# Mozart vs. Beethoven



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Mr Corkin..
> 
> •	I think Mozart is still probably slightly more popular than Beethoven overall, certainly among the general masses of those interested in classical music (as opposed to the tiny few who congregate on music forums).
> 
> •	Mozart's breadth of coverage was probably greater than Beethoven's.
> 
> •	Mozart had equally, if not better, melodic gifts than Beethoven.
> 
> •	His orchestration skills were superb, in the same category of excellence as Beethoven's and Wagner's.
> 
> •	Despite your own prejudices, Mozart's several magnificent operas are the jewel in the crown, and are second to none. Even many Wagner "nuts" will acknowledge Mozart's outstanding, if not possibly superior, achievements in this genre.
> 
> •	Mozart's influence on later composers was just as high as Beethoven's. For example, although Schubert was in complete awe of Beethoven (as a contemporary in Vienna), he had a higher regard for Mozart. Undoubtedly, while Beethoven's influence was huge and unsurpassed for much of the rest of the 19th century, it did begin to run out of steam after Brahms. On the other hand, Tchaikovsky - and later composers such as Ravel and Debussy - were far more interested in Mozart's legacy than Beethoven's.​
> Really, there's not much in it between Beethoven and Mozart in terms of any fair, overall objective assessment of the two. I therefore think your assessment is incorrect.


I didn't have time earlier to make anything of the Beethoven/Mozart comparison but I think it warrants a post of its own. I would just like you and others of a similar mind to consider the works completed by mature Beethoven before his 36th birthday and think about them in relation to music of the same genre from Mozart.

Familiar pieces include..
Appassionata, Waldstein, Kreutzer, Pathetique, Moonlight, Tempest, Spring, Eroica, Leonore.

Consider generally all the other piano sonatas such as op2, 7, 10; the trios op1, 3, 9; duo sonatas op5, 12.

These are just for starters, off the top of my head, feel free to bring other pieces into the discussion. Imagine also if we just added one year we would encounter from B the Razumovsky quartets, the 4th piano concerto, violin concerto etc

Mango are you (or indeed anyone else) seriously suggesting Mozart's equivalents are a match for these??


----------



## Handel

I think personnally that Mozart has better dramatic/theatrical talents than beethoven. So, I give the opera to Mozart. For the rest, long live Beethoven.


----------



## Evan Roberts

Well I would say Mozart's piano concerto No.21 compares with Beethoven's No.4


----------



## Guest

I assume this discussion will proceed on the assumption that all works currently accredited to Mozart are his genuinely. I will gladly add more of my comments later, once others have had a chance to have their say.


----------



## robert newman

Beethoven's supreme mastery of every form that he touched is evident well before he was 35 years of age. To compare him to Mozart (even with music wrongly attributed to Mozart) is like comparing candy floss with high protein. Beethoven is without doubt a supremely gifted genius. The same is simply not true of Mozart, whether we are dealing with the official Mozart or not. What is more powerful, more dramatic, more daring and more original than Beethoven ? His is an entire sound world of a higher order - dragging us in to the light of modern times. As I've often said 'Beethoven is the musical Declaration of Independence'.


----------



## ChamberNut

*Consider quality vs. quantity*

Well with Mozart and Beethoven, it will forever, it seems, be questioned as to who was the better of the two?

We always have to consider the quality vs quantity of works, and also the emotional depth and ranges of the compositions.

Just doing a plain simple comparison of genres, in my opinion the master is:

Opera - Mozart (hands down, not even close).

Symphonies - Beethoven (again, not even close, in spite of Mozart's vast number composed).

Piano Sonatas - Beethoven

Piano Concerto - A very slight edge goes to Mozart. Not only does Mozart have a much greater quantity, but the quality is also very good.

Sacred and other choral works - Mozart

Piano Trios - Beethoven

String Quartets - Beethoven

Serenades and Divertimenti - Mozart

Misc. Chamber Music - probably an edge to Mozart

Other concerti - an edge to Mozart, although Beethoven does have his out-of-this world Violin Concerto. Beethoven just doesn't have the diversity of Mozart in this arena.

Violin Sonatas - Beethoven


----------



## robert newman

Hi ChamberNut, 

Can you please say which Mozart church work/choral work is in your view as musically great as, say, the Missa Solemnis ? Thanks.


----------



## Guest

I would have to say Mozart takes the cake. In his time he dominated every style of popular music. Beethoven did not, his attempts at Opera is a good example. I believe in the overall sense of the word "better" Mozart, because of his diversity and his purely genius ability to compose such a large amount of work which all are worth listening to. Though I’m not going to lie, i am much more of a fan of Beethoven’s music. It's so passionate, which at times Mozart lacks.


----------



## ChamberNut

robert newman said:


> Hi ChamberNut,
> 
> Can you please say which Mozart church work/choral work is in your view as musically great as, say, the Missa Solemnis ? Thanks.


Mozart's Requiem and Great Mass in C minor.

*I'm taking the assumption of Mozart being the composer of these works Robert, no offense *


----------



## robert newman

Thank you very much ChamberNut. No offence but unless I'm mistaken the C Minor Mass was never completed - not even nearly. I mean, of works that Mozart completed. Honest, I would really appreciate your views. Thanks again !


----------



## Rod Corkin

Handel said:


> I think personnally that Mozart has better dramatic/theatrical talents than beethoven. So, I give the opera to Mozart. For the rest, long live Beethoven.


I think Leonore even in its first draught is more interesting than The Magic Flute, but there you go. In terms of quantity Beethoven is not an opera composer, I concede this, but there is no opera greater than Fidelio (though this falls oustide the 35 years limit I imposed on myself).

Considering true opera composers in this context I believe the king of opera is truely Handel


----------



## Rod Corkin

ChamberNut said:


> Well with Mozart and Beethoven, it will forever, it seems, be questioned as to who was the better of the two?
> 
> We always have to consider the quality vs quantity of works, and also the emotional depth and ranges of the compositions.
> 
> Just doing a plain simple comparison of genres, in my opinion the master is:
> 
> Opera - Mozart (hands down, not even close).
> 
> Symphonies - Beethoven (again, not even close, in spite of Mozart's vast number composed).
> 
> Piano Sonatas - Beethoven
> 
> Piano Concerto - A very slight edge goes to Mozart. Not only does Mozart have a much greater quantity, but the quality is also very good.
> 
> Sacred and other choral works - Mozart
> 
> Piano Trios - Beethoven
> 
> String Quartets - Beethoven
> 
> Serenades and Divertimenti - Mozart
> 
> Misc. Chamber Music - probably an edge to Mozart
> 
> Other concerti - an edge to Mozart, although Beethoven does have his out-of-this world Violin Concerto. Beethoven just doesn't have the diversity of Mozart in this arena.
> 
> Violin Sonatas - Beethoven


I have given my opinion regarding opera in response to Handel's post. I don't know if you are restricting Beethoven to his 35th year in your analysis, whereby sacred works do not really come into the equation (certainly the Solemn Mass I would say is beyond what Mozart could have achieved), and opera only in B's 35th year. I was concerned more in the areas they are comparable, like Symphonies, sonatas, quartets etc, ie the highest development of instrumental music - whereby your own assessment rightly concludes Beethoven to be the superior. Mozart wrote no concerto I have heard to match B's 4 & 5th and the violin concerto, especially when you hear them all on period instruments.


----------



## Rod Corkin

robert newman said:


> Beethoven's supreme mastery of every form that he touched is evident well before he was 35 years of age. To compare him to Mozart (even with music wrongly attributed to Mozart) is like comparing candy floss with high protein. Beethoven is without doubt a supremely gifted genius. The same is simply not true of Mozart, whether we are dealing with the official Mozart or not. What is more powerful, more dramatic, more daring and more original than Beethoven ? His is an entire sound world of a higher order - dragging us in to the light of modern times. As I've often said 'Beethoven is the musical Declaration of Independence'.


A neat summary of the situation.


----------



## ChamberNut

Rod Corkin said:


> *I don't know if you are restricting Beethoven to his 35th year in your analysis*


I wasn't restricting Beethoven to his 35th year in his analysis, and perhaps that's an improper analysis.

If I compare 35 to 35, then I believe Mozart has a definite overall edge.

How about Beethoven or Mozart at 31 compared to Schubert at 31?


----------



## Frasier

Handel said:


> I think personnally that Mozart has better dramatic/theatrical talents than beethoven. So, I give the opera to Mozart. For the rest, long live Beethoven.


I think I agree with this. Beethoven seemed to have had trouble with vocal work though the Missa Solemnis is without doubt a masterpiece in every aspect. In every other respect he carried music far further than Mozart (who, I learn from reading various threads on the forum, was a Holding Company running a bunch of subsidiary composers).


----------



## Leporello87

Though I have a deep love for Beethoven's music, I do feel that may of his pieces contain rather awkward writing. I don't find his vocal writing to be nearly as natural and appropriate for the voice as what is found in the work of Mozart and Schubert. Even some of Beethoven's piano music is rather awkward and "unpianistic", despite the fact that piano was Beethoven's main instrument.

On the other hand, Mozart's greatest music has an ethereal, flowing, unforced quality which is oftentimes sublime and sheer magic. In the case of Beethoven, miracles seem to be happen, but we very much know that they are happening, and if we pay close attention, how they are happening. With Mozart, it can be difficult to detect just how the miracle happened, and yet, it's there in any case.


----------



## opus67

I am not qualified to answer this question, but I'll just state that Beethoven will be before Mozart any day on my list. (Currently they are #1 and #2, respectively )

*Blabber starts here*
I have heard only a tiny fraction of their output. While I immensely enjoy the works of both, I find Mozart's music to have a stamp of Classicism in every work (duh!). I mean that many of his works sound the more or less the same(sorry, examples doesn't seem to come to mind, right now), and to the untrained ear, Mozart and Haydn sound the same (and we all know why that is! ). But with Beethoven, I feel that every work has a new sound to it. And, of course, he also came up Beethovenian music , influencing a few generations of amazing musicians. 

As for opera, can you really compare the two? I mean, Mozart's sooo many to Beethoven's one? I don't know if Beethoven thought he would not do too well or found it uninteresting, or whether the people didn't like it, but still comparing the two in this genre is a bit unfair, IMVHO.
*Blabber ends here*


----------



## Leporello87

opus67 said:


> But with Beethoven, I feel that every work has a new sound to it.


The implication here is that you don't feel this is true of Mozart. While I would agree that Mozart's earlier works are less individualized, I cannot agree with you with respect to the later works.

Take a listen to the last 5 great Mozart symphonies, No. 36 (Linz), No. 38 (Prague), and the final trilogy, Nos. 39, 40, and 41. Each of these pieces sound very different and highly individualized to me, and each piece has features that make it special and unique.

I would say the same is true of the piano concerti. Nos. 21 and 25 are both in C major. And yet, how different they are! No. 21 seems to exude the very spirit of opera buffa in practically every note, while No. 25 takes on a serious, symphonic level of grandeur worthy of the Jupiter Symphony, in the same key. Or the A major concerto No. 23, in which every note carries that simultaneous happy/melancholy attitude that characterizes late Mozart.

If we want to get into more individual details in terms of structure, there are many differences there as well, even if the piano concertos, on the surface, appear to take on a "formulaic" feel.

And what of the operas? Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi fan tutte, and the Magic Flute, are all quite different from each other.


----------



## Morigan

One could argue that Mozart kept using the same signature motifs in his works. You can always hear a small series of note and immediately think : that's Mozart.

But Beethoven's work have a certain quality that's also easy to identify upon hearing. Just how it sounds. It just sounds... Beethovenian!

Anyway, I love them both at a quasi-equal level. That may sound as if I didn't have an opinion or couldn't argue, but it's the truth. Say I had to choose between a free complete-works box of Beethoven's works OR one of Mozart's... I really have no idea which one I'd take. 

...Although I might as well choose Mozart's cause it's a little bigger.


----------



## opus67

Morigan said:


> One could argue that Mozart kept using the same signature motifs in his works. You can always hear a small series of note and immediately think : that's Mozart.
> 
> But Beethoven's work have a certain quality that's also easy to identify upon hearing. Just how it sounds. It just sounds... Beethovenian!
> 
> Anyway, I love them both at a quasi-equal level. That may sound as if I didn't have an opinion or couldn't argue, but it's the truth. Say I had to choose between a free complete-works box of Beethoven's works OR one of Mozart's... I really have no idea which one I'd take.
> 
> ...Although I might as well choose Mozart's cause it's a little bigger.


Hmm...Yes, I should have probably said that instead.  It's closer to what I had in mind.


----------



## Azathoth

While not apples and oranges, I've always thought Mozart and Beethoven were different enough to not really be compared.

As far as I can tell from my listening, Beethoven is fierce, passionate, and fiery. When you play Beethoven, odds are you slam the hell out of the keyboard.

As far as I can tell from my admittedly rather limited exposure, Mozart is a little lighter. Not in terms of emotional content. I sort of understand it in colors, if that makes any sense. Beethoven is deep, smoky red while Mozart is more of a sky blue. Mozart seems to me to be a little more playful, and a little less...bipolar, shall we say? Again, not the greatest terminology. When you play Mozart, odds are your fingers are light and quick.

Beethoven knocks around in steel-toed boots. Mozart skips around barefoot.

While I like Mozart, it seems that in many cases what we have is essentially 250 year old elevator music. He certainly wrote pieces that touch the emotions, I'm not denying that, but overall I would classify him as one of the more moving composers.

It's probably just my preferences, but I've found that Beethoven more readily reaches me. When I need to concentrate, I reach for my Mozart. He gives me something aesthetically pleasing to focus on so I don't end up listening to everything else that's going on.

When I'm feeling something intensely, Beethoven understands. For me, his music speaks in a way that I can't. Also, when I'm listening to him, I _have_ to move. I'm a pretty kinetic person anyway -diagnosed with ADHD- but something about Beethoven, whatever it is, won't let me not move. I have to experience him completely, with all of me. Whenever I get some time alone -I share a room so it's a rare treat- I lock my door, crank up my speakers and leap around to some mastery.

I've never had a similarly intense experience with Mozart. I actually get kind of bored with Mozart, while with Beethoven I can listen to the same piece over and over again, and still be affected the same way.

However, to be honest, I will admit that my exposure isn't that wide. A lot of it's also been from the radio so I don't remember the names of the pieces, just the composers.


----------



## Leporello87

Morigan said:


> ...Although I might as well choose Mozart's cause it's a little bigger.


In that case, you might want to opt for the complete works of Andrea Luchesi, instead.


----------



## opus67

Leporello87 said:


> In that case, you might want to opt for the complete works of Andrea Luchesi, instead.


And there are barely 10 hits for 'andrea luchesi' on amazon.


----------



## Guest

Leporello87 said:


> In that case, you might want to opt for the complete works of Andrea Luchesi, instead.


When Morigan said " You can always hear a small series of note and immediately think : that's Mozart." I was about to speak about Kraus, and say exactly the same thing, but *I *didn't. 
You are weaker than me, Leporello87.


----------



## Leporello87

Daffodylls said:


> When Morigan said " You can always hear a small series of note and immediately think : that's Mozart." I was about to speak about Kraus, and say exactly the same thing, but *I *didn't.
> You are weaker than me, Leporello87.


Haha, guilty as charged 

Really, honestly, I'm restraining myself here. But I have to indulge every once in awhile! I think that you should, as well


----------



## Guest

Leporello87 said:


> Haha, guilty as charged
> 
> Really, honestly, I'm restraining myself here. But I have to indulge every once in awhile! I think that you should, as well


yes, I should, but It's so difficult for me to post something appropriate: I wish I could write and understand better English.... so, I have an excuse.


----------



## Leporello87

Your English looks great to me, better than a lot of so-called native speakers here in les Etats-Unis...

But it's easy. Anywhere you see the word "Mozart" or "Haydn", just replace it with the name of the appropriate _true_ composer.


----------



## opus67

Exercise No.1: Mozart did not compose the Jupiter Symphony


----------



## Guest

Thank you, Leporello, it’s most kind of you.


----------



## Guest

"When I'm listening to him, I have to move"
Even though i did say Mozart was the overall "better" i am the exact same way about Beethoven. And as well as you, Azathoth, i have also been diagnosed with ADHD. The music is so, to an extreme level, passionate. Passionate is not even enough of a word to describe it. But still the complexity of Mozart is baffling if you take the time to listen to it. 

The thing that really gets me moving is Tchaikovsky. When I’m driving i get awkward looks from the other drivers because I’m swinging my arms around like I’m conducting a symphony. Not too safe i guess


----------



## Rod Corkin

Leporello87 said:


> Though I have a deep love for Beethoven's music, I do feel that may of his pieces contain rather awkward writing. I don't find his vocal writing to be nearly as natural and appropriate for the voice as what is found in the work of Mozart and Schubert. Even some of Beethoven's piano music is rather awkward and "unpianistic", despite the fact that piano was Beethoven's main instrument.
> 
> On the other hand, Mozart's greatest music has an ethereal, flowing, unforced quality which is oftentimes sublime and sheer magic. In the case of Beethoven, miracles seem to be happen, but we very much know that they are happening, and if we pay close attention, how they are happening. With Mozart, it can be difficult to detect just how the miracle happened, and yet, it's there in any case.


It is not that Beethoven's writing that is awkward, it is Mozart's, amongst most of the others, that is too 'easy'. I may add that I do not even consider listening to Beethoven's piano music unless it is performed on the fortepiano by someone who knows what they are doing. I suspect your idea of Beethoven and mine are completely different. Authentic instruments are my alpha and omega. But even authentic Mozart sounds lack-lustre in comparison and i have heard enough to say this with conviction.

But I challenge anyone to upload any recording of any kind of Mozart's that as a genre is in competition with Beethoven, up to the mutual age of 35 (and I believe the two composers are close enough per se to be comparable). I guarantee I will demolish it...


----------



## Rod Corkin

opus67 said:


> As for opera, can you really compare the two? I mean, Mozart's sooo many to Beethoven's one? I don't know if Beethoven thought he would not do too well or found it uninteresting, or whether the people didn't like it, but still comparing the two in this genre is a bit unfair, IMVHO.
> *Blabber ends here*


I have addressed the issue of opera already. Forgive me but I am agassed at how often I feel I have the need to repeat myself at this forum.


----------



## Frasier

Huh, thanks..... 

I didn't know that mozart lived to be 35... wasn't she pushing up the daisies by then? I dare say you have to repeat yourself because most people aren't as intense... bear with us, we're here for enjoyment as much as anything else.

PS Beethoven's choral writing was faecal...everyone knows that - that's why he took so long to complete the failed fidelio. His work otherwise is that of a genius with an unparalleled aural imagination. You should perhaps read what critics of the time had to say about him, however.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Frasier said:


> Huh, thanks.....
> 
> I didn't know that mozart lived to be 35... wasn't she pushing up the daisies by then?


Mozart died at the age of 35, what age did you expect? I'm here for the enjoyment more than you guys...

Your comment regarding Fidelio deserves no response..


----------



## Leporello87

Rod Corkin said:


> It is not that Beethoven's writing that is awkward, it is Mozart's, amongst most of the others, that is too 'easy'.


I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though you may have confused my words "awkward, unpianistic" with "difficult." It is possible for piano music to be difficult, and yet still be pianistic. However, some of Beethoven's piano music is both difficult and unpianistic. This is a feature of the actual notes on the page -- it is an internal issue, native to the music. One could argue that played on a fortepiano, certain sections might be somewhat less awkward to play, but that still doesn't make them especially pianistic.



> But I challenge anyone to upload any recording of any kind of Mozart's that as a genre is in competition with Beethoven, up to the mutual age of 35. I guarantee I will demolish it...


Are you including opera in this assertion? Fidelio has some very nice music, to be sure, but I can't agree with the assertion that this is the equal of Mozart's dramatic output. Had Beethoven never had Mozart's operas as an example, Fidelio might very well have been a much inferior work.

I agree that in some more obvious genres (piano sonata, violin sonata, symphony) Beethoven takes the cake, while in other genres (opera, concerto), Mozart has the edge. Ultimately, however, I find that I hate these discussions, because both composers have great examples of works in every genre. Why does it have to be so competitive?


----------



## Rod Corkin

Leporello87 said:


> I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds as though you may have confused my words "awkward, unpianistic" with "difficult." It is possible for piano music to be difficult, and yet still be pianistic. However, some of Beethoven's piano music is both difficult and unpianistic. This is a feature of the actual notes on the page -- it is an internal issue, native to the music. One could argue that played on a fortepiano, certain sections might be somewhat less awkward to play, but that still doesn't make them especially pianistic.


Beethoven is the epitome of what the piano should sound like, Mozart's piano sonatas sound like schoolboy stuff in comparison. To be honest if it wasn't for Beethoven I wouldn't even be interested in piano music.



Leporello87 said:


> Are you including opera in this assertion? Fidelio has some very nice music, to be sure, but I can't agree with the assertion that this is the equal of Mozart's dramatic output. Had Beethoven never had Mozart's operas as an example, Fidelio might very well have been a much inferior work.


