# Is Mozart slightly boring compared to Beethoven?



## Jaffer

I have been listening to Mozart for a few years and while I frequently own him as "one of us" (especially when I speak with people who do not listen to classical music), I must admit that I find Mozart's music too limited. This has a lot to do with the fact that the composer who more or less defined music for me was Beethoven. I always find Beethoven far more emotionally stirring, far more intellectually stimulating, and expressive than Mozart. Mozart's melodies are beautiful but he develops them so little and often using the same old tropes that the music becomes predictable and non-chathartic. With Beethoven, it's like a great drama unfolding (not necessarily angry or thunderous but still intense). With Mozart, it seems like pretty and elegant music only, often with patterns that are so obviously repeated throughout so many of his works in ways which are quite boring to me personally. So maybe it's the case that I admire Beethoven's excesses over Mozart more than what Beethoven borrowed or took on as an influence from Mozart.
So I was wondering how many others agree with this assessment. And how many think that I'm wrong and that Mozart has more to offer?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I find them both equal to me in terms of expressiveness, but with Mozart’s medicine easier to swallow. Have you listened to K.475, that one is not so predictable, and dissonant in parts. I found Beethoven’s big symphonies boring over time, and like is less ambitious ones like 2 and 4 more. I also think Mozart’s music is more open to interpretation, as if there is something not entirely exposed to the listener, while Beethoven is generally more straight forward to me.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Looks like you've already found your man. Why bother with that lightweight Mozart?


----------



## Guest

Opinions differ.....

Mozart's music is so pure and beautiful that I see it as a reflection of the inner beauty of the universe. Albert Einstein


----------



## Vasks

Beethoven was the next generation. Had Mozart lived longer he too might have evolved into a pre-Romantic spirit like LvB. But since he didn't, it's not fair to expect him to be like an LvB. Listen to late Mozart and enjoy his total mastery of Classicism with harmonic surprises that placed him far ahead of his contemporaries, Haydn excepted.


----------



## Jaffer

Vasks said:


> Beethoven was the next generation. Had Mozart lived longer he too might have evolved into a pre-Romantic spirit like LvB. But since he didn't, it's not fair to expect him to be like an LvB. Listen to late Mozart and enjoy his total mastery of Classicism with harmonic surprises that placed him far ahead of his contemporaries, Haydn excepted.


I of course know that in a very important sense, such comparisons are unfair. Mozart came earlier than Beethoven and therefore allowances are to be made. But I am not personally blaming Mozart as a person for the limitations of his music. All I'm saying is that the music itself is in some ways limited and that more enriching, more powerful and expressive music does exist. So while Mozart's music is great, its reputation seems disproportionate.


----------



## Dim7

Jaffer said:


> All I'm saying is that the music itself is in some ways limited and that more enriching, more powerful and expressive music does exist. So while Mozart's music is great, its reputation seems disproportionate.


When we compare Beethoven and Mozart in a vacuum it's easy to see how Beethoven might seem superior because of the reasons you mentioned. However lots of great music of tension, drama and emotional expression was composed in the Romantic Era whereas there is little music that is on par with Mozart in terms of more Classical aesthetics. Mozart's music may be more "limited" but personally I find it simultaneously more unparalleled.


----------



## Jaffer

Yes I think I see what you mean. Perhaps its simply a question of taste. I think I find it difficult to appreciate the classical aesthetic and maybe thats why Mozart doesn't click with me.


----------



## Sonata

no, Mozart is not slightly boring compared to Beethoven


----------



## Mandryka

Mozart was certainly a better composer of operas.


----------



## Jaffer

Mandryka said:


> Mozart was certainly a better composer of operas.


I wouldn't argue against that


----------



## Vasks

Focus on late Mozart, Jaffer. The Requiem, the last handful of piano concerti, the Clarinet Quintet. They are masterpieces of Classicism. Give it time for you to come to that conclusion. When I was young, Mozart was not my cup o' tea. Now such pieces as I mentioned are treasures for me.


----------



## Strange Magic

Vasks said:


> Focus on late Mozart, Jaffer. The Requiem, the last handful of piano concerti, the Clarinet Quintet. They are masterpieces of Classicism. Give it time for you to come to that conclusion. When I was young, Mozart was not my cup o' tea. Now such pieces as I mentioned are treasures for me.


I agree, and would add the last 4 symphonies also .


----------



## Janspe

I can't really say which one I find greater - they are too different! What I do think, however, is that Mozart was the more consistently top-notch composer. Beethoven had a few blurbs here and there, and then he rose once again to staggering heights of genius... Maybe what bothers some people is that Mozart doesn't seem to "evolve" as clearly as Beethoven did - and sure enough, there's nothing quite like Beethoven's late music! I hasten to add that Mozart was _so very gripping_ already in some of his very early works - think about the first (fully original) piano concerto in D, K.175! What more could one add?

I've always felt like Mozart reveals his emotional (whatever that word means...) secret more slowly than Beethoven does. He doesn't throw an _Eroica_ at you quite so clearly, but the more you spend time with his music the more every note reveals a dramatic character, as if they were operatic scenes. Of course there are the great minor works that catch you off guard the very first time you hear them (K.466 comes readily to mind) but his genius lies not just in the obviously stormy works - all of his music sparkles with life!

So I do not agree with the OP, while I get where they're coming from. Mozart and Beethoven were both amazing composers, but at the end of the day I find it really hard to make any valid comparisons.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Mozart just expresses so much joy and pride for life; he does tend to some formulaic tendencies of his own where beethoven definitely seems to make each piece drastically different than the last, but neither is truly superior. I appreciate and love both, very much!


----------



## tdc

I can see how some might think that, but Mozart's music resonates with me more. Beethoven seems kind of musically clumsy in comparison and as though he is trying a little too hard to be profound, making everything such a struggle in my opinion unnecessarily so.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Mandryka said:


> Mozart was certainly a better composer of operas.


But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

Mozart is boring, period....he's still a great composer. I probably like Mozart better than Beethoven overall.


----------



## Dan Ante

I like both and find Mozart instrumental much lighter than Beethoven but in the end Beethoven wins by a mile as it is more in tune with my musical preferences.


----------



## tdc

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Mozart is boring, period....


Mozart is boring in the same way a walk out in nature is boring. It says more about the individual's mind than anything.


----------



## Blancrocher

I love it when Beethoven gets as boring as Mozart--in the Middle Quartets, for example. But he couldn't always manage that, unfortunately.


----------



## KenOC

A contemporary review from 1808:

"Beethoven? A real world-class snoozeroo. In the dictionary, where they have 'boring,' his picture is beside it. I hear Eli Lilly is suing him because he out-Prozacs Prozac!

"At the end of a Beethoven concert they have to play some Bach to move people out of the hall. Yeah, that's right…_Sleepers Awake_."


----------



## Becca

For the most part, yes, but that's strictly a personal opinion. There is more than enough music out there yet to discover without having to spend time worrying that there is something amiss with my tastes.


----------



## Botschaft

Is Beethoven slightly boring compared to Brahms?


----------



## Phil loves classical

Improbus said:


> Is Beethoven slightly boring compared to Brahms?


I think the other way around.


----------



## Pugg

Take the best things from both, why always choosing.


----------



## Becca

Improbus said:


> Is Beethoven slightly boring compared to Brahms?


Not at all. Brahms is slightly boring compared to Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, etc., etc.


----------



## KenOC

Improbus said:


> Is Beethoven slightly boring compared to Brahms?


Brahms is boring compared with most anybody. Well, there's always Bruckner...


----------



## DavidA

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> *Mozart is boring, period*....he's still a great composer. I probably like Mozart better than Beethoven overall.


Correction - Mozart is boring to YOU - please do not include is all in this. You have every right to find him boring as many of us have every right to find him absolutely amazing.


----------



## DavidA

Jaffer said:


> I have been listening to Mozart for a few years and while I frequently own him as "one of us" (especially when I speak with people who do not listen to classical music), I must admit that *I find Mozart's music too limited.* This has a lot to do with the fact that the composer who more or less defined music for me was Beethoven. I always find Beethoven far more emotionally stirring, far more intellectually stimulating, and expressive than Mozart. *Mozart's melodies are beautiful but he develops them so little and often using the same old tropes that the music becomes predictable and non-chathartic.* With Beethoven, it's like a great drama unfolding (not necessarily angry or thunderous but still intense). With Mozart, *it seems like pretty and elegant music only, often with patterns that are so obviously repeated throughout so many of his works in ways which are quite boring to me personally.* So maybe it's the case that I admire Beethoven's excesses over Mozart more than what Beethoven borrowed or took on as an influence from Mozart.
> So I was wondering how many others agree with this assessment. And how many think that I'm wrong and that Mozart has more to offer?


I do wonder with such comments I do wonder how much of Mozart's music (particularly the mature music) you have actually listened to.


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


But he did compose 22 operas, four of which are unquestioned among the greatest of all operas.


----------



## Marc

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


Almost all _operae seria_ of Mozart (and his time) had as high moral principals as one could imagine.
Therefore these were called 'serious operas': lessons could be learned from these stories, who were generally based on ancient myths and moralities.
Of Mozart's 'adult' operas, _Idomeneo_ and _La Clemenza di Tito_ are good examples. The latter story was one of the most popular theatre and opera subjects in the early decades of _Enlightenment_. To me, characters like Ilia and Tito are as morally profound as Leonore/Fidélio.


----------



## Mandryka

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


He works in a different way from Beethoven, the operas are more like explorations of moral ideas rather than the dramatic presentation of a moral principle: the da Ponte operas are not unlike Shakespeare's Problem Plays. I'm thinking of things like the exploration of love and forgiveness which reaches its culmination in the garden scene in Figaro; the study of the Don's power to influence others, and his charisma; the validity and consequences of Don Alfonso's cold hard look at reality.


----------



## Marc

Mandryka said:


> He works in a different way from Beethoven, the operas are more like explorations of moral ideas rather than the dramatic presentation of a moral principle: the da Ponte operas are not unlike Shakespeare's Problem Plays. I'm thinking of things like the exploration of love and forgiveness which reaches its culmination in the garden scene in Figaro; the study of the Don's power to influence others, and his charisma; the validity and consequences of Don Alfonso's cold hard look at reality.


If it's about understanding of the human psyche, without a strict Good vs Wrong moral approach, then Mozart, I think, was about a 1000 (make it 10 ) times more intelligent than Beethoven.


----------



## MarkW

Mozart's more boring pieces are certainly more so than Beethiven's less boring ones.


----------



## Botschaft

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the other way around.


Of course you do.



Becca said:


> Not at all. Brahms is slightly boring compared to Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Nielsen, etc., etc.





KenOC said:


> Brahms is boring compared with most anybody. Well, there's always Bruckner...


Anything is boring that defies your comprehension. But at least I'm not surprised by your answers; they differ but little from what you tend to hear in regard to classical music in general.


----------



## KenOC

Improbus said:


> Anything is boring that defies your comprehension. But at least I'm not surprised by your answers; they differ but little from what you tend to hear in regard to classical music in general.


You're evidently unaware that Brahms was once indicted for causing several deaths among his audiences from acute boredom. Fortunately for him, the charges were dismissed when it was noticed that the judge had been sleeping soundly through most of his testimony. :lol:

Bruckner, of course, wasn't so fortunate.

"There are some experiences in life which should not be demanded twice from any man and one of them is listening to the Brahms Requiem." -- George Bernard Shaw


----------



## Botschaft

KenOC said:


> You're evidently unaware that Brahms was once indicted for causing several deaths among his audiences from acute boredom. Fortunately for him, the charges were dismissed when it was noticed that the judge had been sleeping soundly through most of his testimony. :lol:
> 
> Bruckner, of course, wasn't so fortunate.


Then I guess Liszt must be the most boring of all, even putting the god of boredom Brahms to sleep.



> "There are some experiences in life which should not be demanded twice from any man and one of them is listening to the Brahms Requiem." -- George Bernard Shaw


Later he supposedly referred to Brahms as his "only mistake"; don't make him yours too! Sleepers awake! Repent!


----------



## Nereffid

Jaffer said:


> Perhaps its simply a question of taste.


That's ultimately all that it is.
The alternatives are that Mozart is genuinely provably boring compared with Beethoven, in which case a lot of people have somehow missed that point and are listening in ignorance... or that Mozart is genuinely provably _not_ boring compared with Beethoven, in which case _you're_ wrong.
Always better to go with "a question of taste" - that way no one suffers!

We've got about 10 centuries of music that falls under the very general term "classical", and surely it's bizarre to judge it all by the same criteria. Even composers as chronologically and geographically close as Mozart and Beethoven had different aims, so it's no surprise to me that a listener would find one greatly preferable over the other. Of course some listeners like to use these preferences as tools to assert their superiority over others. Embrace the diversity, I say...


----------



## david johnson

Jaffer said:


> Yes I think I see what you mean. Perhaps its simply a question of taste. I think I find it difficult to appreciate the classical aesthetic and maybe thats why Mozart doesn't click with me.


you'll understand mozart better as you age. keep listening.


----------



## Ingélou

david johnson said:


> you'll understand mozart better as you age. keep listening.


Maybe not - maybe better to give up on him for the moment, and then 'come back' with new ears.
I remember how boring I found Wordsworth at university, and how wonderful I found Keats. 
But when I came to teach the romantic poets to a class of students, I found that, though I still enjoyed Keats, all that sensuousness was a bit rich for my digestion, and I came back to the lyrically meditative Wordsworth.

