# I don't believe music has ever been as pure as Mozart's:



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

It's just perfect to me. So innocent!


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Can you define "pure" with regards to music? I can't.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

What a ridiculous thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I didn't really mean for this thread to take off on discussion. In truth, I was just in a Mozart mood this evening.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

edited and deleted.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think I know what you mean Capt'n. Music that sounds simple and direct, without inhibition or social baggage. Something like this:











I can think of others.











For the record,
I object to this thread being deleted...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think I know what you mean Capt'n. Music that sounds simple and direct, without inhibition or social baggage. Something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That first one is a beauty. And yes, you are right. That is what I meant with this thread!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I really believe Mozart's boyish charms shined through in his output. The child-like innocence of a lot of his music is what captures the imagination of listeners around the world, and prob what makes him the most well known composer.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm really liking this Perahia mozart concertos disc. Is he respected for his Mozart? Seems smooth like butter!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I really believe Mozart's boyish charms shined through in his output. The child-like innocence of a lot of his music is what captures the imagination of listeners around the world, and prob what makes him the most well known composer.


I don't know what "pure" music is, but if it means boyish charm and childlike innocence I don't think either of those things applies particularly to Mozart. Besides, what's charming about boys?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is another purish sort of piece.






The above was an inspiration to Ravel's movement here, which is one of my favourite movements in music.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> I don't know what "pure" music is, but if it means boyish charm and childlike innocence I don't think either of those things applies particularly to Mozart. Besides, what's charming about boys?


The one that shows he needs to be loved by his mother.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's just perfect to me. So innocent!


I know what you mean. Probably best that you avoid trying to explain yourself. It's the kind of statement too easy to cynically pick apart (see above).

That said, it's probably not what any of Mozart's contemporaries would have said of his music. They considered him too involved, intellectual and complicated. Interesting the difference a couple hundred years can make.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Perahia is good, but this one outstanding.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rogerx said:


> Perahia is good, but this one outstanding.


Very very good. Wow!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> What a ridiculous thread.


Not ridiculous at all. He is expressing a great love of Mozart's music. In this thread we would hope to define purity in music and how that relates to Mozart and other composers..


----------



## KevinJS (Sep 24, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I really believe Mozart's boyish charms shined through in his output. The child-like innocence of a lot of his music is what captures the imagination of listeners around the world, and prob what makes him the most well known composer.


Actually, I think this statement is complete b/s. Mozart was a prodigy. He knew he was a prodigy. His European tour, during which he was writing and performing on the fly, was intended to capitalise on the cute little Austrians (yes, his 11-year-old sister was also on the tour) and ensure that the name Mozart would forever be linked to musical genius. I think we can agree that the tour was successful.

Innocent? Research the premise of Mozart's first opera, which was tidied up by the librettist, and tell me how "innocent" the 11 year old composer was. Melia may have become the star of the show, but it was Hyacinthus' "boyish charms" (God! I wrote that. Someone shoot me!) that underpinned the original story.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

KevinJS said:


> Actually, I think this statement is complete b/s. Mozart was a prodigy. He knew he was a prodigy. His European tour, during which he was writing and performing on the fly, was intended to capitalise on the cute little Austrians (yes, his 11-year-old sister was also on the tour) and ensure that the name Mozart would forever be linked to musical genius. I think we can agree that the tour was successful.
> 
> Innocent? Research the premise of Mozart's first opera, which was tidied up by the librettist, and tell me how "innocent" the 11 year old composer was. Melia may have become the star of the show, but it was Hyacinthus' "boyish charms" (God! I wrote that. Someone shoot me!) that underpinned the original story.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:tiphat:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What's a good symphony cycle?


----------



## KevinJS (Sep 24, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What's a good symphony cycle?


Gardiner, of course. Can't remember whether some of the really early stuff is in the box, but as far as I remember, the box claims 1-41. Whether it's complete or not, it's a great listen. Haven't got access to my stuff right now but it's on the Archiv Produktion label. Give me a shout if you have trouble locating it. I may have "alternative" suggestions.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Plainsong is pretty elementary.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is another purish sort of piece.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I enjoyed the Mozart. The Ravel was a bit too "pretty", artificially to my ears. To me, no one can craft eloquence quite like Mozart or anywhere near his level in a different way..


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Though, I liked some of the ones by other composers you shared in your last post.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Rogerx said:


> Perahia is good, but this one outstanding.


Yeah, I picked up Zacharias a year ago and it's my favorite cycle on the modern piano. Took a while to replace Perahia.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's just perfect to me. So innocent!


No


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> No


That's a pretty good counter-example to my conclusion. But I did say for MOST of his output.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Yes


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

When I think "pure", I think more things like Bach keyboard fugues - abstract music with that sense of aesthetic correctness that I also get out of, say, modernist abstract art like Ellsworth Kelly.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

vtpoet said:


> Yes


What a splendid rendition!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

fbjim said:


> When I think "pure", I think more things like Bach keyboard fugues - abstract music with that sense of aesthetic correctness that I also get out of, say, modernist abstract art like Ellsworth Kelly.


Interesting take! I liked that artist, I just find Bach's melodies really repetitive.


----------



## KevinW (Nov 21, 2021)

I do feel the same with the OP on Mozart's music. I even feel like some of his works are just dedicated to me because they are so much to my taste! His music is pure: many composers are made but Mozart is born.You can feel how naturual his music is when listening to them. There is the flow of his most natural emotions, unlike other composers such as Bach or Beethoven whose music shows the complexity of their personalities (there is no reason to dislike them for this reason, though, I just prefer Mozart). Mozart is a mature person, unlike many movies and tales described, and he encountered many troubles during his lifetime as well. However, you can't find that much pessimistic elements in his music because his music always shows the optimistic side of his life. This pretty much matches with my own personality--I am the kind of optimistic person, though I have bunch of sad things in my daily life. Also, Mozart matters much more to me than bringing me his fantastic music. When I was a kid in kindergarten and primary school, I used to be a very odd kid. I was super introverted, even emotionless, and I was indifferent to people and things taking place around me. I do not pay attention to interesting things and beauty in my life; sometimes I might not even realize when I make a very serious mistake. There seemed to be an seclusion between me and the rest of the world... Until three years ago, when I was in middle school, I discovered Mozart in an occasion and fell in love with his music. It was his music that infuses so much emotions into me and changed my personality. His music is not only melodic, but also includes optimism and energy. It is his music energizes me everyday and made me open to the world.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think Mozart had this stride of purity with everything he wrote. I feel other composers had far fewer lasting hits.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Do you guys feel the melody to symphony 40 is more recognizable by the public than 41?


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys feel the melody to symphony 40 is more recognizable by the public than 41?


