# The genius of Mozart



## Agamemnon

Mozart seems to be controversial. I have a theory why he is controversial and why he is the genius of music.

People who like Mozart's music usually say that they like it because the music is pure: no soundscape, no outbursts of emotion, no references to anything but the music itself. But there is more to it: music is the direct expression of will or passion (it is movement). And Mozart knows this all too well as he displayed in it's operas. Don Giovanni the seducer, Die Zauberflote which enchants people: music is all about enchanting, seduction, sex. This is the 'ordinary' content of Mozart which repells some people but Mozart was right: music is passion and eroticism (as contemporary pop artists since Elvis also know). But Mozart knows one more thing: music is also harmony and so it is about love and world peace. Mozart's music is not the 19th century romanticism which attracts most (untrained) listeners for it's strong and unbounded emotions: Mozart is all about controlling and bounding the passion, to transcend it's lust to true and divine love which makes it sublime. Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.

So Mozart is THE genius of music. But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I confess that I am having great trouble following this theory.


----------



## Bulldog

I don't find anything controversial about Mozart. He's widely recognized as one of the greatest composers ever, and I share in that consensus. Sure, there are some folks who don't like his music, but that's to be found with any composer.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

The last things I think of when listening to Mozart are sex, passion, lust or eroticism... 
His music doesn't sound like _any_ of that to me.

When I listen to Mozart, I hear elegance, technique, beauty, apparent simplicity, tastefulness, etc. But lust and sex? Where? Those dominant trills and their satisfying resolution must be really sexy and dangerous!

I think Mozart's music is full of emotions, but they are shown in a very conservative and elegant manner (dispensing of those "gory ways" later music is full of). Mozart does tickle my emotions, but mostly the softer and gentler ones. If I need something stronger, which is most of the time, I must go further in time to later music periods and listen to some Schnittke, for instance.


----------



## Larkenfield

Trust me. The music of Mozart may not be sexy on the surface, but it certainly does not inhibit or interfere with it either. There's something to be said for that as part of his genius -- a quality that I wouldn't attribute to Bach (too busy), Beethoven (too explosive), or just about anyone else. I suggest more experimentation and practice to experience that special attribute of Mozart for oneself.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I confess that I am having great trouble following this theory.


So am I. Mozart's music is here supposed to epitomize enchantment, seduction, sex, passion, will, reason, love, divine love, transcendence, perfect harmony, world peace, and doubtless many other things not mentioned. If it really encompassed that much of life, how could we not all agree and bow down to Mozart as the ultimate musical genius? And how could those of us who can't bring ourselves to do that look at ourselves in the mirror?

There seem to be enough people who don't find everything they need in Mozart - or even very much of what they need - to cast doubt on this theory. But I don't think Mozart is really very controversial. There are people who don't care for him, to various degrees, but that's true of every composer. Difference of taste isn't controversy. Mozart is generally acknowledged, among those with reasonably well-educated ears, to be one of music's greatest composers and maybe its greatest prodigy. Why worry about listeners whose tastes run more to sounds and styles and sensibilities different from those of late 18th-century Vienna?


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Trust me. The music of Mozart may not be sexy on the surface, but it certainly does not inhibit or interfere with it either. There's something to be said for that as part of his genius -- a quality that I wouldn't attribute to Bach (too busy), Beethoven (too explosive), or just about anyone else. I suggest more experimentation and practice to experience that special attribute of Mozart for oneself.


I don't find Bach's "busyness" relevant to whether or not his music can be "sexy," whatever that means. As for Beethoven, sex can be rather explosive at times, can it not? Your tastes in sex may be quite different from mine.

Hmmmm...When did I last listen to music for sexual stimulation? Does that even work?


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> I don't find Bach's "busyness" relevant to whether or not his music can be "sexy," whatever that means. As for Beethoven, sex can be rather explosive at times, can it not? Your tastes in sex may be quite different from mine.
> 
> Hmmmm...When did I last listen to music for sexual stimulation? Does that even work?


It works for me if Scriabin's music is in the air. It's good to have a partner.


----------



## DaveM

I have a theory that many of those who say they don't like Mozart's haven't listened to major segments of the various types of music he composed e.g. concertos, symphonies, operas etc. IMO, one aspect of Mozart's genius is that his compositions had astounding variety & innovation even within the various types: The #20 Piano Concerto is different than all the others and it, the Requiem and the last 4 operas sound like something from the early Romantic period. 

Side note: If Mozart had written nothing but operas, he would have been, arguably, a top-ten composer.


----------



## Heck148

Mozart controversial?? I don't think so...he is recognized as a one of the greatest musical geniuses...

his gifts were many - I had the opportunity to perform, and work with three distinguished "Mozarteans" during my performing caeer - Boris Goldovsky, the opera Guru, Frank Glazer, a fine pianist, and specialist in chamber music, and Walter Hendl, a great conductor,who was a Reiner student and disciple. 

They all, in different ways, espoused the genius of Mozart - esp the constant melodic flow, the ongoing line. the clarity of form....they all had different approaches, but it all boiled down to the same thing...one line feeds into another, a flawless flow, an ideal combination of form and content....


----------



## JeffD

I find it easier to assume Mozart was great, and strive to understand why, than to strive to figure out if Mozart was great.


----------



## Bettina

Woodduck said:


> I don't find Bach's "busyness" relevant to whether or not his music can be "sexy," whatever that means. As for Beethoven, sex can be rather explosive at times, can it not? Your tastes in sex may be quite different from mine.
> 
> *Hmmmm...When did I last listen to music for sexual stimulation? Does that even work?*


It works for me, but (six infraction points later) I've discovered that TC isn't the place for me to talk about that topic!


----------



## Woodduck

JeffD said:


> I find it easier to assume Mozart was great, and strive to understand why, than to strive to figure out if Mozart was great.


How are those different in practice? Aren't you looking for, and at, the same qualities?


----------



## Woodduck

Bettina said:


> It works for me, but (six infraction points later) I've discovered that TC isn't the place for me to talk about that topic!


Everything seems to work for you.


----------



## Phil loves classical

His music such as the piano concertos capture subtle shades of emotion (Piano Concerto 23, 24, 27) or expressions through some crafty modulations which are not too obvious or emphasized like in a lot of music that came later, and can express vastly different emotions within a relatively short time (eg. Marriage of Fiagro, Piano Concerto 22)


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> The last things I think of when listening to Mozart are sex, passion, lust or eroticism...
> His music doesn't sound like _any_ of that to me.
> 
> When I listen to Mozart, I hear elegance, technique, beauty, apparent simplicity, tastefulness, etc*. But lust and sex? Where?* Those dominant trills and their satisfying resolution must be really sexy and dangerous!
> 
> I think Mozart's music is full of emotions, but they are shown in a very conservative and elegant manner (dispensing of those "gory ways" later music is full of). Mozart does tickle my emotions, but mostly the softer and gentler ones. If I need something stronger, which is most of the time, I must go further in time to later music periods and listen to some Schnittke, for instance.


I hear it in the quivering voices of two young women in Cosi Fan Tutte. In the count in Figaro (sussanah duet)


----------



## DavidA

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> *The last things I think of when listening to Mozart are sex, passion, lust or eroticism...
> His music doesn't sound like any of that to me. *
> 
> When I listen to Mozart, I hear elegance, technique, beauty, apparent simplicity, tastefulness, etc. But lust and sex? Where? Those dominant trills and their satisfying resolution must be really sexy and dangerous!
> 
> I think Mozart's music is full of emotions, but they are shown in a very conservative and elegant manner (dispensing of those "gory ways" later music is full of). Mozart does tickle my emotions, but mostly the softer and gentler ones. If I need something stronger, which is most of the time, I must go further in time to later music periods and listen to some Schnittke, for instance.


Because Mozart isn't 'in your face' doesn't mean it isn't there. Just listen to Cherubino's arias in Figaro, the Count's longing after Susanna, the Don's seduction of Zerlina, the seduction of both the women in Cosi fan Tutte............
Have you actually listened to any of these operas?


----------



## Guest

Agamemnon said:


> Mozart seems to be controversial.


Where is your evidence for this?


----------



## ArtMusic

Many people who I know who find Mozart controversial is because they don't understand the significance of the originality of his masterpieces, let alone whether they enjoy his music or not.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Many people who I know who find Mozart controversial


I'm not sure people 'find' Mozart controversial. He either is or he isn't. I vote for 'isn't'. There is no 'controversy' - at least not by my understanding of the word.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> Many people who I know who find Mozart controversial is because they don't understand the significance of the originality of his masterpieces, let alone whether they enjoy his music or not.


They must be ignorant and confused.


----------



## ArtMusic

Bulldog said:


> They must be ignorant and confused.


Very likely. It is a fact that Mozart was one of the supreme musical composers of all times.


----------



## Lisztian

"Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.

So Mozart is THE genius of music."

I don't follow.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

The OP says "Mozart's music seems to be controversial" and that's not a reference to how each of us reacts to his music. It refers to his music arousing strong reactions both for and against, and on here that's undoubtedly true.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer;1320950that's [B said:


> not a reference to how each of us reacts[/B] to his music. It *refers to his music arousing strong reactions* both for and against, and on here that's undoubtedly true.


Sorry Animal - you're making a distinction here I'm not following. Would you mind elaborating?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Lisztian said:


> "Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.
> 
> So Mozart is THE genius of music."
> 
> I don't follow.


Hardly surprising really, given that the above is only a truncated excerpt of what the OP actually said.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

MacLeod said:


> Sorry Animal - you're making a distinction here I'm not following. Would you mind elaborating?


By all means. Some posters in the thread have responded by saying they personally don't find Mozart's music "controversial". I'm saying that's beside the point. When the OP said "Mozart's music seems to be controversial" he/she wasn't talking about each listener's individual reaction to it, but about the wider fact that it seems to divide opinion.


----------



## TxllxT

Agamemnon said:


> Mozart seems to be controversial. I have a theory why he is controversial and why he is the *genius* of music.
> 
> People who like Mozart's music usually say that they like it because the music is pure: no soundscape, no outbursts of emotion, no references to anything but the music itself. But there is more to it: music is the direct expression of will or passion (it is movement). And Mozart knows this all too well as he displayed in it's operas. Don Giovanni the seducer, Die Zauberflote which enchants people: music is all about enchanting, seduction, sex. This is the 'ordinary' content of Mozart which repells some people but Mozart was right: music is passion and eroticism (as contemporary pop artists since Elvis also know). But Mozart knows one more thing: music is also harmony and so it is about love and world peace. Mozart's music is not the 19th century romanticism which attracts most (untrained) listeners for it's strong and unbounded emotions: Mozart is all about controlling and bounding the passion, to transcend it's lust to true and divine love which makes it sublime. Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.
> 
> So Mozart is *THE genius* of music. But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well.


This hailing of 'the genius' seems very anachronistic to me: it is a typical pastime of 19th century salon conversations.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> By all means. Some posters in the thread have responded by saying they personally don't find Mozart's music "controversial". I'm saying that's beside the point. When the OP said "Mozart's music seems to be controversial" he/she wasn't talking about each listener's individual reaction to it, but about the wider fact that it seems to divide opinion.


Ah. OK. As one who doesn't find the music of Mozart that I have made an effort to know - esp his later symphonies - particularly engaging, I nevertheless recognise that his music has a substantial following and he is widely regarded as one of the 'greats' (colloquially speaking). I suspect that the number of people who wish to challenge that 'wide regard' is small, and therefore not a controversy worthy of the name.

That's not to say that there aren't also a few who want to make a controversy out of the fact that not everyone shares their view of his 'genius', or their enjoyment of his work. But as we know, there are tyrants everywhere wanting to insist on their version of the world and can't stand any challenge - and not just wrt classical music!


----------



## hpowders

OP: 

Exhibit A: Keyboard Sonata in F Major, K. 533, second movement andante.

I rest my case.


----------



## Marinera

There is something so natural about Mozart's music, it's a little happy and a little sad, and also it is much more, it reaches beyond emotions touching upon something very essentially human, like what it's like to be, to exist , it's like a non-linear conversation between a human condition and ourselves. And it sounds so natural it seems like this music wasn't just written it simply always was. The crystalline clarity. I always associated it with air - so natural, clear, too easy to take for granted and get used to it, but also so complex it doesn't feel like human creation, it's more like an ephemeral manifestation, a discovery.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bettina said:


> It works for me, but (six infraction points later) I've discovered that TC isn't the place for me to talk about that topic!


For getting jiggy I think jazz-funk is a better soundtrack. Who can resist the melting tinkle of a Rhodes piano?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Macleod: agree in part, with a couple of reservations. One: a controversy can be considerable even when the minority view is held by only a few people, if they express that view with enough persistence and vehemence. Two: from the point of view of a Mozart nut like me, it can sometimes be those who don't share the widespread enthusiasm for his music who seem to feel obliged to keep making that point. I don't like Mahler's music, but this site is crammed with Mahler fans and you won't find me intruding on their discussions just to emphasise that there's someone out here who doesn't share their enthusiasm. At times I wish one or two of Mozart's detractors would apply a similar kind of self-denying ordinance.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Animal the Drummer said:


> Macleod: agree in part, with a couple of reservations. One: a controversy can be considerable even when the minority view is held by only a few people, if they express that view with enough persistence and vehemence. Two: from the point of view of a Mozart nut like me, it can sometimes be those who don't share the widespread enthusiasm for his music who seem to feel obliged to keep making that point. * I don't like Mahler's music, but this site is crammed with Mahler fans and you won't find me intruding on their discussions just to emphasise that there's someone out here who doesn't share their enthusiasm. *At times I wish one or two of Mozart's detractors would apply a similar kind of self-denying ordinance.


That's a good point.

But it's a different era to your main interest and so poses no threat to your notion of Mozart's supremacy.

What do you say to TCs many Haydn fans who have the same regard for Mozart, as they do for CPE Bach and many other minor classical masters?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

My point was a general one though, not limited to the Classical (or any other) period. Macleod was calling out Mozart fans who get too aggressively protective of him and his music, and of the status which they/we feel it occupies. While not disagreeing that they're out there and that his criticism was valid, I was pointing out that Mozart's critics go OTT just as often. 

To those Haydn fans I would say that, while I don't share their view, they do of course have every right to express it. I'd simply ask them not to let it become a crusade.


----------



## Marinera

Mozart said so himself that his music is not crass. Is this the whole issue with controversy? 

And 'the modern ears' tend to be accustomed to the quality of contemporary popular music, which is many things and among them at worst often explicit, loud, lots of kitsch angst, etc. The controversy as I see it the listeners themselves. There's nothing stiff about Mozart's music. And it's not Romantic music, so it's not purely about emotional expression, even in the Classical music genre, it is in the class of its own. It is what it is. If someone has a problem and tries to impart their own expectations on music without wanting to hear what it really says, I would repeat that the issue is not with music but with the listener.


----------



## DonAlfonso

stomanek said:


> What do you say to TCs many Haydn fans who have the same regard for Mozart, as they do for CPE Bach and many other minor classical masters?


I'd say what Haydn himself said:
'Mozart is the incarnation of music.'
and
'I tell you before God, and as an honest man, your son (W A Mozart)is the greatest composer known to me by person and repute, he has taste and what is more the greatest skill in composition.'

By the way I'm a big fan of both composers and feel no need to belittle either to boost the other.


----------



## Agamemnon

MacLeod said:


> Where is your evidence for this?


Most criticism of my OP is about my claim that Mozart is 'controversial'. Maybe I misunderstood but I came up with the OP after reading things like "I suspect the reason is because people tend to feel (wrongly) that liking Mozart is a sign of being an immature or 'mainstream' classical music listener." by eugeneonagain in the thread about Mozart's 40th. For me this 'controversy' was new so it got me thinking as wel as writing "seems to be controversial"...


----------



## mathisdermaler

I think among modern classical listeners Mozart is indeed very controversial. Exhibit A: Kajmanen

There is this false propaganda that Mozart's music is repetitious and saccharine. Mozart is _much_ less saccharine than say, Ravel. I call it the "Only-heard-sonata-facile-effect"


----------



## DavidA

Animal the Drummer said:


> Macleod: agree in part, with a couple of reservations. One: a controversy can be considerable even when the minority view is held by only a few people, if they express that view with enough persistence and vehemence. Two: from the point of view of a Mozart nut like me, it can sometimes be those who don't share the widespread enthusiasm for his music who seem to feel obliged to keep making that point. I don't like Mahler's music, but this site is crammed with Mahler fans and you won't find me intruding on their discussions just to emphasise that there's someone out here who doesn't share their enthusiasm. *At times I wish one or two of Mozart's detractors would apply a similar kind of self-denying ordinance.*


Why? This is a discussion forum. If someone doesn't like Mozart they can express their opinion as far as I'm concerned. As long as they don't mind my opinion as well!


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> What do you say to TCs many Haydn fans who have the same regard for Mozart, as they do for CPE Bach and many other minor classical masters?


I don't recall ever meeting one of those Haydn fans, in fact most Haydn fans here also love Mozart and treat them as equals, but even that is sacrilege for you apparently.


----------



## eugeneonagain

stomanek said:


> What do you say to TCs many Haydn fans who have the same regard for Mozart, as they do for CPE Bach and many other minor classical masters?


Even Haydn's fans say odd things from time-to-time. I've generally had the feeling (not just here, but in the real offline world) that if someone is going to be a fan of the music of classical Vienna, they seem to feel the need to press home the point that Mozart is _decidedly not their first choice_ and that when it comes to naming acknowledged masterpiece works there is the tendency to ( I suspect) deliberately name alternatives, roughly in the following way:

Mozarts string quartets: 'Yes, but have you heard these by Haydn/J.C. Bach, Boccherini/Rosetti etc?

Mozart's Symphonies: Oh yes, but they do nothing for me. However have you heard these more-or-less identical style symphonies by de Saint-Georges/Josef Kraus...?

Mozart's Keyboard works: Well, they're nice, but, apart from this or that one, they lack substance. Have you heard those very similar ones from Haydn/Clementi/W.F. Bach?

And so it goes on. There is always a legitimate argument for listening to contemporaries of Mozart, especially those talents who get overshadowed by Mozart's reputation, but it doesn't have to be an exercise in trying to knock him off a pedestal upon which he never placed himself. I believe this is a popular game among long-term classical listeners.


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> Even Haydn's fans say odd things from time-to-time. I've generally had the feeling (not just here, but in the real offline world) that if someone is going to be a fan of the music of classical Vienna, they seem to feel the need to press home the point that Mozart is _decidedly not their first choice_ and that when it comes to naming acknowledged masterpiece works there is the tendency to ( I suspect) deliberately name alternatives, roughly in the following way:
> 
> Mozarts string quartets: 'Yes, but have you heard these by Haydn/J.C. Bach, Boccherini/Rosetti etc?
> 
> Mozart's Symphonies: Oh yes, but they do nothing for me. However have you heard these more-or-less identical style symphonies by de Saint-Georges/Josef Kraus...?
> 
> Mozart's Keyboard works: Well, they're nice, but, apart from this or that one, they lack substance. Have you heard those very similar ones from Haydn/Clementi/W.F. Bach?
> 
> And so it goes on. There is always a legitimate argument for listening to contemporaries of Mozart, especially those talents who get overshadowed by Mozart's reputation, but it doesn't have to be an exercise in trying to knock him off a pedestal upon which he never placed himself. I believe this is a popular game among long-term classical listeners.


I see the same on this forum but the reverse, when someone mentions how good Haydn's string quartets are there's someone going "but is he as good as muh Mozart?" at every chance they have, and God forbid someone prefer Haydn's symphonies to Mozart's.


----------



## DavidA

One thing to bear in mind when discussing Mozart is the fact he died just when his stupendous genius was coming to full fruition in works like his four great operas, the clarinet concerto, the last three symphonies and the {albeit unfinished} requiem. One can only boggle at what we might have had had he lived another five years!


----------



## Larkenfield

After someone has given a negative opinion about Mozart or anyone else, they don't need to make the same point 100 times on different threads, or the same one, and become a bore just because "one should be free to express an opinion." Those who repeatedly focus on the negative really need to find a composer they can like once their negative opinion has been established and is commonly known, because someone who actually considers Mozart a genius isn't likely to change his or her mind, are they? It's a failure method to repeatedly focus on the negative as one goes through life because one apparently doesn't have anything better to do. So it has nothing to do with one's "right" to express an opinion; it has more to do with not making a nuisance out of oneself by repeatedly expressing the same one.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

DavidA said:


> Why? This is a discussion forum. If someone doesn't like Mozart they can express their opinion as far as I'm concerned. As long as they don't mind my opinion as well!


Agree in principle. I'm referring specifically to posts which don't actually discuss the music in any detail but simply restate that their author(s) don't like Mozart, and hence seem to have been put up for the sole reason of thumbing the poster's nose at an enthusiasm he/she doesn't share.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> I see the same on this forum but the reverse, when someone mentions how good Haydn's string quartets are there's someone going "but is he as good as muh Mozart?" at every chance they have, and God forbid someone prefer Haydn's symphonies to Mozart's.


I doubt this very much and the reason why is that knocking Mozart's reputation is standard fare, just like knocking Shakespeare or Rembrandt because of their acknowledged positions.

I hardly bother making painstaking comparisons between a lot of the 18th century contemporaries. I can listen to Haydn as much as any other, but like others I feel he shines brightly in some places and less so in others (some of his piano concertos for example). Mozart produced masterpieces in almost ever genre he touched and for this he must pay the price of being flogged at every opportunity or at least held in check.


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> I doubt this very much and the reason why is that knocking Mozart's reputation is standard fare, just like knocking Shakespeare or Rembrandt because of their acknowledged positions.
> 
> I hardly bother making painstaking comparisons between a lot of the 18th century contemporaries. I can listen to Haydn as much as any other, but like others I feel he shines brightly in some places and less so in others (some of his piano concertos for example). Mozart produced masterpieces in almost ever genre he touched and for this he must pay the price of being flogged at every opportunity or at least held in check.


I've been here a while and see it almost every time Haydn is brought up, even if the thread wasn't about Mozart originally. As for me, I love both composers about equally but to me it's clear that Haydn is on a higher level than Mozart in string quartets and symphonies, while Mozart 's best concertos and operas are far greater than anything Haydn did in those genres.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> One: a controversy can be considerable even when the minority view is held by only a few people, if they express that view with enough persistence and vehemence.


I agree. I guess the question is whether the few people here you might identify as expressing their view with persistence and vehemence really constitutes a controversy.



Animal the Drummer said:


> Macleod was calling out Mozart fans who get too aggressively protective of him and his music


I don't think I was. I was questioning the idea that there was a controversy.



Agamemnon said:


> Most criticism of my OP is about my claim that Mozart is 'controversial'. Maybe I misunderstood but I came up with the OP after reading things like "I suspect the reason is because people tend to feel (wrongly) that liking Mozart is a sign of being an immature or 'mainstream' classical music listener." by eugeneonagain in the thread about Mozart's 40th. For me this 'controversy' was new so it got me thinking as wel as writing "seems to be controversial"...


Well it seemed to me in that thread that eugene was making a general observation about his expereince, rather than a specific observation about folk at TC. It's one of the hazards of not 'naming and shaming' - a generalised complaint is liable to challenge that, actually, there's no such agenda here at all.



DavidA said:


> One thing to bear in mind when discussing Mozart is the fact he died just when his stupendous genius was coming to full fruition in works like his four great operas, the clarinet concerto, the last three symphonies and the {albeit unfinished} requiem. One can only boggle at what we might have had had he lived another five years!


Here's a point regularly made as if it enhances claims to Mozart's genius: we are to marvel not just at what he did write, but also what he might have written. Such speculation is fun, but hardly supportive of the 'genius' tag.



Larkenfield said:


> After someone has given a negative opinion about Mozart or anyone else, they don't need to make the same point 100 times on different threads, or the same one, and become a bore just because "one should be free to express an opinion." *Those who repeatedly focus on the negative *really need to find a composer they can like once their negative opinion has been established and is commonly known, because someone who actually considers Mozart a genius isn't likely to change his or her mind, are they? It's a failure method to repeatedly focus on the negative as one goes through life because one apparently doesn't have anything better to do. So it has nothing to do with one's "right" to express an opinion; it has more to do with not making a nuisance out of oneself by repeatedly expressing the same one.


What about those who repeatedly focus uncritically on the positive? I know it can be irritating if someone repeatedly pops up to make the same negative and simplistic point, but we can all find others' posting style irritating, both positive and negative, simple and complex. Why should the (small and readily ignorable) anti-Mozart brigade be required to show special restraint?


----------



## Guest

post deleted....


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> I've been here a while and see it almost every time Haydn is brought up, even if the thread wasn't about Mozart originally. As for me, I love both composers about equally but to me it's clear that Haydn is on a higher level than Mozart in string quartets and symphonies, while Mozart 's best concertos and operas are far greater than anything Haydn did in those genres.


Well with 104 symphonies and a whole lifetime under his belt it's hardly a wonder why.

I maintain though that it is Mozart who receives the harsher drubbing. I invite you to read the comment sections of Haydn's works on youtube. Someone generally comes along and states falsehoods like: "it's a disgrace that Haydn is unknown when he is easily as good as Mozart" or "Mozart is easier to listen to because he creates simpler themes whereas Haydn's are more complicated". Other common statements are about Haydn having invented any classical genre one cares to mention, which Mozart then later adopts in a finished state. This is intended to diminish his originality. Whereas we have this idea of Haydn as toiling away in isolation creating from scratch the entire backbone of 18th century Viennese music.

I'm not knocking Haydn in any way, I'm highlighting the routine commentary.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Here's a point regularly made as if it enhances claims to Mozart's genius: we are to marvel not just at what he did write, but also what he might have written. Such speculation is fun, but hardly supportive of the 'genius' tag.


Yes but having already produced some of the greatest music ever written by the age of 35 surely supports the genius tag! :lol:


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> Well with 104 symphonies and a whole lifetime under his belt it's hardly a wonder why.
> 
> I maintain though that it is Mozart who receives the harsher drubbing. I invite you to read the comment sections of Haydn's works on youtube. Someone generally comes along and states falsehoods like: "it's a disgrace that Haydn is unknown when he is easily as good as Mozart" or "Mozart is easier to listen to because he creates simpler themes whereas Haydn's are more complicated". Other common statements are about Haydn having invented any classical genre one cares to mention, which Mozart then later adopts in a finished state. This is intended to diminish his originality. Whereas we have this idea of Hatdn as toiling away in isolation creating from scratch the entire backbone of 18th century Viennese music.
> 
> I'm not knocking Haydn in any way, I'm highlighting the routine commentary.


Did you really expect anything more from Youtube comments? :lol:

I'm talking about what happens on this forum, where one can actually have a discussion with proper arguments, not that chemical dumping ground under Youtube videos. You might be right about what you've seen there as I tend to avoid looking at it.

PS: For sure Mozart's "natural genius" is rivalled only by Schubert imo, and given a decade or more he might have given Haydn a run for his money, but we'll never know.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Yes but having already produced some of the greatest music ever written by the age of 35 surely supports the genius tag! :lol:


Of course - what he actually did write is admissible.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Chronochromie said:


> Did you really expect anything more from Youtube comments? :lol:
> 
> I'm talking about what happens on this forum, where one can actually have a discussion with proper arguments, not that chemical dumping ground under Youtube videos. You might be right about what you've seen there as I tend to avoid looking at it.


Is the discussion here always on such a higher plane? (I'm not sure if I add a laughter emoticon here now?)

The essence of the expressed opinions is pretty much the same. Among the dross there are decent discussions (there as here I might add...laughing emoticon?)


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chronochromie said:


> I see the same on this forum but the reverse, when someone mentions how good Haydn's string quartets are there's someone going "but is he as good as muh Mozart?" at every chance they have, and God forbid someone prefer Haydn's symphonies to Mozart's.


You can hardly compare these two (the first dialogue I picked up from amazon comments)

- have you heard Mozart's great quintets
- well yes, but try Bocherini's best dozen - they are all the equal or better than k516

and

- have you heard haydn's op 76 qts?
- I think Mozart's "haydn dedicated set" surpass those.

come on FGS


----------



## Chronochromie

eugeneonagain said:


> Is the discussion here always on such a higher plane? (I'm not sure if I add a laughter emoticon here now?)
> 
> The essence of the expressed opinions is pretty much the same. Among the dross there are decent discussions (there as here I might add...laughing emoticon?)


I partly agree, but even when the forum is at its worst and the moderators make mistakes, at least _there are moderators_, and that and the membership system does make a huge difference. The worst stuff gets filtered out and the bar is a bit higher.


----------



## PlaySalieri

eugeneonagain said:


> Well with 104 symphonies and a whole lifetime under his belt it's hardly a wonder why.
> 
> I maintain though that it is Mozart who receives the harsher drubbing. I invite you to read the comment sections of Haydn's works on youtube. Someone generally comes along and states falsehoods like: "it's a disgrace that Haydn is unknown when he is easily as good as Mozart" or "Mozart is easier to listen to because he creates simpler themes whereas Haydn's are more complicated". Other common statements are about Haydn having invented any classical genre one cares to mention, which Mozart then later adopts in a finished state. This is intended to diminish his originality. Whereas we have this idea of Haydn as toiling away in isolation creating from scratch the entire backbone of 18th century Viennese music.
> 
> I'm not knocking Haydn in any way, I'm highlighting the routine commentary.


I have lost count of the number of times that a fellow poster raves about this Clementi sonata, or that CPE bach g minor symphony etc etc. I usually go to you tube for a listen and come back to TC and laugh out loud. Haydn (yes) and esp Mozart were like giants compared to children in the classical era - the best of the rest dont even get close.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> You can hardly compare these two (the first dialogue I picked up from amazon comments)
> 
> - have you heard Mozart's great quintets
> - well yes, but try Bocherini's best dozen - they are all the equal or better than k516
> 
> and
> 
> - have you heard haydn's op 76 qts?
> - I think Mozart's "haydn dedicated set" surpass those.
> 
> come on FGS


Sorry, I'm talking about this very forum, and I don't remember anyone here saying "this Cherubini, Boccherini, JC Bach, etc. pieces are better than Mozart's X pieces". At most I see "if you like this Mozart try this Boccherini" or "these Haydn pieces are better/as good/comparable to Mozart's X pieces".

To which the answers usually are "it's not and can't be even close to Mozart".


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chronochromie said:


> I've been here a while and see it almost every time Haydn is brought up, even if the thread wasn't about Mozart originally. As for me, I love both composers about equally but to me it's clear that Haydn is on a higher level than Mozart in string quartets and symphonies, while Mozart 's best concertos and operas are far greater than anything Haydn did in those genres.


Haydn's London symphonies are very good - but I still think Mozart's last 4 are better. As for Mozart's chamber music vs Haydn - come on - the great quintets, clar quintet etc plus the best quartets - some of the greatest ch works in history.


----------



## Woodduck

So the "controversy" over Mozart has now devolved into a controversy over the propriety of expressing negative opinions of Mozart, or even of comparing Mozart to anyone else. Maybe we need a controversy over whether it's proper ever to say anything to anyone but "have a nice day."

The OP makes extravagant claims that no composer - and nothing else on earth or, probably, anyplace else in the universe - could possibly live up to. How are we expected to respond? Tapping our temples and rolling our eyes would be impolite. Extreme enthusiasm is not irrational, but extreme claims of superiority inspire skepticism and, often, scorn and the urge to debunk. Me, I come here to find out what people think about music and to say what I think. The title of this thread is "The Genius of Mozart." If that is intended as a ban on those who doubt that Mozart's genius encompasses the entire experience of mankind, I'd appreciate having that stated explicitly. Until it is (and until the forum rules approve of such bans), I will freely say, whenever I feel like it, that other composers, among them Haydn, possess qualities which I value and don't find in Mozart. This is not intended to knock Mozart's bust off its pedestal, but it does have the effect of removing an overly ornamented rococo pedestal that his finely carved, classically elegant bust looks better without.


----------



## Chronochromie

stomanek said:


> Haydn's London symphonies are very good - but I still think Mozart's last 4 are better. As for Mozart's chamber music vs Haydn - come on - the great quintets, clar quintet etc plus the best quartets - some of the greatest ch works in history.


Now, now, I said string quartets, if we talk about chamber music as a whole it's more contentious an issue, Mozart has the great quintets of course, but we must remember that Haydn has the finest piano trio cycle.

And about symphonies, the London cycle is just the tip of the iceberg!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Mozart being on a pedestal is not the doing of Mozart scholars (well not the modern ones anyway) or listeners with a sense of the moderate. It is the work of people who generally go all hyperbolic about anything to which they take a fancy. It's not helped by popular media either, where dozens of one-hour documentaries (in the modern style fronted by a hyperactive person) drops the words 'genius', unique, unsurpassed...etc several hundred times throughout. Even the once more-measured BBC has fallen into this routine.

When I said before that more seasoned listeners tend to be bigger Mozart-sceptics (and some also huge Mozart appreciators at the same time...) it's often because many new or casual listeners latch onto Mozart because of his clarity, but possibly more because of his music having filtered deeply into common culture. The people with a 10,000 piece CD collection and an equal number of vinyl LPs in the attic thus tend to be more sniffy about Mozart. Some of it is legit and based upon a wider experience and knowledge, but some is a plain old display of: 'I have listened to more music, and more obscure music at that, than you have and your fixation with Mozart marks you out as a beginner'.

It's a similar situation to Beatles fans as opposed to 'real' Beatles fans.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Chronochromie said:


> Now, now, I said string quartets, if we talk about chamber music as a whole it's more contentious an issue, Mozart has the great quintets of course, *but we must remember that Haydn has the finest piano trio cycle.*
> 
> And about symphonies, the London cycle is just the tip of the iceberg!


I heard the gypsy rondo on the radio the other day and thought it was pretty good - quite a showy piece with lots of sparkle.
Haydn wrote a ton of pf trios - Mozart less than half a dozen of which a couple are exceptional.


----------



## DaveM

TxllxT said:


> This hailing of 'the genius' seems very anachronistic to me: it is a typical pastime of 19th century salon conversations.


It _is_? Are you there as we speak?


----------



## PlaySalieri

eugeneonagain said:


> Mozart being on a pedestal is not the doing of Mozart scholars (well not the modern ones anyway) or listeners with a sense of the moderate. It is the work of people who generally go all hyperbolic about anything to which they take a fancy. It's not helped by popular media either, where dozens of one-hour documentaries (in the modern style fronted by a hyperactive person) drops the words 'genius', unique, unsurpassed...etc several hundred times throughout. Even the once more-measured BBC has fallen into this routine.
> 
> When I said before that more seasoned listeners tend to be bigger Mozart-sceptics (and some also huge Mozart appreciators at the same time...) it's often because many new or casual listeners latch onto Mozart because of his clarity, but possibly more because of his music having filtered deeply into common culture. The people with a 10,000 piece CD collection and an equal number of vinyl LPs in the attic thus tend to be more sniffy about Mozart. Some of it is legit and based upon a wider experience and knowledge, but some is a plain old display of: 'I have listened to more music, and more obscure music at that, than you have and your fixation with Mozart marks you out as a beginner'.
> 
> It's a similar situation to Beatles fans as opposed to 'real' Beatles fans.


That's interesting what you say a big time classical listeners with 10000 LPs. I dealt in classical LPs over a 15 year period (1990-2005) - saw scores of large collections and noted - as you say - the big collections had disproportionatley little mozart.
In those days I had to look at my own LP collection to see a lot of Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

eugeneonagain said:


> *Mozart being on a pedestal is not the doing of Mozart scholars* (well not the modern ones anyway) or listeners with a sense of the moderate. It is the work of people who generally go all hyperbolic about anything to which they take a fancy. It's not helped by popular media either, where dozens of one-hour documentaries (in the modern style fronted by a hyperactive person) drops the words 'genius', unique, unsurpassed...etc several hundred times throughout. Even the once more-measured BBC has fallen into this routine.
> 
> When I said before that more seasoned listeners tend to be bigger Mozart-sceptics (and some also huge Mozart appreciators at the same time...) it's often because many new or casual listeners latch onto Mozart because of his clarity, but possibly more because of his music having filtered deeply into common culture. The people with a 10,000 piece CD collection and an equal number of vinyl LPs in the attic thus tend to be more sniffy about Mozart. Some of it is legit and based upon a wider experience and knowledge, but some is a plain old display of: 'I have listened to more music, and more obscure music at that, than you have and your fixation with Mozart marks you out as a beginner'.
> 
> It's a similar situation to Beatles fans as opposed to 'real' Beatles fans.


Not quite sure.
jane glover in her book on mozart's women - puts him on a pedastal. So does Robbins Landon - albeit the latter is a Haydn scholar principally. Previn certainly did and many others in recent times - mainly performers I suppose - but some serious scholars too. Of course in Music Times (quarterly high brow stuff) Mozart never gets a mention - it's all 14thC polyphony or Stockhausen and beyond and similar exciting articles.


----------



## jdec

Chronochromie said:


> PS: For sure Mozart's "natural genius" is rivalled only by Schubert imo, *and given a decade or more he might have given Haydn a run for his money, but we'll never know.*


You mean in 'quantity' (e.g. symphonies), not 'quality', right? 
Personally I still think Mozart's las 5 symphonies are better to any of Haydn (and I like several of Haydn a lot).


----------



## Chronochromie

jdec said:


> You mean in 'quantity' (e.g. symphonies), not 'quality', right?


No, I don't.Haydn Seek


----------



## eugeneonagain

stomanek said:


> Not quite sure.
> jane glover in her book on mozart's women - puts him on a pedastal. *So does Robbins Landon* - albeit the latter is a Haydn scholar principally. Previn certainly did and many others in recent times - mainly performers I suppose - but some serious scholars too. Of course in Music Times (quarterly high brow stuff) Mozart never gets a mention - it's all 14thC polyphony or Stockhausen and beyond and similar exciting articles.


The same C. Robbins Landon who hastily confirmed 20th century forgeries of Haydn sonatas as genuine? He of all people should know that if he can be fooled like that - i.e. if someone can write music that is convincingly like Haydn and enough to fool the so-called 'expert' - then the 'expert' is really dealing in quite a bit of speculative piffle and capricious opinion along with his 'knowledge'.

Since quite a few works of both Haydn, Mozart and others have been considered 'dubious' or are known as misattributed, I tend to limit my opinion just to _great_. Like anyone else I can only go on what is generally known. If I say Mozart was a genius, I'm accepting the idea that he is the author of all the work attributed to him, which might not be the whole truth (though I hope it is). Works of his that I love, like the preludes he added to arrangements of Bach's fugues (KV404a) are considered suspect, but there's not much I can do unless I want to be a detective and find out who the 'real' author was.
In Shakespeare scholarship circles they have a retort to those who allege that Shakespeare didn't write all his plays: 'If he didn't, then someone _else_ called Shakespeare wrote them'. I'm not a historical musicologist (and don't want to be); if someone else is shown to be the composer of KV404a, it won't dent my admiration for Mozart and I'll have reason to admire composer X of KV404a.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

eugeneonagain said:


> Since quite a few works of both Haydn, Mozart and others have been considered 'dubious' or are known as misattributed, I tend to limit my opinion just to _great_. Like anyone else I can only go on what is generally known. If I say Mozart was a genius, I'm accepting the idea that he is the author of all the work attributed to him, which might not be the whole truth (though I hope it is).


This reminds me of _that_ infamous Mozart thread that goes on for dozens of pages. It was one of the first threads I read when I discovered TC, and I found it _fascinating_, especially because nobody could refute Robert's points! Some users got obsessed demanding the thread to be locked. Sadly, they succeeded and interrupted a very interesting topic.

As of today, is there an official list that shows works that were attributed to Mozart that we know now for sure are not Mozart's?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> This reminds me of _that_ infamous Mozart thread that goes on for dozens of pages. It was one of the first threads I read when I discovered TC, and I found it _fascinating_, especially because nobody could refute Robert's points! Some users got obsessed demanding the thread to be locked. Sadly, they succeeded and interrupted a very interesting topic.
> 
> As of today, is there an official list that shows works that were attributed to Mozart that we know now for sure are not Mozart's?


Well...yes. Not to reignite that discussion, but I don't quite see how anyone can 'refute' someone who has an answer for every situation and aberration and all of those answers based upon heavy speculation and a wild conspiracy. I also read through that thread before I made an account and I thought it odd that 'Robert' didn't think it unusual that the idea of his one-man music supplying machine wasn't more unbelievable than the idea that Mozart/Haydn - and the others he claimed were all recipients - just wrote the majority of the works attributed to them.

It looked to me like fake 'scholarship' using an avalanche of "facts" to overwhelm the senses.


----------



## PlaySalieri

eugeneonagain said:


> The same C. Robbins Landon who hastily confirmed 20th century forgeries of Haydn sonatas as genuine? He of all people should know that if he can be fooled like that - i.e. if someone can write music that is convincingly like Haydn and enough to fool the so-called 'expert' - then the 'expert' is really dealing in quite a bit of speculative piffle and capricious opinion along with his 'knowledge'.
> 
> Since quite a few works of both Haydn, Mozart and others have been considered 'dubious' or are known as misattributed, I tend to limit my opinion just to _great_. Like anyone else I can only go on what is generally known. If I say Mozart was a genius, I'm accepting the idea that he is the author of all the work attributed to him, which might not be the whole truth (though I hope it is). Works of his that I love, like the preludes he added to arrangements of Bach's fugues (KV404a) are considered suspect, but there's not much I can do unless I want to be a detective and find out who the 'real' author was.
> In Shakespeare scholarship circles they have a retort to those who allege that Shakespeare didn't write all his plays: 'If he didn't, then someone _else_ called Shakespeare wrote them'. I'm not a historical musicologist (and don't want to be); if someone else is shown to be the composer of KV404a, it won't dent my admiration for Mozart and I'll have reason to admire composer X of KV404a.