I do sometimes find Mozart slightly boring - but I've always supposed that it reflected on me.


----------



## TxllxT

Mozart compares to Beethoven as F.D.Roosevelt compares to D.Trump.


----------



## Czech composer

For example this. There are fun little parts in it, but i almost died of boredom when I listend to the whole piece at concert.


----------



## Crystal

I agree. I prefer Beethoven but I also like Mozart.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


'Moral principles' are less important than the fact that both Mozart and Beethoven composed opera that wasn't just soothing entertainment to the aristocratic status quo. Beethoven's is more obviously in line with his support for the ideals of the French Revolution, but Mozart's _Figaro_, though a comedy, is also in this lineage: pre-French Revolution and part of the new social/political values present during the enlightenment that lead up to that event.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Czech composer said:


> For example this. There are fun little parts in it, but i almost died of boredom when I listend to the whole piece at concert.


I genuinely pity you then. You literally don't know what you're missing.

"To an age which believes that everything should hang out, Mozart is a cautionary saint. He allows nothing to hang out.

There is, in fact, something almost terrifying about this restraint. Over and over as one listens, a joyful shadow, a shadowed joy, seems to pass swiftly over the music, as a cloud passes across a spring landscape, bringing with it a quite excruciating emotion for which there is no precise name, save perhaps that of the composer. A hearing of the slow movement of the Clarinet Quintet will evoke this effect at any time. It makes the rigorous turbulence of Beethoven seem over-insistent, and the lachrymose iterance of Mahler largely hysterical." [Peter Shaffer]


----------



## PlaySalieri

There will never be a shortage of people that find Mozart boring.

I cant think of a more lively opera than Die Zauberflote - but I heard of one lady supporting the wild curtain calls for the papageno singer, exclaiming - "of course he should get all the applause - he's the only one that kept the audience awake"

you can lead a horse to water ...


----------



## Sonata

Pugg said:


> Take the best things from both, why always choosing.


Thank you! yes, we are lucky to have a wealth of classical composers to enjoy and to meet our varied musical tastes


----------



## SixFootScowl

TxllxT said:


> Mozart compares to Beethoven as F.D.Roosevelt compares to D.Trump.


So Beethoven trumps Mozart! :lol:


----------



## Kieran

Jaffer said:


> I of course know that in a very important sense, such comparisons are unfair. *Mozart came earlier than Beethoven and therefore allowances are to be made*_._ But I am not personally blaming Mozart as a person for *the limitations of his music.* All I'm saying is that *the music itself is in some ways limited and that more enriching, more powerful and expressive music does exist.* So while Mozart's music is great, its reputation seems disproportionate.


:lol: :lol:

This is comic gold!


----------



## Kieran

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


I'm not too sure what moral principles would have to do with it, or where Mozart's operas lack "moral principles". compared to Fidelio...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


I think you mean principles.

Is the worth of an opera to be gauged in this way? For me it is, and always has been, about the music.


----------



## Lisztian

Animal the Drummer said:


> A hearing of the slow movement of the Clarinet Quintet will evoke this effect at any time. It makes the rigorous turbulence of Beethoven seem over-insistent, and the lachrymose iterance of Mahler largely hysterical." [Peter Shaffer]


"A hearing...will evoke this effect at any time." Will it? I've heard this movement many times and while I have occasionally been moved by it, I have never felt the effect that he mentioned. No, to me it doesn't make Beethoven seem over-insistent: I've been listening to the late Piano Sonatas of the latter lately and they move me more than anything I have heard from Mozart.

I also don't think anyone here needs this pity if they don't like his music: the reason most of us are here is because we greatly enjoy many composers, and if Mozart isn't one of those then it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Heck148

Jaffer said:


> Is Mozart slightly boring compared to Beethoven?....
> .....I was wondering how many others agree with this assessment. And how many think that I'm wrong and that Mozart has more to offer?


They are different. both great geniuses, great composers. 
Beethoven's drama, expression, emotion is more obvious, more readily apparent. but it is there with Mozart, as well, just not as obvious. 
*Bruno Walter,* a great Mozartean, says it best:
*"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."*


----------



## DavidA

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


Mozart wrote his operas to entertain the public rather than to moral speak. However, Figaro is moral in that it depicts the triumph over tyranny. Little less obvious than Fidelio but it's there. And of course the Don is a warning to womanisers.


----------



## SixFootScowl

> Quote Originally Posted by Florestan View Post
> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.





stomanek said:


> I think you mean principles.
> 
> Is the worth of an opera to be gauged in this way? For me it is, and always has been, about the music.


Well, when it comes to spelling I have no principles. :lol:


----------



## jdec

Florestan said:


> But Mozart never composed an opera with as high of moral principals as Fidelio.


With all the moral principles in there, Fidelio unfortunately does not reach the heights of Mozart's best operas.


----------



## Kieran

Heck148 said:


> They are different. both great geniuses, great composers.
> Beethoven's drama, expression, emotion is more obvious, more readily apparent. but it is there with Mozart, as well, just not as obvious.
> *Bruno Walter,* a great Mozartean, says it best:
> *"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."*


More or less, this. I remember reading also that as we begin to discover classical music, we should begin with Mozart, for the sheen, the lightness of touch, the catchy tunes. Then we're ready for Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, all the Romantic heavyweights, with their preoccupations and philosophies, their meaty struggles and sweats, and once we've mastered listening to these, we're ready again for Mozart, to hear what's going on beneath the sheen, the subtlety and depth, the great emotional sweep of the music, and so on.

A huge difference between Mozart and composers who came after is that his sorrows are more resigned, and not of the fist shaking, defiant nature that was common among some of the egotists of the 19th century Romanticism. In this way, his music reflects something universal about the human condition. Listening to some of his slow sets, it's enough to make us reach for cliches about angels sighing into God's ear, etc. But really, it's the most reflective, charismatic and expressive of all music...


----------



## Judith

Certainly wouldn't say Mozart was boring. Beethoven and Mozart had their own individual styles and love both of them equally.


----------



## Pesaro

Mozart wrote so many masterpieces, there is always something new to hear. Just when you think you have heard all of his masterpieces, you discover new ones.


----------



## Itullian

Mozart is divine, pure, refined.
Beethoven storms heaven with his boots on.

Both get there.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Itullian said:


> Beethoven storms heaven with his boots on.


Beethoven and his music was clearly grounded in the real world. His music is earthly. No 'divine' shenanigans for LVB.


----------



## starthrower

Nereffid said:


> We've got about 10 centuries of music that falls under the very general term "classical", and surely it's bizarre to judge it all by the same criteria. Embrace the diversity, I say...


Right-o, mate! There's so much great stuff written in the past 130 years that I rarely reach for a Mozart or Beethoven CD.


----------



## eugeneonagain

starthrower said:


> Right-o, mate! There's so much great stuff written in the past 130 years that I rarely reach for a Mozart or Beethoven CD.


So just limiting yourself to about 10% of that huge time-frame then?


----------



## starthrower

eugeneonagain said:


> So just limiting yourself to about 10% of that huge time-frame then?


No, but it's my main area of interest. And I don't feel limited because there's tons of stuff to listen to, even after 1950 or so.


----------



## chill782002

My particular favourites tend to date from about 100 years or so after the glory days of Mozart and Beethoven. That said, I listen to Beethoven more frequently of the two but I never fail to enjoy Mozart, especially the last four symphonies or my three or four favourite piano concertos of his. Beethoven is often immediately gripping while Mozart draws one in gently but irresistibly. I don't consider either of them boring though.


----------



## Bulldog

I haven't listened much to either Mozart or Beethoven in recent years - the saturation effect.


----------



## DeepR

Depends on the piece....


----------



## Larkenfield

Czech composer said:


> For example this. There are fun little parts in it, but i almost died of boredom when I listend to the whole piece at concert.


This is a poor upload in which the music sounds feeble and sickly. It does not sound like a full-bodied performance, but of course Mozart is blamed for writing something boring. Of all the performances of this great work, _this_ had to be the one that was chosen. I was irritated by the upload within the first minute and it had nothing to do with Mozart's writing. There can be a great difference between how something is written, played, and the quality of the upload. This was a poor and thin-sounding upload, sounding about a powerful and convincing as something played on an Edison cylinder phonograph. The basic sound quality is terrible and irritating. I consider the Seranade one of Mozart's most sublime works. It's glorious in its lyrical, melodic and harmonic perfection. 
:angel:


----------



## bharbeke

I heard the Mackerras/Orchestra of St. Luke's version of that serenade, and I was suitably impressed.


----------



## Larkenfield

I'm a great fan and student of both composers. But Beethoven's drama, outbursts and turbulence are a few reasons why I oftentimes turn to Mozart. Isn't the world full of enough turbulence already without having to repeatedly seek it out in music? On the other hand, Beethoven can be stimulating and challenging in ways that Mozart isn't. But I've never felt the need to make the ultimate choice of one over the other. Some listeners will play a composer to death until they tire of him (or her) and then comes the nitpicking and criticism, rathen than simply to take a break. Then Mozart is blamed for not being Beethoven, though Beethoven turned to the works of Mozart repeatedly during his writing career to learn from the great master. And I suppose the Mozart Requiem or his Masonic works are superficial and lacking in drama and depth? His music was not always sweetness and light, but I believe its basic nature was to delight and harmonize the soul. With Beethoven? He was far more in conflict with himself and life -- and for good reason with his deafness and all that he struggled to accept -- and it comes out in his music, sometimes as a great malcontent, belligerent and complainer. Still, they were both geniuses and I have profoundly enjoyed almost the entire range of their enduring works.


----------



## eugeneonagain

starthrower said:


> No, but it's my main area of interest. And I don't feel limited because there's tons of stuff to listen to, even after 1950 or so.


Well it's about the same time frame as mine for the majority of my listening, but I've never lost touch with listening to Mozart (or many others I listened to and enjoyed in my teenage years). I don't quite see how developing and adding new tastes necessarily leads to mothballing all previous listening.

I can listen to Hindemith or Satie's score for _Relache_ or something even more modern, but it doesn't kill my enthusiasm for a Mozart piano sonata or string quartet.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Beethoven and his music was clearly grounded in the real world. His music is earthly. No 'divine' shenanigans for LVB.


Where do you think the last quartets and sonatas fit between the poles of that dichotomy? (Hmmm... Do dichotomies have poles? )


----------



## St Matthew

Mozart is still boring and soulless when put up again a block of wood in a basement observed over a period of ten years, with only 3 toilet breaks a day!


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> Where do you think the last quartets and sonatas fit between the poles of that dichotomy? (Hmmm... Do dichotomies have poles? )


That must be the long sought proof for the existence of monopoles :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

St Matthew said:


> Mozart is still boring and soulless when put up again a block of wood in a basement observed over a period of ten years, with only 3 toilet breaks a day!


Did you wear a Blackadder mask and doublet/codpiece when working that one out? What's your aim in writing this drivel? Is it merely a grandiose version of saying: _I don't listen to Mozart_? Big deal, we all have our tastes. Some just have broader tastes than others.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Where do you think the last quartets and sonatas fit between the poles of that dichotomy? (Hmmm... Do dichotomies have poles? )


Where is the dichotomy?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit

tdc said:


> Mozart is boring in the same way a walk out in nature is boring. It says more about the individual's mind than anything.


Zing. I'm as boring as V-I-V-I-V-I-V-I.


----------



## eugeneonagain

vi - ii - V - I actually, but I suppose one has to be actually listening and know what to listen for.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Where is the dichotomy?


It is, or might be, between the "earthy," where you said Beethoven's music is grounded, and the "divine," which you oppose to the earthy, whether those exist along a continuum or are the only two options.

I didn't think the question was this hard.


----------



## Guest

St Matthew said:


> Mozart is still boring and soulless when put up again a block of wood in a basement observed over a period of ten years, with only 3 toilet breaks a day!


You must be very sensitive.


----------



## Blancrocher

Mozart may be the only composer for whom "slightly boring compared to Beethoven" isn't a compliment.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> Big deal, we all have our tastes. Some just have broader tastes than others.


Student, to Saint-Saens in an argument: "Well, after all it's just a matter of taste."

Saint-Saens: "Yes. Good or bad."


----------



## R3PL4Y

Mozart isn't slightly boring in comparison to Beethoven. He is very boring in comparison to every other composer.


----------



## tdc

Gaspard de la Nuit said:


> Zing. I'm as boring as V-I-V-I-V-I-V-I.


Well, I was not insinuating you were boring.

I think sometimes people can suffer from their thinking patterns becoming too complex. I think life is more about attaining a balance on things rather than maximizing complexity.

I'm speaking generally here not about you...there are plenty of simple minded folks who it would do wonders for them if they could start to grasp some of life's complexities. Likewise there are some people so high in intellect they suffer from it. I think what those people need in a sense is a little more 'dumb.' I think this dumbness would actually improve their character and quality of life.


----------



## DavidA

R3PL4Y said:


> Mozart isn't slightly boring in comparison to Beethoven. He is very boring in comparison to every other composer.


I always feel sorry for people who think that. Just what they are missing out on.