Yes. Absolutely. The melody is as famous as his Eine Kleine Nachtmusik. Unless I'm mistaken, this motivic idea, right down to the very notes, first appeared in a sketch for a string quintet that he either didn't compose or as a movement he replaced with another so that (I presume) he could use the idea as the opening movement of his 40th.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It clearly is. The #41 has few memorable tunes, the material is largely commonplace "tags", except for the buffa aria in the first movement and some bits of the slow movement. It's a bit similar in the great C major concerto K 503 that has also very "neutral" material.
The first theme of #40 has been characterized as a type of "aria agitata", similar to Cherubino's "Non so piu cosa son cosa faccio", so it also follows common patterns.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys feel the melody to symphony 40 is more recognizable by the public than 41?


100% sure, good inside Captain.
If you have time try this


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KevinW said:


> I do feel the same with the OP on Mozart's music. I even feel like some of his works are just dedicated to me because they are so much to my taste! His music is pure: many composers are made but Mozart is born.You can feel how naturual his music is when listening to them. There is the flow of his most natural emotions, unlike other composers such as Bach or Beethoven whose music shows the complexity of their personalities (there is no reason to dislike them for this reason, though, I just prefer Mozart). Mozart is a mature person, unlike many movies and tales described, and he encountered many troubles during his lifetime as well. *However, you can't find that much pessimistic elements in his music because his music always shows the optimistic side of his life. *This pretty much matches with my own personality--I am the kind of optimistic person, though I have bunch of sad things in my daily life. Also, Mozart matters much more to me than bringing me his fantastic music. When I was a kid in kindergarten and primary school, I used to be a very odd kid. I was super introverted, even emotionless, and I was indifferent to people and things taking place around me. I do not pay attention to interesting things and beauty in my life; sometimes I might not even realize when I make a very serious mistake. There seemed to be an seclusion between me and the rest of the world... Until three years ago, when I was in middle school, I discovered Mozart in an occasion and fell in love with his music. It was his music that infuses so much emotions into me and changed my personality. His music is not only melodic, but also includes optimism and energy. It is his music energizes me everyday and made me open to the world.


Music in the minor mode just didn't sell as well in the Classical Era. That's why the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode was about 8:1. Mozart was happy to and needed to satisfy popular tastes. Bach and Haydn didn't have to worry so much because they had permanent employment and patronage. Haydn happily wrote gloomy symphonies until his prince complained. Moreover, composers in the time of Mozart didn't generally conceive music as the expression of personal (that is their) emotions. Neither did Baroque composers like Bach. So this talk of their personalities and outlooks reflected in their music is anachronistic fluff imported from the Romantic Era and later.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Interesting take! I liked that artist, I just find Bach's melodies really repetitive.


It's not always the subjects in JS Bach's fugues which are remarkable, but rather the way he treats them counterpoint wise. And pr. definition there will be many repetitions of the subject in a fugue.

Mozart on the other hand may have more ear worms among his melodies, but he treats them often in a rather conventional way, which doesn't stand much repetition.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> What a ridiculous thread.


What an impolite statement! Should you not like a thread, please skip it. No reason to spread negativity everywhere.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Music in the minor mode just didn't sell as well in the Classical Era. That's why the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode was about 8:1.


It's more like they wanted to celebrate themselves (in music) so much of their emancipation from the Baroque doctrine of the affections, that they felt it was more appropriate to write major-key works all the time, but also express darker moods through use of form. (They didn't feel the need to write a movement in a minor key to express darkness, or they thought that expression of darkness was more effective when placed in the context of contrasts, in other words)































> Haydn happily wrote gloomy symphonies until his prince complained.


Actually,


hammeredklavier said:


> *the difference between the "sturm und drang" ones and the "regular" ones are exaggerated* in some quarters. A 'turbulent' work isn't 'turbulent' all the way; a 'mild-sounding' work isn't 'mild-sounding' all the way throughout. - the nature of a Classical symphony.
> 
> 45th/i:
> 
> ...


Do listen to the ending of the 45th, too. And the "sudden shocks" of the slow movements of the 65th and the "sturm und drang" 83rd.



> Mozart was happy to and needed to satisfy popular tastes. Bach and Haydn didn't have to worry so much because they had permanent employment and patronage.


Composers having permanent employment and patronage at the time had to satisfy the tastes of their employers and patrons. Are you saying Haydn somehow had a different mindset when he was writing the "Quel tuo visetto amabile" (Orlando Paladino) as opposed to when he was writing the slow movement of his 100th symphony, years later?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Music in the minor mode just didn't sell as well in the Classical Era.






"Such a key for Mozart is that, you put two characters side by side, and it's all about the particular oil they give off when they're applied to each other. It's something I love so much about Mozart. He's so human. He totally understood you can't have joy without pain, terror without consolation, love without grief." -C. Hazlewood 




It's kind of like how you described:


EdwardBast said:


> they have the same form as common sequences of human emotional life. The most common pattern for such short pieces is ternary, that is ABA. Imagine you are in a tranquil, happy mood, call it A, and then some disturbing thought or event intervenes and you become agitated, a completely different emotional state (call it B). After the agitation runs it course the original tranquil state returns and one is happy again (A). As an example listen to the Db major prelude of Chopin. It doesn't mean anything specific, but it has resonance with human emotional life because so many chapters in our lives are like that. The same ABA pattern can have the opposite resonance as well. One can begin in a state of enormous stress (A) but find brief solace in prayer or in the memory of happier times (B). But the relief is fleeting and one ends in frenzied exhaustion (A). In responding to this music one enjoys the musical patterns for their own sake, but with the added layer of realizing: "Yes, life is like that: there are storms and troubles but eventually peace returns.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Mozart: "Ch'io mi scordi di te... Non temer, amato bene", K.505 (Live) · 
Jessye Norman · Alfred Brendel · Academy of St Martin in the Fields · Sir Neville Marriner
Please Captain watch this.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys feel the melody to symphony 40 is more recognizable by the public than 41?


The general public (as opposed to the general classical listening public) might find itself whistling one or two tunes by Mozart without knowing what they are, not least because of answer machines, but also because of film and TV incidental music. In the case of sym. 40, some of a certain generation will know it from a pop version in the top 10 (UK) in the 70s. And the same generation might know the minuet of sym 41 because it was used by The Wombles.

I'm not sure that wondering what the public might recognise says much of worth about the quality of Mozart's music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

"Purity" to me means music that's virtually devoid of cynicism. By that measure Bach wins, followed maybe by Webern.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> "Purity" to me means music that's virtually devoid of cynicism. By that measure Bach wins, followed maybe by Webern.


I'm not quite sure what you mean, but saying that Mozart's music has something to do with "cynicism" because of https://www.talkclassical.com/73196-mozart-cosi-fan-tutte-3.html#post2171677 is like saying Bach's music has something to do with "hypocrisy" because of https://www.talkclassical.com/72522-question-lovers-j-s-14.html#post2174466 (Yes, the libretti were written more than a hundred years prior to Bach's time, but Bach still used it, and you've claimed that he literally poured his heart and soul into whatever libretti he set to music, and all this should be relevant to us today.)
I would definitely agree Bach has purity in a lot of moments. Although in vocal music (except maybe the gloria from the G major mass), he has a bit too much "solemn gravity" (it's not a bad thing) instead of "innocent piety", (considering what is meant by "purity", by the OP ["I really believe Mozart's boyish charms shined through in his output. The child-like innocence of a lot of his music is what captures the imagination of listeners around the world." <Post#8>]. I'm not saying Bach is lacking in "sincerity" in any way), compared to Mozart's Ave verum corpus or 



 or this sort: 











"Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Do you guys feel the melody to symphony 40 is more recognizable by the public than 41?


