*



It is not true that he is the worst of all composers; his prodigious technical skills developed by age six. Sometimes it is not so great to be a prodigy,- I often feel his emotional and dramatic palette is set at the same age. Rather he is the most overrated composer of them all. The difference between the (mediocre) quality of his music and the (celestial) reverance he is accorded is a gulf simply beyond belief.
But the worst is the Requiem. Commanding opening - one of the better neo-Bach fugues, ending powerfully with a surprising open fifth, and a stormy Dies Irae (which I rather find a tempest in a teapot, but that's not the point). Now comes perhaps the worst few minutes of music ever written. The aria "Tuba Mirum" presents (loudly, but that doesn't help) the solo voice in a melody that would be better a lullaby. The obbligato part is a solo trombone; surely Mozart did not think that just the choice of instrument was enough for the fearful, day-of-judgment words.

Click to expand...

*This man is a psycho.


----------



## KenOC

Mr. Rosner is entitled to his opinion, to be taken (as are ours) for what it's worth. I suspect that on this one he and Glenn Gould would have gotten along just fine!


----------



## Novelette

KenOC said:


> Mr. Rosner is entitled to his opinion, to be taken (as are ours) for what it's worth. I suspect that on this one he and Glenn Gould would have gotten along just fine!


Hahaha! I suspect you're right about that!


----------



## Crudblud

peeyaj said:


> This man is a psycho.


Yes, and calling someone you disagree with a psycho makes you seem highly rational.


----------



## vertigo

Crudblud said:


> Yes, and calling someone you disagree with a psycho makes you seem highly rational.


When someone declares that the worst music ever written is contained within Mozart's requiem, I feel the word "psycho" is a perfect value judgment.


----------



## DavidA

peeyaj said:


> This is gold..
> 
> Excerpts:
> 
> 
> 
> This man is a psycho.


Not a psychopath. Just a man who is in the habit of saying stupid things to get himself noticed.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Mr. Rosner is entitled to his opinion, to be taken (as are ours) for what it's worth. I suspect that on this one he and Glenn Gould would have gotten along just fine!


Until Rosner disagreed with Gould.


----------



## bigshot

The difference is that Gould could play the piano well.


----------



## DavidA

bigshot said:


> The difference is that Gould could play the piano well.


Yes. Gould actually had talent even if he was barking in other ways.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

yes (that makes 10 characters now)


----------



## clavichorder

Is he entirely serious?

Who the FFFF is this JERK to say what any have felt when listening to Mozart? That is superbly unjust and self centered. With that steam blown, I do feel that his uncloaked extremity of opinion is far easier to discredit than some subtler but still ridiculous proclamations about Mozart or other classical era music, and makes the subtler things easier to ignore as well because, like KV466 said, you realize how its best just to go with your own opinion. I do however believe in the common courtesy of trying not to slander other people's viewpoints, and try to adhere to it(this is a lapse clearly, as this dude went wayyyyy too far), but this man clearly has no sense of that kind of ethical conduct.


----------



## Ukko

^^ I _like_ his proposition regarding the stunted growth of the... lets call it 'soul'... of the class known as 'child prodigies'. Whether or not there is any truth to it, there exists enough rumor and folklore to give it cachet.

For a low blow to be effective, there must be _something_ to receive the blow.


----------



## Crudblud

vertigo said:


> When someone declares that the worst music ever written is contained within Mozart's requiem, I feel the word "psycho" is a perfect value judgment.


Then I would suggest that neither you nor peeyaj (and neoshredder too, it seems) has any clue what a psychopath is, and also views argumentum ad populum as a valid means of refuting an argument.


----------



## Kieran

Hilltroll72 said:


> ^^ I _like_ his proposition regarding the stunted growth of the... lets call it 'soul'... of the class known as 'child prodigies'. Whether or not there is any truth to it, there exists enough rumor and folklore to give it cachet.
> 
> For a low blow to be effective, there must be _something_ to receive the blow.


There are many romantic period myths which still cling to Mozart, and they exploded into the modern public via the great movie, Amadeus. One being that he never grew up, he was a child-hooligan with a hotline to angels, he was an immature brat-hooligan who somehow composed the most divine music.

He was actually a mature and pragmatic man. When he was a child, he was a child, but he developed emotionally and mentally as naturally as anyone would. Sure, he had a scatological humour, but this was common back then. He was high minded, as authoritative in drama as Shakespeare and as deep into musical theory as Bach.

But it's true what you're saying, Hilltroll. The fact that some child prodigies end up in mental clinics makes his gossip seem slightly plausible...


----------



## DavidA

Kieran said:


> There are many romantic period myths which still cling to Mozart, and they exploded into the modern public via the great movie, Amadeus. One being that he never grew up, he was a child-hooligan with a hotline to angels, he was an immature brat-hooligan who somehow composed the most divine music.
> 
> He was actually a mature and pragmatic man. When he was a child, he was a child, but he developed emotionally and mentally as naturally as anyone would. Sure, he had a scatological humour, but this was common back then. He was high minded, as authoritative in drama as Shakespeare and as deep into musical theory as Bach.
> 
> But it's true what you're saying, Hilltroll. The fact that some child prodigies end up in mental clinics makes his gossip seem slightly plausible...


Amadeus is full of untruths. But then I don't think Schaeffer ever meant us to think of it as factual. The two points in it which were true were Mozart's astonishing ability to write music. The other was that he was a poor manager of money. Apart from that he wasn't anything like the portrayal in Amadeus.