----------



## Guest

I see Mozart is still proving 'controversial'. It's a perfectly legitimate response to _any _composer to find them boring, but given the number of threads that deal with this issue, you'd think a sticky might help:

"It's alright not to like Mozart [Beethoven][Stravinsky][etc] and still claim to be a discerning lover of classical music"


----------



## Dumbo

Someday, when you're ready, you'll get bored with Beethoven and you'll see the light. 

When I was a kid, I hated black coffee, but look at my stained teeth now.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> It is, or might be, between the "earthy," where you said Beethoven's music is grounded, and the "divine," which you oppose to the earthy, whether those exist along a continuum or are the only two options.
> 
> I didn't think the question was this hard.


Perhaps it does. However Beethoven's social views, political interests and inspirations for his output point to a concern for earthly matters.

Btw, if you're going to argue it is a continuum, why discuss it as a dichotomy or opposition?


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Student, to Saint-Saens in an argument: "Well, after all it's just a matter of taste."
> 
> Saint-Saens: "Yes. Good or bad."


It appears witty, but it's a tautology.


----------



## Omicron9

Not slightly. Entirely. 

And compared to just about any other composer, IMO. Not just LVB.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

MacLeod said:


> I see Mozart is still proving 'controversial'. *It's a perfectly legitimate response to any composer to find them boring*, but given the number of threads that deal with this issue, you'd think a sticky might help:
> 
> "It's alright not to like Mozart [Beethoven][Stravinsky][etc] and still claim to be a discerning lover of classical music"


On a discussion forum it's equally legitimate to take issue with posts which put that position forward.


----------



## mmsbls

Obviously it's perfectly fine not to like Mozart. Musical tastes vary. I assume everyone here knows that the classical musical community of casual listeners, TC members, composers, and performers generally finds Mozart's music to be sublime (i.e. they know that Mozart is considered one of the truly great composers). So my question would be, if you not only dislike Mozart's music but also find it boring, do you have a sense of why you differ so strongly with the vast majority of listeners.

Years ago I not only disliked the Berg Violin Concerto but also found it random sounding. I knew so many others here viewed it as one of the great 20th century concertos. When I posted that I found it random, that was true, but I assumed my view was based on unfamiliarity and that I could "learn" to enjoy it. I doubt those who find Mozart boring do so because they are not familiar with the musical style. So, have those who find Mozart boring thought about why they do but the vast majority do not?


----------



## PlaySalieri

mmsbls said:


> Obviously it's perfectly fine not to like Mozart. Musical tastes vary. I assume everyone here knows that the classical musical community of casual listeners, TC members, composers, and performers generally finds Mozart's music to be sublime (i.e. they know that Mozart is considered one of the truly great composers). So my question would be, if you not only dislike Mozart's music but also find it boring, do you have a sense of why you differ so strongly with the vast majority of listeners.
> 
> Years ago I not only disliked the Berg Violin Concerto but also found it random sounding. I knew so many others here viewed it as one of the great 20th century concertos. When I posted that I found it random, that was true, but I assumed my view was based on unfamiliarity and that I could "learn" to enjoy it. I doubt those who find Mozart boring do so because they are not familiar with the musical style. So, have those who find Mozart boring thought about why they do but the vast majority do not?


I think something I dont quite get with people who dont like Mozart at all - is that for me (as a Mozart fanatic), there are very few of the "great" composers I would dismiss entirely (music composed pre 1920). So people who like Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Elgar, Brahms, Debussy, R Strauss (all composers whose music I enjoy) - but dislike Mozart completely - baffles me.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> On a discussion forum it's equally legitimate to take issue with posts which put that position forward.


Of course. That's the nature of a discussion forum. What we all object to is the idea that because x finds y boring, everyone else must too. Or, to put it another way, that subjective preferences must be set aside as false, in the name of the desire to assert an objective god-like status to a composer (or to the opinions about a composer).


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Obviously it's perfectly fine not to like Mozart. Musical tastes vary. I assume everyone here knows that the classical musical community of casual listeners, TC members, composers, and performers generally finds Mozart's music to be sublime (i.e. they know that Mozart is considered one of the truly great composers). So my question would be, if you not only dislike Mozart's music but also find it boring, do you have a sense of why you differ so strongly with the vast majority of listeners.
> 
> Years ago I not only disliked the Berg Violin Concerto but also found it random sounding. I knew so many others here viewed it as one of the great 20th century concertos. When I posted that I found it random, that was true, but I assumed my view was based on unfamiliarity and that I could "learn" to enjoy it. I doubt those who find Mozart boring do so because they are not familiar with the musical style. So, have those who find Mozart boring thought about why they do but the vast majority do not?


Thats right,off course it is not the music of Mozart that is boring .it is really a pity if you are not able to percieve it.
I am nothing ,the art is everything.
That is my longlife attitude to art in general and it brought me many discoveries from dufay to Dutilleux and Messiaen.
It is remarkeble that people who like Baroque and earlier music often have a dislike to Wagner or Mahler.


----------



## Aloevera

One thing to note is that Mozart is one of the few composers who primarily did not have a piano in front of them when writing music whereas Beethoven did. This made their writing styles quite different. On the one hand this allowed for more sensual music by Beethoven's part accidentally coming to a series of notes or by experimenting and just having it feel good but it also made for some not so great structure. Mozart on the other hand was sensual but to the extent of writing directly with the absence of piano. You can see the entire symphony in the hands of the ink and so the structure is perfectly placed but it's difficult to come up with something thats so out of the box without hearing it first hand by an instrument to know if it works


----------



## PlaySalieri

Aloevera said:


> One thing to note is that Mozart is one of the few composers who primarily did not have a piano in front of them when writing music whereas Beethoven did. This made their writing styles quite different. On the one hand this allowed for more sensual music by Beethoven's part accidentally coming to a series of notes or by experimenting and just having it feel good but it also made for some not so great structure. Mozart on the other hand was sensual but to the extent of writing directly with the absence of piano. You can see the entire symphony in the hands of the ink and so the structure is perfectly placed but it's difficult to come up with something thats so out of the box without hearing it first hand by an instrument to know if it works


what evidence is there that Mozart did not use the piano when composing?

* it's difficult to come up with something thats so out of the box without hearing it first hand by an instrument to know if it works*

I wonder how Mozart knew the opening chord in Don Giovanni would work? Or the slow atonal intro to the dissonance quartet.


----------



## Dan Ante

I think we need Robert Newman to get to the bottom of this for us.


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> I think we need Robert Newman to get to the bottom of this for us.


How about Alfred E.? Beethoven certainly worked from the piano and, like Mozart, he was a great improviser. Bach claimed to have no need for such crutches and composed in coaches or wherever else he might be, referring to keyboard-dependent people as "finger composers."

I can't recall reading about Mozart one way or the other. But it's often said that, in his younger days at least, he composed entire works in his head and wrote them down quickly when required. I don't know the truth of that.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> I think something I dont quite get with people who dont like Mozart at all - is that for me (as a Mozart fanatic), there are very few of the "great" composers I would dismiss entirely (music composed pre 1920). So people who like Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, Elgar, Brahms, Debussy, R Strauss (all composers whose music I enjoy) - but dislike Mozart completely - baffles me.


Baffles me too. I think I enjoy a pretty wide spectrum of music from early music to Stravinsky. I find just about every major composer with something to say and enjoy. So anyone finding Mozart boring baffles me. That said I do find people like Glass and Reich incredibly boring and find relief in turning the radio off. Messien has the same effect on me. And I can't stand the infernal jangle of the avant-gard. So maybe these people find Mozart the same. Takes all sorts.......


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> How about Alfred E.? Beethoven certainly worked from the piano and, like Mozart, he was a great improviser. Bach claimed to have no need for such crutches and composed in coaches or wherever else he might be, referring to keyboard-dependent people as "finger composers."
> 
> I can't recall reading about Mozart one way or the other. But it's often said that, in his younger days at least, he composed entire works in his head and wrote them down quickly when required. I don't know the truth of that.


Ken, what's with all the different avatars are you having a identity melt down


----------



## Aloevera

stomanek said:


> what evidence is there that Mozart did not use the piano when composing?
> 
> * it's difficult to come up with something thats so out of the box without hearing it first hand by an instrument to know if it works*
> 
> I wonder how Mozart knew the opening chord in Don Giovanni would work? Or the slow atonal intro to the dissonance quartet.


This was what my music theory instructor said, I could be wrong about the first part. Though, if you are well versed in music theory it's really not impossible to know which chords to use and hear the song in your head with the absence of directly hearing it. What i'm saying 'out of the box' i don't even mean a dysphemism, I'm simply talking about chord progressions that is common in the romantic era that just would not make sense theoretical wise unless you hear it first and stumble upon it through improvisation. It's not impossible to deduce this by the music that was created by the two composers


----------



## KenOC

Dan Ante said:


> Ken, what's with all the different avatars are you having a identity melt down


Wait until tomorrow!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> How about Alfred E.? Beethoven certainly worked from the piano and, like Mozart, he was a great improviser. Bach claimed to have no need for such crutches and composed in coaches or wherever else he might be, referring to keyboard-dependent people as "finger composers."
> 
> I can't recall reading about Mozart one way or the other. But it's often said that, in his younger days at least, he composed entire works in his head and wrote them down quickly when required. I don't know the truth of that.


No question that many gifted composers mainly work it out in their head and write it down. They might try it on the piano after. The speed at which Mozart wrote suggests he had it all in his head. If he was premiering a concerto he'd often have the piano part in his head and write it down later.
If you read Andre Previn's biography of his Hollywood years he was quite used to writing music down very quickly so it could be performed the next day. So if a minor composer (imo a superb musician btw) like Previn could do that no doubt Mozart could in spades. There is, of course, the story that when he was 14 he heard Allegri's Miserere at the Sistine Chapel and wrote it out after! He did hear it once more just to check he had got it right first time!


----------



## Aloevera

After a brief research on the one hand I found this:

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/762/musi-112

"And here is Mozart working at a keyboard. But Mozart actually didn't compose at a keyboard. What - why is he then seated at a keyboard? To show that he's a musician. You need an icon to associate it with. When Mozart composed - do you know where he did most of his composing? Some of it at a billiard table, but most of it in bed. His sister tells us that and his wife tells us that. He would get up in the morning. He would just stay in bed and he had this kind of desk with ink trays and sand and stuff to blot the paper, and he would work in bed from about seven until ten in the morning. He didn't need a piano. He heard it all in his head."

then wiki says

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_compositional_method

Mozart evidently needed a keyboard to work out his musical thoughts. This can be deduced from his letters and other biographical material. For instance, on 1 August 1781, Mozart wrote to his father Leopold concerning his living arrangements in Vienna, where he had recently moved:

"My room that I'm moving to is being prepared-I'm just off now to hire a keyboard, because I can't live there until that's been delivered, especially as I've got to write just now, and there isn't a minute to be lost."[5]
Konrad cites a similar letter written from Paris that indicates that Mozart didn't compose where he was staying, but visited another home to borrow the keyboard instrument there. Similar evidence is found in early biographies based on Constanze Mozart's memories."

Though regardless of the legitimacy of the source I think we should be cautious since many times Mozart is often inflated or deflated for some other reason. Many times Christians inflate as a sort of proof of the existence of God whereas other times they are out to prove he is 'ordinary' for the exact opposite reason.

My guess is it is a combination of the two. I think a lot of his melodies would seem too basic if first played on a keyboard and would seem to only make sense if you're writing the score directly onto the sheet but this simplicity is often his strength. To have faith in a simple melody and build it from there whereas maybe chopin and beethoven get a little too excessive and are not able to put their trust on a simple melody. The piano concerto 18 is a very good example of this


----------



## eugeneonagain

Aloevera said:


> *My guess is it is a combination of the two*. I think a lot of his melodies would seem too basic if first played on a keyboard and would seem to only make sense if you're writing the score directly onto the sheet but this simplicity is often his strength. To have faith in a simple melody and build it from there whereas maybe chopin and beethoven get a little too excessive and are not able to put their trust on a simple melody. The piano concerto 18 is a very good example of this


Yes, to the part I highlighted, but the rest!



Aloevera said:


> I think a lot of his melodies would seem too basic if first played on a keyboard and would seem to only make sense if you're writing the score directly onto the sheet


What? What do you mean it would seem too basic if first played on a keyboard? A melody is a melody wherever it is written. If someone is so highly developed musically as to not require a keyboard (yet also a keyboard virtuoso), then the melodies written down directly will be informed by those abilities.

Mozart, who was acknowledged as a great improviser at the keyboard would no doubt have known the value to composition of improvising around basic ideas. It also saves on paper.

If the stories about Mozart are true - like writing things at the last minute or writing out all parts except his own keyboard part which he would improvise - then it may well be a reason for why he sometimes fell into the same rut melodically and harmonically at times. 
It's impossible to know for certain, but I'm willing to conjecture that e.g. his finest keyboard sonatas are the result of writing both at keyboard and away from it, just like most other composers.

Who cares what his method was anyway.


----------



## PlaySalieri

DavidA said:


> Baffles me too. I think I enjoy a pretty wide spectrum of music from early music to Stravinsky. I find just about every major composer with something to say and enjoy. So anyone finding Mozart boring baffles me. *That said I do find people like Glass and Reich incredibly boring and find relief in turning the radio off. Messien has the same effect on me. *And I can't stand the infernal jangle of the avant-gard. So maybe these people find Mozart the same. Takes all sorts.......