I don't think the 'public' would know a Mozart symphony if it came up and bit them far less recognise different melodies from different symphonies!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't believe music has ever been as pure as Mozart's


A couple of quotes from another 2 geniuses that noted "purity" in Mozart's music:

"_If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his* purity*._"
(Johannes Brahms)

"_Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such *purity* and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed._"
(Albert Einstein)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

A singing line with accompaniment that is tuneful, with crystal clarity, and with passing moments of tension or melancholy is how I would describe his music that sounds 'pure'. Even in the Commendatore scene, and the opening of his Dissonance quartet, there is amazing clarity.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

jdec said:


> (Albert Einstein)


So just cause the guy was a wiz in physics, we have to take his views on classical music seriously? The quote itself is cringe-worthy too. The fact is that Mozart created his music just like Beethoven did, by sketching (and crossing things out when changing his decisions on particular passages) his score. He just did things faster, like a pre-Romantic era "craftsman" would have.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> So just cause the guy was a wiz in physics, we have to take his views on classical music seriously?


I'd take his views on _anything_ much more seriously than yours, that's for sure. lol

BTW...


hammeredklavier said:


> The fact is that Mozart created his music just like Beethoven did, by sketching (and crossing things out when changing his decisions on particular passages) his score.


Mozart didn't sketch his music to the same extent as Beethoven. No comparison at all. But that's a different topic altogether.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> So just cause the guy was a wiz in physics, we have to take his views on classical music seriously? The quote itself is cringe-worthy too. The fact is that Mozart created his music just like Beethoven did, by sketching (and crossing things out when changing his decisions on particular passages) his score. He just did things faster, like a pre-Romantic era "craftsman" would have.


I think the Einstein quote is more about how the music makes one feel rather than the actual mechanics behind it...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

violadude said:


> I think the Einstein quote is more about how the music makes one feel rather than the actual mechanics behind it...


And it's a conclusion I've come to myself too.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And it's a conclusion I've come to myself too.


Did you listen to my last tip?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

FWIW, Mendelssohn is _my_ Mozart.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Rogerx said:


> Did you listen to my last tip?


Yes. Lovely. I felt the purity imo.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

jdec said:


> A couple of quotes from another 2 geniuses that noted "purity" in Mozart's music:
> 
> "_If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his* purity*._"
> (Johannes Brahms)
> ...


I wonder how Albert Einstein would feel if someone said he "found" his theories without much thought, revision, or refinement?

It is an absurd comment. Einstein may have been a great physicist but knew nothing about Classical music composition.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Maybe he tried, with less effort compared to other composers, to find those works ever-present in the universe.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I wonder how Albert Einstein would feel if someone said he "found" his theories without much thought, revision, or refinement?
> 
> It is an absurd comment. Einstein may have been a great physicist but knew nothing about Classical music composition.


Well if it's true that physical theories are a representation of reality then I think you have to say that Einstein's structures are indeed a discovery of something which already existed.

Beethoven and Mozart also took from what already existed of course - Beethoven, for example, took the E flat major chord and all that that means in terms of common practice harmony. The fundamental creators are neither Beethoven or Mozart - they are Schoenberg and Cage.

Isn't it wonderful the way social media gives everyone the opportunity to spout half baked nonsense in a self important and vain way? Pre-Internet it would have been so much harder to make declamations like the ones in this post - except in private, in front of a mirror maybe.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Can't musical patterns form shapes in some way?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I wonder how Albert Einstein would feel if someone said he "found" his theories without much thought, revision, or refinement?
> 
> It is an absurd comment. Einstein may have been a great physicist but knew nothing about Classical music composition.


Jeez!! that reading comprehension...

Key words in Einstein's quote: "*one feels* he merely found it..."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Let's take out the notion that he found it with little effort, can't there be patterns in music that are synonymous with patterns in nature?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's take out the notion that he found it with little effort, can't there be patterns in music that are synonymous with patterns in nature?


I tried looking around for them, but no. It's a human thing. It says more about the listener/ composer than about nature.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

jdec said:


> Jeez!! that reading comprehension...
> 
> Key words in Einstein's quote: "*one feels* he merely found it..."


Why do we care what Einstein feels about how Mozart came up with his music? A pointless and absurd statement.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

A lot of Mozart seems very intricate and constructed for my ears. This isn't a bad thing, and it's in fact a testament to his skill thst his music is expressive while being so intricate. But this isn't what I think of when I hear about things sounding "natural".


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I would definitely agree Bach has purity in a lot of moments. ...


I can't think of very many "impure" moments in Bach. The music is "solemnly grave" when it needs to be but there's joy and lightness as well. Bach doesn't "sneer" either, really. The Musical Offering and Art of Fugue are both full of "solemn gravity" but they're about as musically "pure" as you can get. If anything Mozart's work probably could've used a little more "solemn gravity" imo. But then he also reflected the temper of his times and didn't live very long. To each his own. I don't know how you would measure the "childlike innocence" of the Ave verum corpus against "Mache dich, mein Herze, rein" from the St Matthew Passion, for instance. Mozart's possibly has more "clarity" due to the "thinner" harmonic textures of the Classical era, but I don't really equate that with "purity". By that standard "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is purer than anything in Mozart. I absolutely love Mozart, but hey, if you say "Mozart's music is the most 'pure' ever" you're going to get some disagreements.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Cage's 3'44" has to be more pure than anything by Mozart, if it is indeed music.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let's take out the notion that he found it with little effort, can't there be patterns in music that are synonymous with patterns in nature?


There certainly can, if one takes the term "synonymous" loosely. If the patterns in music didn't echo patterns of our physical, emotional and intellectual processes (which are part of nature) as well as forms and actions of physical reality in the universe, we wouldn't find in music the complex expressive language we do find.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage's 3'44" has to be more pure than anything by Mozart, if it is indeed music.


Meditation comes to mind. Chanting Ohm. There is something about a single prolonged note that feels very deep.

But silence is just as golden.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Meditation comes to mind. Chanting Ohm. There is something about a single prolonged note that feels very deep.
> 
> But silence is just as golden.


I think this concept of musical purity is a bit fishy. Let me ask you a question to try and clarify it. A few weeks ago I put you on to Howard Skempton's piano music. Is it no less "pure" than Mozart's? How about music by Alvin Lucier, I'll try to find examples if it's not clear what I'm getting at.

When dissident talks about the purity of Bach, or indeed anyone talks about the purity of Mozart, I don't understand at all. Their music is absolutely adulterated with all sorts of presuppositions about harmony and rhythm, man made, unnatural, theories about music. If I were to investigate what purity in music could possibly mean, I would, I think, go to spectral composers first. Their music is structured naturally, structured in terms of the physical properties of physical sounds.