----------



## neoshredder

Crudblud said:


> Then I would suggest that neither you nor peeyaj (and neoshredder too, it seems) has any clue what a psychopath is, and also views argumentum ad populum as a valid means of refuting an argument.


Lighten up would you.


----------



## DavidA

Crudblud said:


> Then I would suggest that neither you nor peeyaj (and neoshredder too, it seems) has any clue what a psychopath is, and also views argumentum ad populum as a valid means of refuting an argument.


Yes, use the right word. A psychopath is someone with a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle. 
Saying Mozart was a bad composer is not psychopathic behaviour. Just stupid and unmusical reasoning.


----------



## neoshredder

Or maybe just poor musical taste. And unfortunately, feels the need to express it. Plenty of those out there.


----------



## vertigo

DavidA said:


> Yes, use the right word. A psychopath is someone with a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle.
> Saying Mozart was a bad composer is not psychopathic behaviour. Just stupid and unmusical reasoning.


I can detect about 9 of these traits in Mr. Rosner :lol:


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> There are many romantic period myths which still cling to Mozart, and they exploded into the modern public via the great movie, Amadeus. One being that he never grew up, he was a child-hooligan with a hotline to angels, he was an immature brat-hooligan who somehow composed the most divine music.
> 
> He was actually a mature and pragmatic man. When he was a child, he was a child, but he developed emotionally and mentally as naturally as anyone would. Sure, he had a scatological humour, but this was common back then. He was high minded, as authoritative in drama as Shakespeare and as deep into musical theory as Bach.
> 
> But it's true what you're saying, Hilltroll. The fact that some child prodigies end up in mental clinics makes his gossip seem slightly plausible...


There is also _unburied_ in the mass of 'folk wisdom' a parallel connection made among the terms 'child prodigy', 'idiot savant', and through some resistance 'absent minded genius'. Folk wisdom recognizes differences, but also sees connections. Hence Albert Einstein and 'idiot savant' are related, as are Mozart and idiot savant. He wasn't an idiot, but... .


----------



## Kieran

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is also _unburied_ in the mass of 'folk wisdom' a parallel connection made among the terms 'child prodigy', 'idiot savant', and through some resistance 'absent minded genius'. Folk wisdom recognizes differences, but also sees connections. Hence Albert Einstein and 'idiot savant' are related, as are Mozart and idiot savant. He wasn't an idiot, but... .


I don't know if Mozart was an idiot-savant sort of genius. He seems to have been incredibly well educated, as well as a very hard-working composer. He was naturally gifted, for sure, but he worked hard too. Plus, I think he had an innate sense of what was apt in every circumstance, be it full-blown opera or a piano sonata he composed for a less than gifted pupil. He had taste. But the idea that he was out of his skull on inspiration and music floated _through_ him, rather than coming _from_ him, was most likely another Romantic fabrication. The evidence suggests that he was utterly cognizant and pragmatic, as opposed to being dreamy and helpless in the face of his own gifts.

I'm not contradicting you, by the way, since the very realm of genius must by necessity be a mystery, and terms like idiot-savant are a compliment, rather than a slur, but this could also be seen as a way of removing the man from his own achievements and making his work instead seem like a celestial interjection...


----------



## Alydon

I've been listening to some work by Arnold Rosner and to my amazement actually enjoyed it, but I still prefer Mozart.


----------



## Kieran

Alydon said:


> I've been listening to some work by Arnold Rosner and to my amazement actually enjoyed it, but I still prefer Mozart.


So, is Rosner under-rated?


----------



## KRoad

Kieran said:


> He was high minded, as authoritative in drama as Shakespeare...


Sorry Dude, I simply cannot agree with you there... not for the life of me. Hyperbole indeed!


----------



## Kieran

KRoad said:


> Sorry Dude, I simply cannot agree with you there... not for the life of me. Hyperbole indeed!


I thought I was actually being kind to ol' Bill!


----------



## Alydon

I think we'll have to wait 200 years to find out.


----------



## millionrainbows

clavichorder said:


> Is he entirely serious?
> 
> Who the FFFF is this JERK to say what any have felt when listening to Mozart? That is superbly unjust and self centered. With that steam blown, I do feel that his uncloaked extremity of opinion is far easier to discredit than some subtler but still ridiculous proclamations about Mozart or other classical era music, and makes the subtler things easier to ignore as well because, like KV466 said, you realize how its best just to go with your own opinion. I do however believe in the common courtesy of trying not to slander other people's viewpoints, and try to adhere to it(this is a lapse clearly, as this dude went wayyyyy too far), but this man clearly has no sense of that kind of ethical conduct.


I'll bet he didn't get along with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, either.


----------



## trazom

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is also _unburied_ in the mass of 'folk wisdom' a parallel connection made among the terms 'child prodigy', 'idiot savant', and through some resistance 'absent minded genius'. Folk wisdom recognizes differences, but also sees connections. Hence Albert Einstein and 'idiot savant' are related, as are Mozart and idiot savant. He wasn't an idiot, but... .


Child prodigy and idiot savants are not related. An 'idiot savant' is someone afflicted with autism, has an IQ low enough to be considered mentally retarded, but has developed one or two skills to unusual levels to compensate for lack of connections in other areas of the brain. This doesn't describe Albert Einstein, whose IQ was abnormally high, and Mozart, who had none of the intellectual or social deficiencies associated with savants.


----------



## DavidA

Hilltroll72 said:


> There is also _unburied_ in the mass of 'folk wisdom' a parallel connection made among the terms 'child prodigy', 'idiot savant', and through some resistance 'absent minded genius'. Folk wisdom recognizes differences, but also sees connections. Hence Albert Einstein and 'idiot savant' are related, as are Mozart and idiot savant. He wasn't an idiot, but... .