Yes there are spurious works though I think there is good enough reason for a Mozart fan to accept that unless proven otherwise - works attributed to Mozart are indeed his. I dont know of any Mozart "masterpiece" in the last 100 years that has been proven composed by another musician - or indeed any that are considered unsafe. There is k297b of course - a fine work which I understand may not be Mozart and I tend to listen to with some suspicion.I have no idea about what is going on in Haydn scholarship but I always thought many of the lesser sonatas could be by any one of a number of lesser masters where as even mozart's weakest pf sonatas are too good to be by anybody else.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> This reminds me of _that_ infamous Mozart thread that goes on for dozens of pages. It was one of the first threads I read when I discovered TC, and I found it _fascinating_,* especially because nobody could refute Robert's points! *Some users got obsessed demanding the thread to be locked. Sadly, they succeeded and interrupted a very interesting topic.
> 
> As of today, is there an official list that shows works that were attributed to Mozart that we know now for sure are not Mozart's?


That's not true. Many knowledgeable posters refuted his points and highlighted the folly of the path he was pursuing. Not least that Mr newman had failed to present his findings to the academic world of music so that they could be properly scutinised.
I will give you one example. newman asserted that a work found in an Italian library had the name of another composer (Luchresi) scratched out and replaced with the name Mozart. This - he said - was one example which proved the bulk of Mozart's output was not by Mozart. He did not even take into account the possibility that in the wake of Mozart's fame - it could be prestigious for a musical library to "discover" a new piece by Mozart - and what better way than to erase a minor composer's name and replace it with that of a famous composer. 
The bulk of Newman's arguments are mere assertions without evidence and his reasoning regarding the jesuit conspiracy on this never added up. I undertand Newman is plying his trade on youtube and has amassed all of 200 views in 5 years.
He has also been banned from all classical music forums - not least for insulting a real Mozart scholar.

Yes there can be found on the net a list of works that were thought to be by Mozart - Koechel include in their list such works. believe me - Mozart scholarship is right on the nail with authenticity and I should add that if any scholar could prove that any of the core of Mozart's great works as inauthentic - it would make a world wide sensation - mean instant fame and fortune for the said scholar - scotching the argument that scholars back up the conspiracy to protect their lucrative careers.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> Since quite a few works of both Haydn, Mozart and others have been considered 'dubious' or are known as misattributed, I tend to limit my opinion just to _great_. Like anyone else I can only go on what is generally known. If I say Mozart was a genius, I'm accepting the idea that he is the author of all the work attributed to him, which might not be the whole truth (though I hope it is). Works of his that I love, like the preludes he added to arrangements of Bach's fugues (KV404a) are considered suspect, but there's not much I can do unless I want to be a detective and find out who the 'real' author was.
> In Shakespeare scholarship circles they have a retort to those who allege that Shakespeare didn't write all his plays: 'If he didn't, then someone _else_ called Shakespeare wrote them'. I'm not a historical musicologist (and don't want to be); if someone else is shown to be the composer of KV404a, it won't dent my admiration for Mozart and I'll have reason to admire composer X of KV404a.


of course scholarship has revealed that Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven et al didn't write the works attributed to them. In fact they had these little guys helping them write.









I believe Shakespeare had them too! :lol:


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> That's not true. Many knowledgeable posters refuted his points and highlighted the folly of the path he was pursuing. Not least that Mr newman had failed to present his findings to the academic world of music so that they could be properly scutinised.


It was an intense thread, but my impression was that he raised many good points that some opponents, instead on concentrating on the issues raised, kept attacking him and demanding the thread to be locked. Some of his points were countered, I agree. But not some of the most important ones. I kept wishing one of the members would just shut up and let him present his case, but he kept attacking him quite viciously.
Some of his evidence-free claims were a bit over-the-top, but I found most of his reasoning and explanations plausible, or at least worth examining.

I agree he could have presented his evidence and he did not. But in this case, I wonder exactly what kind of evidence would be very convincing either way?
What would convincing evidence look like in this case?

For instance, I'm just curious, what kind of evidence would make you sit straight up and consider it seriously?

My impression was that he was met with (somewhat expected) scorn and derision, and he took a lot of abuse from members. I just wanted to read more, but especially I wanted to see his (and his Italian colleagues') promised evidence.

I just love those kinds of debates, because one, as an outsider reader, gets to learn a lot of related and unrelated details about the topic that are otherwise hard to find or stumble upon. Debates are one of the best ways to learn and become familiar with topics, when you read discussions among opposing and knowledgeable people.



stomanek said:


> He has also been banned from all classical music forums - not least for insulting a real Mozart scholar.


 That's too bad. I think he has something to say, but he needs to find a way to say it without alienating the scholars and make them consider his points. Hard evidence of course is expected. I hope he learnt his lesson and reconsiders his presentation style in the future.



stomanek said:


> Yes there can be found on the net a list of works that were thought to be by Mozart - Koechel include in their list such works. believe me - Mozart scholarship is right on the nail with authenticity and I should add that if any scholar could prove that any of the core of Mozart's great works as inauthentic - it would make a world wide sensation - mean instant fame and fortune for the said scholar - scotching the argument that scholars back up the conspiracy to protect their lucrative careers.


Thank you for this. I'll see what I can find.

I just want to make clear that it's not like I blindly believed everything he said. Not at all. I just found it all extremely interesting, and I was not impressed at all with the way the opponents handled him or the topic.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> It was an intense thread, but my impression was that he raised many good points that some opponents, instead on concentrating on the issues raised, kept attacking him and demanding the thread to be locked. Some of his points were countered, I agree. But not some of the most important ones. I kept wishing one of the members would just shut up and let him present his case, but he kept attacking him quite viciously.


That's not quite right. It's a long thread and Monsieur Newman stated his case over a dozen times in very long posts. What he didn't do is answer pertinent questions with anything other than Dan Brown-style answers and references to 'colleagues' who supposedly had access to first-hand evidence - from which this lurid tale of spectacular mass deception seems to have been woven.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Some of his evidence-free claims were a bit over-the-top, but I found most of his reasoning and explanations plausible, or at least worth examining.


The best con men are the most plausible ones.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

DavidA said:


> Because Mozart isn't 'in your face' doesn't mean it isn't there. Just listen to Cherubino's arias in Figaro, the Count's longing after Susanna, the Don's seduction of Zerlina, the seduction of both the women in Cosi fan Tutte............
> *Have you actually listened to any of these operas?*


I admit I have only listened to excerpts of his operas, and I haven't really followed the librettos (that is going to change soon, BTW). Even then, sex, lust and eroticism are not adjectives I would use to describe the effect of his music on me.

Could it be that the harmonic language and style of the Classical period does not lend itself too well for expressing "extreme" passions relative to later periods? I'm not saying Mozart is not passionate or intense. I just feel it as a different kind of gentler intensity and passion.

Perhaps we understand different things by sexy, lust and erotic?

*This is* what I understand by and feel as sexy, lusty and erotic music. *After Wagner's Tristan un Isolde, I think this is one of the most beautiful love themes ever written. *And the other piece is what I'd call passion and hurt love and blood and more passion. Sublime. 
Just listen to this beauty... 






And this one screams intense lust and more passion>






Damn! Now after listening to that I'm all passioned up... and alone ATM


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> It was an intense thread, but my impression was that he raised many good points that some opponents, instead on concentrating on the issues raised, kept attacking him and demanding the thread to be locked. Some of his points were countered, I agree. But not some of the most important ones. I kept wishing one of the members would just shut up and let him present his case, but he kept attacking him quite viciously.
> Some of his evidence-free claims were a bit over-the-top, but I found most of his reasoning and explanations plausible, or at least worth examining.
> 
> I agree he could have presented his evidence and he did not. But in this case, I wonder exactly what kind of evidence would be very convincing either way?
> What would convincing evidence look like in this case?
> 
> For instance, I'm just curious, what kind of evidence would make you sit straight up and consider it seriously?
> 
> My impression was that he was met with (somewhat expected) scorn and derision, and he took a lot of abuse from members. I just wanted to read more, but especially I wanted to see his (and his Italian colleagues') promised evidence.
> 
> I just love those kinds of debates, because one, as an outsider reader, gets to learn a lot of related and unrelated details about the topic that are otherwise hard to find or stumble upon. Debates are one of the best ways to learn and become familiar with topics, when you read discussions among opposing and knowledgeable people.
> 
> That's too bad. I think he has something to say, but he needs to find a way to say it without alienating the scholars and make them consider his points. Hard evidence of course is expected. I hope he learnt his lesson and reconsiders his presentation style in the future.
> 
> Thank you for this. I'll see what I can find.
> 
> I just want to make clear that it's not like I blindly believed everything he said. Not at all. I just found it all extremely interesting, and I was not impressed at all with the way the opponents handled him or the topic.


I think your assessment is incorrect. years after they were posted I read through all the threads now locked. I did not see any convincing evidence presented (can you cite any = other than merely asserting that they exist - nope - thought not) - there were so many factual errors and false reasoning. For example - that idomeneo appeared several years after Mozart's previous opera and was such a quantumn leap in quality (agreed) is taken as proof that Mozart could not have composed it. Only a child could be convinced by reasoning of this quality. It's not much different to claiming Beethoven could not have composed sy 3 because it is a big jump up from sy 
1 and 2. 
And that there are acknowledged (by scholarship) spurious works somehow proves that all Mozart's works are by other composers. Luchresi and other minor masters seem to have supplied Mozart with supreme masterpieces but left little of account in their own name for posterity to admire and cherish. How odd. Newman never tackles this problem.
He also failed to account for Mozart's letters - whose contents really shadow his musical career. I guess he would say the letters were put together by the jesuits to fool later scholars into believing Mozart composed the great works.
what would convince me? I am no musicologist - newman himself is an amateur and presents his "evidence" in an amateur setting (ie this board) - so amateurs like me have no trouble pulling to pieces his hypothesis. What would impress me is if real musicologists in university music departments gave any credit at all to any of Newman's points.

But he had not presented his work to academics - his only audience is classical music boards and youtube - why?


----------



## PlaySalieri

*Debates are one of the best ways to learn and become familiar with topics, when you read discussions among opposing and knowledgeable people.*

But Newman has no credentials at all - he is not knowledgeable. If you take the trouble to check a lot of his facts you will find he is wrong. It is not his style that is at fault - but the substance of what he is saying. He has also refused invitations from the Mozarteum in Salzburg too examine many Mozart m/s and discuss with scholars on site his ideas.


----------



## larold

<<People who like Mozart's music usually say that they like it because the music is pure: no soundscape, no outbursts of emotion, no references to anything but the music itself.>>

This sounds like you haven't heard much Mozart. Do you know Don Giovanni or the C minor mass, the Requiem mass or Thamos, King of Egypt? I think if you knew this music you'd think differently.

The people that know Mozart's music do not like it for the reasons you state. They do so because he inhabits the worlds of lightness and shade, subtlety and dominion, far more than other composers of the Classical and earlier periods.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> I think your assessment is incorrect. years after they were posted I read through all the threads now locked. I did not see any convincing evidence presented (can you cite any = other than merely asserting that they exist - nope - thought not) - there were so many factual errors and false reasoning.


I am totally unprepared right now to do as you request.

I will re-read the entire thread sometime during the rest of this year, and this time I will annotate the interesting bits with Diigo. There were so many unanswered issues that I want to know the answer! Even if he's totally wrong on all accounts, it doesn't matter. I just want to get to the bottom of the claims to be able to separate fact form fiction/fantasy. I'll go wherever the evidence leads, no matter if I like it or hate it.

But it IS a fact that some previously attributed to Mozart works were withdrawn from the official catalog, correct? So are these issues merely a matter of degree?

If the above paragraph is correct, what works were those? *And, more importantly, what evidence was presented for (or by) scholars to withdraw said works?* That should be quite interesting, especially to learn about the proper ways to present and deal with evidence when it comes to music scholarship and peer review.



stomanek said:


> But he had not presented his work to academics - his only audience is classical music boards and youtube - why?


I was under the impression that Newman and his Italian colleague were "preparing" the evidence, but the thread got locked. 
OTOH, they would have shown the evidence elsewhere if they had it by now, I suppose. Hmmmm....

I think it was Richard Feynman who said> "Shut up and calculate". 
Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now


----------



## Bulldog

larold said:


> The people that know Mozart's music do not like it for the reasons you state. They do so because he inhabits the worlds of lightness and shade, subtlety and dominion, far more than other composers of the Classical and earlier periods.


I don't believe that at all concerning composers of earlier periods. For example, Bach is at least Mozart's equal in offering lightness and shade (and any other emotional content that might be considered).


----------



## Bettina

Bulldog said:


> I don't believe that at all concerning composers of earlier periods. For example, Bach is at least Mozart's equal in offering lightness and shade (and any other emotional content that might be considered).


It's true that Bach's output offers both lightness and shade, but not necessarily in the same piece. Most of Bach's pieces tend to maintain a consistent mood throughout (in fact, this is a characteristic of the Baroque style, which placed a lot of emphasis on uniformity within a piece.) Mozart, on the other hand, was brilliant at alternating between moments of joy and moments of darkness within the same work, sometimes even in a single phrase. For this reason, I prefer Mozart's music over that of Bach; I find that Mozart's flickering moods move me more than Bach's relative stability.


----------



## Bulldog

Bettina said:


> It's true that Bach's output offers both lightness and shade, but not necessarily in the same piece.


Yes, in the same piece. In the WTC, this happens in many of the pieces. Give them another listen.


----------



## hpowders

larold said:


> <<People who like Mozart's music usually say that they like it because the music is pure: no soundscape, no outbursts of emotion, no references to anything but the music itself.>>
> 
> This sounds like you haven't heard much Mozart. Do you know Don Giovanni or the C minor mass, the Requiem mass or Thamos, King of Egypt? I think if you knew this music you'd think differently.
> 
> The people that know Mozart's music do not like it for the reasons you state. They do so because he inhabits the worlds of lightness and shade, subtlety and dominion, far more than other composers of the Classical and earlier periods.


Yeah, or I might supplement your list with Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto or the 24th Piano Concerto or the 27th Piano Concerto or the A minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Fantasy or the G minor String Quintet or the slow movement to the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola.

Liightness and shade? Not much.

Mozart was a deep, deep dude, no doubt about it.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> Yeah, or I might supplement your list with Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto or the 24th Piano Concerto or the 27th Piano Concerto or the A minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Fantasy or the G minor String Quintet or the slow movement to the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola.
> 
> Liightness and shade? Not much.
> 
> Mozart was a deep, deep dude. Those who don't think so are in deep dude with me!!!


I don't think that Larold meant to call Mozart's music lightweight...at least, I hope not! I think that by "lightness," Larold meant joy and euphoria, qualities which do appear in Mozart's music, but always in a profound and sublime way.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I am totally unprepared right now to do as you request.
> 
> I will re-read the entire thread sometime during the rest of this year, and this time I will annotate the interesting bits with Diigo. There were so many unanswered issues that I want to know the answer! Even if he's totally wrong on all accounts, it doesn't matter. I just want to get to the bottom of the claims to be able to separate fact form fiction/fantasy. I'll go wherever the evidence leads, no matter if I like it or hate it.
> 
> *But it IS a fact that some previously attributed to Mozart works were withdrawn from the official catalog, correct? So are these issues merely a matter of degree?*
> 
> If the above paragraph is correct, what works were those? *And, more importantly, what evidence was presented for (or by) scholars to withdraw said works?* That should be quite interesting, especially to learn about the proper ways to present and deal with evidence when it comes to music scholarship and peer review.
> 
> I was under the impression that Newman and his Italian colleague were "preparing" the evidence, but the thread got locked.
> OTOH, they would have shown the evidence elsewhere if they had it by now, I suppose. Hmmmm....
> 
> I think it was Richard Feynman who said> "Shut up and calculate".
> Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now


and what does that prove? It proves that scholarship is rigorously engaged in research.

the statement you have made is also true for beethoven, bach, haydn and most composers from that era. are they all fakes?


----------



## PlaySalieri

*I was under the impression that Newman and his Italian colleague were "preparing" the evidence, but the thread got locked. *

It needs no thread on a music forum to present evidence against what would be the art fraud of the century - an article could be submitted to a reputable publication such as "Musical Times"


----------



## PlaySalieri

*There were so many unanswered issues that I want to know the answer!*

really. I felt they were all dealt with by others at the time.

ok well rake through the threads and when you anything of real substance to say on this issue I will listen and reply.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now*

no - you should either cite something from Newman's "evidence" to prove your assertion that any of Newman's points have any merit or admit you dont know.

this is a like a moon hoaxer saying moon hoaxers have good points - but not saying what any of those points are. if your memory is so poor - I suggest you are entirely mistaken.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Just to finally nail this - though it is digressing.

Another of Newman's star evidence - for example - Mozart did not compose Le Nozze Di Figaro. Why? because no documentary evidence exists of its commission. No contract, no receipt for the payment Mozart would have received - nothing. It follows therefore that someone else must have composed this fine piece. 

Interestingly Newman gives Mozart credit for some of his lesser pieces - those not famous - mainly some of the early masses for example that nobody much cares about. But he wont admit that Mozart could have composed even one of the acknowledged masterpieces as it does not fit his narrative that Mozart was a mediocre talent passing himself off as a genius at the cost of those really behind his great works.

OK enough - I look forward to reading your replies. bear in mind Newman has asserted that Haydn was a fraud too.


----------



## larold

<<Yeah, or I might supplement your list with Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto or the 24th Piano Concerto or the 27th Piano Concerto or the A minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Sonata or the C minor Piano Fantasy or the G minor String Quintet or the slow movement to the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola. Liightness and shade? Not much. Mozart was a deep, deep dude, no doubt about it. >>

Again, sounds like you haven't heard much Mozart. When all I knew of Tchaikovsky was the Nutcracker suite, I didn't think his music very heavy. Continued exposure changed my thinking. It will yours too.


----------



## Bulldog

There are people who make up conspiracy scenarios and other folks who give them serious attention. It's best to pay them no attention.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Another of Newman's star evidence - for example - *Mozart did not compose Le Nozze Di Figaro.* Why? because no documentary evidence exists of its commission. No contract, no receipt for the payment Mozart would have received - nothing. It follows therefore that someone else must have composed this fine piece.


That Newman person may be onto something, but he may also be missing the elephant in the room. Since we know that Mendelssohn published some pieces by his sister Fanny under his own name, and that certain works of Bach have been attributed by some to his wife Anna Magdalena, it might be reasonable to posit that _Le Nozze di Figaro_ was actually composed by Constanze. After all, do we not see evidence of a feminist perspective in the work's portrayal of women as victims of domestic and social oppression? Similarly, might it be that _Tristan und Isolde,_ in which the woman defies the patriarchal culture that treats her like property and gets the last word, was really composed by Mathilde Wesendonck?

Take that, Newman! You don't know everything.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

Aaaaaargh!
I don't know what the hell I did, but I lost my responses as they were posted 

I will have to re-type everything again... 

Also, as I respond, some text (quotes) get automatically put as part of my response, and I don't know why that is happening. I have to keep deleting them. I must be doing something wrong with the quote function. I'm very annoyed ATM


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

_


stomanek said:



I think your assessment is incorrect. years after they were posted I read through all the threads now locked. I did not see any convincing evidence presented (can you cite any other than merely asserting that they exist - nope - thought not) .=

Click to expand...

_


stomanek said:


> If you take the trouble to check a lot of his facts you will find he is wrong. It is not his style that is at fault - but the substance of what he is saying. He has also refused invitations from the Mozarteum in Salzburg too examine many Mozart m/s and discuss with scholars on site his ideas.


Well, all that would change if he provided evidence. I don't know why he hasn't yet, but he and his colleague are supposedly working on it, yes? Also something about a TV documentary?




*Please stop writing to me as if I believed everything Newman wrote was true.* I do not. I have not made up my mind because I have not seen ANY evidence from either side. 


I'm not defending him either, because I'm not a Mozart or Haydn specialist, and I just don't have the knowledge or the chops to do it with this topic. It is too specialized. However, it really annoys me to see the vitriol and hatred he got and still gets. I think it's uncalled for, and it makes his opponents sound like religious fanatics resorting to insults when they can't defend their points properly.
Remember, ALL I said was that nobody could refute him (to my satisfaction), and I was disappointed on how poorly the opposers defended their points and countered him. If what he wrote was so outrageously stupid, how come he was not _obliterated_? As far as I could see, he answered EVERY point raised to him. Some posed questions (Topaz') were numbered, and his answers tackled every point by numbering them in his responses (I confirmed this by re-reading the first few pages last night). *That is not the trademark of a crank.*




If I were debating a Creationist making stupid claims about science, I would easily *obliterate* him with evidence that refutes his nonsense, even if I didn't "have to" because the burden of proof wouldn't technically be upon me. That's what I kept waiting for in vain. I was waiting for the killer counterargument that would destroy his claims like I would any Creationist's nonsense.


The more I read the thread back then, the more dumfounded I became because of his claims, and I kept hoping somebody would annihilate his arguments, but most of the counterarguments were insults and I didn't read anything that I felt destroyed his allegations beyond reasonable doubt. His answers to the counterarguments just raised more details and points. *And I found that very annoying because I wanted him to be wrong. *
_SOME_ of his points were quite interesting, and seemed plausible or at least worth pursuing further to see where it all leads.

No. He cited no evidence, and that was definitely a problem. The burden of proof falls (arguably) on his shoulders, and he should have cited at least some evidence, but the opponents didn't provide any either, and they should have.

At first, everything was cordial. Questions were asked and answered properly, but not necessarily convincingly, with lots of detail. No evidence, but good arguments, I admit. The thread started going south the moment a guest called Mango entered the discussion. That's the moment when the thread died. It was almost as if he could not bear the thread and demanded that the thread be locked (and stunningly, he succeeded).




stomanek said:


> But Newman has no credentials at all - he is not knowledgeable.


He might not have the "official credentials", but the only thing that really matters are the _arguments_, regardless of who poses them, correct?
Can you really say with a straight face he has no knowledge at all regarding Mozart and Haydn? He seemed quite knowledgeable to me. I was actually quite impressed by his _general_ knowledge, as were some of the opposing participants. That does NOT mean I accept his outlandish claims (not until I see convincing evidence), and his claims do not make him ignorant. Misled and stubborn maybe, but not ignorant!




stomanek said:


> _- there were so many factual errors and false reasoning. For example - that idomeneo appeared several years after Mozart's previous opera and was such a quantumn leap in quality (agreed) is taken as proof that Mozart could not have composed it. Only a child could be convinced by reasoning of this quality. It's not much different to claiming Beethoven could not have composed sy 3 because it is a big jump up from sy 1 and 2. _


Anybody can make anything sound ridiculous by resorting to straw men arguments. He did not say that that _alone_ was PROOF, but a mere part of the "evidence" chain or irregularities or curiosities that when, taken together as a whole, make things seem unusually interesting and maybe even suspicious. Many, many of them. Too many, perhaps.




stomanek said:


> And that there are acknowledged (by scholarship) spurious works somehow proves that all Mozart's works are by other composers.


ALL works?? Ok. That is one point Newman did not answer to my satisfaction either, but he didn't say ALL their works were hoaxes.
According to him, there are LOTS of works that have been quietly retired from the Mozart catalog. *That's why I asked you (and you haven't answered), what evidence was presented for or by the relevant scholars to withdraw said works. How many more would be found dubious if similar paths are followed with similar evidence?* (This is a question, not a statement).




stomanek said:


> _Luchresi [sic] and other minor masters seem to have supplied Mozart with supreme masterpieces but left little of account in their own name for posterity to admire and cherish. How odd. Newman never tackles this problem. _


But he did address that! Read the first few pages. That was actually one of Topaz' questions which he did answer in detail.
*I don't see what's so outlandish about that...* *Ghostwriting is the NORM in Hollywood and in the TV music world, for instance *(more the latter than the former)*.* Sometimes that happens out of necessity i.e., to comply with ridiculous deadlines, and some other time just for business. We will most likely never know who really scored (or helped scoring) certain TV shows and movies. *Ghostwriting is ridiculously common. Some people don't mind trading fame for money. It happens ALL THE TIME.*




stomanek said:


> _He also failed to account for Mozart's letters - whose contents really shadow his musical career. I guess he would say the letters were put together by the jesuits to fool later scholars into believing Mozart composed the great works. _


Not true. He actually used Mozart's letters to defend and expose his points quite often. He uses them many times, even in the first few pages.




stomanek said:


> *what would convince me? I am no musicologist *_- newman himself is an amateur and presents his "evidence" in an amateur setting (ie this board) - so amateurs like me have no trouble pulling to pieces his hypothesis. What would impress me is if real musicologists in university music departments gave any credit at all to any of Newman's points. _


You did not answer my question. Please do.
Yes. It would be impressive if musicologists gave him credit for his "findings" after reviewing the evidence.




stomanek said:


> _But he had not presented his work to academics - his only audience is classical music boards and youtube - why?_


I don't know why. It certainly doesn't help him with credibility, I admit. But he said they were working on a TV documentary, among other things. I hope it is ready and he will broadcast it soon.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> Goddess Yuja Wang said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it IS a fact that some previously attributed to Mozart works were withdrawn from the official catalog, correct? So are these issues merely a matter of degree?
> If the above paragraph is correct, what works were those? And, more importantly, what evidence was presented for (or by) scholars to withdraw said works? That should be quite interesting, especially to learn about the proper ways to present and deal with evidence when it comes to music scholarship and peer review.
> 
> 
> 
> and what does that prove? It proves that scholarship is rigorously engaged in research.
> 
> *the statement you have made is also true for beethoven, bach, haydn and most composers from that era. are they all fakes? *
Click to expand...

What statement? 
That wasn't a "statement". Those were *questions* which you have not answered, by the way.

It also shows that if _X_ amount of works have been withdrawn, _Y_ other works _could_ be found to be dubious as well. 
How many Mozart works have been withdrawn from the official catalog? 
How many of his works would stand up to similar scrutiny? That's why I asked you what evidence was used to take them out.
That's a sincere question, not a covered statement. I want to know that.


And no. I never said that it means that all that also applies to Beethoven, Bach or Haydn. Why would I? 




stomanek said:


> Goddess Yuja Wang said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that Newman and his Italian colleague were "preparing" the evidence, but the thread got locked.
Click to expand...




stomanek said:


> It needs no thread on a music forum to present evidence against what would be the art fraud of the century - an article could be submitted to a reputable publication such as "Musical Times"


Agreed. I hope he gets to do that when he is prepared. I hope he shows his evidence to the world and let the chips fall where they may.




stomanek said:


> Goddess Yuja Wang said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were so many unanswered issues that I want to know the answer!
Click to expand...




stomanek said:


> really. I felt they were all dealt with by others at the time.
> 
> 
> ok well rake through the threads and when you anything of real substance to say on this issue I will listen and reply.


Well, there's the whole issue of the watermarked scores at Modena, the torn out names with Mozart's name scribbled on top, etc. He exposed how Kapellmeisters worked and how they usually didn't sign their names in their works during their tenure, and how that led to have dozens of scores without author which were later attributed to Mozart.
*Again. NONE of those issues mean much when taken individually. But when you sum up so many curiosities, something seems plausibly fishy.*


Again. I am NOT defending Robert Newman and I am NOT saying what he wrote is the truth or that I am convinced by any of it. Not without evidence either way. All I'm saying is that he got unnecessary and undeserved vitriol. And I found the counterarguments weak and disappointing *(remember, I wanted him to get obliterated, but that didn't happen in my estimation). *And yes, I might be totally wrong about this.
If the opponents had presented evidence that would refute his claims, it would be another story, even if the burden of proof is not really upon them (somewhat arguably).


*He even explained how his outlandish hypotheses could be falsified! *
That is NOT the typical attitude of cranks! On the contrary! He seemed to enjoy any challenge thrown at him, and he seemed to have an answer to almost anything (which took some of his credibility away, for my taste).





stomanek said:


> Goddess Yuja Wang said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now
Click to expand...




stomanek said:


> no - you should either cite something from Newman's "evidence" to prove your assertion that any of Newman's points have any merit or admit you dont know.


Oh, I do admit I don't know. You don't either. Nobody knows for sure. We all have to be satisfied with the weak historical method and what it allows us to infer but NEVER KNOW.

I would give you evidence if he had cited any. But he didn't. Some of his arguments are quite sound and plausible (I mentioned a few above). Others are extremely stupid and childish.




stomanek said:


> this is a like a moon hoaxer saying moon hoaxers have good points - but not saying what any of those points are. if your memory is so poor - I suggest you are entirely mistaken.


Well, this is not science. Any moon hoaxer can be refuted quite easily, as can Flat Earth Society cranks, because we have science and evidence that clearly demonstrate them dead wrong. The scientific method is immune to bias, nationality, religion, politics, wishes, yearnings, etc., as opposed to music history. *The historical method can, at the most, tell us what most probably happened in the past, not what happened for sure*, so your example does not really apply.

My memory is not poor, thank you. It's just that I read the thread months ago, and it was _all new to me_. I was dumbfounded by what I was reading. It was too much data, like a kaleidoscope of new information mixed with insults, digressions, more insults, etc. 
Last night I re-read the first few pages, and there were no refutations or hard evidence to show him wrong. At least nothing that would make me simply dismiss _some_ of his claims as crank theories. Again, he did write some very stupid things, but he also wrote some things that made me sit straight and go "hmmmm...." (as mentioned above).





stomanek said:


> Just to finally nail this - though it is digressing.





stomanek said:


> Another of Newman's star evidence - for example - Mozart did not compose Le Nozze Di Figaro. Why? because no documentary evidence exists of its commission. No contract, no receipt for the payment Mozart would have received - nothing. It follows therefore that someone else must have composed this fine piece.


That's not the way I read it. Like I just mentioned above, those seemingly irrelevant details do add up when there are many "funny" things happening. This, of course, does NOT mean he's right. It only means that some works are suspects or should be treated with suspicion, and *FURTHER RESEARCH is necessary to get to the bottom of things, especially if many other works have been withdrawn for the catalog.*




stomanek said:


> Interestingly Newman gives Mozart credit for some of his lesser pieces - those not famous - mainly some of the early masses for example that nobody much cares about. But he wont admit that Mozart could have composed even one of the acknowledged masterpieces as it does not fit his narrative that Mozart was a mediocre talent passing himself off as a genius at the cost of those really behind his great works.


Well, yes. I think he's probably taking his hypotheses too far and assume everything is dubious. I just think he has some good reasons to doubt what we "know" and do further serious research. 
This is when having a tough partner would help him. *He urgently needs someone objective on his own team who pulls him back to earth when necessary, kind of a Scully looking after Mulder. *



stomanek said:


> OK enough - I look forward to reading your replies. bear in mind Newman has asserted that Haydn was a fraud too.


You will probably be disappointed with my answers because, as I wrote at the beginning of my responses, I am NOT defending him and I do not believe everything he said*. *Some of his hypotheses are interesting and worth pursuing if he has the time and inclination to do so. 

But I know. That's a hard pill to swallow> Haydn AND Mozart were great pianists and _arrangers_ (!) who are complete frauds????
But he might be on to something. Like a good detective, he should follow all the issues he's found, and see where it all takes him. 


*Robert Newman stroke me as the kind of person who, when confronted with hard opposing evidence, he would back off his claims and concede them. He just needs to present his case with the relevant evidence for the scholars to scrutinize.*


*Remember, he even wrote how his claims could be falsified.* That never happens with cranks, IME.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*How many of his works would stand up to similar scrutiny?*

ok - let's deal with your points one at a time.

Scrutiny is ongoing in scholarship - and this applies to all composers - not just Mozart. Those works declared by scholarship as inauthentic have been studied by numerous scholars over the years and been declared to be inauthentic. Works in the catalogue declared authentic - have been subject to no less scrutiny and indeed are continually open to ongoing scrutiny. If a scholar could prove that, for example, Le Nozze Di Figaro is by another composer other then Mozart - it would make that scholar famous and probably rich too - so there is every reason for scholars to want to prove works inauthentic if they can.

As i said - this applied to Beethoven, Bach too - all composers. Yet Newman focuses on two - Mozart and Haydn. As i have demonstrated - this line of reasoning is going nowhere.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*And, more importantly, what evidence was presented for (or by) scholars to withdraw said works? *

I dont know - I am not a scholar. perhaps you should contact some Mozart scholars and ask. I assume stylistic evidence, manuscript evidence. Contemporary evidence from those times.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*And no. I never said that it means that all that also applies to Beethoven, Bach or Haydn. Why would I?*

I never said you did. But newman's points can also be applied to other composers. many works have been withdrawn from Beethoven list of authentic works - does that make his sy no 5 a fake? Course not.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> *And no. I never said that it means that all that also applies to Beethoven, Bach or Haydn. Why would I?*
> 
> I never said you did. But newman's points can also be applied to other composers. many works have been withdrawn from Beethoven list of authentic works - does that make his sy no 5 a fake? Course not.


Oh... I didn't know _that_ about Beethoven.

May I ask what pieces were those? Were they symphonies, sonatas, or what? And you said "many". Are we talking about more than 4 or 5 works?

Also, if you don't mind my asking, it's been killing me... WHO is the person in you avatar? He looks like our Miguel Hidalgo, but I bet he isn't. He looks familiar, but I can't recognize him!

Thank you.


----------



## KenOC

Looks like Salieri to me (in the movie).

The only significant Beethoven work that has been re-attributed to somebody else, that I know of, is the so-called "Jena Symphony," discovered in 1909 and attributed to LvB at the time. It is now known to be by Friedrich Witt. On YouTube if anybody cares.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Oh... I didn't know _that_ about Beethoven.
> 
> May I ask what pieces were those? Were they symphonies, sonatas, or what? And you said "many". Are we talking about more than 4 or 5 works?
> 
> Also, if you don't mind my asking, it's been killing me... WHO is the person in you avatar? He looks like our Miguel Hidalgo, but I bet he isn't. He looks familiar, but I can't recognize him!
> 
> Thank you.


There are a small number of works formerly attributed to beethoven now regarded as being by other composers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beethoven:_spurious_and_doubtful_works

For schubert there about a dozen such works.

For Mozart - in the last 100 years only minor works have been declared by scholarship as inauthentic. If a major work by mozart it would indeed be a sensation in world news.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*Remember, he even wrote how his claims could be falsified. That never happens with cranks, IME.*

This is wrong and demonstrates quite well why you have been partially impressed by newman.

the onus is not on us to falsify his claims.

the onus is on HIM to PROVE his claims.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> There are a small number of works formerly attributed to beethoven now regarded as being by other composers
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beethoven:_spurious_and_doubtful_works


Of the five works listed, only one has been shown to not be by Beethoven (the Jena Symphony, already mentioned). Another, "Gerturude's Dream Waltz", seems a very likely misattribution. The remainder seem not to be generally regarded as "by other composers."


----------



## tdc

mathisdermaler said:


> There is this false propaganda that Mozart's music is repetitious and saccharine. *Mozart is much less saccharine than say, Ravel.* I call it the "Only-heard-sonata-facile-effect"


Hmm... I disagree that Ravel is saccharine. What pieces by Ravel do you think are? I think he uses enough spicy dissonance to avoid ever being too saccharine.

Mozart had his own way of avoiding being saccharine too. Maybe theses composers are just too subtle for some people.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> *Remember, he even wrote how his claims could be falsified. That never happens with cranks, IME.*
> 
> This is wrong and demonstrates quite well why you have been partially impressed by newman.
> 
> the onus is not on us to falsify his claims.
> 
> the onus is on HIM to PROVE his claims.


I don't think so, *stomanek*... He said how his claims could be falsified, by himself or by anyone else who choses to do so.

As you know, finding ways of falsifying your hypotheses (or someone else's) is the trademark of good science and proper discourse. It matters not who does the falsifying. What matters is that there IS a way to falsify claims.

Also, I would go as far as saying that, at least in science, *falsifying something (or stating how something could be falsified in principle) is more important than "proving" something.* Also, "proof" falls EXCLUSIVELY in the domain of mathematics and logic, but NEVER science. Science, being a (mostly) inductive discipline, can only demonstrate how nature works via modeling using math, so science can, at the most, show us which model explains best how nature works.

So, if science can not _prove_ anything, why would you expect Newman to be able to do so? All he can do is show us how and why his claims are what most likely happened.

I look forward to him showing us all just that with evidence rather than only arguments. Eagerly.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> For Mozart - in the last 100 years only minor works have been declared by scholarship as inauthentic.


Though from the same source you cite for Beethoven, there's quite a few...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_symphonies_of_spurious_or_doubtful_authenticity


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Please stop writing to me as if I believed everything Newman wrote was true.[/B] I do not. I have not made up my mind because I have not seen ANY evidence from either side.


Let's just unpack this:



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I'm not defending him either, because I'm not a Mozart or Haydn specialist, and I just don't have the knowledge or the chops to do it with this topic. It is too specialized. However, it really annoys me to see the vitriol and hatred he got and still gets. I think it's uncalled for, and it makes his opponents sound like religious fanatics resorting to insults when they can't defend their points properly.





Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Remember, ALL I said was that nobody could refute him (to my satisfaction), and I was disappointed on how poorly the opposers defended their points and countered him. If what he wrote was so outrageously stupid, how come he was not _obliterated_? As far as I could see, he answered EVERY point raised to him. Some posed questions (Topaz') were numbered, and his answers tackled every point by numbering them in his responses (I confirmed this by re-reading the first few pages last night). *That is not the trademark of a crank.*


*

How can you tell no-one refuted him or countered his "points" if you are not a Mozart or Haydn specialist? Actually no one needs to be such a specialist to address the central hypothesis. He may have given 'answers' to points, but that is not the same as actually 'answering' the points. You compare the case of creationists, asking: If what he wrote was so outrageously stupid, how come he was not obliterated? Well they are routinely obliterated, but it doesn't stop them ignoring this and perpetually coming back with the same discredited or baseless tripe, does it? This is very much the trademark of a crank.
What you saw wasn't hatred and vitriol, it was frustrated impatience with stone-headed crankery masquerading as scholarship.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:



No. He cited no evidence, and that was definitely a problem. The burden of proof falls (arguably) on his shoulders, and he should have cited at least some evidence, but the opponents didn't provide any either, and they should have.

Click to expand...

So you agree he cited no evidence? How do you know this? Back up there at the top you stated that you had neither the knowledge nor the 'chops' to asses this. If someone writes more than two dozen enormous posts filled with factoids and yet offers scant evidence for any it - or rather builds an highly elaborate hypothesis from disparate crumbs of evidence held together with large dollops of speculation - then they deserve the contempt they receive.

What exactly is there from which to make up one's mind? Just a thrilling story? You claimed in quote 1 at the top that you "have not seen ANY evidence from either side". So I suppose the extensive work done to catalogue and verify Mozart's works (where mistakes have been made then rectified upon discovery and dubious works are catalogued as such) ranks at about the same level as the claims Newman made?
The circle is always open, if Newman's evidence (but where is it?) is compelling it can't be ignored. No doubt there is always resistance to such claims that could overturn things, but in general the truth will out.*


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I don't think so, *stomanek*... He said how his claims could be falsified, by himself or by anyone else who choses to do so.
> 
> As you know, finding ways of falsifying your hypotheses (or someone else's) is the trademark of good science and proper discourse. It matters not who does the falsifying. What matters is that there IS a way to falsify claims.
> 
> Also, I would go as far as saying that, at least in science, *falsifying something (or stating how something could be falsified in principle) is more important than "proving" something.* Also, "proof" falls EXCLUSIVELY in the domain of mathematics and logic, but NEVER science. Science, being a (mostly) inductive discipline, can only demonstrate how nature works via modeling using math, so science can, at the most, show us which model explains best how nature works.
> 
> So, if science can not _prove_ anything, why would you expect Newman to be able to do so? All he can do is show us how and why his claims are what most likely happened.
> 
> I look forward to him showing us all just that with evidence rather than only arguments. Eagerly.


This is where you lack understanding.

Newman's central claim that Mozart purchased music from other composers and passed them off as his own - is an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. There is a possibility it is true and there is no way to disprove it any more than it is possible to disprove the hypothesis that a fairy dictated Shakespeare's plays to him.

So then what?

We have a claim that goes against the entire history and opinion of the musical world, millions of hours of scholarship which have established beyond a reasonable doubt, that a historical figure named Mozart composed famous music that is now attributed to him.

That is why Mr Newman must produce more, or anything, in the way of documentary evidence and present it to the academic musical world so that they can review his findings to determine if they have any validity. So far he has not done so. He has arguments, yes - in my opinion very poor ones - but no evidence. Proof is the wrong word, I agree with you there - but he needs to support his claims by some means other than conjecture.