That is why I qualified my statement and said music pre 1920. Though there is much post 1920 I enjoy but there many major 20thc composers I dont like at all - schoenberg, bartok, schnittke.


----------



## PlaySalieri

No doubt Mozart used the piano when he had one available. He certainly did not have one available when he composed the haffner symphony en route to a concert, in a stage coach and at an inn, so I understand.


----------



## hpowders

Funny how different human perceptions can be. I find Mozart's music much more interesting than Beethoven's.

I never tire of Mozart's Piano Concerto's 20-27; Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro.

I try to listen to the 32 Piano Sonatas and Missa Solemnis of Beethoven once each year, but it is more a duty than an ecstatic pleasure.

We are all different.


----------



## poconoron

hpowders said:


> Funny how different human perceptions can be. I find Mozart's music much more interesting than Beethoven's.
> 
> I never tire of Mozart's Piano Concerto's 20-27; Don Giovanni and The Marriage of Figaro.
> 
> I try to listen to the 32 Piano Sonatas and Missa Solemnis of Beethoven once each year, but it is more a duty than an ecstatic pleasure.
> 
> We are all different.


Agreed. I fully recognize the greatness of much of Beethoven, but can only listen to him occasionally - every month or two. Mozart's great works, on the other hand, I never tire of despite much more frequent listenings.


----------



## hpowders

poconoron said:


> Agreed. I fully recognize the greatness of much of Beethoven, but can only listen to him occasionally - every month or two. Mozart's great works, on the other hand, I never tire of despite much more frequent listenings.


Mozart's music dazzles me with its astonishingly deceptive facility. When listening to Beethoven, I can hear him working hard.

Both great, but I prefer Mozart every time.

Simply my perception. Nobody has to agree.


----------



## Triplets

Jaffer said:


> I have been listening to Mozart for a few years and while I frequently own him as "one of us" (especially when I speak with people who do not listen to classical music), I must admit that I find Mozart's music too limited. This has a lot to do with the fact that the composer who more or less defined music for me was Beethoven. I always find Beethoven far more emotionally stirring, far more intellectually stimulating, and expressive than Mozart. Mozart's melodies are beautiful but he develops them so little and often using the same old tropes that the music becomes predictable and non-chathartic. With Beethoven, it's like a great drama unfolding (not necessarily angry or thunderous but still intense). With Mozart, it seems like pretty and elegant music only, often with patterns that are so obviously repeated throughout so many of his works in ways which are quite boring to me personally. So maybe it's the case that I admire Beethoven's excesses over Mozart more than what Beethoven borrowed or took on as an influence from Mozart.
> So I was wondering how many others agree with this assessment. And how many think that I'm wrong and that Mozart has more to offer?


I couldn't disagree more. Mozart is constantly playing with his material, with lots of unexpected modulations, key changes, false endings....Take the finale of the 20th Piano Concerto. It starts off all tragic sounding, as the first two movements are, and then...out of nowhere, the clouds dissapear, the sun is shining, tragedy forgotten. Or the way he mutes the strings in the slow movement of PC21. Or the out of nowhere Turkish music in the finale of his last Violin Concerto, written when he was 14, for crying out loud. Or the scordatura tuning of the solo Viola of the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola. Or the way he extends the duet between the Don and the bride that he is attempting to seduce in Giovanni. I could go on all day giving examples, but if you can't hear these for yourself and appreciate them, I'd be wasting my time


----------



## Marc

hpowders said:


> [...]
> 
> We are all different.


I'm not!

Oh, btw, I prefer Beet's opus 86 (Mass in C Major) to that monstrosity called the Missa Solemnis.
But don't you touch the 32, or I will turn very mad.
And be warned: I know where your house lives! (And if not, I will find out.)


----------



## hpowders

Marc said:


> I'm not!
> 
> Oh, btw, I prefer Beet's opus 86 (Mass in C Major) to that monstrosity called the Missa Solemnis.
> But don't you touch the 32, or I will turn very mad.
> And be warned: I know where your house lives! (And if not, I will find out.)


My house lives? Good. It can chip in with the utility bills!

I have many complete performances of the 32 and prefer Ronald Brautigam on fortepiano. However, they are not among my favorite keyboard works of Beethoven. I prefer the Diabelli Variations; Beethoven unbridled, having fun, being spontaneous! I wish he composed more works like that!


----------



## Aloevera

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, to the part I highlighted, but the rest!
> 
> What? What do you mean it would seem too basic if first played on a keyboard? A melody is a melody wherever it is written. If someone is so highly developed musically as to not require a keyboard (yet also a keyboard virtuoso), then the melodies written down directly will be informed by those abilities.
> 
> Mozart, who was acknowledged as a great improviser at the keyboard would no doubt have known the value to composition of improvising around basic ideas. It also saves on paper.
> 
> If the stories about Mozart are true - like writing things at the last minute or writing out all parts except his own keyboard part which he would improvise - then it may well be a reason for why he sometimes fell into the same rut melodically and harmonically at times.
> It's impossible to know for certain, but I'm willing to conjecture that e.g. his finest keyboard sonatas are the result of writing both at keyboard and away from it, just like most other composers.
> 
> Who cares what his method was anyway.


I mean, you're not going to recognize that its a good idea just by playing it on a keyboard because the melody wouldn't sound sensual enough, it wouldn't hit you in the face that it is a good melody or a good introduction because the musicality is much more subtle. Take for example the introduction of 20th piano concerto, imagine if you were just fiddling around on the piano and you came across those notes, it doesn't hit you in the face that this should be the beginning of the song , and yet when the strings play it it is a fantastic introduction. I think in order to conceive of it , you need to be looking at it from the vantage point of pen and paper.

I think the method is important because from the point of view of pen and paper, the compositions are testing the boundries and it shows the reason why his musicality is much more subtle and precise whereas Beethoven's melodies I guess hit you in the face. He would also be more excused from similarity from our exposition of other composers.


----------



## Aloevera

stomanek said:


> No doubt Mozart used the piano when he had one available. He certainly did not have one available when he composed the haffner symphony en route to a concert, in a stage coach and at an inn, so I understand.


I disagree, although I can say he sometimes used the piano, I would still hold the case that he primarily did not. But i could be wrong


----------



## Dan Ante

Aloevera said:


> I disagree, although I can say he sometimes used the piano, I would still hold the case that he primarily did not. But i could be wrong


If you can provide proof it would suffice.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Aloevera said:


> I disagree, although I can say he sometimes used the piano, I would still hold the case that he primarily did not. But i could be wrong


You are indeed wrong.


----------



## csbri

While some of Mozart's music can be enjoyable to listen to as a whole, in terms of how I feel performing an individual part I would have to say that Beethoven is generally more interesting to play and doesn't get boring as quickly. I performed Mozart's Quartet No. 14 a few months back and utterly hated the piece by the time our final show rolled around, something I've never experienced with any Beethoven works I've been involved in.


----------



## jdec

Well, not in my case. I can agree with this guy:

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


----------



## Blancrocher

jdec said:


> Well, not in my case. I can agree with this guy:
> 
> "_Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles._"
> - George Szell


Agreed--especially when Szell is conducting.


----------



## R3PL4Y

I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


----------



## DavidA

R3PL4Y said:


> I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


Well it proves we are all different. Taste is a highly subjective thing with no right or wrong.


----------



## Larkenfield

I’ve never heard boring Mozart, only perhaps less than sparkling performances. I hear a tremendous bubbling life-force in his music, something inexhaustible in its energy. However, my appreciation of his genius came relatively late in life. Before that his music simply didn’t register on my consciousness. It was I who had gone through a change, not him, and that experience taught me that not everything is absolutely settled in matters of taste in one’s youth... I learned never to close the door on composers of great reputation, nor denigrate them, and this probably can’t be learned except through personal experience when the planets properly align.


----------



## Couchie

Mozart is a palate-cleanser. He is always there to save the day after you have indulged in too much heavy romantic and dissonant 20th century music.


----------



## Guest

Jaffer said:


> With Mozart, it seems like pretty and elegant music only, often with patterns that are so obviously repeated throughout so many of his works in ways which are quite boring *to me personally*.


Sticking to answering the title of the OP as exemplified in the OP itself, I'd say that 'to me personally', I don't find Mozart boring compared to Beethoven. What I like of WAM, I like. I like more of Beethoven, and I like Beethoven more, but boredom doesn't figure at all in my analysis.


----------



## jdec

Larkenfield said:


> I've never heard boring Mozart, only perhaps less than sparkling performances. I hear a tremendous bubbling life-force in his music, something inexhaustible in its energy. However, my appreciation of his genius came relatively late in life. Before that his music simply didn't register on my consciousness. It was I who had gone through a change, not him, and that experience taught me that not everything is absolutely settled in matters of taste in one's youth... I learned never to close the door on composers of great reputation, nor denigrate them, and this probably can't be learned except through personal experience when the planets properly align.


"He roused my admiration when I was young; he caused me to despair when I reached maturity; he is now the comfort of my old age."
- Gioachino Rossini on Mozart

"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."
- Bruno Walter


----------



## DavidA

Couchie said:


> Mozart is a palate-cleanser. He is always there to save the day after you have indulged in too much heavy romantic and dissonant 20th century music.


Richter said he used to play Bach 'for hygienic reasons'


----------



## PlaySalieri

R3PL4Y said:


> I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


I dont agree with your taste but full marks for trying.


----------



## TxllxT

Couchie said:


> Mozart is a palate-cleanser. He is always there to save the day after you have indulged in too much heavy romantic and dissonant 20th century music.


Yeah, Mozart offers catharsis, the rest is banging on the dustbin.


----------



## Triplets

R3PL4Y said:


> I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


I disagree, but I may have been at one of the DSO concerts that you attended. It was a Friday morning concert and they were giving cupcakes to celebrate WAM birthday. I forgot the program but I remember they were playing all the horn Concertos during the festival and all the Horn players of the Orchestra were taking turns soloing.
I recommended several pieces in my earlier post in this thread, but I'll narrow it down: try the 20th Piano Concerto, K.466. Then let me know what you think.
They were really good cupcakes, btw


----------



## Agamemnon

R3PL4Y said:


> I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


It's hard to understand how anybody could not love Mozart's music for another reason than not liking the classical style or Mozart's seemingly 'light' style alltogether (because they like the 'heavy' or 'serious' modern style or the romantic style more). I don't know if you've heard the Requiem or the 20th Piano Concerto which are far more wild and dark than many would think Mozart was able of. Or listen to e.g. the Andante of Piano Concerto no.21 which is as sweet and beautiful as a sentimental ballad can be: how anybody could listen to it and not be moved by it would be beyond me.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I felt the same way about Mozart for a very long time and only just recently had a change of opinion. It took awhile for me to find my favorite moments in epic composers like Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, and etc, because it was so easy to get lost, but doing so seemed to heighten my attention in some way, and when I returned to Mozart all of the oddities and quirks in his melodies sort of exploded into view for me. For the first time he sounded dense and eventful rather than thin and smooth to me. He even sounded "irregular" as another poster once described him, to my confusion at the time.

I'd always preferred composers like Handel or CPE Bach who wrote twitchy, herky-jerky music with lots of feints and hiccups, and Mozart's music seemed to be the opposite of that. But eventually that quality started appearing to me in his music as well.






Just the way he orchestrates the second note is so surprising. And the whole phrase from 16s to 23s, the way the music contracts so abruptly right before those pauses, almost like the music is going to explode again, and then it just softly descends instead. That really is just an intensely original, strange, and beautiful few seconds of music, especially to exist in an era that's usually criticized for being mechanical.






For another example, I'd always disliked the opening piano sequence of this concerto because it sounded mechanical to me, but on one listen the note at 2:18-2:19 struck me as sudden, somewhat out-of-place in the way that I liked, and I'd never thought to interpret it that way before.






As for drama, 6:28 to 7:54 was the beginning of my turnaround on Mozart. I was always too focused on how mechanical and simplistic the piano parts seemed to really appreciate what the orchestra does in moments like that. And I started noticing that whenever the piano does something that seems predictable or rigid it almost always pays off with something "irregular," like at 7:38 to 7:42.

Why these moments didn't strike me as interesting the first hundred times I heard them I don't know. I think the kaleidoscopic quality of his music passed me by at first because rhythmically he isn't "floaty" or loose like Wagner or Debussy, so all of these details just passed me by like traincars I didn't have time to discern. So much happens so quickly.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Please allow me to compliment you on a top post. AFAIC you definitely "get" Mozart, and you express that very well indeed. :tiphat:


----------



## Mowgli

First post

Both M & B were geniuses. I like B better but neither bores me if it's played and recorded well.


Here's a question for you Mozart lovers. I posted it in 2 other forums and...crickets

I was listening to Mozart String Quartet #21 K. 575 for the first time last night and recognized bits from another piece of music.
I thought parts of it resembled parts of Eine kleine Nachtmusik K. 525 but I can't find any reference from a quick Google.
Anyone familiar with K. 575 agree? What work does parts of it resemble?
Did Mozart "borrow" from his own repertoire?
Thanks


----------



## Dan Ante

A lot of composers referred to not only there own works but also other composers, a compliment really.