A savant cannot relate to people or to real life in the way Einstein or Mozart did. Apart from his management of money Mozart appears to have been quite adequate in other ways, socially, etc.. I think we still have this erroneous Amadeus of Mozart image with us, rather like we have the image of Richard III as the villainous hunchback. Actually, Mozart was a highly sophisticated man of the Enlightenment.


----------



## poconoron

DrMike said:


> I will say this, though - Mozart is the only composer that has been able to make me like opera.


Ditto for me as well!


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> as deep into musical theory as Bach.


I don't agree with that Kieran. He explored the music and theory of Bach but contributed nothing like the great baroque composer to the body of theoretical understanding of music which passed down to modern times. Mozart was not an innovator either. Everything else was OK though!!


----------



## Kieran

I'm glad that everything else was ok! :lol:

For looking at Mozart beyond the 'fluffy' Romantic view of him, and to see him as he was, a true innovator, I recommend David Cairns indispensable book, 'Mozart and his Operas,' and in particular the prologue, where he addresses the misconception of Mozart, that he wasn't an innovator:

"In the light of Mozart's achievement and it's Protean variety, ancient preconceptions and received ideas fall away. How, one wonders, could he have been thought of as pre-eminently a synthesiser, a culmination of other people's work, and not as an innovator? ...He is simultaneously both kinds of artist, the as simulator and perfecter, and the innovator."

It would take too long to type out the whole prologue, but Cairns is a persuasive and insightful writer. The scales of Romantic music myths fell from his eyes when he subjected himself to rigorously examining these things. I recommend this book for insights into Mozarts innovation, and examples of just how foresighted and adventurous he was. Cairns is quite incisive in pointing out just how music moved forward through Mozarts innovative writing.

HC Robbins Landon spends some time in his book, Mozart The Golden Years, outlining how original and innovative Mozarts operas were at the time, especially Idomeneo. I recommend him also.

Mozart may have made his leaps seem easy, but it doesn't mean they weren't there...


----------



## Ukko

Kieran said:


> [...]
> "In the light of Mozart's achievement and it's Protean variety, ancient preconceptions and received ideas fall away. How, one wonders, could he have been thought of as pre-eminently a synthesiser, a culmination of other people's work, and not as an innovator? ...He is simultaneously both kinds of artist, the as simulator and perfecter, and the innovator."
> [...]


Had to quote your quote. It could be taken bodily into a bio of Haydn, with a simple name substitution.


----------



## Kieran

Hilltroll72 said:


> Had to quote your quote. It could be taken bodily into a bio of Haydn, with a simple name substitution.


Exactly! But it isn't mine, it's David Cairns. But it's true of Haydn too...


----------



## Ramako

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I don't agree with that Kieran. He explored the music and theory of Bach but contributed nothing like the great baroque composer to the body of theoretical understanding of music which passed down to modern times. Mozart was not an innovator either. Everything else was OK though!!


Could you please explain this?


----------



## DavidA

Mozart was a huge innovator. Just look at how opera developed under him. I think people who say that he wasn't an innovator have a very narrow definition of innovation.


----------



## moody

vertigo said:


> When someone declares that the worst music ever written is contained within Mozart's requiem, I feel the word "psycho" is a perfect value judgment.


No ,not really --moron would be a better choice.


----------



## PetrB

Wow. Just Wow.

_*Sour Grapes, anyone?*_

If we partake of the same sick, 'bitter fruit,' we could then all sit around with the same moue cast of face -- and outlook -- this poor bitterly frustrated soul must wake up to every morning when he sees himself in the bathroom mirror.

Are Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. 'over-rated?' Not at all.

Do they have too much general fame, i.e. 'press' because of hopelessly simple music education, and are they far over-revered? Yes.

Next.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> Wow. Just Wow.
> 
> _*Sour Grapes, anyone?*_
> 
> If we partake of the same sick, 'bitter fruit,' we could then all sit around with the same moue cast of face -- and outlook -- this poor bitterly frustrated soul must wake up to every morning when he sees himself in the bathroom mirror.
> 
> Are Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. 'over-rated?' Not at all.
> 
> Do they have too much general fame, i.e. 'press' because of hopelessly simple music education, and are they far over-revered? Yes.
> 
> Next.


I think there is a certain 'reverence' for genius that is not out of place when listening to (eg) one of Mozart's great operas, that such inspiration could come from a man. I would say that proper musical education should increase our regard for their genius. However, it should also show us that these compositions did not just happen - they were the result of many year's hard work. I think this is what you might be getting at - the fact that people have got the idea it just 'happened'?


----------



## neoshredder

PetrB said:


> Do they have too much general fame, i.e. 'press' because of hopelessly simple music education, and are they far over-revered? Yes.
> 
> Next.


Speak for yourself.


----------



## SottoVoce

This guy is basically just scrutinizing Mozart because he used major keys instead of the "more serious" minor key. One forgets that Mozart, especially at the end of his life, was one of the most "serious" composers in intent - the Prague Symphony is an apex of this. You know an opinion is bogus when they have to resort to "the human condition" as if they know what the human condition really is. In either way, I'm absolutely sure that Mozart is much closer to understanding the human condition than Rosner is. Rosner is making a judgment based on his own personal bias on style, notably the Classical Style - anyone who hates a whole period just because of a style they picked is not to be taken seriously.

Oh, and I did listen to the Tuba Mirum again. I didn't laugh out loud; it was wonderful, as always.