A letter from those times in which 2 well known musical figures connect Mozart with fraud would be a very good place to begin, not proof, but a start (as an example) - but no such letter has come to light - nor any other evidence which could corroborate Newman's claims.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Though from the same source you cite for Beethoven, there's quite a few...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_symphonies_of_spurious_or_doubtful_authenticity


and what does that list tell you about the claim that Mozart is not the author of works currently attributed to him by scholarship?


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Though from the same source you cite for Beethoven, there's quite a few...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_symphonies_of_spurious_or_doubtful_authenticity


BTW Newman includes Beethoven in his allegations of fraud.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

eugeneonagain said:


> Let's just unpack this:





eugeneonagain said:


> How can you tell no-one refuted him or countered his "points" if you are not a Mozart or Haydn specialist?


I'm not a specialist, but I do have some basic knowledge and intelligence that allows me to gauge pretty well the validity of claims. I can also notice logical fallacies and weak and good arguments. This improves ten-fold when actual evidence is cited and discussed.
Now, not being a specialist doesn't allow me to personally *refute* the arguments, because for refuting you need deep knowledge on the topic, and that's where I count on people like you guys, to fill the void and allow me to learn.

And that is precisely why I wrote somewhere above that debates are one of my favourite ways to learn more about any topic I like… In every good debate group, such as TC, you can practically always count on the knowledgeable members from either side to>
1.- Raise the main points
2.- Scrutiny about 1
3.- Challenges/discussion about 1 and 2 back and forth
4.- Even if you knew nothing about a topic, you can count on that, in collective debates, always someone will notice the general and specific group "slips" and errors and misconceptions, etc., and will attempt to correct and discuss them. There's always "one of them".



eugeneonagain said:


> Actually no one needs to be such a specialist to address the central hypothesis.


He had not one hypothesis, but many hypotheses, and that caused the discussion to be all over the place. It was a mess because he did not structure his ideas properly. I touched on his posting style above.



eugeneonagain said:


> He may have given 'answers' to points, but that is not the same as actually 'answering' the points.


I felt his answers were quite adequate. The problem was that they were not supported with proper evidence. Even if he's wrong on all counts, he tried to answer basically anything thrown at him as best as he could and as deeply as his knowledge allowed him to, *and I really really appreciate that* *because I'm used to the opposite in my debates with Creationists and other religious fanatics*, and it is SO annoying.
He committed many blunders and he did write some silly things, but overall, I feel he could have something worth pursuing. 

It's quite easy, actually. He just needs to refine his arguments, present them in a clear and ordered manner, support them with evidence and show all that to the relevant scholars (and to us). Anything else is just noise.



eugeneonagain said:


> You compare the case of creationists, asking: _If what he wrote was so outrageously stupid, how come he was not obliterated?_ Well they are routinely obliterated, but it doesn't stop them ignoring this and perpetually coming back with the same discredited or baseless tripe, does it? This is very much the trademark of a crank.


So his arguments had been discredited before? Where? Were they refuted with more empty arguments, or was he defeated with hardcore evidence? Did he come up with any counterarguments to counter the counterarguments? Did he concede any points?

That's the thing with evidence… It must flow BOTH ways to support the issues.



eugeneonagain said:


> What you saw wasn't hatred and vitriol, it was frustrated impatience with stone-headed crankery masquerading as scholarship.


Ok. I concede that frustration often leads to insults and personalizing . I have felt that frustration many times myself in my own debates. 

But sometimes, you can help your opponent to express his ideas more clearly (if you are really interested in the topic and not only interested in winning the argument). 
At this point I am not ready to dismiss him as _just a crank_. I want to hear more. He has many faults, but I know a crank when I see one. And,* in comparison to the debating style of real cranks*, he was a dream debater (you'd appreciate this more if you saw the crankery I used to deal with on a regular basis with religious fanatics). He just doesn't strike me as one at all.



eugeneonagain said:


> So you agree he cited no evidence? How do you know this?


Because I have eyes, and he didn't cite any (other than a link here and there)? 



eugeneonagain said:


> Back up there at the top you stated that you had neither the knowledge nor the 'chops' to asses this.


I said no such thing about "assessing his lack of evidence". What I wrote, was that I do not have the knowledge or the chops to _DEFEND_ him (or to refute him). But I can tell when someone is presenting evidence! 



eugeneonagain said:


> If someone writes more than two dozen enormous posts filled with factoids and yet offers scant evidence for any it - or rather builds an highly elaborate hypothesis from disparate crumbs of evidence held together with large dollops of speculation - then they deserve the contempt they receive.


Yes. Like I've said many times, any argument, even good ones, are worthless without evidence. That was definitely a problem and something he needs to address if he wants to be taken seriously.

I can understand the contempt. But the insults and derailing? Are those really necessary? Why not simply obliterate the claims with great arguments and evidence ? It's a debate, after all. What's the point of the insults? How do they help with the quality of the debate? 

Please remember, and I admit I am sometimes guilty of it myself, that* you *may be sick and tired of the same old diatribe you've seen many times, but in public debates, there are thousands of people reading behind the scene. There's a big audience that can benefit from the free education and misconception killing.



eugeneonagain said:


> What exactly is there from which to make up one's mind? Just a thrilling story?


No. NEVER that. Only with good arguments supported by evidence, until there's such a time that new issues are raised or new evidence is found that contradicts the previously known "facts" (exactly like Newton --> Einstein --> ???? )



eugeneonagain said:


> You claimed in quote 1 at the top that you "have not seen ANY evidence from either side". So I suppose the extensive work done to catalogue and verify Mozart's works (where mistakes have been made then rectified upon discovery and dubious works are catalogued as such) ranks at about the same level as the claims Newman made?


Of course not! That's not even related. 
What I expect in a good debate where proper discourse is observed, is that BOTH sides present the relevant evidence to counter each other's claims. *Point out *(at least link to) *the RELEVANT evidence for all the participants to scrutinize.*

Yes. Obviously a huge amount of effort has been spent to study Mozart and his works and cataloguing everything. But in a debate, not pointing out how any of that evidence or current knowledge is relevant to the argument at hand, is akin to saying>_ "you know nothing. Go read a book"_. 
How is that useful? How is that educational? Remember, I like debates for learning, not necessarily to blindly just win points and win an argument. That's boring.



eugeneonagain said:


> The circle is always open, if Newman's evidence (but where is it?) is compelling it can't be ignored. No doubt there is always resistance to such claims that could overturn things, but in general the truth will out.


I completely agree. And that is exactly what I've been saying all along…

And yes. Up to this point he just got my curiosity very tickled and some of my attention rolling. It's just interesting stuff, but I won't take him seriously until he provides the required evidence, though. Nobody will.

Robert Newman> WHERE is your evidence, man? We want to see it because this deserves it. I encourage you to keep going. Just show it to us, please. _Though, I can imagine gathering it and implementing it coherently into your arguments is a lot of hard work because of your monumental claims.
_
_Tic-tac, tic-tac, tic-tac...._


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> We have a claim that goes against the entire history and opinion of the musical world, millions of hours of scholarship which have established beyond a reasonable doubt, that a historical figure named Mozart composed famous music that is now attributed to him.


Yes. I feel the same way. 
But that's the thing with history… Since we can never really _know for sure_ what actually happened, new evidence can be suddenly found anytime, in the least expected of places, that can contradict and overthrow _centuries_ of previously accepted facts in one second. And we must accept and welcome whatever is found, whether we like it or we hate it, until there's another time where we find yet more evidence that confirms, supports or contradicts everything again!

Sometimes that means changing our WHOLE paradigm and understanding of the issues at hand. Sometimes even our understanding of _REALITY_ must change out of the blue in light of new information or discoveries.



stomanek said:


> That is why Mr Newman must produce more, or anything, in the way of documentary evidence and present it to the academic musical world so that they can review his findings to determine if they have any validity. So far he has not done so. He has arguments, yes - in my opinion very poor ones - but no evidence. Proof is the wrong word, I agree with you there - but he needs to support his claims by some means other than conjecture.


Absolutely! I totally agree with you here.

Paraphrasing Sagan> *"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or else they can be dismissed with the same lightness with which they were asserted". *

And that's where we're at… We have from Newman _some_ fascinating ideas and good arguments (if we ignore the stupid ones), very good concerns, and some interesting and "irregular" or downright suspicious issues that make us, music lovers, tickle and raise our passions. I mean, we're talking about freaking MOZART and HAYDN, after all! Giants of giants!



stomanek said:


> A letter from those times in which 2 well known musical figures connect Mozart with fraud would be a very good place to begin, not proof, but a start (as an example) - but no such letter has come to light - nor any other evidence which could corroborate Newman's claims.


Yes!
I was also thinking that some kind of receipt that clearly showed payments to his alleged ghostwriters would be good evidence. I understand we do have a lot of his financial records, which are a mess, correct?
Maybe something will be found in another place like Modena, or even in someone's basement. Or not!

Yes. History can change any second!

------


*@ stomanek & eugeneonagain>
*
*I quickly scanned our discussion, and it seems to me that we mostly agree on everything except on the quality and merit of Newman's arguments, yes?
... Oh, and about the extent of the refutations too. 
*
That's not that bad!


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> and what does that list tell you about the claim that Mozart is not the author of works currently attributed to him by scholarship?


It tells me that if there are already works that have been brought under this kind of scrutiny, it is not impossible that there are others that might yet be shown to be falsely attributed. It also enables us to check whether only 'minor' works have been shown to someone else's. It also offers examples of how WAM operated and whether he did have habits of composition which might lay him open to charges of plagiarism or misrepresentation.

What it doesn't do is give any additional credence to any particular claim - such as Newman's.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'll address some points, not all because it is bloated with a lot of irrelevance.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> He had not one hypothesis, but many hypotheses, and that caused the discussion to be all over the place. It was a mess because he did not structure his ideas properly. I touched on his posting style above.


I referred to the central hypothesis which is, in a nutshell: someone else wrote the majority of Mozart's work, a great deal of Haydn's and that of other composers. That claim on it's own is the only one worth looking at.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I felt his answers were quite adequate. The problem was that they were not supported with proper evidence. Even if he's wrong on all counts, he tried to answer basically anything thrown at him as best as he could and as deeply as his knowledge allowed him to.


You really can't be serious about this. How can a completely unsupported response be even 'adequate'? Anyone can weave a grand theory from conjecture and then use it to answer questions, but what are those answers worth?



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> So his arguments had been discredited before? Where? Were they refuted with more empty arguments, or was he defeated with hardcore evidence? Did he come up with any counterarguments to counter the counterarguments? Did he concede any points?


Discredited before? I suppose the extremely long-term ongoing work of Mozart scholars and cataloguers who HAVEN'T rumbled this fantastic deception is already enough to put such a claim into question? In any case this man HAS been counter-argued before and not just here. I've seen his threads on other forums. Of course he didn't concede any points, why would he?
How can someone be defeated with hardcore evidence when his claim rests on something no-one else can test? The onus is on him.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> [Y]ou'd appreciate this more if you saw the crankery I used to deal with on a regular basis with religious fanatics). He just doesn't strike me as one at all.


I've already been there and done it, starting nearly 30 years ago, even before it was an internet subculture. Newman is more like the 'Intelligent Design' crew.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Because I have eyes, and he didn't cite any (other than a link here and there)?


That was more a rhetorical question, or rather a remark that we all know he cited no evidence and that you had already claimed to not know what was and wasn't true in what he said and so wouldn't be much of a judge either way.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I said no such thing about "assessing his lack of evidence". What I wrote, was that I do not have the knowledge or the chops to _DEFEND_ him (or to refute him). But I can tell when someone is presenting evidence!


This makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't have the wherewithal to defend him due to a lack of knowledge, how can you asses the quality and possible veracity of the evidence?



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Yes. Like I've said many times, any argument, even good ones, are worthless without evidence. That was definitely a problem and something he needs to address if he wants to be taken seriously.


That's what everyone else is also saying and what everyone else taking a serious position always says on these matters. The problem is he didn't do this or even come close to it. Which makes me wonder why on earth you are treating the claims so seriously. When Stomanek referred to Moon landing hoaxers it was the first thing that popped into my head too. There are quite a few people who say on that matter: 'Well maybe there _is_ something in this...' despite all the supposed evidence being not only the product of ignorance and misunderstanding, but also just plain idiotic suggestion. Worst of all there is a belief akin to religion where the hoax believers just refuse to concede anything because they have already decided what they want to believe.



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I can understand the contempt. But the insults and derailing? Are those really necessary? Why not simply obliterate the claims with great arguments and evidence ? It's a debate, after all. What's the point of the insults? How do they help with the quality of the debate?


Who can debate with a person who has already reached a conclusion they are trying to find evidence for?



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Yes. Obviously a huge amount of effort has been spent to study Mozart and his works and cataloguing everything. But in a debate, not pointing out how any of that evidence or current knowledge is relevant to the argument at hand, is akin to saying>_ "you know nothing. Go read a book"_.


The assumption (and a fair one) is that if someone is making grand claims and claiming to be a Mozart scholar, they ought to already know the evidence that is likely to put a stick in the wheel of any contrary thesis. Again, the onus is on Newman.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> It tells me that if there are already works that have been brought under this kind of scrutiny, it is not impossible that there are others that might yet be shown to be falsely attributed. It also enables us to check whether only 'minor' works have been shown to someone else's. It also offers examples of how WAM operated and whether he did have habits of composition which might lay him open to charges of plagiarism or misrepresentation.
> 
> What it doesn't do is give any additional credence to any particular claim - such as Newman's.


Agreed - and what you have said also applies to other composers - not only WAM. There is always the possibility that a composer has plagiarised. It was true 100s of years ago and it holds true today.

But from this truth we cannot go around making wild claims which is what Newman is doing.

I would be incredibly surprised if scholarships find that any of Mozart's major works, plus many that are held in high esteem (shall we say for example, VC1 - not a masterpiece but a fine work) are revealed to be inauthentic. In the last 100 years the only work of any note more or less declared authentic is k297b - an attractive work but far below the level of, shall we say, Mozart's superb flute concerto k313. All the rest in that list of spurious works are minor compositions. Many of these may have had Mozart's name attached due to his fame.

Another reason is that - it seems to me - contrary to what Newman claims - that these great works came from several sources - is highly unlikely. Why can I find no works by any other composer in the classical era who works match up to, or even approach the best 100 works of Mozart? It seems odd that the composers Mozart was using to supply masterpieces could not compose a single piece that holds any interest for me.


----------



## Larkenfield

I have read some of Mr. Newman's posts and his primary focus is evidently to show that the reputations of Haydn and Mozart are inflated or overblown. If he had started out and said, "Here we have two geniuses but some of the works attributed to them may not be accurate," I would've been very interested in what he had to say. But there's no apparent appreciation for the genius of either of them, only to knock them down a peg. He probably likes the music of Luchesi better! And to suggest that The Marriage of Figaro was written by somebody else, for whatever reason, a lack of documentation or references, is beyond the pale of logic, because based on the perfection of the music itself, who else would be capable of writing such a masterpiece and remain anonymous?

While there may be some evidence of authorship in question, the majority of the works by these composers are not in question and Mr. Newman cannot seem to find a way to truly praise Haydn and Mozart; and to me that raises the question of whether he has a true ear for music or not. How could he not eventually be possibly tell the difference between something written by Luchesi and something written by Mozart or Haydn? That counts for something too - really living with the music.

That's what I objected to - that there never appeared to be any real appreciation of the genius of those two composers and what has absolutely proven to be their authentic compositions. But what _is_ true is that sometimes the composers of that era helped out each other, such as the time that Mozart wrote an introduction to a symphony written by Michael Haydn, for a while known as Symphony No 37 by Mozart. But the true authorship has emerged.


----------



## Bulldog

If I had the evidence to prove that Mozart did not compose all the works attributed to him, I sure wouldn't be parading that evidence to TC or any other music discussion site. I'd find out who are the folks in control of this stuff, and take my legs as quickly as I could to those sources. Newman went to the classical websites because he's got nothing; he's a fraud and conspiracy freak without an ounce of objectivity (as Larkenfield eloquently stated). Case closed.


----------



## Genoveva

It seems rather strange to me that a new member has picked up on a Newman thread that ended over 10 years ago, shortly before the banning of the same individual due to his perceived trolling on that and various related threads. It is stranger still that this person has now attempted to defend Newman's peculiar "controversy" views and his modus operandi on the flimsiest of arguments, and thus is implicitly critical of T-C management in finally banning him. Possibly the moderators haven't noticed what's been going on.

Prior to coming to T-C in 2006, Newman had been active on several previous forums and was eventually banned from each one due to trolling. In one case he wreaked such havoc that the Forum was obliged to close down completely. In another, he was given considerable latitude to expound his views on Mozart's alleged fakery, but persuaded hardly anyone and was finally banned.

During his time at T-C he created about 11-12 threads altogether, all of which were primarily concerned with rubbishing Mozart and Haydn, with an occasional slur thrown at Beethoven. The longest running thread was his first one [http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html]]. This thread started out by alleging that very little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi was the real composer behind several of Mozart's most famous works. Newman believes that they were useless with virtually no composing skills whatsoever. In the case of Mozart, (his most frequent target), he argued that his fame rests entirely on the product of the "Mozart industry" making it all up.

No matter what counter- arguments were put to Newman, he would always wriggle out by posing another allegation. One of his points was that Mozart received no proper training in music, so why was he that good? Newman was completely unimpressed by accounts of Leopold's teaching of the young Mozart (thus explaining why Mozart never attended any kind of music academy) on the basis that Leopold himself was, according to RN, equally useless as a teacher and musician and was no more than a third rate fiddle player in some third rate orchestra.

As for Haydn, he argued that Haydn never composed anything in his life apart from fraudulent stories about his trips, e.g. to London, when the real purpose was to pick up en route the latest bunch of symphonies, etc, written by a small bunch of back-room composers, and he would come back to Vienna or wherever and pass them off as his on work. No amount of critical questioning seemed to phase him. He would simply waffle on without answering any of the questions. He had an unshakeable belief in what he proclaimed about the alleged fraud of Mozart and Haydn. No amount of counter-argument would persuade him he was wrong. If the going got tough on any one avenue, he would switch to another. A sure sign of things getting very tough for him was that he often resorted to getting his interlocutors to try to justify their faith in the status quo.

After T-C, he moved to various other forums, where he met the same fate, i.e. ridicule by the vast majority of members followed eventually by a ban. He went to CMG and was laughed out of court. He was banned quite quickly and all of his posts were deleted. The Forum where he probably suffered the biggest bruising was at GMG. There was a very long thread on that Forum which lasted a long time. He had virtually no support for any of his views on Mozart and Haydn. In the end, the moderator in charge accused him of trolling and was effectively banned. After that, Newman went to CMM and there he faced a large amount of deep scepticism from most people. Like all the previous Fourms, he was eventually banned after a long-running debate about the authenticity of Mozart's 'Le Nozze'.

All along, throughout his long period on several Boards, he kept promising a book setting out his views. As far as I am aware, no book has yet been produced, despite repeated claims that it is nearly ready.

Several other features of Newman's style are worth noting. One is that he sometimes worked with accomplices who would spoon-feed him with suitable questions, or otherwise make kindly gestures in his direction. Secondly, he had a good skill at stirring up debate, and then lying low, creating mayhem in the process. He occasionally switched to less controversial topics, in order to try to gain acceptance among other members. His musical knowledge generally (aside from "controversy" issues concerning Mozart and Haydn) was quite good. He was seldom rude and knew how to work around moderators, which is how he lasted so long in many places he visited, including T-C.

After being banned from all the big classical music forums, he switched to other venues like literature forums. He also appeared as a guest on some Swedish radio programme, where he ran rings around some very gullible interviewer. I haven't bothered to keep tracks on him since then, but wouldn't be surprised if he tried some way to regain a foothold in one or more of his former stomping grounds by one means or another, in the hope that people have forgotten about the nonsense and mayhem he created previously. So watch out!

Finally, it was not just his views about Mozart et al that distinguished him. He held conspiracy views in various other areas, completely separate from music. For example, he used to believe that the original Moon landings were faked, and he had peculiar views about 9/11, being some kind of CIA plot.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

eugeneonagain said:


> You really can't be serious about this. How can a completely unsupported response be even 'adequate'? Anyone can weave a grand theory from conjecture and then use it to answer questions, but what are those answers worth?


Because every response worth its salt should have 2 parts> The *argument* _and_ the supporting *evidence*. He complied only with the first adequately i.e., he responded to every question and he laid out his arguments to be examined (though they're not necessarily the truth). He's missing the second part. The one we're waiting for. The one that can make him or destroy him.



eugeneonagain said:


> Discredited before? I suppose the extremely long-term ongoing work of Mozart scholars and cataloguers who HAVEN'T rumbled this fantastic deception is already enough to put such a claim into question?


Well, yes, but it's not like scholars have never had to withdraw Mozart's works before. There was a time when they were sure or convinced about their authorship, yes? 

*What is the mechanism that would prevent us from keep finding more and more dubious works? It wouldn't be the first time.*
I know it doesn't necessarily mean that they will or should be found, but there's a precedence worth investigating more, especially after reading so many issues or curiosities around Mozart as described by Robert.



eugeneonagain said:


> In any case this man HAS been counter-argued before and not just here. I've seen his threads on other forums. Of course he didn't concede any points, why would he?
> How can someone be defeated with hardcore evidence when his claim rests on something no-one else can test? The onus is on him.


Well, all he needs to demonstrate his claims are a mere document that shows ghostwriting transactions, or a family letter where he talks about this even once, or an older _original_ score with a different author other than Mozart (that said work was attributed to him before). 
Will he ever find something like that? Maybe, maybe not. *But if he doesn't, all his hypotheses would definitely be worthless at that point.*




eugeneonagain said:


> I've already been there and done it, starting nearly 30 years ago, even before it was an internet subculture. Newman is more like the 'Intelligent Design' crew.


Really? I disagree. 
That crowd must be the most unpleasant and ignorant people in the whole world! He didn't strike me like that.

*Besides, you can't really compare the strength of those issues!* One is just music history, and nobody will get hurt. The other one, the IDers, who are typically Creationists disguised as IDers, well, they'd be happy if we go back to the Middle Ages and praise an imaginary sky daddy every time there's an earthquake or a draught. They are actually dangerous and a threat to humanity's intellectual evolution!




eugeneonagain said:


> That was more a rhetorical question, or rather a remark that we all know he cited no evidence and that you had already claimed to not know what was and wasn't true in what he said and so wouldn't be much of a judge either way.


That is NOT what I said. I just feel inadequate to defend him or refute him. I have _some_ knowledge and intelligence. It's not like I'm a total incapable idiot, you know? I don't have it at the specialist level on this topic, *but enough to be conversant and be able to gauge arguments and examine evidence and make up my mind based on all that.*

That's how people learn more, correct?
If previous expertise is required to be able to examine arguments and evidence, nobody could ever become an expert or even attain knowledge on anything.



eugeneonagain said:


> This makes no sense whatsoever. If you don't have the wherewithal to defend him due to a lack of knowledge, how can you asses the quality and possible veracity of the evidence?


By reading the basic arguments and examining the presented evidence and reading more arguments from both sides and learning in the process? 
This is not rocket science. It's just human affairs! 

*Isn't that how one should accept or reject concepts? *I've been there and done that many times.



eugeneonagain said:


> That's what everyone else is also saying and what everyone else taking a serious position always says on these matters. The problem is he didn't do this or even come close to it. Which makes me wonder why on earth you are treating the claims so seriously.


I don't think I'm taking him too seriously, but more like with a curious interest. I was really surprised about his claims!

*If you give me a source where he was clearly defeated with great counterarguments and evidence (to your estimation), I'd love to read it and I'd thank you for making me learn more in the process!

I wouldn't be afraid of having to change my mind and concede he's an idiot….*



eugeneonagain said:


> When Stomanek referred to Moon landing hoaxers it was the first thing that popped into my head too. There are quite a few people who say on that matter: 'Well maybe there _is_ something in this...' despite all the supposed evidence being not only the product of ignorance and misunderstanding, but also just plain idiotic suggestion. Worst of all there is a belief akin to religion where the hoax believers just refuse to concede anything because they have already decided what they want to believe.


The BIG difference between them is that, on the Mozart issue, there have been precedents of withdrawals and dubious issues.
The moon landing hoaxers and other cranks have NEVER had anything remotely similar to their case. For instance, if they ever demonstrated that we never had the technology to land on the moon, or if it was demonstrated that (hypothetically) the Russians did fake a landing via a complex conspiracy, they would have _some_ ground to doubt the American landing, would they not? 

But they are lost. Not only did we land in the moon, but we landed a probe in a high-speed traveling comet at the edge of the solar system not long ago!

Yes. It's annoying when they keep peddling the same verbal diarrhea after being clearly shown wrong. 
I just didn't find in that particular thread where he was clearly refuted on all his arguments and string of details _to my satisfaction_, that's all. 



eugeneonagain said:


> Who can debate with a person who has already reached a conclusion they are trying to find evidence for?


Nobody. 
It's a waste of time.

Newman stroke me as a person who would probably admit defeat in the face of irrefutable evidence, even with his heavy emotional investment into the issue. *But I don't know him and my perception might be completely and dreadfully wrong and I might become very disappointed of him.*




eugeneonagain said:


> The assumption (and a fair one) is that if someone is making grand claims and claiming to be a Mozart scholar, they ought to already know the evidence that is likely to put a stick in the wheel of any contrary thesis. Again, the onus is on Newman.


Agreed. The burden of proof is on him. 

But he never claimed to be an accredited scholar. He made that quite clear.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I'm not going to pursue this any further. It's like thumping your head against a brick wall.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

Genoveva said:


> It seems rather strange to me that a new member has picked up on a Newman thread that ended over 10 years ago, shortly before the banning of the same individual due to his perceived trolling on that and various related threads. It is stranger still that this person has now attempted to defend Newman's peculiar "controversy" views and his modus operandi on the flimsiest of arguments, and thus is implicitly critical of T-C management in finally banning him. Possibly the moderators haven't noticed what's been going on.


OMG! Now I should be banned because I'm his suck puppet? Now, that is really funny, jajajajaja.

Talking about conspiracy theories.

You clearly have not read the thread or anything I've written with any degree of comprehension. That is quite pathetic!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Genoveva said:


> It seems rather strange to me that a new member has picked up on a Newman thread that ended over 10 years ago...


To be clear, it was me who mentioned that thread (and I wish I hadn't).


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not going to pursue this any further. It's like thumping your head against a brick wall.


Why? Because we have a disagreement? Because I don't see some things your way?

I didn't mean to derail the thread or anything. I thought we were having a good conversation, and I thought I was being clear on what I thought and my reasons to find some of his claims interesting.

Would you prefer it if I simply say that you're right on every count and Robert is a total idiot?

But yeah, this is not worth pursuing any further, especially if now I'm being suspected of being a suck puppet.

I apologize if I did anything wrong.


----------



## Bulldog

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Because every response worth its salt should have 2 parts> The *argument* _and_ the supporting *evidence*. He complied only with the first adequately i.e., he responded to every question and he laid out his arguments to be examined (though they're not necessarily the truth). He's missing the second part. The one we're waiting for.




I think you're the sole person waiting for something from Newman, and your wait is going to be very long.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> OMG! Now I should be banned because I'm his suck puppet? Now, that is really funny, jajajajaja.
> 
> Talking about conspiracy theories.
> 
> You clearly have not read the thread or anything I've written with any degree of comprehension. That is quite pathetic!


I didn't read that anywhere in that post. And what the hell does 'jajajaja' mean? Listen pal, you've turned up and self-identified as someone with little knowledge of Mozart's career and works and then proceed to write very lengthy posts defending a known crank. What are folk supposed to think?

Give it a rest.

Over and out.


----------



## Strange Magic

There is a fascinating forerunner of and probable inspiration for Mr. Newman and his _modus operandi_. Richard Whately (1787-1863), sometime Archbishop of Dublin (Anglican Church), was as a young man a vigorous, blustering, almost brutal teacher. However, one of Whately's favored pupils was John Henry Newman, the later Catholic apologist. It was Whately, Newman said, whose "gentle and encouraging instruction...opened my mind, and taught me to think and use my reason."

In 1819, the redoubtable Whately wrote his tour de force, _Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte_, a satire "directed against excessive scepticism as applied to Gospel history", in which he purports to prove that Napoleon never existed. But Whately was often surprised and distressed to find that readers missed his point. It is clear that the "Newman" of TC and other classical music forums is an admirer of Whately and his creation and has been tireless in enjoying himself(?) for years at the expense of his guileless interlocutors.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Historic_Doubts_Relative_to_Napoleon_Buonaparte


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

eugeneonagain said:


> Listen pal, you've turned up and self-identified as someone with little knowledge of Mozart's career and works and then proceed to write very lengthy posts defending a known crank. What are folk supposed to think?
> 
> Give it a rest.




I'm not your "pal". And don't tell me what to do.

If answering in detail the questions thrown at me is so suspicious and shows such bad behavior on my part, I trust I will be banned the moment a mod reads this thread.

I'm so sorry I got involved in all this. Totally not worth it. What a monumental waste of effort and time!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> I'm not your "pal". And don't tell me what to do.
> 
> If answering in detail the questions thrown at me is so suspicious and shows such bad behavior on my part, I trust I will be banned the moment a mod reads this thread.
> 
> I'm so sorry I got involved in all this. Totally not worth it. What a monumental waste of effort and time!




Why would you be banned? You're getting carried away. I didn't throw any questions at you needing any answers, I merely addressed a lot of re-treaded rubbish.
I'm not telling you what to do, only offering useful advice.


----------



## Bulldog

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> [/COLOR]I'm so sorry I got involved in all this. Totally not worth it. What a monumental waste of effort and time!




And you did put in a lot of effort and time, but I can't for the life of me understand why you did so.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

Bulldog said:


> And you did put in a lot of effort and time, but I can't for the life of me understand why you did so.


To tell you the truth, I don't understand it either anymore 

I really thought we were having a very nice friendly conversation, but apparently not.

Ok. Can we all just let this go and pretend it never happened? *Let's just all listen to Luchesi's Jupiter symphony together (just kidding! * *).
*

*@eugeneonagain:
*Listen. I like your (other) posts. We'd probably be friends in real life, since we apparently share similar interests other than music. Virtual friends? Water under the bridge?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> We'd probably be friends in real life, since we apparently share similar interests other than music. Virtual friends? Water under the bridge?


That's okay by me.:tiphat:


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> There are a small number of works formerly attributed to beethoven now regarded as being by other composers
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beethoven:_spurious_and_doubtful_works
> 
> For schubert there about a dozen such works.
> 
> *For Mozart - in the last 100 years only minor works have been declared by scholarship as inauthentic. If a major work by mozart it would indeed be a sensation in world news.*


Exactly right! There is no controversy about the attribution of Mozart's major works. It would indeed be a sensational revelation if any of the masterworks proved to be by anyone else.


----------



## PlaySalieri

eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't read that anywhere in that post. And what the hell does 'jajajaja' mean? Listen pal, you've turned up and self-identified as someone with little knowledge of Mozart's career and works and then proceed to write very lengthy posts defending a known crank. What are folk supposed to think?
> 
> Give it a rest.
> 
> Over and out.


Agreed - I regret replying to Goddess Yuja Wang - who I note has been a member of TC only since aug 2017. Most of her/his discourse on this subject demonstrate very poor thinking skills. He/she admits newman has no evidence , makes silly points etc - and then makes a further absurd statement which lends some credibility to the guy - thus baiting us up for another round of replies.

Yes Newman has also posted on anti new world order boards, is a moon hoaxer and goodness knows what else he believes. It's a shame he had to pick on Mozart of all composers.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> To tell you the truth, I don't understand it either anymore
> 
> I really thought we were having a very nice friendly conversation, but apparently not.
> 
> Ok. Can we all just let this go and pretend it never happened? *Let's just all listen to Luchesi's Jupiter symphony together (just kidding! * *).
> *
> 
> *@eugeneonagain:
> *Listen. I like your (other) posts. We'd probably be friends in real life, since we apparently share similar interests other than music. Virtual friends? Water under the bridge?


You said you found TC years ago and that is when you discovered Newman's threads. But you have only been a member since aug 2017? were you a previous member under another name? I find it very odd that you have devoted so much time to Newman's cause.


----------



## Genoveva

eugeneonagain said:


> Genoveva said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems rather strange to me that a new member has picked up on a Newman thread that ended over 10 years ago...
> 
> 
> 
> To be clear, it was me who mentioned that thread (and I wish I hadn't).
Click to expand...

Are you sure? As far as I can see, it was Goddess Yuja Wang who first referred to the 2006 Newman thread (see post #71) which has became the focus of subsequent discussion. This is the thread concerning Andrea Luchesi being the alleged real composer of 'Jupiter', and several other works attributed to Mozart.


----------



## Genoveva

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> You clearly have not read the thread or anything I've written with any degree of comprehension. That is quite pathetic!


Sorry to disappoint you but I have read the 2006 Newman thread to which you refer, and I have looked at your attempts to suggest he was treated unfairly in being banned as a result of his antics on this and several other Mozart related "controversy" threads that he initiated in 2006 and 2007.

Given that the specific thread to which you refer is over 10 years old, and that you have only recently arrived at this Forum, I wonder why you singled out that thread for attention. May I ask if you have had had previous dealings with Newman, given that you seem to be familiar with Newman's arguments and are apparently sympathetic to his modus operandi, when virtually no one else who participated in the thread found any credibility in any of his allegations.

On that particular thread, it is quite clear that Newman had no satisfactory answers to any of the questions put to him. He was initially dealt with politely. After some questioning about Luchesi's character, and the likelihood that he was the type of person who might have supplied Mozart with a large number of high quality works without seeking any compensation or recognition, Newman was forced into accepting that he couldn't explain this phenomenon since hardly anything is known about Luchesi except that he was Kapellmeister at the Bonn Chapel. The same kind of thing on virtually every other aspect of Newman's arguments, including watermark "evidence" etc. It was all mere assertion, bluff and bluster. Once this became fully apparent he was increasingly treated with the derision his arguments deserved.

Much the same kind of experience occurred on other classical music forums that Newman visited, i.e. he was given a fair chance to expound his views but when it soon became apparent that they were baseless, and that he would not concede but simply presented yet further dodgy "evidence" on other matters, he virtually forced the managements into banning him.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Agreed - I regret replying to Goddess Yuja Wang - who I note has been a member of TC only since aug 2017. Most of her/his discourse on this subject demonstrate very poor thinking skills. He/she admits newman has no evidence , makes silly points etc - and then makes a further absurd statement which lends some credibility to the guy - thus baiting us up for another round of replies.
> 
> Yes Newman has also posted on anti new world order boards, is a moon hoaxer and goodness knows what else he believes. It's a shame he had to pick on Mozart of all composers.


I smelled a potential rat as soon as I spotted this thread. I guessed right on this as it wasn't long before the same old conspiracy theories began to emerge all over again. It was just a matter of guessing who might take the lead. I'm not surprised it was a newcomer, as the same kind of thing has happened previously.

Regards the merits of any of Newman's claims, any normal researcher who reckons he has something worth reporting would try to get an article published in one of the reputable professional journals. As far as I'm aware, Newman has never succeeded in doing this, even assuming he has tried. That's because his theories and assertions are so incredible that no serious journal would consider them worthy of publication.

Instead, he has focused on skulking around various classical music forums, peddling a variety of different aspects of the so-called "Mozart Myth". When he got kicked out of one he would simply move on to another. And when he ran out of forums, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to re-enter some of them on false pretences.

Very few people seemed to be sympathetic to any of his wild imaginings regarding the authenticy of Mozart and Haydn, or claimed virtues of much lesser well known composers. And yet he was usually successful in generating a quite a lot of attention (measured in terms of post count) in whatever Forum he visited. Some of the longest running threads I have ever come across have concerned Newman.

The fact is that many ordinary people seemed to be attracted to this kind of subject, even though they probably knew it was all basically a load of rubbish. Before long, many pages of posts were typically generated in many of Newman's threads, and at this point Newman was no doubt in his element having created a big stir, and seeing peoples' attention becoming virtually completely focussed on his threads, to the exclusion of most others.

In my experience, it has always been the case that moderators on most Forums have been very slow to act to stop the rot once Newman first made an appearance. In several cases, he was allowed considerable freedom to spread his nonsense. In some cases, I suspect that some of them may have been grateful for the extra publicity/traffic he brought with him. However, from my recollection of events when I was tracking Newman's activities more closely, it was not long before they found out that he was more trouble than he was worth. He virtually dominated discussion in a very disruptive way across several closely related threads all linked to the same underlying theme concerning Mozart and Haydn. Apart from his own threads, in some cases he invaded perfectly innocent threads about Mozart that were created by other members, in order to stamp his cynical views upon them.

This was despite several members in various Forums trying their best to warn the various managements that Newman was a troll and no good would come of it if he were allowed to stay. However, in many cases, little or no effective action was taken for ages by any of the managements. Instead he was allowed to raise all manner of dubious claims about the authenticity of Mozart's and Haydn's works.

I suspect that the reason he got away with it for so long was because he was a clever operator, good with English, and someone who was obviously familiar with how to avoid breaching forum "rules" in any obvious way. In other words, he was adept at running rings around most Forum systems of control. Only in his later encounters did the managements become slightly quicker to act, and tried to keep him under closer control.


----------



## Barbebleu

Could Goddess Yuja Wang be in fact Newman? No, surely not.

Anyway every schoolboy knows that Mozart was actually a committee of composers in much the same way Shakespeare was a conglomeration of writers!! Btw, that, my friends, is sarcasm. Just in case anyone thought for a moment I was being serious.


----------



## Guest

Barbebleu said:


> Could Goddess Yuja Wang be in fact Newman? No, surely not.
> 
> Anyway every schoolboy knows that Mozart was actually a committee of composers in much the same way Shakespeare was a conglomeration of writers!! Btw, that, my friends, is sarcasm. Just in case anyone thought for a moment I was being serious.


I didn't......


----------



## Strange Magic

It seems that my successful revealing of "Newman" as a joker--and a very successful one--is being totally ignored. I'll repeat in the simplest terms that "Newman" is/was someone familiar with Whately's _Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte_ and Whately's tutelage of John Henry Newman, and decided to use Whately's method as a way of having his monstrous and long-term joke on everybody. It has surely worked again here and now.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Whately


----------



## Owllistening

I'm a new member - just joined this morning.

I'm also a longstanding member of LibraryThing. Recently, I've sadly given up on a Shakespeare discussion group there because most of the threads have been hijacked by an extremely long-winded Earl of Oxford fan who I'm convinced is a troll. Damn me if the very first thread I explore in this forum isn't more of the same! Bad start.


----------



## EdwardBast

Strange Magic said:


> It seems that my successful revealing of "Newman" as a joker--and a very successful one--is being totally ignored. I'll repeat in the simplest terms that "Newman" is/was someone familiar with Whately's _Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte_ and Whately's tutelage of John Henry Newman, and decided to use Whately's method as a way of having his monstrous and long-term joke on everybody. It has surely worked again here and now.
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Richard-Whately


Yes, it is still working here! People above on both sides are still repeating his claims. It is hard for me to have sympathy for those who spend ten years falling for the same joke instead of just greeting it with the contempt and indifference it deserves. Of course people have spent a century and a half falling for the same joke about Shakespeare, so I guess it's not that surprising.

Welcome Owllistening! I have a neighbor who is an Earl of Oxford fan. Alas, he is all too sincere.


----------



## Pugg

Owllistening said:


> I'm a new member - just joined this morning.
> 
> I'm also a longstanding member of LibraryThing. Recently, I've sadly given up on a Shakespeare discussion group there because most of the threads have been hijacked by an extremely long-winded Earl of Oxford fan who I'm convinced is a troll. Damn me if the very first thread I explore in this forum isn't more of the same! Bad start.


Sorry to read this, lost of other thread though but most of all welcome to Talk Classical.


----------



## Owllistening

Just remembered something. Some years ago I saw an actor being interviewed on a TV show - I think it might have been Michael Maloney. He was asked about the Shakespeare 'controversy' and one of the points put to him was that no one man could have written all the stuff Shakespeare did. His answer was that nobody would believe that Mozart wrote all the stuff he did if we didn't have solid, documentary evidence of it and that the reason they both did so was that some people are, simply, geniuses.


----------



## Owllistening

Pugg said:


> Sorry to read this, lost of other thread though but most of all welcome to Talk Classical.


Many thanks, Pugg. I'm sure I'll enjoy it here.


----------



## Judith

Owllistening said:


> I'm a new member - just joined this morning.
> 
> I'm also a longstanding member of LibraryThing. Recently, I've sadly given up on a Shakespeare discussion group there because most of the threads have been hijacked by an extremely long-winded Earl of Oxford fan who I'm convinced is a troll. Damn me if the very first thread I explore in this forum isn't more of the same! Bad start.


Hi. Welcome to TC. Think you will love it like I do. Looking forward to your posts


----------



## Guest

Owllistening said:


> Just remembered something. Some years ago I saw an actor being interviewed on a TV show - I think it might have been Michael Maloney. He was asked about the Shakespeare 'controversy' and one of the points put to him was that no one man could have written all the stuff Shakespeare did. His answer was that nobody would believe that Mozart wrote all the stuff he did if we didn't have solid, documentary evidence of it and that the reason they both did so was that some people are, simply, geniuses.