Beethoven was critical of Mozart's operas generally, at least anecdotally. Only the Magic Flute he apparently had time for. Of all the music I have ever heard I would say the most overrated is Mozart opera - out of all of them there is barely a single memorable tune or dramatic episode. I spent good money seeing Don Giovanni and Cosi fan tutti live and I have never spent so much time looking at my watch.



Leporello87 said:


> I agree that in some more obvious genres (piano sonata, violin sonata, symphony) Beethoven takes the cake, while in other genres (opera, concerto), Mozart has the edge. Ultimately, however, I find that I hate these discussions, because both composers have great examples of works in every genre. Why does it have to be so competitive?


This is not unreasonable, but over many years I have gained the impression the academic musical establishment on the whole rates Mozart above Beethoven, and Bach above Mozart, with Handel way behind somewhere alongside Berlioz. I seek to redress this deviant situation.


----------



## Leporello87

Rod Corkin said:


> Beethoven is the epitome of what the piano should sound like, Mozart's piano sonatas sound like schoolboy stuff in comparison. To be honest if it wasn't for Beethoven I wouldn't even be interested in piano music.


Beethoven's piano music is fantastic, amazing stuff. I love this repertoire dearly, and I play his sonatas every chance I get. In fact, the music I have open on the keyboard at my apartment right now is the Hammerklavier fugue, which I was playing sections of last night. Still, I can't agree that every note of music Beethoven wrote for the piano is the epitome of pianistic music.



> Beethoven was critical of Mozart's operas generally, at least anecdotally. Only the Magic Flute he apparently had time for. Of all the music I have ever heard I would say the most overrated is Mozart opera - out of all of them there is barely a single memorable tune or dramatic episode. I spent good money seeing Don Giovanni and Cosi fan tutti live and I have never spent so much time looking at my watch.


Beethoven may have been critical anecdotally of Mozart's operas, but a glance at the music says very differently. Mozart's influence on Fidelio is quite clear.

As for your experience of Don Giovanni and Cosi fan tutte -- well, I'm not sure quite what to say. Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinions here, but personally, I find so many scenes in Mozart's operas to be superb (perhaps even _supreme_) examples of dramatic situations put into music. The more I study these scenes, the more convinced of that I become, and my appreciation for this music grows ever richer. So perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this point. And I still stand by my opinion that Fidelio cannot hold up to that legacy.



> This is not unreasonable, but over many years I have gained the impression the academic musical establishment on the whole rates Mozart above Beethoven, and Bach above Mozart, with Handel way behind somewhere alongside Berlioz. I seek to redress this deviant situation.


I look forward to hearing more! And I do promise to investigate more of Handel in the near future


----------



## Frasier

Rod Corkin said:


> Mozart died at the age of 35, what age did you expect? ......


 I don't know - I know died young from some anti-social disease but I thought he was 32. Thanks for putting me right.


> Your comment regarding Fidelio deserves no response..


None expected. It's general knowledge. I'd say the same about the last movement of the 9th - I usually switch off after the utterly sublime previous movements because that 4th is a right pig's ear. I've wondered what it was trying to achieve - no answer to that either - but it may have made a better standalone work. However, the Missa Solemnis is in a class of its own.

No worries, I don't like anything pre-Debussy except Beethoven. His String Quartets, particularly from the middle ones on, never cease to amaze me. Anyone wants to study chamber writing, start here, no matter how modern you aspire to be. Beethoven grew and blew just about every Mozartian boundary apart. Mozart worked to a formula.

Mozart has a certain lightness and humour that makes his music easy. Beethoven was not a humorous man.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Leporello87 said:


> I look forward to hearing more! And I do promise to investigate more of Handel in the near future


I deal with Handel elsewhere and may produce some goodies for you, but let's stick to Beethoven for the moment. I challenge anyone to upload any track from any Mozart opera and I will upload something from Beethoven's Leonore (as opposed to Fidelio, to fit in with the 35 year limit). Beethoven was not a natural composer for the stage, but when the effort was made by George it is worth listening to.


----------



## Leporello87

Rod Corkin said:


> I deal with Handel elsewhere and may produce some goodies for you, but let's stick to Beethoven for the moment. I challenge anyone to upload any track from any Mozart opera and I will upload something from Beethoven's Leonore (as opposed to Fidelio, to fit in with the 35 year limit). Beethoven was not a natural composer for the stage, but when the effort was made by George it is worth listening to.


This might be fun! I will think on it, and see later if I can get my increasingly temperamental computer to do something as "challenging" as uploading an mp3.


----------



## ChamberNut

Frasier said:


> I'd say the same about the last movement of the 9th - I usually switch off after the utterly sublime previous movements because that 4th is a right pig's ear. I've wondered what it was trying to achieve - no answer to that either - but it may have made a better standalone work.


Frasier, it's unfortunate you feel this way (but I respect your opinion).

My Opinion of the 9th Symphony as a whole (but even more so because of the 4th movement), is the greatest major composition ever written in the history of music. Now obviously this is extremely debatable and many consider Bach's Mass in B minor to be the rightful champion, but "the 9th" would also garner many votes.


----------



## zlya

> While not apples and oranges, I've always thought Mozart and Beethoven were different enough to not really be compared.


You're right, Mozart and Beethoven are not apples and oranges . . . they're apples and rocketships. You can compare apples and oranges (both are fruit, spherical, juicy, etc.) but you cannot compare Mozart and Beethoven. Mozart was Classical, Beethoven was Romantic. The works attributed to Mozart are the absolute epitome of Classical composition; nothing composed by his contemporaries comes close. I really don't care if he wrote them or not. If he didn't, it's certainly nice of someone to group together all the best of the Classical period under one name--makes it much more convenient for me to choose pieces.

Beethoven was certainly no less genius, but in his own way. His is a different era of music, a different style. If you prefer one to the other it is because you prefer that style, not because one was a better composer. Both were unquestionably masters. Both produced (or are conveniently attributed with producing) extraordinary music. I would no more compare the two than I would compare Perotin to Wagner, or Shakespeare to Homer.


----------



## Leporello87

zlya said:


> Mozart was Classical, Beethoven was Romantic.


You say this so matter-of-factly, and yet this is a subject of debate. Actually, if someone put a gun to my head and asked me to identify on the spot whether or not Beethoven was a Classical composer or a Romantic composer, and I had to choose one (yes, I know, unlikely situation) -- I would choose Classical over Romantic.

But this is perhaps a whole new can of worms -- or, perhaps, a new thread topic??


----------



## opus67

Frasier said:


> the last movement of the 9th... but it may have made a better standalone work.


I think that every time I listen to that symphony. 

Is it probably because it was conceived much later than the initial movements, after the Royal Society(?) requested him to redo the final movement?


----------



## opus67

Leporello87 said:


> But this is perhaps a whole new can of worms -- or, perhaps, a new thread topic??


It has been dealt with. Beethoven was a Beethovenian composer, at least for the last 2/3rds of his life.


----------



## Rod Corkin

ChamberNut said:


> Frasier, it's unfortunate you feel this way (but I respect your opinion).
> 
> My Opinion of the 9th Symphony as a whole (but even more so because of the 4th movement), is the greatest major composition ever written in the history of music. Now obviously this is extremely debatable and many consider Bach's Mass in B minor to be the rightful champion, but "the 9th" would also garner many votes.


I suggest the 9th is in a different league from Bach's Mass, which to me is overlong an lacking in musical interest, though the two are not really comparable. Beethoven rated the Solemn Mass his greatest work, I wouldn't argue with this.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I have addressed the issue of opera already. Forgive me but I am agassed at how often I feel I have the need to repeat myself at this forum.


Oh, sorry we missed your first great uttering. How silly of us.

Mozart's superior operatic output makes him at least the equal of Beethoven. This genre was Beethoven's big weakness. He simply couldn't write well for words and voices to the same exceptional quality as Mozart. Mozart's Don Giovanni and Le Nozze are the two most outstanding opera ever written, even though they may not appeal to Mr Corkin.

Anyone who thinks Beethoven's music is more passionate than Mozart's, yes that's perhaps true in the main for orchestral/chamber works, but Mozart more than makes up for this in his operatic achievements, which contain plenty of "passion". On this point, I reckon several people on this Forum are pretty much novices and haven't listened to much classical music at all. I've seen evidence for this elsewhere in this Forum. This, of course, is not their fault but some of them tend to speak as if they have a lot more knowledge than they really have.

Mozart's music is probably more popular than Beethoven's at the level of the mass market, and all these people can't be wrong.

Mozart was the undoubted king of "classical" era music. The best of his music always has a distinctive appealing style: melodic, harmonic, and has the virtue of keeping the listener's attention focused, unlike some of very long-winded stuff that later composers got involved in. Beethoven faced more competition in the "Romantic era". Some prefer Brahms and Wagner, for example, and others believe that Schumann was the best Romantic.

Mozart's musical characteristics are that it sounds so unique upon first hearing, but holds deeper qualities the more you listen.

Beethoven's early string quartets are pretty lack-lustre in my view. In his later style and he rather sacrificed melody for new ideas. I do find even some of the better-known late SQs a bit of a bore in places.

Mozart's minor key works are especially brilliant. For example, Piano Concerto No 20 in D Minor is superb and is the match of anything in Beethoven's piano concerto repertoire.

Mozart's violin concertos are lovely too. I admit that my favourite VC is Beethoven's.

Mozart's quintets as a whole are a match for any of Beethoven's string quartets.

Mozart's Requiem is rather better than Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. The Introitus, Kyrie, and Dies Irae are perfect. The Missa Solemnis is superb, however, and far better than Bach's Mass in B Minor.

I prefer Schubert's symphonic output to anything written by Beethoven or Mozart. I think Brahms symphonies are overall a lot richer and refined than Beethoven's. Between Mozart and Beethoven's symphonies, I'm not sure there's a big difference. Mozart's 40 and 41 stands out as exceptional. Beethoven's 1, 2 and 4 symphonies are quite ordinary. I'm bored listening to the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Ninth.

The main strength of Beethoven is in his piano sonatas, piano trios and other small chamber works. Some of the piano sonatas are first rate, but many are more ordinary. I find Hammerklavier rather boring I'm afraid to say, although I respect its high standing and complexity. That doesn't mean to say I have to like it. I generally prefer Schubert's piano solo achievements by far.

Therefore, overall, I'm rather less enamoured of Beethoven than I once used to be. I am happy to admit that it was once wall-to-wall Beethoven, but my preferences have changed as my tastes in musical genres have changed. I prefer smaller-scale works generally, and here I think there is far more competition for Beethoven. The decisive test is how much time I spend listening to Beethoven versus others. I think possibly that some present fans of Beethoven may one day realise they are listening to it a lot less, as they slowly discover other composers. It takes several years.

I'd place Schubert first followed by Beethoven and Mozart more or less together, and then Brahms. These four are streets ahead of the rest in my book. I like Schubert the best because he wrote in genres that I mostly enjoy, and he did so at a superbly high quality level. I also like the feeling of spontaneity and melancholy that typifies Schubert, as opposed to the much more heavily worked and sometimes too dense layering of Brahms and to a lesser extent Beethoven.

I hope nothing I've said here is interpreted to mean that I have anything but the highest regard for Beethoven. As I said, he was my musical "hero" for many years, and I reckon he will never move out of my top 4.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Oh, sorry we missed your first great uttering. How silly of us.


Never mind, just be more careful next time.

At first I thought you were pulling my leg with your response, but I believe you are actually serious. There are not to many people who would say Beethoven quartets are lack-lustre. Personally I don't get it with the Requiem, even Beethoven thought Cherubini's was better. You are brave to say this composite piece is superior to the Solemn mass.

You wouldnt be bored with the symphonies if you heard my period instrument recordings, they would scare you to death! I agree conventional Beethoven performances are often very boring, but that is because Beethoven is the most 'con brio' composer there is, yet the conductors for the most part never go beyond first gear. I suspect your Beethoven and mine are probably totally different composers, but mine is the real deal and sounds all the better for it.

I don't rate Schubert at all but l wish to stick to Mozart/Beethoven where possible in this chain. One particular Beethoven work that has suffered in comparison with Mozart is
his Piano & wind Quintet in Eflat op16, in relation to Mozart's also in Eflat. I have recording's of both, even on period instruments too, but no way can I accept the establishment position that Mozart's is the superior. The drama and rhetoric is there but is hesitant in the Mozart, like he's dipping his feet in cold water and not too sure about taking the dive. Beethoven's is a grander and more assure conception.


----------



## 4'33"

*Cream Puffs*

Ok, let's finish this discussion once and for all...

Ranking in greatness in genre:

Operas:
Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer. 
Beethoven 7
Mozart 10

Symphonic Works:
Although Mozart was no slouch here either, Beethoven's output in the symphonic genre is universally acknowledged as a cornerstone in the repertoire.
Beethoven 10
Mozart 8

Chamber Music
Although Mozart wrote more types of chamber music, Beethoven wins on the strength of his late quartets, which again are almost universally acknowledged as the greatest in their field
Beethoven 10
Mozart 8

Concerti
I would say they are equals here. Mozart's violin concerti can not compare to Beethoven's, but they are equals in regard to piano concerti, and Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is amazing.
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Solo Piano Works
Beethoven's 32 sonatas form the core of the piano literature, his Diabelli Variations blow anything Mozart ever wrote in that genre, and his late sonatas are beyond mystical. Mozart's piano music really is nothing more than what they were intended to be - light entertainment.
Beethoven 10
Mozart 7

Religious Music:
Mozart wrote some of his most beautiful music for this genre, but he never finished his two greatest works. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is regard as the greatest mass setting after Bach's B minor. I call it a draw.
Beethoven 9
Mozart 9

Influence:

Beethoven was one of the great revolutionaries in art. With one symphony he obliterated all that came before him, and his influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights. He was the first composer to make people believe that music could be used as a means of self-expression - that music could actually influence and change society and the world.

Mozart just wanted to dance and play billiards.

Beethoven: 10
Mozart: 8

Scores:
Beethoven: 66 out of 70
Mozart: 60 out of 70

Beethoven wins


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Ranking in greatness in genre:

Operas:
Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer. 
Beethoven 7
Mozart 10

Scores:
Beethoven: 66 out of 70
Mozart: 60 out of 70

Beethoven wins

Unfortunately the scoring was skewed from the get-go. Beethoven a 7 to Mozart's 10 as an opera composer? Really? Try perhaps something like a 10 to 1. Beethoven succeeded in composing one "so-so" opera. Mozart completed 22 operas of various genre and has at a minimum, 7 operas that surpass _Fidelio_:

Idomeneo, re di Creta
Die Entführung aus dem Serai
Le nozze di Figaro
Don Giovanni
Così fan tutte
La clemenza di Tito
Die Zauberflöte

Four of these are among the greatest operas ever composed.

Beethoven 58
Mozart 60

:lol:


----------



## kv466

Mango said:


> Mozart's minor key works are especially brilliant. For example, Piano Concerto No 20 in D Minor is superb and is the match of anything in Beethoven's piano concerto repertoire.


While I do agree that many of Mozart's works are far beyond Beethoven's in close comparison, this would definitely not be one of them...I've worn this name since the internet was first made available but even just using one of the five LV works; the only one in a minor key...still, there is no comparison and cannot be...the thing about kv466 is that it is essentially three wonderful pieces with the second and third kinda tied at the hip, nonetheless: different. I love Mozart and my favorites of his works probably take me to more unimaginable places than that of Beethoven's...still, with the piano concertos...Ludwig van created something that Mozart simply was unable to create with so many attempts...it merely took LVB the first in C to show us what he had and he emphasized this the more all the way through to the final and fifth...a work with a true first, second and third movement; like all his others!...pianistic works that can stand on their own as a whole. So sad he only did this five times.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

4'33" said:


> Beethoven was one of the great revolutionaries in art.
> 
> Mozart just wanted to dance and play billiards.


So why compare? Their idioms were often totally different. That's why I never rank individually, but prefer to group into tiers, like "A" students, "B" students etc. Mozart and Beethoven, amongst others, in tier one. Crap composers, give them "F" (F for failure or farts, as the case might be).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It's intriguing, HC, that so many... often teens or a bit older with limited experience, and the usual obsession with "feelings"... and thus Romanticism... feel the need to challenge Mozart's reputation... yet Bach... the third in the triumvirate... is rarely ever questioned. Personally, I suspect many Beethoven/Romantic champions have little experience with Bach and thus feel unprepared to challenge his position... although comically, so many Mozart dissenters admittedly have little interest in opera... where the man is virtually unrivaled. 

Indeed, the willingness to dismiss a composer in spite of a limited experience of his or her work seems quite commonplace here. Not long ago there was the thread in which someone was stating that he could not understand how Schubert was so often placed alongside Beethoven as the two giants in the transition from Classical to Romanticism. Schubert, he declared, wasn't even close to Beethoven. Of course this judgment was made without any experience of Schubert's quartets, his piano sonatas or impromptus, his choral music, or his lieder. A judgment truly worthy of consideration. 

Intriguingly, Handel's name almost never pops up. Personally, I have longed rated him within the top ten... after Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, and Schubert. The more I listen to him... the more I suspect he deserves far more recognition. I'm tempted to start a Handel vs Beethoven or Handel vs Mahler thread... just for fun.:devil:


----------



## 4'33"

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ranking in greatness in genre:
> 
> Operas:
> Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer.
> Beethoven 7
> Mozart 10
> 
> Scores:
> Beethoven: 66 out of 70
> Mozart: 60 out of 70
> 
> Beethoven wins
> 
> Unfortunately the scoring was skewed from the get-go. Beethoven a 7 to Mozart's 10 as an opera composer? Really? Try perhaps something like a 10 to 1. Beethoven succeeded in composing one "so-so" opera. Mozart completed 22 operas of various genre and has at a minimum, 7 operas that surpass _Fidelio_:
> 
> Idomeneo, re di Creta
> Die Entführung aus dem Serai
> Le nozze di Figaro
> Don Giovanni
> Così fan tutte
> La clemenza di Tito
> Die Zauberflöte
> 
> Four of these are among the greatest operas ever composed.
> 
> Beethoven 58
> Mozart 60
> 
> :lol:


Lol is right. Beethoven a "1"? Beethoven was not a "1" in anything. I would say at least a 5. But whatever. I guess you could look at it this way. Beethoven's works are universally acknowledged as the cornerstones of symphonic, chamber and piano literature, while Mozart's operas are among the greatest written. 3-1 Beethoven wins again! :tiphat:


----------



## CaptainAzure

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Ranking in greatness in genre:
> 
> Operas:
> Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer.
> Beethoven 7
> Mozart 10
> 
> Scores:
> Beethoven: 66 out of 70
> Mozart: 60 out of 70
> 
> Beethoven wins
> 
> Beethoven 58
> Mozart 60
> 
> :lol:


Yay!!!!


----------



## Curiosity

The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces. Same with Schubert and Brahms...


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Indeed, the willingness to dismiss a composer in spite of a limited experience of his or her work seems quite commonplace here. Not long ago there was the thread in which someone was stating that he could not understand how *Schubert* was so often placed alongside Beethoven as the two giants in the transition from Classical to Romanticism. *Schubert*, he declared, wasn't even close to Beethoven. Of course this judgment was made without any experience of Schubert's quartets, his piano sonatas or impromptus, his choral music, or his lieder. A judgment truly worthy of consideration.


Indeed, some of the little darlings appear to be so young that they probably think Schubert is something you suck rather than listen to.


----------



## jalex

Curiosity said:


> The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces. Same with Schubert and Brahms...


Definitely not. Mozart's last three symphonies cannot compare with Beethoven 3, 5 and 9 perhaps, but they aren't far behind his 'second tier' ones (6, 7, 8; I'd say Mozart 41 matches all of these) and are far better than 1 and 2. Mozart's Haydn and Prussian string quartets are much better than most of Beethoven's except his Late Quartets.

Anyway, if you are comparing Mozart with mid or late Beethoven whilst listening to him you are doing something wrong.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Definitely not. Mozart's last three symphonies cannot compare with Beethoven 3, 5 and 9 perhaps, but they aren't far behind his 'second tier' ones (6, 7, 8) and are far better than 1 and 2. Mozart's Haydn and Prussian string quartets are much better than most of Beethoven's except his Late Quartets.
> 
> Anyway, if you are comparing Mozart with mid or late Beethoven whilst listening to him you are doing something wrong.


I would definitely agree with the part about the symphonies...I haven't heard Mozart's string quartets so I can't make a judgement call there but I'd be willing to guess they are at least more skillfully composed than Beethoven's early quartets.

As everyone knows Mozart far outclasses Beethoven in the opera department.

I disagree with those who say Beethoven's Piano Concertos are equal or better than Mozart's. This is another big era in which Mozart shined.

I agree with Beethoven's piano sonatas being superior in depth and range of expression. I am quite fond of some of the Mozart PSs as well though, especially the c minor one.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> I agree with Beethoven's piano sonatas being superior in depth and range of expression. I am quite fond of some of the Mozart PSs as well though, especially the c minor one.