In my opinion the first composer to create music which is correctly called pure is Horatiu Radulescu.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage's 3'44" has to be more pure than anything by Mozart, if it is indeed music.


Umm ... it's 4'33"


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Umm ... it's 4'33"


What's the difference?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Just under a minute.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> I think this concept of musical purity is a bit fishy. Let me ask you a question to try and clarify it. A few weeks ago I put you on to Howard Skempton's piano music. Is it no less "pure" than Mozart's? How about music by Alvin Lucier, I'll try to find examples if it's not clear what I'm getting at.
> 
> When dissident talks about the purity of Bach, or indeed anyone talks about the purity of Mozart, I don't understand at all. Their music is absolutely adulterated with all sorts of presuppositions about harmony and rhythm, man made, unnatural, theories about music. If I were to investigate what purity in music could possibly mean, I would, I think, go to spectral composers first. Their music is structured naturally, structured in terms of the physical properties of physical sounds.
> 
> In my opinion the first composer to create music which is correctly called pure is Horatiu Radulescu.


I did like that music you turned me onto. But I don't find it in touch with the universe as I do Mozart's music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

This idea of_ in touchness with the universe _is interesting. I wonder which universe you mean: the one which physical science deals with, or another type of universe.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> This idea of_ in touchness with the universe _is interesting. I wonder which universe you mean: the one which physical science deals with, or another type of universe.


Hm. Math and Love found in nature.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Why do we care what Einstein feels about how Mozart came up with his music? A pointless and absurd statement.


Just skip it and don't make drama out of nothing, if you really don't care about it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Hm. Math and Love found in nature.


Absolutely, but love is not normally dealt with by the physical sciences. Or do you want to argue that the nature of love can be made clear by using the methodology of physics - i.e. iterations of experimenting, observing, theorising.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Absolutely, but love is not normally dealt with by the physical sciences. Or do you want to argue that the nature of love can be made clear by using the methodology of physics - i.e. iterations of experimenting, observing, theorising.


Love is to be dealt with by Psychology and all sentient being experience it to some degree.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Love is to be dealt with by Psychology and all sentient being experience it to some degree.


Poetry. Love is dealt with by poetry.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Poetry. Love is dealt with by poetry.


Maybe Art in general, and Psychology is an art/science.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> I can't think of very many "impure" moments in Bach. The music is "solemnly grave" when it needs to be but there's joy and lightness as well. Bach doesn't "sneer" either, really. ...................


Calm down.. you haven't read what I wrote (I'm reminded more than ever of consuono, who couldn't stand any argument "Bach wasn't the best at [something]"). 


hammeredklavier said:


> (considering what is meant by "purity", by the OP ["I really believe Mozart's boyish charms shined through in his output. The child-like innocence of a lot of his music is what captures the imagination of listeners around the world." <Post#8>]


It's quite obvious to anyone what the Baroque idiomatic aesthetics strives towards as opposed to the Classical aesthetics, and it's not about harmonic/contrapuntal texture. By the OP's definition, I think there are better candidates than Bach in vocal music in this regard. What's wrong with 'pointing out Bach is a bit too solemn and grave and lacks "childishness"'.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...
> It's quite obvious to anyone what the Baroque idiomatic aesthetics strives towards as opposed to the Classical aesthetics, and it's not about harmonic/contrapuntal texture. By the OP's definition, I think there are better candidates than Bach in vocal music in this regard. What's wrong with 'pointing out Bach is a bit too solemn and grave and lacks "childishness"'. ...


What's "wrong" is in not defining it. How is that M. Haydn example any more "childlike" than Handel? Or Scarlatti or Telemann, for that matter. It isn't, really. Compared to Pop Goes the Weasel, the Michael Haydn is a bit too solemn and grave as well. With its self-conscious bits of chromaticism here and there that M. Haydn selection actually seem *less* "childlike" and "pure" than, say, the Credo and Dona nobis pacem from the Bach B minor Mass. Or the Benedictus from Beethoven's Missa solemnis. If we're going all "childlike", you can't criticize Joseph Haydn's childish "crudities" by comparing them to the more sophisticated Mozart. Joseph Haydn is more childlike in his directness.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> What's "wrong" is in not defining it.


Whatabout the other examples I posted earlier:


hammeredklavier said:


>





hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart's Ave verum corpus or
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout the other examples I posted earlier:


OK, how are any of the above more "childlike" than this?





That doesn't sound all that "solemn and grave" to me. The discussion is kinda ridiculous. I would respectfully suggest listening to a little more Bach before tagging him with "solemn and grave", although he can be such when appropriate. Then again solemnity isn't necessarily the polar opposite of "childlike innocence". You apparently apply the Doctrine of Affections across entire bodies of work.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

dissident said:


> the Doctrine of Affections across entire bodies of work.


And as we all know, the doctrine is not a description of how music actually sounds to the listener, only a statement of intent.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Obviously, "pure" and "childlike" are such vague notions that they are almost useless. Maybe rarely for single pieces (Kinderszenen anyone?) but hardly for a larger body of work or a whole composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"True, Mozart does not grip one as profoundly as Beethoven; his sweep is not as broad. Just as in life he was a carefree child to the end of his days, so in his music there is no subjective tragedy of the kind which reveals itself so strongly and powerfully in Beethoven. However, this did not prevent him from creating an objectively tragic figure, indeed the most striking and powerful human figure ever portrayed through music. I mean Donna Anna in Don Giovanni [...]
For God's sake, do read the bulky but very interesting book on Mozart by Otto Jahn. You will see from it what a wonderful, irreproachable, infinitely kind, and angelically pure nature he had. He was the incarnation of the ideal of a great artist who creates because of an unconscious stirring of his genius. He wrote music as the nightingales sing, i.e. without pausing to think, without doing violence to himself. [...] Everyone loved him; he had the most marvellous, cheerful, and equable temperament. There was not a whit of pride in him. Whenever he met Haydn, he would express his love and veneration for him in the most sincere and fervent terms. The purity of his soul was absolute. He knew neither envy nor vengefulness nor spite, and I think that all this can be heard in his music, which has reconciling, clarifying, and caressing properties [...]" http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#In_Tchaikovsky.27s_Letters

"I thought to myself, 'May thy pure and peaceful spirit hover around me, dear Haydn! If I can ever become like thee, peaceful and guileless, in all matters none on earth has such deep reverence for thee as I have.' (Sad tears fell from my eyes, and we went on.)" https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Franz_Schubert_A_Biography/B9MPfux3VeUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT138

"Johann Adolph Hasse, a famous German musician who had lived for long periods in Italy, had become the official composer of the court in Vienna in 1764. After examining Wolfgang, he wrote of him, "I took him through various tests on the harpsichord, on which he let me hear things that are prodigious for his age and would be admirable even for a mature man." Hasse adds, "The boy is moreover handsome, vivacious, graceful, and full of good manners; and knowing him, it is difficult to avoid loving him. I am sure that if his development keeps due pace with his year, he will be a prodigy."
https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart/HiIgzSazS48C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA30


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

To some ears Webern's music may feel more pure than Mozart


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Just as in life he was a carefree child to the end of his days,


Tchaikovsky was a great composer, but that kind of slavish sycophancy is embarrassing. From what I remember Mozart was under the burden of crushing debt throughout big chunks of his adult life.