Welcome ,hope that you find your way and satisfaction.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> People above on both sides are still repeating his claims.


No, that's not what was happening. One person was giving his claims the benefit of the doubt and others were rubbishing them for what they are. Try to be accurate.


----------



## Agamemnon

Owllistening said:


> Just remembered something. Some years ago I saw an actor being interviewed on a TV show - I think it might have been Michael Maloney. He was asked about the Shakespeare 'controversy' and one of the points put to him was that no one man could have written all the stuff Shakespeare did. His answer was that nobody would believe that Mozart wrote all the stuff he did if we didn't have solid, documentary evidence of it and that the reason they both did so was that some people are, simply, geniuses.


I guess being a genius implies being very productive. E.g. Picasso, probably the greatest genius of modern visual arts, was incredibly productive as well. Not only do these people seem to have an endless flow of brilliant ideas, they also have perfect mastery over the materials so they don't need two takes to produce a masterpiece: what's in their head they put exactly into the material without any mistakes. In any case this was the case with Mozart and Picasso I believe (I wonder if e.g. Beethoven's manuscripts had more erasings and second thoughts because Mozart's almost have none).

I think Nietzsche's "will to power" is relevant: the genius is the person with a very strong will to power (which could explain why there are so few female geniuses because women don't have a strong will to power or feel powerless in advance because of cultural stereotypical roles). It is no conincidence that a great artist is called a 'master' (Italian: 'maestro'): he is someone in total control of his materials. The master/genius transforms his world according to his will: he is a true creator, he is a god. I presume Mozart had an astounding will to power: before he put his pen to the paper he already knew exactly what he was going to do and then put it on paper without second thoughts. And because of this mastery he could work very fast and be very productive.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> Agreed - I regret replying to Goddess Yuja Wang - who I note has been a member of TC only since aug 2017. *Most of her/his discourse on this subject demonstrate very poor thinking skills*. He/she admits newman has no evidence , makes silly points etc - and then makes a further absurd statement which lends some credibility to the guy - *thus baiting us up for another round of replies.*


So now I have "poor thinking skills"…. 
That's an escalation towards personalizing the discussion. Noted.

This is my THIRD attempt to graciously try to find a way out of this mess caused by my comment that started this all. Now I see how stupid of me it was to have even mentioned it. I really did not envision things going like this.

But now you're distorting things, and you keep quoting me. *Let us see who is baiting who…*

A million posts ago, after a few exchanges, I wrote>



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I think it was Richard Feynman who said> "Shut up and calculate".
> 
> Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now


To which you answered>


stomanek said:


> *Maybe I should just "shut up and listen to Mozart" for now
> *
> no - you should either cite something from Newman's "evidence" to prove your assertion that any of Newman's points have any merit or admit you dont know.
> 
> this is a like a moon hoaxer saying moon hoaxers have good points - but not saying what any of those points are. if your memory is so poor - I suggest you are entirely mistaken.


Strike one for me. I guess I was too subtle in my not wishing to pursue any of this further, but if you're comparing me with freaking moon hoaxers, I obviously need to defend myself.

Strike 2 was a few posts above, with my "peace-making" with eugeneonegain… I said I wanted to let it go and forget all this… But I guess that's still too subtle for you. Here>



Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Ok. Can we all just let this go and pretend it never happened? Let's just all listen to Luchesi's Jupiter symphony together (just kidding!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> @eugeneonagain:
> Listen. I like your (other) posts. We'd probably be friends in real life, since we apparently share similar interests other than music. Virtual friends? Water under the bridge?


I STILL want to just let it go, but you keep quoting me, and now you're *downright lying* about what I said, like here…




stomanek said:


> *You said you found TC years ago and that is when you discovered Newman's threads. *But you have only been a member since aug 2017? were you a previous member under another name? I find it very odd that you have devoted so much time to Newman's cause.


Now you're making up a story so it fits your misconception about me... 
*QUOTE me saying that, or RETRACT.*

What are you trying to say or to imply with your above statement, anyway? Do you think I'm his sock puppet? Or his Italian colleague in disguise?

Your confusion and willingness to find wrongs with me is now making you see me with some sort of suspicious auto-imposed lens. If you _really_ want to find something suspicious about my behaviour, you will, believe me! 


I too regret wasting so much time on this. And I won't do it anymore. It's not worth it. I said all I needed to say, and I'm tired of repeating myself.

This is not how I envisioned my membership here. I'd prefer to remain in amicable terms with you, but *if you consider me some kind of crazy troll crank for having the "audacity" of finding some of Newman's points interesting and worth pursuing, that's fine by me. But please stop it now. I do not want to keep wasting my time.
*Is that clear enough for you now?


*@Agamemnon*
I apologize to you for derailing your thread, man. I wouldn't have liked it if this happened in one of mine.

I'm out of here.


----------



## DonAlfonso

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> Now you're making up a story so it fits your misconception about me...
> *QUOTE me saying that, or RETRACT.*


In post #98 you did say:
_My memory is not poor, thank you. It's just that I read the thread months ago, and it was all new to me._


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> No, that's not what was happening. One person was giving his claims the benefit of the doubt and others were rubbishing them for what they are. Try to be accurate.


I think EdwardBast is correct, in the sense that both sides are repeating "Newman's" claims-- some to agree, others to refute. But when the original source is The Joker, as is the author of this elaborate hoax, then both affirmation and rebuttal are beside the point.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

DonAlfonso said:


> In post #98 you did say:





Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> _My memory is not poor, thank you. It's just that I read the thread months ago, and it was all new to me._


Yes. Exactly. 

And this is how stomanek is distorting it so it fits his misconception about me being a _"previous member with another name"_ (a sock puppet).
Some kind of conspiracy because he thinks it's "odd" that I kept answering his challenges and questions.

_Where did I say I found TC YEARS AGO and that that had been when I discovered Newman's threads, again?????_




stomanek said:


> *You said you found TC years ago and that is when you discovered Newman's threads. *_But you have only been a member since aug 2017? were you a previous member under another name? I find it very odd that you have devoted so much time to Newman's cause. _


----------



## Nereffid

Owllistening said:


> Just remembered something. Some years ago I saw an actor being interviewed on a TV show - I think it might have been Michael Maloney. He was asked about the Shakespeare 'controversy' and one of the points put to him was that no one man could have written all the stuff Shakespeare did. His answer was that nobody would believe that Mozart wrote all the stuff he did if we didn't have solid, documentary evidence of it and that the reason they both did so was that some people are, simply, geniuses.


That reminds me of Joseph Heller's _Picture This_ in which he says something along the lines of "Homer couldn't have written both the _Odyssey_ and the _Illiad_ because no one person could possibly have written those two works - unless he was a genius like Homer".


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> I think EdwardBast is correct, in the sense that both sides are repeating "Newman's" claims-- some to agree, others to refute. But when the original source is The Joker, as is the author of this elaborate hoax, then both affirmation and rebuttal are beside the point.


No, he is not correct. 'Repeating the claims' indicates simply a repetition of the same claims with the idea that they are valid or need rebuttals. I was not doing that, I was dismissing them entirely as nonsense.


----------



## poconoron

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I'm out of here.[/FONT]


I thought you were "out of here"???? Please, for the sake of God, give it a rest..............


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

poconoron said:


> I thought you were "out of here"???? Please, for the sake of God, give it a rest..............


*So STOP quoting me, damn it!*

Or am I supposed to ignore everything when people keep quoting me??


----------



## Genoveva

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> This is my THIRD attempt to graciously try to find a way out of this mess caused by my comment that started this all. Now I see how stupid of me it was to have even mentioned it. I really did not envision things going like this.


At the very least I would suggest that you might have done a lot more "homework" on the history and form of this character than you have evidently done, i.e. next to nothing so it would seem. That is why several people here, myself included, find your various comments and attempts to justify your position to be very naive.

I reckon that you would have faced a similar unfavourable reaction as you have generally found here if you had turned up at any one of the several other classical music forums from which Newman was banned for trolling and made a similar comment about how unfairly you consider he was treated. I think also that if you had suggested that some of his arguments appeared to be plausible, and were not refuted successfully by those with whom he was in dispute, you would have been laughed at.


----------



## Agamemnon

Agamemnon said:


> I guess being a genius implies being very productive. E.g. Picasso, probably the greatest genius of modern visual arts, was incredibly productive as well. Not only do these people seem to have an endless flow of brilliant ideas, they also have perfect mastery over the materials so they don't need two takes to produce a masterpiece: what's in their head they put exactly into the material without any mistakes. In any case this was the case with Mozart and Picasso I believe (I wonder if e.g. Beethoven's manuscripts had more erasings and second thoughts because Mozart's almost have none).
> 
> I think Nietzsche's "will to power" is relevant: the genius is the person with a very strong will to power (which could explain why there are so few female geniuses because women don't have a strong will to power or feel powerless in advance because of cultural stereotypical roles). It is no conincidence that a great artist is called a 'master' (Italian: 'maestro'): he is someone in total control of his materials. The master/genius transforms his world according to his will: he is a true creator, he is a god. I presume Mozart had an astounding will to power: before he put his pen to the paper he already knew exactly what he was going to do and then put it on paper without second thoughts. And because of this mastery he could work very fast and be very productive.


I always wonder if the silence I receive from my posts mean that you are all 1) in awe 2) banging your head onto the desk 3) don't have a clue what I am talking about.   

Actually, I am trying to get your attention back on the topic (which is not Newman).


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> I think EdwardBast is correct, in the sense that both sides are repeating "Newman's" claims-- some to agree, others to refute. But when the original source is The Joker, as is the author of this elaborate hoax, then both affirmation and rebuttal are beside the point.


Obviously, if it was known for sure that Newman was a hoaxer then we're all been wasting our time, but this is a mere assertion on your part. Are you saying that because his various opinions on Mozart and Haydn are so peculiar that he must be a hoaxer? I agree that his opinions are very weird but I doubt that he has been carrying out all this merely as some elaborate hoax. He has been going on about for far too long (at least 12+ years), and with such passion, that this doesn't seem to be a plausible explanation.


----------



## Bulldog

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> *So STOP quoting me, damn it!*
> 
> Or am I supposed to ignore everything when people keep quoting me??


My suggestion is that you ignore this thread. Eventually, members will stop bringing up your name and postings.

OR, you could start voting in one or more of the game threads where congeniality is always front and center.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bulldog said:


> My suggestion is that you ignore this thread. Eventually, members will stop bringing up your name and postings.
> 
> OR, you could start voting in one or more of the game threads where congeniality is always front and center.


Shameless plug:lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> So now I have "poor thinking skills"….
> That's an escalation towards personalizing the discussion. Noted.
> 
> This is my THIRD attempt to graciously try to find a way out of this mess caused by my comment that started this all. Now I see how stupid of me it was to have even mentioned it. I really did not envision things going like this.
> 
> But now you're distorting things, and you keep quoting me. *Let us see who is baiting who…*
> 
> A million posts ago, after a few exchanges, I wrote>
> 
> 
> To which you answered>
> 
> Strike one for me. I guess I was too subtle in my not wishing to pursue any of this further, but if you're comparing me with freaking moon hoaxers, I obviously need to defend myself.
> 
> Strike 2 was a few posts above, with my "peace-making" with eugeneonegain… I said I wanted to let it go and forget all this… But I guess that's still too subtle for you. Here>
> 
> I STILL want to just let it go, but you keep quoting me, and now you're *downright lying* about what I said, like here…
> 
> 
> Now you're making up a story so it fits your misconception about me...
> *QUOTE me saying that, or RETRACT.*
> 
> What are you trying to say or to imply with your above statement, anyway? Do you think I'm his sock puppet? Or his Italian colleague in disguise?
> 
> Your confusion and willingness to find wrongs with me is now making you see me with some sort of suspicious auto-imposed lens. If you _really_ want to find something suspicious about my behaviour, you will, believe me!
> 
> 
> I too regret wasting so much time on this. And I won't do it anymore. It's not worth it. I said all I needed to say, and I'm tired of repeating myself.
> 
> This is not how I envisioned my membership here. I'd prefer to remain in amicable terms with you, but *if you consider me some kind of crazy troll crank for having the "audacity" of finding some of Newman's points interesting and worth pursuing, that's fine by me. But please stop it now. I do not want to keep wasting my time.
> *Is that clear enough for you now?
> 
> 
> *@Agamemnon*
> I apologize to you for derailing your thread, man. I wouldn't have liked it if this happened in one of mine.
> 
> I'm out of here.


You get worked up easily.

I apologise for saying you came here years ago and found Newman's thread - you did say a few months, my mistake.

How did you find the thread - it's not that easy to find unless you type in mozart myth or something similar.

Are you one of Newman's stooges?


----------



## Genoveva

Agamemnon said:


> I always wonder if the silence I receive from my posts mean that you are all 1) in awe 2) banging your head onto the desk 3) don't have a clue what I am talking about.


In my case I've seen all this before many times. The last occasion was about a year ago. I can't recall the exact thread but its general subject matter was the relative merits of Mozart and Beethoven. Some people (including myself) were of the opinion that Mozart had a greater natural ability in writing music quickly and relatively effortlessly compared with Beethoven, and this was evidence that Mozart was possibly the greater composer. Of course, this was disputed. But since I like both of these composers more or less equally (along with Bach and Schubert) it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

Genoveva said:


> At the very least I would suggest that you might have done a lot more "homework" on the history and form of this character than you have evidently done, i.e. next to nothing so it would seem. That is why several people here, myself included, find your various comments and attempts to justify your position to be very naive.l


I didn't know about his history in other places, Genoveva, and frankly, I didn't "do my homework" finding out more about him, as you noted. And now I must pay the consequences of my comment.

Judging by his old thread, I should've knonw better and not bring it up here with my initial comment. Apparently, I found interesting what the (according to TC members) "worst of cranks" wrote. I regret it 



Genoveva said:


> I reckon that you would have faced a similar unfavourable reaction as you have generally found here if you had turned up at any one of the several other classical music forums from which Newman was banned for trolling and made a similar comment about how unfairly you consider he was treated. I think also that if you had suggested that some of his arguments appeared to be plausible, and were not refuted successfully by those with whom he was in dispute, you would have been laughed at.


It sounds like I would've gotten linched in those other fora you mentioned, if TC is an indication of these reactions.

Am I forgiven now? Haven't I had enough punishment already? I don't want to be seen as the new member who is some sort of a crank follower...

[Insert emoticon with a White Flag here]


----------



## Genoveva

eugeneonagain said:


> No, he is not correct. 'Repeating the claims' indicates simply a repetition of the same claims with the idea that they are valid or need rebuttals. I was not doing that, I was dismissing them entirely as nonsense.


I agree with you that something seems adrift here from the general discussion as I had understood it. The claims made by one side have not simply been repeated by the other, as alleged. They have been rebutted by the other side, and there's a world of difference between the two.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

stomanek said:


> You get worked up easily.
> 
> I apologise for saying you came here years ago and found Newman's thread - you did say a few months, my mistake.
> 
> How did you find the thread - it's not that easy to find unless you type in mozart myth or something similar.
> 
> Are you one of Newman's stooges?


If I remember correctly, I found it either, via a link in some thread I read, or someone mentioned something that compelled me to search for the topic myself. I don't really remember.

And no. I am not one of his stooges, I promise. If you knew me personally, you'd laugh about this all.


----------



## Bulldog

eugeneonagain said:


> Shameless plug:lol:


Sure is, but it's true.


----------



## Bulldog

stomanek said:


> You get worked up easily.


When it comes to Mozart, so do you.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Bulldog said:


> When it comes to Mozart, so do you.


Yes - you are correct.

There's a lot of nonsense talked about Mozart that i cant let go and do respond.

so when newman came along with his Mozart is a fraud theory - it's a shame I wasnt around TC in 2009 when it all happened. It's a shame that several good TC members were banned as a result


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva said:


> Obviously, if it was known for sure that Newman was a hoaxer then we're all been wasting our time, but this is a mere assertion on your part. Are you saying that because his various opinions on Mozart and Haydn are so peculiar that he must be a hoaxer? I agree that his opinions are very weird but I doubt that he has been carrying out all this merely as some elaborate hoax. He has been going on about for far too long (at least 12+ years), and with such passion, that this doesn't seem to be a plausible explanation.


Obviously "Newman's" true identity and motives can only be determined by either A) a sincere and verifiable admission and perhaps recantation on "his" part, or B) "his" exposure through a determined and verifiable investigation by a recognized body (like right here on TC ). But meanwhile, In My Humble Opinion, "he" continues to hold many in his thrall, though the years roll by. "His" nom de guerre seals the deal, as far as I'm concerned. It is entirely possible that "Newman", like L. Ron Hubbard, finally came to actually believe his own invention.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> No, he is not correct. 'Repeating the claims' indicates simply a repetition of the same claims with the idea that they are valid or need rebuttals. I was not doing that, I was dismissing them entirely as nonsense.


The question is: who is the better hair-splitter--You or Me? Reminds me of the old story of the rivalry between the Germans and the Swiss about who did the finest precision machining. The Germans finally created a wire one-thousandth the thickness of a human hair and sent it to Switzerland along with a microscope to view it. It was returned promptly by the Swiss and when examined by the Germans, they discovered that the Swiss had bored a hole through their wire :lol:.


----------



## PlaySalieri

My own theory on Newman - I think people who latch on to conspiracy theories of others - dream about having one of their own.

How he came up with the jesuit conspiracy to promote the supremacy of germanic music - with haydn mozart and beethoven buying in compositions from real Italian masters - i do not know.

I give him full marks for creativity though.


----------



## Genoveva

Goddess Yuja Wang said:


> I didn't know about his history in other places, Genoveva, and frankly, I didn't "do my homework" finding out more about him, as you noted. And now I must pay the consequences of my comment.
> 
> Judging by his old thread, I should've knonw better and not bring it up here with my initial comment. Apparently, I found interesting what the (according to TC members) "worst of cranks" wrote. I regret it
> 
> It sounds like I would've gotten linched in those other fora you mentioned, if TC is an indication of these reactions.
> 
> Am I forgiven now? Haven't I had enough punishment already? I don't want to be seen as the new member who is some sort of a crank follower...


Perhaps the main problem was that you only looked at one Newman thread in one forum, and drew an incorrect conclusion from it.

As I noted earlier, Newman had a lot of "form" before arriving at T-C in mid 2006. He had been a member of several previous forums, in all of which he proved himself to be quite a nuisance, and upsetting to many members, so much so that he got himself banned from all of them, after a long run at each. He had virtually no support from any of the members of those forums. Mostly he faced hostility and scepticism from the majority of members, no matter what aspect of Mozart's history he chose to look at, and he raised several.

From my reading of the thread here at T-C to which you referred (regards Luchesi), it seemed to me that several of the members who confronted Newman in that thread were probably aware of his background. In the early stages, there was some setting up to try to find out how much hard information Newman actually had to support his assertions about Luchesi. Unlike you, I don't think that Newman came out of it at all well, but rather there were many gaps in his evidence that were slowly exposed. I don't doubt that Newman tried to answer some of the points raised, but many were cirquitous and not by any means conclusive. They raised yet more and more questions and doubts,

Remember that the onus of proof was on Newman, not the other way around, as you have sometimes seemed to assert, as Newman was challenging the status quo concerning the very high reputations of Mozart and Haydn. These weaknesses in Newman's assertions concerning Luchesi were fleshed out in a generally friendly way in the first few pages. However, once it became obvious that much of Newman's assertions were not well based factually, but rather mainly guesswork, the member "Topaz" evidently got tired of it and did not participate any further. The later discussions that involved several other members (mainly "Mango" and "Manuel) took a more pointed tone, possibly of a greater degree than Newman had encountered on other forums previously. Newman became quite unhinged under the pressure and the whole edifice he had tried to create began to crumble quite badly.

Further, you should note that Newman created several other threads at T-C in the year or so he was a member after joining in mid 2006, alongside the main one on Luchesi. In most of these threads, he became more and more of a nuisance and general pain in the side to many people, and this was being reflected in the later comments in the Luchesi thread. He finally got his desserts by being banned.

From T-C he went on to repeat much the same experience in several other forums. In none was his presence appreciated. On the contrary, he faced mainly derision and disbelief wherever he went subsequently. It is because some of us here are aware of the wider background I trust that you might now understand why it appeared somewhat galling to receive the opinion of a self-proclaimed novice on these issues that Newman was somehow unfairly treated during his time here.


----------



## Bulldog

I know that I've had enough of Newman invading a fine Mozart thread. How about you?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> *The question is: who is the better hair-splitter--You or Me?* Reminds me of the old story of the rivalry between the Germans and the Swiss about who did the finest precision machining. The Germans finally created a wire one-thousandth the thickness of a human hair and sent it to Switzerland along with a microscope to view it. It was returned promptly by the Swiss and when examined by the Germans, they discovered that the Swiss had bored a hole through their wire :lol:.


Nice anecdote. It isn't splitting hairs, it's being accurate and correct. If one has to split hairs to do that, then okay, it's worth it.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> Nice anecdote. It isn't splitting hairs, it's being accurate and correct. If one has to split hairs to do that, then okay, it's worth it.


Alas, I am weak, but I must produce my tiny drill and bore a hole through your armor here. If you again examine EdwardBast's post, you will note that he does not employ the adjective _simple_ nor the adverb _simply_ when referring to the repeating of "Newman's" claims. It was you who introduced those modifiers and thus transformed EdwardBast's notion that one must repeat (sensu lato) a claim in order to refute it into a spurious assertion on EB's part that some were "merely" repeating the assertions. Not the case. EB's post, IMO, indicated rather that all sides were working under the assumption that "Newman" is/was a sincere exponent of his expressed views. An analogy: a magician in tails and top hat enters Stage Left. He bows, shows the audience that his hat is empty but then with a flourish plucks a large rabbit from the hat. Watching this, a large part of the audience cries that the magician has not really pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, while another large group insists he has. The point, though, is that the man on stage is a magician, and that there is little point in arguing either way about the "reality" of what he seems to have done.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> No, that's not what was happening. One person was giving his claims the benefit of the doubt and others were rubbishing them for what they are. Try to be accurate.


I am being accurate. I said repeating, which means stating them again. I did not say endorsing them, which is what you seem to think I said. They restated fallacious arguments that should have been ignored ten years ago


----------



## EdwardBast

Agamemnon said:


> I guess being a genius implies being very productive. E.g. Picasso, probably the greatest genius of modern visual arts, was incredibly productive as well. Not only do these people seem to have an endless flow of brilliant ideas, they also have perfect mastery over the materials so they don't need two takes to produce a masterpiece: *what's in their head they put exactly into the material without any mistakes.* In any case this was the case with Mozart and Picasso I believe (I wonder if e.g. Beethoven's manuscripts had more erasings and second thoughts because Mozart's almost have none).
> 
> I think Nietzsche's "will to power" is relevant: the genius is the person with a very strong will to power (which could explain why there are so few female geniuses because women don't have a strong will to power or feel powerless in advance because of cultural stereotypical roles). It is no conincidence that a great artist is called a 'master' (Italian: 'maestro'): he is someone in total control of his materials. The master/genius transforms his world according to his will: he is a true creator, he is a god. I presume Mozart had an astounding will to power: before he put his pen to the paper he already knew exactly what he was going to do and then put it on paper without second thoughts. And because of this mastery he could work very fast and be very productive.


These myths about Mozart have long been debunked. He sketched and revised extensively and composed at the piano. The vast majority of his sketches were burned by his wife. None of this has any bearing on Mozart's skill or genius. One judges by the quality of what is produced, not the steps taken to get there.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> I am being accurate. I said repeating, which means stating them again. I did not say endorsing them, which is what you seem to think I said. They restated fallacious arguments that should have been ignored ten years ago


Only seems, because I don't think that's what you said. I am talking about what you actually wrote and it is very far from accurate because I did not repeat those arguments; I did not re-state them. I rubbished the entire thing. It's all there in the posts above.


----------



## EdwardBast

eugeneonagain said:


> Only seems, because I don't think that's what you said. I am talking about what you actually wrote and it is very far from accurate because I did not repeat those arguments; I did not re-state them. I rubbished the entire thing. It's all there in the posts above.


I wasn't referring to you. I was alluding to, among others, the post that repeated an argument about a specific Italian composer being the author of the "Jupiter." This is an instance of "repeating one of newman's claims" that is not worth revisiting. Which is my point, and which is exactly what I said and meant: repeating his claims.

I admire your energy in rubbishing fallacious claims, because indeed the claims are rubbish. But the fact that they are still being discussed is a victory for the joker who spawned them. Do you think this person cared that they be accepted as true?


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> It is hard for me to have sympathy for those who spend ten years falling for the same joke instead of just greeting it with the contempt and indifference it deserves.


According to one's temperament, one could add amusement to those responses, or substitute it for either of them. I was prompted to look up some of Newman's pseudo-scholarly pontifications, and found that he provided a fine warmup act for The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. I believe I may have discovered the Alex Jones of musicology.


----------



## ArtMusic

I have come across a thread here at TC where many were disputing that Mozart was a genius, so it was controversial in that sense, but it seemed to me then those who were of the opinion of Mozart's questionable genius didn't really understand the concept of genius.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

After having had my behind handed back to me on a silver plate, I'm feeling a bit shy about asking... But my curiosity wins:



EdwardBast said:


> The vast majority of his sketches were burned by his wife.


Do we know why she did that?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> These myths about Mozart have long been debunked. He sketched and revised extensively and composed at the piano. *The vast majority of his sketches were burned by his wife.* None of this has any bearing on Mozart's skill or genius. One judges by the quality of what is produced, not the steps taken to get there.


Is that guesswork on your part? I have read many books on Mozart and never seen this claimed. Constanze seems to have been very shrewd with her husband's papers, realising their financial value.


----------



## Guest

I didn't find anything about burning manuscripts, but this article about Constanze is interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/sep/02/classicalmusicandopera


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> those who were of the opinion of Mozart's questionable genius


I'm sorry...I don't understand this bit. Would you please clarify? TIA.


----------



## DavidA

I think rather than pontificating about suggestions from questionable people. we would all be better to read a book like 'Mozart's Women' by Professor Jane Glover.


----------



## Larkenfield

ArtMusic said:


> I have come across a thread here at TC where many were disputing that Mozart was a genius, so it was controversial in that sense, but it seemed to me then those who were of the opinion of Mozart's questionable genius didn't really understand the concept of genius.


Bingo! I came to the same conclusion myself: that the person in question was looking for logical reasons to explain Mozart's genius, such as where did he learn his music, who were his teachers, what conservatory did he go to in order to write like he did at such a young age, when the obvious answer is that Mozart didn't have to go to any music conservatory because his father was a great at-home teacher and instructor. Such obvious advantages that Mozart had completely went beyond the understanding of the skeptic, and it seemed that there was no real understanding of the nature of genius.

There's no real way to explain genius entirely logically, but it is possible to see the influences that were surrounding Mozart that brought out and stimulated his innate ability. Because the skeptic could not understand the sometimes mysterious nature of genius, he falsely concluded that somebody else had to write many of the works attributed to Mozart.


----------



## DavidA

Larkenfield said:


> Bingo! I came to the same conclusion myself: that the person in question was looking for logical reasons to explain Mozart's genius, such as where did he learn his music, who were his teachers, what conservatory did he go to in order to write like he did at such a young age, when the obvious answer is that Mozart didn't have to go to any music conservatory because his father was a great at-home teacher and instructor. Such obvious advantages that Mozart had completely went beyond the understanding of the skeptic, and it seemed that there was no real understanding of the nature of genius.
> 
> There's no real way to explain genius entirely logically, but it is possible to see the influences that were surrounding Mozart that brought out and stimulated his innate ability. *Because the skeptic could not understand the sometimes mysterious nature of genius, he falsely concluded that somebody else had to write many of the works attributed to Mozart*.


So an unknown person wrote these works of genius? The way some people reason is beyond my comprehension


----------



## Genoveva

I don't recall ever reading anything about Constanze burning any her husband's manuscripts after his death, at least not on a major scale. [Clara Schumann did so but that's another matter.] Constanze is credited with doing a great deal after the death of her husband to keep alive and promote his reputation, which began to decline in the early 19th C due to the growing interest in music of a different style under the influence of Rossini. Here, Mozart wasn't the only composer to suffer from this trend, as the likes of Beethoven and Schubert also felt the pinch to some extent. Agnes Selby (the Author of 'Constanze, Mozart's Beloved') wrote about all about Constanze's achievements in her book.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I think rather than pontificating about suggestions from questionable people. we would all be better to read a book like 'Mozart's Women' by Professor Jane Glover.


Exactly so. She wrote the article I linked to.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> Alas, I am weak, but I must produce my tiny drill and bore a hole through your armor here. If you again examine EdwardBast's post, you will note that he does not employ the adjective _simple_ nor the adverb _simply_ when referring to the repeating of "Newman's" claims. It was you who introduced those modifiers and thus transformed EdwardBast's notion that one must repeat (sensu lato) a claim in order to refute it into a spurious assertion on EB's part that some were "merely" repeating the assertions. Not the case. EB's post, IMO, indicated rather that all sides were working under the assumption that "Newman" is/was a sincere exponent of his expressed views. An analogy: a magician in tails and top hat enters Stage Left. He bows, shows the audience that his hat is empty but then with a flourish plucks a large rabbit from the hat. Watching this, a large part of the audience cries that the magician has not really pulled a rabbit out of an empty hat, while another large group insists he has. The point, though, is that the man on stage is a magician, and that there is little point in arguing either way about the "reality" of what he seems to have done.


What a lot of drawn-out rubbish. I did not repeat Newman's claims - it's that simple. If I had done that I would have been making the _same claims_. What I did was _mention_ them and it would be very difficult _not_ to mention them when they are the matter at hand.


----------



## Genoveva

eugeneonagain said:


> What a lot of drawn-out rubbish. I did not repeat Newman's claims - it's that simple. If I had done that I would have been making the _same claims_. What I did was _mention_ them and it would be very difficult _not_ to mention them when they are the matter at hand.


I agree with you. I don't know what these people are going on about. Their various comments make no sense to me. Obviously one has to mention the claims made by Newman in the specific thread referred to earlier in order to deal with them. That's all both you, Stomanek and I have done. As for the suggestion that Newman is a hoaxer who has deliberately aimed simply to wind people up for his own amusement, I reckon that's a load of bunk.


----------



## Genoveva

Larkenfield said:


> Bingo! I came to the same conclusion myself: that the person in question was looking for logical reasons to explain Mozart's genius, such as where did he learn his music, who were his teachers, what conservatory did he go to in order to write like he did at such a young age, when *the obvious answer is that Mozart didn't have to go to any music conservatory because his father was a great at-home teacher and instructor. Such obvious advantages that Mozart had completely went beyond the understanding of the skeptic, and it seemed that there was no real understanding of the nature of genius*.


And Bingo! I happen to know what Newman might have said in reply to the bit above about W A Mozart not needing any schooling in music due to the "great" home tutoring he received from his father, Leopold.

It would probably run as follows:

_"But that is nonsense. Leopold Mozart himself admitted in writing that Wolfgang had NOT learned composition from him. He said so in a still surviving letter to Padre Martini in Bolgona, Italy, as already said. That IS documentary evidence. And this same fact was stated by the employer of both Leopold and Wolfgang, the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg himself ! This is further confirmed by the surviving entrance exam paper taken by Wolfgang Mozart in Bologna itself which is filled with crude musical errors. As has been documented by musicologists in Italy.

You do not like these facts, do you, Larkenfield? Not even when they are documented realities. Leopold Mozart was a plagiarist and a con-man. He became a 'Vice Kapellmeister' after a mediocre career that began as 4th violinist and ended as 2nd Violinist. Being awarded the token post of 'Vice Kapellmeister' only weeks before he left Salzburg.

Let's get our facts straight, right, Larkenfield? As for his plagiarisation, we need only examine his 'Violinschule' of 1756. This is a plagiarised version of an unpublished violin tutorial by the Italian maestro Giuseppe Tartini. As all of Italy knows. But not you, Larkenfield, right?" _​
I got this direct from a thread on another Forum back in 2009 in one of Newman's answers in response to a very similar argument. He had an answer to anything thrown at him. Much of it was highly dubious when one scratched below the surface, but he normally didn't care about that as the discussion had moved on to other issues by the time it was discovered, and in the meantime he had scored what looked like a win.


----------



## Owllistening

Larkenfield said:


> There's no real way to explain genius entirely logically ... the sometimes mysterious nature of genius ...


How the world could produce a Mozart or a Shakespeare, or a Leonardo Da Vinci, or how they produced the bodies of work they did, are questions I've never been able to get my head around. I'm a life-long sceptic and atheist, but now I just shrug my shoulders and say they must have been touched by a passing god. Over the years I've realised that I really don't want the questions answered - I'd rather not know and keep the ability to just be awestruck.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Yes - you are correct.
> 
> There's a lot of nonsense talked about Mozart that i cant let go and do respond.
> 
> so when newman came along with his Mozart is a fraud theory - *it's a shame I wasnt around TC in 2009 when it all happened*. It's a shame that several good TC members were banned as a result


On the other hand if you had been around in 2009 [in fact the main drama was in 2006/2007] you might not been here today to tell the tale, as you too might have been tarred with the same brush, and faced the risk of being banned. The "mod" system was not what it is today, much better able to detect and deal with trolls.

In any event, even if you had tried to remain as cool as a cucumber whilst trying to tackle him, with respect I wouldn't be at all surprised if he hadn't succeeded in finally creating high tensions, just like he did with most other people. This he did in typical fashion by only giving half an answer, and/or finding some shifty way of subtly changing the subject slightly, or by suggesting that you (the questioner) must be an idiot, or placing the burden of proof on you on some way.

You only have to look at some of these old threads here and elsewhere to see the way he operated. Newman was in his element replying to "n" different people at the same time on a variety of issues, and it was often most difficult to pin him down on any one topic.

It's all very well for some folk here to say they would have ignored him. I bet they wouldn't, not when they could see some or all of their colleagues and friends joining in. The people here who say they would have ignored him or find him to be an obvious hoaxer can't even stay out of this thread.

I might add that I and one or two people I know well tried under several guises in other forums to tackle Newman. This is now going back several years. He was very slippery, and by no means not easy to defeat on technical arguments.


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva said:


> I agree with you. I don't know what these people are going on about. Their various comments make no sense to me. Obviously one has to mention the claims made by Newman in the specific thread referred to earlier in order to deal with them. That's all both you, Stomanek and I have done. As for the suggestion that Newman is a hoaxer who has deliberately aimed simply to wind people up for his own amusement, I reckon that's a load of bunk.


Some just do not understand when they have been had. Others have a positive will to not understand when they have been had. It is crystal-clear that "Newman" was inspired (and he--if a he--was truly inspired) by Richard Whately's satire "proving" that Napoleon never existed, though Napoleon was actually still alive when Whately wrote _Historic Doubts_. And, thus inspired, "Newman" decided to launch his own career as a fake debunker of fakes. I grant that "Newman" may have been or become mentally disturbed and fell prey to his own inventions, as did L. Ron Hubbard, but it certainly all began as a hoax. I urge the doubters of my thesis to learn something about Whately and the real John Henry Newman and to read _Historic Doubts_. They may then find that they have all been had.:devil:


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> What a lot of drawn-out rubbish. I did not repeat Newman's claims - it's that simple. If I had done that I would have been making the _same claims_. What I did was _mention_ them and it would be very difficult _not_ to mention them when they are the matter at hand.


EdwardBast specifically responded that he was not referring to you when he posted about repeating claims. Accuracy, accuracy!


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> EdwardBast specifically responded that he was not referring to you [eugeneonagain] when he posted about repeating claims. Accuracy, accuracy!


I don't recall anyone in this thread "repeating claims" made by Newman in the sense that they were made on the basis of indicating a shared belief with Newman on the specific matters referred to. I don't believe that I have done so, and if I may have given that impression all I can say is that someone needs an lesson or two on standard English comprehension.

I made a reference to Newman's assertion about Luchesi being the true composer of "Jupiter". But that was necessary as it was entirely in the context of refuting the suggestion made by another member that, in a thread of 2006/7, Newman had made a few worthwhile points on this matter that seemed sensible to that member, points which he/she claimed were not answered in the thread at the time. I questioned this in a way that anyone may go back to if they wish.

Now after further explanation, I do not believe that this member was actually indicating they he/she agreed with Newman on the substantive point. All that was meant was that he/she believed that Newman some valid-looking points that were not developed as fully as might have been hoped, given the conduct of that thread by other members at the time.

I trust this puts this matter to rest.


----------



## JeffD

> Originally Posted by JeffD
> 
> I find it easier to assume Mozart was great, and strive to understand why, than to strive to figure out if Mozart was great.





Woodduck said:


> How are those different in practice? Aren't you looking for, and at, the same qualities?


Well kind of. The first configuration assumes I am a non-expert student, learning what to appreciate, while the second puts me in the roll of the objective expert passing judgment on things.

As soon as I decide I am an expert, I stop learning things.


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva said:


> I don't recall anyone in this thread "repeating claims" made by Newman in the sense that they were made on the basis of indicating a shared belief with Newman on the specific matters referred to. I don't believe that I have done so, and if I may have given that impression all I can say is that someone needs an lesson or two on standard English comprehension.


If you reread EB's post #145, it is clear that EB entirely shares my view that this has been a hoax--*"Newman's" Hoax* let's call it--from start to finish. In my reading of EdwardBast's post, there is no sense necessarily that the doubters of "Newman's" claims shared any belief with "Newman"; rather, EB (and I) wonder that the hoax goes on, with people continuing to believe that there really is a Newman sincerely holding the views that "Newman" espouses so energetically. How can I make this clearer?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> If you reread EB's post #145,* it is clear that EB entirely shares my view that this has been a hoax--"Newman's" Hoax let's call it--from start to finish*. In my reading of EdwardBast's post, there is no sense necessarily that the doubters of "Newman's" claims shared any belief with "Newman"; rather, EB (and I) wonder that the hoax goes on, with people continuing to believe that there really is a Newman sincerely holding the views that "Newman" espouses so energetically. How can I make this clearer?


And on what grounds does that make it true? Not that I think it _isn't_ true. However it's going to have to rest on more than: me and EB have decided and high-fived on it.


----------



## Guest

I doubt that it is not untrue that there are posters here who are not unconvinced of the not inconsiderable doubt cast on that validity of arguments ranged against those who do not believe that Newman's hypothesis holds water...

...or something like that.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> I doubt that it is not untrue that there are posters here who are not unconvinced of the not inconsiderable doubt cast on that validity of arguments ranged against those who do not believe that Newman's hypothesis holds water...
> 
> ...or something like that.


This tread certainly has its effect


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> I don't recall anyone in this thread "repeating claims" made by Newman in the sense that they were made on the basis of indicating a shared belief with Newman on the specific matters referred to. I don't believe that I have done so, and if I may have given that impression all I can say is that someone needs an lesson or two on standard English comprehension.


I wrote repeating (which does not necessarily imply shared belief) and it has caused some confusion as to what I meant (sorry Eugene!). I should perhaps have said reiterated, or rehashed. In any case, my point is that by repeating, reiterating or rehashing this joker's ideas - by giving them any air whatever - we are repeating the mistake made at the time of the original posts. The nonsense he wrote didn't merit serious attention then and it certainly doesn't now. I'm sure he would be proudly laughing that his mischief is still at work.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> And on what grounds does that make it true? Not that I think it _isn't_ true. However it's going to have to rest on more than: me and EB have decided and high-fived on it.


I believe my post #174 dealt in part with the problem of proof. But, in my view, the Preponderance of Evidence threshold is easily met by the thesis that "Newman" is a hoaxer of both learning and skill, and that his victims are all about us. But, Eugene, what do you think?


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> If you reread EB's post #145, it is clear that EB entirely shares my view that this has been a hoax--"Newman's" Hoax let's call it--from start to finish. In my reading of EdwardBast's post, there is no sense necessarily that the doubters of "Newman's" claims shared any belief with "Newman"; rather, EB (and I) wonder that the hoax goes on, with people continuing to believe that there really is a Newman sincerely holding the views that "Newman" espouses so energetically. How can I make this clearer


I understand fully what you are saying. I have understood this from the beginning of your posts when you first raised the matter of Cardinal Newman, etc. You believe that it is clear that Newman has been pursuing nothing other than an almighty hoax all along (since at least 2005). By this you consider that Newman himself (assuming he exists) doesn't believe a word of the all the codswallop on Mozart and Haydn he's been serving to audience after audience across a wide spectrum of classical music and literature forums, not to mention various other untold venues that may have fallen prey at some stage to his attention, over this past 12 years or so.

I'm not sure that EB would fully go along with the same interpretation of your opinion, as you allege. I rather thought that EB was making a separate point, namely that some commentators have made remarks earlier in this thread that do no more than repeat some of the assertions made by Newman himself at various times in the past. In addition, that while these commentators have not necessarily indicated that they accept them as valid, nevertheless they have made no attempt to refute them, thus implying guilt by association If that is what he meant, then it's nothing like what you believe he meant, and in any case it would wrong because no one has made the kind of comment that he believes they made.

Whatever it is that EB believes is of no consequence, as even if there are two of you I would respectfully suggest that you would seem to be in a very tiny minority position of roughly two versus a much larger number. I would suggest that the vast majority of people who have ever come into close contact/observation of Newman's threads on Mozart/Haydn would believe that Newman himself actually believes that these two composers were frauds, and that the bulk of their work as recognised today was the result of others composers' labours.