----------



## Mahlerian

SottoVoce said:


> In either way, I'm absolutely sure that Mozart is much closer to understanding the human condition than Rosner is. Rosner is making a judgment based on his own personal bias on style, notably the Classical Style - anyone who hates a whole period just because of a style they picked is not to be taken seriously.


Agreed. Either way, it's even worse than that. One can't choose the style of one's era. He's criticizing Mozart (or, to be more charitable, Mozart's position in the canon) on the basis of something Mozart had no choice in.

It's an absurd criticism, to say the least.


----------



## obwan

I read the entire article and while I don't agree with him i must admit he makes some very valid observations. I would certainly never call it 'kid stuff', but Mozart does have a natural flow to his music, that takes us quickly past many of the most emotional passages (and proceeds to run the gamut of the human emotional spectrum.) Other romantic composers often seem to lack a 'point' and aimlessly linger around an endless series of long notes until they've exhausted all possible chord progressions on a single phrase. Mozart didn't. Which is one reason why I admire him so much. 

Wait never mind, I take back what i just said. The man is a complete imbecile. i just found out what quartet he was referring to in d minor. If he had bothered to mention it was one of the 'Haydn quartets' dedicated to 'Papa' Haydn I wouldn't have even bothered to come to his defense, but it just so happens he choose the best of the 6.... The man has no taste at all. 

Or is he referring to K. 173?


----------



## Mahlerian

obwan said:


> I read the entire article and while I don't agree with him i must admit he makes some very valid observations. I would certainly never call it 'kid stuff', but Mozart does have a natural flow to his music, that takes us quickly past many of the most emotional passages (and proceeds to run the gamut of the human emotional spectrum.) Other romantic composers often seem to lack a 'point' and aimlessly linger around an endless series of long notes until they've exhausted all possible chord progressions on a single phrase. Mozart didn't. Which is one reason why I admire him so much.


Which ones? Are you talking about mediocrities like Ernst Boehe, or are you needlessly criticizing a style of music which you don't enjoy, not unlike the person you're commenting on?


----------



## Guest

You cannot over-rate perfection.


----------



## quack

Stats check:

Mozart thread: 139 posts in 6 days
Cage thread: 176 posts in 5 days

Possible conclusion: Cage is more underrated than Mozart is overrated?


----------



## obwan

Mahlerian said:


> Which ones? Are you talking about mediocrities like Ernst Boehe, or are you needlessly criticizing a style of music which you don't enjoy, not unlike the person you're commenting on?


Well I was reffering to many contemporary composers as well, actually probably more so contemporary than romantic. No composers in particular. All i was saying was his criticizms albeit valid, are exactly the reason why I adore mozart, and intentionally avoiding a 'sweet' melody for fear of being compared to mozart, (something I surmise many composers have done) is something I loath. Not even naming names here, must you compare me to _that_ music critic?


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> I'm glad that everything else was ok! :lol:
> 
> For looking at Mozart beyond the 'fluffy' Romantic view of him, and to see him as he was, a true innovator, I recommend David Cairns indispensable book, 'Mozart and his Operas,' and in particular the prologue, where he addresses the misconception of Mozart, that he wasn't an innovator:
> 
> "In the light of Mozart's achievement and it's Protean variety, ancient preconceptions and received ideas fall away. How, one wonders, could he have been thought of as pre-eminently a synthesiser, a culmination of other people's work, and not as an innovator? ...He is simultaneously both kinds of artist, the as simulator and perfecter, and the innovator."
> 
> It would take too long to type out the whole prologue, but Cairns is a persuasive and insightful writer. The scales of Romantic music myths fell from his eyes when he subjected himself to rigorously examining these things. I recommend this book for insights into Mozarts innovation, and examples of just how foresighted and adventurous he was. Cairns is quite incisive in pointing out just how music moved forward through Mozarts innovative writing.
> 
> HC Robbins Landon spends some time in his book, Mozart The Golden Years, outlining how original and innovative Mozarts operas were at the time, especially Idomeneo. I recommend him also.
> 
> Mozart may have made his leaps seem easy, but it doesn't mean they weren't there...


I've just found this posting of yours!! On the operas I agree Mozart was an innovator - but it was mainly through his collaboration with good librettists. Mozart, very generally, poured new wine into old bottles (the same as Brahms did) and I disagree with HC Robbie Landon if he claims otherwise. Essentially I see Mozart as a theatrical composer anyway - and I think the human voice is used quite theatrically in all his works for voice. But Mozart did not move music further along the food chain, no matter what Robbie Landon or anybody else argues - and I speak here primarily of idiom, form and structure. I didn't suggest he wasn't 'adventurous' - he was certainly that, at times, harmonically. I've seen it in the piano sonatas, but he was wedded to a classical ideal without breaking really any new ground, IMO.

I don't want to confuse 'innovation' with 'daring' - and Mozart was certainly daring in his theatrical works. In his book, "The Classical Style" Charles Rosen says of Mozart's operatic writing: "In all of Mozart's *supreme expressions of suffering and terror* - the G minor Symphony, "Don Giovanni", the G minor Quintet, Pamina's aria in "The Magic Flute" - there is something shockingly voluptuous.......In his corruption of sentimental values, Mozart is a subversive artist"(p.325).

This should not be confused with musical innovation.

Enlarging the scope of the symphony, i.e. No. 41? Haydn had already done that with his Solomon (London) symphonies. Robbie Landon says of Haydn, "Today...Haydn is almost a connoisseur's composer whose music cannot complete at the box office with that of Mozart or Beethoven".