> The purity of his soul was absolute.


 Come on. :lol: Imagine if I wrote something like that about Bach (which I'd never do...) although Charles Bukowski came close with "Bach is the most difficult composer to play badly because he made so few spiritual mistakes".


juliante said:


> To some ears Webern's music may feel more pure than Mozart


In a way I would agree.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> "True, Mozart does not grip one as profoundly as Beethoven; [etc]


Is it just me, or are posts that are simply a list of quotes difficult to read? I find whatever point is being made is obscured rather than clarified.

These quotes are no exception. What famous people thought of the prodigy himself is of historical interest, but of little use if we are attempting to evaluate his _music_. And what Tchaikovsky thought is of no greater importance than what Einstein thought or what I think, at least not without some attempt at explaining what is meant by purity.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Forster said:


> And what Tchaikovsky thought is of no greater importance than what Einstein thought or what I think, at least not without some attempt at explaining what is meant by purity.


Yes, I was hoping for folks to address this. I think it came close early on, when one or two posters started considering "clarity of voices", but then if so, would that not create a list of other composers who wrote with outstanding clarity of parts? Thus at least challenging Mozart as the purest.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

No contemporary of Mozart thought his music "childlike", neither did Beethoven. In the early 1800s Hoffmann called Haydn's music childlike but not Mozart's. It's a projection of later 19th/20th century composers/commenters and then the combination of the biography skewed towards the child prodigy and some silly mannerism of the adult Mozart with music that was rather different from the romantics did the rest.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> No contemporary of Mozart thought his music "childlike", neither did Beethoven. In the early 1800s Hoffmann called Haydn's music childlike but not Mozart's. It's a projection of later 19th/20th century composers/commenters and then the combination of the biography skewed towards the child prodigy and some silly mannerism of the adult Mozart with music that was rather different from the romantics did the rest.


I think a lot of it has to do with Mozart having the eternal aura of The Wounded Child Smiling Through His Tears following his death at a tragically young age.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> It's a projection of later 19th/20th century composers/commenters ....


I've already implied in my previous posts; part of it has to do with the idiomatic aesthetics (Classical, Baroque, etc) they worked with. It's also why Wagner is perceived today as "unrestrained in passion and fantasy" (compared to Mozart.)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> I think a lot of it has to do with Mozart .....


Riiiight. This is the sort of attitude we all should have in topics like "beauty in music". "It's all subjective". The "general consensus" doesn't matter.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Riiiight. This is the sort of attitude we all should have in topics like "beauty in music". "It's all subjective". The "general consensus" doesn't matter.


The general consensus is that Mozart was an astonishingly great composer, and I agree. I have to endorse Tchaikovsky's remark too? :lol:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> .....I have to endorse Tchaikovsky's remark too? :lol:


Why not create a thread of your own on "purity in music" with guildelines and definitions different from Captainnumber's?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Why not create a thread of your own on "purity in music" with guildelines and definitions different from Captainnumber's.


Because I don't want to...?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I'm not hearing childlike innocence in the Jupiter. And I suspect a 'boy' could not have written Don Giovanni.

It's rather like hearing only the deaf grump in Beethoven. Or the homosexual in Tchaikovsky. Take a single image of a _composer _and generalise across all his _music._ I'd say that was a mistake. Mozart may have died young, but he didn't die either innocent or a boy.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I haven't checked into this thread for a while. Has anyone defined what "pure" is supposed to mean yet? As soon as someone does, presumably the pertinent discussion can begin? Well, we're only at 100 posts …


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Forster said:


> I'm not hearing childlike innocence in the Jupiter. And I suspect a 'boy' could not have written Don Giovanni.
> 
> It's rather like hearing only the deaf grump in Beethoven. Or the homosexual in Tchaikovsky. Take a single image of a _composer _and generalise across all his _music._ I'd say that was a mistake. Mozart may have died young, but he didn't die either *innocent or a boy.*


No, he didn't die a virgin.  I think the outward persona of Mozart or anyone doesn't dictate the sort of music they make. They just have to be able to share that empathy, and it guides what they could write. It's not like they have to perform real-time to someone like an actor. They can keep rewriting parts to suit what they think suits that particular ideal.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I haven't checked into this thread for a while. *Has anyone defined what "pure" is supposed to mean yet? *As soon as someone does, presumably the pertinent discussion can begin? Well, we're only at 100 posts …


People have said, we have music - so we don't need definitions.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> I haven't checked into this thread for a while. Has anyone defined what "pure" is supposed to mean yet? As soon as someone does, presumably the pertinent discussion can begin? Well, we're only at 100 posts …


The definition of "pure" is probably the same as that of "great": "Music that I like".


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dissident said:


> The definition of "pure" is probably the same as that of "great": "Music that I like".


Do you think you might be stereotyping listeners? Which listeners do you know about?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> I'm not hearing childlike innocence in the Jupiter. And I suspect a 'boy' could not have written Don Giovanni.
> 
> It's rather like hearing only the deaf grump in Beethoven. Or the homosexual in Tchaikovsky. Take a single image of a _composer _and generalise across all his _music._ I'd say that was a mistake. Mozart may have died young, but he didn't die either innocent or a boy.


One of Berlioz's writings made fun of a bad article about Mendelssohn saying that one could hear the "Hebrew character" in his music or something along those lines - correctly pointing out that absolutely nobody could possibly have heard "Hebrew character" in his music unless they had a preconception that Mendelssohn was born Jewish. These habits die hard.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> People have said, we have music - so we don't need definitions.





Luchesi said:


> Do you think you might be stereotyping listeners? Which listeners do you know about?


No, I think you have to tendency to talk about large groups of people supposedly sharing the same beliefs. You do it all the time. You don't say "I" you say "we" or in this case "people."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> The definition of "pure" is probably the same as that of "great": "Music that I like".


How? Isn't this something that can be described as "pure"?:
https://www.npr.org/sections/decept.../148769794/why-i-hate-the-goldberg-variations
"Preternaturally happy, cheerful, perfect, organized, clean, boring, popular: I guess the case I'm making is that the Goldbergs are the Martha Stewart of Variations. And like Martha Stewart, you don't totally absolutely mind if they end up going off for a little while to a very clean and nice prison (sorry Martha, I'm just following the metaphor, I don't really mean it) so you don't have to see them being perfectly organized all the time, making a mockery of your unclean life. Maybe a show of hands: who would like a short moratorium on performances or recordings of the Goldbergs, so we could all hear it freshly again? Who will be the first pianist to unilaterally disarm? (Not me!)"