One of the reasons why I favour the latter view that is that the "hoax", if that is what it is, has gone on for too long for it to be nothing more than a hoax. I would have thought that most hoaxers would have packed up long before now, having had their bit of fun. Another is that Newman appears to have to have gone to quite extraordinary lengths to research various aspects of his allegations. I have to admit that some of it has been very detailed and complex indeed, and is on vastly more sophisticated scale than the very simple text you have referred to concerning the existence of Napoleon, which was very demonstrably nothing more than complete nonsense.

Therefore, I respectfully suggest you are entirely wrong in saying that this whole thing has been nothing more than a "hoax". If you think you are right then you might wish to consider taking up the matter with the management of this Forum at the senior levels with a view to banning immediately any thread mentions the name "Newman" or that appears to take seriously anything Newman has written about on the topic of Mozart/Haydn. I wish you luck with that but I won't be holding ny breath whilst you await a response, and nor would I rate your chances of success as anything better than about 1%. If you decide to give it a go, I trust you'll keep us informed of progress.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> I don't recall ever reading anything about Constanze burning any her husband's manuscripts after his death, at least not on a major scale. [Clara Schumann did so but that's another matter.] Constanze is credited with doing a great deal after the death of her husband to keep alive and promote his reputation, which began to decline in the early 19th C due to the growing interest in music of a different style under the influence of Rossini. Here, Mozart wasn't the only composer to suffer from this trend, as the likes of Beethoven and Schubert also felt the pinch to some extent. Agnes Selby (the Author of 'Constanze, Mozart's Beloved') wrote about all about Constanze's achievements in her book.


Constanze would not have burned anything that could be immediately monetized. For example, she sold all of the autograph scores in her possession within about three months for a great deal of money. In this era sketches and fragments would not have been seen as particularly valuable because people then didn't take a view influenced by historical musicology. The destruction of 90% of his sketches comes from Robert Levin (pianist, musicologist, Mozart scholar): "But this process of notating in layers, revealed by the different ink tints in his manuscripts, and his surviving sketches (some 90% of which were destroyed by his widow), have revealed a more nuanced sense of his creative process." I, apparently, added the specific method of destruction, possibly based on the knowledge that they make good kindling.  But it is true that sketches survive for 10% of Mozart's published work, there are historical references to other sketches which did not survive, and there are a large quantity of sketched fragments that were never worked into finished music.



Genoveva said:


> Whatever it is that EB believes is of no consequence, as even if there are two of you I would respectfully suggest that you would seem to be in a very tiny minority position of roughly two versus a much larger number. I would suggest that the vast majority of people who have ever come into close contact/observation of Newman's threads on Mozart/Haydn would believe that Newman himself actually believes that these two composers were frauds, and that the bulk of their work as recognised today was the result of others composers' labours.


I am agnostic as to how much Newman believed of what he wrote, though I think the clue to intentional mischief, as Strange Magic points out, is the screen name he chose. Judging from the quotations and paraphrases above (I'm not actually going to read all of his twaddle), his claims rest on exploiting the vagaries of two historical practices that aren't common knowledge among musical amateurs: In the 18thc copying out the music of other composers was a common didactic method (hence other composers' music in Mozart's hand and vice versa) and publishers often tried to increase the value of music of second rate composers by claiming they were composed by first rate composers (hence works by second rate composers with Mozart's name on them). This latter is why it has taken so long to come to definitive conclusions about which works of Josquin are authentic, as well as why spurious works of Mozart, Haydn, etc. got into composers' catalogs.


----------



## Ingélou

EdwardBast said:


> I wrote repeating (which does not necessarily imply shared belief) and it has caused some confusion as to what I meant (sorry Eugene!). I should perhaps have said reiterated, or rehashed. In any case, my point is that by repeating, reiterating or rehashing this joker's ideas - by giving them any air whatever - we are repeating the mistake made at the time of the original posts. The nonsense he wrote didn't merit serious attention then and it certainly doesn't now. I'm sure he would be proudly laughing that his mischief is still at work.


Gosh - I couldn't understand any of these references to 'Newman' etc, so I had to do a spot of investigative googling. 
What a *fabulous* waste of time! 
So I couldn't agree more, @EdwardBast. :tiphat:
However, it does throw some light on TC palavers in the past - and possibly in the present.

Must go in and start Taggart's tea...


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva, I appreciate your lengthy post just preceding. I'll let EdwardBast speak for himself from here on out, though his posts certainly suggest to me that he considers "Newman" a joker, as do I. And, should EB and I form a minority of two, that changes nothing--again, I suggest you look at Whately's bio, read his _Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte_, and consider the relationship with John Henry Newman, and then get back to us with your analysis. I have addressed your idea that "Newman" (later, in my view) may have succumbed to his own invention, but it is more likely that this is his hobby, if not his hobbyhorse, and that he continues, in this era of Fake News, to enjoy his triumphs. I certainly will not ask the moderators to censor any further posts either by or about either Newman or "Newman".


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> I believe my post #174 dealt in part with the problem of proof. But, in my view, the Preponderance of Evidence threshold is easily met by the thesis that "Newman" is a hoaxer of both learning and skill, and that his victims are all about us. *But, Eugene, what do you think?*


Well, I read that original thread quite some time ago after finding it in an internet search about uncertain works of Mozart - long before I made an account here. It didn't spur me on to make an account and comment because I've come across dozens of cranks in real life and on the internet and they just annoy me. 
Equally annoying however are the 'detectives' who think they've singularly outed someone while assuming everyone else to be gullible and oblivious.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> I wrote repeating (which does not necessarily imply shared belief) and it has caused some confusion as to what I meant (sorry Eugene!). I should perhaps have said reiterated, or rehashed. In any case, my point is that by repeating, reiterating or rehashing this joker's ideas - by giving them any air whatever - we are repeating the mistake made at the time of the original posts. The nonsense he wrote didn't merit serious attention then and it certainly doesn't now. I'm sure he would be proudly laughing that his mischief is still at work.


Provided you did not intend to imply "shared belief" in your references to "repeating", then I am happy with that, as I cannot see that anyone on this thread has indicated that they believe that any of Newman's main assertions are valid.

Could you please clarify whether or not you share Strange Magic's view that Newman is purely a "hoaxer" who doesn't himself believe a word he has asserted about Mozart/Haydn's authenticty? I rather feel that your alleged support on this matter has been somewhat hijacked, and this is not an opinion you share, but we'll see.

I fully appreciate your point that re-hashing Newman's claims and ideas tend to give them credibility they don't deserve. Personally, I would like to see an instant ban, if possible, on any threads that invoke/refer/lend credence to any of Newman's ideas. However, I can easily appreciate that this is not practical for various reasons.

The question is then what does one do when some newcomer raises a reference to Newman, asking whether any of the many assertions are valid. The sheer logic of such a situation is that some existing members can be expected to pile in with their opinion. This has happened in the past on several occasions. Some of that opinion may be dubious or plain wrong. It is then very difficult for other members who know a lot about the subject to remain quiet and not step in to try to clarify the situation. Very quickly, such threads become the subject of much attention. Indeed, you yourself have indeed contributed to this thread many times, so you haven't been fully complying with your own advice to others.


----------



## Strange Magic

eugeneonagain said:


> Well, I read that original thread quite some time ago after finding it in an internet search about uncertain works of Mozart - long before I made an account here. It didn't spur me on to make an account and comment because I've come across dozens of cranks in real life and on the internet and they just annoy me.
> Equally annoying however are the 'detectives' who think they've singularly outed someone while assuming everyone else to be gullible and oblivious.


But are the annoying detectives right or wrong re: "Newman" in your view? Or are they just annoying?


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Constanze would not have burned anything that could be immediately monetized. For example, she sold all of the autograph scores in her possession within about three months for a great deal of money. In this era sketches and fragments would not have been seen as particularly valuable because people then didn't take a view influenced by historical musicology. The destruction of 90% of his sketches comes from Robert Levin (pianist, musicologist, Mozart scholar): "But this process of notating in layers, revealed by the different ink tints in his manuscripts, and his surviving sketches (some 90% of which were destroyed by his widow), have revealed a more nuanced sense of his creative process." I, apparently, added the specific method of destruction, possibly based on the knowledge that they make good kindling.  But it is true that sketches survive for 10% of Mozart's published work, there are historical references to other sketches which did not survive, and there are a large quantity of sketched fragments that were never worked into finished music.
> 
> I am agnostic as to how much Newman believed of what he wrote, though I think the clue to intentional mischief, as Strange Magic points out, is the screen name he chose. Judging from the quotations and paraphrases above (I'm not actually going to read all of his twaddle), his claims rest on exploiting the vagaries of two historical practices that aren't common knowledge among musical amateurs: In the 18thc copying out the music of other composers was a common didactic method (hence other composers' music in Mozart's hand and vice versa) and publishers often tried to increase the value of music of second rate composers by claiming they were composed by first rate composers (hence works by second rate composers with Mozart's name on them). This latter is why it has taken so long to come to definitive conclusions about which works of Josquin are authentic, as well as why spurious works of Mozart, Haydn, etc. got into composers' catalogs.


I wonder what Levin's source is for that information. And how he can arrive at a figure of 90%.

My only source is the book by Jane Glover which quite meticulously details what Constanze did in the aftermath of Mozart's death. I need to get the book out and re-check but I recall she sold of relatively few m/s in the early months - she sold 8 scores to the king of prussia for 800 ducats (a large sum in those days) and this money was enough to protect her from immediate hardship and the necessity of dumping her husband's precious m/s. If she really did destroy 90% of the sketches - it would seem to contradict her otherwise careful guardianship of all Mozart's papers etc and in any case seems reckless. 
I am not saying Levin is wrong - but he might be.

OK - just did some research. In a book by Michael Freyhan on the Magic Flute libretto - he details how Constanze wrote in 1800 to Breitkopf and Hartel - listing 98 fragments - she adds that there were many more (ie more than 98) but were destroyed due to being unusable.

reckless behaviour indeed. Interesting that Constanze does not say she destroyed them - merely that they have been destroyed.

So Levin seems partially correct - still no idea though where this figure of 90% destroyed comes from.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I'm with the school of thought that does not think Newman intended to hoax.

He also has a website

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/

so this hoax is costing him money year on year

having read through these threads - it seems obvious to me that newman does believe what he is saying, or at least - he has convinced himself to believe his hypothesis is true. I also dont believe that the numerous posters who challenged him at the time could have been so consistently taken in.

I dont quite understand why Newman used the false evidence strategy to defeat his opponents. In other words rebutt a point with false evidence which has the appearance of plausibility (and most forum members dont check a claim but accept - meaning most posters will believe Newman has won the argument - t/c member Goddess Yuja Wang is a good example)

Still - it seems to me far too elaborate a hoax for it to be so. I also would have thought Newman would have appeared somwhere by now - maybe sign up in another name - and laughed his head off at those who were taken in. I certainly would. What's the point in a hoax if you don't laugh in the faces of those you have duped?


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> I am agnostic as to how much Newman believed of what he wrote, though I think the clue to intentional mischief, as Strange Magic points out, is the screen name he chose. Judging from the quotations and paraphrases above (I'm not actually going to read all of his twaddle), his claims rest on exploiting the vagaries of two historical practices that aren't common knowledge among musical amateurs: In the 18thc copying out the music of other composers was a common didactic method (hence other composers' music in Mozart's hand and vice versa) and publishers often tried to increase the value of music of second rate composers by claiming they were composed by first rate composers (hence works by second rate composers with Mozart's name on them). This latter is why it has taken so long to come to definitive conclusions about which works of Josquin are authentic, as well as why spurious works of Mozart, Haydn, etc. got into composers' catalogs.


If you haven't actually read much of Newman's many actual writings on the subject of Mozart and Haydn, as opposed to noting the odd quotation and paraphrase of his ideas, I don't see how you or anyone in a similar position can make any deductions (whether agnostic or not) about whether or not Newman was merely a hoaxer, or whether he actually believed what he was writing about. It's necessary to have some first hand experience of what he actually wrote to get a feel for this matter one way or the other.

For my sins, it so happens that I have actually read quite a few of Newman's threads more or less in their entirety, and most of the very long ones, including the one at T-C that was referred to earlier in the thread. Even that T-C thread pales into small scale compared with two others elsewhere that followed slightly later elsewhere after he was forcibly retired from T-C. They were considerably longer, with many more participants, including (so I understand) some professional Mozart experts who joined in at one stage on the the discussion on Le Nozze. In both of those very long threads he suffered a big bruising and some very plain speaking of a kind that is not allowed here. The threads were actually quite pathetic in places, watching Newman getting virtually mauled to pieces by a ton of scepticism constantly being heaped at his door. Mostly he seemed unphased by it all, and kept on coming back with more.

In all or most of those threads, he covered many different aspects of the subject. As I have stated previously, it's very unlikely in my opinion that he was merely a hoaxer, as the punishment he received just to get a few laughs was quite severe at times. [Even here at T-C with its tougher rules of engagement, he suffered a fair amount of criticism for peddling rubbish]. Nevertheless, on reflection, I'm content to accept that he didn't necessarily believe all of the detail that he divulged in those threads in order to answer queries or assuage sceptical comment from other posters. In this limited sense, he possibly did not believe all the stuff he trotted out, but on the central planks of each thread I think he did believe them and so too did most other participants as far as I could tell from their comments.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I doubt that it is not untrue that there are posters here who are not unconvinced of the not inconsiderable doubt cast on that validity of arguments ranged against those who do not believe that Newman's hypothesis holds water...
> 
> ...or something like that.


The not undefinitive statement on perhaps the least unexcessive carrying on about what is not improbably the least unfraudulent nonissue I have ever seen pounded into the ground on, and not unlikely off, the forum.

Still, it's a legitimate question how we determine whether someone offering "alternative facts" is merely conning us. How can we know - is there even a way to know - how much he believes his own claims? The question is timely: Americans, at least, are being forced to ask it every day, and in matters of infinitely greater import. But no matter how we answer, purveyors of nonsense must be held accountable, and the harm they do neither underestimated nor excused.

It's tempting to imagine Newman - deeply deluded, deeply dishonest, or both, having been sensibly bounced off one forum after another for sowing dissension and wasting people's time - eventually being discovered hunched over his desk in a state of advanced decomposition, covered with cobwebs, surrounded by butt-filled ash trays, bags of stale chips, and ceiling-high stacks of unpublishable papers purporting to prove that no music ever attributed to anyone could actually have been written by them.


----------



## DavidA

Ingélou said:


> Gosh - I couldn't understand any of these references to 'Newman' etc, so I had to do a spot of investigative googling.
> What a *fabulous* waste of time!
> So I couldn't agree more, @EdwardBast. :tiphat:
> However, it does throw some light on TC palavers in the past - and possibly in the present.
> 
> Must go in and start Taggart's tea...


Agreed! This sort of twaddle does not need an audience.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> Could you please clarify whether or not you share Strange Magic's view that Newman is purely a "hoaxer" who doesn't himself believe a word he has asserted about Mozart/Haydn's authenticty? I rather feel that your alleged support on this matter has been somewhat hijacked, and this is not an opinion you share, but we'll see.


I thought he had to be a hoaxer, since the things he claims are absurd and easily refuted, but having visited his website I am leaning toward a third option: mental illness. Does he believe what he writes? Seems more like he has a compulsion or delusion. It could be a hoax, but I doubt it because if it were he would, I believe, have put more effort into the website.


----------



## Strange Magic

stomanek said:


> I'm with the school of thought that does not think Newman intended to hoax.
> 
> He also has a website
> 
> http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/
> 
> so this hoax is costing him money year on year
> 
> having read through these threads - it seems obvious to me that newman does believe what he is saying, or at least - he has convinced himself to believe his hypothesis is true. I also dont believe that the numerous posters who challenged him at the time could have been so consistently taken in.
> 
> I dont quite understand why Newman used the false evidence strategy to defeat his opponents. In other words rebutt a point with false evidence which has the appearance of plausibility (and most forum members dont check a claim but accept - meaning most posters will believe Newman has won the argument - t/c member Goddess Yuja Wang is a good example)
> 
> Still - it seems to me far too elaborate a hoax for it to be so. I also would have thought Newman would have appeared somwhere by now - maybe sign up in another name - and laughed his head off at those who were taken in. I certainly would. What's the point in a hoax if you don't laugh in the faces of those you have duped?


Stomanek, thank you for your excellent contribution! You have gone very close to the heart of this tale by posting the link to Newman's website. The evidence is very strong that he is a mental case; it may also then be a marvelous coincidence that his name is Newman, and that this contributed to my sense that he appropriated the Newman identity from the Whately connection. So I recalibrate my suspicion that "Newman" continues to revel in a hoax. The truth may be either that he is and has always been a nut job, or that he began as a hoaxer but, like Hubbard, fell headlong into his own fabricated world. Great post!


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I wonder what Levin's source is for that information. And how he can arrive at a figure of 90%.
> 
> My only source is the book by Jane Glover which quite meticulously details what Constanze did in the aftermath of Mozart's death. I need to get the book out and re-check but I recall she sold of relatively few m/s in the early months - she sold 8 scores to the king of prussia for 800 ducats (a large sum in those days) and this money was enough to protect her from immediate hardship and the necessity of dumping her husband's precious m/s. If she really did destroy 90% of the sketches - it would seem to contradict her otherwise careful guardianship of all Mozart's papers etc and in any case seems reckless.
> I am not saying Levin is wrong - but he might be.


Constanze also, in short order, sold an archive of her husband's manuscripts to Johann Anton André for 3,150 gulden.

The 90% figure Levin might have just tossed off to mean the sketches for all of the other works, those that didn't survive. As I wrote above, sketches for 10% of the catalog survive, along with references to other sketches that are no longer extant.

Today it would seem reckless to throw away sketches, but in that age I don't think people shared our historical consciousness. Since in the case of the known works, the sketches were just messy jottings superseded by autograph manuscripts and printed scores, I doubt Constanze or those who assisted her would have seen any point in preserving them. On the other hand the unique fragments, those not superseded by finished scores, she seems to have preserved.



stomanek said:


> OK - just did some research. In a book by Michael Freyhan on the Magic Flute libretto - he details how Constanze wrote in 1800 to Breitkopf and Hartel - listing 98 fragments - she adds that there were many more (ie more than 98) but were destroyed due to being unusable.
> 
> reckless behaviour indeed. Interesting that Constanze does not say she destroyed them - merely that they have been destroyed.
> 
> So Levin seems partially correct - still no idea though where this figure of 90% destroyed comes from.


Levin's assumption, based on the surviving evidence, was probably that sketching was a standard part of Mozart's working method, along with using a keyboard in formulating and elaborating his ideas. So he likely assumed that the sketches for the rest of the catalog went missing. Levin's writing seems to suggest there are a large number of fragments surviving that were never completed or incorporated into works we know. The totals you quote from Constanze's don't seem to match the larger body of fragments Levin claims.


----------



## hpowders

Constanze Mozart late in life. Too bad we don't have photos of WA Mozart. So many different drawings, all different.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> But are the annoying detectives right or wrong re: "Newman" in your view? Or are they just annoying?


Right in the sense that he was/still is(?) peddling a lot of nonsense? Yes, but no-one needs to be a Sherlock Holmes to work that out.

Right in that he stems from some elaborate, literary-informed, planned hoax? I don't know and I don't care that much because it's of less interest to me. Perhaps it is useful in fully convincing some stubborn fence-sitters though.

Are they annoying? Yes, very much so. Generally posting with a sort of world-weary sigh and a 'well I knew this all along, looong ago, if only you would listen to me'... and all the time I'm thinking: 'please shaddap'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> View attachment 97900
> 
> 
> Constanze Mozart late in life. Too bad we don't have photos of WA Mozart. So many different drawings, all different.


You cant imagine what a priceless photo that is

I quickly googled it and found news of its recent discovery here

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/07/germany.arts

I am thrilled to see this - it may not be Mozart - but to see a picture of the woman he spent his adult years with is a major find.


----------



## Genoveva

Strange Magic said:


> Stomanek, thank you for your excellent contribution! You have gone very close to the heart of this tale by posting the link to Newman's website. The evidence is very strong that he is a mental case; it may also then be a marvelous coincidence that his name is Newman, and that this contributed to my sense that he appropriated the Newman identity from the Whately connection. So I *recalibrate* my suspicion that "Newman" continues to revel in a hoax. The truth may be either that he is and has always been a nut job, or that he began as a hoaxer but, like Hubbard, fell headlong into his own fabricated world. Great post!


From this "recalibration" of your opinion, it would appear that you now believe that Newman probably does believe what he has been going on about for years, and is not a pure "hoaxer" as you were arguing earlier. This re-appriasal seems to be based on a glance at his website, usefully referred to by Stomanek.

I trust you now appreciate that it is not possible to obtain a decent assessment of this individual unless one actually takes the bother read some of the stuff he has been going on about for many years, or better still takes a close look at a cross-section of the many threads he has created all over the place. From these it's quite evident that he believes in what he has been saying.

Unfortunately, experience has often shown that there are some who can't be bothered to do the research, but who are only too ready to drop in alternative views, or even suggest that Newman was treated unfairly based on a very partial look at just one thread, thus creating yet more mystery and unnecessary complications around this subject than is necessary. That's the way things have been in the past and no doubt will continue in the future.


----------



## cimirro

hpowders said:


> View attachment 97900
> 
> 
> Constanze Mozart late in life. Too bad we don't have photos of WA Mozart. So many different drawings, all different.











I'm sorry to say you are looking at the wrong lady... she was already 78 years old in 1840
She is the one on the right side (Keller's left side)


----------



## Genoveva

I don't pretend to have expertise on this matter, but I was of the opinion that this photo allegedly including of Constanze Mozart could be bogus. As far as I recall it was first discovered in 2006 but later revealed to be a hoax by the grandson of the man in the middle. I gather that the latest position is that the authenticity of the picture is currently disputed. It could be bogus but it's not certain either way.


----------



## Strange Magic

Genoveva said:


> From this "recalibration" of your opinion, it would appear that you now believe that Newman probably does believe what he has been going on about for years, and is not a pure "hoaxer" as you were arguing earlier. This re-appriasal seems to be based on a glance at his website, usefully referred to by Stomanek.
> 
> I trust you now appreciate that it is not possible to obtain a decent assessment of this individual unless one actually takes the bother read some of the stuff he has been going on about for many years, or better still takes a close look at a cross-section of the many threads he has created all over the place. From these it's quite evident that he believes in what he has been saying.
> 
> Unfortunately, experience has often shown that there are some who can't be bothered to do the research, but who are only too ready to drop in alternative views, or even suggest that Newman was treated unfairly based on a very partial look at just one thread, thus creating yet more mystery and unnecessary complications around this subject than is necessary. That's the way things have been in the past and no doubt will continue in the future.


Thank you for re-explaining my views on Newman. In fact, it was exposure to Newman's website, thanks to Stomanek's post, that quickly indicated Newman's obsessive pathology, rather than years of observation of Newman's many posts. I'm glad to have been able to offer Richard Whately's essay as a probable catalyst in setting Newman along his path, whether he began as a hoaxer or not. I hope others will get around someday to reading Whately on Napoleon, as it is a masterpiece of its kind. I did find it somewhat unsettling that the two most prominent Robert Newmans that turned up upon a search were a comedian sometimes writing on evolution with a non-specialist's sceptical view, and an astrophysicist/Intelligent Design enthusiast, also writing about evolution with a non-specialist's sceptical view. In the latter case, Whately's name and essay turned up in a reference.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> I did find it somewhat unsettling that the two most prominent Robert Newmans that turned up upon a search were a comedian sometimes writing on evolution with a non-specialist's sceptical view...


I'm going to defend British comedian Rob Newman though. He's not a crank, but actually an intelligent (nowadays largely political) comedian. 
His series about evolution was also a stand-up show/lecture that was broadcast on BBC Radio 4; I listened to it quite recently. He doesn't stray from mainstream Darwinian views of evolution, but rather adopts a position closer to that of Richard Lewontin - rightly or wrongly Newman is basically taking an anti-Dawkins stance. Nothing Newman says is outside the scholarly debates concerning the effects of biology on psychological and social behaviour.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> I don't pretend to have expertise on this matter, but I was of the opinion that this photo allegedly including of Constanze Mozart could be bogus. As far as I recall it was first discovered in 2006 but later revealed to be a hoax by the grandson of the man in the middle. I gather that the latest position is that the authenticity of the picture is currently disputed. It could be bogus but it's not certain either way.


I see - that is disappointing and perhaps explains why I haven't heard anything of this picture until now. I guess the people who found the picture would want to claim it is Constanze.


----------



## jdec

hpowders said:


> View attachment 97900
> 
> 
> Constanze Mozart late in life. Too bad we don't have photos of WA Mozart. So many different drawings, all different.


I see some resemblance (cheeks, lips, chin, nose):


----------



## cimirro

jdec said:


> I see some resemblance (cheeks, lips, chin, nose):


GOSH!!!! Lack of experience with old photos or bad mathematics?
Does anyone really believes someone at 78 years old in 1840 will look like this woman????? 
If Constanze really is in the photo she is the woman in the other side...


----------



## jdec

cimirro said:


> GOSH!!!! Lack of experience with old photos or bad mathematics?
> Does anyone really believes someone at 78 years old in 1840 will look like this woman?????
> If Constanze really is in the photo she is the woman in the other side...
> 
> View attachment 97905


Gosh! Why are you so sure? ! Do a web search of "Constanze Mozart photo". All of the references point to the woman on the left side. I would not find unbelievable that she was 78 years old at the moment that picture was taken.


----------



## cimirro

Sorry if my "gosh" offended, it was not my intention, really sorry.
Anyway, have you ever seen any woman with 78 years old who lived before the actual possibilities of make-ups/medicine/plastic surgery/etc?
it is not possible to be the other one, simple like that. historically impossible


----------



## jdec

http://www.salieri-online.com/mozreq/pg1.php

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/07/germany.arts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanze_Mozart

Etc... Etc...


----------



## cimirro

jdec said:


> Gosh! Why are you so sure? ! Do a web search of "Constanze Mozart photo". All of the references point to the woman on the left side. I would not find unbelievable that she was 78 years old at the moment that picture was taken.


And yes, if you do a websearch, one of the sites which shows the other lady is the http://www.salieri-online.com/mozreq/pg1.php
I just wrote to the owner some minutes ago, because it is clearly a mistake.
I have been interested in old photos since long ago, I have never seen anyone around 80 years old looks like 40 y.o. when the photo is from early 1800's


----------



## cimirro

jdec said:


> http://www.salieri-online.com/mozreq/pg1.php
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/07/germany.arts
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanze_Mozart
> 
> Etc... Etc...


yes, and the mistake will continue unless someone stop it...


----------



## hpowders

jdec said:


> I see some resemblance (cheeks, lips, chin, nose):


Your eyes are better than mine. I see no resemblance.


----------



## hpowders

You want genius? Listen to the 5 minute Fantasia in D minor K.397. A pithy masterpiece.

Pithy always works for me.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> Gosh! Why are you so sure? ! Do a web search of "Constanze Mozart photo". All of the references point to the woman on the left side. I would not find unbelievable that she was 78 years old at the moment that picture was taken.


Speaking of hoaxes... this photograph (despite appearing on Wikipedia) is considered to be fraudulent in an LA Times article from 2006!
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/16/entertainment/ca-artsnotes16.1


----------



## cimirro

eugeneonagain said:


> Speaking of hoaxes... this photograph (despite appearing on Wikipedia) is considered to be fraudulent in an LA Times article from 2006!
> http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/16/entertainment/ca-artsnotes16.1


Very interesting content! Thank you for sharing 
specially this part:



> "I am terribly sorry to disappoint people on this forum," Agnes Selby, author of "Constanze, Mozart's Beloved," wrote on the Classical Music Guide Forums website on July 8. "But this is certainly not Constanze but somebody's aunt. The whole story was concocted by Keller's grandson....
> 
> "Constanze Mozart was crippled by arthritis by 1840 and died in 1842. There is absolutely no way she could have traveled to visit Maximillian Keller during the period when the photograph was taken. Contrary to the statements made in the newspaper, Constanze had no contact with Keller since 1826."


I have not made any research on this, but I believe it is not Constanze after that, anyway I'm still amazed since for a long time several people were believing the younger lady was the 78 years old widow (I mean the people from newspapers/sites of course).

Best
Artur


----------



## DaveM

cimirro said:


> And yes, if you do a websearch, one of the sites which shows the other lady is the http://www.salieri-online.com/mozreq/pg1.php
> I just wrote to the owner some minutes ago, because it is clearly a mistake.
> I have been interested in old photos since long ago, I have never seen anyone around 80 years old looks like 40 y.o. when the photo is from early 1800's


 Looks like 40?? Here's Clara Schumann at 47:


----------



## eugeneonagain

The other amusing thing of note is if you click only the name and not the link to German wiki, the link for Max Keller from that photo on Wikipedia goes to _Dr Max Leo Keller_, Swiss engineer and dodgy fascist politician. An amusing entry since even though it records his birth as 1897, there is no mention of his death ...so he is probably still at large.


----------



## PlaySalieri

cimirro said:


> Very interesting content! Thank you for sharing
> specially this part:
> 
> I have not made any research on this, but I believe it is not Constanze after that, anyway I'm still amazed since for a long time several people were believing the younger lady was the 78 years old widow (I mean the people from newspapers/sites of course).
> 
> Best
> Artur


so the Guardian was duped too.

well - a hoax I'm not bothered about.


----------



## cimirro

DaveM said:


> Looks like 40?? Here's Clara Schumann at 47:
> View attachment 97908


Please do not feel offended, but can I ask you what part of this statement is not clear?
"I have never seen anyone around 80 years old looks like 40 y.o. when the photo is from early 1800's"

80 y.o. looks like 40 y.o.? 
early 1800's?
???

In this case you are welcome to prove me wrong at any time, just send me a picture made before 1850 with a woman around 80 year old who still looks like 40 years old

Best
Artur


----------



## DaveM

cimirro said:


> Please do not feel offended, but can I ask you what part of this statement is not clear?
> "I have never seen anyone around 80 years old looks like 40 y.o. when the photo is from early 1800's"
> 
> 80 y.o. looks like 40 y.o.?
> early 1800's?
> ???
> 
> In this case you are welcome to prove me wrong at any time, just send me a picture made before 1850 with a woman around 80 year old who still looks like 40 years old
> 
> Best
> Artur


Don't feel offended, but as I understood your post you are inferring that the woman on the left of the photo looks 40. I'm pointing out that she looks older, arguably much older, than 40 even for that period hence the px of Clara who at 47 looks younger than that woman.


----------



## cimirro

DaveM said:


> Don't feel offended, but as I understood your post you are inferring that the woman on the left of the photo looks 40. I'm pointing out that she looks older, arguably much older, than 40 even for that period hence the px of Clara who at 47 looks younger than that woman.


Yes, I agree she must be probably older than 40, less than 60/65 in my opinion, (my mistake not use 60 instead of 40)
(but not possible to be around 78 y.o. in such historic period - so obviously would never be Constanze)


----------



## poconoron

cimirro said:


> Yes, I agree she must be probably older than 40, less than 60/65 in my opinion, (my mistake not use 60 instead of 40)
> (but not possible to be around 78 y.o. in such historic period - so obviously would never be Constanze)


IMHO, the picture is not clear enough to accurately gauge the age, no matter who she happens to be.


----------



## cimirro

poconoron said:


> IMHO, the picture is not clear enough to accurately gauge the age, no matter who she happens to be.


"accurately gauge the age"?
what a silly joke, I'm really loosing my time here... I will not explain anything more...
bye bye...
(thank you for the useful reply)


----------



## poconoron

cimirro said:


> "accurately gauge the age"?
> what a silly joke, I'm really loosing my time here... I will not explain anything more...
> bye bye...


OK then, bye bye.


----------



## PlaySalieri

The photo seems not to be Constanze then - but on age - Constanze did not work physically - she lived quite an affluent and happy life - and ate all organic food - breathed non polluted air - no modern processed food rubbish. I expect she looked quite a young 78 when she was that age.
Novello in his account says she was a handsome woman when he visited her in old age.


----------



## cimirro

stomanek said:


> The photo seems not to be Constanze then - but on age - Constanze did not work physically - she lived quite an affluent and happy life - and ate all organic food - breathed non polluted air - no modern processed food rubbish. I expect she looked quite a young 78 when she was that age.
> Novello in his account says she was a handsome woman when he visited her in old age.


Who am I to disagree with such knowledge about the history of photography and the living habits of human kind during the centuries!
My excuses to all who read my comments and disagree with me... I was terrible wrong...
I just noticed there is a true photo by Constanze around... indeed she looks good at her 78's









I always keep silent when I do not know something, but now it seems clear which is the expected quality of information I must add in the forum threads! Thanks for your patience with me until now...


----------



## PlaySalieri

cimirro said:


> Who am I to disagree with such knowledge about the history of photography and the living habits of human kind during the centuries!
> My excuses to all who read my comments and disagree with me... I was terrible wrong...
> I just noticed there is a true photo by Constanze around... indeed she looks good at her 78's
> 
> View attachment 97913
> 
> 
> I always keep silent when I do not know something, but now it seems clear which is the expected quality of information I must add in the forum threads! Thanks for your patience with me until now...


Do not worry sir.

We are all experts here - you are in the right place.


----------



## PlaySalieri

cimirro said:


> Sorry if my "gosh" offended, it was not my intention, really sorry.
> Anyway, have you ever seen any woman with 78 years old who lived before the actual possibilities of make-ups/medicine/plastic surgery/etc?
> it is not possible to be the other one, simple like that. historically impossible


well the lady on the left side of the picture seems to have fooled everybody but you - we all think she looks significantly older than 40 - and it looks like we are wrong. The other lady clearly looks much much older. I doubt if Constanze would have had black hair at 78 years of age. It is probable we dont want to see Constanze as the shrivelled up old woman in the picture but I suppose that it more likely how she looked, organic food and fresh air or not.


----------



## Genoveva

As I pointed out soon after the group photo allegedly including Constanze Mozart was first posted here (#226), it has long been held that the picture could be bogus. The photo first hit the newspapers in 2006, although its existence was known about several years before then, but within months of it hitting the news in 2006 major doubts were raised about its authenticity. 

The photo was allegedly taken in 1840, some two years before Constanze's death. It was supposedly a "daguerreotype" of photo, i.e. the earliest kind of photography. The main queries about the authenticity of this photo that have been raised are that Constanze kept diaries and there is no record of her visiting the gentleman in the centre (Herr Keller) anything like as late as 1840. Her last known contact with Keller was in 1826. By 1840 she was a cripple with arthritis, had gout and varicose veins inflammations, and could hardly walk. Second, outdoor photographs of the calibre in that photo were not possible as early as 1840 because the quality of lenses required for sharp outdoor photography had not been invented by then, and it was not until the 1850's that outdoor photos including people were possible. Third, it has also been suggested that the head of the lady in question may possibly have be "photo-shopped" but I'm clued up on the specific queries here.

There seems to have been a lot of confusion in some of the subsequent discussion about the likeness of the women in the two photos posted by Jdec in his post # 235 . First, the relevant person who is alleged to be Constanze Mozart in the 1840 photo is the lady on the left as you look at it, not to the lady to right (Keller's right), as argued by one member. Secondly, I think that member Jdec made a valid observation in his post #235 where he observed that there is some resemblance between the facial features of the lady in the photo he posted (i.e. a painting of Constanze of 1802 when she was 40) and the 1840 photo. I took it that Jdec was obviously allowing for some considerable ageing of the subject over this 38 year period. Unfortunately, there was then a big confusion in that some later posters appeared to think that Jdec was saying that the image of the 40-year-old Constanze was the same image as the one that actually appears in the 1842 photo. I don't believe he meant that at all, only that allowing for a 38 year age difference the images seemed as though they could be of the same person.

Personally, I think the photo is a hoax. I can see a rough similarity between the facial features of the 1802 and 1840 photos, but the photographic detail of the facial features in the 1840 photo is not good enough, e.g. the face in the 1840 photo is rather blurred, and the lady's ears are not shown, which if they were might have been a helpful further factor on which to base a comparison. The other factors mentioned above pointing to it being a fake seem quite persuasive to me.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> As I pointed out soon after the group photo allegedly including Constanze Mozart was first posted here (#226), it has long been held that the picture could be bogus. The photo first hit the newspapers in 2006, although its existence was known about several years before then, but within months of it hitting the news in 2006 major doubts were raised about its authenticity.
> 
> The photo was allegedly taken in 1840, some two years before Constanze's death. It was supposedly a "daguerreotype" of photo, i.e. the earliest kind of photography. The main queries about the authenticity of this photo that have been raised are that Constanze kept diaries and there is no record of her visiting the gentleman in the centre (Herr Keller) anything like as late as 1840. Her last known contact with Keller was in 1826. By 1840 she was a cripple with arthritis, had gout and varicose veins inflammations, and could hardly walk. Second, outdoor photographs of the calibre in that photo were not possible as early as 1840 because the quality of lenses required for sharp outdoor photography had not been invented by then, and it was not until the 1850's that outdoor photos including people were possible. Third, it has also been suggested that the head of the lady in question may possibly have be "photo-shopped" but I'm clued up on the specific queries here.
> 
> There seems to have been a lot of confusion in some of the subsequent discussion about the likeness of the women in the two photos posted by Jdec in his post # 235 . First, the relevant person who is alleged to be Constanze Mozart in the 1840 photo is the lady on the left as you look at it, not to the lady to right (Keller's right), as argued by one member. Secondly, I think that member Jdec made a valid observation in his post #235 where he observed that there is some resemblance between the facial features of the lady in the photo he posted (i.e. a painting of Constanze of 1802 when she was 40) and the 1840 photo. I took it that Jdec was obviously allowing for some considerable ageing of the subject over this 38 year period. Unfortunately, there was then a big confusion in that *some later posters appeared to think that Jdec was saying that the image of the 40-year-old Constanze was the same image as the one that actually appears in the 1842 photo. * I don't believe he meant that at all, only that allowing for a 38 year age difference the images seemed as though they could be of the same person.
> 
> Personally, I think the photo is a hoax. I can see a rough similarity between the facial features of the 1802 and 1840 photos, but the photographic detail of the facial features in the 1840 photo is not good enough, e.g. the face in the 1840 photo is rather blurred, and the lady's ears are not shown, which if they were might have been a helpful further factor on which to base a comparison. The other factors mentioned above pointing to it being a fake seem quite persuasive to me.


I think poster cimirro was of the opinion that the figure on the left as we look at it - appears to be 40 years of age - he backs up this opinion by claiming to have some specialist knowledge of old photography. If he thought another poster was ill informed enough to think that Constanze was only 40 when she is alleged to have been photographed - I would think that quite strange. cimirro may think many of us express our views without being informed - but any fool acquainted with classical music history knows that Constanze was 40 y/o decades before photography was possible.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> I think poster cimirro was of the opinion that the figure on the left as we look at it - appears to be 40 years of age - he backs up this opinion by claiming to have some specialist knowledge of old photography. If he thought another poster was ill informed enough to think that Constanze was only 40 when she is alleged to have been photographed - I would think that quite strange. cimirro may think many of us express our views without being informed - but any fool acquainted with classical music history knows that Constanze was 40 y/o decades before photography was possible.


I think that cimirro thought that it was being suggested by Jdec that the two faces (the one posted by Jdec in his post # 235 and the one of the lady on the left in the 1840 photo) were the same, i.e. of the same vintage. Clearly, Jdec wasn't making that suggestion, just that the two faces had some similarities and could be the same person allowing for a 38 year age difference between the two photos.

I can't understand how such a basic misunderstanding could possibly arise as the face in the 1840 photo is clearly of a much older woman than the one in the 1802 photo. But that's the only explanation of the ensuing highly confused discussion that seems evident to me.

What tangled webs ...


----------



## Guest

Unless someone with appropriate qualifications can verify the provenance of the picture, none of us here should assume that it shows who it is claimed to show, regardless of her supposed age.

That of course goes for any of the photos we post here - I may claim that the dog in my profile picture belongs to Steve Reich, and (unless someone steps forward with clear evidence to the contrary), you are free to accept or reject my claim.


----------



## Genoveva

MacLeod said:


> Unless someone with appropriate qualifications can verify the provenance of the picture, none of us here should assume that it shows who it is claimed to show, regardless of her supposed age.
> 
> That of course goes for any of the photos we post here - I may claim that the dog in my profile picture belongs to Steve Reich, and (unless someone steps forward with clear evidence to the contrary), you are free to accept or reject my claim.


What did you make of the points I made in my previous post concerning the un-likelihood of Constanze being present in that gathering at the time (1840), and the fact that photographic technology was unlikely to have been sufficiently advanced by 1840 to have been capable of taking a photo of a group of people of that quality? Isn't this sufficient to indicate that the photo is probably a fake?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I may claim that the dog in my profile picture belongs to Steve Reich, and (unless someone steps forward with clear evidence to the contrary), you are free to accept or reject my claim.


I can believe it, since the dog who lives next door to me composes vocal music in a radically minimalist style every time his owner is away.