----------



## trazom

Mowgli said:


> Here's a question for you Mozart lovers. I posted it in 2 other forums and...crickets
> 
> I was listening to Mozart String Quartet #21 K. 575 for the first time last night and recognized bits from another piece of music. I thought parts of it resembled parts of Eine kleine Nachtmusik K. 525 but I can't find any reference from a quick Google.
> Anyone familiar with K. 575 agree? What work does parts of it resemble?
> Did Mozart "borrow" from his own repertoire?
> Thanks


The slow movement of string quartet #21 k.575 has a similar theme with the Romanze from Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and also from the slow movement on piano sonata #16 "sonata facile" k 545.


----------



## Mowgli

Thanks $1M @trazom

This forum software is a classic


----------



## Guest

Heck148 said:


> They are different. both great geniuses, great composers.
> Beethoven's drama, expression, emotion is more obvious, more readily apparent. but it is there with Mozart, as well, just not as obvious.
> *Bruno Walter,* a great Mozartean, says it best:
> *"When I was very young, when I was a teenager, then I was only enthusiastic for the great pathos and the big emotions, and Mozart seemed to me at that time too quiet, too tranquil. Youth is more apt to love the shout and the great gestures. ... I fell into the same category. It needs some maturity to understand the depth of emotion that speaks in Mozart's seeming tranquility and measure."*


Yeah, I'm not at all sure about that. It speaks of a kind of musical immaturity which I'm sure the conductor came to regret. Depth of emotion? I'll get back to you!!


----------



## poconoron

One might alternatively say that Beethoven is slightly boring in _over_-developing his themes, sometimes ad nauseum, while Mozart's introductions of a multitude of new themes is more fresh and exciting!


----------



## Woodduck

poconoron said:


> One might alternatively say that Beethoven is slightly boring in _over_-developing his themes, sometimes ad nauseum, while Mozart's introductions of a multitude of new themes is more fresh and exciting!


Alternatively to what? You're pointing to a real difference in compositional approach, but your value judgment should be preceded by "I feel" rather than "one might say." The idea that Beethoven "overdeveloped" his material is one I've never encountered before. More common is admiration for his ability to get enormous mileage out of concentrated thematic ideas, exhibiting simultaneously fertility of invention and an economy of structure that doesn't waste a note. The first movement of the 5th symphony is the obvious archetype of this economy/fertlity - who ever got more mileage out of four notes? - but it's a tour de force which isn't entirely typical. (Whether his feat is "slightly boring" or "ad nauseam" - well, _chacun a son gout_.)

Freshness? Where is the lack of freshness in the constantly evolving melody of the Eroica or the 9th, in which fresh material is constantly emerging, yet finding its rightful place in the narrative? Moreover, Beethoven's pleasure in seeing how much he could do with his themes led him repeatedly to the variation form, with wonderful results. It seems to me that no composer, possibly excepting Wagner, ever realized as much of the potential of a simple musical idea as Beethoven.


----------



## poconoron

Woodduck said:


> Alternatively to what? You're pointing to a real difference in compositional approach, but your value judgment should be preceded by "I feel" rather than "one might say." The idea that Beethoven "overdeveloped" his material is one I've never encountered before. More common is admiration for his ability to get enormous mileage out of concentrated thematic ideas, exhibiting simultaneously fertility of invention and an economy of structure that doesn't waste a note. The first movement of the 5th symphony is the obvious archetype of this economy/fertlity - who ever got more mileage out of four notes? - but it's a tour de force which isn't entirely typical. (Whether his feat is "slightly boring" or "ad nauseam" - well, _chacun a son gout_.)
> 
> Freshness? Where is the lack of freshness in the constantly evolving melody of the Eroica or the 9th, in which fresh material is constantly emerging, yet finding its rightful place in the narrative? Moreover, Beethoven's pleasure in seeing how much he could do with his themes led him repeatedly to the variation form, with wonderful results. It seems to me that no composer, possibly excepting Wagner, ever realized as much of the potential of a simple musical idea as Beethoven.


Agree with much of what you elaborated on.........but my point is that it might be found just a touch boring to hear buh-buh-buh-bum worked and re-worked over and over again. As much as I enjoy much of Beethoven immensely, I more so enjoy Mozart's melodic invention even more..........


----------



## DavidA

poconoron said:


> Agree with much of what you elaborated on.........but my point is that *it might be found just a touch boring to hear buh-buh-buh-bum worked and re-worked over and over again.* As much as I enjoy much of Beethoven immensely, I more so enjoy Mozart's melodic invention even more..........


Funny I always took that as a sign of Beethoven's immense genius.


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Funny I always took that as a sign of Beethoven's immense genius.


Are you aware that if you remove the repetitions of "ba ba ba bum", the first movement of Beethoven's 5th would last 27 seconds?


----------



## poconoron

DavidA said:


> Funny I always took that as a sign of Beethoven's immense genius.


Actually, so do I. My point is I'm generally more in sync with Mozart's methods..........


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> It seems to me that no composer, possibly excepting Wagner, ever realized as much of the potential of a simple musical idea as Beethoven.


I've heard there was once a composer who wrote a vastly sophisticated and highly successful symphonic movement on the basis of a mere two notes. If this is true he must undoubtedly rank as one of the very greatest of all time.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Funny I always took that as a sign of Beethoven's immense genius.


Agree. For me, PERSONALLY, I grow quickly fatigued by the classical tonality and search for a cadence, sheer prettiness and good manners of Mozart. His operas are another matter altogether; I like two of them - Giovanni and Flute.


----------



## JeffD

One thing I highly prize is density of ideas. In Mozart there seems no bottom to the barrel. The more I listen, and the more I know, the more I hear. 

Beethoven a little bit less so. Perhaps more emotional transcendence, whereas Mozart is maybe a little more intellectual transcendence. 

But as to comparison, its like asking would I rather feel amazing, or wonderful. The answer is always yes.


----------



## Guest

JeffD said:


> One thing I highly prize is density of ideas. In Mozart there seems no bottom to the barrel. The more I listen, and the more I know, the more I hear.
> 
> Beethoven a little bit less so. Perhaps more emotional transcendence, whereas Mozart is maybe a little more intellectual transcendence.
> 
> But as to comparison, its like asking would I rather feel amazing, or wonderful. The answer is always yes.


Having analysed Mozart symphones (late 30s, but not 40 and 41) at university I found them fairly bland, to be honest. It was easier to complete the analysis and write the essay than it was for Schumann's "Fantasie" in C Major!!


----------



## JeffD

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Having analysed Mozart symphones (late 30s, but not 40 and 41) at university I found them fairly bland, to be honest.


Well I am blessed by not knowing as much as those who have studied this formally, so I am overwhelmed by details others find mundane. The details in the string quartets are endless. The symphonies are even more dense (to me).


----------



## ericdxx

I find a level of sophistication in Mozart's orchestrations that I can't find in Beethoven. The overture to Marriage of Figaro is a good example of this. I could be wrong and I'm willing to give it chance if you want to prove me wrong by posting something by Beethoven with complex orchestrations.

For my taste, Beethoven is too bi-polar, too many mood swings in his music so that's why I like Mozart better.


----------



## tdc

Musicians such as Brendel have pointed out that there is an interesting simultaneous simplicity/complexity thing going on in Mozart's music, this is part of what gives it such a fine balance I think. But it seems like there are some listeners that are essentially not able to perceive the more complex aspects of his music and find it too simplistic.


----------



## Pesaro

IMO, Mozart is liking eating a really fine meal where every single bite is enjoyable. Most of the really early works are not that interesting but once you get past a certain point, it is mostly supreme masterpieces. There are so many of them, I would never have the energy to list them all.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Pesaro said:


> IMO, Mozart is liking eating a really fine meal where every single bite is enjoyable. Most of the really early works are not that interesting but once you get past a certain point, it is mostly supreme masterpieces. There are so many of them, I would never have the energy to list them all.


still - there are some surprisingly fine works among the juvenalia - like the mass in c minor, k139.


----------



## Tchaikov6

stomanek said:


> still - there are some surprisingly fine works among the juvenalia - like the mass in c minor, k139.


Don't forget the Symphony No. 25 as well.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Tchaikov6 said:


> Don't forget the Symphony No. 25 as well.


That's a little too well known to mention.


----------



## ATinyCat

Yeah Mozart is slightly boring, Beethoven was the mover of history, the founder of romantic music


----------



## David OByrne

Beethoven is bearable and occasionally enjoyable but Mozart is outright GARBAGE


----------



## Zhdanov

Jaffer said:


> Is Mozart slightly boring compared to Beethoven?


no, give me Die Zauberflöte over Fidelio any day.


----------



## DavidA

David OByrne said:


> Beethoven is bearable and occasionally enjoyable but Mozart is outright GARBAGE


Glad I haven't got your ear! :lol:


----------



## Dan Ante

David OByrne said:


> Beethoven is bearable and occasionally enjoyable but Mozart is outright GARBAGE


Compared to who..........


----------



## Animal the Drummer

David OByrne said:


> Beethoven is bearable and occasionally enjoyable but Mozart is outright GARBAGE


www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTiKIK6njs


----------



## Nocture In Blue

I don't understand how anyone can call Mozart "boring". His music, as we all know, is often light. That might seem like he's superficial to some people. But his lightness is only the surface of his music. He is poetic and thoughtful. 
I would call Mozart a lyrical composer and Beethoven a dramatic composer.
I don't see any reason to say who's the better one.


----------



## Guest

Nocture In Blue said:


> I don't understand how anyone can call Mozart "boring".


And yet they do. I don't understand how anyone can't understand that tastes are not universal.


----------



## Nocture In Blue

I understand very well that tastes are not universal. I apologize if my comment came out wrong. I understand that people don't like Mozart. But I didn't think anyone could think of him as just boring. His music is so lively. But it's pointless to talk...


----------



## poconoron

I believe that those who consider Mozart boring have probably not experienced the full range of his musical repertoire............


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

R3PL4Y said:


> I have really tried with Mozart. I have listened to symphonies, concertos overtures. I went to the two of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra's concerts during their Mozart festival and fell asleep during both of them. I just have a hard time find anything very compelling in the music.


I felt the same way for decades, not only about him but also about Haydn. Once I discovered the latter's wonderfully pleasurable Piano Trios and Piano Sonatas, it was a hop, step and jump to Mozart's chamber music, whose sparkling gems just keep lighting the way to further gratification. Both composers, though quite different in musical expression from Brahms, have joined him as my absolute favorites.


----------



## Guest

Nocture In Blue said:


> I understand very well that tastes are not universal. I apologize if my comment came out wrong. I understand that people don't like Mozart. But I didn't think anyone could think of him as just boring. His music is so lively. But it's pointless to talk...


No need to apologise. You're just the latest to make the same or similar point. I wouldn't use the word boring either, but I don't take the word literally when folk want to say what they think about Mozart...it's just a catch-all for a number of terms that signify dislike.


----------



## eljr

Animal the Drummer said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTiKIK6njs


why did i click on this link?


----------



## Michael Diemer

I find Beethoven drier than Mozart these days. Initially, as I was discovering classical music in the seventies, I was bowled over by LVB, as most newbies are. As I aged, I started favoring the Impressionists (I include Sibelius, Holst, NRK and several others as Impressionists), for the great infusion of color they supplied. I also started favoring Mozart, as his music also has more color than LVB. I guess I liked LVB better when I was young, because it swept me up in its emotion. But as I age, I find the lighter, more colorful Mozart more appealing. Although, he was also one of my five or so favs even back then in the seventies. So, maybe there is an age-related factor at work here, at least in me. YMMV.


----------



## Luchesi

Mozart always sounds 'fresh' to me, I guess is the word. Was he going for that? What other composer would we say that about?

Ever youthful sounding, bright and with little surprises. With all the music we've heard since his time, that's impressive to me. The inventiveness stands out.. To me, it seems that other composers thought about what they wanted and then strove for the most perfect result. We can see the struggles on paper of LvB and Chopin.


----------



## jdec

Michael Diemer said:


> I find Beethoven drier than Mozart these days. Initially, as I was discovering classical music in the seventies, I was bowled over by LVB, as most newbies are. As I aged, I started favoring the Impressionists (I include Sibelius, Holst, NRK and several others as Impressionists), for the great infusion of color they supplied. I also started favoring Mozart, as his music also has more color than LVB. I guess I liked LVB better when I was young, because it swept me up in its emotion. But as I age, I find the lighter, more colorful Mozart more appealing. Although, he was also one of my five or so favs even back then in the seventies. So, maybe there is an age-related factor at work here, at least in me. YMMV.


See Bruno Walter's quote on post #54 here.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> To me, it seems that other composers thought about what they wanted and then strove for the most perfect result. We can see the struggles on paper of LvB and Chopin.


I don't get this at all. How does "what we see on paper" - the paper being, I assume, a composer's preliminary sketches - manifest in a finished composition? I don't hear any creative struggle in the music of Beethoven or Chopin. What would such a struggle sound like? If the notes chosen are satisfying, how do they tell you whether a struggle was involved in choosing them?


----------



## Michael Diemer

Re: Bruno Walter's quote:

Yes, that's it exactly. Bruno Walter is one of my favorite conductors. I have his Beethoven cycle with the Columbia. Same with his Brahms, both on vinyl. Those were exciting days, going to National Record Mart during the seventies, buying records I could barely afford...


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck, thanks for replying,

It was a struggle to the best way to present and express their initial thoughts.