This is one area where Beethoven has a monopoly similar to Mozart's one regarding opera. I haven't listened to a huge number of Mozart PSs but from the ones I have only the A minor and C minor were really good, and Beethoven surpassed these as early as the Pathetique.

As for PCs I find it difficult to judge. The problem I find with many of Mozart's is the third movement - he gives you two fantastic ingenious movements to start with and then fobs you off with a light little rondo at the end. The ones where he doesn't do this, notably 24 and 25 (which has a more serious rondo) for me equal Beethoven 4 and 5, but I am often left disappointed by some of the others, especially 21.


----------



## trazom

jalex said:


> Definitely not. Mozart's last three symphonies cannot compare with Beethoven 3, 5 and 9 perhaps,


Says who? the adolescent music scholars of talkclassical.com? Please stop regurgitating ancient, Romantic-based prejudices and tell me what intrinsically makes them incomparable with, say, Mozart's last 6 unless your criteria is 'louder and bigger is better!'


----------



## jalex

trazom said:


> Says who? the adolescent music scholars of talkclassical.com? Please stop regurgitating ancient, Romantic-based prejudices and tell me what intrinsically makes them incomparable with, say, Mozart's last 6 unless your criteria is 'louder and bigger is better!'


Right, so anyone who thinks Beethoven 9 is better than Mozart 41 must have 'Romantic prejudices', do I have that correct? There was me thinking I was sticking up for Mozart, going further than I think a lot of people would by ranking his final trilogy alongside Beethoven 6/7/8, and even dropping in a little 'perhaps' to show that I thought the point was debatable even though I disagreed.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I claimed to be a scholar then I will apologise immediately. I thought that all I was doing there was offering the opinion of a fair majority which I happen to share. I do not, as I said, think the point is beyond debate.

I suppose if I wanted to make a case for Beethoven's symphonies I could bang on for a while about technical innovations, expansion of form, reconsideration of balance and coherence etc etc, but really the best measure of music is its effect on the listener and I (and apparently quite a few others) believe that even allowing for the subtler aspects which make Mozart's music so sublime they simply do not have the same effect as the three Beethoven symphonies mentioned. You are welcome to disagree.

Returning briefly to this 'Romantic prejudices' nonsense which you are projecting as hard as you can on to me, I'd like to state for the record that the Romantic period is my least favourite in all art music excepting post WWII avant-garde/ultra-serialist stuff. Also the fact that I dislike Bruckner, Berlioz's Requiem, some Shostakovich, that dreary racket known as Brian's 1st symphony and Mahler 8 compared to the rest of his alongside the fact that I often prefer thinned-out HIP orchestration should be enough to dispel any notions about me believing 'bigger and louder is better'.

Now that I think about it behind that caricature hides a legitimate point: it isn't the fact that Beethoven wrote longer symphonies for bigger orchestras with bigger climaxes that make his symphonies better (else I'd worship Mahler 8) but the effects he creates with these new resources which just weren't possible in Mozart's time.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

trazom said:


> Says who? the adolescent music scholars of talkclassical.com?


You're free to leave and never come back. I wouldn't mind.


----------



## linceed87

the main discussion here is the size fo the works, i mean not always bigger is better, the color that mozart uses in his piano concertos are superb, beethoven doesnt even come close to the 20th piano concerto, but yes beethoven wins in the piano sonatas, but not by far, mozart did some pretty clever stuff in this genre


----------



## Curiosity

linceed87 said:


> but yes beethoven wins in the piano sonatas, but not by far, mozart did some pretty clever stuff in this genre





> but yes beethoven wins in the piano sonatas, but not by far





> but not by far


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Clever means of insulting others... but perhaps one day when you grow up and have something more than a year of two of listening experience under your belt, and have moved on from the typically emotionally-centered teenage years you will discover that while Beethoven is a great composer... one of the best... there are still others who are nearly as good, some who have written works that are as good (or even better!) than anything Beethoven achieved in the same genre, some who have had an impact upon music or certain genres of music that rivals or surpasses Beethoven... and quite possibly... a few composers that may actually surpass Beethoven. I say this as someone who probably has heard more works by Beethoven and owns more recordings of the man than you can imagine, and so I am proof that it is possible to love Beethoven without being blinded to the merits of others like some 13 year-old Justin Bieber fanboy.:tiphat:


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Clever means of insulting others...


Good point. What's the difference beween making a direct insult to another member or doing the same thing in an underhand way by posting a stupid you tube video which does the same thing? None in my book.


----------



## jalex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Clever means of insulting others... but perhaps one day when you grow up and have something more than a year of two of listening experience under your belt, and have moved on from the typically emotionally-centered teenage years you will discover that while Beethoven is a great composer... one of the best... there are still others who are nearly as good, some who have written works that are as good (or even better!) than anything Beethoven achieved in the same genre, some who have had an impact upon music or certain genres of music that rivals or surpasses Beethoven... and quite possibly... a few composers that may actually surpass Beethoven. I say this as someone who probably has heard more works by Beethoven and owns more recordings of the man than you can imagine, and so I am proof that it is possible to love Beethoven without being blinded to the merits of others like some 13 year-old Justin Bieber fanboy.:tiphat:


If you are still talking to me, I thought I cleared this up a few posts ago by stating that I thought both Mozart and Bach were 'greater than or equal to' Beethoven. All this facile ranking is making me tired.

I'm trying to stay civil in the face of all these patronising comments, but really what would be the problem if someone believed Beethoven to be the greatest composer in history, and his symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets and concerti to be unsurpassed? Although I disagree I think a fair case could be made that Beethoven was the master of those genres. Where has this ridiculous idea that Beethoven is easy music only for newbies and teenagers to be outgrown in due course come from? It seems as if preferring Mozart to Beethoven is worn as a bit of a badge of honour by some people to show how refined and discerning their tastes are...

Edit: ********, I've confused two threads, but I'll leave this up anyway because I think my points still stand. Apologies to you StLukesGuild, this is no longer aimed directly at you.


----------



## 4'33"

I love how certain people on this thread claim that others don't know what they're talking about because they don't have enough experience/knowledge/recordings as others. If this is the criteria for credibility, then here goes. 

I own thousands of recordings of classical music from the 9th century through the 21st century. Unlike a surprising number of my fellow classical lovers, I am as intimately familiar with the Notre Dame school as I am the second Viennese school or the Darmstadt school. As a composer myself, I am as familiar with the medieval hocket as I am with spectral music and motivic development. I've come to know the works of many composers. This debate between who was better, Mozart or Beethoven, is silly. Both composers occupy the highest pinnacle of their art. Still though, after studying and listening to everyone from Hildegard to Grisey, there is no question why the music and life of Beethoven towers over western music. Mozart was an incredible genius, no doubt, but he can not touch Beethoven's late music. The last quartets, Piano sonatas - The Missa Solemnis and the 9th symphony, are a revelation the world is still trying to grapple with. Monumental music. You don't play Mozart 40 when the berlin wall comes down. You don't play Mozart Piano Concerto 20 when you are fighting for human rights in China. You don't have decades of controversy surrounding Mozart's Symphony 41. Beethoven, by the sheer will and force of his music, changed not just the art form but also the very core of what it is to be an artist, and what is expected of art. He was an ending and a beginning. He improved on Mozart - No one can improve on him. That's why Mahler and Bruckner chose other ways to organize their works, and why Brahms will always be a distant second.

Bottom line, Beethoven remains the greatest. Not that it matters anyway to music lovers, and there are obviously detractors, but history has shown his position unwavering at the top of the heap.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I own thousands of recordings of classical music from the 9th century through the 21st century. Unlike a surprising number of my fellow classical lovers, I am as intimately familiar with the Notre Dame school as I am the second Viennese school or the Darmstadt school. As a composer myself, I am as familiar with the medieval hocket as I am with spectral music and motivic development. I've come to know the works of many composers. This debate between who was better, Mozart or Beethoven, is silly. Both composers occupy the highest pinnacle of their art. Still though, after studying and listening to everyone from Hildegard to Grisey, there is no question why the music and life of Beethoven towers over western music.

You may have the experience... but still you seem blinded to your own biases. You speak of Beethoven towering over Western music? Really? Over Mozart? Over Bach? There is a reason that the three are generally spoken of together. I've never read or heard... outside of internet fanboy postings... the notion that Beethoven stood alone as the single towering figure of classical music in the same way as Shakespeare in literature or Michelangelo in art. And even those examples are open to debate. Surely Dante, Tolstoy, and Homer don't stand far behind... nor do Rembrandt, Leonardo, or Rubens. Critical commentary commonly refers to the great trio of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart... and their ordering is always open to change... and ultimately the debate as to "who is best?" is useless. Even this triumvirate... the father, son, and holy ghost of classical music... is open to challenge. There are more than a few strong arguments for other composers: Wagner, Brahms, Monteverdi, Handel, Schubert, etc...

Both composers occupy the highest pinnacle of their art. Still though, after studying and listening to everyone from Hildegard to Grisey,* there is no question why the music and life of Beethoven towers over western music.*

There is no question... *in your mind*... as to why he towers... *in your mind*. He certainly doesn't tower over Bach in my mind... nor in the mind of a great many others. In terms of opera he was a rank amateur. Rossini can humiliate him... let alone Mozart or Wagner. Undoubtedly he was central to expanding the scale and range of the piano sonata, the symphony, and the string quartets. I wouldn't begin to suggest that Mozart rivals Beethoven when it comes to the piano sonata. Most of his were written for his students. As such even Haydn's might be better. But you would be hard pressed to argue that Beethoven's keyboard works surpass those of Bach. Bach even gets bonus points for virtually inventing the keyboard concerto... much like Haydn and the string quartet.

The last quartets, Piano sonatas - The Missa Solemnis and the 9th symphony, are a revelation the world is still trying to grapple with. Monumental music.

Again with the "monumentality". And perhaps Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis _has had as much impact upon the future of music as Wagner's_ Ring_ and _Tristan und Isolde_? It seems to me that it is Wagner's _Tristan_ that is continually spoken of by composers from Tchaikovsky to Puccini, to Strauss, to Debussy, to Schoenberg and beyond. Again... I am not out to belittle Beethoven. He certainly ranks among the very greatest. His contributions to the piano sonata, the symphony, and the string quartet are immense. But these are not the only musical genre. Mozart and Brahms are in the minds of many greater composers of various chamber music genre beyond the string quartet. The number of composers who are more important in terms of opera are legion and begin with Handel, Mozart, Wagner, Verdi, Puccini, and Strauss. The same can be said of Beethoven as the composer of lieder. We don't need to turn to Schubert or Schumann... Richard Strauss, Mahler, Debussy, Faure, etc... all surpass Beethoven in this genre. How about cello sonatas? You don't really want to place Beethoven's anywhere near a comparison with Bach's now, do you? Choral music? Do you honestly wish to suggest that Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ is more influential than Monteverdi's _Vespers_... or that he would not be shamed by the choral output of Bach, Handel, Haydn, and a number of others?

You don't play Mozart 40 when the berlin wall comes down. You don't play Mozart Piano Concerto 20 when you are fighting for human rights in China.

No... but we have Renee Fleming singing "Amazing Grace", we have John Adams' _Transmigration of Souls_ and we have Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ played at 911 memorial concerts. We also have Elton John singing Goodbye Norma Jean at the funeral of Princess Di, and a whole slew of rock stars playing a concert for the Fire and Police Departments of NYC as a result of their losses on 911. You don't honestly believe that this proves anything, do you?

You don't have decades of controversy surrounding Mozart's Symphony 41.

Perhaps not... but then Schoenberg has surely surpassed Beethoven in terms of controversy... to say nothing of John Cage... yet I would never suggest this proves them to be the greater composers.

Beethoven, by the sheer will and force of his music, changed not just the art form but also the very core of what it is to be an artist, and what is expected of art.

Now that's just Romantic nonsense. Lord Byron had a far greater impact upon the image of what it means to be an artist. Even in Germany, Goethe would have towered over Beethoven in terms of reputation as an artist... and in terms of the visual arts, it was Wagner that had the biggest impact of musicians upon painters and sculptors.

He was an ending and a beginning. He improved on Mozart - No one can improve on him. 

He was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Certainly no fanboy obsession there. :lol:


----------



## Artemis

4'33" said:


> I love how certain people on this thread claim that others don't know what they're talking about because they don't have enough experience/knowledge/recordings as others. If this is the criteria for credibility, then here goes.
> 
> I own thousands of recordings of classical music from the 9th century through the 21st century. Unlike a surprising number of my fellow classical lovers, I am as intimately familiar with the Notre Dame school as I am the second Viennese school or the Darmstadt school. As a composer myself, I am as familiar with the medieval hocket as I am with spectral music and motivic development. I've come to know the works of many composers. This debate between who was better, Mozart or Beethoven, is silly. Both composers occupy the highest pinnacle of their art. Still though, after studying and listening to everyone from Hildegard to Grisey, there is no question why the music and life of Beethoven towers over western music. Mozart was an incredible genius, no doubt, but he can not touch Beethoven's late music. The last quartets, Piano sonatas - The Missa Solemnis and the 9th symphony, are a revelation the world is still trying to grapple with. Monumental music. You don't play Mozart 40 when the berlin wall comes down. You don't play Mozart Piano Concerto 20 when you are fighting for human rights in China. You don't have decades of controversy surrounding Mozart's Symphony 41. Beethoven, by the sheer will and force of his music, changed not just the art form but also the very core of what it is to be an artist, and what is expected of art. He was an ending and a beginning. He improved on Mozart - No one can improve on him. That's why Mahler and Bruckner chose other ways to organize their works, and why Brahms will always be a distant second.
> 
> Bottom line, Beethoven remains the greatest. Not that it matters anyway to music lovers, and there are obviously detractors, but history has shown his position unwavering at the top of the heap.


I find your post arrogant, confused, and ill-informed.

Arrogant because it's a matter of personal opinion who is the greatest composer, not a matter for scientific proof as you seem to imply. Truly knowledgeable classical music lovers don't make the kind of bold assertions that you have made about the absolute overall merits of top rate composers. They are much more guarded and qualifying in their assessments. Individuals are of course entitled to make personal comments about whom/what they favour, but trying to twist this into asserting some kind of objective, universal truth regarding the composers they happen to favour is out of place.

Confused because you state that Beethoven and Mozart "_Both ... occupy the highest pinnacle of their art_" and yet "_Mozart was an incredible genius, no doubt, but he can not touch Beethoven's late music_". There is something wrong with the logic here. In any event, others would disagree with your assertion that Mozart cannot touch late Beethoven. What about Mozart's late operas, symphonies, clarinet concerto, remnants of the Requiem? These together are just a good as the totality of what Beethoven wrote in his old age, at least as seen by a sizeable number of people. Speaking personally, I feel that Beethoven's music rather tailed off in quality towards the end, especially in the piano sonata department. I generally prefer his "middle period".

Ill-informed because J S Bach is generally regarded as a broadly equal member of the god-head, and yet you make no reference to him.


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Clever means of insulting others... but perhaps one day when you grow up and have something more than a year of two of listening experience under your belt, and have moved on from the typically emotionally-centered teenage years you will discover that while Beethoven is a great composer... one of the best... there are still others who are nearly as good, some who have written works that are as good (or even better!) than anything Beethoven achieved in the same genre, some who have had an impact upon music or certain genres of music that rivals or surpasses Beethoven... and quite possibly... a few composers that may actually surpass Beethoven. I say this as someone who probably has heard more works by Beethoven and owns more recordings of the man than you can imagine, and so I am proof that it is possible to love Beethoven without being blinded to the merits of others like some 13 year-old Justin Bieber fanboy.:tiphat:


Is this rant directed at moi? If so, I don't doubt that others have achieved more than Beethoven in certain genres, Opera to name but one. I never said otherwise. But I don't really care about Opera! Is it really such a stretch to name Beethoven as the greatest composer of symphonies, piano sonatas, and string quartets? You'd think it was blasphemy judging from the responses garnered from the mere implication! 

Beethoven effects me and intrigues me more than any other composer. I think it's a bit absurd to assume that my preference for Beethoven over Mozart is a result of emotional immaturity and ignorance.  :lol:


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> He was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Certainly no fanboy obsession there. :lol:


post deleted voluntarily.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...really what would be the problem if someone believed Beethoven to be the greatest composer in history, and his symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets and concerti to be unsurpassed? 

There is nothing wrong with believing that Beethoven is the greatest composer in history... yet, as Artemis suggests... _"Truly knowledgeable classical music lovers don't make the kind of bold assertions that you have made about the absolute overall merits of top rate composers. They are much more guarded and qualifying in their assessments."_ Personally, I am certain that J.S. Bach was the greatest composer of classical music. At the same time... I recognize that strong arguments can be made for Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Handel, Haydn, Brahms, Monteverdi, Wagner, etc... Repeated comments about how Beethoven's Piano concertos are clearly superior to Mozart's or how Schubert clearly pales next to Beethoven... when there is no such consensus, however, are absurd and smell of uninformed fanboy-ism.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Beethoven effects me and intrigues me more than any other composer.

That is a perfectly valid statement in no way open to challenge. That's not the same as:

The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces. Same with Schubert and Brahms...

or

I have to wonder why Schubert's fans are so adamant about comparing the man with Beethoven. I see this all the time on every classical forum I've frequented. Seems weird.... Personally I've yet to hear anything from the "great" Schubert that comes within a million miles of Beethoven


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ... Repeated comments about how Beethoven's Piano concertos are clearly superior to Mozart's or how Schubert clearly pales next to Beethoven... when there is no such consensus, however, are absurd and smell of uninformed fanboy-ism.


Indeed that's correct. I recall when I was about 13 (quite a few years ago now I hasten to add) I thought that Tchaikovsky was, without doubt, the greatest composer. If classical music forums had been in existence in those days, which they weren't, I would no doubt have joined some of them and would probably have been getting quite bolshy about how great Mr T is compared with musical second-raters like X,Y and Z. I realise now, of course, how ridiculous this would be, or anything like.

It's also true that on other classical music forums where the average age of members is apparantly higher than here there tends to be far less of the "fanboy" mentality - with assertions about the alleged overwhelming superiority of just one composer (Beethoven) over all others - that we have seen in abundance recently from some quarters on T-C.


----------



## violadude

Wow, I was browsing older posts on this forum and this Beethoven vs. Mozart argument has been done to death.


----------



## trazom

regressivetransphobe said:


> You're free to leave and never come back. I wouldn't mind.


Likewise, you're free to mosey back to youtube.


----------



## mmsbls

Beethoven's symphony No. 9 is the greatest piece of music I've ever heard. Mozart's symphony No. 41 is absolutely perfect. When I hear Bach's cello sonatas and violin partitas, I'm stunned that anyone could write such music for a solo string instrument. If asked, I will order the three greats as Mozart, Beethoven, Bach based on my overall enjoyment of their music. That ranking means nothing to others and very little to me. All three have given so much joy to me and other classical music listeners that they are simply held in the highest esteem.

I do find the arguments given here interesting and generally I agree with the comparisons of symphonies, piano sonatas, opera, concertos, and chamber music. Perhaps my one comment would be that many consider Mozart the greatest opera composer whereas Beethoven essentially didn't participate in that field. I once heard that in a poll of classical musicians, Mozart's opera was the deciding factor placing him on top. When one is done with all comparisons, it is still hard to make an absolute statement of their musical worth. 

When I think of both men, I am mostly struck with how many unimaginably wonderful/beautiful/moving works they produced. Although I usually do not use such words, it is easy to call the existence of both oeuvres a miracle. Of course, I would include Bach's in that assessment as well.


----------



## Artemis

mmsbls said:


> ...I do find the arguments given here interesting and generally I agree with the comparisons of symphonies, piano sonatas, opera, concertos, and chamber music. Perhaps my one comment would be that many consider Mozart the greatest opera composer whereas Beethoven essentially didn't participate in that field. I once heard that in a poll of classical musicians, Mozart's opera was the deciding factor placing him on top. When one is done with all comparisons, it is still hard to make an absolute statement of their musical worth.


Picking up your point here, I have seen discussions in other places on previous occasions where an attempt was made to sort out the superiority of these three composers (Beethoven, Mozart, Bach) based on the complexity of the material they wrote, as well as the variety, quantity and quality of specific works. As between Beethoven and Mozart, the argument went that writing good opera is a much more demanding challenge than it is for most other genres, because of the need to integrate several genres within an integrated whole. Because Mozart wrote several extremely good ones, whereas Beethoven wrote only one (which he struggled with, and isn't that great anyway) then the first prize must go to Mozart, since in all other respects the totality of considerations gives a draw.

This is fine up to a point, until you come across people who don't care for opera, or who think that it's not so complex to write after all, which clearly throws a huge spanner in the works. Then arguments tended to break out about why people didn't like opera, and how allegedly stupid they were. At this juncture, the Wagnerians would inevitably jump in and state that their "man" wrote not just great opera but in a completely new style that revolutionised musical thinking for decades, blah blah.