----------



## DaveM

Reading all these various opinions on the subject of that photograph, I can't help but wonder why people don't read other people's posts more carefully before commenting on them. Just sayin'.


----------



## DavidA

Just watching Figaro. Mozart's sheer effortless genius in matching music to character is unmatched.


----------



## poconoron

Agreed............none better.


----------



## Dumbo

I don't know. I've always thought the Queen of the Night's Aria was delightfully silly. Adding ominous stage lighting doesn't take the childish grin off my face when I hear it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dumbo said:


> I don't know. I've always thought the Queen of the Night's Aria was delightfully silly. Adding ominous stage lighting doesn't take the childish grin off my face when I hear it.


thanks for that comment Dumbo


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Just watching Figaro. Mozart's sheer effortless genius in matching music to character is unmatched.


"Unmatched" is a risky accolade. In what way are Wagner - and Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, Strauss, Berg or Britten, in certain of their operas - less adept at matching music to character? Mightn't the rather conventional and even one-dimensional people in _Figaro_ and other Mozart operas be relatively easy to find suitable (not necessarily great, but appropriate) music for, compared to such original and complex characters as Tristan, Wotan, Alberich, Mime, Kundry, Rigoletto, Violetta, Falstaff, Butterfly, Melisande, Salome, Klytemnaestra, Wozzeck, Lulu, Puck or Grimes - all defined and made vivid and unforgettable by music unique to them? Are Donna Anna, Donna Elvira and Don Ottavio, or those silly people in _Cosi fan tutte_, really more musically distinctive? Not to my ears they aren't. Quite the contrary.

I'm not denigrating Mozart's skill, or suggesting that it isn't extraordinary given the aesthetic expectations and musical style of his period. But dramatic characterization, and the musical portrayal of emotional/psychological states, were more conventional in the Baroque and Classical eras than they later became. This isn't a question of musical quality as such: if I find many of Mozart's characters one-dimensional and uninteresting, it isn't because their music isn't inspired and excellent music. I just think there were a great many aspects of human psychology that were not explored in the culture of the time, and that, therefore, music was not yet ready to portray these aspects and delve much below the surface of characters as presented in their libretti. Thus we have the musically beautiful but really quite mundane distress and indignation of Donnas Anna and Elvira, two wronged noble ladies of no great distinction beyond the situational: one has a (rather insipid) boyfriend to run to and the other does not (and my goodness, isn't "Mi tradi" an oddly cheerful and exuberant complaint?). Compare the limited character - and musical character - of these women with the hurt, longing, humiliation, rage, imperiousness, sarcasm, depression, fatalism, rashness, and rapturous abandon of the wronged noble lady Isolde, every shade of her feelings expressed in precisely matched verbal and musical terms.

I'm not going to claim that Wagner was a greater "genius" at "matching music to character" than Mozart, but I will argue that his characters - like characters in modern drama and literature in general - do tend to present greater complexities, and thus greater opportunities and demands for specific musical expression, than the personages in most 18th-century works. The Classical temperament was shy of the extremes of experience - its vaunted "balance" and "rationality" always to be preserved - and it preferred to keep its skeletons in the closet. We should remember that Shakespeare's tragedies were performed in highly bowdlerized rewritings until Romanticism reacquainted us with the uncensored subconscious and its repertoire of the strange, the terrible, and the sublime.


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> What did you make of the points I made in my previous post concerning the un-likelihood of Constanze being present in that gathering at the time (1840), and the fact that photographic technology was unlikely to have been sufficiently advanced by 1840 to have been capable of taking a photo of a group of people of that quality? Isn't this sufficient to indicate that the photo is probably a fake?


TBH, I didn't give them specific consideration, but since you ask, my very brief research into the development of photography leads me to conclude that as it was in its infancy in 1840 (with 1839 cited as the 'birth' of photography) it's a picture from later on in the century.


----------



## Genoveva

MacLeod said:


> TBH, I didn't give them specific consideration, but since you ask, my very brief research into the development of photography leads me to conclude that as it was in its infancy in 1840 (with 1839 cited as the 'birth' of photography) it's a picture from later on in the century.


I thought you must have passed over what I wrote.

On the point about the infancy of photography, if you delve into this further you will discover that it's unlikely that lens technology had advanced sufficiently far by 1840 to have been capable of creating a photo like the one we're discussing. By around 1840 it was only just possible to take a photo of a single individual, indoors under ideal lighting conditions, who was able to pose still for a long while. To take a group of people outdoors side by side, all in focus, required significant advances in lens technology that did not occur until years later (requiring much faster lenses).

Taken in conjunction with the fact that it's most unlikely that Constanze Mozart was a visitor at that venue as late as 1840, it all stacks up to the photo probably being a hoax.


----------



## Genoveva

DaveM said:


> Reading all these various opinions on the subject of that photograph, I can't help but wonder why people don't read other people's posts more carefully before commenting on them. Just sayin'.


I agree with that.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> "Unmatched" is a risky accolade. In what way are Wagner - and Verdi, Puccini, Debussy, Strauss, Berg or Britten, in certain of their operas - less adept at matching music to character? Mightn't *the rather conventional and even one-dimensional people in Figaro and other Mozart operas* be relatively easy to find suitable (not necessarily great, but appropriate) music for, compared to such original and *complex characters as Tristan, Wotan, Alberich, Mime, Kundry, Rigoletto, Violetta, Falstaff, Butterfly, Melisande, Salome, Klytemnaestra, Wozzeck, Lulu, Puck or Grimes* - all defined and made vivid and unforgettable by music unique to them? Are Donna Anna, Donna Elvira and Don Ottavio, or those silly people in _Cosi fan tutte_, really more musically distinctive? Not to my ears they aren't. Quite the contrary.
> 
> I'm not denigrating Mozart's skill, or suggesting that it isn't extraordinary given the aesthetic expectations and musical style of his period. But dramatic characterization, and the musical portrayal of emotional/psychological states, were more conventional in the Baroque and Classical eras than they later became. This isn't a question of musical quality as such: if I find many of Mozart's characters one-dimensional and uninteresting, it isn't because their music isn't inspired and excellent music. I just think there were a great many aspects of human psychology that were not explored in the culture of the time, and that, therefore, music was not yet ready to portray these aspects and delve much below the surface of characters as presented in their libretti. Thus we have the musically beautiful but really quite mundane distress and indignation of Donnas Anna and Elvira, two wronged noble ladies of no great distinction beyond the situational: one has a (rather insipid) boyfriend to run to and the other does not (and my goodness, isn't "Mi tradi" an oddly cheerful and exuberant complaint?). Compare the limited character - and musical character - of these women with the hurt, longing, humiliation, rage, imperiousness, sarcasm, depression, fatalism, rashness, and rapturous abandon of the wronged noble lady Isolde, every shade of her feelings expressed in precisely matched verbal and musical terms.
> 
> I'm not going to claim that Wagner was a greater "genius" at "matching music to character" than Mozart, but I will argue that his characters - like characters in modern drama and literature in general - do tend to present greater complexities, and thus greater opportunities and demands for specific musical expression, than the personages in most 18th-century works. The Classical temperament was shy of the extremes of experience - its vaunted "balance" and "rationality" always to be preserved - and it preferred to keep its skeletons in the closet. We should remember that Shakespeare's tragedies were performed in highly bowdlerized rewritings until Romanticism reacquainted us with the uncensored subconscious and its repertoire of the strange, the terrible, and the sublime.


I would certainly take issue with you when you talk about 'one dimensional' characters. Because they are 'real life' people that certainly doesn't make them one dimensional. The fact is Mozart has taken 'ordinary' people and brought them to life - we can identify with them. Who can identify with Tristan and Isolde? Not me I'm afraid. They're simply not real. Real people do not behave like that in life. They do behave far more like Donna Anna and Elvira - if you've ever come across wronged women you'll know what I mean. Tristan and Isolde leaves me cold although I admire it as a masterpiece. Figaro leaves me elated (so does Falstaff btw). I find the character of Wotan terribly tiresome - give me Rigoletto any day for a flawed father figure. 
Because Mozart didn't let everything hang out in the same way as (say) Wagner did, does not mean the exceedingly subtle characterisations are not matchless. Of course, if you are looking for romantic excess you will not find it. But what you will find is an unutterable genius for matching music to characterisation.
Of course, this is a purely subjective matter. To me Mozart acquainted us with the 'strange, the terrible, and the sublime' in his mature operas in a way no-one else has matched.


----------



## DaveM

Opera has got to be the most difficult classical format to compose. If one wants evidence of the genius of this composer, just look at the progression of Mozart's operas from those that sounded very period to the last 4 that sounded timeless. And this in a relatively short period of time. Not to mention that the last 3 operas IMO equal or surpass virtually every opera composed subsequently, with the exception of perhaps the Wagner operas. 

I say this not because I find Wagner's operas de facto better, but because you simply can't compare Mozart and Wagner operas. IMO, you can listen to a Mozart opera anytime. It's accessible, easy to turn on and off, easy to listen to an aria here and there. On the other hand, you have to prepare yourself to listen to a Wagner opera. It's an event. You have to prepare for it. Get that glass of wine and settle down for the musical drama for the next few hours. Listening to bits and pieces destroys the substance of the whole.


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> I thought you must have passed over what I wrote.
> 
> On the point about the infancy of photography, if you delve into this further you will discover that it's unlikely that lens technology had advanced sufficiently far by 1840 to have been capable of creating a photo like the one we're discussing. By around 1840 it was only just possible to take a photo of a single individual, indoors under ideal lighting conditions, who was able to pose still for a long while. To take a group of people outdoors side by side, all in focus, required significant advances in lens technology that did not occur until years later (requiring much faster lenses).
> 
> Taken in conjunction with the fact that it's most unlikely that Constanze Mozart was a visitor at that venue as late as 1840, it all stacks up to the photo probably being a hoax.


So we agree then?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

DavidA said:


> I would certainly take issue with you when you talk about 'one dimensional' characters. Because they are 'real life' people that certainly doesn't make them one dimensional. The fact is Mozart has taken 'ordinary' people and brought them to life - we can identify with them. Who can identify with Tristan and Isolde? Not me I'm afraid. They're simply not real. Real people do not behave like that in life. They do behave far more like Donna Anna and Elvira - if you've ever come across wronged women you'll know what I mean. Tristan and Isolde leaves me cold although I admire it as a masterpiece. Figaro leaves me elated (so does Falstaff btw). I find the character of Wotan terribly tiresome - give me Rigoletto any day for a flawed father figure.
> Because Mozart didn't let everything hang out in the same way as (say) Wagner did, does not mean the exceedingly subtle characterisations are not matchless. Of course, if you are looking for romantic excess you will not find it. But what you will find is an unutterable genius for matching music to characterisation.
> Of course, this is a purely subjective matter. To me Mozart acquainted us with the 'strange, the terrible, and the sublime' in his mature operas in a way no-one else has matched.


Congrats for one of the best posts I've yet read on here.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> I would certainly take issue with you when you talk about 'one dimensional' characters. Because they are 'real life' people that certainly doesn't make them one dimensional. The fact is Mozart has taken 'ordinary' people and brought them to life - we can identify with them. Who can identify with Tristan and Isolde? Not me I'm afraid. They're simply not real. Real people do not behave like that in life. They do behave far more like Donna Anna and Elvira - if you've ever come across wronged women you'll know what I mean. Tristan and Isolde leaves me cold although I admire it as a masterpiece. Figaro leaves me elated (so does Falstaff btw). I find the character of Wotan terribly tiresome - give me Rigoletto any day for a flawed father figure.
> Because Mozart didn't let everything hang out in the same way as (say) Wagner did, does not mean the exceedingly subtle characterisations are not matchless. Of course, if you are looking for romantic excess you will not find it. But what you will find is an unutterable genius for matching music to characterisation.
> Of course, this is a purely subjective matter. To me Mozart acquainted us with the 'strange, the terrible, and the sublime' in his mature operas in a way no-one else has matched.


You're expressing a personal preference for characters you can "identify with," but what does that have to do with the matter at hand? You're not addressing my reservations about your claim that Mozart is _better_ at "matching music to character" than other composers, a claim for which you haven't presented a shred of evidence.

It appears that you don't understand non-naturalistic approaches to characterization - the fact that "everyday" realism is not merely not the only possible approach, but not even the predominant approach in the history of literature and drama. Wotan, for example, in his struggles with conflicting moral principles, his growing self-awareness, and his momentous choices, is presented by Wagner as far more than a "flawed father figure." If you understood him, the aspects of human experience he embodies, and his function in the greater drama of the _Ring,_ you couldn't possibly think of comparing him with Rigoletto (who, by the way, is also more than a "flawed father figure").

I see that now you're even contending that Mozart is "unmatched" not only in fitting music to character but in anticipating the Romantic project of portraying the "strange, the terrible and the sublime." How long have you been holding back this amazing pronouncement? I must ask: is there _anything, _according to you, that any other composer did as well as, or better than, the god Mozart, or any aspects of the human experience which you might concede that he didn't fully express? If so, what would they be? How do you assess the musical and dramatic achievements of the operatic arts which came after him? Did a late 18th-century composer say and do all that needed to be said and done? Did he exhaust the potential of the genre to tell us about ourselves?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> You're expressing a personal preference for characters you can "identify with," but what does that have to do with the matter at hand? You're not addressing my reservations about your claim that Mozart is _better_ at "matching music to character" than other composers, a *claim for which you haven't presented a shred of evidence.
> *
> It appears that you don't understand non-Mozartean approaches to characterization - the fact that "everyday" realism is not merely not the only possible approach, but not even the predominant approach in the history of literature and drama. Wotan, for example, in his struggles with conflicting moral principles, his growing self-awareness, and his momentous choices, is presented by Wagner as far more than a "flawed father figure." If you understood him, the aspects of human experience he embodies, and his function in the greater drama of the _Ring,_ you couldn't possibly think of comparing him with Rigoletto (who, by the way, is also more than a "flawed father figure").
> 
> I see that now you're even contending that Mozart is "unmatched" not only in fitting music to character but in anticipating the Romantic project of portraying the "strange, the terrible and the sublime." How long have you been holding back this amazing pronouncement? I must ask: is there _anything, _according to you, that any other composer did as well as, or better than, the god Mozart, or any aspects of the human experience which you might concede that he didn't fully express? If so, what would they be? How do you assess the musical and dramatic achievements of the operatic arts which came after him? Did a late 18th-century composer say and do all that needed to be said and done? Did he exhaust the potential of the genre to tell us about ourselves?


You actually haven't presented a shred of evidence for what you say either, merely giving your opinion. As I say it is a matter of opinion as to whether you can identify with the characters. You must not confuse the orgasmic sound of romantic opera for character development although it is obviously part of your own personality to prefer that. I have no problem with that but for me Mozart develop the character far better than Wagner. So in my opinion do Verdi and Puccini. But there is no right or wrong answer - just opinion.


----------



## hpowders

A true test of genius:

Heidi Lowy's recorded performances of the 18 Mozart piano sonatas. She did everything she could to destroy them-incredibly ludicrous tempo manipulations; a tone more apropos for Chopin; inexplicable starts and stops, etc; and yet:

The greatness of the music survived intact anyway!!

That's genius!!!


----------



## jdec

hpowders said:


> A true test of genius:
> 
> Heidi Lowy's recorded performances of the 18 Mozart piano sonatas. She did everything she could to destroy them-incredibly ludicrous tempo manipulations; a tone more apropos for Chopin; inexplicable starts and stops, etc; and yet:
> 
> *The greatness of the music *survived intact anyway!!
> 
> That's genius!!!


Great! not long ago you mentioned in another post that you found Mozart's piano sonatas 'disappointing'. Glad to see you changed your mind about it


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> *You actually haven't presented a shred of evidence for what you say either, merely giving your opinion.* As I say it is a matter of opinion as to whether you can identify with the characters. *You must not confuse the orgasmic sound of romantic opera for character development* although it is obviously part of your own personality to prefer that. I have no problem with that but *for me Mozart develop the character far better than Wagner.* So in my opinion do Verdi and Puccini. But there is no right or wrong answer - just opinion.


I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking the basis of yours. I questioned an assertion you made: that Mozart "matches music to character" better than any other composer. A questioner doesn't _need_ to "present evidence." _You_ made the assertion. If you can't back it up, then it's just irrational fanhood and empty hyperbole. But, as a matter of fact, I've given a number of reasons why your judgment on the inferiority of other composers exhibits a limited perspective on the subject. That's already more than I needed to do in order to cast doubt on your assertion and to show the legitimacy of my doubts. But let's take it a little farther into specifics.

The "orgasmic sound of romantic opera" is a simplistic caricature of the music of that period, but the potential of music to express new things after Mozart's time is not irrelevant. Humans do have orgasms, you know; humans have a great many other experiences, mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual, and I think it's pretty obvious that Mozart's operas come nowhere near to exploring their extent or their complexity. Character development? Is there any character anywhere in Mozart who undergoes a significant development akin to Parsifal's odyssey from thoughtless child to empathetic adult? No, Parsifal's external circumstances are not "realistic;" he doesn't live in the suburbs, play baseball or sell newspapers. But, in art, truth to human nature and human experience does not depend on realism, and some of the deeper, more elusive and hard-to-describe truths may be better conveyed through other artistic approaches. Parsifal's transformation from boy to man, his process of becoming an aware, autonomous, moral agent capable of empathizing with other living beings, rejecting the easy road of regressive self-indulgence, and assuming responsibility for contributing to the world, must be in its essence the experience of every human male who grows up. In real life, transformation takes place inside a person over many years, and most of it occurs at a subconscious level which would be impossible to convey in a compact realistic plot. Wagner, choosing myth and allegory as his means, has expressed each stage of Parsifal's journey not only with precise dramatic symbolism but with eloquent music which expresses the strange, terrible and sublime aspects of life in ways impossible to _any_ composer working in the musical language, and within the entire cultural ethos, of 1785.

Now what about character development in Mozart? In what way does Don Giovanni's character "develop"? Isn't it pretty obvious what he is right off the bat? What do we learn about him that deepens our perceptions or alters our feelings about him? What "character development" do we find in those unremarkable women who allow an amoral playboy to seduce them and spend the rest of the evening complaining that he's a bad man? What development do we see in those walking plot devices Don Alfonso or Despina? How much character is there to develop in that arrogant pig Count Almaviva, or in the randy adolescent Cherubino whose only interests are describing his lust and hiding behind chairs, or in Sarastro or Pamina or the Queen of the Night? Almaviva's "Contessa, perdona" is a sweet moment that we might take to indicate a change of heart (if were credulous enough not to ask whether he's only asking forgiveness because he got caught, and whether he'll be back at his game the next day), but his "development" is a long, long way from the transformation of Wotan and Parsifal in the highly developed narratives of corruption, maturation, and redemption which Wagner lays before us in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal,_ or even of the various characters in the homelier, more realistic comedy/drama of _Die Meistersinger._ I defy anyone to show how any of Mozart's characters are more richly and finely drawn than Hans Sachs.

If we're going to assert the superiority of one thing over another, we need at least to be able to show some specifics - if not proof, then at least some credible considerations. But why do it at all? Isn't it enough to express our admiration for something in terms that don't draw invidious comparisons? If people who love Mozart feel they have to claim over and over that every other composer is inferior, they can hardly expect the admirers of those other composers to let such claims stand unchallenged.


----------



## hpowders

jdec said:


> Great! not long ago you mentioned in another post that you found Mozart's piano sonatas 'disappointing'. Glad to see you changed your mind about it


I wrote back then that I find the Mozart Piano Sonatas disappointing compared to the piano concertos. Still do. Mozart was obviously more inspired by the latter form. Still, Mozart Piano Sonatas are better than piano works from most other composers....but for supreme piano Mozart...it will always be to piano concertos 20-27 that I look to.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> The "orgasmic sound of romantic opera" is a simplistic caricature of the music of that period, but the potential of music to express new things after Mozart's time is not irrelevant...
> 
> If we're going to assert the superiority of one thing over another, we need at least to be able to show some specifics - if not proof, then at least some credible considerations. But why do it at all? Isn't it enough to express our admiration for something in terms that don't draw invidious comparisons?


I do this with trepidation, but the snippets I quoted above seem to me to also lie at the bottom of the criticisms and denunciations of extended tonality/serial/etc music.

Let me ask you a direct question: do you think Wagner was the greatest musical genius who ever lived?


----------



## Barbebleu

I do love it when Woodduck and DavidA get into it. Oh how I've missed the banter! Nothing in the world can beat competitive posting when done by two magnificent exponents of that particular skill.:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I do this with trepidation, but the snippets I quoted above seem to me to also lie at the bottom of the criticisms and denunciations of extended tonality/serial/etc music.
> 
> Let me ask you *a direct question: do you think Wagner was the greatest musical genius who ever lived?*


Direct answer: no. I'd have to (if I had to ) put Bach, Mozart and Beethoven at the top of the heap, each superlative in ways that make ranking them impossible. And I believe, from everything I've read, that this triumvirate would be Wagner's own choice as well.

My view on Wagner is that he does not belong in quite the same category as other musical geniuses. He was a unique creative figure with an unprecedented vision that required thinking outside the standard ingredients of opera as it was known up to his time, and, as an aspect of that, outside the known techniques of music. It makes little sense to try to judge him as a "pure" composer, and yet the pursuit of his vision did succeed in revolutionizing music as well as impacting artistic culture in ways that Bach and Mozart certainly did not, and even Beethoven didn't equal.

Mozart's deserved reputation for superiority as a composer rests largely on the incredible ease, sense of ease, and consistency with which he achieved perfection of form - beauty, in the most precise sense of that term - in work after work and genre after genre. Hardly anyone fails to perceive this, whatever an individual may feel about his music subjectively. Wagner doesn't inspire this sort of consensus; appreciation of his greatness is much more dependent on perception of, and sympathy with, his specific expressive meanings, which individuals are certain to perceive and value differently. His music doesn't lack formal value and integrity, but his success in integrating sheerly aesthetic beauty with the opening up of formal constraints to create a fluid language of continuous narrative meaning was an unprecedented balancing act, astoundingly successful but not uniformly so, which many people with more conventional expectations of how music is put together find problematic to this day (I've known such people). Those who "get it" (I got it right away) find in Wagner a unique experience of a power which is comparable to that of any "pure" music while standing apart from it in an undeniable way. W. H. Auden called Wagner "perhaps the greatest genius who ever lived," and he was certainly not talking about compositional techniques.

DavidA is fond of going to threads about Wagner and pointing out Mozart's supposed superiority in this respect or that (usually criticizing Wagner's librettos for not being more like Da Ponte's, or his characters as not being enough like "real people" for DavidA to "identify with"). I hold that these criticisms are largely beside the point, that Wagner was evolving a very new sort of musical drama with its own suppositions and laws, that he was trying to say things that had never been said before, and that his techniques for doing this involved musical and dramatic ideas that Mozart, or any earlier opera composer, never dreamed of.

I have at no time claimed that Wagner is a "better" opera composer than Mozart. I'm willing to concede that Mozart's operas may be, in some ways, more "perfect," in certain respects, than Wagner's sometimes are (a subject for another time). But _Hamlet_ and _King Lear_ are not "perfect" plays either. There are works of art - and human endeavors of other kinds - that try for things so extraordinary, and come so near to achieving previously unthinkable and seemingly impossible goals, that "perfection" seems a superficial and irrelevant criterion of value, and searching for flaws a manifestation of small-mindedness. I find this to be as true of the mature works of Wagner as of Shakespeare's great tragedies, which no one nowadays criticizes for not being as well-made as the plays of Ibsen. That said, I can think of no artist who has equaled Wagner in doing something at once so unprecedented, ambitious, powerful, and influential, and fulfilling his own project with such success. Auden may well be right.


----------



## Lisztian

Woodduck said:


> If we're going to assert the superiority of one thing over another, we need at least to be able to show some specifics - if not proof, then at least some credible considerations. But why do it at all? Isn't it enough to express our admiration for something in terms that don't draw invidious comparisons? If people who love Mozart feel they have to claim over and over that every other composer is inferior, they can hardly expect the admirers of those other composers to let such claims stand unchallenged.


I basically agree with this especially. When this is pointed out people then draw the 'just an opinion' card: why not just say "I find the music to be more appealing"? Is it really that hard to use the less grating language in the first place? It is very noticeable that this kind of absolute language, that speaks in value judgements, is more common with lovers of Mozart than any other composer. It doesn't seem like innocent opinion-sharing to me. This is one reason why people get annoyed regarding Mozart, why Mozart is 'controversial.' Same with the OP in this thread, which claims that Mozart is THE genius of music and that if people disagree, it's because they are disturbed by just how great his music is (basically what it comes down to). It gets on peoples nerves.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Lisztian said:


> I basically agree with this especially. When this is pointed out people then draw the 'just an opinion' card: why not just say "I find the music to be more appealing"? Is it really that hard to use the less grating language in the first place? It is very noticeable that this kind of absolute language, that speaks in value judgements, is more common with lovers of Mozart than any other composer. It doesn't seem like innocent opinion-sharing to me. This is one reason why people get annoyed regarding Mozart, why Mozart is 'controversial.' Same with the OP in this thread, which claims that Mozart is THE genius of music and that if people disagree, it's because they are disturbed by just how great his music is (basically what it comes down to). It gets on peoples nerves.


and yet when fans of other composers make these statements - it doesn't seem to bother anyone. There are plenty of Bach and Beethoven fans on this board that claim absolute supremacy - nobody's feathers get ruffled in these cases. Yet when someone claims Mozart is the king - within a day we have a 20 page thread.


----------



## Woodduck

Lisztian said:


> I basically agree with this especially. When this is pointed out people then draw the 'just an opinion' card: why not just say "I find the music to be more appealing"? Is it really that hard to use the less grating language in the first place? It is very noticeable that this kind of absolute language, that speaks in value judgements, is more common with lovers of Mozart than any other composer. It doesn't seem like innocent opinion-sharing to me. This is one reason why people get annoyed regarding Mozart, why Mozart is 'controversial.' Same with the OP in this thread, which claims that Mozart is THE genius of music and that if people disagree, it's because they are disturbed by just how great his music is (basically what it comes down to). It gets on peoples nerves.


I'll agree with you in return, except that I think we can legitimately say more about the music we love than "I find it appealing." There are real artistic virtues which inspire admiration, and we can talk about them and still not make overwrought comparisons which, at least implicitly, downgrade other music which ought to be appreciated for itself. I agree that it's the claims made for Mozart which make him seem controversial, while in fact there is little serious disagreement about what he actually achieved.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> and yet when fans of other composers make these statements - it doesn't seem to bother anyone. *There are plenty of Bach and Beethoven fans on this board that claim absolute supremacy *- nobody's feathers get ruffled in these cases. Yet when someone claims Mozart is the king - within a day we have a 20 page thread.


I'd say there are fewer assertions of the transcendental divine nature of those other two. But who's counting? In Bach's case, a lot of people seem to find him boring, which isn't likely to generate much controversy. But it just isn't true that Beethoven lovers don't ruffle feathers. I participated in a thread in which he was compared to a used car salesman and Donald Trump, among other things. He's always being trivialized by people who think "dah-dah-dah-daaaaaaaah!" defines his work, and knocked down a peg by those allergic to the idea of the artist as culture hero. Besides, even Beethoven's greatest admirers are not apt to claim for him the consistent perfection of beauty which Mozart really does exhibit. He is unique and incomparable in his own way - which is why these offhand claims of superiority are so annoying.


----------



## Lisztian

Woodduck said:


> I'll agree with you in return, except that I think we can legitimately say more about the music we love than "I find it appealing." There are real artistic virtues which inspire admiration, and we can talk about them and still not make overwrought comparisons which, at least implicitly, downgrade other music which ought to be appreciated for itself. I agree that it's the claims made for Mozart which make him seem controversial, while in fact there is little serious disagreement about what he actually achieved.


Indeed, what I meant by 'I find it appealing' wasn't clear: I meant rather: "I find these artistic virtues (followed by explanation of what one perceives them to be) to be appealing and important," (not necessarily in those words) rather than "____ is unsurpassed." Of course we can and should talk about what we do or do not find appealing and why, but it all depends on how it is stated.


----------



## Larkenfield

I believe Mozart's genius was very much driven by _his profound and instinctive love of the music_. Not that the other immortals haven't strongly loved it too, because of course they did. But Mozart's face was known to light up with genius when he was around others and had a brilliant idea. As great as Bach, Beethoven and the other immortals were, I find it hard to imagine them outwardly lighting up to the same degree. Some of the performers who worked with him commented on this special look of his and I would have loved to see it for myself. I wouldn't go as far to say that he was the greatest composer to have ever lived, but I can easily say that I listen to him more than anyone, have rarely been disappointed, and he would be the last great composer I'd ever give up, period. He understood the perfect proportions of the Golden Mean without being inhibited by it, starting IMO at the age of five and lasting throughout the rest of his all too short lifetime.
:tiphat:


----------



## Forss

This wonderful dialogue between Eckermann and Goethe springs to mind, and it really enlightens one's view on the matter:

"It is remarkable," said I [Eckermann], "that, of all talents, the musical shows itself earliest; so that Mozart in his fifth, Beethoven in his eighth, and Hummel in his ninth year, astonished all near them by their performance and compositions."

"The musical talent," said Goethe, "may well show itself earliest of any; for music is something innate and internal, which needs little nourishment from without, and no experience drawn from life. Really, however, a phenomenon like that of Mozart remains an inexplicable prodigy. But how would the Divinity find everywhere opportunity to do wonders, if he did not sometimes try his powers on extraordinary individuals, at whom we stand astonished, and cannot understand whence they come?"

So, if I were ever to explain the nature of Mozart's genius, I would, like Lessing, say (in all humility): "The pure Truth is for Him alone."


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Direct answer: no. I'd have to (if I had to ) put Bach, Mozart and Beethoven at the top of the heap, each superlative in ways that make ranking them impossible. And I believe, from everything I've read, that this triumvirate would be Wagner's own choice as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> That said, I can think of no artist who has equaled Wagner in doing something at once so unprecedented, ambitious, powerful, and influential, and fulfilling his own project with such success. Auden may well be right.


This may seem to have been quoted out of context, but I felt that the longer middle section was a lead-up to the end summary, which overturns the direct answer of the opening sentence. You are perfectly entitled to the view that Wagner, on reckoning, trumps Mozart. If it were my position I would just state it.

However I don't think it's a wholly sustainable opinion. Wagner's quest for opera/musical drama beyond a mere evening's good entertainment is undisputed, but he also stood firmly on the shoulders of his predecessors, the greatest of whom was Mozart.

Wagner's alleged opinion (quoted in Cosima's diary) that "Mozart doesn't quite come up to scratch because his greatness was only _within_ art forms he didn't create himself.." reveals a lot about Wagner's general view: that an artist must create not only the work, but also the entire apparatus supporting it before he can be considered a true artist. I suspect (to pathologise him for a moment) that this view stems from Wagner's ambitions as a revolutionary, which were noble, but thwarted.

The two things I have to say about this are: 1) I don't think it's true at all; and 2) No-one (of his stature) did more to successfully develop opera _in his time_ than Mozart.

Considered as a whole - including opera - Mozart trumps Wagner because musically the latter was really not capable of very much else outside of opera. Let me be clear though, this is not an attempt to trivialise Wagner's 19th century impact on music or his musical talent.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I'd say there are fewer assertions of the transcendental divine nature of those other two. But who's counting? In Bach's case, a lot of people seem to find him boring, which isn't likely to generate much controversy. But it just isn't true that Beethoven lovers don't ruffle feathers. I participated in a thread in which he was compared to a used car salesman and Donald Trump, among other things. He's always being trivialized by people who think "dah-dah-dah-daaaaaaaah!" defines his work, and knocked down a peg by those allergic to the idea of the artist as culture hero. Besides, even Beethoven's greatest admirers are not apt to claim for him the consistent perfection of beauty which Mozart really does exhibit. He is unique and incomparable in his own way - which is why these offhand claims of superiority are so annoying.


But it surprises me you have the patience to type out such elaborate replies to Mozart fans who are clearly, caught up in their enthusiasm, just shouting accolades out of the top floor window. Dont you ever tire of it?


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> But it surprises me you have the patience to type out such elaborate replies to Mozart fans who are clearly, caught up in their enthusiasm, just shouting accolades out of the top floor window. Dont you ever tire of it?


How many Mozart fans do you find me arguing with? The answer is, mainly, ONE. Guess who that is, and guess why. No, I'll tell you. He is one who, in the three years I've been contributing to this forum, has made a virtual mission out of disparaging Wagner, dropping into threads about him and bludgeoning him with a cudgel named Mozart (he seems to have quit bludgeoning him with the one named Hitler, but I remain vigilant). I don't shrink from a fight - but it has to be a good fight, and if anyone here addresses a subject I care about in an ignorant and offhand manner they can expect me to make the fight as good as I can make it. Kapeesh?

As far as patience goes, I confess that I sometimes find it taxed by things people say here. But you may have noticed that my contributions to the forum tend to consist of actual ideas rather than shouting from top floor windows. Once having been drawn into a thought process, I simply enjoy seeing where it takes me. Impatience falls away, and first thing I know I've forgotten to eat lunch.

I'll turn it around: don't _you_ ever tire of defending Mozart when he isn't even really under attack? Is it so awful that I find the Donnas Anna and Elvira boring? DavidA seems to find those whiners more interesting than Isolde. Well, _she_ wouldn't have given Don Juan the time of day. My kind of woman.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> This may seem to have been quoted out of context, but I felt that the longer middle section was a lead-up to *the end summary*, which *overturns the direct answer of the opening sentence. You are perfectly entitled to the view that Wagner, on reckoning, trumps Mozart. If it were my position I would just state it.
> *
> Wagner's alleged opinion (quoted in Cosima's diary) that "Mozart doesn't quite come up to scratch because his greatness was only _within_ art forms he didn't create himself.." reveals a lot about *Wagner's general view: that an artist must create not only the work, but also the entire apparatus supporting it before he can be considered a true artist.* I suspect (to pathologise him for a moment) that this view stems from Wagner's ambitions as a revolutionary, which were noble, but thwarted.
> 
> The two things I have to say about this are: 1) I don't think it's true at all; and 2) No-one (of his stature) did more to successfully develop opera _in his time_ than Mozart.
> 
> *Considered as a whole - including opera - Mozart trumps Wagner* because musically the latter was really not capable of very much else outside of opera. Let me be clear though, this is not an attempt to trivialise Wagner's 19th century impact on music or his musical talent.


I'm surprised that you seem to have missed the entire point of what I said. My last statement doesn't contradict my first. The point is that neither Mozart nor Wagner "trumps" the other, because their artistic goals are too dissimilar to make an overall comparison and ranking sensible. I suppose you want to consider them "as a whole" because you think Mozart is a better opera composer, but if we must get into "better," as DavidA seems perpetually bent on doing, I don't think comparing them _as wholes _gets us anywhere meaningful. I addressed the specific question of characterization in their operas because DavidA brought it up (and brings it up often). We could compare other specific points, but if we fail to remain intensely conscious of the radically different artistic goals of the two composers we'll be wasting our time. My main effort in these conversations is to heighten that consciousness. Wagner is an incredibly complex artist; Mozart is easier to understand and appreciate in virtually every respect - his operas are not still generating elaborate analytical studies - but that's not a mark of either superiority or inferiority. We need all kinds of art and artists.

Wagner, by the way, talked incessantly and sometimes contradicted himself, and he said a number of things about Mozart, including opining that he was the greatest artistic genius in human history. During the period when he was formulating his conception of music drama, Wagner was much taken with the idea that music up to Beethoven was too bound by abstract formal and technical constraints; he remarked that the music of the venerable master Bach was still more concerned with the "how than with the what." Later in life, having got his own way of composing down, he was quite happy to express his enjoyment of "absolute" music and even to consider writing symphonies, which he said must be approached very differently from opera. (I'm reminded of Schoenberg who, having got over his revolutionary phase and created his 12-tone technique, admitted that there was still plenty of music to be written in C major.) The scarcity of non-operatic works in Wagner's oeuvre is one reason why I refuse to rank him with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven; his _Siegfried Idyll_ and _Wesendonck Lieder_ are both wonderful, but perhaps don't tell us much about what he'd have done had he not focused on opera.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I'm surprised that you seem to have missed the entire point of what I said. My last statement doesn't contradict my first. *The point is that neither Mozart nor Wagner "trumps" the other, because their artistic goals are too dissimilar to make an overall comparison and ranking sensible.* I suppose you want to consider them "as a whole" because you think Mozart is a better opera composer, but if we must get into "better," as DavidA seems perpetually bent on doing, I don't think comparing them _as wholes _gets us anywhere meaningful.


Okay, I concede this point entirely (and not unwillingly). Five hours after making my post I was in the process of adding an edit explaining that I really didn't care for any 'greatest' comparisons, but I didn't do it because I thought it would look like a cheap attempt at back-pedalling.

I don't know if Mozart is a better opera composer, because I'm not an opera buff and Mozart's are among the few operas I know beyond a few arias. I chose 'as a whole' because I was considering that Mozart not only succeeded - rather spectacularly in his short life - in opera, but in so many other areas of music that he deserves much more than to be seen as easily-interpreted, but lacking depth. The common approach to Mozart.

I still think the opening and ending of that post at the top of the page are opposed because to say on the one hand: 'no, Wagner wasn't the greatest musical genius who ever lived', and then on the other hand: "I can think of no artist who has equaled Wagner in doing something at once so unprecedented, ambitious, powerful, and influential, and fulfilling his own project with such success. Auden may well be right [_about Wagner being the greatest genius who ever lived_]," doesn't sit very easily together. They don't cancel out one another one-for-one, but the suggestion is heavy.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I'd say there are fewer assertions of the transcendental divine nature of those other two. But who's counting? *In Bach's case, a lot of people seem to find him boring, *which isn't likely to generate much controversy. But it just isn't true that Beethoven lovers don't ruffle feathers. I participated in a thread in which he was compared to a used car salesman and Donald Trump, among other things. He's always being trivialized by people who think "dah-dah-dah-daaaaaaaah!" defines his work, and knocked down a peg by those allergic to the idea of the artist as culture hero. Besides, even Beethoven's greatest admirers are not apt to claim for him the consistent perfection of beauty which Mozart really does exhibit. He is unique and incomparable in his own way - which is why these offhand claims of superiority are so annoying.


Some people also find Shakespeare boring! :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

DavidA said:


> Some people also find Shakespeare boring! :lol:


And I'm one of them.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> *Besides, even Beethoven's greatest admirers are not apt to claim for him the consistent perfection of beauty which Mozart really does exhibit.* He is unique and incomparable in his own way - which is why these offhand claims of superiority are so annoying.


Isn't that an offhand claim of superiority?


----------



## EdwardBast

Forss said:


> This wonderful dialogue between Eckermann and Goethe springs to mind, and it really enlightens one's view on the matter:
> 
> "It is remarkable," said I [Eckermann], "that, of all talents, the musical shows itself earliest; so that Mozart in his fifth, Beethoven in his eighth, and Hummel in his ninth year, astonished all near them by their performance and compositions."
> 
> "The musical talent," said Goethe, "may well show itself earliest of any; for music is something innate and internal, which needs little nourishment from without, and no experience drawn from life. Really, however, a phenomenon like that of Mozart remains an inexplicable prodigy. But how would the Divinity find everywhere opportunity to do wonders, if he did not sometimes try his powers on extraordinary individuals, at whom we stand astonished, and cannot understand whence they come?"
> 
> So, if I were ever to explain the nature of Mozart's genius, I would, like Lessing, say (in all humility): *"The pure Truth is for Him alone."*


Or we could strip away the Romantic Era twaddle and say: He was a smart little bugger with a good ear and a professional composer for a father who was savvy enough to train him fast so he could be marketed as a prodigy and pragmatic enough to recognize that if it was occasionally necessary to correct his early jottings to make them sound more prodigiously wonderful, well that's just good business.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> I'm not giving an opinion. I'm asking the basis of yours. I questioned an assertion you made: that Mozart "matches music to character" better than any other composer. A questioner doesn't _need_ to "present evidence." _You_ made the assertion. If you can't back it up, then it's just irrational fanhood and empty hyperbole. But, as a matter of fact, I've given a number of reasons why your judgment on the inferiority of other composers exhibits a limited perspective on the subject. That's already more than I needed to do in order to cast doubt on your assertion and to show the legitimacy of my doubts. But let's take it a little farther into specifics.
> 
> The "orgasmic sound of romantic opera" is a simplistic caricature of the music of that period, but the potential of music to express new things after Mozart's time is not irrelevant. Humans do have orgasms, you know; humans have a great many other experiences, mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual, and I think it's pretty obvious that Mozart's operas come nowhere near to exploring their extent or their complexity. Character development? Is there any character anywhere in Mozart who undergoes a significant development akin to Parsifal's odyssey from thoughtless child to empathetic adult? No, Parsifal's external circumstances are not "realistic;" he doesn't live in the suburbs, play baseball or sell newspapers. But, in art, truth to human nature and human experience does not depend on realism, and some of the deeper, more elusive and hard-to-describe truths may be better conveyed through other artistic approaches. Parsifal's transformation from boy to man, his process of becoming an aware, autonomous, moral agent capable of empathizing with other living beings, rejecting the easy road of regressive self-indulgence, and assuming responsibility for contributing to the world, must be in its essence the experience of every human male who grows up. In real life, transformation takes place inside a person over many years, and most of it occurs at a subconscious level which would be impossible to convey in a compact realistic plot. Wagner, choosing myth and allegory as his means, has expressed each stage of Parsifal's journey not only with precise dramatic symbolism but with eloquent music which expresses the strange, terrible and sublime aspects of life in ways impossible to _any_ composer working in the musical language, and within the entire cultural ethos, of 1785.
> 
> Now what about character development in Mozart? In what way does Don Giovanni's character "develop"? Isn't it pretty obvious what he is right off the bat? What do we learn about him that deepens our perceptions or alters our feelings about him? What "character development" do we find in those unremarkable women who allow an amoral playboy to seduce them and spend the rest of the evening complaining that he's a bad man? What development do we see in those walking plot devices Don Alfonso or Despina? How much character is there to develop in that arrogant pig Count Almaviva, or in the randy adolescent Cherubino whose only interests are describing his lust and hiding behind chairs, or in Sarastro or Pamina or the Queen of the Night? Almaviva's "Contessa, perdona" is a sweet moment that we might take to indicate a change of heart (if were credulous enough not to ask whether he's only asking forgiveness because he got caught, and whether he'll be back at his game the next day), but his "development" is a long, long way from the transformation of Wotan and Parsifal in the highly developed narratives of corruption, maturation, and redemption which Wagner lays before us in the _Ring_ and _Parsifal,_ or even of the various characters in the homelier, more realistic comedy/drama of _Die Meistersinger._ I defy anyone to show how any of Mozart's characters are more richly and finely drawn than Hans Sachs.
> 
> If we're going to assert the superiority of one thing over another, we need at least to be able to show some specifics - if not proof, then at least some credible considerations. But why do it at all? Isn't it enough to express our admiration for something in terms that don't draw invidious comparisons? If people who love Mozart feel they have to claim over and over that every other composer is inferior, they can hardly expect the admirers of those other composers to let such claims stand unchallenged.