----------



## Guest

I've just realized I made a mistake in the preceding post!! Haydn's "Salomon" ('a' not 'o') Symphonies were written for London audiences shortly AFTER Mozart died, not before. Spelling mistake, but also a chronological one. Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony expanded the scope of the form, in terms of motivic development and length, and his use of fugue, but it still accorded - to the letter - to the principals of the symphony.


----------



## SamBryant

I don't have time to read all the posts at the moment. I'll come back and do that later. For now let me just throw my thoughts in the ring and say this:

I think when people call Mozart over-rated they are not reacting to his compositional abilities but rather the absence of overt personal expression in a lot of his music. Not to say that Mozart wasn't emotional, it was just more subtle than say, Chopin or Schubert. 

Mozart is certainly a genius. He makes composing massive amounts of complex pretty music seem effortless. But sometimes it feels like his music is more of a craft rather than a form of personal expression. Yes, all of his pieces sound very nice and are technically brilliant, but they frequently seem detached and lighthearted, divorced from personal expression in a way that most later music isn't. Mozart seems to prefer the playful to the profound. There are some exceptions. His Requiem is an obvious one, Symphony 29, Violin sonata K.304, Piano Sonata K.310, etc.


----------



## PlaySalieri

SamBryant said:


> I don't have time to read all the posts at the moment. I'll come back and do that later. For now let me just throw my thoughts in the ring and say this:
> 
> I think when people call Mozart over-rated they are not reacting to his compositional abilities but rather the absence of overt personal expression in a lot of his music. Not to say that Mozart wasn't emotional, it was just more subtle than say, Chopin or Schubert.
> 
> Mozart is certainly a genius. He makes composing massive amounts of complex pretty music seem effortless. But sometimes it feels like his music is more of a craft rather than a form of personal expression. Yes, all of his pieces sound very nice and are technically brilliant, but they frequently seem detached and lighthearted, divorced from personal expression in a way that most later music isn't. Mozart seems to prefer the playful to the profound. There are some exceptions. His Requiem is an obvious one, Symphony 29, Violin sonata K.304, Piano Sonata K.310, etc.


I disagree with all of that except the last sentence.


----------



## Hausmusik

I think those who find Mozart superficial are projecting.


----------



## DavidA

SamBryant said:


> I don't have time to read all the posts at the moment. I'll come back and do that later. For now let me just throw my thoughts in the ring and say this:
> 
> I think when people call Mozart over-rated they are not reacting to his compositional abilities but rather the absence of overt personal expression in a lot of his music. Not to say that Mozart wasn't emotional, it was just more subtle than say, Chopin or Schubert.
> 
> Mozart is certainly a genius. He makes composing massive amounts of complex pretty music seem effortless. But sometimes it feels like his music is more of a craft rather than a form of personal expression. Yes, all of his pieces sound very nice and are technically brilliant, but they frequently seem detached and lighthearted, divorced from personal expression in a way that most later music isn't. Mozart seems to prefer the playful to the profound. There are some exceptions. His Requiem is an obvious one, Symphony 29, Violin sonata K.304, Piano Sonata K.310, etc.


Is this actually the same Mozart (ie Wolfgang Amadeus) that I listen to? If so, I strongly advise you to listen again!


----------



## KenOC

Hausmusik said:


> I think those who find Mozart superficial are projecting.


I think those who find Mozart superficial are superficial.


----------



## Ramako

KenOC said:


> I think those who find Mozart superficial are superficial.


I think those who find those who find Mozart superficial, superficial, should find superficial the ones who superficially find Mozart superficial, that is to say the existential identity that they are superficially posing; and indeed more superficial are the ones who superficially find Mozart superficial, superficial, for the matter itself is superficial, and superficial must be the one who throws out such a heavy accusation of superificality for such a superficial reason, and for such superficial evidence. Particularly when put in such a strident, direct and, indeed one could, and perhaps should, under such circumstances, say, _superficial_ way.


----------



## Guest

Actually, this is turning into a slanging match and this was never my intention. OK to discuss technical and aesthetic aspects, but slinging insults is definitely out of order.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^Post#148: But wouldn't they then (the superficial ones), get along well with Mozart and like his music as superficial. 

Therefore proving that Mozart’s’ music is superficial QED!


----------



## Ramako

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Actually, this is turning into a slanging match and this was never my intention. OK to discuss technical and aesthetic aspects, but slinging insults is definitely out of order.


Ok, just in case it isn't entirely clear, absolutely nothing in my above post is even remotely serious! I'm not entirely sure what possessed me to write it


----------



## KenOC

Ramako said:


> I think those who find those who find Mozart superficial, superficial, should find superficial the ones who superficially find Mozart superficial, that is to say the existential identity that they are superficially posing; and indeed more superficial are the ones who superficially find Mozart superficial, superficial, for the matter itself is superficial, and superficial must be the one who throws out such a heavy accusation of superificality for such a superficial reason, and for such superficial evidence. Particularly when put in such a strident, direct and, indeed one could, and perhaps should, under such circumstances, say, _superficial_ way.


The mind staggers at the superficiality of this remark, or (just as likely) at my superficiality in only superficially understanding its deep superficiality. Time for some Shostakovich.


----------



## Laney

No Mozart is not over rated and was recorded of saying that Beethoven will do something great one day. Beethoven was recorded as saying that Handle was the greatest composer that ever lived, I love lots of music covering early to resent music and really enjoy playing Mozart and Beethoven on the piano but get just as much enjoyment with Muzio Clementi, Robert Schuman, Friedrich Burgmuller,Bach, Haydn and many others but Mozart just has a certain magic about it as a lot of the main composes seem to have and this is why they are held in high esteem.