Meanwhile, the Bachians - having warmed up up in the sidelines with their tracksuits off - cast aside their usual good manners, and come out with statements along the lines that Bach's vocal music puts everyone else's to shame, bar none. This would usually trigger a response from the Handelians, who rightly point out that he was hugely productive across the entire field, and that even Beethoven looked up to Handel as the previous best-ever composer. In the ensuing mayhem, the Schubertians would usually enter the fray by pointing out that Schubert was highly productive, wrote lots of very good material across several genres, was original in some areas, and is the undisputed champion song-writer of all time, and in view of the latter point clearly he deserves at least a look-in, if not equality with the others.

Another observation was that that opera is not the most complex musical genre, nor are orchestral works, and nor indeed are solo works. It was alleged he really difficult genre to get right is chamber music because if there is anything even slightly wrong it will show up like a sore thumb in the playing, whereas you can get away with murder in larger musical forces, at least for short periods. On this reckoning, Haydn should get a look in, and Wagner should be tossed out completely because his skill-set was too narrow and precluded any chamber music. The Brahmsians would then see the opportunity to score a few points, because he wrote very highly quality material in all genres, except opera. I saw one debate when a plucky character tried to argue that Tchaikovsky was clearly the overall winner since he not only wrote wonderful chamber and orchestral music of various types but the best-ever ballet music.


----------



## Couchie

Few people appreciate that it is not a competition between Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner. Together they form the holy German trinity respectively representing the absolute peaks of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic movements.

Run from the false prophets who seek to replace Wagner with Brahms and lead the world astray!

Have a nice day, everybody!


----------



## Artemis

Couchie said:


> Few people appreciate that it is not a competition between Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, but Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner. Together they form the holy German trinity respectively representing the absolute peaks of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic movements.
> 
> Run from the false prophets who seek to replace Wagner with Brahms and lead the world astray!
> 
> Have a nice day, everybody!


Apart from your good self, the Wagnerians on T-C seem to have been quite subdued recently. I'm not sure why. It can't be that the have grown fed up with his material, as I've not yet come across a Wagnerian who has declared a loss of interest over time. I think that once you're signed up to Wagner, you somehow become locked in for ever.

I used to be quite interested in Wagner, but it never reached anything like fanatical proportions. I like variety of musical form from a single composer to be strongly interested in Wagner, who was heavily specialised. That's why I tend to go for the multi-faceted composers like Brahms, Schubert, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Mendelssohn - since with each of these you can detect a common element across their entire range of genres, and you get the variety of form.

I was just thinking that it would quite fun if some well-informed people who don't like Beethoven turned up here to explain why. I have seen some very erudite posts on other forums where such views have been set out. I gather that Debussy and Ravel didn't rate Beethoven, so it's among members of these composers' fan clubs that a possible negative viewpoint could emerge. I believe their point is that the hold that Beethoven had over later 19th C music was not healthy for the good of musical development, but I don't know any more. If it achieved anything, it would at least show T-C's Beethoven "fanboys" that their "hero" is by no means universally liked, as some of them seem to believe.


----------



## jalex

Artemis;200850I said:


> I was just thinking that it would quite fun if some well-informed people who don't like Beethoven turned up here to explain why. I have seen some very erudite posts on other forums where such views have been set out. I gather that Debussy and Ravel didn't rate Beethoven, so it's among members of these composers' fan clubs that a possible negative viewpoint could emerge.


Debussy did rate Beethoven but with reservations, he considered Beethoven occasionally clumsy or tasteless or something like that. Which I think has a small ring of truth to it; I feel that way about parts of the introduction to movement one of his seventh symphony, and about the finale to the fifth But given the huge compositional ground Beethoven covered, everything from powerhouse symphony to understated string quartet, it's hard to think of a unifying musical feature which could cause someone to dislike it all.



> I believe their point is that the hold that Beethoven had over later 19th C music was not healthy for the good of musical development, but I don't know any more.


That's not a problem with the music itself though, that's an ideological quibble. Which is no way to judge music; makes about as much sense as hating Wagner's music because he was an anti-semite.


----------



## Artemis

jalex said:


> Debussy did rate Beethoven but with reservations, he considered Beethoven occasionally clumsy or tasteless or something like that. Which I think has a small ring of truth to it ...


I was referring to Debussy and Ravel, not just Debussy. I said that " _I gather that Debussy and Ravel didn't rate Beethoven, so it's among members of thes_e ...". By this I didn't mean to imply that Debussy and Ravel didn't like Beethoven at all or thought he was rubbish. I meant only that that they had reservations that he fully deserved the reputation he had acquired by their time.

In fact, it would seem that Ravel had quite strong strong feelings against Beethoven. According to the biography of Ravel by Orenstein in 1991, "Ravel: Man and Musician", Ravel evidently found much of Beethoven exasperating, if not worse, and had serious reservations about this composer. To be fair, Ravel didn't like Wagner much either, criticising his thick orchestral textures as he saw them, and nor did he like Brahms or Tchaikovsky of Berlioz. Ravel's musical heroes were Bach and Mozart.

Debussy it would seem was also not over-impressed by Beethoven. His view oscillated between good and bad, but here are some of the less complimentary ones I found by doing a quick internet search based on biographical extracts etc: Debussy "believed that Beethoven had terrifically profound things to say, but that he did not know how to say them, because he was imprisoned in a web of incessant restatement and of German aggressiveness." Debussy: He said "I detest the concertos of Mozart," adding, "but less than those of Beethoven". Also, "Beethoven, A man who was so ill-bred that he decided to become deaf so that he could better annoy his contemporaries with his last quartets?' Another by Debussy: "Geniuses can evidently do without taste: take the case of Beethoven, for example.'


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beethoven effects me and intrigues me more than any other composer.
> 
> That is a perfectly valid statement in no way open to challenge. That's not the same as:
> 
> The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces. Same with Schubert and Brahms...
> 
> or
> 
> I have to wonder why Schubert's fans are so adamant about comparing the man with Beethoven. I see this all the time on every classical forum I've frequented. Seems weird.... Personally I've yet to hear anything from the "great" Schubert that comes within a million miles of Beethoven


Hey, that's my opinion and I stand by it. I own Mozart's complete works (Brilliant boxset) and have probably listened to more individual compositions from M than B all things considered. Don't think that I don't enjoy me some Mozart. I've heard the vast majority of Schubert's most famous chamber works and all of his symphonies. Can't be bothered with the Lieder because every one I've tried to listen to has horribly repetitive plodding piano lines. But hey, ya'll are entitled to enjoy Schubert despite my reservations.

I dunno, maybe Beethoven has spoiled me?


----------



## CaptainAzure

Curiosity said:


> The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces. Same with Schubert and Brahms...


Everything you just said disgusts me.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I've heard the vast majority of Schubert's most famous chamber works and all of his symphonies. Can't be bothered with the Lieder because every one I've tried to listen to has horribly repetitive plodding piano lines.

Certainly that a profound analysis.

Can you explain objectively how this:






is so clearly inferior to this:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I'm also wondering if you grasp the idea of how a song (or lieder) differs from a longer symphonic work. Obviously, when you are dealing with a song there is a certain degree of repetition inherent in the form... after all, in most instances we are talking about a piece of music of somewhere around 3 minutes. Even so, Schubert's piano accompaniment pushed the lieder form far beyond anything Mozart or Beethoven had achieved in the genre. Over the course of the song cycles, Schubert explores and pushes the possibilities and variety of the vocal and piano line to a symphonic level. Essentially, Schubert achieved in the lieder what Beethoven achieved with the sonata... taking a heretofore small structure, and expanding it's dynamic range, and expanding the structural complexity and expressiveness to the level of a larger form such as the symphony or opera. Schubert's great song cycles, such as _Winterreise_ hold their own against the greatest achievements in any genre of music by any composer:


























Seems to be a rather spectacular range of "orchestration" of voice and piano. The final song from _Winterreise_, entitled _Der Leiermann_ is spectacular and haunting. The song is almost modal with its "droning" sound which intentionally mirrors the droning sound of the old Leiermann's or organ-grinder's "hurdy-gurdy". The manner in which Schubert is able to illuminate the text through the music is something unheard of in simple lieder. Essentially Schubert has brought elements reserved for the grander vocal compositions such as opera and oratorio and employed them within a miniature context. Schubert also combines a series of such perfect miniatures to create an organic whole that is as complex and as laden with variety and formal development as the larger orchestral and instrumental compositions.


----------



## violadude

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm also wondering if you grasp the idea of how a song (or lieder) differs from a longer symphonic work. Obviously, when you are dealing with a song there is a certain degree of repetition inherent in the form... after all, in most instances we are talking about a piece of music of somewhere around 3 minutes. Even so, Schubert's piano accompaniment pushed the lieder form far beyond anything Mozart or Beethoven had achieved in the genre. Over the course of the song cycles, Schubert explores and pushes the possibilities and variety of the vocal and piano line to a symphonic level. Essentially, Schubert achieved in the lieder what Beethoven achieved with the sonata... taking a heretofore small structure, and expanding it's dynamic range, and expanding the structural complexity and expressiveness to the level of a larger form such as the symphony or opera. Schubert's great song cycles, such as _Winterreise_ hold their own against the greatest achievements in any genre of music by any composer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be a rather spectacular range of "orchestration" of voice and piano. The final song from _Winterreise_, entitled _Der Leiermann_ is spectacular and haunting. The song is almost modal with its "droning" sound which intentionally mirrors the droning sound of the old Leiermann's or organ-grinder's "hurdy-gurdy". The manner in which Schubert is able to illuminate the text through the music is something unheard of in simple lieder. Essentially Schubert has brought elements reserved for the grander vocal compositions such as opera and oratorio and employed them within a miniature context. Schubert also combines a series of such perfect miniatures to create an organic whole that is as complex and as laden with variety and formal development as the larger orchestral and instrumental compositions.


Thanks Stlukes, for posting that. I have never actually heard that piece by the original Tenor voice, as the recording I own is a transcribed version for Baritone. Anyway, I adore Die Winterreise! It's probably my favorite Lieder by any composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Thanks Stlukes, for posting that. I have never actually heard that piece by the original Tenor voice, as the recording I own is a transcribed version for Baritone. Anyway, I adore Die Winterreise! It's probably my favorite Lieder by any composer.

The entire cycle is available on YouTube. I downloaded it quite some time ago... and ordered Bostridge's recording as well. I probably own more copies of _Winterreise_ than I do of any other single work... with the possible exception of the _Goldberg Variations_.


----------



## Artemis

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ..Over the course of the song cycles, Schubert explores and pushes the possibilities and variety of the vocal and piano line to a symphonic level. Essentially, Schubert achieved in the lieder what Beethoven achieved with the sonata... taking a heretofore small structure, and expanding it's dynamic range, and expanding the structural complexity and expressiveness to the level of a larger form such as the symphony or opera. Schubert's great song cycles, such as hold their own against the greatest achievements in any genre of music by any composer.


_Winterreise _is often regarded as Schubert's greatest work across all genres. I doubt that Beethoven could produced anything of this quality, even if it had taken him a month of Sundays.

On the wider issue, T-C's latest bunch of adolescent Beethovenian "fanboys" don't seem to understand that there is a difference between the types of outstanding genius portrayed by each of Beethoven, Mozart and Schubert. With Beethoven we find a determined struggle to attain the heights of musical perfection, pushing the limits of existing forms and trying to achieve the very best end result he could possibly manage. The end result was often extremely good, of the highest order of quality even, but some of it has a whiff of a heavily-worked-upon flavour about it. In some cases it was so contrived that of-one knew what to make of it for decades later: "gross fuge".

In the case of Mozart and Schubert, their their creativity flowed more casually and more effortlessly, but that's not say that the end-results were any less splendid. Their work generally seems a lot less fussy, but just as clever. With Mozart we have a natural, sensitive artistic excellence focused laser-like into chiselling many astonishingly beautiful creations, that rival or surpass Beethoven's. With Schubert, both the beautiful and sublime flowed from his pen effortlessly. In my opinion, and that of many others', Schubert was the composer endowed with the highest degree of melodic invention. This attribute was so powerful that he had no need for polyphony, which he used only very occasionally in his entire output. His only "faults" were that died so young and did not achieve much fame in his own lifetime.

These different gifts, as possessed by each of Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert produced different results, and to say that one composer's output is better than any or all of the others is merely an expression of personal preference. The choice all depends on what kind of music you like best of all. I happen to like all three styles which is why I would not consider criticising any of these composers, but even if I only liked one or two of them I doubt that I would be so rash as to suggest that their creations are objectively better in some sense that the others. To suggest that some of these composers generally produced second rate material compared with Beethoven is "fanboy" nonsense.


----------



## jalex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I've heard the vast majority of Schubert's most famous chamber works and all of his symphonies. Can't be bothered with the Lieder because every one I've tried to listen to has horribly repetitive plodding piano lines.
> Can you explain objectively how this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is so clearly inferior to this:


Well, the fact that Schubert's Unfinished is indeed unfinished surely counts against it. It doesn't have the impact of a full symphony.


----------



## obwan

As a huge Mozart fan I am always amused by these discussions. Its not so much that I want to get my view out that Mozart is the best composer, I can certainly appreciate the music of all composers, at least now that I am older. But it urkks me beyond belief when someone claims Mozart lacks emotion. Thankfully this doesn't seem to be as much of a problem in this thread where most of the die hard Beethoven fans have either indicated that they were either not big opera fans or conceded Mozart as the unquestionable greater of the two in this genre. 

What does intrigue me however, is that there is an even greater underappreciation of Mozart among Verdi, Puccini and other romantic italian opera enthusiasts. In my book they are hyppocrites. They seem to forget that their operas lack any and all emotion save for love & possibly lust. This they excelled at, but their fans confuse the terms emotion to mean just 'love' etc. Rarely do you find the perfect combination of anger, revenge, hatred, playfulness, seriousness fitting to the music so sublimely as you do constantly in all of Mozart's greatest operas. Yes there are exceptions to this rule that one can point to try and prove me wrong, there is Bella Figlia del Amore from Verdi's Rigoletto, and the Sextette from Donizetti's Lucia di Lammermoore, 2 examples that I readily admit, by themselves, easily outdo anything Mozart ever did saving for Don Giovanni. But the rest, typical for the period, is appealing soley to eros, or very light, singable tunes, or the occasional virtuoso aria to show off. Mozart used everything to the greatest effect, just because there are no 2 characters truly 'in love' in Don Giovanni does that mean its not emotional? Certainly not! Its Verdi and Puccini who are unemotional!

That being said I agree with almost everything the majority have opined here with respect to who was greater in which genres. 

But I do feel very strongly that Mozart's piano sonatas and symphonies ought to be treated with the respect of being equals to those of Beethovens. I feel that Beethovens # 5 best symphony ever composed. That HAS to be respected. 
But Mozart's symphony # 39 = best classical symphony ever. Here it IS like comparing apples to oranges. Mozart's best symphonic masterpiece is a nice easy listening piece.... but I don't mean that negatively. Being the best 'easy listening piece ever' has to count for something doesn't it? 

And for Beethoven's Piano sonatas.... Well they're wonderful pieces. (To be honest I'm only intimately familar with the Moonlight and Pathetique). But here.... being more firmly in the romantic period actually does Beethoven harm. By not being easy listening, even a Beethoven fan, you have to be in the mood before you can appreciate it. Beethoven doesn't start out nice, and then gradually bring you into the mood the way a Mozart sonata does. My favorite is K. 310 in A minor. 
Also, the third movement from Moonlight includes a theme first used in a Mozart Sonata. I can't recall which, but it does. I think Beethoven was more in awe of Mozart than he expressed publically. 

Well anyways, thats my 2 cents.


----------



## maxshrek

I believe that, taking into account the masterpieces the 2 composers have written, the favor should be granted to Beethoven. Mozart, in my opinion was more versatile and do not forget that Mozart died at the age when Beethovenhad not yet composed the Eroica. But compositions such as op. 133, Op. 95 and Op. 109 dispel any doubts


----------



## Rasa

Haha, somebody critisied a Lied for it's piano part.


----------



## science

Yes.

Mozart holds a massive advantage in opera; and Beethoven's advantage in piano sonatas is a bit unfair because his piano was a more highly developed instrument than Mozart knew - and yet Mozart's piano concertos are the greater accomplishment. 

If we turn to symphonies or string quartets, Beethoven is the nonpareil, but Mozart is no slouch. I'd say Beethoven enjoys a small advantage with regard to piano trios, violin sonatas, violin concertos. 

So, to the question "Mozart or Beethoven?" I say, "Yes!"


----------



## Rasa

The answer is obviously Haydn


----------



## poconoron

_Originally Posted by 4'33

*"I love how certain people on this thread claim that others don't know what they're talking about because they don't have enough experience/knowledge/recordings as others. If this is the criteria for credibility, then here goes.

I own thousands of recordings of classical music from the 9th century through the 21st century. Unlike a surprising number of my fellow classical lovers, I am as intimately familiar with the Notre Dame school as I am the second Viennese school or the Darmstadt school. As a composer myself, I am as familiar with the medieval hocket as I am with spectral music and motivic development. I've come to know the works of many composers. This debate between who was better, Mozart or Beethoven, is silly. Both composers occupy the highest pinnacle of their art. Still though, after studying and listening to everyone from Hildegard to Grisey, there is no question why the music and life of Beethoven towers over western music. Mozart was an incredible genius, no doubt, but he can not touch Beethoven's late music. The last quartets, Piano sonatas - The Missa Solemnis and the 9th symphony, are a revelation the world is still trying to grapple with. Monumental music. You don't play Mozart 40 when the berlin wall comes down. You don't play Mozart Piano Concerto 20 when you are fighting for human rights in China. You don't have decades of controversy surrounding Mozart's Symphony 41. Beethoven, by the sheer will and force of his music, changed not just the art form but also the very core of what it is to be an artist, and what is expected of art. He was an ending and a beginning. He improved on Mozart - No one can improve on him. That's why Mahler and Bruckner chose other ways to organize their works, and why Brahms will always be a distant second.

Bottom line, Beethoven remains the greatest. Not that it matters anyway to music lovers, and there are obviously detractors, but history has shown his position unwavering at the top of the heap.*_*"

*

History has shown nothing of the sort.................. stop being silly and come back to reality. You're making yourself look ridiculous, IMHO. In case you haven't heard, the Top 3 composers are generally conceded to be Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. The order that they are placed is very much fluid, depending in part on what your particular preference in music style is. Bach is considered King of Baroque, Mozart the King of Classical, and Beethoven the King of post-Classical.

This is pretty universally accepted based upon popular demand for their works and the opinions of musical experts. Searches on Amazon and Google, for example, result in far more "hits" for Mozart than for Beethoven (145,000 to 105,000 on Amazon and 99 million to 66 million on Google). So popularity is not in Beethoven's favor vs. Mozart. Secondly, the musical experts/other composers hold Mozart in the very highest regard. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a similar quantity of adoration for any other composer. A few examples:

1. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
Mozart is the musical Christ.

2. Frédéric Chopin
Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.

3. Gioacchino Rossini
Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!

4. Georg Solti
Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.

5. Richard Wagner
The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts. 
Certain things in Mozart will and can never be excelled

6. George Szell
Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.

7. Albert Einstein (yes, he of E=MC/2 fame)
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.

8. Camille Saint-Saens
What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.

9. Edvard Grieg
In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct

I could go on and on........... but you get the point. Here are many,many others:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

Anyway, the point is........... in many of these Mozart/Beethoven discussions which I have come across, it seems there is always a Beethoven fanboy who makes him/her self look ridiculous by stating unequivocally that their Boy is the greatest of all-time. That is simply their subjective opinion and nothing more. What they fail to realize is that Beethoven had the distinct advantage of having _followed_ Bach and Mozart, thereby benefitting tremendously from their superlative bodies of work and building upon them.

BTW, I have the highest regard for Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Rossini, and Brahms. Those are my listening preferences. And for the record - I believe that Mozart and Beethoven are so close in greatness that the virtual "tie" is broken only by Mozart's *overwhelming *superiority in Opera composition.


----------



## jalex

poconoron said:


> Anyway, the point is........... in many of these Mozart/Beethoven discussions which I have come across, it seems there is always a Beethoven fanboy who makes him/her self look ridiculous by stating unequivically that their Boy is the greatest of all-time.


Of course, what Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Einstein are saying in the quotes about Mozart above is not like this at all...


----------



## poconoron

jalex said:


> Of course, what Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Einstein are saying in the quotes about Mozart above is not like this at all...


I'd say they are just _a bit _more qualified ............... than the rest of us - don't you think?


----------



## jalex

poconoron said:


> I'd say they are just _a bit _more qualified ............... than the rest of us - don't you think?


Einstein wasn't.

Sure Wagner and 'Koffers and Saint Saens etc were, but so what? Mahler said 'there was only Beethoven and then Wagner'. Bruckner thought extremely highly of Beethoven's Ninth and took it as the starting point for creating his own symphonic cycle. Delius hated Mozart and said 'If any man tells me he likes Mozart I know in advance he is a bad musician'. Schubert said that there was nothing left to be written after Beethoven's SQ #14 and requested it to be played shortly before his death. I could go on if I felt compelled to spend the rest of my night searching for more Beethoven worship/Mozart denigration. What does this prove? Nothing.