Come of it, of course you gave an opinion. This is about opinion. I admit it's my opinion that Mozart draws characters better than anyone else. You quote Parsifal, a character whom my empathy for is zero. I can't take to the guy. I admit some of the music surrounding it is stunning but the text? To me it makes Schikaneder's in the Magic Flute seem rational. Just my opinion of course. Sorry I get the music but not the text or the character. OK I admit Schikaneder's is just as preposterous but at least Mozart used a light touch and didn't take it too seriously. Which makes wonderful entertainment.
And btw I did know that Don Giovanni's character does not develop. That's why the ROH production was so crass in that they tried to 'explore' The Don's character. He is a womanising psychopath but the characterisations lie in those around him not in the Don himself.
And Figaro? Yes, the characters are superbly drawn. Cherubino is a randy teenager - like many I know! It fits perfectly. The Countess? You know of any wronged women who are suffering? Perhaps you don't but Mozart makes the music fit the character perfectly. And who would you rather take on a date - Susanna or Isolde? I know who I'd choose! 
As for dear old Sachs, I do find him quite tedious the way he goes on and on. I think I'd rather have a chat with Figaro. Or perhaps Sir John Falstaff. Of course, I'd have to pay the bill but I'd no doubt get some laughs out of it!


----------



## Forss

EdwardBast said:


> Or we could strip away the Romantic Era twaddle and say: He was a smart little bugger with a good ear and a professional composer for a father who was savvy enough to train him fast so he could be marketed as a prodigy and pragmatic enough to recognize that if it was occasionally necessary to correct his early jottings to make them sound more prodigiously wonderful, well that's just good business.


Pardon me for spreading some positive vibes, man! Sure: one can explain consciousness as an orchestrated sequence of quantum physical events happening in the brain, or say "force" instead of "God" or "the law of conservation of energy" instead of "eternity", etc., etc., but that scientific twaddle (your word) is not, thank God, for me!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Isn't that an offhand claim of superiority?


A does something better than B. B does something better than A. Who's better? A or B? Who cares?


----------



## DaveM

Woodduck said:


> A does something better than B. B does something better than A. Who's better? A or B? Who cares?


C might....


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> C might....


OK, but let's not mention D through Z.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Come of it, of course you gave an opinion. This is about opinion. I admit it's my opinion that Mozart draws characters better than anyone else. You quote Parsifal, a character whom my empathy for is zero. I can't take to the guy. I admit some of the music surrounding it is stunning but the text? To me it makes Schikaneder's in the Magic Flute seem rational. Just my opinion of course. Sorry I get the music but not the text or the character. OK I admit Schikaneder's is just as preposterous but at least Mozart used a light touch and didn't take it too seriously. Which makes wonderful entertainment.
> And btw I did know that Don Giovanni's character does not develop. That's why the ROH production was so crass in that they tried to 'explore' The Don's character. He is a womanising psychopath but the characterisations lie in those around him not in the Don himself.
> And Figaro? Yes, the characters are superbly drawn. Cherubino is a randy teenager - like many I know! It fits perfectly. The Countess? You know of any wronged women who are suffering? Perhaps you don't but Mozart makes the music fit the character perfectly. And who would you rather take on a date - Susanna or Isolde? I know who I'd choose!
> As for dear old Sachs, I do find him quite tedious the way he goes on and on. I think I'd rather have a chat with Figaro. Or perhaps Sir John Falstaff. Of course, I'd have to pay the bill but I'd no doubt get some laughs out of it!


Heh heh. Lucky for Sachs, he'll never have a drink with you. And would I rather date Isolde or Susanna? Isolde by far. She could tell me all about the magic arts in ancient Ireland, and probably much else fascinating. I can't imagine listening to Susanna chatter for five minutes. But she'd be more fun than Donna Elvira, who really ought to take the veil and a vow of eternal silence.

Good grief! I've let you drag this discussion into tabloid territory. I must go now, and recompose myself, and hope that no one noticed.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You quote Parsifal, a character whom my empathy for is zero. I can't take to the guy. I admit some of the music surrounding it is stunning but the text? Sorry I get the music but not the text or the character.
> 
> And Figaro? Yes, the characters are superbly drawn. Cherubino is a randy teenager - like many I know! It fits perfectly. The Countess? You know of any wronged women who are suffering? Perhaps you don't but Mozart makes the music fit the character perfectly.


You appear to assume that your inability to "get" a character indicates that that character is not well-drawn - that characters are successful to the extent that you "identify with" them. And it's clear that you identify with characters that conform to types and inhabit situations comfortably familiar to you from the visible world. Is that a fair interpretation of what you've been saying?

Whatever your answer to that, how does it demonstrate the superiority of the kind of art that presents such comfortably familiar people and settings? You do seem to be arguing that it does.

By the way, why do you suggest that I might not know any wronged and suffering women? If you know more than the specific one (your sister? a college friend?) who behaves exactly like the Countess Almaviva, you might be aware that different women react to being wronged in quite different ways. Not all of them are going to sit quietly in their boudoirs singing gorgeous, gentle, slightly melancholy arias while their husbands are trying to boink the help. The thing to remember here is that opera composers - at least the great ones - don't "fit music to character" so much as create characters through music; most libretti are somewhat skeletal, leaving the composer options in filling out their characters with specific expressive content, and even to alter the words as their musical conceptions require. It would have been Mozart's prerogative to make the Countess more tragic, or vehement, or volatile, or nervous, etc., etc. in her music while being just as true to the play. Her sublime serenity may seem "real" to you, and easy to "identify with," but I suspect that most women of any spirit, betrayed by insufferable jerks and unable to escape their circumstances, would take advantage of their alone time to pound their pillows and call down the wrath of heaven.

Hmmm... Come to think of it, that's what Isolde does!

What I'm saying is that Mozart's portrayal of the Countess is fine and valid, but let's not pretend that it's the only "right" way to "fit music to character." The character without the music doesn't exist as we know her, and what Mozart has really done - what good opera composers all do - is not to fit music to a character but to create a character through music. It's nice that she's a character _you_ can identify with, but there's no reason anyone else should identify with her. Shall we take a survey among women with cheating husbands?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. Lucky for Sachs, he'll never have a drink with you. And would I rather date Isolde or Susanna? Isolde by far. *She could tell me all about the magic arts in ancient Ireland, and probably much else fascinating*. I can't imagine listening to Susanna chatter for five minutes. But she'd be more fun than Donna Elvira, who really ought to take the veil and a vow of eternal silence.
> 
> Good grief! *I've let you drag this discussion into tabloid territory*. I must go now, and recompose myself, and hope that no one noticed.


Dear ohh dear, a seminar about the magic arts in Ireland for a date? Well, it takes all sorts I suppose! I think most men would go for Susanna. But don't let me put you off your Irish sorceress.

Please, don't let it get into tabloid situations! Like a man running off with his sister and getting her pregnant? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> You appear to assume that your inability to "get" a character indicates that that character is not well-drawn - that characters are successful to the extent that you "identify with" them. And it's clear that you identify with characters that conform to types and inhabit situations comfortably familiar to you from the visible world. Is that a fair interpretation of what you've been saying?
> 
> Whatever your answer to that, how does it demonstrate the superiority of the kind of art that presents such comfortably familiar people and settings? You do seem to be arguing that it does.
> 
> By the way, why do you suggest that I might not know any wronged and suffering women? If you know more than the specific one (your sister? a college friend?) who behaves exactly like the Countess Almaviva, you might be aware that different women react to being wronged in quite different ways. Not all of them are going to sit quietly in their boudoirs singing gorgeous, gentle, slightly melancholy arias while their husbands are trying to boink the help. The thing to remember here is that opera composers - at least the great ones - don't "fit music to character" so much as create characters through music; most libretti are somewhat skeletal, leaving the composer options in filling out their characters with specific expressive content, and even to alter the words as their musical conceptions require. It would have been Mozart's prerogative to make the Countess more tragic, or vehement, or volatile, or nervous, etc., etc. in her music while being just as true to the play. Her sublime serenity may seem "real" to you, and easy to "identify with," but I suspect that most women of any spirit, betrayed by insufferable jerks and unable to escape their circumstances, would take advantage of their alone time to pound their pillows and call down the wrath of heaven.
> 
> *Hmmm... Come to think of it, that's what Isolde does!*
> 
> What I'm saying is that Mozart's portrayal of the Countess is fine and valid, but let's not pretend that it's the only "right" way to "fit music to character." The character without the music doesn't exist as we know her, and what Mozart has really done - what good opera composers all do - is not to fit music to a character but to create a character through music. It's nice that she's a character _you_ can identify with, but there's no reason anyone else should identify with her. Shall we take a survey among women with cheating husbands?


Your probe;em is that Isolde is not a real character from the start - she is myth. I mean, how many women do you know who offer someone who has wronged them a suicide pact? We would probably say that someone who behaves in this way is mentally deranged. Do you actually know any women who have done that?

Just to say if you actually listen to the countess in Figaro - and all Mozart's women - read Jane Glover's book on the subject? - you will discover far more going on under the surface than you imagine.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Your probe;em is that Isolde is not a real character from the start - she is myth. I mean, how many women do you know who offer someone who has wronged them a suicide pact? We would probably say that someone who behaves in this way is mentally deranged. Do you actually know any women who have done that?


The story of Tristan is fictional, but not mythical. Nowadays, in our culture, women don't get captured, transported to foreign lands, and forced into marriage with elderly royals they've never seen. But that sort of thing could actually happen in earlier times. Given the fact that Isolde was desperately in love with the man who captured her and he with her, that the man she was to marry was her beloved's uncle, and that they faced the prospect of having to see each other, separated by cruel custom, for the rest of their lives, it isn't incredible that they would want to die together rather than live apart.

Jeez, bub, where's your romantic soul? :kiss:


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> The story of Tristan is fictional, but not mythical. Nowadays, in our culture, women don't get captured, transported to foreign lands, and forced into marriage with elderly royals they've never seen. But that sort of thing could actually happen in earlier times. Given the fact that Isolde was desperately in love with the man who captured her and he with her, that the man she was to marry was her beloved's uncle, and that they faced the prospect of having to see each other, separated by cruel custom, for the rest of their lives, it isn't incredible that they would want to die together rather than live apart.
> 
> Jeez, bub, where's your romantic soul? :kiss:


Bernard Cornwell goes into the Tristan and Isolde story in one his fictional books in the Arthur Books series (_Enemy of God _I think). He treats the story as a tawdry affair between underage and unwise kids who cause vast diplomatic problems for their respective families. Wagner's take was different of course!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> A does something better than B. B does something better than A. Who's better? A or B? Who cares?


Well, despite all your valid protestations to the contrary, you do. Why else spend column inches justifying your views about Mozart and Wagner, and about the validity of comparisons between them, only to give an offhand claim of superiority. Mozart was not perfect, nor was Wagner. Perfection is, as I think you'd said earlier in slightly different form, overrated. It might be a handy word to use when describing the extent of usefulness to the individual listener ("Mozart's 40th perfectly meets my listening needs") but there's no such thing really.



Woodduck said:


> You appear to assume that your inability to "get" a character indicates that that character is not well-drawn - that characters are successful to the extent that you "identify with" them. And it's clear that you identify with characters that conform to types and inhabit situations comfortably familiar to you from the visible world. Is that a fair interpretation of what you've been saying?
> 
> Whatever your answer to that, how does it demonstrate the superiority of the kind of art that presents such comfortably familiar people and settings? You do seem to be arguing that it does.


Characterisation is an interesting thing. For those who need their characters to be "real", fantasy of any kind must be deeply unappealing. One of the reasons the _Lord of the Rings _- a complete turn-off to some, and a pale imitation of what Wagner was attempting, perhaps - is so successful is that the characterisation isn't about drawing real people, but about exploring some of the themes of humanity. Reality isn't necessary to come to an understanding of Frodo or Aragorn where the notions of purpose, sacrifice, fulfilment, loss, leadership etc are much more important than whether a character behaves realistically, convincingly or consistently with real life.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Why else spend column inches *justifying* your views about Mozart and Wagner, and about the validity of comparisons between them, only to give *an offhand claim* of superiority. Mozart was not perfect, nor was Wagner. *Perfection is*, as I think you'd said earlier in slightly different form, *overrated.* It might be a handy word to use when describing the extent of usefulness to the individual listener ("Mozart's 40th perfectly meets my listening needs") but *there's no such thing really.*


I'm not _justifying_ my views. I'm _presenting_ them. I'm not claiming anything "offhand"; I really do give a bit of thought to what I write, thank you.

There is no contradiction between saying that Mozart and Wagner are not strictly comparable as artists, but that in terms of purely musical technique and breadth of musical achievement Mozart is superior. This is obvious to me, and I'm surprised that you would find it either hard to grasp or hard to accept.

When I speak of Mozart's perfection, I'm not using "perfection" as a metaphysical absolute instituted by some nonexistent perfect deity, but in the very human sense of "as good as we can imagine a thing to be." Mozart's works are, almost uniformly, surpassingly well designed. They give one a sense of an inevitability and rightness achieved effortlessly. If you'll review the literature on Mozart, you'll find this perception to be more or less universal among musically sophisticated listeners (again, not metaphysically universal but statistically or practically so; I'm learning that I must clarify even common uses of words when talking to you in order to avoid semantic wrangling).

I hope this has been clarifying.


----------



## Woodduck

agree on thisMacLeod said:


> Characterisation is an interesting thing. For those who need their characters to be "real", fantasy of any kind must be deeply unappealing. One of the reasons the _Lord of the Rings _- a complete turn-off to some, and a pale imitation of what Wagner was attempting, perhaps - is so successful is that the characterisation isn't about drawing real people, but about exploring some of the themes of humanity. Reality isn't necessary to come to an understanding of Frodo or Aragorn where the notions of purpose, sacrifice, fulfilment, loss, leadership etc are much more important than whether a character behaves realistically, convincingly or consistently with real life.


Yes. Realism isn't the only possibility in character portrayal, and for me it isn't the most interesting. Actually it's a modern invention, appearing first in narrative fiction (the novel and its predecessors) and not prevalent on the stage until the 19th century. Beaumarchais's play on which _Le Nozze di Figaro_ is based was radical in its day in its depiction of everyday people and manners. Neither Greek nor Elizabethan poetic drama is realistic, and opera, as Wagner rightly perceived, is an ideal medium for presenting a similarly stylized reality in which essential human traits and emotional experiences are magnified.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Well as far as I am concerned having a single characteristic (or one chief representative characteristic) tied to the form of a human being makes for very dull and predictable characters. The cream of Greek drama absolutely does _not_ have these one dimensional characters, Sophocles in particular created psychologically complex characters (we make a distinction between the written plays and Ancient Greek acting style). However I don't think comparing Greek theatre is useful because it has several 'eras': the classic theatre in the age of Pericles hardly ever (often never) focused on individual and personal motivations or 'love' in the sense that characterises theatre of the middle ages to now. They referred always to the ideal of the Greek state and ideas of justice - mostly ideas of ideal 'virtues'. The later plays of Euripides are even more based upon realism and they reflect the view of Greece after its 'golden age of Pericles', with a feeling of social change and decline

I place Wagner's approach directly in the trend that started in the late 18th century and ran right through to the 1870s of aping an idea of the culture of the ancient world (which was and still is venerated as a cultural ideal) done on the grounds that it somehow created a direct link to the greatness of that ancient culture. Wagner uses a stripped-down variant of Aeschylus and emphasises personal tragedy, but still (especially in his late work) has an overarching power in charge (analogous to the Greek gods).

None of this is Wagner's development though. It was the second or third iteration of a trend of 'dressing up in dead men's clothes' (as Marx called it) to channel an ideal based in history, rather than building new ideas of the social/cultural world. Wagner's most visible alteration is to drape his version of this in the garb of then current German idealism (later nationalism) and European folk traditions.

This is not particularly an argument against using this approach, because it is a very powerful method of presenting ideas in a simple, clear way: good/evil, right/wrong. Mixing this with ideas of tragedy and the suggestion of personal moral crises etc, gives the impression of depth and human complexity, but then things are neatly wrapped-up at the end; or like in a Hollywood film the scene of the final drama explodes and is consumed by fire. Rumpelstiltskin meets Star Wars.


----------



## Guest

Profundity was already there in the ancient world,we are not more clever or more civilized. What is changed is technique and habit.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Heh heh. Lucky for Sachs, he'll never have a drink with you. *And would I rather date Isolde or Susanna? Isolde by far. She could tell me all about the magic arts in ancient Ireland, *and probably much else fascinating. I can't imagine listening to Susanna chatter for five minutes. But she'd be more fun than Donna Elvira, who really ought to take the veil and a vow of eternal silence.
> 
> Good grief! I've let you drag this discussion into tabloid territory. I must go now, and recompose myself, and hope that no one noticed.


and you could die splendidly in a suicide pact with her on the pretext of an ancient heroic principle - oh yes you are so right - Isolde by far.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> The story of Tristan is fictional, but not mythical. Nowadays, in our culture, women don't get captured, transported to foreign lands, and forced into marriage with elderly royals they've never seen. But that sort of thing could actually happen in earlier times. Given the fact that Isolde was desperately in love with the man who captured her and he with her, that the man she was to marry was her beloved's uncle, and that they faced the prospect of having to see each other, separated by cruel custom, for the rest of their lives, it isn't incredible that they would want to die together rather than live apart.
> 
> Jeez, bub, where's your romantic soul? :kiss:


My romantic soul is here alright. Just that I prefer the Susannas of this world to the Isoldes! Frankly the fact that Tristan agrees to drink what he believes is poison is not credible. I mean, you know any man who would do that. Rather, "Come on luv, get it down yer!" The whole thing is a bit of a romantic farce, actually. Just does not happen like that in real life.

PS I might be influenced by the fact that I've just bought two DVDs very cheap - one of Tristan and one of Figaro. Now if you had to choose between the scrumptious Susanna (Alison Hagley)









and the rather more amply proportioned Isolde (Jane Eaglen)









for a date, who would you choose?


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Yes. Realism isn't the only possibility in character portrayal, and for me it isn't the most interesting. Actually it's a modern invention, appearing first in narrative fiction (the novel and its predecessors) and not prevalent on the stage until the 19th century. *Beaumarchais's play on which Le Nozze di Figaro is based was radical in its day in its depiction of everyday people and manners.* Neither Greek nor Elizabethan poetic drama is realistic, and opera, as Wagner rightly perceived, is an ideal medium for presenting a similarly stylized reality in which essential human traits and emotional experiences are magnified.


Agreed! Mozart's opera was also radical in the same way. Also subversive in the way it portrayed the aristocracy, even though Mozart's version somewhat watered down Beaumarchais' satire


----------



## Agamemnon

DavidA said:


> Frankly the fact that Tristan agrees to drink what he believes is poison is not credible. I mean, you know any man who would do that.


Socrates? Jesus? Other 'saints'? Kierkegaard has written about why Socrates 'chose' to take the poison, because Socrates had ample opportunities to get himself released but he chose to stay true to himself, true to his believe in the afterlife (so "subjectivity is truth" according to Kierkegaard: an authentic man like Socrates lives and acts upon his belief and not upon any objective knowledge like maths or Hegel's system in which a man can not live).


----------



## DavidA

Agamemnon said:


> Socrates? Jesus? Other 'saints'? Kierkegaard has written about why Socrates 'chose' to take the poison, because Socrates had ample opportunities to get himself released but he chose to stay true to himself, true to his believe in the afterlife (so "subjectivity is truth" according to Kierkegaard: an authentic man like Socrates lives and acts upon his belief and not upon any objective knowledge like maths or Hegel's system in which a man can not live).


I think if you study history you will find that Socrates, Jesus and the martyrs were in a rather different position to tristan. Subjectivity is truth eh? So if I say 1+1 = 5 that is true because it is subjective?


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> PS I might be influenced by the fact that I've just bought two DVDs very cheap - one of Tristan and one of Figaro. Now if you had to choose between the scrumptious Susanna (Alison Hagley)
> 
> View attachment 97992
> 
> 
> and the rather more amply proportioned Isolde (Jane Eaglen)
> 
> View attachment 97994
> 
> 
> for a date, who would you choose?


I quite like a well-upholstered woman. To quote Hattie Jacques in Carry On Doctor: " The younger birds may be soft and tender, but the older birds have more on them."

I'm ignoring Kenneth Williams's rejoinder.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I quite like a well-upholstered woman. To quote Hattie Jacques in Carry On Doctor: " The younger birds may be soft and tender, but the older birds have more on them."
> 
> I'm ignoring Kenneth Williams's rejoinder.


You prefer quantity to quality? :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> You prefer quantity to quality? :lol:


No, a greater quantity of quality.


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> Frankly the fact that Tristan agrees to drink what he believes is poison is not credible. I mean, you know any man who would do that. Rather, "Come on luv, get it down yer!" The whole thing is a bit of a romantic farce, actually. Just does not happen like that in real life.


I don't find it all that unbelievable, actually. It's extreme, to be sure, but this is an opera about extreme passion taken to it's absolute breaking point. Given the emotional distress and psychological mindset of the characters, it's entirely credible. All one has to do is reference any of the far too numerous scenarios in "real life" where peope are driven to do crazy things, even taking the lives of themselves and others, in the throes of passion to see that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Throes..........


----------



## poconoron

Here's genius, written at the tender age of just 23..............


----------



## Woodduck

Well as far as I am concerned having a single characteristic (or one chief representative characteristic) tied to the form of a human being makes for very dull and predictable characters. The cream of Greek drama absolutely does _not_ have these one dimensional characters, Sophocles in particular created psychologically complex characters (we make a distinction between the written plays and Ancient Greek acting style). However I don't think comparing Greek theatre is useful because it has several 'eras': the classic theatre in the age of Pericles hardly ever (often never) focused on individual and personal motivations or 'love' in the sense that characterises theatre of the middle ages to now. They referred always to the ideal of the Greek state and ideas of justice - mostly ideas of ideal 'virtues'. The later plays of Euripides are even more based upon realism and they reflect the view of Greece after its 'golden age of Pericles', with a feeling of social change and decline

This might be interesting information in itself, but its precise applicability to the subject at hand is unclear. I hardly think that "having a single characteristic (or one chief representative characteristic) tied to the form of a human being" is a fair characterization of what Wagner is doing with his principal characters. It's no more applicable - and I think it's less applicable - to Wotan, Brunnhilde, Alberich, Isolde, Sachs or Gurnemanz than it is to Don Giovanni, Donna Anna, Figaro, the Countess, Despina, or Tamino (to keep Mozart somewhere in this conversation).

I place Wagner's approach directly in the trend that started in the late 18th century and ran right through to the 1870s of aping an idea of the culture of the ancient world (which was and still is venerated as a cultural ideal) done on the grounds that it somehow created a direct link to the greatness of that ancient culture. 

"Aping an idea of the culture of the ancient world" is not a description of the substance of Wagner's works. It may have been a significant part of how he viewed the _social_ function of his dramas - he hoped they would have for his own society a communal function comparable to that of Greek drama for its own - but that tells us little about their actual content and doesn't explain his musico-dramatic methods or the range of meaning his work communicates.

Wagner uses a stripped-down variant of Aeschylus and emphasizes personal tragedy, but still (especially in his late work) has an overarching power in charge (analogous to the Greek gods).

This is partly true but it misses the mythic/symbolic aspect of Wagner's work, which is Romantic and very un-Greek. It misses the fundamental aspect in which, as his art evolves, his stories are increasingly not true tragedies at all, but symbolic dramatizations of a quest for transformation and salvation: religious mysteries, in a real but non-dogmatic sense.

None of this is Wagner's development though. It was the second or third iteration of a trend of 'dressing up in dead men's clothes' (as Marx called it) to channel an ideal based in history, rather than building new ideas of the social/cultural world. Wagner's most visible alteration is to drape his version of this in the garb of then current German idealism (later nationalism) and European folk traditions.

Again, you're mistaking certain cultural notions for the intrinsic meanings of the works themselves. Wagner didn't "drape" anything in any "garb." That's just an effort on your part to trivialize something that you don't resonate with. He found inspiration in history and myth, but his use of them is not window dressing but a fully experienced personal appropriation and transformation.

This is not particularly an argument against using this approach, because it is a very powerful method of presenting ideas in a simple, clear way: good/evil, right/wrong. Mixing this with ideas of tragedy and the suggestion of personal moral crises etc, gives the impression of depth and human complexity, but then things are neatly wrapped-up at the end; or like in a Hollywood film the scene of the final drama explodes and is consumed by fire. Rumpelstiltskin meets Star Wars.

Again, trivialization, and getting nasty now. We're not talking about Dudley Doright and Snidely Whiplash here. What, please, is a "suggestion" of moral crises? Why would an artist want to "suggest" a moral crisis? The moral dilemmas in Wagner's dramas are basic to his plots, quite explicit, and well-realized in dramatic and symbolic terms, and the fate of his characters depends on how they deal with them. But more than that: as his work progresses, the moral dilemmas of his characters appear more and more as elements in a process of the evolution of moral consciousness itself. The _Ring_ begins in the dark, watery womb of the world with a purely selfish act of theft, an assertion of pure, pre-moral ego, and it ends with an act of self-sacrifice which redeems that theft and destroys in cleansing fire the rule of power and the law-based moral consciousness now transcended by one rooted in love. You might be amazed, were you actually to study it, how imaginatively Wagner dramatizes this progression in the course of the _Ring._ Equally amazing is that _Parsifal _re-enacts this drama of the transvaluation of values in a very different mythical milieu and in an even more concise way.

Sorry, Gene, but you just don't get Wagner. The highly original and richly realized psycho-mythical dimension of his work, his unique dramatic method and approach to characterization, and the idealism and nobility of his project, either elude you or just fail to resonate with you (your off-center attempts to describe his work make me think it's the former), and your antipathy to it (or what you think it is) is just too clear.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I knew I wouldn't "get it" and that I would mistake and miss all the most important points. It doesn't matter how much I am familiar with either Greek drama (rather familiar) or with music history, I will never be able to properly apply it to understand Wagner the 'right' way will I? I expected no less.

It's very disappointing that your genuine love of Wagner's music dramas also causes a blanket blindness of anything that levels any critique or analysis that you do not want to accept. Wagner was not working independently of the cultural influences of his period and was in fact thoroughly shaped by them - much more than he shaped them. What grates on me the most is the complete falsehood that Wagner created something new in drama - he did not. The folk myths/dramatic culture of the ancient world movement was already happening in wider culture after the French revolution.

Wagner's stories are an extremely pale version of what Greek drama offered. Take it or leave it, consider it mere opinion or whatever, I don't care. How is it even possible to discuss it when the only rejoinder is that any critique is a misunderstanding? It's like discussing religion. I'm completely put out by it.


----------



## Woodduck

Faustian said:


> I don't find it all that unbelievable, actually. It's extreme, to be sure, but this is an opera about extreme passion taken to it's absolute breaking point. Given the emotional distress and psychological mindset of the characters, it's entirely credible. All one has to do is reference any of the far too numerous scenarios in "real life" where peope are driven to do crazy things, even taking the lives of themselves and others, in the throes of passion to see that.


And more: if we must talk "realism," _Tristan_ takes place in a medieval world in which "real life" was "nasty, brutish, and short." The lovers are young people by our standards, but back then they couldn't necessarily look forward to living more than a few decades. For a couple of young people, caught in rigid social roles which deny their human autonomy, to prefer dying together to spending their few remaining years enslaved to soulless "custom," separated and repressed, is not irrational. Isolde could hardly expect to get a no-fault divorce, get a Doctor of Naturopathy degree, and open a clinic in Cornwall.

But why be at pains to supply "realistic" explanations? The lovers' longing for "the wondrous realm of night" is not, all pseudo-Schopenhauerian glosses to the contrary, a death wish. What they want is a life transfigured by love - who doesn't? - and if they are forbidden it in the "day" world, in Isolde's "love death" she gets at least a consoling vision of it.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> Sorry, Gene, but you just don't get Wagner. The highly original and richly realized psycho-mythical dimension of his work, his unique dramatic method and approach to characterization, and the idealism and nobility of his project, either elude you or just fail to resonate with you (your off-center attempts to describe his work make me think it's the former), and your antipathy to it (or what you think it is) is just too clear.


Sorry but this comes across that 'Wagnerians are a higher species than everyone else'. Idealism and nobility of his project? He was a man of the theatre - an entertainer. He dealt with fiction! At least Verdi and Mozart had the decency to admit that's what they were (albeit with complete genius) and didn't try and create a pseudo-mythical religion out of their operas. If RW's convinced you he's something more than that then fine - we don't want to discourage you - but please don't think the rest of us somehow inferior because we don't 'get it'. Wagner wrote some cracking good music but he was not some sort of musical messiah. I'm afraid his operas do not speak to me like those of Mozart and Verdi. In fact I tried watching Tristan this afternoon and ended up thinking, "Why does he take so long to say so little?"


----------



## Agamemnon

I don't know much about Wagner but I guess Isolde's "love death" is not only romantic but goes to the heart of christianity which is in my view a romantic religion, i.e. romanticism is christianity. It is typically modern or English/American to reduce man to an animal and life to the will to self preservation. I think especially German thinkers reacted to that modern vision and e.g. Nietzsche rejected the view that life strives for self preservation: life strives for growth and therefore for self-transcendence! And in this Nietzsche wasn't that anti-German or anti-christian as he would like to be: christianity is all about self transcendence which culminates in the idea that love transcends death. Already morality transcends nature in the sense that morality commands us to act against our natural egoism and love is even 'higher' - more unnatural - than morality because in love we even sacrifice ourselves (but christianity promises eternal life after death when we choose transcending love instead of natural satisfactions). Or in Kierkegaard's view: morality is still universal and unpersonal thus objective and inauthentic; only in love (and faith in God) we transcend our natural life in a ultimate personal, subjective and thus authentic way. Jesus rendered all laws - all morality - obsolete by replacing them by only one true divine law: the law of love.

And in this way there is no difference between Mozart and Wagner: see my OP about how I regard Mozart's music!


----------



## DavidA

Agamemnon said:


> I don't know much about Wagner but *I guess Isolde's "love death" is not only romantic but goes to the heart of christianity which is in my view a romantic religion, i.e. romanticism is christianity.* It is typically modern or English/American to reduce man to an animal and life to the will to self preservation. I think especially German thinkers reacted to that modern vision and e.g. Nietzsche rejected the view that life strives for self preservation: life strives for growth and therefore for self-transcendence! And in this Nietzsche wasn't that anti-German or anti-christian as he would like to be: christianity is all about self transcendence which culminates in the idea that love transcends death. Already morality transcends nature in the sense that morality commands us to act against our natural egoism and love is even 'higher' - more unnatural - than morality because in love we even sacrifice ourselves (but christianity promises eternal life after death when we choose transcending love instead of natural satisfactions). Or in Kierkegaard's view: morality is still universal and unpersonal thus objective and inauthentic; only in love (and faith in God) we transcend our natural life in a ultimate personal, subjective and thus authentic way. Jesus rendered all laws - all morality - obsolete by replacing them by only one true divine law: the law of love.
> 
> And in this way there is no difference between Mozart and Wagner: see my OP about how I regard Mozart's music!


Sorry but that simply isn't true of the Christianity of the New Testament. But can I remind folks that this thread is about Mozart's genius not Wagner. OK I know I'm guilty of transgressing here too! Plenty of threads on RW


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I knew I wouldn't "get it" and that I would mistake and miss all the most important points. It doesn't matter how much I am familiar with either Greek drama (rather familiar) or with music history, I will never be able to properly apply it to understand Wagner the 'right' way will I? I expected no less.
> 
> It's very disappointing that your genuine love of Wagner's music dramas also causes a blanket blindness of anything that levels any critique or analysis that you do not want to accept. Wagner was not working independently of the cultural influences of his period and was in fact thoroughly shaped by them - much more than he shaped them. What grates on me the most is the complete falsehood that Wagner created something new in drama - he did not. The folk myths/dramatic culture of the ancient world movement was already happening in wider culture after the French revolution.
> 
> Wagner's stories are an extremely pale version of what Greek drama offered. Take it or leave it, consider it mere opinion or whatever, I don't care. How is it even possible to discuss it when the only rejoinder is that any critique is a misunderstanding? It's like discussing religion. I'm completely put out by it.


Your descriptions of Wagner's works are limited by, at least, your lack of sympathy. It's possible to know a great deal about something and still miss what it _is_.

I see all those factors - Greek drama, German nationalism, Schopenhauer, etc. - you cite when you talk about Wagner's artistic nature and project. I'm just telling you that they are relevant to varying degrees but miss a great deal, and that they fail to get to the heart of the matter. To say flatly that "Wagner's stories are an extremely pale version of what Greek drama offered. Take it or leave it..." is absurdly uncomprehending, and it's stunningly arrogant, particularly as I have just got through explaining a basic sense in which they are something which Greek drama is not.

If you're uninterested in expanding your sense of what Wagner's works are about, I'm fine with that. Just don't act as if I don't know what I'm talking about, as if my insistence that I do is some sort of religious delusion. You describe Wagner's works in terms drawn from outside the works themselves, trying to fit him into a procrustean bed of cultural and aesthetic categories you've acquired elsewhere. I approached them differently: I got deep inside their imaginative world over fifty years ago - I was barely out of adolescence when his imagination gripped mine in a direct, startling, intense, disturbing, exciting and expanding way - and I spent quite a few years analyzing his music, his musico-dramatic methods, and the psycho-mythical symbolism in his dramas, especially _Parsifal,_ which is generally considered the toughest nut to crack but which by now has, I hope, few secrets from me. I have continued to grow in my understanding of the multiple dimensions of Wagner's art which, historical influences notwithstanding, came out of his imagination in a form like nothing else in world drama, much less opera itself.

Be skeptical forever, and be as critical as you wish, but don't presume that your own thinking on the subject of Wagner can reduce him to the limits of that thinking, or that you're entitled to cut down and insult people who have the temerity to suggest that you just might be missing something.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> I was barely out of adolescence when his imagination gripped mine in a direct, startling, intense, disturbing, exciting and expanding way - and I spent quite a few years analyzing his music, his musico-dramatic methods, and the psycho-mythical symbolism in his dramas


That sounds a lot like a religious experience.

Sorry, you're a fine fellow in all other respects, but this Wagnerism is weird.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Sorry but this comes across that 'Wagnerians are a higher species than everyone else'. Idealism and nobility of his project? He was a man of the theatre - an entertainer. He dealt with fiction! At least Verdi and Mozart had the decency to admit that's what they were (albeit with complete genius) and didn't try and create a pseudo-mythical religion out of their operas. If RW's convinced you he's something more than that then fine - we don't want to discourage you - but please don't think the rest of us somehow inferior because we don't 'get it'. Wagner wrote some cracking good music but he was not some sort of musical messiah. I'm afraid his operas do not speak to me like those of Mozart and Verdi. In fact I tried watching Tristan this afternoon and ended up thinking, "Why does he take so long to say so little?"


This is empty griping and irrelevant to anything I've said, including the statement you quote. How it "comes across" to you has nothing to do with what it actually is.

I've been here three years and the whole time you've been trying to knock Wagner down, personally and artistically. It hasn't worked well for you. Stick to praising Mozart. I won't lower myself to engage in your search-and-destroy tactics; I'll only object if you throw around contentless superlatives that implicitly (or explicitly) disparage other music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Agamemnon said:


> I don't know much about Wagner but I guess Isolde's "love death" is not only romantic but goes to the heart of christianity which is in my view a romantic religion, i.e. romanticism is christianity. It is typically modern or English/American to reduce man to an animal and life to the will to self preservation. I think especially German thinkers reacted to that modern vision and e.g. Nietzsche rejected the view that life strives for self preservation: life strives for growth and therefore for self-transcendence! And in this Nietzsche wasn't that anti-German or anti-christian as he would like to be: christianity is all about self transcendence which culminates in the idea that love transcends death. Already morality transcends nature in the sense that morality commands us to act against our natural egoism and love is even 'higher' - more unnatural - than morality because in love we even sacrifice ourselves (but christianity promises eternal life after death when we choose transcending love instead of natural satisfactions). Or in Kierkegaard's view: morality is still universal and unpersonal thus objective and inauthentic; only in love (and faith in God) we transcend our natural life in a ultimate personal, subjective and thus authentic way. Jesus rendered all laws - all morality - obsolete by replacing them by only one true divine law: the law of love.
> 
> And in this way there is no difference between Mozart and Wagner: see my OP about how I regard Mozart's music!


You see, that's what I like about approaching philosophy from a British standpoint (as I did). I get to read the great works of continental philosophy, but can temper it with some common sense. The amount of sheer rubbish that pours forth from Europe in the sphere of philosophical analysis is mind boggling to say the least.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> That sounds a lot like a religious experience.
> 
> Sorry, you're a fine fellow in all other respects, but this Wagnerism is weird.


For God's sake, Gene! LOTS of people pursue artistic enthusiasms with great passion. What better way for a highly sensitive youth to spend his time?

I've been a practicing artist - musical, visual, verbal - all my life. It's what I'm about. What I do here is, for me, another art form. That's unusual, but not unique or perverse. Actually, it's quite Wagnerian, though I'm lucky (?) enough not to have had the demon of art make me into the incredible monster (not meant entirely negatively!) that Wagner was.

Make fun if you like. I got used to it on the playground, carrying around my staff paper when the others were batting balls.


----------



## Woodduck

Agamemnon said:


> *I don't know much about Wagner but I guess Isolde's "love death" is not only romantic but goes to the heart of christianity which is in my view a romantic religion,* i.e. romanticism is christianity. It is typically modern or English/American to reduce man to an animal and life to the will to self preservation. I think especially German thinkers reacted to that modern vision and e.g. Nietzsche rejected the view that life strives for self preservation: *life strives for growth and therefore for self-transcendence! *And in this Nietzsche wasn't that anti-German or anti-christian as he would like to be: *christianity is all about self transcendence which culminates in the idea that love transcends death. Already morality transcends nature in the sense that morality commands us to act against our natural egoism and love is even 'higher'* - more unnatural - than morality because in love we even sacrifice ourselves (but christianity promises eternal life after death when we choose transcending love instead of natural satisfactions). Or in Kierkegaard's view: morality is still universal and unpersonal thus objective and inauthentic; only in love (and faith in God) we transcend our natural life in a ultimate personal, subjective and thus authentic way. *J**esus rendered all laws - all morality - obsolete by replacing them by only one true divine law: the law of love.*
> 
> *And in this way there is no difference between Mozart and Wagner*: see my OP about how I regard Mozart's music!


You know more about Wagner than you think you do. :tiphat:

I will consider Mozart from this standpoint (and perhaps you'd like to say more, and bring us back to the subject of this thread).


----------



## Agamemnon

eugeneonagain said:


> You see, that's what I like about approaching philosophy from a British standpoint (as I did). I get to read the great works of continental philosophy, but can temper it with some common sense. The amount of sheer rubbish that pours forth from Europe in the sphere of philosophical analysis is mind boggling to say the least.