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"For the moment let us glance at Berlioz's relatively few utterances about Le Nozze di Figaro. Unexpectedly, after his disregard of the buffa aspects of Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflöte, he finds here (some years later, in 1839) some words of warm appreciation for a pure opera buffa by Mozart (though its more serious implications seem not to concern Berlioz): 'it has been a long time since we have heard at the Théâtre Italien, music so pure, expressive, witty, learned and natural as this. I have never so admired the creative power of Mozart's genius, nor the ceaseless lucidity of his mind.'"
(P.29 from 'Mozartian Undercurrents in Berlioz' by Benjamin Perl)


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> How? Isn't this something that can be described as "pure"?:
> ...


I don't know...can it? And as many times as you've referred to that Jeremy Denk series, I still don't think you get it.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I haven't checked into this thread for a while. Has anyone defined what "pure" is supposed to mean yet? As soon as someone does, presumably the pertinent discussion can begin?


Don't hold your breath. If it hasn't happened yet, it ain't gonna eva! LOL


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

dissident said:


> The definition of "pure" is probably the same as that of "great": "Music that I like".


Perhaps you can ask OP again.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> the Credo and Dona nobis pacem from the Bach B minor Mass.


Actually, none of the examples you've mentioned match 24:16, 12:58, 6:00 in "childishness". But I'll accept your argument that Bach is pure in a different way from Mozart. It's just that the Baroque isn't quite the best idiom for expressing "childishness".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I don't think even music by literal child prodigies like Mozart to be "childish" since an aspect of child prodigies is in fact their early maturity. In fact it seems like music by child prodigies were acclaimed specifically for a lack of childishness. 

Really, you have to get to programmatic music to get emotional affect as specific as "child-like".


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Actually, none of the examples you've mentioned match this sort - 24:16, 12:58, 6:00 in "childishness". But I'll accept your argument that Bach is pure in a different way from Mozart. It's just that the Baroque isn't quite the best idiom for expressing "childishness".


What on earth is "childishness" anyway? I'll just give an honest opinion here and say those examples may indeed be "childish" considering the incongruity of the music with the text. Sorry, it's just what I hear. With this music, vtpoet's idea of substituting secular stuff for liturgical text could work.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> What on earth is "childishness" anyway? I'll just give an honest opinion here and say those examples may indeed be "childish" considering the incongruity of the music with the text. Sorry, it's just what I hear.


I don't get what you're saying. Consider the idiomatic similarities of the "Et incarnatus est - Crucifixus" (9:14) with Mozart's "Ach, ich fühl's". 
What other composer other than Bach has the text "murderous Papists" and the Latin ordinary text set to music using music from the same genre.. (remember, you've talked as if he poured his heart and soul into whatever libretti he set to music).


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't get what you're saying. Consider the idiomatic similarities of the "Et incarnatus est - Crucifixus" (9:14) with Mozart's "Ach, ich fühl's".


It's idiomatically similar to a number of things from the Classical era.


> What other composer other than Bach has the text "murderous Papists" and the Latin ordinary text set to music using music from the same genre.. (remember, you've talked as if he poured his heart and soul into whatever libretti he set to music).


The "murderous Papists" phrase comes from a 1542 chorale, and from the Lutheran perspective there were "murderous Papists" at the time. But no I don't think Bach cynically just mixed and matched text to music, although the "poured his heart and soul" are your words, not mine.

You still didn't define "childishness", either. What, simplicity? But then you'll turn around and praise Michael Haydn for his ingenuity and sophistication compared to his oafish brother. How exactly is the following less "childlike" (a better word) than anything you've cited?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> It's idiomatically similar to a number of things from the Classical era.


Right on. And it's not necessarily a "positive" trait, as it's what turns some people off from Mozart. I don't get why you obsess so much over it thinking it somehow equates to "greatness" or something.



> You still didn't define "childishness", either.


Again, the "general consensus" doesn't matter. _"It's all subjective."_


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Right on. And it's not necessarily a "positive" trait, as it's what turns some people off from Mozart. I don't get why you obsess so much over it so much thinking it somehow equates to "greatness" or something.


Aren't you the one that obsesses over the relative "greatness" of the Haydn brothers? And also, I'm not the one who put forward the idea that "A is more childlike/pure than B". You and the OP are. I'm just asking for definitions. Badly composed or hackneyed can indeed be "childlike", but is it still also "pure"?



> Again, the "general consensus" doesn't matter. _"It's all subjective."_


Well, with "childlike" qualities maybe not. The Goldberg aria is probably more "childlike" than the 6-part Musical Offering fugue. Both seem pretty "pure" to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This statement might calm some of you down. I never claimed objectivity in my proposal, it's merely how I hear Mozart. I hear an even tempered flow of elegance in his music not found in any other composer to my ears.


This could be because I'm just trying to find truths about music in places there aren't any.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This statement might calm some of you down. I never claimed objectivity in my proposal, it's merely how I hear Mozart. I hear an even tempered flow of elegance in his music not found in any other composer to my ears.
> 
> This could be because I'm just trying to find truths about music in places there aren't any.


A triple like ........................


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> This statement might calm some of you down. I never claimed objectivity in my proposal, it's merely how I hear Mozart. I hear an even tempered flow of elegance in his music not found in any other composer to my ears.
> 
> This could be because I'm just trying to find truths about music in places there aren't any.


Maybe the purity you hear was not intentional? It's an accidental attribute of those harmonies.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Luchesi said:


> Maybe the purity you hear was not intentional? It's an accidental attribute of those harmonies.


I definitely don't think it was intentional. More like it just turned out that way b/c of the way he was.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Music in the minor mode just didn't sell as well in the Classical Era. That's why the ratio of works in the major mode versus the minor mode was about 8:1. Mozart was happy to and needed to satisfy popular tastes. Bach and Haydn didn't have to worry so much because they had permanent employment and patronage. Haydn happily wrote gloomy symphonies until his prince complained. Moreover, composers in the time of Mozart didn't generally conceive music as the expression of personal (that is their) emotions. Neither did Baroque composers like Bach. So this talk of their personalities and outlooks reflected in their music is anachronistic fluff imported from the Romantic Era and later.


8 - 1. Maybe this is the reason why when Mozart composed in a minor key - he made it count.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PlaySalieri said:


> 8 - 1. Maybe this is the reason why when Mozart composed in a minor key - he made it count.


And also, many of the major-key pieces (such as K.453/ii, which I posted earlier) contain sadness (with use of harmony and minor tonality). There are tons of other examples;


hammeredklavier said:


>


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

PlaySalieri said:


> 8 - 1. Maybe this is the reason why when Mozart composed in a minor key - he made it count.


To another extent, if he was making "unpopular" music, it may have been primarily to fulfill his creative impulses rather than making what a commissioner might enjoy. Same with his brilliant quintets, which, IIRC, were not written for any specific artistic commission, though he did attempt to sell them.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> To another extent, if he was making "unpopular" music, it may have been primarily to fulfill his creative impulses rather than making what a commissioner might enjoy. Same with his brilliant quintets, which, IIRC, were not written for any specific artistic commission, though he did attempt to sell them.