Edit: more importantly, that wasn't your original point. You were complaining about 'people who think their man is unequivocally the best' or whatever, not informed/uninformed opinions.


----------



## violadude

jalex said:


> Einstein wasn't.
> 
> Sure Wagner and 'Koffers and Saint Saens etc were, but so what? Mahler said 'there was only Beethoven and then Wagner'. Bruckner took Beethoven's Ninth as the starting point for creating his own symphonic cycle. Delius hated Mozart and said 'If any man tells me he likes Mozart I know in advance he is a bad musician'. Schubert said that there was nothing left to be written after Beethoven's SQ #14 and requested it to be played shortly before his death. I could go on if I felt compelled to spend the rest of my night searching for more Beethoven worship/Mozart denigration. What does this prove? Nothing.


Great point!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Sure Wagner and 'Koffers and Saint Saens etc were, but so what? Mahler said 'there was only Beethoven and then Wagner'. Bruckner took Beethoven's Ninth as the starting point for creating his own symphonic cycle. Delius hated Mozart and said 'If any man tells me he likes Mozart I know in advance he is a bad musician'. Schubert said that there was nothing left to be written after Beethoven's SQ #14 and requested it to be played shortly before his death. I could go on if I felt compelled to spend the rest of my night searching for more Beethoven worship/Mozart denigration. What does this prove? Nothing.

What it proves is that there are just as many highly qualified individuals who revere the music of Beethoven as there are those who revere the work of Mozart or Bach. As such, these unequivocal proclamations that "Beethoven is the greatest" are simply stupid. To me, Bach is the unrivaled giant of music... but I'm not ignorant enough to snidely suggest that Mozart and Beethoven... and Handel, Schubert, Wagner, Brahms, etc... are clearly and unquestionably far behind Bach. What is being dismissed as juvenile "fanboy" mentality is this sort of suggestion that there is some clear, objective proof as to the inherent superiority of Beethoven to all the other composers based solely upon personal bias (and quite often based upon a limited working knowledge of the other composers in question).


----------



## maxshrek

Just a question, man: you condamn those who write "beethoven is the greatest", but at the same time you wrote that "To me, Bach is the unrivaled giant of music.". Well, isn't that the same stuff?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Just a question, man: you condamn those who write "beethoven is the greatest", but at the same time you wrote that "To me, Bach is the unrivaled giant of music.". Well, isn't that the same stuff?

Is this really that complicated?

_"Beethoven remains the greatest... history has shown his position unwavering at the top of the heap."

"The least impressive of Beethoven's symphonies, string quartets and piano sonatas surpass anything Mozart achieved in these formats. The vast majority of Mozart's instrumental work is genial and pleasant but it just sounds so small-scale and plain after being fed on a steady diet of Beethovenian masterpieces."_

These are written as statements of "fact"

*To me*...

This is a qualifier... stating that what I am about to say is my opinion and in no way to be construed as fact or true for all people.

_Bach is the unrivaled giant of music..._

You'll note that you left off a good portion of the entire sentence which concludes:

_but I'm not ignorant enough to snidely suggest that Mozart and Beethoven... and Handel, Schubert, Wagner, Brahms, etc... are clearly and unquestionably far behind Bach._

In other words, I am saying that *to me*... *in my opinion*... and my opinion is not to be mistaken for *fact*... Bach is the greatest composer, bar none, but I recognize that such a judgment is not universally recognized *AS FACT* and I'm not close-minded enough to the achievements of other major composers nor such a huge fan of my boy, Bach that I have shut myself off to everything else. I understand that there is no clear "greatest" in art, and that many others might make legitimate arguments as to the merits of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Schubert, etc...


----------



## maxshrek

at the age when Mozart died Beethoven did write only one real masterpiece: The Eroica Symphony and one or two superb works like the Moonlight, the Tempest Sonatas and some String Quartets; and Bach just start to compose the Well Tempered Klavier, first Book.


----------



## jalex

maxshrek said:


> at the age when Mozart died Beethoven did write only one real masterpiece: The Eroica Symphony and one or two superb works like the Moonlight, the Tempest Sonatas and some String Quartets; and Bach just start to compose the Well Tempered Klavier, first Book.


What about Waldstein, Appassionata, the Fourth Piano Concerto and the Violin Concerto? I think they were all written before Beethoven's 36th birthday.

Not that I doubt that Mozart was the greater prodigy. But still, we can only form judgements on what they actually wrote, not on what they might have written had they lived longer.


----------



## Miz

Well over Beethoven and Mozart, I think Mozart is the best.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

This discussion should be, who do you enjoy moere


----------



## Lisztian

I like Beethoven MUCH more than Mozart. Then again Beethoven is probably my second favourite composer, and I haven't been touched by anything Mozart has written yet.


----------



## neoshredder

Lisztian said:


> I like Beethoven MUCH more than Mozart. Then again Beethoven is probably my second favourite composer, and I haven't been touched by anything Mozart has written yet.


Same here. Sonata Pathetique movement 2 is amazing. Nothing of Mozart can compare to that.


----------



## Trout

neoshredder said:


> Same here. Sonata Pathetique movement 2 is amazing. Nothing of Mozart can compare to that.


Just curious. What works of Mozart don't compare to the Pathetique Sonata?


----------



## Dodecaplex

Lisztian said:


> I like Beethoven MUCH more than Mozart. Then again Beethoven is probably my second favourite composer, and I haven't been touched by anything Mozart has written yet.


Would you like some recommendation in the form of a barrage of YouTube clips?


----------



## pjang23

neoshredder said:


> Same here. Sonata Pathetique movement 2 is amazing. Nothing of Mozart can compare to that.


3:08


----------



## Dodecaplex

^ Imagine the shock that Beethoven fanboys experience once they realize their god was heavily influenced by an immature lightweight like Mozart.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Thread started in 2007.

Is now 2011.

WHY?!?


----------



## violadude

pjang23 said:


> 3:08


I love this piece! One of my favorite piano sonata movements of all time.


----------



## neoshredder

pjang23 said:


> 3:08


Good point. Beethoven stole 10 seconds of piano playing there but took it to more of an emotional level. Mozart did better than I thought in that area. But still not as good as pathetique mvt 2. I don't think anyone will ever surpass the feeling you get in that part. I feel bad for Beethoven. He was tormented by his father. But he made amazing music that Mozart wouldn't understand living a normal life.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Good point. Beethoven stole 10 seconds of piano playing there but took it to more of an emotional level. Mozart did better than I thought in that area. But still not as good as pathetique mvt 2. I don't think anyone will ever surpass the feeling you get in that part. I feel bad for Beethoven. He was tormented by his father. But he made amazing music that Mozart wouldn't understand living a normal life.


Sorry, but this paragraph is just loaded with over-generalized, over-romanticised ** IMHO.


----------



## neoshredder

violadude said:


> Sorry, but this paragraph is just loaded with over-generalized, over-romanticised ** IMHO.


Maybe so but nothing in that sonata of Mozart is at the level of Pathetique mvt. 2. Mozart music just isn't as emotional as Beethoven. That's not his style. That's why I give Beethoven the edge. His music can drive me to tears.


----------



## Dodecaplex

neoshredder said:


> Good point. Beethoven stole 10 seconds of piano playing there but took it to more of an emotional level. Mozart did better than I thought in that area. But still not as good as pathetique mvt 2. I don't think anyone will ever surpass the feeling you get in that part. I feel bad for Beethoven. He was tormented by his father. But he made amazing music that Mozart wouldn't understand living a normal life.


Indeed. Living a fulfilling life up to the old age of 35 and dying from rheumatic disease only a few years after experiencing the death of his 2-months-old daughter. Truly, Mozart never understood things such as pain or torment, which is pretty perplexing considering how he was the first composer in the history of Western classical music to manifest terror into a piece of music. Not to mention how his malnourished childish brain anticipated 20th century music (8:08). Or how the beginning of his requiem sounds like eternal damnation being cast upon your soul (0:55).

But what can I say? It's just good ol' Wolfie being silly as usual


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Maybe so but nothing in that sonata of Mozart is at the level of Pathetique mvt. 2. Mozart music just isn't as emotional as Beethoven. That's not his style. That's why I give Beethoven the edge. His music can drive me to tears.


What do you mean by the "level" of Pathetique? It might not be as emotional as perceived by you...but I find this particular Mozart more emotional than the pathetique in a subtle sort of way. You just can't make blanket statements like Beethoven is more emotional than Mozart. That stuff just doesn't fly yo.


----------



## neoshredder

Well Beethoven obviously did a better job expressing his pain through the music. Everyone has suffered but not everyone makes you feel their pain like Beethoven. Mozart music is pretty light compared to Beethoven. I'm not saying Mozart didn't suffer but he didn't bring tears to your eyes with his music. Beethoven made you feel his music like no other.


----------



## violadude

neoshredder said:


> Well Beethoven obviously did a better job expressing his pain through the music. Everyone has suffered but not everyone makes you feel their pain like Beethoven. Mozart music is pretty light compared to Beethoven. I'm not saying Mozart didn't suffer but he didn't bring tears to your eyes with his music. Beethoven made you feel his music like no other.


Again, that is a pretty bold statement to make without taking into account other's experience of Beethoven's compared to Mozart's music, as both of their music has moved me deeply. Perhaps in different ways. But I would hardly say that Mozart's music is less emotional.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Different ways of expressing emotion, etc. Mozart's is a bit more subdued and concerned with balance, in keeping with his time. Pretty much the root of why these threads rarely get past the entry "apples and oranges" level.


----------



## martijn

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome at the 150th Mozart vs Beethoven competition. Again Mozart and Beethoven will participate in a battle to find out who is the greatest of them. The audience in the stadium is very much divided, half of them cheering for Mozart, half of them supporting Beethoven. Especially the Beethoven fans are booing every time Mozart comes on stage. So far it's hard to tell who will be the winner. After Mozart won the first round, "Opera and writing for the voice as if it is not an instrument", Beethoven stroke back in the second round "Writing a piano sonata without using alberti basses". Mozart took the lead again in the third round "composing while playing billiards and horse-riding at the same time". Beethoven however made it even with a convincing win in the next round, "looking very angry without a clear reason". It seemed Mozart had destroyed Beethoven for good in the following round "scatalogy", but Beethoven again came back in the race with a compelling win in the category "throwing eggs at your own personel". So far the definitive outcome is hard to predict, exit polls suggest that it will be too close to call who will be the greatest composer of all. Meanwhile supporters of other composers are protesting against the final between Mozart and Beethoven, which they believe is arranged. There are the Bach-fans, who believe their composer should be in the final, for he won the yearly competition of "making children while writing four-part fugues". The Wagner-fans, on their part, are feeling insulted that their hero is not in the final round, stating that Wagner deserves the prize for crushing Mahler 5,5-2,5 in a thrilling battle of Megalomania. Not to mention the Telemann-fans, who believe their idol is the greatest composer on account of his ability to write 25 hours of music in one day. Ok Roger, back to you for the next round...


----------



## Eviticus

Beethoven had many advantages over Mozart:-

a) Most importantly he had Mozart as a standard to work to/copy from (which was the highest standard you could get)
b) He had secure patronage and therefore the artistic freedom Mozart did not have
c) His artistic maturity was the other side of the revolution and therefore aristocracy perhaps didn't have the authority on tastes which Mozart had to work to in order to feed his family.
d) He didn't have a closed mindset (closed mindset in the psychological sense whereby studies have shown if you are constantly told how brilliant you are at something from a young age - you believe it so much you don't push your boundaries as much).
e) He lived longer so could compose more mature works.

Therefore, he produced a more solid body of innovative works and paved way for a new era and frankly was more important to classical music.

Despite this, I just love Mozart in a way i could never love Beethoven. Mozart really was sunshine.
I truly believe he had so much talent that had he lived parallel to Beethoven he would have matched anything Beethoven could produce and more.


----------



## mtmailey

i would say that both are equal,Mozart taught Beethoven so to me it is like him Beethoven is just carried on the style then added stuff to the style like making works longer than 30-45 minutes and so forth.Beethoven middle quartets are better to me than Mozart's string quartets.


----------



## martijn

I posted some kind of parody on this "competition" yesterday, implicitly stating that each of them was so gifted and so great, that denigrating one at the expense of the other is just ridicolous. However, whenever I read posts of the "Beethoven fanclub" it strikes me that purely musical arguments are seldom used. Usually hardcore Beethoven fans respond in the same way, it goes something like this.

"Beethoven was the greatest composer of all. Nothing what Mozart did can compare with Beethoven's late string quartets and the 9th symophony. Mozart's music basically all sounds the same. Beethoven is monumental and Mozart lacks emotion."

This is basically it. The hardcore Beethoven fans are right to do so, because purely on musical merits, it's obvious Mozart was more gifted. Whether it's his melodic gift, his skill of orchestration, his feeling for chromatism, his ease in handling rhythm, his feeling for counterpoint, his versatility: in every respect Mozart was more talented than Beethoven. One might argue that Beethoven's compositions are more concentrated, but Mozart had a different, more intuitive handling of form, based on dramatic development, and he was unfailing in this field. One can hardly say Beethoven sense of form was better than Mozart's when there's hardly anything as perfect in form as Mozart's piano concertos (compared to Mozart's later concertos, Beethoven's first three piano concertos are quite weak in terms of structure).

One might argue that Beethoven was more innovative. This may be the case, but one must keep several things in mind. First of all, Beethoven had 22 years more than Mozart. Second, Beethoven lived in a different time, and could permit himself more freedom than Mozart ever could. To accuse Mozart of conservatism is to show your ignorance in this respect. Besides that, the piano for example had changed in the meantime. One cannot compare a Mozart sonata of say, 1777, with a late Beethoven sonata, there are almost 50 years between them, and the instrument and its possibilities had changed a lot.

Even then, I have the impression that most people who are speaking about innovation, hardly have a clue about how the music of Mozart's contemporaries sounded, and perhaps neither how Beethoven's contemporaries sounded. If you listen to some music from Mozart's time, then you will realize how revolutionary Mozart was, and perhaps understand why editors changed "wrong" notes from his music. And some of Beethoven's contemporaries could be very innovative too. Take a Dussek whose sonatas from the early 19th century sometimes already can sound like Chopin. Mozart's chromatism was more daring than Beethoven's, and late Schubert's harmonies are more radical than those of late Beethoven. Not all innovation comes from Beethoven.
And even then, I have to say that much of what makes Beethoven revolutionary can be unnatural, even clumsy. Take his counterpoint, or the way Beethoven writes for the individual instruments in a string quartet. It's brilliant of course, but the brilliant and the clumsy are very closely connected with Beethoven.

So finally, this brings to the point I felt I had to respond with, the emotion in their works. Many of us prefer Beethoven for it's power. I can understand many feel that way. But I'm completely sick of those ignorants who state there is little or at least less emotion in Mozart. For me no one in Western music has had such an ease of transferring emotions into music as Mozart had. And his emotions have a wide range. Someone in this thread said Mozart was more subdued in his emotions, but I disagree. Mozart's music can be full of terror. What's true however is that Mozart is more subdued because Beethoven rebels, whereas Mozart tends more towards resignation. Mozart's music is much more sad than Beethoven's. Someone else here called Beethoven's music sad, but I would like to ask to point at a movement of Beethoven that is really sad. Beethoven can be agressive, frustrated, very introspective, but he never is really sad, there's always some hope in his music, even in things like the opening of the string quartet opus 131. Mozart on the other hand is one of the most saddest composers in all classical music. Just the sadness is subdued, and for some Romantics, who refuse to dig deeper, one is not sad unless one shouts: "Hey, I feel so incredibly bad!". That's not how Mozart is. 

I never want to hear anymore Mozart lacks emotion, Mozart is one and all emotion, nothing is more stupid than to deny it.

Anyway, both Mozart and Beethoven where incredible geniuses, and I don't mind and can even understand it if someone prefers Beethoven, even if Mozart was a bit more gifted. But never say such dumb things about emotion in Mozart anymore, thank you.


----------



## Guest

PLEASE do not post such long comments, as I do not read them!! From that, I think we can extrapolate that many also do not read them!! Concision reaps rewards. Less is more.


----------



## poconoron

martijn said:


> I posted some kind of parody on this "competition" yesterday, implicitly stating that each of them was so gifted and so great, that denigrating one at the expense of the other is just ridicolous. However, whenever I read posts of the "Beethoven fanclub" it strikes me that purely musical arguments are seldom used. Usually hardcore Beethoven fans respond in the same way, it goes something like this.
> 
> "Beethoven was the greatest composer of all. Nothing what Mozart did can compare with Beethoven's late string quartets and the 9th symophony. Mozart's music basically all sounds the same. Beethoven is monumental and Mozart lacks emotion."
> 
> This is basically it. The hardcore Beethoven fans are right to do so, because purely on musical merits, it's obvious Mozart was more gifted. Whether it's his melodic gift, his skill of orchestration, his feeling for chromatism, his ease in handling rhythm, his feeling for counterpoint, his versatility: in every respect Mozart was more talented than Beethoven. One might argue that Beethoven's compositions are more concentrated, but Mozart had a different, more intuitive handling of form, based on dramatic development, and he was unfailing in this field. One can hardly say Beethoven sense of form was better than Mozart's when there's hardly anything as perfect in form as Mozart's piano concertos (compared to Mozart's later concertos, Beethoven's first three piano concertos are quite weak in terms of structure).
> 
> One might argue that Beethoven was more innovative. This may be the case, but one must keep several things in mind. First of all, Beethoven had 22 years more than Mozart. Second, Beethoven lived in a different time, and could permit himself more freedom than Mozart ever could. To accuse Mozart of conservatism is to show your ignorance in this respect. Besides that, the piano for example had changed in the meantime. One cannot compare a Mozart sonata of say, 1777, with a late Beethoven sonata, there are almost 50 years between them, and the instrument and its possibilities had changed a lot.
> 
> Even then, I have the impression that most people who are speaking about innovation, hardly have a clue about how the music of Mozart's contemporaries sounded, and perhaps neither how Beethoven's contemporaries sounded. If you listen to some music from Mozart's time, then you will realize how revolutionary Mozart was, and perhaps understand why editors changed "wrong" notes from his music. And some of Beethoven's contemporaries could be very innovative too. Take a Dussek whose sonatas from the early 19th century sometimes already can sound like Chopin. Mozart's chromatism was more daring than Beethoven's, and late Schubert's harmonies are more radical than those of late Beethoven. Not all innovation comes from Beethoven.
> And even then, I have to say that much of what makes Beethoven revolutionary can be unnatural, even clumsy. Take his counterpoint, or the way Beethoven writes for the individual instruments in a string quartet. It's brilliant of course, but the brilliant and the clumsy are very closely connected with Beethoven.
> 
> So finally, this brings to the point I felt I had to respond with, the emotion in their works. Many of us prefer Beethoven for it's power. I can understand many feel that way. But I'm completely sick of those ignorants who state there is little or at least less emotion in Mozart. For me no one in Western music has had such an ease of transferring emotions into music as Mozart had. And his emotions have a wide range. Someone in this thread said Mozart was more subdued in his emotions, but I disagree. Mozart's music can be full of terror. What's true however is that Mozart is more subdued because Beethoven rebels, whereas Mozart tends more towards resignation. Mozart's music is much more sad than Beethoven's. Someone else here called Beethoven's music sad, but I would like to ask to point at a movement of Beethoven that is really sad. Beethoven can be agressive, frustrated, very introspective, but he never is really sad, there's always some hope in his music, even in things like the opening of the string quartet opus 131. Mozart on the other hand is one of the most saddest composers in all classical music. Just the sadness is subdued, and for some Romantics, who refuse to dig deeper, one is not sad unless one shouts: "Hey, I feel so incredibly bad!". That's not how Mozart is.
> 
> I never want to hear anymore Mozart lacks emotion, Mozart is one and all emotion, nothing is more stupid than to deny it.
> 
> Anyway, both Mozart and Beethoven where incredible geniuses, and I don't mind and can even understand it if someone prefers Beethoven, even if Mozart was a bit more gifted. But never say such dumb things about emotion in Mozart anymore, thank you.


Very,very well said.


----------



## martijn

at least poconoron seems not to agree with the previous post. If someone doesn't want to read my post because it's too long, it's his or her choice. I try to write useful things, and not longer than necessary. Let's imagine what if Tolstoj had got such a comment and had listened to it.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> This is basically it. The hardcore Beethoven fans are right to do so, because purely on musical merits, it's obvious Mozart was more gifted. Whether it's his melodic gift, his skill of orchestration, his feeling for chromatism, his ease in handling rhythm, his feeling for counterpoint, his versatility: in every respect Mozart was more talented than Beethoven.


Let's be fair: 1) you have ignored some important compositional elements that Beethoven was a master of (development for one!) and 2) Mozart's music more rhythmically interesting than B's? I dunno about that.