----------



## Guest

Ramako said:


> Ok, just in case it isn't entirely clear, absolutely nothing in my above post is even remotely serious! I'm not entirely sure what possessed me to write it


Everything else is OK, though?


----------



## Guest

Laney said:


> that *Handle* was the greatest composer that ever lived


....as in door? Got to try and get on grip on that one!


----------



## PlaySalieri

SamBryant said:


> I don't have time to read all the posts at the moment. I'll come back and do that later. For now let me just throw my thoughts in the ring and say this:
> 
> I think when people call Mozart over-rated they are not reacting to his compositional abilities but rather the absence of overt personal expression in a lot of his music. Not to say that Mozart wasn't emotional, it was just more subtle than say, Chopin or Schubert.
> 
> Mozart is certainly a genius. He makes composing massive amounts of complex pretty music seem effortless. But sometimes it feels like his music is more of a craft rather than a form of personal expression. Yes, all of his pieces sound very nice and are technically brilliant, but they frequently seem detached and lighthearted, divorced from personal expression in a way that most later music isn't. Mozart seems to prefer the playful to the profound. There are some exceptions. His Requiem is an obvious one, Symphony 29, Violin sonata K.304, Piano Sonata K.310, etc.


I did not have time to reply to this yesterday. I accept your right to hold the view of Mozart's music having little of personal quality about it - save for a small number of minor key works - that seems to be the view of people who predominantly have a sympathetic ear for romantic music alone. My wife is one such person! Odd how perceptions differ - Alfred Eiinstein I think it was who comparing Mozart with Haydn said something like - Haydn invites the spectator to perceive his music from afar - while Mozart invites you into his most intimate zone. My son's music teacher (a conservatoire professor) told him - Haydn is all intellect - Mozart is all emotion - when my son said "Mozart just writes pretty tunes" (a view passed on by his mother) he made him sit down and listen to the finale of Don Giovanni. For me - the major key works can be as personal and involving as the minor key works - piano concerto no 23 for exampe, 2nd movement is intensely personal - same with the clarinet concerto - many many more. That is not to say that there are not superficial works in Mozart's output - there are - but not among the outstanding works. And those fine works that you might class as superficial (eg serenata notturna to think of one) are no less a delight though for different reasons.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I did not have time to reply to this yesterday. I accept your right to hold the view of Mozart's music having little of personal quality about it - save for a small number of minor key works - that seems to be the view of people who predominantly have a sympathetic ear for romantic music alone. My wife is one such person! Odd how perceptions differ - Alfred Eiinstein I think it was who comparing Mozart with Haydn said something like - Haydn invites the spectator to perceive his music from afar - while Mozart invites you into his most intimate zone. My son's music teacher (a conservatoire professor) told him - Haydn is all intellect - Mozart is all emotion - when my son said "Mozart just writes pretty tunes" (a view passed on by his mother) he made him sit down and listen to the finale of Don Giovanni. For me - the major key works can be as personal and involving as the minor key works - piano concerto no 23 for exampe, 2nd movement is intensely personal - same with the clarinet concerto - many many more. That is not to say that there are not superficial works in Mozart's output - there are - but not among the outstanding works. And those fine works that you might class as superficial (eg serenata notturna to think of one) are no less a delight though for different reasons.


I absolutely disagree that Haydn is intellectual - his music is full of warmth and humour. And there are plenty of people who would disagree that Mozart's music is 'emotion'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I absolutely disagree that Haydn is intellectual - his music is full of warmth and humour. And there are plenty of people who would disagree that Mozart's music is 'emotion'.


But people do make these sweeping statements - like you saying Haydn is full of warmth and humour - not all of it is, any more than all Mozart's is emotion.


----------



## Ramako

I remember someone saying that Haydn always worked through his compositions. The worst may be dry or uninspired - but they were never just routine: the comparison was with Mozart's bad pieces. Can't remember who said it though.


----------



## Hausmusik

Here's the problem with this conversation. "Mozart" is not a piece of music. Mozart was a composer who produced a huge quantity of music that cannot be praised or damned as a single unit, unless you are OK with descending into banality.

Debates over whether the music called "Mozart" is overrated are as empty as a fart. Talk about individual compositions if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

***

Now as for the article linked in the OP, Rosner is arguing about a single composition and pretending it proves something meaningful about "Mozart" as a unit. It's apparent that Mozart = the _Requiem _for the purposes of his argument. He spends a third of his post on the _Requiem_, and nearly all of that on the "Tuba mirum." Yeah, because Mozart = the "Tuba mirum." 

So really, Rosner's essay is about the "Tuba mirum," what he "hilariously" calls "the bicycle pump." But the thesis "I do not like Mozart's 'Tuba mirum'" is not very interesting, so he opts to overreach by pretending the weakness he perceived in "Tuba mirum" proves something about the entirety of Mozart. I see this maneuver all the time in my students' writing. Rosner is a typically unskilled writer who, having committed himself to arguing a boring thesis nobody cares about decides to artificially raise the stakes by misrepresenting the substance of his argument: "What I am really arguing is that the enormous output of Mozart, to a note, is overrated, and I can prove it in a blog post of nine paragraphs mainly concerned with a single movement from an unfinished work!".

Also, this Rosner guy sounds like a "hilarious" dinner companion:



> After the concert, he and I went for pizza and every time he went for a swig of beer, I made him laugh by humming "ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-BUM-BUM". The poor guy might have gotten down three good sips.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> But people do make these sweeping statements - like you saying Haydn is full of warmth and humour - not all of it is, any more than all Mozart's is emotion.