He composed his k310 Am Sonata soon after his mother died. It was especially traumatic for him because it was unexpected.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think what I really mean by purity is that Mozart's instrumental music (and vocal sans lyrics) has a pride, joy, simplicity and elegance about it not found by any other composers. That's that kind of art I gravitate towards. I see that as being pure.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think what I really mean by purity is that Mozart's instrumental music (and vocal sans lyrics) has a pride, joy, simplicity and elegance about it *not found by any other composers*. That's that kind of art I gravitate towards. I see that as being pure.


You mean that *you* haven't found in any other composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> To another extent, if he was making "unpopular" music, it may have been primarily to fulfill his creative impulses rather than making what a commissioner might enjoy. Same with his brilliant quintets, which, IIRC, were not written for any specific artistic commission, though he did attempt to sell them.


Actually, there's very little correlation between "whether or not a work was commissioned" and "whether or not the work expressed sadness/darkness/angst/passion" in Classical period music. There's tons of examples to prove this point, but I'll just give this one, for now:

// 8:00 ~ 12:00 // 26:00 ~ 32:30 // 1:23:30 ~ 1:28:30 // 1:44:30 ~ 1:50:00 // 2:01:00 ~ 2:06:00 // 2:21:30 ~ 2:27:30 //
"What then is "Romantic"? How far back should its beginnings, in music, be pushed? To 1793, when a review of a new work by "Citizen Méhul" described him as a Romantic? Or further - to year 1780-81, the year of Mozart's Idomeneo, a work whose use of orchestral colour for structural and psychological purposes anticipates nineteenth-century Romantic opera?" 
[ Berlioz: The Making of an Artist 1803-1832 , David Cairns , P. 193 ]


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Just listened to his last 4 string quartets.
Beautiful and wonderfully crafted.


----------



## Opisthokont (Dec 16, 2021)

It's interesting how we all hear "purity" so differently. When I think of pure music - the main thing that comes to my mind is stravinsky's last work. It feels so "pure" to me - all I see here a beautiful succession of pure colors. It isn't concerned with elegance or tension, all it cares to show you is the color of pitch intervals. It's probably one of the simplest pieces of music out there, which is why I love it so much.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I must admit that when I listen to Mozart for a prolonged period, his sugar gets too sweet after a while.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I must admit that when I listen to Mozart for a prolonged period, his sugar gets too sweet after a while.


Then we lift up this thread https://www.talkclassical.com/70545-why-i-believe-mozart.html?highlight=


----------



## sheri2022 (11 mo ago)

He's a genius that few compares to him, but I feel this "pure" feel you get from his music is more attribute to the era. You see it on Haydn works too. It's an era with monarchy establishment all over Europe, once Bastille fell down everything changed in europe including music. You can't portray Joy, peace and humor when people are killed each day. The french revolution ideas touched everybody (Remember Mozart and Haydn were treated as servants) Mozart late works have that different feel of complexity that maybe would have been evolved more if he lived longer.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Confutatis scene in Amadeus movie - with scrolling score.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The meaning of pure is essentially free from adulteration. So, the task for anyone maintaining the purity of Mozart's music—if such people exist—is to identify the contaminants Mozart filtered out or forestalled in creating his own and which, presumably, make other music less pure. Well? Anyone want to support the premise of the thread?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

.........................


----------



## McCall3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think what I really mean by purity is that Mozart's instrumental music (and vocal sans lyrics) has a pride, joy, simplicity and elegance about it not found by any other composers. That's that kind of art I gravitate towards. I see that as being pure.


I've been listening to Mozart a lot lately, and I'd agree with "pure" as a good description for his music. For me, it has both a feeling of fullness or richness, while at the same time it also has a feeling of simplicity.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Gartons said:


> Everyone has his own musical preferences.


That's why we are discussing it, welcome by the way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> The meaning of pure is essentially free from adulteration. So, the task for anyone maintaining the purity of Mozart's music-if such people exist-is to identify the contaminants Mozart filtered out or forestalled in creating his own and which, presumably, make other music less pure. Well? Anyone want to support the premise of the thread?


We would generally want more adulteration. But Mozart is continually offering musical ideas and surprises and tricks, like a grownup child, sharing his love for the games of composition, and large scale architecture. Amazing stuff he comes up with, never stale, AND apparently not challenging for him. Very impressive.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> ...Amazing stuff he comes up with, never stale ...


I think Mozart frequently resorted to musical cliché with the best of them. Of course they all do to a certain extent.

I love Mozart. But if we knew as little about his life as we know about Bach's, I don't think we would listen to his work in quite the same way.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

dissident said:


> I love Mozart. But if we knew as little about his life as we know about Bach's, I don't think we would listen to his work in quite the same way.


I also think the many popular half truths about Mozart's life have been a mixed blessing for the reception of his music. Many would probably listen more attentively if we hadn't read some of them or seen "Amadeus" etc. Although I am not sure these legends are as prevalent as they used to be. I never cared much about biographies and the only composer I read a certain amount of (sometimes semi-fictional) biographical background about the same time as getting to know his music was Beethoven.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> I also think the many popular half truths about Mozart's life have been a mixed blessing for the reception of his music. Many would probably listen more attentively if we hadn't read some of them or seen "Amadeus" etc. Although I am not sure these legends are as prevalent as they used to be. I never cared much about biographies and the only composer I read a certain amount of (sometimes semi-fictional) biographical background about the same time as getting to know his music was Beethoven.


Agreed ...some of those semi-fictional books about classical music can be very interesting.

As a classical music lover, I have read some books about my favorite composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Chopin, etc, with intent to better understand them as a person and a composer. Those biographies and background information may be and may be not help much in music appreciation and in fact many passages are unreasonably repeated and even groundless. But this seldom affects me negatively in music appreciation and would never overwhelm my instinct when listening to a piece of music.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> I also think the many popular half truths about Mozart's life have been a mixed blessing for the reception of his music. Many would probably listen more attentively if we hadn't read some of them or seen "Amadeus" etc. Although I am not sure these legends are as prevalent as they used to be. I never cared much about biographies and the only composer I read a certain amount of (sometimes semi-fictional) biographical background about the same time as getting to know his music was Beethoven.


Well a lot of it predates Amadeus, and in fact you could say Amadeus was a symptom of it. Also Beethoven's biography had been embroidered with plenty of half-truths and apocrypha as well. The thing is "the tragic" has hung over Mozart since his early death, and so (for example) everything in a minor key is of course full of foreboding and desolation...like the 40th symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> everything in a minor key is of course full of foreboding and desolation


I don't deny there's a myth associated with this, I've also admitted in various other threads (eg. Beethoven Piano Concerto No. 3 in C Minor, Op. 37) that this (the stylistic trait) has more to do with the tradition he grew up with.