> One might argue that Beethoven was more innovative. This may be the case, but one must keep several things in mind. First of all, Beethoven had 22 years more than Mozart. Second, Beethoven lived in a different time, and could permit himself more freedom than Mozart ever could. To accuse Mozart of conservatism is to show your ignorance in this respect. Besides that, the piano for example had changed in the meantime. One cannot compare a Mozart sonata of say, 1777, with a late Beethoven sonata, there are almost 50 years between them, and the instrument and its possibilities had changed a lot.


Come on. 'One might argue that Beethoven was more innovative'? Mozart wasn't a deep-seated conservative but he was no major innovator either. What you say about time periods and instrumental capabilities is true, but Mozart wasn't one for pushing the instruments or the orchestra to inhuman limits anyway.



> If you listen to some music from Mozart's time, then you will realize how revolutionary Mozart was, and perhaps understand why editors changed "wrong" notes from his music.


I doubt there are many composers of the time who didn't have their scores 'corrected' by well-meaning individuals. Berlioz is forever moaning about this in his Memoirs.



> Mozart's chromatism was more daring than Beethoven's


Interesting, what evidence would you provide for this?



> and late Schubert's harmonies are more radical than those of late Beethoven


Schubert did tend to be a bit more harmonically adventurous than Beethoven, agreed, but again I ask what evidence you would give that Schubert's late music is substantially more harmonically daring than Beethoven's?



> And even then, I have to say that much of what makes Beethoven revolutionary can be unnatural, even clumsy. Take his counterpoint, or the way Beethoven writes for the individual instruments in a string quartet. It's brilliant of course, but the brilliant and the clumsy are very closely connected with Beethoven.


Think I just plain disagree here. B rarely approaches the grace of Mozart but 'clumsy' is quite a charge against him. What did you have in mind specifically? I don't hear his counterpoint as particularly clumsy.

I understand you are trying to stick up for Mozart but Beethoven wasn't a 19th century Bruckner! You almost make him sound like an idiot savant


----------



## Oskaar

I am lucky to have both to explore! But I have listened enough to both of them to say that it is difficult to compare them. I understand the need to compare though.


----------



## Guest

Martijn, your last two paragraphs were completely redundant. I've also heard much of what you've said many times before!!


----------



## poconoron

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Martijn, your last two paragraphs were completely redundant. I've also heard much of what you've said many times before!!


Well, I certainly haven't.......... and many others may not have either. May I respectfully suggest that perhaps you should not continue reading if something becomes redundant?


----------



## martijn

> Let's be fair: 1) you have ignored some important compositional elements that Beethoven was a master of (development for one!) and 2) Mozart's music more rhythmically interesting than B's? I dunno about that.


1) I find I discussed development, for I mentioned the unity in Beethoven's works, and the development, as a working out of ideas in the exposition, is an integral part of it. Yes, Beethoven was a master of it, but I just happen not to like developments too much in general. Remember that wonderful quote of Debussy when listening to a Beethoven symphony: "Ah the development, now I can go to smoke a cigarette outside". Mozart hated developments, is my feeling, I think he regarded it as something artificial. Usually he runs through the development as fast as he can, I admire him for that ;-) He could do wonders though, like in the 40th symphony.

2) I didn't state Mozart's rhythm is more interesting, though no less authority as Messiaen regarded Mozart as a much greater rhythmician than Beethoven. What I said was that Mozart's gift of rhythm came more easily to him. Beethoven's music has a great rhytmic power, I just feel it's the result of a lot of work, which Beethoven's sketches prove. I prefer the easy flow of Mozart. Anyway, I consider both of them among the greatest rhythmicians of classical music.



> One Come on. 'One might argue that Beethoven was more innovative'? Mozart wasn't a deep-seated conservative but he was no major innovator either. What you say about time periods and instrumental capabilities is true, but Mozart wasn't one for pushing the instruments or the orchestra to inhuman limits anyway.


I really find you underestimate Mozart in this respect. I would like to ask: how much do you know of his contemporaries? Take just an example, the fantasie in fm, kv 608, can you imagine such a work by any of his contemporaries, even Haydn? No way.



> I doubt there are many composers of the time who didn't have their scores 'corrected' by well-meaning individuals. Berlioz is forever moaning about this in his Memoirs.


I don't know what he referred to. I know Berlioz once complained about how Die Zauberflöte was corrupted, because they deleted parts and added parts of others. This kind of potpourri was normal at that time, and it might be that what he meant. But in Mozart case notes were deleted because they were considered wrong. Again, which notes of which of his contemporaries would be too difficult? Mozart is really more radical than all of his contemporaries, and he was seen as such in his own time.



> Mozart's chromatism was more daring than Beethoven's
> Interesting, what evidence would you provide for this?


Beethoven/$Mozart$ * MC2



> Schubert did tend to be a bit more harmonically adventurous than Beethoven, agreed, but again I ask what evidence you would give that Schubert's late music is substantially more harmonically daring than Beethoven's?


Schubert (Beethoven x0, Beethoven x1.... Beethoven xn)/pi

I believe these two statements of mine were quite common, one can find many examples to show it.



> Think I just plain disagree here. B rarely approaches the grace of Mozart but 'clumsy' is quite a charge against him. What did you have in mind specifically? I don't hear his counterpoint as particularly clumsy.


Clumsy is perhaps a wrong chosen word. Charles Rosen describes the counterpoint of Beethoven as often "awkward", that's perhaps a better formulation. Beethoven's counterpoint is not bad, of course not, but I find it slightly unnatural. The same for his late quartet writing. Goethe said that a string quartet was "four rational people conversing". I would say that Beethoven's string quartets are four extremely intelligent people conversing, but not always necessarily listening very well to each other.



> I understand you are trying to stick up for Mozart but Beethoven wasn't a 19th century Bruckner! You almost make him sound like an idiot savant


You're wrong to think that. I worship Beethoven, and consider him very gifted. But Mozart just happens to be perhaps the most gifted composer in all classical music, so it's not that strange that Beethoven is not a match to him in every field, purely on musical terms. Even the authorities in classical music who prefer Beethoven, almost always admit that Mozart was more gifted. But Beethoven's own's musical gifts, his emotional power and innovative power make him one of the absolute top geniuses. As I said, I don't mind if someone prefers Beethoven, and I would never bash Beethoven like some Beethoven fans bash Mozart. Beethoven is a musical god.


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> I really find you underestimate Mozart in this respect. I would like to ask: how much do you know of his contemporaries? Take just an example, the fantasie in fm, kv 608, can you imagine such a work by any of his contemporaries, even Haydn? No way.


I've not listened hugely in depth but I think I know enough to make a well informed judgement. There is hardly a handful of people in musical history who have been anywhere near as influential as Beethoven. He changed the entire face of the music of his time and forced everyone who followed to react to him; he radically expanded and reinvented the symphony, string quartet, concerto and instrumental sonata, he pushed conventional forms such as sonata form until they broke, he pushed the piano until he no longer found it satisfactory, he reinvented counterpoint, he revolutionised the relationship between soloist and orchestra in the concerto, he demolished the Mozartean philosophy that 'The passions... should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust...music...should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music', he poured feeling very directly into his music like none before, and like no other before him he tried to convey the emotional content of his music to the performer through performance directions. Mozart was not innovative on a Beethovian scale, not even close. It's hard to imagine that some of Beethoven's works were actually written in the early 19th century at all.



> I don't know what he referred to. I know Berlioz once complained about how Die Zauberflöte was corrupted, because they deleted parts and added parts of others. This kind of potpourri was normal at that time, and it might be that what he meant. But in Mozart case notes were deleted because they were considered wrong. Again, which notes of which of his contemporaries would be too difficult? Mozart is really more radical than all of his contemporaries, and he was seen as such in his own time.


There are several rants in the Memoirs about the presumption of conductors and other busybodies in correcting scores from all kinds of composers, notes included along with instrumentation and other such things. Some of the more dissonant and harmonically quirky passages of Beethoven, for example.



> Clumsy is perhaps a wrong chosen word. Charles Rosen describes the counterpoint of Beethoven as often "awkward", that's perhaps a better formulation. Beethoven's counterpoint is not bad, of course not, but I find it slightly unnatural. The same for his late quartet writing. Goethe said that a string quartet was "four rational people conversing". I would say that Beethoven's string quartets are four extremely intelligent people conversing, but not always necessarily listening very well to each other.


This is all very vague. I'd prefer it if you wrote more plainly of what troubles you about his counterpoint or quoted me some of these 'awkward' passages.


----------



## martijn

> I've not listened hugely in depth but I think I know enough to make a well informed judgement. There is hardly a handful of people in musical history who have been anywhere near as influential as Beethoven. He changed the entire face of the music of his time and forced everyone who followed to react to him; he radically expanded and reinvented the symphony, string quartet, concerto and instrumental sonata, he pushed conventional forms such as sonata form until they broke, he pushed the piano until he no longer found it satisfactory, he reinvented counterpoint, he revolutionised the relationship between soloist and orchestra in the concerto, he demolished the Mozartean philosophy that 'The passions... should never be so expressed as to reach the point of causing disgust...music...should never be painful to the ear but should flatter and charm it, and thereby always remain music', he poured feeling very directly into his music like none before, and like no other before him he tried to convey the emotional content of his music to the performer through performance directions. Mozart was not innovative on a Beethovian scale, not even close. It's hard to imagine that some of Beethoven's works were actually written in the early 19th century at all.


A lot of words to say that you actually indeed know little of Mozart's contemporaries, and hardly have an idea of how innovative Mozart was. Otherwise you would have known that the expansion of form starts with Mozart, that Mozart did much more to reinvent the piano concerto than Beethoven did, that Mozart revolutionized opera, that Mozart's chromatism, his dissonances were often more daring than Beethoven's, that Mozart's and Haydn's use of form was much more free than hardcore Beethoven fans think (books have been written about the structure of Mozart's piano concertos, which differs from concerto to concerto).

If Beethoven is more radical, is it really an improvement? His handling of counterpoint, his use of long melody lines in his later carreer, his four-part writing in string quartets, it's all innovative, but is it really better? He may have reinvented counterpoint, as you state, but do you mind I rather listen to good oldfashioned Bach when I want some counterpoint? Innovation is not all, and I think indirectly one can say that Beethoven's influence also has done damage to Western music. This extreme serious attitude of a composer, the emphasize on being modern, rather than making music as a means of communication (so that now modern composers all write in a different language, and like in the story of the tower of Babel, no one understands each other anymore), the refusal to control emotions, all that is Beethoven's legacy as well, and I'm not particularly happy with it.


----------



## martijn

What is actually funny, is that when one knows someone's favorite composer, one will know how one will discuss about music. People are in this respect like their favorite composers. So the Bach fans are quite mild, though they regard Bach as their idol did God, and state that He comes above all, they don't look down on other composers, just like Bach didn't. The Mozart fans are similar, but defend Mozart with a love and devotion that's so typical of Mozart himself, the kind of love you feel for a woman. Fans of composers like Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler and the likes however, like the big gestures, and want the absolute. The Beethoven fans are really like Beethoven himself: they prefer the bold statements, rather than the nuance, they leave little space for others, because Beethoven must conquer all.


----------



## skalpel

martijn said:


> What is actually funny, is that when one knows someone's favorite composer, one will know how one will discuss about music. People are in this respect like their favorite composers. So the Bach fans are quite mild, though they regard Bach as their idol did God, and state that He comes above all, they don't look down on other composers, just like Bach didn't. The Mozart fans are similar, but defend Mozart with a love and devotion that's so typical of Mozart himself, the kind of love you feel for a woman. Fans of composers like Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler and the likes however, like the big gestures, and want the absolute. The Beethoven fans are really like Beethoven himself: they prefer the bold statements, rather than the nuance, they leave little space for others, because Beethoven must conquer all.


Would you like some more tar for that brush you're using there? Quite an absurd generalisation you've invented.


----------



## martijn

Oh ye, it's definitely a generalization, I love them. However, as a generalization, it has struck me, it is just right. Fe, you will always find in a Mozart vs Beethoven debate Mozartians who prefer Mozart, but who have no problem praising Beethoven. But the way many Beethoven fans belittle Mozart is just outrageous. I've read such a thing more than once, not only here. One only makes a fool himself when doing so.


----------



## skalpel

Ah, I see. Do you consider yourself to be a Mozartian?


----------



## martijn

If I have to choose, yes. But with my first post here, I already stated that we rather should admire both composers, instead of seeing it as a battle that should be won by one of them. I love Beethoven dearly. You can just find it all over the internet, Beethoven fans who speak about Mozart like he was some conservative composer of easy listening. I can't remember a Mozartian ever having said something as stupid as that about Beethoven.


----------



## jalex

Martin, I'm not going to respond line by line to your post since it is just a giant straw man. I have nowhere said that Beethoven is the only source of innovation, nor that Mozart did not innovate. I am stating only this: *Beethoven was much, much more revolutionary than Mozart*. Notice how this says nothing about the worth of the music of either composer; it is an entirely neutral statement, and one which I and a large majority of others regard as a fact. In brief: if Mozart was more formally innovative than Beethoven, please state to me his equivalents of 6 movement string quartets, 2 movement piano sonatas, piano sonatas beginning with slow movements, and the last two movements of the 9th symphony. Mozart endowed Classical sonata form with an extremely high degree of sophistication and he was an exceptional judge of balance, but largely he used the pioneering formal work of Haydn (who, incidentally, was the original 'expander of form', not Mozart).

More daring dissonances? I don't think so; for example there is a point in the 9th's finale where every note of the harmonic minor scale is sounded at once. An equivalent to this tone cluster in Mozart's music please? Not to mention the dissonances in the fugues of the Hammerklavier and the 13th string quartet.

I love Mozart above almost all other composers. I am simply stating facts as I see them. I would say the same things even if I preferred Mozart to Beethoven.


----------



## skalpel

martijn said:


> If I have to choose, yes. But with my first post here, I already stated that we rather should admire both composers, instead of seeing it as a battle that should be won by one of them. I love Beethoven dearly. You can just find it all over the internet, Beethoven fans who speak about Mozart like he was some conservative composer of easy listening. I can't remember a Mozartian ever having said something as stupid as that about Beethoven.


Well, if I am being honest, I've never noticed that before. I haven't noticed anybody here suggest anything like that either, just somebody with the reverse opinion to you who is debating in a more open and honest manner without painting personal opinions to appear as facts or resorting to lumbering his opposite into a strange stereotype with little foundation.
It's also a good thing for you that you consider yourself a Mozartian; after all, this means you fit into the most open-minded, music loving and passionate group of music fans according to your own description earlier.


----------



## martijn

If I disagree it's a straw man? I just said you have little grasp for how innovative Mozart was, and I gave some examples. I am not really shocked by piano sonatas in two movements (Haydn did it before Beethoven), Mozart started k282 with an adagio (The Mondschein follows the same pattern as this sonata in its three movements adagio -menuetto - final allegro). Two simple examples where a little more knowledge would make you see that Beethoven may have been very innovative, but apparently not as innovative as you think. 

In terms of form, Mozart owes very little to Haydn. You really miss the point here. Haydn's second themes are most often derived from his first themes, Mozart's hardly ever. Mozart is about dramatic conflict (in his last years this is changing), Haydn about compositional logic (much like Beethoven). Expansion of form? Please check the duration of an average Haydn string quartet and then compare it with one of Mozart from roughly the same time. The Mozart string quartet can be up to 1,5 time longer in duration (expansion of form is not the same as invention of form). 

I think Mozart in general is more daring yes in dissonances, the same was said by the way by Brahms, if you ignore it when I say it, Brahms at least should make you think about it. Still, late Mozart is 40 years before late Beethoven, in terms of harmony I find Beethoven not a hug step forward, given those 40 years. Dissonance you may find in Idomeneo, late works like k595, take the Haydn quartets by Mozart (K465 for example).

By the way, is my name so difficult?


----------



## martijn

> Well, if I am being honest, I've never noticed that before. I haven't noticed anybody here suggest anything like that either, just somebody with the reverse opinion to you who is debating in a more open and honest manner without painting personal opinions to appear as facts or resorting to lumbering his opposite into a strange stereotype with little foundation.
> It's also a good thing for you that you consider yourself a Mozartian; after all, this means you fit into the most open-minded, music loving and passionate group of music fans according to your own description earlier.


Honestly, I read such things like a thousand times. "Honest manner" I ignore, it's nonsense, like you should tell me if I'm honest or not. Failled attempt to hurt, too bad. Did I by the way mention that Mozartians are more beautiful people, more intelligent and succesful and have lower cholesterol?


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> If I disagree it's a straw man?


Certainly not. You levelled untrue charges against me in your original post. My post had NO OTHER AIM than to state that Beethoven was more revolutionary than Mozart. Why, if you do not disagree, give me a lecture on how innovative Mozart was when I said nothing about Mozart's innovations?



> I am not really shocked by piano sonatas in two movements (Haydn did it before Beethoven),


Come on, those little Haydn sonatas are hardly comparable to Beethoven's 32nd (wasn't referring to the 'easy sonatas' here). It's not just the fact that the sonata is in two movements, but the way the movements are treated - I forget who it was who called the 32nd the composition which 'banged the nail in the coffin of sonata form'.



> Mozart started k282 with an adagio (The Mondschein follows the same pattern as this sonata in its three movements adagio -menuetto - final allegro). Two simple examples where a little more knowledge would make you see that Beethoven may have been very innovative, but apparently not as innovative as you think.


Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that sonata. Is this it though? A few lightweight two movement sonatas (from Haydn) which bear no relation in their treatment of material to Beethoven 32, and a single early work by Mozart makes Mozart more formally innovative than Beethoven?



> In terms of form, Mozart owes very little to Haydn. You really miss the point here. Haydn's second themes are most often derived from his first themes, Mozart's hardly ever. Mozart is about dramatic conflict (in his last years this is changing), Haydn about compositional logic (much like Beethoven).


Rubbish. Haydn's sonata forms area mixture of polythematic and monothematic. His Sturm und Drang symphonies are the Classical textbook examples of dramatic conflict.



> Expansion of form? Please check the duration of an average Haydn string quartet and then compare it with one of Mozart from roughly the same time. The Mozart string quartet can be up to 1,5 time longer in duration (expansion of form is not the same as invention of form).


Expansion of form doesn't just mean longer pieces, but also for example increasing the importance of a section as Beethoven did with developments and codas. Putting more material in to sonata form isn't really expanding it very much if all proportions etc remain the same. And Haydn 'expanded' the symphony from it's humble three movement beginnings to what we now recognise as Classical symphonies. If that isn't expansion, I don't know what is.



> think Mozart in general is more daring yes in dissonances, the same was said by the way by Brahms, if you ignore it when I say it, Brahms at least should make you think about it. Still, late Mozart is 40 years before late Beethoven, in terms of harmony I find Beethoven not a hug step forward, given those 40 years. Dissonance you may find in Idomeneo, late works like k595, take the Haydn quartets by Mozart (K465 for example).


Fewer than 30 years separate The Magic Flute and the Clarinet Concerto from the Hammerklavier. If you can't hear a step forward in the use of dissonance there then I can't help you...



> By the way, is my name so difficult?


No, I apologise for that.


----------



## martijn

I get a little tired of these little nasty things between the lines, and I don't want to participate in that, so I will just react on the content from now on, and ignore all that's not content.

I didn't deny Beethoven was, overall, a greater revolutionary. I do deny however, that he was much, much more revolutionary, as you stated it.

I only responded to your comments about form. Is the 32nd sonata really so revolutionary in form? I should analyze the first movement for it, but the second movement is just a set of variations, as so very often with Beethoven. Formally, that's nothing shocking. It's a wonderful movement, oh absolutely, but a set of variations, and nothing else. Sonata form wouldn't have to worry for it.



> Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that sonata. Is this it though? A few lightweight two movement sonatas (from Haydn) which bear no relation in their treatment of material to Beethoven 32, and a single early work by Mozart makes Mozart more formally innovative than Beethoven?


Look, this is improper argumentation. I gave two examples to prove you were mistaken on some points. But you can't imply then that these are all formal innovations of Mozart (and/or Haydn).

Nothing rubbish about what I said. The kind of form that Mozart uses in his later works has really very little to do with the Sturm and Drang period, neither with later Haydn. They way they use motives, how they modulate, choose secondary keys, really, it's very very different.

Of course expansion is/goes together with longer duration. Works become longer, sections become longer and will carry more weight as a result. Haydn expanded the symphony, and indeed, the London symphonies are much longer than the ouverture-like symphonies of some 30 years before. Mozart expanded the forms even more than Haydn.

You can choose whichever works you want, to make a point. Overall I stick my point, Beethoven's harmony and dissonance was not a big step forward. The way he writes for instruments, how he writes for the piano shouldn't be confused with dissonance. I believe Brahms knew what he was talking about.


----------



## skalpel

martijn said:


> Honestly, I read such things like a thousand times. "Honest manner" I ignore, it's nonsense, like you should tell me if I'm honest or not. Failled attempt to hurt, too bad. Did I by the way mention that Mozartians are more beautiful people, more intelligent and succesful and have lower cholesterol?