The website doesn't say who wrote the following;

"Beethoven was at odds with the world, and his music reflects his Promethean spirit with a naked, and sometimes painful, honesty. He accepts nothing, wants everything, and rails against the gods when he has to settle for something less than the ideal – which is most of the time. His deafness, the cruelest of cruel jokes to ever befall a composer, would have felled most musicians; instead it emboldened Beethoven. When you can no longer hear the sounds of this present world, you imagine the sonorities of worlds to come. And so it was with Beethoven: his music grasps for a future he desperately wants not only to hear, but also to live. His notebooks testify to his struggle to find the language – the notes – to encapsulate those sounds, that vision."

Some of Chopin's improved pieces are available for us to play so we can compare. We are told he was a perfectionist. He took care for long afternoons with even his short works.


----------



## Dan Ante

Luchesi said:


> Woodduck, thanks for replying,
> 
> It was a struggle to the best way to present and express their initial thoughts.
> 
> The website doesn't say who wrote the following;
> 
> "Beethoven was at odds with the world, and his music reflects his Promethean spirit with a naked, and sometimes painful, honesty. He accepts nothing, wants everything, and rails against the gods when he has to settle for something less than the ideal - which is most of the time. His deafness, the cruelest of cruel jokes to ever befall a composer, would have felled most musicians; instead it emboldened Beethoven. When you can no longer hear the sounds of this present world, you imagine the sonorities of worlds to come. And so it was with Beethoven: his music grasps for a future he desperately wants not only to hear, but also to live. His notebooks testify to his struggle to find the language - the notes - to encapsulate those sounds, that vision."
> 
> Some of Chopin's improved pieces are available for us to play so we can compare. We are told he was a perfectionist. He took care for long afternoons with even his short works.


A very interesting and enlightening post, Thank you.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> Woodduck, thanks for replying,
> 
> It was a struggle to the best way to present and express their initial thoughts.
> 
> The website doesn't say who wrote the following;
> 
> "Beethoven was at odds with the world, and his music reflects his Promethean spirit with a naked, and sometimes painful, honesty. He accepts nothing, wants everything, and rails against the gods when he has to settle for something less than the ideal - which is most of the time. His deafness, the cruelest of cruel jokes to ever befall a composer, would have felled most musicians; instead it emboldened Beethoven. When you can no longer hear the sounds of this present world, you imagine the sonorities of worlds to come. And so it was with Beethoven: his music grasps for a future he desperately wants not only to hear, but also to live. His notebooks testify to his struggle to find the language - the notes - to encapsulate those sounds, that vision."
> 
> Some of Chopin's improved pieces are available for us to play so we can compare. We are told he was a perfectionist. He took care for long afternoons with even his short works.


I wasn't questioning the amount of work that goes into any piece of music. i was questioning what appeared to be a suggestion that this is somehow detectable in the music itself. You talked about how Mozart's music _sounds_ to you, and then said, "it seems that other composers thought about what they wanted and then strove for the most perfect result." I wanted to know what makes those composers "seem" to have done that, and how that contrasts with how Mozart "seems."


----------



## TxllxT

Luchesi said:


> Mozart always sounds 'fresh' to me, I guess is the word. Was he going for that? What other composer would we say that about?
> 
> Ever youthful sounding, bright and with little surprises. With all the music we've heard since his time, that's impressive to me. The inventiveness stands out.. To me, it seems that other composers thought about what they wanted and then strove for the most perfect result. We can see the struggles on paper of LvB and Chopin.


The trouble with comparing A with B is the automatic shadow casting over B when one prefers A or the other way around when one prefers B. So when we try to stay on the bright side of life with both Mozart and Beethoven there is still this difference to be noticed: Mozart's music has the newborn 'fresh' quality that concurs with having a silver spoon from the gods in his mouth. Beethoven's music has the mature 'older & wiser' quality that concurs with the hero battling uphill and finally championing over the material.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> You talked about how Mozart's music _sounds_ to you, and then said, "it seems that other composers thought about what they wanted and then strove for the most perfect result." I wanted to know what makes those composers "seem" to have done that, and how that contrasts with how Mozart "seems."


The messy and scratched out scores which have survived. The comments about Chopin's work habits by George Sand. The improved scores of Chopin which have come done to us. I remember seeing a large, rare crossout in a Mozart score, but I think that's different. That wasn't a striving for perfection, that was due to practical considerations, I think.

It's an interesting subject for analyst-type like myself, thanks, but you're right, we can't really know..


----------



## Luchesi

TxllxT said:


> The trouble with comparing A with B is the automatic shadow casting over B when one prefers A or the other way around when one prefers B. So when we try to stay on the bright side of life with both Mozart and Beethoven there is still this difference to be noticed: Mozart's music has the newborn 'fresh' quality that concurs with having a silver spoon from the gods in his mouth. Beethoven's music has the mature 'older & wiser' quality that concurs with the hero battling uphill and finally championing over the material.


My preference for LvB over Cherubini, most of Clementi and most of C. M. Weber might cast shadows over them, but not Mozart. But that's an important cautionary note for music lovers, thanks. I surely agree that we should study what expressive methods those other guys were exploring. 
The rise of dissonance that Mozart found acceptable and inspiring, and later, which so empowered LvB's contribution, is the meat of this for me. I imagine I can find parallels in my field of meteorological research. Now that's an odd thought. ...but forum discussions bring out that I'm odd. The science and music which can be reduced to their elements have supported my views. My music students remind me often that this is not interesting to many music lovers..


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> The messy and scratched out scores which have survived. The comments about Chopin's work habits by George Sand. The improved scores of Chopin which have come done to us. I remember seeing a large, rare crossout in a Mozart score, but I think that's different. That wasn't a striving for perfection, that was due to practical considerations, I think.
> 
> It's an interesting subject for analyst-type like myself, thanks, but you're right, we can't really know..


So you can't hear this difference in the final product? That was my question. I can't think of another way to ask it. I know what Beethoven's sketches look like.

Oh never mind...


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> So you can't hear this difference in the final product? That was my question. I can't think of another way to ask it. I know what Beethoven's sketches look like.
> 
> Oh never mind...


The final product vs the initial attempts? Yes, you would probably agree with the improvements.


----------



## Sloe

Michael Diemer said:


> I find Beethoven drier than Mozart these days. Initially, as I was discovering classical music in the seventies, I was bowled over by LVB, as most newbies are. As I aged, I started favoring the Impressionists (I include Sibelius, Holst, NRK and several others as Impressionists), for the great infusion of color they supplied. I also started favoring Mozart, as his music also has more color than LVB. I guess I liked LVB better when I was young, because it swept me up in its emotion. But as I age, I find the lighter, more colorful Mozart more appealing. Although, he was also one of my five or so favs even back then in the seventies. So, maybe there is an age-related factor at work here, at least in me. YMMV.


Who is NRK?
......


----------



## Bulldog

Sloe said:


> Who is NRK?
> ......


None other than Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I've been thinking about the topic of this thread for about week now and I think I have an answer:

No.


----------



## jdec

I've been thinking about the topic of this thread for about 2 seconds now and I think I have an answer:

No.


----------



## nikon

...and why would be?
Two different styles, two different lives, two different pains...


----------



## Marc

They're both fine. 
But they're both totally boring compared to Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser- kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwustle- gerspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumberaber-schönedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft, who resided in Ulm, in the German state of Baden-Württemberg.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Marc said:


> They're both fine.
> But they're both totally boring compared to Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelterwasser- kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-bratwustle- gerspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumberaber-schönedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft, who resided in Ulm, in the German state of Baden-Württemberg.


I went to a concert of his. By the time they'd finished announcing his name it was already time to go home. Consequently I still don't know what his music sounds like.


----------



## Dan Ante

eugeneonagain said:


> I went to a concert of his. By the time they'd finished announcing his name it was already time to go home. Consequently I still don't know what his music sounds like.


About the same...


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> I've been thinking about the topic of this thread for about 2 seconds now and I think I have an answer:
> 
> No.


I had the answer before I even thought about the topic.

Don't ask me to explain.


----------



## Sloe

Bulldog said:


> None other than Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov.


I thought it was Norsk Rikskringkasting.


----------



## CanadianMaestro

Depends what genre -- for chamber, no. Although LvB's late quartets beats Mozart's late hands-down imho.
Symphonies, yes -- I vastly prefer LvB's. 
Opera, no contest -- Mozart wins.
Masses -- Mozart wins here. Such diversity and rich creativity.


----------



## jdec

CanadianMaestro said:


> Depends what genre -- for chamber, no. Although LvB's late quartets beats *Mozart's late* hands-down imho.
> Symphonies, yes -- I vastly prefer LvB's.
> Opera, no contest -- Mozart wins.
> Masses -- Mozart wins here. Such diversity and rich creativity.


Unlike Beethoven, there was never a "late" Mozart.


----------



## CanadianMaestro

jdec said:


> Unlike Beethoven, there was never a "late" Mozart.


Not formally. But many musicologists do make out a late period for his symphonies and his chamber work.


----------



## jdec

CanadianMaestro said:


> Not formally. But many musicologists do make out a late period for his symphonies and his chamber work.


I mean, he did not live long enough to have a "late period".


----------



## Michael Diemer

jdec said:


> I mean, he did not live long enough to have a "late period".


Perhaps he did, considering how early he started.


----------



## Senator Padme 09

In my opinion, neither Mozart and Beethoven are not boring. But I’d have to make my decision on Mozart, who seems much more interesting than Beethoven.


----------



## Pugg

Senator Padme 09 said:


> In my opinion, neither Mozart and Beethoven are not boring. But I'd have to make my decision on Mozart, who seems much more interesting than Beethoven.


Great first post, welcome to Talk Classical Senator.


----------



## DavidA

CanadianMaestro said:


> Not formally. But many *musicologists* do make out a late period for his symphonies and his chamber work.


'A musicologist is someone who can read music but cannot hear it!' (Thomas Beecham)


----------



## Guest

So much wisdom in these quotes.....

“There are two golden rules for an orchestra: start together and finish together. The public doesn’t give a damn what goes on in between.”
― Thomas Beecham


----------



## eugeneonagain

As is now acknowledged, Mozart did something quite marvellous in what we call his 'late period' (and what else can we call it since it is his last work) when he revived the art of fugue and contrapuntal writing. It had somewhat faded after the rise of the galant style.
This is what helps mark out Mozart's works from contemporary works of the period. He became fascinated with Bach's counterpoint and strived to become a contrapuntal master in his own right, which I think he achieved. It runs thorough nearly all his late works and certainly all of those which are now most highly prized: notably in the 'Jupiter' symphony and the string quintets. His melding of galant elegance, late classical and revived contrapuntal mastery is what lies behind his huge reputation.

Here is a video demonstrating this. It shows how Mozart has a complete mastery of his material and the creative ways in which he weaves a tapestry from simplicity:


----------



## poconoron

eugeneonagain said:


> As is now acknowledged, Mozart did something quite marvellous in what we call his 'late period' (and what else can we call it since it is his last work) when he revived the art of fugue and contrapuntal writing. It had somewhat faded after the rise of the galant style.
> This is what helps mark out Mozart's works from contemporary works of the period. He became fascinated with Bach's counterpoint and strived to become a contrapuntal master in his own right, which I think he achieved. It runs thorough nearly all his late works and certainly all of those which are now most highly prized: notably in the 'Jupiter' symphony and the string quintets. His melding of galant elegance, late classical and revived contrapuntal mastery is what lies behind his huge reputation.
> 
> Here is a video demonstrating this. It shows how Mozart has a complete mastery of his material and the creative ways in which he weaves a tapestry from simplicity:


That was a great little video demonstration. Where might we find more in a similar vein? Thanks for that!


----------



## PlaySalieri

CanadianMaestro said:


> Not formally. But many musicologists do make out a late period for his symphonies and his chamber work.


I have heard it said that all Mozart's works are "early" - he was just about to enter a middle phase when he died.


----------



## Tallisman

There are moments of outstanding excitement in Mozart, especially in the concertos. But yes, he's not as 'exciting' as Beethoven most of the time, but that's not really what I listen to him for. Compare the piano sonatas of the two composers, for example. There is not _enormous_ variation in all of Mozart's, compared to the heights and varieties of mystical experience Beethoven so often reaches, but that is not a deficiency: Mozart's are of a _profound_ perfection. I'm not just saying this for the sake of the old 'dictionary definition' cliche: I actually, genuinely think that if perfection had to be defined, a Mozart composition would fit the bill. Mozart, it seems to me, actually created the abstract Platonic Form of musical perfection.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Tallisman said:


> There are moments of outstanding excitement in Mozart, especially in the concertos. But yes, he's not as 'exciting' as Beethoven most of the time, but that's not really what I listen to him for. Compare the piano sonatas of the two composers, for example. There is not _enormous_ variation in all of Mozart's, compared to the heights and varieties of mystical experience Beethoven so often reaches, but that is not a deficiency: Mozart's are of a _profound_ perfection. I'm not just saying this for the sake of the old 'dictionary definition' cliche: I actually, genuinely think that if perfection had to be defined, a Mozart composition would fit the bill. Mozart, it seems to me, actually created the abstract Platonic Form of musical perfection.


There is plenty of variation in Mozart's sonatas.

compare these picked at random to make a point

K310
K331
K332
K457

quite a bit of variation there I would say - the turkish rondo in K331 is absolutely nothing like the finale of k332 - in fact it couldn't be more different. And the a minor is very different from the c minor.