You are quite right here, but I made the point about Haydn to stress that he's hardly "intellectual". What would you say about the "Military" Symphony or the "Farewell"? These are humorous and not in the least intellectual! "The Creation" - full of passion and tenderness and, yes, warmth.


----------



## Mahlerian

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I absolutely disagree that Haydn is intellectual - his music is full of warmth and humour. And there are plenty of people who would disagree that Mozart's music is 'emotion'.


While I agree with these statements, we must remember that Bach has also been called overly intellectual at times, and on these forums, Brahms is often referred to as dry.


----------



## rrudolph

This guy's essay is as silly as the Daniel Asia one slagging John Cage (linked to here http://www.talkclassical.com/23230-john-cage-anniversary.html) and in pretty much the same way.


----------



## Guest

I find it amazing that this thread has gone on for 11 pages, when the vast majority of the classical music-enjoying world does not need even one page to recognize that Mozart's music is indeed worthy of praise. It also seems like we are saying the same thing over and over. Honestly - who had even heard of the individual who wrote the essay prior to all this? I'd say he accomplished exactly what he set out to do - garner attention.


----------



## PlaySalieri

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> You are quite right here, but I made the point about Haydn to stress that he's hardly "intellectual". What would you say about the "Military" Symphony or the "Farewell"? These are humorous and not in the least intellectual! "The Creation" - full of passion and tenderness and, yes, warmth.


That comment was addressed to Haydn's piano music


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> That comment was addressed to Haydn's piano music


Oh, I didn't realize this.

I disagree with it being intellectual too, BTW. It's possible for music to be MANY things at once.


----------



## Hausmusik

stomanek said:


> That comment was addressed to Haydn's piano music


I don't really know exactly what it means to call Haydn's piano music "intellectual" but if it means calculated, obsessed with form, lacking in humanness and warmth, I have to say No. The play of dark and light in the great Piano Sonata #33 in c minor? The vivacious, playful wit of #60 in C major? The dark, contemplative atmosphere of the F minor variations?

Again I say, what is the point of all this bluster? Why not discuss individual works instead of trafficking in these sweeping and meaningless generalizations that serve only to sound the shallow depths of one's knowledge?

Perhaps the mods should create a sub-forum--like the "Identifying Music" sub-forum--expressly for "Empty Generalizations and Meaningless Cliches" where, on the fragile basis of a shallow knowledge of a particular composer's output, one can declare all of his music "overrated."


----------



## Guest

Hausmusik said:


> I don't really know exactly what it means to call Haydn's piano music "intellectual" but if it means calculated, obsessed with form, lacking in humanness and warmth, I have to say I cannot agree with such an undiscriminating categorization. The play of dark and light in the great Piano Sonata #33 in c minor? The vivacious, playful wit of #60 in C major? The dark, reflective atmosphere of the F minor variations?
> 
> Again I say, what is the point of all this bluster? Why not discuss individual works instead of trafficking in these sweeping and meaningless generalizations that just expose the huge gaps in one's knowledge?


Bravo! I agree with what you've said here. No less a person than "Robbie" Landon has talked about these things but, and I stress this, we should not merely rely on critics but our own ears and observations as music-lovers - that, and a bit of knowledge, always helps. The critics have their own opinions about these things, which are entirely subjective, and this should be a jumping off point for us as listeners, not a "lifeboat". For every critic and musicologist who says one thing there will be another who says something else.

I remember having an argument with a fellow from another forum who always quoted critics - he was profoundly well read. When I once asked him, "but what do YOU think?" he went ballistic. The discussion centred around Donald Francis Tovey and his writing on Beethoven and I described these writings - having attempted several times to get through one book in particular - as dry, obtuse and containing little of interest about Beethoven. Whoooaah!!


----------



## Guest

It's strange, isn't it, that a person who has made a comment about Mozart being over-rated - and so long ago - should engender such responses!! In 'garnering attention' Rosner has obviously trodden on some toes but I wonder about the validity of the 'shoot the messenger' approach too.


----------



## Hausmusik

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> It's strange, isn't it, that a person who has made a comment about Mozart being over-rated - and so long ago - should engender such responses!! In 'garnering attention' Rosner has obviously trodden on some toes but I wonder about the validity of the 'shoot the messenger' approach too.


Can you explain how the messenger has been shot?


----------



## ArtMusic

Mozart is not over-rated. Just some folks don't get/like Mozart's music (which is fine for them).


----------



## BurningDesire

ArtMusic said:


> Mozart is not over-rated. Just some folks don't get/like Mozart's music (which is fine for them).


If Mozart isn't over-rated, then the concept of being over-rated doesn't exist.


----------



## neoshredder

BurningDesire said:


> If Mozart isn't over-rated, then the concept of being over-rated doesn't exist.


If (insert popular Composer here you aren't into) isn't over-rated, then the concept of being over-rated doesn't exist.


----------



## Guest

Hausmusik said:


> Can you explain how the messenger has been shot?


Sure. The arguments or comments themselves are forgotten about and/or not argued, but the person *making them* is subject to character assassination. Rightly or wrongly, a person is entitled to an opinion. And it was only an opinion. I don't say I agree or disagree.

Does somebody have to meet the approval of others before being able to venture an opinion? People should look at the actual arguments being made and address these, instead of calling Rosner an unknown, unworthy, or similar, critic. Actually, he's a composer who works in an academic institution in the USA, for what it's worth. At least, he did at the time of that article's publication.


----------



## PlaySalieri

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Oh, I didn't realize this.
> 
> I disagree with it being intellectual too, BTW. It's possible for music to be MANY things at once.