"Failed attempt to hurt, too bad"? What do you mean by that? I don't understand.

I didn't say you were not honest, if that is what you are suggesting. I'm saying that a person here who prefers Beethoven is acting in an honest manner when putting accross their point of view; a more honest manner than that which would conform to your description in which they apparently "must conquer all" and "leave little space for others".


----------



## jalex

> I only responded to your comments about form. Is the 32nd sonata really so revolutionary in form? I should analyze the first movement for it, but the second movement is just a set of variations, as so very often with Beethoven. Formally, that's nothing shocking. It's a wonderful movement, oh absolutely, but a set of variations, and nothing else. Sonata form wouldn't have to worry for it.


A quote from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/classical/pizarro/sonata32.shtml) about this sonata and form: 'In his last sonata, Beethoven seems to have found the ultimate solution to the unity of form by resolving in one movement the conflicts of the other.' It's one of the most formally innovative pieces ever.



> Look, this is improper argumentation. I gave two examples to prove you were mistaken on some points. But you can't imply then that these are all formal innovations of Mozart (and/or Haydn).


Clarify please, not sure what you are saying here.



> Nothing rubbish about what I said. The kind of form that Mozart uses in his later works has really very little to do with the Sturm and Drang period, neither with later Haydn. They way they use motives, how they modulate, choose secondary keys, really, it's very very different.


I was correcting what you wrote: that Haydn 'most often' uses monothematic expositions and that he is about compositional logic rather than dramatic contrast. Neither are true. I didn't say Mozart's late works modelled themselves on Haydn's S&D symphonies or anything like that.



> You can choose whichever works you want, to make a point. Overall I stick my point, Beethoven's harmony and dissonance was not a big step forward. The way he writes for instruments, how he writes for the piano shouldn't be confused with dissonance. I believe Brahms knew what he was talking about.


Was Brahms any more specific than 'Mozart's chromaticism/use of dissonance is more daring'? I'd like to hear some examples. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream...d=51B0E7A5D73E0B2A0804CE18BAA5C07E?sequence=1 might be an interesting read, notice how on the whole Beethoven's themes use more chromatic notes than Mozart's (though equally note the self-admitted limits of this survey).


----------



## martijn

> I only responded to your comments about form. Is the 32nd sonata really so revolutionary in form? I should analyze the first movement for it, but the second movement is just a set of variations, as so very often with Beethoven. Formally, that's nothing shocking. It's a wonderful movement, oh absolutely, but a set of variations, and nothing else. Sonata form wouldn't have to worry for it.


You find this offensive? I just state what it's formal content is. Fine what the BBC thinks, but I don't find it thát formally innovative. I love it immensly, though. Resolving emotions in the last movement is not something that is new in the 32nd sonata, for it's a typical feature of Beethoven, take the 5th symphony for example. But it's also typical of classical style, where darker emotions in minor keys are often resolved at the end of the work, which is in major. The picardy third is a symbol of it.



> Look, this is improper argumentation. I gave two examples to prove you were mistaken on some points. But you can't imply then that these are all formal innovations of Mozart (and/or Haydn).


With this I meant that I corrected some of your earlier statements about Beethoven. But if you say "Is that all there is", then it's of course not true, because there are many other things I could mention about Haydn or Mozart's form. You know, that 3-movement form or 6-movement form, that doesn't interest me much. Mozart's 5th violin concerto, with an adagio in the opening allegro, and an isolated Turkish episode in the the third, it's all very interesting, but I would prefer the later piano concertos. On the surface, they seem not so shocking, but that's innovation of form that interests me.

That Haydn most often uses monothematic expositions is obvious. Maybe not early on in his carreer, but the later Haydn? Absolutely. And of course there is dramatic contrast in his work, like in all classical music. But Haydn works in a different way, less intuitive than Mozart, more thinking in terms of developping themes.

Brahms referred to Idomeneo I believe, indeed a very daring work. The research you showed may be very interesting, but if I see things like P<0,000001 it scares me away ;-) I've studied enough to feel Beethoven was less chromatic, something not only I have stated. Besides that, the times had changed, and the music had become much more chromatic in general. A contemporary of Mozart called Mozart "that composer that thinks that the tone scale exists of 12 notes", but when you arrive at late Beethoven, you find a lot of chromatism all around, in the young Chopin, in Spoh, to mention two composers far more chromatic than Beethoven.


----------



## Oskaar




----------



## Eviticus

Bravo Martijn and Jalex! An enjoyable debate that has made this thread worthwhile. 

Great opposing views and development of your arguments... now i'm looking forward to the recapitulation where Jalex finally gives in and supports Martijns opening argument and theme! :tiphat:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Mozart wasn't one for pushing the instruments or the orchestra to inhuman limits anyway.

He could certainly push the limitations of the human voice on the other hand:


----------



## jalex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Mozart wasn't one for pushing the instruments or the orchestra to inhuman limits anyway.
> 
> He could certainly push the limitations of the human voice on the other hand:


Aye. Sounds terrific when well executed, that does.

As I'm sure you know, there is some really horrendous vocal writing in some of Beethoven's scores. Isn't there a point in the Missa Solemnis where the sopranos have to hold a fortissimo high Bb for 7 seconds?


----------



## trazom

I'm not sure which part of Idomeneo Brahms said was one of Mozart's most dissonant works, but he must have been referring to "Qual nuovo terrore"






That chord at 5:04...Ouch!!


----------



## violadude

trazom said:


> I'm not sure which part of Idomeneo Brahms said was one of Mozart's most dissonant works, but he must have been referring to "Qual nuovo terrore"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That chord at 5:04...Ouch!!


Wow, that chord is so oddly orchestrated too!


----------



## violadude

These Mozart Vs. Beethoven debates always seem to end up the same way...the people on the Beethoven side praise Beethoven and way downplay Mozart's greatness...and then the Mozart side praises Mozart and way downplays Beethoven's greatness. It hardly ever ends up balanced. They both have their strengths and weaknesses depending on your point of view, your tastes and what you look for in music...Mozart is great if you like beautiful melodies, very heartfelt but subtle emotion, grace and elegance in music, with the occasional stormy (and even shockingly dissonant) moment. His sense of emotion is always very delicate and elegant and sometimes that hides just how amazing and radical his harmonies can be. It all sounds very natural and that is what makes people think Mozart didn't push boundaries for his time. For example of everything I have said, there is absolutely nothing quite like the Clarinet Quintet in Beethoven's output (those that know this work will know what I mean). 

Beethoven is great if you like more dramatic ups and downs, music with more rhetorical and thematic material rather than vocal lyrical material. His sense of melody and elegance is definitely not up there with Mozart's...although he can be super witty in the manner of Haydn. The tradeoff though is that you get more complex thematic development, more "in your face" kind of harmonic surprises, more experimentation with form and just more "edginess" all around really. So it just depends on what you're into I guess. Just as there is nothing like the Clarinet Quintet in Beethoven's output, there is nothing like the Appassionata in Mozart's output. 

Also a word on their sense of counterpoint. They were both really great at counterpoint even though Beethoven mastered it much later in his life than Mozart did, but I feel that their counterpoint is much different. Mozart's counterpoint always sounds very airy, transparent and effortless, almost like it's not counterpoint at all. And Beethoven's counterpoint sounds much more dense and has a worked out kind of feel to it that Mozart's doesn't. Actually, that description fits their writing styles in general somewhat. 

Also about their use of dissonances. I am sure people could find examples to the contrary, but I feel that in general Beethoven makes surprising key shifts and throws in really dissonant and surprising chords...whereas Mozart is more dissonant within the tonality than Beethoven is and Beethoven usually sticks within the boundaries of whatever tonality hes in...if that makes any sense. Maybe also, I would say perhaps Beethoven is more harmonically dissonant than Mozart...but Mozart is more melodically dissonant than Beethoven...if that makes any sense too...

Jesus I don't know what I'm trying to say. Someone confirm that they understand what I'm getting at!!

Anyway, that's what I have to say about this whole thing. It is really late here, so maybe I didn't make sense...


----------



## martijn

I think you made perfectly sense, violadude. I agree with what you said about Mozart's radical innovations that are hided by his grace, by Beethoven's and Mozart's counterpoint. Basically I also agree with your point about dissonances. In general the harmonic patterns of Beethoven are a bit more complicated than Mozart's. I've to add though, that that was just a part of the development in all music at that time, and Mozart can be very daring in harmonic respect too, I find him more difficult to listen to on suchs moment than Beethoven when Beethoven does spectacular things. What you call "melodically dissonant" is probably what one calls chromatism, within a certain tonality, Beethoven is fairly diatonic. So Beethoven followed the development of more complicated harmonies, but he didn't follow in general the development of greater chromatism.

It would have been enough for a "like", if not I had disagreed with what you said about Mozart fans downplaying Beethoven's greatness. I'm surprised so far nobody shares my impression, that Beethoven fans are much more harsher about Mozart than vice versa. I've seen it tons of times on the internet. I can hardly ever remember a Mozart fan belittling Beethoven. They will usually admit Beethoven's power, talent an his innovations. Even if they might add Mozart was more talented, they will not speak of Beethoven as a comparative amateur. Many Beethoven fans though, make extremely pejorative remarks about Mozart, and they are usually not the best-informed people. I would not put Jalex in this category though, despite our at times fierce debate (;-)) he at least can give concrete examples about Beethoven. A little bit more understanding of the innovations by Haydn and Mozart wouldn't hurt though.

Brahms mentioned Idomeneo in general, and in this work chromatism and dissonant chords can be find everywhere, also in the youtube fragment, not just at 5:04, there's a lot of chromatism in the second part. You also find a lot of chromatism and dissonant chords in the recitatives with orchestra in Idomeneo.


----------



## martijn

The rendition of Damrau is by the way great, but no match for Miss Jenkins:


----------



## Guest

All these comments are thought-provoking and relevant regarding the differences between LvB and WAM. I really enjoy WAMs last great symphonies and two or three of the operas. I grew bored with the piano concerti having heard them over and over again in the Sydney International Piano Competition, year after year - but that isnt WAMs fault. I like the sacred works too. But I was in the Vienna Konzerthaus just recently listening to Amsterdam Baroque and they were playing Beethoven "Creatures of Prometheus". I didnt know what was coming on because I didnt buy a program, because I cannot read Deutsch. I remember thinking it was Beethoven because of its soundworld, with which I am very familiar. But I had never heard that work before. I asked myself during the performance how I knew it was Beethoven, what were the distinguishing features over, say, WAM. I cam up with one word, which I now think a good one: POWER.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I asked myself during the performance how I knew it was Beethoven, what were the distinguishing features over, say, WAM. I cam up with one word, which I now think a good one: POWER.






So "POWER" = better? I guess Beethoven loses to these guys then.


----------



## Guest

Oh you poor thing - no other frame of reference? Sad about the lack of taste, though, aye?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

You argue that what makes Beethoven the superior composer is "power". The argument is inane because it assumes that "power" is essentially a more important element than elegance, grace, wit, delicacy or any other attribute you might assign to a work of art... and it assumes that Beethoven represents the pinnacle of "power" in music. What then is the measure of "power"? The use of great dynamic contrasts? A wall of "noise"? (A landing 747 then would surpass Beethoven as well as Led Zeppelin.)

As for my lack of taste (and some might suggest that making such a comment crosses the line over into personal insult. Indeed, I earned a few infraction points some time back for a similar comment), I would suggest that you don't know anywhere near enough about my listening to make any such assumption.


----------



## Dodecaplex

*Given:
Mozart = x
Beethoven = y

Bach > (x + y)^10

End of discussion. *


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No dispute there.:lol:


----------



## pjang23

Dodecaplex said:


> *Given:
> Mozart = x
> Beethoven = y
> 
> Bach > (x + y)^10
> 
> End of discussion. *


But what if x+y < 1


----------



## Dodecaplex

pjang23 said:


> But what if x+y < 1


No problem. We'll just say that x + y = 0.99999999999...



EDIT: No wait, it wouldn't . . . well, never mind.


----------



## Guest

For those who need EVERYthing spelled out extremely precisely and who cannot understand the concept of CONTEXT - "power" does not negate all those other qualities you define as necessary in music, because it exists in tandem with them. I think LvB a very powerful and compelling composer and, for me, this attribute is what singles him out - much as Shakespeare does with his POWER in language. Not POWER as in amplification and noise.


----------



## Sid James

Dodecaplex said:


> *Given:
> Mozart = x
> Beethoven = y
> 
> Bach > (x + y)^10
> 
> End of discussion. *


Forget mathematics, boring textbook stuff, my eyes are glazing over already.

SIBELIUS WAS GREATER THAN ALL OF THEM.

He's got a granitic monument to his name. He is a TOTAL BEAST.

This picture is the EVIDENCE. Now the discussion has ended, case closed, finito!...


----------



## martijn

Sibelius would be the first one to deny he was greater than Mozart, Bach or Beethoven. Is there except for Sid James by the way anyone here who DOESN'T think that Bach is the greatest composer of all?


----------



## jalex

martijn said:


> Sibelius would be the first one to deny he was greater than Mozart, Bach or Beethoven. Is there except for Sid James by the way anyone here who DOESN'T think that Bach is the greatest composer of all?


Me! Beethoven is my number one guy with Bach and Mozart riding behind as equals.


----------



## martijn

Ok, but you belong to a minority. I would pick Mozart as my number one, I don't consider him "better" or "worse" than Bach, who is along with Mozart for me the most "perfect" composer, but Bach doesn't appeal to me as much as Mozart does, I also rather listen to Beethoven than to Bach.


----------



## martijn

> Ok, let's finish this discussion once and for all...
> 
> Ranking in greatness in genre:
> 
> Operas:
> Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer.
> Beethoven 7
> Mozart 10
> 
> Symphonic Works:
> Although Mozart was no slouch here either, Beethoven's output in the symphonic genre is universally acknowledged as a cornerstone in the repertoire.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 8
> 
> Chamber Music
> Although Mozart wrote more types of chamber music, Beethoven wins on the strength of his late quartets, which again are almost universally acknowledged as the greatest in their field
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 8
> 
> Concerti
> I would say they are equals here. Mozart's violin concerti can not compare to Beethoven's, but they are equals in regard to piano concerti, and Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is amazing.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 10
> 
> Solo Piano Works
> Beethoven's 32 sonatas form the core of the piano literature, his Diabelli Variations blow anything Mozart ever wrote in that genre, and his late sonatas are beyond mystical. Mozart's piano music really is nothing more than what they were intended to be - light entertainment.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 7
> 
> Religious Music:
> Mozart wrote some of his most beautiful music for this genre, but he never finished his two greatest works. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is regard as the greatest mass setting after Bach's B minor. I call it a draw.
> Beethoven 9
> Mozart 9
> 
> Influence:
> 
> Beethoven was one of the great revolutionaries in art. With one symphony he obliterated all that came before him, and his influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights. He was the first composer to make people believe that music could be used as a means of self-expression - that music could actually influence and change society and the world.
> 
> Mozart just wanted to dance and play billiards.
> 
> Beethoven: 10
> Mozart: 8
> 
> Scores:
> Beethoven: 66 out of 70
> Mozart: 60 out of 70
> 
> Beethoven wins


What if we simple human beings would be a bit more humble and would make of this:

Operas:
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Symphonic Works:
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Chamber Music
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Concerti
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Solo Piano Works
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Religious Music:
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

Influence: big. And let Mozart enjoy his billiards.

Both win. You are free to add one or more plusses to each 10.


----------



## Guest

martijn, Bach might be the greatest composer of all - well, he was certainly one of the greatest intellects in history - but not everyone can enjoy his music. It isnt easy and it takes years of intensive listening to understand and appreciate most of his works. Mozart, on the other hand, is highly accessible and one can appreciate him more readily. I'd say his music is more "intravenous", if I can put it like that. I don't think these kinds of comparative exercises are worthwhile at all, since nobody is going to change his or her mind based on anything said on this or any other music forum. Anyway, it isn't a contest!! All we can do, at best, is to talk very personally about what moves us and the important thing is that we are all music lovers here. And I'm happy to talk personally and to listen to what others have to say about their preferences. Nobody will be right or wrong.

I love the counterpoint and complexity in the music of Bach, his transcendent sacred works and his infinite working out of musical ideas in almost everything he 'utters'. I consider the B Minor Mass and the "St. Matthew Passion" to be the twin giant cathedrals in the landscape of art music. Equally, for me, there would be Beethoven Piano Sonatas (from circa 12 onwards), his piano concerti, Missa Solemnis and most of the symphonies: not forgetting the late string quartets. I neither know nor care what his "weaknesses" might have been in terms of melody, orchestration or harmonies - it's the total package which brings me to my knees!! Much of the joy in this kind of music, WAM included, is that repeated listenings reap greater rewards.


----------



## Sid James

martijn said:


> Sibelius would be the first one to deny he was greater than Mozart, Bach or Beethoven. Is there except for Sid James by the way anyone here who DOESN'T think that Bach is the greatest composer of all?


It was a joke. It was a send up of people treating composers as if they're fit for a mount rushmore style monument or something. The fetishising and cult building stuff. I certainly won't come to the party with this comparison. I'm not above these comparisons with pulling down the likes of Wagner though, but that's another story...


----------



## Couchie

Sid James said:


> It was a joke. It was a send up of people treating composers as if they're fit for a mount rushmore style monument or something. The fetishising and cult building stuff. I certainly won't come to the party with this comparison. I'm not above these comparisons with pulling down the likes of Wagner though, but that's another story...


I wish I knew you offline so I could give you a Wagner bust for Christmas. I'd make sure it's expensive enough so you can't throw it out and you'd be socially obligated to display it whenever I visit.


----------



## neoshredder

I'd say 
1. Bach
2. Beethoven
3. Mozart

That's assuming we are leaving Ligeti out. Ligeti trumps all 3 otherwise.


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> I'd say
> 1. Bach
> 2. Beethoven
> 3. Mozart
> 
> That's assuming we are leaving Ligeti out. Ligeti trumps all 3 otherwise.


What's with CoAG accessing everyone's accounts these days?


----------



## neoshredder

Toddlertoddy said:


> What's with CoAG accessing everyone's accounts these days?


It's a joke. You don't have a sense of humor?


----------



## Toddlertoddy

neoshredder said:


> It's a joke. You don't have a sense of humor?


Was my comment not humorous?


----------



## neoshredder

Toddlertoddy said:


> Was my comment not humorous?


It can be taken 2 ways. Not sure initially if you were getting tired of the comments or it being funny. But yeah CoAG humor imitations are maybe going overboard.


----------



## aleazk

neoshredder said:


> It can be taken 2 ways. Not sure initially if you were getting tired of the comments or it being funny. But yeah CoAG humor imitations are maybe going overboard.


Well, your opinion is _*WRONG*_

(OMG, the virus has infected me too )


----------



## Gustaw

If I may comment on the score 


> Operas:
> Obviously Mozart was a much better opera composer.
> Beethoven 7
> Mozart 10


Hm, this seems an axiom here, but is it really *that* obvious? Where exactly does Mozart's absolute operatic supremacy lie?... I hope we're not bringing in the argument of quantity, nor the struggling-with-completion-argument, are we? I mean, then Beethoven doesn't have the slightest chance with Mozart in the field of symphony... And Papa H. beats the **** out of everyone. 

Please, do tell me about the alleged obvious musical flaws in "Fidelio" (aha, the third argument that I hope we're not going to use would be the Weak Libretto Argument). Why should "Fidelio" be a worse opera than e.g. "MoFigaro"? I personally love "Don Giovanni", so I decide on purpose not to choose it here :devil: And Figaro I don't like.

I would say Lvb 9, WAM 10 (let's say the quantity matters a little)



> Symphonic Works:
> Although Mozart was no slouch here either, Beethoven's output in the symphonic genre is universally acknowledged as a cornerstone in the repertoire.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 8


One might suggest, considering the level of genius we're operating at here and what Beethoven's "10" means, that the weak symphonies of Mozart kind of drag his score down even to 7... We ought to have the whole oeuvre in mind, ought we not?



> Chamber Music
> Although Mozart wrote more types of chamber music, Beethoven wins on the strength of his late quartets, which again are almost universally acknowledged as the greatest in their field
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 8


I also feel the cello sonatas op. 102 are underestimated. And agree with the points. 



> Concerti
> I would say they are equals here. Mozart's violin concerti can not compare to Beethoven's, but they are equals in regard to piano concerti, and Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is amazing.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 10


I would agree with this completely hadn't Mozart written those few early piano concertos that are far from exquisite... This gives Beethoven the edge, LvB/WAM 10:9 for me here.



> Solo Piano Works
> Beethoven's 32 sonatas form the core of the piano literature, his Diabelli Variations blow anything Mozart ever wrote in that genre, and his late sonatas are beyond mystical. Mozart's piano music really is nothing more than what they were intended to be - light entertainment.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 7


Perhaps even 6?