----------



## Guest

Senator Padme 09 said:


> In my opinion, neither Mozart and Beethoven are not boring. But I'd have to make my decision on Mozart, who seems much more interesting than Beethoven.


Sorry, I'm not quite sure...

"Neither are not boring" = both are boring...but Mozart is much more interesting?


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, I'm not quite sure...
> 
> "Neither are not boring" = both are boring...but Mozart is much more interesting?


his native language is not English.


----------



## KenOC

I heard some Mozart. Didn't sound boring. But I can't speak to the part after I fell asleep.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> his native language is not English.


Is it not? And you know this how?

It could be a typo. Or it could be that s/he was saying that both are boring, but one more than the other. I was just trying to ask which.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Is it not? And you know this how?
> 
> It could be a typo. Or it could be that s/he was saying that both are boring, but one more than the other. I was just trying to ask which.


From my years teaching english overseas it looks like a classic incorrect use of a "neither, nor" structure.

"neither Mozart and Beethoven are not boring"

this is not a typo, nor is it a native speaker's error.

he means of course

"neither Mozart nor Beethoven are boring"


----------



## Tallisman

stomanek said:


> There is plenty of variation in Mozart's sonatas.
> 
> compare these picked at random to make a point
> 
> K310
> K331
> K332
> K457
> 
> quite a bit of variation there I would say - the turkish rondo in K331 is absolutely nothing like the finale of k332 - in fact it couldn't be more different. And the a minor is very different from the c minor.


Compare with Beethoven, though: I said there wasn't _enormous_ variation.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Tallisman said:


> Compare with Beethoven, though: I said there wasn't _enormous_ variation.


ok - I'm not going to get bogged down over semantics and ask you to quanify "enormous". essentially you are saying that within Beethoven's piano sonatas there is more variety than in Mozart's.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tallisman said:


> Compare with Beethoven, though: I said there wasn't _enormous_ variation.


In Mozart's sonatas he worked within a fixed element of sonata-form that later Beethoven didn't have to: namely the fixed formula of which key the second subject would be in. In Mozart's period (also in Haydn) it was the dominant if the work is major or a relative major if the work's tonic key is minor. Later on this relaxed and second subject material could be in any key, modulated to with the appropriate bridging material.

The central 'development' or fantasia section is thus freer in middle and later Beethoven and has the advantage of greater contrast. Also the fact that the codas adopted during Beethoven's 'golden' period (though not specifically by Beethoven) were far different than those of the Haydn/Mozart period. They contain more contrast and development rather than being just a slight modification of the initial statement in truncated form. Arguably this form was already being employed in some way or another by Mozart in his other later works.

Notably Mozart seemed to prefer the rondo or Rondo-Sonata form than sonata form. It is evident in the bulk of his keyboard sonatas. Rondo-Sonata form is pretty much the same as regular sonata-form apart from the repeat of the first subject in the statement section (which doesn't occur in sonata form) and more balanced structure in the middle section, less 'fantasia'. Furthermore Mozart seems to have had a preference for the older Rondo form because it returns to prominence even in his later sonatas. However he is no slouch because he packs a lot of variety into these forms.
The K.457 mentioned above has many novel modifications that easily stand up against Beethoven's later works. Especially in the last allegro movement and employing the sort of coda way in advance of the usual sort used at that time. Clearly a model for Beethoven's _Pathetique_ and his entire approach to where he took the piano sonata.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> ok - I'm not going to get bogged down over semantics and ask you to quanify "enormous". essentially you are saying that within Beethoven's piano sonatas there is more variety than in Mozart's.


I think it's a helpful example of "apples and oranges" in music. I mean, I'm thinking of the piano sonatas of Mozart and LvB here, Mozart composed teaching pieces for the weak instruments of his buyers, so that they could have interesting works to practice, and to show off somewhat. Beethoven was furthering the development of music, step by step, as he did also deliberately in his quartets and symphonies.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> I think it's a helpful example of "apples and oranges" in music. I mean, I'm thinking of the piano sonatas of Mozart and LvB here, Mozart composed teaching pieces for the weak instruments of his buyers, so that they could have interesting works to practice, and to show off somewhat. Beethoven was furthering the development of music, step by step, as he did also deliberately in his quartets and symphonies.


Not at all. It's not a case of one writing trivialities for home keyboardists and the other furthering 'art'. This is a myth constantly perpetuated and one of the causes of Beethoven fetishism. Mozart was a serious musician and though he knocked off some works quickly for money or pleasure (chiefly for money), Beethoven also wrote a good deal of trivial works for mere playing pleasure. Yet there is no end to the reappraisals of these as 'works of genius' - many are indeed fine pieces, but it is that they came from LvB's pen that the later interpretations from devoted admirers pour forth.

The last 8 or so years of Mozart's activity saw him revivify contrapuntal writing, extend and modify the strict classical forms, experiment heavily with harmonic ideas. Throughout his career he experimented with orchestral technique. All of it spearheaded the future picked up by Beethoven.

I'm frankly fatigued from hearing about the revolutionary nature of Beethoven's quartets. I love them, but they are _not_ a singular phenomenon.


----------



## Luchesi

Thanks eugeneonagain,

It's easy for me to agree with your post AND with my post. It gets murky when we start to compare the early works and/or the works for the pleasure of playing. 

Mozart was a serious musician, but he was also playful and seemed to give off a lighthearted philosophy. But not our Beethoven .. (as he's come down to us anyway).

We agree that the trivial works of Beethoven shouldn't be elevated. And I was just thinking while reading your post, - that I haven't looked at them or played them in years. They became conveniently available on YouTube a few years ago (Ronald Brautigam) and I felt obliged to listen to them. That was that. I remember vaguely that I played a few for my piano friends when I was young. I can hear Ludwig saying, “Yes, that’s about enough.” And Mozart saying, “No, no, have fun with my trivial works.” Of course we can’t ever know…

I also agree about Mozart’s shining contributions of stretching the harmony of his time, and the perfect-sounding orchestrations of his last years. But when you say it spearheaded the future for Beethoven, we should remember that LvB didn't start out at that level. He didn’t understand until later, according to opinions I’ve read.

You say, “I’m frankly fatigued from hearing about the revolutionary nature of Beethoven's quartets. I love them, but they are not a singular phenomenon.”

All I can think to say is… they’re not a singular phenomenon?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> I think it's a helpful example of "apples and oranges" in music. I mean, I'm thinking of the piano sonatas of Mozart and LvB here, Mozart composed teaching pieces for the weak instruments of his buyers, so that they could have interesting works to practice, and to show off somewhat. Beethoven was furthering the development of music, step by step, as he did also deliberately in his quartets and symphonies.


As one of the best pianists of his day - it would be strange not to accept that Mozart composed many of his sonatas for himself to play in performance. K545 is an exception and there may be some others - but the notable sonatas and fantasies I believe he composed for himself and perhaps, in the case of the earlier sonatas, for his sister - who was a top class pianist.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> As one of the best pianists of his day - it would be strange not to accept that Mozart composed many of his sonatas for himself to play in performance. K545 is an exception and there may be some others - but the notable sonatas and fantasies I believe he composed for himself and perhaps, in the case of the earlier sonatas, for his sister - who was a top class pianist.


Some Mozart lovers have argued to me that his piano sonatas are as important as Beethoven's 32. They admire them so much that even though they look easy, they appreciate how difficult it is to play them well, and express yourself with them.

Other than the Cm and Am sonatas, what did Mozart think of them?


----------



## David OByrne

Slightly boring is just a kind, understatement


----------



## eugeneonagain

David OByrne said:


> Slightly boring is just a kind, understatement


Or even a completely wrong one.


----------



## Timothy

eugeneonagain said:


> Or even a completely wrong one.


:lol:

Tell that to the postmodern thread, which is dedicated to spreading hatred and misattribution


----------



## Timothy

I find Mozart to be completely lacking any emotion or expression whatsoever, so I think I can find myself agreeing with you on this David


----------



## eugeneonagain

Timothy said:


> :lol:
> 
> Tell that to the postmodern thread, which is dedicated to spreading hatred and misattribution


Not from me. I'm capable of enjoying all music, old and new. I also find it's best to actually know something about any particular music you want to denigrate. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

After Mozart's piano concertos Beethoven is merely a corollary.


----------



## KenOC

Richannes Wrahms said:


> After Mozart's piano concertos Beethoven is merely a corollary.


After Mozart's pretty little piano concertos, Beethoven wrote some _real _ones! :lol:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

You'd have been well advised not to say that to Beethoven himself. You might just have escaped with your life if he'd been in a good mood, but I wouldn't have bet on it.


----------



## Jacred

To OP: No?

I personally prefer Mozart's subtleties to, say, Beethoven's more generic orchestral colourings found in some of his early/middle works. Of course, Beethoven wrote wonderful things too (an understatement) so neither composer is anywhere near boring in my opinion.


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> After Mozart's pretty little piano concertos, Beethoven wrote some _real _ones! :lol:


That's what I used to think a couple of decades ago. Nowadays I regard Mozart as the Piano Concerto Master. Of course there plenty of other composers too who wrote colossal masterpieces in this musical genre.


----------



## Luchesi

It was easier to write concertos in Mozart's 1780s.

Beethoven's Emperor gave him fits. After it was published he was still adding to it.


----------



## Kieran

Luchesi said:


> It was easier to write concertos in Mozart's 1780s.
> 
> Beethoven's Emperor gave him fits. After it was published he was still adding to it.


Why was it easier?


----------



## Luchesi

Kieran said:


> Why was it easier?


A combination of reasons. But, to please an audience or to be like Beethoven in his last three piano concertos? Or, we can discuss how music theory had moved on somewhat, ...but that can be annoying to posters.

Have you heard the piano concertos of Weber, Hummel, Field? It's a combination of reasons.

Ken's half-serious post got me to thinking. I didn't want to quote him. And Mozart is not a general example for a question like this, he's 'Mozart'.


----------



## Kieran

Luchesi said:


> A combination of reasons. But, to please an audience or to be like Beethoven in his last three piano concertos? Or, we can discuss how music theory had moved on somewhat, ...but that can be annoying to posters.
> 
> Have you heard the piano concertos of Weber, Hummel, Field? It's a combination of reasons.
> 
> Ken's half-serious post got me to thinking. I didn't want to quote him. And Mozart is not a general example for a question like this, he's 'Mozart'.


I don't think music theory would have been an issue for Mozart, somehow. But parts of your reply sound like you're trying to ghettoise Mozart, in some way, as a mere crowd pleaser, and not only that, but one who may not want to "be like Beethoven." I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to be like anyone other than himself. Also, had he been given as long as Beethoven to compose piano concertos, who knows where he'd have gone with them? Even in his short life, we see changes in tone, mood, style. But difficulty in composing music doesn't seem to have been one of his problems...


----------



## Luchesi

Kieran said:


> I don't think music theory would have been an issue for Mozart, somehow. But parts of your reply sound like you're trying to ghettoise Mozart, in some way, as a mere crowd pleaser, and not only that, but one who may not want to "be like Beethoven." I'm sure he wouldn't have wanted to be like anyone other than himself. Also, had he been given as long as Beethoven to compose piano concertos, who knows where he'd have gone with them? Even in his short life, we see changes in tone, mood, style. But difficulty in composing music doesn't seem to have been one of his problems...


I don't think you understood my post, but it does point how music lovers will jump to defend the young man. (I'd like them to defend Chopin as spiritedly. He lived only a little longer than Mozart.)

I was thinking about the composing of piano concertos in Mozart's 1780s compared to a few decades later. Wasn't it easier for every composer - compared to a few decades later? It's a vague question, but curious composers ask it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Luchesi said:


> I don't think you understood my post, but it does point how music lovers will jump to defend the young man. (I'd like them to defend Chopin as spiritedly. He lived only a little longer than Mozart.)
> 
> I was thinking about the composing of piano concertos in Mozart's 1780s compared to a few decades later. Wasn't it easier for every composer - compared to a few decades later? It's a vague question, but curious composers ask it.


Are you certain you understood _his_ post? It seemed crystal clear to me.

The 'it was easier then' argument is an after-the-fact argument. At the time it is created every piece of new 'art' is difficult. It's far easier, after the ideas and processes have long been familiarised, to imagine that it was all trivial and a bit effortless.
I can't even imagine myself suggesting that Bach 'had it easier' than e.g. Haydn and therefore Haydn's chamber works are ipso-facto qualitatively better. It's an absurd suggestion.

Every following artist stands on whatever went before, it's how they avoid having to re-invent the wheel and can concentrate on innovating. In Beethoven's case he was a contemporary of Mozart and half his entire output is Mozart-lite, it's only later he had a singular voice. At his core he remained pretty much a classicist, he's only an early romantic.

I'd say people don't as spiritedly react to assaults on Chopin in the same way for a few reasons: his output was vastly smaller and less wide-ranging; he's far less a victim of people trying to write him off as a pedlar of muzak every five minutes, and probably because 'seasoned' classical snobs don;t talk that much about Chopin, he's (wrongly) seen as 'entry level'.


----------



## Kieran

Luchesi said:


> I don't think you understood my post, but it does point how music lovers will jump to defend the young man. (I'd like them to defend Chopin as spiritedly. He lived only a little longer than Mozart.)
> 
> I was thinking about the composing of piano concertos in Mozart's 1780s compared to a few decades later. Wasn't it easier for every composer - compared to a few decades later? It's a vague question, but curious composers ask it.