I respect your views in topics like this. (It's why I hadn't come back after my last post), but I must also point out there's also "myth" about Bach that does disservice to other composers as well, especially the immediate later composers. Consider "Bach Chorale Harmonizations"; it almost seems that any chorale Bach wrote is to be regarded as some sort of "divinely-crafted, complex counterpoint" cause Bach did it, taught in every institution as some sacred relic. Still in the minds of many people today, he's like the greatest "avant-gardist" of the 18th century who always strove for "artistic complexity" without ever giving in to the "dumb", "shallow" simplicity and frivolity of the newer aesthetics of his time. Johann Ludwig Krebs never gets this sort of recognition.


hammeredklavier said:


> "Bach gave the title Das Wohltemperirte Clavier to a book of preludes and fugues in all 24 keys, major and minor, dated 1722, composed "for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"."
> The purpose of the Art of the Fugue was most likely the same. Lots of 18th century composers employed by the church wrote versets (eg. look at Pasterwitz) and other similar collections of contrapuntal pieces out of necessity (for educational and recreational purposes). That was part of their tradition of profession and craftsmanship. Also, due to the Baroque idiomatic use of rhythm and dynamics in Bach, it may sound to the modern ears like it's not for "entertainment", but the same can be said about just about anything Baroque; Purcell fantasies for viols and Biber sonatas. Once you understand how a fugue or a canon from those times works, there's nothing hard to "get" (I'm not implying Bach lacks inspiration or mastery, by this). I think it's nonsensical to think Bach somehow had an "avant-garde" mindset, actually intended to write things not for "entertainment". Bach himself in his time never actually thought in that way, just like how he thought the Doctrine of the Affections was always the way to compose music; he would have thought the music of the later eras with their mood swings (involving multiple themes), for instance, as lacking focus and confusing.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

The Mozart legends predate the Amadeus movie but most of it is 20th century semi-popular culture, and Beethoven could have hardly cared less about Mozart's life and was nevertheless strongly impressed and influenced by his music. Even the arch-romantic Hoffmann uses very little of biography when writing about Mozart; if he and others invested maybe a bit too much romanticism into pieces like Don Juan it was because of the subject matter and their own romantic proclivities, not because of the Mozart myths. 

Similarly with Beethoven. The great composer and pianists becoming deaf is a case of truth more poignant than fiction could be (so unlike in the case of Mozart one didn't even have to make up stories) but I don't think Brahms had the feeling of a giant looming behind (before?) him because of such biographical details.

I once heard a professional church musician/organist claim that a significant proportion of "Bach's" organ music was of doubtful origin (more likely to be "school of Bach", e.g. by one of his sons or students) but I have not looked into this any further and I think he was a bit exaggerating to make a point.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...the immediate later composers. Consider "Bach Chorale Harmonizations"; it almost seems that any chorale Bach wrote is to be regarded as some sort of "divinely-crafted, complex counterpoint" cause Bach did it, taught in every institution as some sacred relic. ...


Yes the Bach chorale harmonizations are usually fairly predictable and in themselves not examples of some sort of "divine counterpoint", and even AI can emulate it. But I don't think AI would algorithmically come up with this:





It's the picture overall.


Kreisler jr said:


> I once heard a professional church musician/organist claim that a significant proportion of "Bach's" organ music was of doubtful origin (more likely to be "school of Bach", e.g. by one of his sons or students) but I have not looked into this any further and I think he was a bit exaggerating to make a point.


I don't know what that point would be since so much of it exists in manuscript, and I can't imagine anyone else composing BWV 544 or 582. I don't sense anything "generic" about it. I've also heard it's been claimed that Anna Magdalena composed the cello suites. Similarly crackpot.


----------



## marlow (11 mo ago)

Kreisler jr said:


> The Mozart legends predate the Amadeus movie but most of it is 20th century semi-popular culture, and Beethoven could have hardly cared less about Mozart's life and was nevertheless strongly impressed and influenced by his music. Even the arch-romantic Hoffmann uses very little of biography when writing about Mozart; if he and others invested maybe a bit too much romanticism into pieces like Don Juan it was because of the subject matter and their own romantic proclivities, not because of the Mozart myths.
> 
> Similarly with Beethoven. The great composer and pianists becoming deaf is a case of truth more poignant than fiction could be (so unlike in the case of Mozart one didn't even have to make up stories) but I don't think Brahms had the feeling of a giant looming behind (before?) him because of such biographical details.
> 
> I once heard a professional church musician/organist claim that a significant proportion of "Bach's" organ music was of doubtful origin (more likely to be "school of Bach", e.g. by one of his sons or students) but I have not looked into this any further and I think he was a bit exaggerating to make a point.


I think we can say that the amount of rubbish that has been written about composers could just about fit a good size library. There are of course so-called 'scholars' whose bread and butter depends on churning out ceaseless unfounded speculations but there is little need to pay attention to most of them.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

dissident said:


> I don't think AI would algorithmically come up with this:


Your points are well taken. I also think we need to avoid trying to indoctrinate other people with the "Bach Mozart Beethoven über alles" mindset. (I guess this leads to another topic, Why do you overrate or underrate composers?.) Also, for instance, since you mentioned 'cynicism' in Mozart earlier in this thread, Salieri was writing an opera similar to Cosi fan tutte in subject material (but left it incomplete) at the same time as Mozart, and the Salzburg Haydn also wrote a scatological canon, "Scheiß nieder, armer Sünder". It's not objectively unreasonable to view the things Mozart did as simply "light", "silly", "fluffy", and not any "purer" than his contemporaries'.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Your points are well-taken. I also think we need to avoid trying indoctrinating other people with the "Bach Mozart Beethoven über alles" mindset. (I guess this leads to another topic Why do you overrate or underrate composers?) Also, for instance, Salieri was writing an opera similar to Cosi fan tutte in subject material (but left it incomplete) at the same time as Mozart, and the Salzburg Haydn also wrote a scatological canon, "**** fast, you sinners". It's not so unreasonable to view the things Mozart did as simply "silly" and "frivolous", not any "purer" than his contemporaries'.


Well I wasn't "indoctrinated" in Bach-Mozart-Beethoven "supremacy" at all. I didn't go to a conservatory and have only been exposed to piano and cello lessons (in which case Chopin and Popper of all people would have been supreme, if indoctrination is the thing).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dissident said:


> I think Mozart frequently resorted to musical cliché with the best of them. Of course they all do to a certain extent.
> 
> I love Mozart. But if we knew as little about his life as we know about Bach's, I don't think we would listen to his work in quite the same way.


Social psychology defines a stereotype as a generalized belief about a particular category of people.

It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are sometimes overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information, but can sometimes be accurate.

Bach's life as stereotypical might be accurate, but not our Mozart!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

dissident said:


> Well a lot of it predates Amadeus, and in fact you could say Amadeus was a symptom of it. Also Beethoven's biography had been embroidered with plenty of half-truths and apocrypha as well. The thing is "the tragic" has hung over Mozart since his early death, and so (for example) everything in a minor key is of course full of foreboding and desolation...like the 40th symphony.


Going even farther back into the blur of yesteryear, what predated Amadeus was the 'awareness' to do the plot of "The Immortal Beloved". These phenomena come up from base instincts. Unavoidable, because art must be an inspiring reflection of reality.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

"Purity" in music to me is first and foremost Renaissance choral polyphony:






Nothing but melodic voices moving in harmony.


----------