> Religious Music:
> Mozart wrote some of his most beautiful music for this genre, but he never finished his two greatest works. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is regard as the greatest mass setting after Bach's B minor. I call it a draw.
> Beethoven 9
> Mozart 9


Again I feel Beethoven should gain the edge here. Obviously nothing from Mozart comes even close to the Missa Solemnis except the Great Mass in C minor and the Requiem, but 1) they were not finished, 2) still, neither of them can rival the Missa Solemnis, which is *The* greatest sacred music ever written, ex aequo with the Bach's B minor (yes, as the latter wasn't completed either, and it may not even be one unified work at all).

Beethoven 10, Mozart 9.


> Influence:
> 
> Beethoven was one of the great revolutionaries in art. With one symphony he obliterated all that came before him, and his influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights. He was the first composer to make people believe that music could be used as a means of self-expression - that music could actually influence and change society and the world.
> 
> Mozart just wanted to dance and play billiards.
> 
> Beethoven: 10
> Mozart: 8


Here I believe Mozart's influence is greater than you assume, there was also a time he had even greater influence than Beethoven, who kicked *** up until early 20th century though, so undoubtedly Beethoven was the most influential composer of all time... On the other hand, to laymen all over the world Mozart's name surely isn't less known than Beethoven's (_Mozartkugeln_! ). 10:9 for me.

Scores:
Beethoven: 69 out of 70
Mozart: 58/59 out of 70

*Beethoven rules*


----------



## Carpenoctem

Gustaw said:


> If I may comment on the score
> 
> Hm, this seems an axiom here, but is it really *that* obvious? Where exactly does Mozart's absolute operatic supremacy lie?... I hope we're not bringing in the argument of quantity, nor the struggling-with-completion-argument, are we? I mean, then Beethoven doesn't have the slightest chance with Mozart in the field of symphony... And Papa H. beats the **** out of everyone.
> 
> Please, do tell me about the alleged obvious musical flaws in "Fidelio" (aha, the third argument that I hope we're not going to use would be the Weak Libretto Argument). Why should "Fidelio" be a worse opera than e.g. "MoFigaro"? I personally love "Don Giovanni", so I decide on purpose not to choose it here :devil: And Figaro I don't like.
> 
> *I would say Lvb 9, WAM 10 (let's say the quantity matters a little)*


I stopped reading your post after I saw you gave Beethoven 9/10 and Mozart 10/10 in opera achievement.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Gustaw
If I may comment on the score

And I'll comment on your comments.

Hm, this seems an axiom here, but is it really that obvious? Where exactly does Mozart's absolute operatic supremacy lie?... I hope we're not bringing in the argument of quantity, nor the struggling-with-completion-argument, are we? I mean, then Beethoven doesn't have the slightest chance with Mozart in the field of symphony... And Papa H. beats the **** out of everyone.

Please, do tell me about the alleged obvious musical flaws in "Fidelio" (aha, the third argument that I hope we're not going to use would be the Weak Libretto Argument). Why should "Fidelio" be a worse opera than e.g. "MoFigaro"? I personally love "Don Giovanni", so I decide on purpose not to choose it here And Figaro I don't like.

I would say Lvb 9, WAM 10 (let's say the quantity matters a little)

The gap between Beethoven and Mozart in the field of opera isn't some little smidgen. Ask any group of opera fan to list the ten greatest operas of all time and Mozart will be assured at least 3 make the grade. Ask the same group to name the 10 greatest opera composers of all time and Mozart will easily make the top 3 with perhaps only Wagner and Verdi surpassing him. Beethoven will be lucky to make the top 20. Fidelio is a "good" opera... perhaps even "very good" ... but Mozart has at least 7 (if not more) operas that achieve that or better. he also has 4 that can be counted among the absolute greatest... as well as a body of Concert Arias that add up to virtually another 1 if not 2 operas.

One might suggest, considering the level of genius we're operating at here and what Beethoven's "10" means, that the weak symphonies of Mozart kind of drag his score down even to 7... We ought to have the whole oeuvre in mind, ought we not?

The weak or immature works are irrelevant. Picasso reputation isn't the least bit affected by the fact that he painted more bad paintings than almost anybody in history. All that matters are the great paintings. The same is true of Mozart. Now if we are to use the same standard that you have employed in Beethoven's favor... ie. virtually disregarding quantity with regard to Mozart's operas, then Mozart gets a 9 to Beethoven's 10 on the basis of Symphonies 40 & 41.

Although Mozart wrote more types of chamber music, Beethoven wins on the strength of his late quartets, which again are almost universally acknowledged as the greatest in their field
Beethoven 10
Mozart 8

I also feel the cello sonatas op. 102 are underestimated. And agree with the points.

Beethoven comes out ahead of Mozart when it comes to the string quartets. This is nearly undisputed... as fine as Mozart's late quartets are... but what of the rest of the chamber music? Beethoven's cello sonatas are rather mediocre for him, but the violin sonatas are great. But then Mozart also has a marvelous body of violin sonatas, then there are the great quintets, the trios, the clarinet quintet, etc... The notion that either composer has a clear advantage here is wishful thinking.

would say they are equals here. Mozart's violin concerti can not compare to Beethoven's, but they are equals in regard to piano concerti, and Mozart's Clarinet Concerto is amazing.
Beethoven 10
Mozart 10

I would agree with this completely hadn't Mozart written those few early piano concertos that are far from exquisite... This gives Beethoven the edge, LvB/WAM 10:9 for me here. 

Again, weak works are wholly irrelevant. The merits of Mozart's juvenile efforts are not at all what concerns us when discussing his achievements. Again you ignore the scale of Mozart;s achievements when it is not in Beethoven's favor. Beethoven composed 3... maybe even 5 great piano concertos, a great violin concerto, and the triple concerto. In Mozart's corner we find nearly a dozen great piano concertos, the clarinet concerto, the 4 horn concertos, 5 violin concertos, and several other brilliant works in the concerto genre. There's no tie here, Mozart clearly comes out on top.

Mozart wrote some of his most beautiful music for this genre, but he never finished his two greatest works. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is regard as the greatest mass setting after Bach's B minor. I call it a draw.
Beethoven 9
Mozart 9

Again I feel Beethoven should gain the edge here. Obviously nothing from Mozart comes even close to the Missa Solemnis except the Great Mass in C minor and the Requiem, but 1) they were not finished, 2) still, neither of them can rival the Missa Solemnis, which is The greatest sacred music ever written, ex aequo with the Bach's B minor (yes, as the latter wasn't completed either, and it may not even be one unified work at all).

You can't begin to offer anything approaching an objective comparison if you act like a Beethoven "fanboy".

The _Missa Solemnis_ is a great piece of choral music... but only someone with very little experience of the wealth of choral music that exists would think to define it (or any other work) as the "greatest" ever written. There are just so many choral masterworks out there that are every bit equal to Beethoven's effort: Haydn's _Creation_, Handel's _Messiah_ (and _Saul_ and _Solomon_, etc...), Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ and _Magnificat_, Monteverdi's _Vespers_, Brahms' _German Requiem_, Verdi's _Requiem_, Faures _Requiem_, etc... Beethoven composed 4 important choral works: _The Missa Solemnis_, _The Mass in C-Major_, _Christus am Ölberge_, and the _Choral Fantasy_.

Among Mozart's great choral works are The _"Coronation Mass"_, the _Great Mass in C-minor, Exsultate, jubilate_, _Kyrie in D minor_, _Ave verum corpus_, and the _Requiem_.

The best Beethoven might achieve here would be a tie... and that would be highly debatable.


----------



## Gustaw

Carpenoctem said:


> I stopped reading your post after I saw you gave Beethoven 9/10 and Mozart 10/10 in opera achievement.


I'm sorry to hear that.  OK, I admit, in my previous post I did exaggerate a little, I was trying to be somewhat provocative, but only because I wanted to hear decent counteragruments. Yours surely cannot count as such. 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Fidelio is a "good" opera... perhaps even "very good" ... but Mozart has at least 7 (if not more) operas that achieve that or better. he also has 4 that can be counted among the absolute greatest... as well as a body of Concert Arias that add up to virtually another 1 if not 2 operas.


I feel my question about the alleged inferiority of _Fidelio_'s music remains unanswered. It's not that I'm not recognizing Mozart's greatness here, I just insist on demanding some actual arguments proving his operas are so much superior. If the question is so obvious that Carpenoctem isn't able to finish reading my post because of its unbearable stupidity, then it will be a piece of cake for you guys to deliver some devastating arguments. I might still agree with you, just for now I don't see anything to agree with. 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> The weak or immature works are irrelevant. Picasso reputation isn't the least bit affected by the fact that he painted more bad paintings than almost anybody in history. All that matters are the great paintings. The same is true of Mozart. Now if we are to use the same standard that you have employed in Beethoven's favor... ie. virtually disregarding quantity with regard to Mozart's operas, then Mozart gets a 9 to Beethoven's 10 on the basis of Symphonies 40 & 41.


Sounds quite reasonable, but the problem for me is that for me you seem neither to choose the "best of the best" kind of methodology, nor the "everything considered" approach; instead, you favour a "let's take only the very good/great ones, and now let quantity matter" kind of evaluation. This clearly benefits Mozart. And it's a key factor that will influence our final outcome. Mozart wrote some weak stuff as well as many remarkable works; Beethoven was undoubtedly less prolific, but for me his *best* is better than Mozart's. So maybe, logically, this should count, their absolute top? You say only 10:9 for Beethoven if considering only the *best* of their symphonies? Mozart's symphony as a "desert island symphony"? Not for me at least, God no. The *best* of Beethoven's chamber music (quartets!) vs. Mozart's?

[Digression: And I repeat my opinion that Beethoven's cello sonatas op. 102 *are* underestimated, and when you call them "mediocre for him" I actually start to wonder whether you've heard them...]


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beethoven composed 3... maybe even 5 great piano concertos, a great violin concerto, and the triple concerto. In Mozart's corner we find nearly a dozen great piano concertos, the clarinet concerto, the 4 horn concertos, 5 violin concertos, and several other brilliant works in the concerto genre. There's no tie here, Mozart clearly comes out on top.


And, again, disregarding quantity and taking into account only the very best of 'em? Let's say LvB's Violin Concerto equals WAM's Clarinet Concerto (I value it higher). Among piano concertos, which one as a whole equals Beethoven's Fourth (my favourite, I must say ) or the Emperor? 


StlukesguildOhio said:


> Among Mozart's great choral works are The _"Coronation Mass"_, the _Great Mass in C-minor, Exsultate, jubilate_, _Kyrie in D minor_, _Ave verum corpus_, and the _Requiem_.
> 
> The best Beethoven might achieve here would be a tie... and that would be highly debatable.


Same here: which one of them equals the Missa solemnis? Alone?


StlukesguildOhio said:


> The _Missa Solemnis_ is a great piece of choral music... but only someone with very little experience of the wealth of choral music that exists would think to define it (or any other work) as the "greatest" ever written. There are just so many choral masterworks out there that are every bit equal to Beethoven's effort: Haydn's _Creation_, Handel's _Messiah_ (and _Saul_ and _Solomon_, etc...), Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ and _Magnificat_, Monteverdi's _Vespers_, Brahms' _German Requiem_, Verdi's _Requiem_, Faures _Requiem_, etc...


Do you seriously consider e.g. Fauré's _Requiem_ "every bit equal" to Missa solemnis? I mean, come on.  From the works you mentioned the only one I'm not familiar with is the Monteverdi. And, yes, I think that, as much as I *love* e.g. the _Messiah_ or Verdi's _Messa da Requiem_, no single sacred work apart from Bach's B minor equals Beethoven's Missa solemnis in its beauty, form, depth and complexity. Call me a Beethoven fanboy, but I really sincerely feel this way, so what can I do.


----------



## Jacks

Mozart plays music for the Gods


----------



## Jacks

Robert N is obviously some Beethoven fan boy - bravo


----------



## Pugg

Jacks said:


> Robert N is obviously some Beethoven fan boy - bravo


Welcome to Talk Classical, looking forward to your posts.


----------



## ST4

Out of only Beethoven and Mozart, I choose Beethoven


----------



## KenOC

I think we need a match to decide this. The Bonn Bruiser versus the Wonderwolf. The Bruiser comes out of his corner battered and marked by many battles. Kid Wolfie in his satin trunks has the fancy footwork and the quick moves, but will he be any match? Somebody has to call this…


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> I think we need a match to decide this. The Bonn Bruiser versus the Wonderwolf. The Bruiser comes out of his corner battered and marked by many battles. Kid Wolfie in his satin trunks has the fancy footwork and the quick moves, but will he be any match? Somebody has to call this…


Do make ( another) new poll, this one dates from 2007 I believe


----------



## hpowders

I would put J.S. Bach over both Beethoven and Mozart, but that's a personal preference.

Really though, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven equally share the summit as the 3 greatest composers who ever lived.


----------



## EdwardBast

It's alive, it's alive!, although some of the original interlocutors might not be. 

Despite the chronological overlap, a sea change in aesthetics over a couple of decades and entirely different goals and standards in instrumental music make this a fruitless and nearly meaningless comparison for me. Their best work in some genres might as well come from different planets. If I choose to listen to a Beethoven sonata over one by Mozart, or vice versa, quality and craftsmanship are not at issue — the choice is between one of two very different kinds of aesthetic experience.


----------



## Woodduck

The fisticuffs over this old (but eternally fresh ) issue are quite entertaining, but I will not enter the fray with a definitive vote, as I've never had any physical courage.

I'd just like to put in a good word for _Fidelio_, and I don't care if the first thing you see upon curtain-rise is an ironing board. Well-performed, it's a great and moving opera. And not everyone falls in line with the received wisdom that considers Mozart's "big three" (Nozze, Cosi, and the Don) the greatest operas ever written. I have never found any of them very absorbing, although they are certainly finely wrought entertainments. As the distinguished EB says in post #197, "quality and craftsmanship are not at issue - the choice is between one of two very different kinds of aesthetic experience." Nobody here will be surprised that in opera I find Wagner's kind of aesthetic experience a lot more interesting than Mozart's, and Beethoven's isn't half bad either, ironing board and all.


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> The fisticuffs over this old (but eternally fresh ) issue are quite entertaining, but I will not enter the fray with a definitive vote, as I've never had any physical courage.
> 
> I'd just like to put in a good word for _Fidelio_, and I don't care if the first thing you see upon curtain-rise is an ironing board. Well-performed, it's a great and moving opera. And not everyone falls in line with the received wisdom that considers Mozart's "big three" (Nozze, Cosi, and the Don) the greatest operas ever written. I have never found any of them very absorbing, although they are certainly finely wrought entertainments. As the distinguished EB says in post #197, "quality and craftsmanship are not at issue - the choice is between one of two very different kinds of aesthetic experience." Nobody here will be surprised that in opera I find Wagner's kind of aesthetic experience a lot more interesting than Mozart's, and Beethoven's isn't half bad either, ironing board and all.


And Nozze starts around a bed. Measuring it, not using it.


----------



## hammeredklavier

4'33" said:


> Chamber Music
> Although Mozart wrote more types of chamber music, Beethoven wins on the strength of his late quartets, which again are almost universally acknowledged as the greatest in their field
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 8
> 
> Solo Piano Works
> Beethoven's 32 sonatas form the core of the piano literature, his Diabelli Variations blow anything Mozart ever wrote in that genre, and his late sonatas are beyond mystical. Mozart's piano music really is nothing more than what they were intended to be - light entertainment.
> Beethoven 10
> Mozart 7
> 
> Religious Music:
> Mozart wrote some of his most beautiful music for this genre, but he never finished his two greatest works. Beethoven's Missa Solemnis is regard as the greatest mass setting after Bach's B minor. I call it a draw.
> Beethoven 9
> Mozart 9
> 
> Influence:
> 
> Beethoven was one of the great revolutionaries in art. With one symphony he obliterated all that came before him, and his influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights. He was the first composer to make people believe that music could be used as a means of self-expression - that music could actually influence and change society and the world.
> 
> Mozart just wanted to dance and play billiards.
> 
> Beethoven: 10
> Mozart: 8
> 
> Scores:
> Beethoven: 66 out of 70
> Mozart: 60 out of 70
> 
> Beethoven wins


This is wrong. Mozart's 'fortepiano' works: Fantasy in C minor K475, Rondo in A minor K511, Adagio in B minor K540, Gigue in G major K540. The impact these had on the Romantics is tremendous. Fantasy in C minor K475 in particular, inspired Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, etc. Grieg wrote two piano transcriptions for K475 and K545. 
(This essay discusses the connection between K475 and Liszt's B minor Sonata in terms of one-movement sonata cycle structure http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf)
Tchaikovsky transcribed K574 as an orchestral piece and K475 as a vocal quartet. They're "Mozartiana" Op.61, and "Night" Op.88 respectively.
Prelude and Fugue in C major K394, Fantasy in C minor K396, and 'Allemande' from K399 are also skillfully written. They show his mastery of various techniques of different periods. Sonatas K533 1st movement and K576 are cleverly written in the contrapuntal style as well. 
The ending of Adagio in B minor K540 foreshadows the Romanticism of Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn. Alfred Brendel called it the greatest work written for the piano, (which is debatable, of course).

""his [Beethoven's] influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights.""
So did Mozart's. 




Haydn said Mozart was the greatest composer he knew after hearing Mozart's string quartets 14~19. Haydn didn't say such a thing about Beethoven's early - middle quartets, and I certainly don't think Beethoven exceeded Mozart's K464 in A, K465 in C with his Op. 18 No.5 in A and Op.59 No.3 in C. The Minuet from string quintet in G minor K516 foreshadows Beethoven's late quartets. 
Also Adagio and Fugue for string orchestra K546 counts as a chamber work cause it is also playable for a string quartet. The clever use of chromaticism and dissonance anticipate the fugues of Shostakovich. Beethoven's last piano sonata alludes to the work.
Serenade for Winds in C minor K388 is remarkable. Beethoven paid homage to the 4th movement of the work with his Piano Concerto No.3 3rd movement.

Mozart also wrote some superb organ works, K399 (Overture), K401 , K594, K608, K154, K443
Beethoven was well aware of the artistic significance of K608. He even owned a copy of it and wrote a fugue after it. 
Fantasy in G minor KV528A: 



Contrapunto in B minor KV 620b: 




Also Mozart isn't shabby compared to Beethoven in religious works.
Ave Verum Corpus K618, Kyrie in D minor K341, 
Misericordias Domini K222: 



Laudate Pueri Dominum from K339:


----------



## EdwardBast

hammeredklavier said:


> This is wrong. Mozart's 'fortepiano' works: Fantasy in C minor K475, Rondo in A minor K511, Adagio in B minor K540, Gigue in G major K540. The impact these had on the Romantics is tremendous. Fantasy in C minor K475 in particular, inspired Beethoven, Chopin, Schubert, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, etc. Grieg wrote two piano transcriptions for K475 and K545.
> (This essay discusses the connection between K475 and Liszt's B minor Sonata in terms of one-movement sonata cycle structure http://musicstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Popovic_JIMS_0932106.pdf)
> Tchaikovsky transcribed K574 as an orchestral piece and K475 as a vocal quartet. They're "Mozartiana" Op.61, and "Night" Op.88 respectively.
> Prelude and Fugue in C major K394, Fantasy in C minor K396, and 'Allemande' from K399 are also skillfully written. They show his mastery of various techniques of different periods. Sonatas K533 1st movement and K576 are cleverly written in the contrapuntal style as well.
> The ending of Adagio in B minor K540 foreshadows the Romanticism of Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn. Alfred Brendel called it the greatest work written for the piano, (which is debatable, of course).
> 
> ""his [Beethoven's] influence stretched beyond music into the realm of politics and human rights.""
> So did Mozart's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haydn said Mozart was the greatest composer he knew after hearing Mozart's string quartets 14~19. Haydn didn't say such a thing about Beethoven's early - middle quartets, and I certainly don't think Beethoven exceeded Mozart's K464 in A, K465 in C with his Op. 18 No.5 in A and Op.59 No.3 in C. The Minuet from string quintet in G minor K516 foreshadows Beethoven's late quartets.
> Also Adagio and Fugue for string orchestra K546 counts as a chamber work cause it is also playable for a string quartet. The clever use of chromaticism and dissonance anticipate the fugues of Shostakovich. Beethoven's last piano sonata alludes to the work.
> Serenade for Winds in C minor K388 is remarkable. Beethoven paid homage to the 4th movement of the work with his Piano Concerto No.3 3rd movement.
> 
> Mozart also wrote some superb organ works, K399 (Overture), K401 , K594, K608, K154, K443
> Beethoven was well aware of the artistic significance of K608. He even owned a copy of it and wrote a fugue after it.
> Fantasy in G minor KV528A:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrapunto in B minor KV 620b:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also Mozart isn't shabby compared to Beethoven in religious works.
> Ave Verum Corpus K618, Kyrie in D minor K341,
> Misericordias Domini K222:
> 
> 
> 
> Laudate Pueri Dominum from K339:


Are you aware you're responding to a seven year old post?


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Are you aware you're responding to a seven year old post?


Truth is eternal. :angel:


----------