I think it's the word "easier" that's contentious, especially when you give as your first example, an option: "to please an audience or to be like Beethoven in his last three piano concertos?" This isn't an example of why composing concertos would be harder - it's a choice, and one which I imagine Mozart would not have considered, had he lived long enough, and while he was still composing concertos which would be sometimes dark, sometimes light, sometimes exploratory, sometimes resigned to our inevitables. His music is the most reflective of the human conundrum, for me: he expresses the rapid changes of mood, the depths, the darkness, the joys - often within the space of a few bars, but all so subtly. Never with grand gestures which point to himself.

The more interesting example you give is the music theory one, but again, I don't see why Mozart would be flummoxed there. He was the most alert and magnetic composer, and I believe he also would have loved the potentials of the larger pianos that became available after his death.

I hope I didn't come across as being tetchy, by the way, but the old antlers rise whenever I suspect that Mozart has been reduced to being a mere light salad, before the steaming meat dish of Beethoven. This kind of thinking is prevalent, and wrong, in my opinion. It's often used against Mozart that he's not Beethoven, as if this is stating anything other than an obvious biological fact. He's not Beethoven, yes, and nor is Beethoven Mozart. But when we discuss these giants, we really discuss people who are most likely beyond our understanding, for their achievements are too immense for us to grasp, in some ways. We can get the chronology and theory, but the inner workings of great people like these are mysterious, I'm sure, to anyone else but themselves. And maybe even to themselves.

With Mozart, I listen to his music every day, and I'm still surprised, and amazed, by works with which I thought I'm wholly familiar. There are changes of emphases, one day to the next, even when listening to the same recording. Today is the anniversary of his death, and I recommend to everyone that they should listen to a single work of his, in memory of the Maestro.

As for Chopin, I agree with you that he should be defended loudly, but I also agree with Eugeneonagain, that somehow there isn't such a straight forward comparison to be made there...


----------



## Luchesi

Thanks eugeneonagain,


“The 'it was easier then' argument is an after-the-fact argument.”

Yes, that’s a good point. It’s just an exercise to hopefully enrich our appreciation for the two time periods.

“At the time it is created every piece of new 'art' is difficult. It's far easier, after the ideas and processes have long been familiarised, to imagine that it was all trivial and a bit effortless.”

Yes, we can look back today. We can now see where music has gone — starting with the Impressionists.

“I can't even imagine myself suggesting that Bach 'had it easier' than e.g. Haydn and therefore Haydn's chamber works are ipso-facto qualitatively better. It's an absurd suggestion.”

I think of Bach as Baroque and contrapuntal, but I think of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven as sharing the same harmonies and effective constellations of notes when they begin composing (the same toolbox).

“Every following artist stands on whatever went before, it's how they avoid having to re-invent the wheel and can concentrate on innovating. In Beethoven's case he was a contemporary of Mozart and half his entire output is Mozart-lite, it's only later he had a singular voice. At his core he remained pretty much a classicist, he's only an early romantic.”

I wasn’t thinking of Mozart or even Beethoven. I was thinking of composing piano concertos during Mozart's 1780s and then a few decades later. 

“I’d say people don't as spiritedly react to assaults on Chopin in the same way for a few reasons: his output was vastly smaller and less wide-ranging; he's far less a victim of people trying to write him off as a pedlar of muzak every five minutes, and probably because 'seasoned' classical snobs don;t talk that much about Chopin, he's (wrongly) seen as 'entry level’.”

I think those criticizers don't understand Chopin’s contribution (especially for us pianists) and where he came from, and what his goals were. It’s a fascinating study.


----------



## Luchesi

Thanks Kieran,

“I think it's the word "easier" that's contentious, especially when you give as your first example, an option: "to please an audience or to be like Beethoven in his last three piano concertos?" This isn't an example of why composing concertos would be harder - it's a choice, and one which I imagine Mozart would not have considered, had he lived long enough, and while he was still composing concertos…”

When I first started thinking about this it seemed to me to be easier to please an audience with the techniques they already knew than to try to be like Beethoven in his last three piano concertos.

“…which would be sometimes dark, sometimes light, sometimes exploratory, sometimes resigned to our inevitables.”

Yes, it's been interesting to try to understand the mystery of how these feelings are how we react to the integer relationships Mozart inherited. 

“His music is the most reflective of the human conundrum, for me: he expresses the rapid changes of mood, the depths, the darkness, the joys - often within the space of a few bars, but all so subtly. Never with grand gestures which point to himself.”

Yes, that’s Mozart. He had unique advantages and luck in his childhood and formative years, with professional musicians in the house, his touring while he was still young a impressionable. Researchers are now investigating the idea that he had a mild form of Tourette's and his brain was slightly different in its development than most people.

“The more interesting example you give is the music theory one, but again, I don't see why Mozart would be flummoxed there. He was the most alert and magnetic composer, and I believe he also would have loved the potentials of the larger pianos that became available after his death.”

Mozart was unique and not helpful in deciding if composing piano concertos was easier in the earlier decades.

“I hope I didn't come across as being tetchy, by the way, but the old antlers rise whenever I suspect that Mozart has been reduced to being a mere light salad, before the steaming meat dish of Beethoven. This kind of thinking is prevalent, and wrong, in my opinion. It's often used against Mozart that he's not Beethoven, as if this is stating anything other than an obvious biological fact. He's not Beethoven, yes, and nor is Beethoven Mozart. But when we discuss these giants, we really discuss people who are most likely beyond our understanding, for their achievements are too immense for us to grasp, in some ways. We can get the chronology and theory, but the inner workings of great people like these are mysterious, I'm sure, to anyone else but themselves. And maybe even to themselves.”

If we can come to an appreciation of the answer to this question we can’t be swayed by individuals (Mozart and Beethoven).

“With Mozart, I listen to his music every day, and I'm still surprised, and amazed, by works with which I thought I'm wholly familiar. There are changes of emphases, one day to the next, even when listening to the same recording. Today is the anniversary of his death, and I recommend to everyone that they should listen to a single work of his, in memory of the Maestro.”

Long live his achievements and his impact.

“As for Chopin, I agree with you that he should be defended loudly, but I also agree with Eugeneonagain, that somehow there isn't such a straight forward comparison to be made there…”

I wasn't comparing what critics think of Mozart's music to what they think of Chopin and his few works with orchestra, chamber, no operas etc. I mean, I hope they don’t stereotype Chopin’s music like they do Mozart’s.


----------



## Mowgli

Party like it's 1799


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> It was easier to write concertos in Mozart's 1780s.
> 
> Beethoven's Emperor gave him fits. After it was published he was still adding to it.


No Mozart found it easier to write concertos. He appears to have found most things musical easier!


----------



## poconoron

DavidA said:


> No Mozart found it easier to write concertos. He appears to have found most things musical easier!


Including his magnificent operas including Don Giovanni, Figaro, Magic Flute, Cosi, Seraglio, etc., which he wrote in a ridiculously short time.............


----------



## josephhaydn

i just watched a youtube video with robert levin. which may explain why people think that. (i don't find mozart boring at all, prefer him over beethoven) He says mozart didn't write in all he would have played becuase he improvised and liked to put in a minimal figured bass line. Beethoven wrote everything down because he changed keys a lot.


----------



## TxllxT

josephhaydn said:


> i just watched a youtube video with robert levin. which may explain why people think that. (i don't find mozart boring at all, prefer him over beethoven) He says mozart didn't write in all he would have played becuase he improvised and liked to put in a minimal figured bass line. Beethoven wrote everything down because he changed keys a lot.


Welcome to the Talk Classical Forum and thanks for the post!


----------



## josephhaydn

TxllxT said:


> Welcome to the Talk Classical Forum and thanks for the post!
> 
> thanks yeah didnt know how to link


----------



## chrish

I used to think what title suggests but only recently I have gotten into Mozart's piano concertos. Now am slowly turning to the dark side


----------



## eugeneonagain

I think Mozart would have taken Beethoven in a fight. Dancing round him like a little whippet and wearing him down with jabs.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Beethoven music reaches emotional excess often, which may appeal to some more, and who might find it thrilling, while Mozart’s music is more restrained usually. I tend to agree with Debussy who said “Genius can, of course, dispense with taste: of this Beethoven is an example. Mozart on the other hand, his equal in genius, has, in addition, the most delicate taste”. Bruno Walter also acknowledged Mozart later in life, when he was past the “big emotions”.

They can both become boring, if you become over-familiar with their music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Is this boring:


----------



## tgdb9

I've found that people who are new to classical music generally find Beethoven easier to sustain interest in than Mozart. When I was in high school, I had the same experience. I always felt like I should like Mozart more, but it took performing some of his symphonies before I really became interested in his music.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> I think Mozart would have taken Beethoven in a fight. Dancing round him like a little whippet and wearing him down with jabs.


Mozart, fighting Beethoven, dancing around jabbing and singing "Float like a butterfly, sting like a...OOF! Where the heck did THAT come from?" Ludwig was the master of the unexpected modulation and seldom missed his mark.


----------



## Dan Ante

tgdb9 said:


> I've found that people who are new to classical music generally find Beethoven easier to sustain interest in than Mozart. When I was in high school, I had the same experience. I always felt like I should like Mozart more, but it took performing some of his symphonies before I really became interested in his music.


I don't know how long you have been into classical but I have been a LvB man from the first and never find him boring, in fact the more I listen the more I discover.


----------



## Star

As one who adores both Beethoven and Mozart I can see why the OP asked the question. Beethoven makes you sit up more but then you find there are infinite subtleties and joys in Mozart. As a young person I thought the pinnacle of piano concertos was the Emporer, but then I discovered that Mozart had written a series of the most sublime piano concertos, the best of which are only matched by Beethoven'sfourth.


----------



## KenOC

Star said:


> As one who adores both Beethoven and Mozart I can see why the OP asked the question. Beethoven makes you sit up more but then you find there are infinite subtleties and joys in Mozart. As a young person I thought the pinnacle of piano concertos was the Emporer, but then I discovered that Mozart had written a series of the most sublime piano concertos, the best of which are only matched by Beethoven's fourth.


Only the fourth? A snippet from a contemporary review of Beethoven's 3rd Piano Concerto:

"In none of his latest works does the reviewer find so many beautiful and noble ideas, such a thorough execution that does not tend to the bombastic or contrived, such a firm character without excesses, or such unity. Wherever it can be performed well, it will have the greatest and most beautiful effect. Even in Leipzig, where one is used to hearing the greater Mozart concertos performed well and where one views them with justifiable preference, this will be and has already been the case.

"…Thus I repeat here again two lines: with respect to its effect on the mind and its impact, this concerto is one of the most excellent among all that have ever been written."


----------



## Ariasexta

Without Mozart, I would not have explored further into classical music and tried Rachmaninoff and Bartok, Bartok scared me away and then there was a hiatus and return to Rock music for 3 years from 1998. I had no idea about any classical periods, I though there was no music before Mozart, and Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff sounded to be cool as close contemporaries, I was very willing to explore into late 19 century untill bumped into Bartok and other soviet musicians, which really scared me.

Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmaninoff had been plus-es, but Mozart was a huge plus, the largest plus. I listened on cassettes first and found out that Mozart`s music is far better than Beethovens, I never bought a Beethovens CD since classical CDs became available.


----------



## Guest

Ariasexta said:


> Without Mozart, I would not have explored further into classical music and tried Rachmaninoff and Bartok, Bartok scared me away and then I resumed rock music for 3 years since 1998.


Thanks for the idea of starting points and where they lead. We all started somewhere. Without Holst, Strauss and Ligeti, I would not have explored Beethoven. Without Satie, I would not have explored Roussel and Poulenc. Without Tomita, I would not have explored Debussy. Without Billion Dollar Brain, I would not have explored Shostakovich.

Because of the New World Symphony, I won't explore Dvorak.

Beethoven and Mozart led me nowehere else. They are worth exploring for themselves.


----------



## Ariasexta

Finding thrills with classical music is like finding excitement with driving, you can be finding a wrong situation while there is no clear legal problem in trying. In a pragmatical sense, it is wrong, in a radical sense it seems cool. If you go too fast for excietment, you are on your own responsibility, you have no convincing rationale, your life, even other peoples safety might be in a questionable correlation. There must be a limitation to speed on normal roads, and specialised highways to allow more excitement.


----------



## Ariasexta

MacLeod said:


> Thanks for the idea of starting points and where they lead. We all started somewhere. Without Holst, Strauss and Ligeti, I would not have explored Beethoven. Without Satie, I would not have explored Roussel and Poulenc. Without Tomita, I would not have explored Debussy. Without Billion Dollar Brain, I would not have explored Shostakovich.
> 
> Because of the New World Symphony, I won't explore Dvorak.
> 
> Beethoven and Mozart led me nowehere else. They are worth exploring for themselves.


There is no reasonable thread of cause between these encounters, if you are going around the close contemporaries, you made yourself going between them.

I never tried Debussy, Satie. Bartok and several others stopped me from going further into certain direction. There was a persistent revulsion evoked by certain 20 century composers that seems to overshadow my objective opinion on their era and their immediate eras. Debussy and Satie might be OK, it is not their fault.


----------



## Etherealz

Maybe, who knows.


----------