I think the comment - made by my son's piano teacher - needs to be taken in context - perhaps he was trying to bring out a particular feature in his playing which he thought was lacking


----------



## ArtMusic

BurningDesire said:


> If Mozart isn't over-rated, then the concept of being over-rated doesn't exist.


Well, I would classify you as one of those folks in the category I described.


----------



## BurningDesire

ArtMusic said:


> Well, I would classify you as one of those folks in the category I described.


I'd appreciate it if you didn't classify me :3


----------



## Ingélou

It seems to be 'cool' now to sneer at Mozart. But I've never been cool...


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> I'd appreciate it if you didn't classify me :3


Too late! Already did!


----------



## neoshredder

Ingenue said:


> It seems to be 'cool' now to sneer at Mozart. But I've never been cool...


Mozart defines cool.


----------



## Hausmusik

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Sure. The arguments or comments themselves are forgotten about and/or not argued, but the person *making them* is subject to character assassination. Rightly or wrongly, a person is entitled to an opinion. And it was only an opinion. I don't say I agree or disagree.
> 
> Does somebody have to meet the approval of others before being able to venture an opinion? People should look at the actual arguments being made and address these, instead of calling Rosner an unknown, unworthy, or similar, critic. Actually, he's a composer who works in an academic institution in the USA, for what it's worth. At least, he did at the time of that article's publication.


Give me a break. I cordially invite you to (re)read my post from yesterday in which I took on his argument on its merits.
http://www.talkclassical.com/23562-mozart-over-rated-2.html#post419500


----------



## DavidA

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Sure. The arguments or comments themselves are forgotten about and/or not argued, but the person *making them* is subject to character assassination. Rightly or wrongly, a person is entitled to an opinion. And it was only an opinion. I don't say I agree or disagree.
> 
> Does somebody have to meet the approval of others before being able to venture an opinion? People should look at the actual arguments being made and address these, instead of calling Rosner an unknown, unworthy, or similar, critic. Actually, he's a composer who works in an academic institution in the USA, for what it's worth. At least, he did at the time of that article's publication.


Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. But when that opinion is ridiculous he also deserves to be ridiculed.


----------



## BurningDesire

DavidA said:


> Yes, he is entitled to his opinion. But when that opinion is ridiculous he also deserves to be ridiculed.


Anybody who disagrees deserves ridicule! Nice philosophy you've got there :3


----------



## Guest

Hausmusik said:


> Give me a break. I cordially invite you to (re)read my post from yesterday in which I took on his argument on its merits.
> http://www.talkclassical.com/23562-mozart-over-rated-2.html#post419500


Looking at some many of the other comments on this thread one can see insult is never far away. And then this:

*Perhaps the mods should create a sub-forum--like the "Identifying Music" sub-forum--expressly for "Empty Generalizations and Meaningless Cliches" where, on the fragile basis of a shallow knowledge of a particular composer's output, one can declare all of his music "overrated*."

Do you think Rosner would have expressed a different opinion if he knew more? I think his blog was an attempt to start a discussion on this, not a definitive thesis worthy of a PhD. It's an OPINION. Brahms didn't like Wagner. Are you suggesting he "had a shallow knowledge" of the music of Wagner?


----------



## bigshot

BurningDesire said:


> Anybody who disagrees deserves ridicule! Nice philosophy you've got there :3


Isn't that how it's done on the internet?

Threads like this serve a valuable purpose... they show folks that classical music fans aren't all intellectuals. They're just like everyone else!


----------



## Hausmusik

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Do you think Rosner would have expressed a different opinion if he knew more?...It's an OPINION. Brahms didn't like Wagner. Are you suggesting he "had a shallow knowledge" of the music of Wagner?


Reading comprehension much? The comment you cite, out of relevant context (and conveniently without a link), had nothing whatever to do with Rosner: http://www.talkclassical.com/23562-mozart-over-rated-9.html#post419620

My comment unmistakably referred to *stomanek*'s son's music teacher, who was cited as saying "Haydn is all intellect - Mozart is all emotion"--in my view, a meaningless cliche and empty generalization.

I am not going to be baited into a conversation in which my words are quoted selectively out of context. I consider that conduct to be trolling, even if done from ignorance. Indeed, the whole idea of this thread seems intended merely to provoke strong reactions. So I won't be continuing to discourse with you.


----------



## Guest

Hausmusik said:


> Reading comprehension much? The comment you cite, out of relevant context (and conveniently without a link), had nothing whatever to do with Rosner: http://www.talkclassical.com/23562-mozart-over-rated-9.html#post419620
> 
> My comment unmistakably referred to *stomanek*'s son's music teacher, who was cited as saying "Haydn is all intellect - Mozart is all emotion"--in my view, a meaningless cliche and empty generalization.
> 
> I am not going to be baited into a conversation in which my words are quoted selectively out of context. I consider that conduct to be trolling, even if done from ignorance. Indeed, the whole idea of this thread seems intended merely to provoke strong reactions. So I won't be continuing to discourse with you.


I leave it to others on this messageboard to judge whether I'm ignorant or a troll. People must take responsibility for their own "strong reactions".


----------



## bigshot

I think as much as I love Wagner, I would give more credence to Brahms than Rosner. Brahms vs Wagner? Hmm... I have to think about that one a little. Rosner vs Mozart? That one is MUCH easier!


----------



## Krummhorn

Temporarily closed for repairs ... 

Fact is ... each member IS entitled to their own opinion *- and if we differ with *their opinion, let's please be civil with it.


----------