I have been brought up without religion and as soon I could read I read all books on science I could get so I did not know anything other than there are only atoms in the universe and man is just a bag full of blood and faeces, that life has no meaning and that because we are here anyway we can best enjoy ourselves. I think I still believe that but when I found philosophy - that is true philosophy which is continental philosophy - a totally new world opened up for me. You call it rubbish, I call it fairy tales for adults. And it is great! And I refind it in all great art like Mozart's or maybe Wagner's too. We are no robots: we don't hear merely sounds when we listen to Mozart: we hear a fascinating, wonderful world with meaning and beauty. As art/music uplifts us to a higher reality in a sensual way, religion accomplishes this in a imaginative way and philosophy in a rational/intellectual way. It is 'as if' the world has meaning and beauty, even if the English philosophers are right that there is no meaning and beauty other than in a subjective, illusory way. Music, religion and philosophy all accomplishes this 'magic' in their own way and I think mankind is in need of it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I didn't call continental philosophy rubbish; I was referring to the exegeses of it. That is also not the standard English philosophical view of the world. I think you have mistaken me for what used to be called a 'plodding empiricist'.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Well this exchange is way out of my league as I have virtually nothing to say about Wagner. It's odd that of all great opera composers - Wagner is the one I could not find interesting. The orch bit. overtures I always thought phenomenal - but getting through and opera I never did manage.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> This is empty griping and irrelevant to anything I've said, including the statement you quote. How it "comes across" to you has nothing to do with what it actually is.
> 
> I've been here three years and the whole time you've been trying to knock Wagner down, personally and artistically. It hasn't worked well for you. Stick to praising Mozart. I won't lower myself to engage in your search-and-destroy tactics; I'll only object if you throw around contentless superlatives that implicitly (or explicitly) disparage other music.


Sorry but as one who indulged in 'empty griping' yourself about those who didn't 'get' Wagner that appears a bit rich! There its a saying about people in glass houses who shouldn't throw stones!

'Search and destroy' tactics? Oh dear! You make it sound like a scorched earth policy. Get things in perspective. We are discussing opera composers - entertainers!

Anyway, back to the genius of Mozart, let me add a few superlatives by a few people rather more knowledgeable that me:

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

"Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music."
~ Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

"Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?"
~ Robert Schumann

"The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts."
~ Richard Wagner


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> "Mozart is the greatest composer of all. Beethoven created his music, but the music of Mozart is of such purity and beauty that one feels he merely found it-that it has always existed as part of the inner beauty of the universe waiting to be revealed."
> ~ Albert Einstein
> 
> "Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music."
> ~ Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
> 
> "Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?"
> ~ Robert Schumann
> 
> "The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts."
> ~ Richard Wagner


Four more who are entitled to their own tastes and opinions - but I hardly think that seals Mozart's fate as a genius once and for all. I take their endorsements as equal to yours, David, which you may take as a compliment, I suppose.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Four more who are entitled to their own tastes and opinions - but I hardly think that seals Mozart's fate as a genius once and for all. I *take their endorsements as equal to yours, *David, which you may take as a compliment, I suppose.


I take it you are joking, of course! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> That sounds a lot like a *religious experience.*
> 
> Sorry, you're a fine fellow in all other respects, but *this Wagnerism is weird*.


I must confess that it is this that tends to put one off too deep an involvement with Wagner., that it must be treated as a quasi-philosophical / religious experience. Of course Wagner himself encouraged such a view as he wanted to be regarded as the greatest composer, poet, philosopher, etc, of German culture. But for me when I go to the theatre for an opera, whether it is Mozart, Verdi, Rossini, Puccini or Wagner,go to be entertained, albeit often by a high art form. This is not to denigrate the art but to put it in its place.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I take it you are joking, of course! :lol:


No.



DavidA said:


> I must confess that it is this that tends to put one off Wagner. Of course Wagner himself encouraged such a view as he wanted to be regarded as the greatest composer, poet, philosopher, etc, of German culture. But for me when I go to the theatre for an opera, whether it is Mozart, Verdi, Rossini, Puccini or Wagner,go to be entertained, albeit often by a high art form. This is not to denigrate the art but to put it in its place.


I don't think characterising as a religion, something that isn't a religion is really a helpful argument. It tends to wind up both the religious and the non-religious.


----------



## DavidA

Riccardo Muti:

"Falstaff is very much like Mozart,” adds Muti. When Verdi was writing Falstaff, he had at his bedside three sets of scores: the quartets of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Mozart’s critics said that he lacked the skill to write a fugue (if you can imagine). And what do we find at the end of the last movement of the symphony that turned out to be his last? A grand fugue"


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> No.
> 
> I don't think characterising as a religion, something that isn't a religion is really a helpful argument. It tends to wind up both the religious and the non-religious.


Exactly. It is not a religion!


----------



## poconoron

MacLeod said:


> Four more who are entitled to their own tastes and opinions - but I hardly think that seals Mozart's fate as a genius once and for all. I take their endorsements as equal to yours, David, which you may take as a compliment, I suppose.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I guess it might take almighty God"s pronouncement to convince you - No............on second thought, that would not be enough!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I will take this learned group's pronouncements over your obvious biased opinion. It is one thing for you to not personally enjoy Mozart.............and quite another to refuse to recognize the genius of the man!!! Good gods, man..........

_*Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky*

Mozart is the musical Christ.
Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.

*Ludwig van Beethoven*

I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall remain so until my last breath.

*Franz Alexander von Kleist*

Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.

*Franz Schubert*

A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
A world that has produced a Mozart is a world worth saving. What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!

*Robert Schumann*

Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?

*André Gide*

Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.

*Johann Wolfgang von Goethe*

A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.

*Gustave Flaubert*

There are three things in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.

*Gioacchino Rossini*

Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!

*Frédéric Chopin*

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

*Antonín Dvořák*

Mozart is sweet sunshine.

*Johannes Brahms*

If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.

*Henri-Frédéric Amiel*

Mozart has the classic purity of light and the red ocean; Beethoven the romantic grandeur which belongs to the storms of air and sea, and while the soul of Mozart seems to dwell on the ethereal peaks of Olympus, that of Beethoven climbs shuddering the storm-beaten sides of a Sinai. Blessed be they both! Each represents a moment of the ideal life, each does us good. Our love is due to both.

*E.T.A. Hoffmann*

Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.

*Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf*

Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory.

*Edvard Grieg*

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

*Charles Gounod*

Mozart exists, and will exist, eternally; divine Mozart - less a name, more a soul descending to us from the heavens, who appeared on this earth, stayed for a little over thirty years, and left it all the more rejuvenated, richer and happier for his appearance.
As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! … 'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental…' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart.
*
Camille Saint-Saëns*

Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.

*Gabriel Fauré*

Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.

*Wanda Landowska*

The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.

*Franz Niemetschek*

Mozart wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages.
There was nothing exceptional about the physical presence of this extraordinary man; he was small and his appearance gave no sign of his genius, apart from his large intense eyes. […] But in this ungainly body there dwelt an artistic genius such as Nature rarely bestows even upon her most treasured darlings.

*Wolfgang Hildesheimer*

The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.

*A.Hyatt King*

Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.

*Maurice Sendak*

Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God - it's a labor of love.

*Sir Roger Norrington*

When Mozart composed he didn't have aims of genius, he simply was one.

*Georg Solti*

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

*Leonard Bernstein*

Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's - the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering - a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.
It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.

*Claudio Arrau*

Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another.

*Stendhal*

Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.

*Karl Barth*

It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it. Hence earth remains earth, with no need to maintain itself in a titanic revolt against heaven. Granted, darkness, chaos, death and hell do appear, but not for a moment are they allowed to prevail. Knowing all, Mozart creates music from a mysterious center…
Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless and light. This is why it unburdens, releases and liberates us.

*George Szell*

21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.
Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.
Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.

*George Enescu*

Mozart is the most representative composer of the musical culture.

*Thomas Love Peacock*

There is nothing perfect in this world except Mozart's music.

*Chopin*'s last request was "Play Mozart for me!"

[I*]Gustav Mahler*_'s last word was "Mozart!"[/I]


----------



## Barbebleu

Yeah. And because there were loads of people who voted for Trump and Brexit they must be right and these are good things. Heaven preserve us from the idea that a load of so-called great minds all like Mozart ergo he must be a genius and the greatest composer that ever lived. Talented and more than gifted certainly but so were a lot of other great composers. We are verging on idolatry here and it's only music and niche music at that.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> I don't think characterising as a religion, something that isn't a religion is really a helpful argument. It tends to wind up both the religious and the non-religious.


Generally when something is treated like a religion it tends to take on religious characteristics. It's not a matter of 'being helpful' or the opposite, I'm only pointing at what I see.

Wagnerites pick and choose what Wagnerism means to suit the moment. In one breath it is 'a total work of art' - which essentially includes ALL the preoccupations of Wagner's interests and ideas. So then we can only "understand" it if we are including everything (with the _correct_ interpretation of course).

In another breath, if the discussion happens to turn on the shoddy librettos or, much worse, the amateur philosophy tracts, then we can be told that they are less important than the music and the symbolism of the stories - and that symbolism, well it's open for as much interpretation as one desires, in any direction one pleases. If a particular quote is embarrassing or does not fit the interpretation, it can be dismissed as: false, a Wagner off-day, one of Cosima's tamperings, a misquotation... In agenda-bound exegesis anything can be asserted.
Next week it's all rubbed out and the whimsical definitions and interpretations can start anew; with all the same dishonest meanderings.

Now the reasons for a good deal of this are apparent. Wagner has also been both misrepresented and oversimplified by his worst critics. He seemed to have had conflicting ideas (apparently socialist class-consciousness and yet an antithetical desire for him to be seen as some sort of higher being, happy to accept the patronage of the aristocratic people he claimed to be in opposition to). These ideas were not so different from a number of other contemporary artist/thinkers, yet who have managed to pass through history largely unscathed. Then again they didn't make quite as much noise about it as Wagner did. He was clearly obsessed with the idea that everyone was against him which helped to foster the notion of a great genius against the odds.

Woodduck asked what I meant by "_the suggestion_ of moral crises?" Simply that they are off-the-peg crises lifted from ordinary Christian-drenched culture and transferred to his operas. In the final instance what are Wagner's main themes other than basic 'sin and redemption'? Shoehorned in are bits and pieces of typical 19th century ideas among the changing culture: sexuality, resurrection of national character, the rise of bourgeois society against aristocratic rule. All of it drenched in a vague mist of magic and other-worldly mayhem. Which is clearly why the Symbolists were so attracted to Wagner.

On the one hand it is an exciting mix of ideas and perhaps unique for the time; on the other it degenerates into a hotch-potch of symbolism loosely held together with a tired old religious adhesive. Something you can interpret one way or the other because no-one knows what it means either way, if it really means anything at all. Excellent for being able to interpret-to-order. Does it suggest the rebirth of Teutonic culture and greatness? Depends who you ask. Does it suggest the triumph of love? (and how is _love_ defined here?). Again it depends who you ask. It's all of them or one of them or some of them, a Swiss Army knife of interpretations to suit all interpretations. What it isn't, for the Wagnerites, is just simple Christian themes mixed with folk mythologies - that would be way too simple for a genius. If you don't think so, you've failed to "get" Wagner.

It's not enough to think the music is good, to "get" Wagner (in a way you don't have "get" the music of so many other composers) you must accept and absorb the total package.

Now tell me this does not smack of religious-style apologia.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Riccardo Muti:
> 
> "Falstaff is very much like Mozart," adds Muti. When Verdi was writing Falstaff, he had at his bedside three sets of scores: the quartets of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Mozart's critics said that he lacked the skill to write a fugue (if you can imagine). And what do we find at the end of the last movement of the symphony that turned out to be his last? A grand fugue"


Fugue? There is a coda with five part invertible counterpart (well, really about three and a half part, given the fragmentary nature of some of the ideas), but it's not a fugue.

And of course the critics were wrong. He had the skill to write a fugue.


----------



## Lisztian

poconoron said:


> :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> I guess it might take almighty God"s pronouncement to convince you - No............on second thought, that would not be enough!!!!!!!!
> 
> Anyway, I will take this learned group's pronouncements over your obvious biased opinion. It is one thing for you to not personally enjoy Mozart.............and quite another to refuse to recognize the genius of the man!!! Good gods, man..........
> 
> _*Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky*
> 
> Mozart is the musical Christ.
> Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
> I find consolation and rest in Mozart's music, wherein he gives expression to that joy of life which was part of his sane and wholesome temperament.
> 
> *Ludwig van Beethoven*
> 
> I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall remain so until my last breath.
> 
> *Franz Alexander von Kleist*
> 
> Mozart's music is so beautiful as to entice angels down to earth.
> 
> *Franz Schubert*
> 
> A light, bright, fine day this will remain throughout my whole life. As from afar, the magic notes of Mozart's music still gently haunts me.
> A world that has produced a Mozart is a world worth saving. What a picture of a better world you have given us, Mozart!
> 
> *Robert Schumann*
> 
> Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?
> 
> *André Gide*
> 
> Mozart's joy is made of serenity, and a phrase of his music is like a calm thought; his simplicity is merely purity. It is a crystalline thing in which all the emotions play a role, but as if already celestially transposed. Moderation consists in feeling emotions as the angels do.
> 
> *Johann Wolfgang von Goethe*
> 
> A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.
> 
> *Gustave Flaubert*
> 
> There are three things in the world I love most: the sea, Hamlet, and Don Giovanni.
> 
> *Gioacchino Rossini*
> 
> Beethoven I take twice a week, Haydn four times, and Mozart every day!
> 
> *Frédéric Chopin*
> 
> Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head.
> 
> *Antonín Dvořák*
> 
> Mozart is sweet sunshine.
> 
> *Johannes Brahms*
> 
> If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
> 
> *Henri-Frédéric Amiel*
> 
> Mozart has the classic purity of light and the red ocean; Beethoven the romantic grandeur which belongs to the storms of air and sea, and while the soul of Mozart seems to dwell on the ethereal peaks of Olympus, that of Beethoven climbs shuddering the storm-beaten sides of a Sinai. Blessed be they both! Each represents a moment of the ideal life, each does us good. Our love is due to both.
> 
> *E.T.A. Hoffmann*
> 
> Mozart's music is the mysterious language of a distant spiritual kingdom, whose marvelous accents echo in our inner being and arouse a higher, intensive life.
> 
> *Karl Ditters von Dittersdorf*
> 
> Mozart does not give the listener time to catch his breath, for no sooner is one inclined to reflect upon a beautiful inspiration than another appears, even more splendid, which drives away the first, and this continues on and on, so that in the end one is unable to retain any of these beauties in the memory.
> 
> *Edvard Grieg*
> 
> In Bach, Beethoven and Wagner we admire principally the depth and energy of the human mind; in Mozart, the divine instinct.
> 
> *Charles Gounod*
> 
> Mozart exists, and will exist, eternally; divine Mozart - less a name, more a soul descending to us from the heavens, who appeared on this earth, stayed for a little over thirty years, and left it all the more rejuvenated, richer and happier for his appearance.
> As with all great artists, Mozart expressed not only the soul, the taste and the aroma of his epoch, but also the spiritual world of man-man for all ages, in all the complexity of his desires, his struggles and ambivalence. Some of us, who only identify in Mozart a certain aristocratic refinement, may find these words strange. Often we meet with a condescending attitude towards him, to his music, reminiscent of chiming bells in a music box! … 'It's very nice, but not for me' say such people, 'give me passion - Beethoven, Brahms, tragic, monumental…' Such comments only reveal one thing, these people don't know Mozart.
> *
> Camille Saint-Saëns*
> 
> Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece.
> What gives Bach and Mozart a place apart is that these two great composers never sacrificed form to expression. As high as their expression may soar, their musical form remains supreme and all-efficient.
> 
> *Gabriel Fauré*
> 
> Mozart's music is particularly difficult to perform. His admirable clarity exacts absolute cleanness: the slightest mistake in it stands out like black on white. It is music in which all the notes must be heard.
> 
> *Wanda Landowska*
> 
> The works of Mozart may be easy to read, but they are very difficult to interpret. The least speck of dust spoils them. They are clear, transparent, and joyful as a spring, and not only those muddy pools which seem deep only because the bottom cannot be seen.
> 
> *Franz Niemetschek*
> 
> Mozart wrote everything with such ease and speed as might at first be taken for carelessness or haste. His imagination held before him the whole work clear and lively once it was conceived. One seldom finds in his scores improved or erased passages.
> There was nothing exceptional about the physical presence of this extraordinary man; he was small and his appearance gave no sign of his genius, apart from his large intense eyes. […] But in this ungainly body there dwelt an artistic genius such as Nature rarely bestows even upon her most treasured darlings.
> 
> *Wolfgang Hildesheimer*
> 
> The riddle of Mozart is precisely that "the man" refuses to be a key for solving it. In death, as in life, he conceals himself behind his work.
> 
> *A.Hyatt King*
> 
> Mozart has reached the boundary gate of music and leaped over it, leaving behind the old masters and moderns, and posterity itself.
> 
> *Maurice Sendak*
> 
> Designing an opera by Mozart is like doing something for God - it's a labor of love.
> 
> *Sir Roger Norrington*
> 
> When Mozart composed he didn't have aims of genius, he simply was one.
> 
> *Georg Solti*
> 
> Mozart makes you believe in God because it cannot be by chance that such a phenomenon arrives into this world and leaves such an unbounded number of unparalleled masterpieces.
> 
> *Leonard Bernstein*
> 
> Mozart combines serenity, melancholy, and tragic intensity into one great lyric improvisation. Over it all hovers the greater spirit that is Mozart's - the spirit of compassion, of universal love, even of suffering - a spirit that knows no age, that belongs to all ages.
> It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion.
> Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.
> 
> *Claudio Arrau*
> 
> Mozart shows a creative power of such magnitude that one can virtually say that he tossed out of himself one great masterpiece after another.
> 
> *Stendhal*
> 
> Sometimes the impact of Mozart's music is so immediate that the vision in the mind remains blurred and incomplete, while the soul seems to be directly invaded, drenched in wave upon wave of melancholy.
> 
> *Karl Barth*
> 
> It may be that when the angels go about their task praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille they play Mozart.
> Mozart's music is free of all exaggeration, of all sharp breaks and contradictions. The sun shines but does not blind, does not burn or consume. Heaven arches over the earth, but it does not weigh it down, it does not crush or devour it. Hence earth remains earth, with no need to maintain itself in a titanic revolt against heaven. Granted, darkness, chaos, death and hell do appear, but not for a moment are they allowed to prevail. Knowing all, Mozart creates music from a mysterious center…
> Mozart's music always sounds unburdened, effortless and light. This is why it unburdens, releases and liberates us.
> 
> *George Szell*
> 
> 21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece.
> Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.
> Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement.
> 
> *George Enescu*
> 
> Mozart is the most representative composer of the musical culture.
> 
> *Thomas Love Peacock*
> 
> There is nothing perfect in this world except Mozart's music.
> 
> *Chopin*'s last request was "Play Mozart for me!"
> 
> [I*]Gustav Mahler*_'s last word was "Mozart!"[/I]


Heaps of composers have had superlatives heaped on them by exceptional personages: but I've seen no where near as many fans of others composers make the attempt to use an appeal to authority like those who love Mozart do. I have seen these kinds of posts so many times. Yawn.

That being said, I do certainly think that Mozart was a genius, and absolutely one of the most gifted composers who ever lived. I'm glad people get so much enjoyment out of him, and I love expressions of enthusiasm that don't suggest he is the be all and end all, or suggest that if one doesn't find Mozart's music to be relatively stimulating then it's because they are 'disturbed' by his greatness or that our preference for other kinds of expression means that we 'don't get Mozart.'


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> Exactly. It is not a religion!


Michael Tanner has written of Tristan und Isolde that "It is widely known that Wagner wrote a religious drama, but not so widely realised which of his works that is. Tristan und Isolde, often described as a paen to sensuality, a hymn to romantic love, even an expose of its impossibility, is the work in question. It is the one work of Wagner's which seems to be making an unconditional demand on our capacity to embrace a new, redeeming doctrine. Along with Bach's St. Matthew Passion, it is one of the two greatest religious works of our culture", and "That is not to deny that Tristan is suffused with Tragic feeling. But it is important to draw a distinction between that and a tragedy. If it were a tragedy, it couldn't be a religious work. The St. Matthew Passion is also suffused with tragic feeling, but it's redemptive ending, or hope, similarly precludes it from final tragic status."

Roger Scruton has offered the provocative idea that "one of Wagner's aims in Tristan und Isolde, and also in the Ring, which is to tie erotic love to sacrifice, and sacrifice to redemption -- in other words to recast the Christian message with _eros _ in _agape_'s stead." He elaborates on this idea, that "By accepting death through an act of sacrifice, we transcend death and raise ourselves above the mortal condition that imposed this fate upon us. This thought underlies the mystery of Christ's Passion; and also that of the passion (another kind of passion, but in a sense also the same kind) of Tristan und Isolde."

In his book Opera and Drama, Joseph Kerman sees Tristan as a "religious drama" that "slowly and surely grips the audience", in which we undergo a "progress towards a state of illumination which transcends yearning and pain", a sense of "a compelling higher reality" beyond human understanding. "If this", he concludes, "is not to be called a religious experience, it is hard to know what meaning to attach to the term."

There is an account by the young Bruno Walter, who recounts how his mentors at his conservatory constantly denigrated Wagner, which naturally made him curious, especially since he knew that one aspect of Wagner that his mentors found dangerous was sensuality, which Walter found "interesting and by no means wicked." So he decided to attend a performance and judge for himself. "Never before had my soul been so deluged with floods of sound and passion, never had my heart been consumed by such yearning and sublime blissfulness, never had I been transported from reality by such heavenly glory. I was no longer in this world. After the performance, I roamed the streets aimlessly. When I got home I didn't say anything and begged not to be questioned. My ecstasy kept singing within me through half the night, and when I awoke on the following morning I knew that my life was changed. A new epoch had begun: Wagner was my god, and I wanted to become his prophet."


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> Fugue? There is a coda with five part invertible counterpart (well, really about three and a half part, given the fragmentary nature of some of the ideas), but *it's not a fugue.*
> 
> And of course the critics were wrong. He had the skill to write a fugue.


I see. You know better than Muti?


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> Michael Tanner has written of Tristan und Isolde that "It is widely known that *Wagner wrote a religious drama, but not so widely realised which of his works that is. Tristan und Isolde, *often described as a paen to sensuality, a hymn to romantic love, even an expose of its impossibility, is the work in question. *It is the one work of Wagner's which seems to be making an unconditional demand on our capacity to embrace a new, redeeming doctrine.* Along with Bach's St. Matthew Passion, it is one of the two greatest religious works of our culture", and "That is not to deny that Tristan is suffused with Tragic feeling. But it is important to draw a distinction between that and a tragedy. If it were a tragedy, it couldn't be a religious work. The St. Matthew Passion is also suffused with tragic feeling, but it's redemptive ending, or hope, similarly precludes it from final tragic status."
> 
> Roger Scruton has offered the provocative idea that "one of Wagner's aims in Tristan und Isolde, and also in the Ring, which is to tie erotic love to sacrifice, and sacrifice to redemption -- in other words to recast the Christian message with _eros _ in _agape_'s stead." He elaborates on this idea, that "By accepting death through an act of sacrifice, we transcend death and raise ourselves above the mortal condition that imposed this fate upon us. *This thought underlies the mystery of Christ's Passion*; and also that of the passion (another kind of passion, but in a sense also the same kind) of Tristan und Isolde."
> 
> In his book Opera and Drama, Joseph Kerman sees Tristan as a "religious drama" that "slowly and surely grips the audience", in which we undergo a "progress towards a state of illumination which transcends yearning and pain", a sense of "a compelling higher reality" beyond human understanding. "If this", he concludes, "is not to be called a religious experience, it is hard to know what meaning to attach to the term."
> 
> There is an account by the young Bruno Walter, who recounts how his mentors at his conservatory constantly denigrated Wagner, which naturally made him curious, especially since he knew that one aspect of Wagner that his mentors found dangerous was sensuality, which Walter found "interesting and by no means wicked." So he decided to attend a performance and judge for himself. "Never before had my soul been so deluged with floods of sound and passion, never had my heart been consumed by such yearning and sublime blissfulness, never had I been transported from reality by such heavenly glory. I was no longer in this world. After the performance, I roamed the streets aimlessly. When I got home I didn't say anything and begged not to be questioned. My ecstasy kept singing within me through half the night, and when I awoke on the following morning I knew that my life was changed. A new epoch had begun: Wagner was my god, and I wanted to become his prophet."


Sorry but I think these guys have it completely wrong. Tristan is not at all a religious work at all. It is a work about sexual passion - yes, Scruton has it right when he says it is about eros but it has nothing to do with the Christian message. There is no redemptive ending - they both die. Might be what Schopenhauer (with his hang-ups) had in mind but it's got nothing to do with Christianity. I'm just glad at the end of the Magic Flute the lovers live happily ever after!

What Walter thought of Wagner is not relevant here as this thread is about Mozart. I note that Walter had to flee Austria when another admirer of Wagner took power! But to call any composer - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or Wagner et al - 'divine' is nonsense. They were men. Highly gifted with genius but men. Admire their gift - yes. Worship them - no!


----------



## Barbebleu

DavidA. Can't wait to see what Woodduck thinks about your second last sentence! The day that the subject of any thread is strictly adhered to will be a day to behold.:lol::lol:


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> Sorry but I think these guys have it completely wrong. Tristan is not at all a religious work at all. It is a work about sexual passion - yes, Scruton has it right when he says it is about eros but it has nothing to do with the Christian message. There is no redemptive ending - they both die. Might be what Schopenhauer (with his hang-ups) had in mind but it's got nothing to do with Christianity. I'm just glad at the end of the Magic Flute the lovers live happily ever after!


They may very well have it wrong, but the import of what they are saying has gone right over your head. Yes, Tristan and Isolde die, but the connotations of their "deaths" is much more closely analogous to the "death" of Christ than it is to the deaths of a character in an opera by Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.

You said earlier that Wagnerians insist his music dramas "must be treated as a quasi-philosophical / religious experience." I have never seen any such insistence. What I have seen is others relate their own profound, deeply affecting experiences of these works and express their admiration for them. Despite your attempts to treat philosophical and spiritual insights in works of art and pure entertainment in works of art as two mutually exclusive phenomenon, the truth is they are not. Works of art can be both entertaining _and_ insightful of the human condition. As Bryan Magee has said both great art and great philosophy are "truth-seeking activities pursued at the deepest level that human beings are capable of penetrating to. Both are trying to see into the ultimate nature of things, the ultimate mystery of existence; and if they fail it is only at the limits of human understanding that they fail." Wagner's art, in line with the art of other great artists, is aspirational, concerned with and aiming at ideals. Bach said he was composing his music to the greater glory of God; Beethoven said he was trying to express the highest of human aspirations; and one could multiply these sentiments many times over by quoting other artists.

What is disturbing is your continuous remarks belittling those who _do_ consider art (actually, most of the time in your case, specifically Wagner's art) to be more than simple entertainment, and the implications that those who find Wagner's operas to be powerful and overwhelming have been duped, or taken in. It is insulting, and it is beneath you, David. After all these years, knock it off already, will you?



> What Walter thought of Wagner is not relevant here as this thread is about Mozart.


But it is relevant to the discussion of Wagner taking place in this thread about Mozart, which is a discussion that was largely instigated by you yourself. Perhaps next time you'll think better of it.



> I note that Walter had to flee Austria when another admirer of Wagner took power!


I note that this was a correlation that Walter himself never made, so for you to try to make it is rather preposterous.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Faustian said:


> Yes, Tristan and Isolde die, but the connotations of *their "deaths" is much more closely analogous to the "death" of Christ* than it is to the deaths of a character in an opera by Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.
> 
> You said earlier that Wagnerians insist his music dramas "must be treated as a quasi-philosophical / religious experience." I have never seen any such insistence. What I have seen is others relate their own profound, deeply affecting experiences of these works and express their admiration for them.


Right, nothing quasi-religious about all that in any way. Methinks you even water it down a little.



Faustian said:


> As Bryan Magee has said both great art and great philosophy are "truth-seeking activities pursued at the deepest level that human beings are capable of penetrating to. Both are trying to see into the ultimate nature of things, the ultimate mystery of existence; and if they fail it is only at the limits of human understanding that they fail." Wagner's art, in line with the art of other great artists, is aspirational, concerned with and aiming at ideals.


And yet not a jot of it is penetratingly "philosophical" is it? Brian Magee (a very admirable philosophical writer) is wrong about this in relation to Wagner. It's a rag-bag of ideas that were floating around at the time, not original thought, and what, finally, is its lynchpin? Merely the centuries-old Christian belief. What a thinker! Not one of these "writings" is a contribution to original thought. This man should have stuck to music, but he couldn't because he was convinced (wrongly) he had something profound to say. Sadly several generations of people - some of note - swept away by the music and the romance of the stories have said a lot of stupid things about them.

Wagner was: a first-rate, very influential composer of music, but sadly a diabolically second-rate, almost farcical caricature of a "thinker".


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> They may very well have it wrong, but the import of what they are saying has gone right over your head. *Yes, Tristan and Isolde die, but the connotations of their "deaths" is much more closely analogous to the "death" of Christ *than it is to the deaths of a character in an opera by Mozart, Verdi or Puccini.
> 
> You said earlier that Wagnerians insist his music dramas "must be treated as a quasi-philosophical / religious experience." I have never seen any such insistence. What I have seen is others relate their own profound, deeply affecting experiences of these works and express their admiration for them. Despite your attempts to treat philosophical and spiritual insights in works of art and pure entertainment in works of art as two mutually exclusive phenomenon, the truth is they are not. Works of art can be both entertaining _and_ insightful of the human condition. As Bryan Magee has said both great art and great philosophy are "truth-seeking activities pursued at the deepest level that human beings are capable of penetrating to. Both are trying to see into the ultimate nature of things, the ultimate mystery of existence; and if they fail it is only at the limits of human understanding that they fail." Wagner's art, in line with the art of other great artists, is aspirational, concerned with and aiming at ideals. Bach said he was composing his music to the greater glory of God; Beethoven said he was trying to express the highest of human aspirations; and one could multiply these sentiments many times over by quoting other artists.
> 
> What is disturbing is your continuous remarks belittling those who _do_ consider art (actually, most of the time in your case, specifically Wagner's art) to be more than simple entertainment, and the implications that those who find Wagner's operas to be powerful and overwhelming have been duped, or taken in. It is insulting, and it is beneath you, David. After all these years, knock it off already, will you?
> 
> But it is relevant to the discussion of Wagner taking place in this thread about Mozart, which is a discussion that was largely instigated by you yourself. Perhaps next time you'll think better of it.
> 
> *I note that this was a correlation that Walter himself never made, so for you to try to make it is rather preposterous*.


Sorry but this comes from a misunderstanding of Biblical Christianity.

I never made any correlation. I just stated a historical fact and asked a question. I do wish you would actually read what I said.


----------



## Faustian

eugeneonagain said:


> Right, nothing quasi-religious about all that in any way. Methinks you even water it down a little.


...what? I'm not trying to water anything down. Wagner's operas are bound with religiosity in a very real way, and are very concerned with ideas of the sacred, of transcendence, of redemption. I take it when you throw around these terms you mean them as insults. In and of themselves I don't find them to be insulting at all, but your mean-spirited condensation in these discussions is incredibly wearisome.



> And yet not a jot of it is penetratingly "philosophical" is it? Brian Magee (a very admirable philosophical writer) is wrong about this in relation to Wagner. It's a rag-bag of ideas that were floating around at the time, not original thought, and what, finally, is its lynchpin? Merely the centuries-old Christian belief. What a thinker! Not one of these "writings" is a contribution to original thought. This man should have stuck to music, but he couldn't because he was convinced (wrongly) he had something profound to say. Sadly several generations of people - some of note - swept away by the music and the romance of the stories have said a lot of stupid things about them.
> 
> Wagner was: a first-rate, very influential composer of music, but sadly a diabolically second-rate, almost farcical caricature of a "thinker".


I'm sorry, but as someone who genuinely loves these operas, who has spent hours upon hours listening to them, watching them in the theater, and reflecting on them, I find your entire characterization of them completely bizarre. These characterizations simply have very little relation to my experiences of them. Your vague criticisms of them lack substantive value, making it almost impossible to give a meaningful response to those criticisms, and it is painfully obvious that while you have some knowledge of some of the ideas and influences surrounding Wagner's music dramas you have very little first hand knowledge or experience of the _works themselves_. Indeed, you seem to have spent more time reading Wagner's prose writings and other writer's thoughts _about_ Wagner, than your have actually watching and listening to them yourself. Since you yourself have often bemoaned the fact that you are drug into long discussions about Wagner that you really don't care all that much about, it seem somewhat odd that you would put so much effort reading and writing long theses about works of art that you have little sympathy for and spend little time actually engaging with.

I have no problem having a civil conversation discussing the merits of Wagner's operas. Indeed, as they are one of my life's greatest passions, I actually quite enjoy it. But I'm not here for argument, or to have my statements de-bunked. Your confrontational attitude when it comes to Wagner is incredibly off-putting, so excuse me if I find something better to do with my day than to try to convince you that there is actually something worthwhile about these works. If you had an active interest in trying to understand what others see in them, that would be different. But you obviously don't. So best of luck to you.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Faustian said:


> ...what? I'm not trying to water anything down. Wagner's operas are bound with religiosity in a very real way, and are very concerned with ideas of the sacred, of transcendence, of redemption. I take it when you throw around these terms you mean them as insults. In and of themselves I don't find them to be insulting at all, but your mean-spirited condensation in these discussions is incredibly wearisome.


More wearisome than the goalpost-shifting Wagner interpretation? I doubt that very much. This is the thing isn't? One day the operas are not religion, another day they're more than religion, another day they're more philosophy than religion. That's wearisome, just trying to keep up with this week's interpretation...which will be claimed as completely consequential to anything claimed before.



Faustian said:


> I'm sorry, but as someone who genuinely loves these operas, who has spent hours upon hours listening to them, watching them in the theater, and reflecting on them, I find your entire characterization of them completely bizarre. They simply have very little relation to my experiences of them.


How is that my problem? I can't help it that you've decided to like Wagner and repeat all the same, old unsupportable reasons concerning his pseudo-philosophy. It's tiresome having to listen to this.



Faustian said:


> Your vague criticisms of them lack substantive value, making it almost impossible to give a meaningful response to those criticisms, and it is painfully obvious that while you have some knowledge of some of the ideas and influences surrounding Wagner's music dramas you have very little first hand knowledge or experience of the _works themselves_.


Ah the old "Vague criticisms". Does it ever change? It's like all the Wagnerites proceed from the same retort cheat-sheet. I have indeed a very good grounding in the "ideas and influences surrounding Wagner's music dramas", which is more that can be said for those exalting Wagner beyond what he achieved.
From now on I'm going to ignore the repeated charge of 'you have little knowledge of Wagner's work itself'. I've listened to them enough to know what I am criticising. I doubt very much that everyone posting has a lifetime's study behind every post they write about a topic on this website.



Faustian said:


> Indeed, you seem to have spent more time reading Wagner's prose writings and other writer's thoughts _about_ Wagner, than your have actually watching and listening to them yourself. Since you yourself have often bemoaned the fact that you are drug into long discussions about Wagner that you really don't care all that much about, it seem somewhat odd that you would put so much effort reading and writing long theses about works of art that you have little sympathy for and spend little time actually engaging with.


No, I've read these _alongside_ because I like to be thorough. And they're not a difficult read. It was some time ago when I wanted to see first hand what he actually wrote rather than taking the misguided word of those who told me he was a proto-Nazi.



Faustian said:


> I have no problem having a civil conversation discussing the merits of Wagner's operas. Indeed, as they are one of my life's greatest passions, I actually quite enjoy it. But I'm not here for argument, or to have my statements de-bunked. Your confrontational attitude when it comes to Wagner is incredibly off-putting, so excuse me if I find something better to do with my day than to try to convince you that there is actually something worthwhile about these works. If you had an active interest in trying to understand what others see in them, that would be different. But you obviously don't. So best of luck to you.


Maybe you could actually read what I am writing then. I think the operas are great music and great entertainment, but they are not profound philosophy and that is what is being falsely claimed.
I'm sure you would rather have an easy, genial discussion where I continuously say: yes, you have a point, but...' I really don't see why I should do that when Wagner's fans here are constantly peddling a falsehood of profundity about these music dramas, based upon nothing more than: 'I have spent hours listening to them...and I have had a moving experience'.


----------



## Faustian

eugeneonagain said:


> I really don't see why I should do that when Wagner's fans here are constantly peddling a falsehood of profundity about these music dramas, based upon nothing more than: 'I have spent hours listening to them...and I have had a moving experience'.


How is it a falsehood of profundity if it is an honest and true representation of my reaction to them? What kind of evidence are you looking for regarding profundity that would consist of something outside of someone's experience? Do you find any works of art profound? Can you offer any proof that they are to someone who isn't moved by them?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Faustian said:


> How is it a falsehood of profundity if it is an honest and true representation of my reaction to them? What kind of evidence are you looking for regarding profundity that would consist of something outside of someone's experience? Do you find any works of art profound? Can you offer any proof that they are to someone who isn't moved by them?


Having a reaction to something does not render it profound! That is not a worthy test of ideas. You are confusing the emotional reaction to the music dramas with the so-called 'profound philosophy' allegedly underlying them.

Proof? I don't need to offer proof for things I find personally moving and meaningful to me, but I do need to start offering explanations if I go about claiming that these works of art mean this or that or have a particular set of theories underpinning them.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am without competence to judge of the genius of Mozart (I would feel a bit more courageous identifying scientific genius). But I think it might be OK to opine that one reason Mozart so appeals to me and to many others is the very light extramusical baggage he brings to the table. It strikes me that his goal was to please himself with his music, and simultaneously to please enough others to make a name for himself and to earn a decent living from composing. I don't think he really had a lot to say in and through and by his music other than what was carried purely through the music--no mega-musical or meta-musical messaging. I just don't do well--am not the proper audience for--grasping extramusical or transmusical meaning in the works of a number of classical composers of great weight and substance. Certainly a failing: in the words (not an exact quote) of an old classmate of Samuel Johnson, met by Johnson and Boswell randomly on a London street, "I tried to be a philosopher, but the cheerfulness kept breaking through".


----------



## Guest

poconoron said:


> Anyway, I will take this learned group's pronouncements over your obvious biased opinion. It is one thing for you to not personally enjoy Mozart.............and quite another to refuse to recognize the genius of the man!!!


If you've followed my postings on Mozart, you will have spotted that I question the notion of genius generally; have never contradicted the widely held opinion that he is one; and that my personal regard for him - I do listen to his symphonies and don't waste my time listening to what I don't like, but he doesn't do it for me as some others do - is irrelevant.

What I object to is the appeal to authority; and the evidence offered to support the notion of genius in his specific case - that he wrote easily and perfectly - is inadequate.



eugeneonagain said:


> Generally when something is treated like a religion it tends to take on religious characteristics. It's not a matter of 'being helpful' or the opposite, I'm only pointing at what I see. [etc etc]


Sorry, but tl:dr. It's not what you see, it's your take on what you see and you choose to characterise "Wagnerism" as a religion, when you could characterise it as a mere cult, or an -ism, or...



Lisztian said:


> Heaps of composers have had superlatives heaped on them by exceptional personages: but I've seen no where near as many fans of others composers make the attempt to use an appeal to authority like those who love Mozart do. I have seen these kinds of posts so many times. Yawn.


Exactly so. Thank you.


----------



## Faustian

eugeneonagain said:


> Having a reaction to something does not render it profound! That is not a worthy test of ideas. You are confusing the emotional reaction to the music dramas with the so-called 'profound philosophy' allegedly underlying them.


When I say a work of art, such as Beethoven's Eroica, is profound, I'm referring to it's quality, it's intensity, and to the emotions it stirs within me as I'm listening to it. When I speak of the profundity of a play by Shakespeare or an opera by Wagner, I'm speaking of them in the same way. These are works that confront the complexities of life, not through a discourse of ideas, but through direct experience.. So to criticize Wagner as a "thinker" entirely misses the point as much as it would be to criticize Beethoven's symphonies or Shakespeare's plays based on their status as "thinkers". To put it baldly, I do not consider Wagner a profound thinker. I consider him a profound artist.

That being said, there are plenty of fascinating philosophical connotations and psychological portrayals in works like the Ring and Tristan. Just because you recognize the greatness of the music doesn't mean you are right when you call the libretto's shoddy or deride them as a weak mish-mash of ideas. And because you don't offer any concrete examples where you feel this to be this case, it's difficult to thoughtfully respond to these thinly veiled insults with much more than "no they're not! I know you are but what am I!? Neener neener neener!"



> but I do need to start offering explanations if I go about claiming that these works of art mean this or that or have a particular set of theories underpinning them.


Oh, well, I've tried to do this as best I could numerous times in various threads related to Wagner's operas over the years, and I know Woodduck particularly has offered plenty of insightful explanations.

Expecting someone to offer a detailed and studied analysis of these works simply to be able to justify calling them great seems a bit much.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> I see. You know better than Muti?


Yes, I know better than Muti. I know what a fugue is. And I know how to write them. Muti apparently needed a refresher course on it when he made that comment.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, I know better than Muti. I know what a fugue is. And I know how to write them. Muti apparently needed a refresher course on it when he made that comment.


Yes, but do you recognise genius? If so, you might be quoted as an authority - though perhaps not by DavidA.


----------



## Larry

I enjoy Mozart's later compositions. I think Mozart's work is seen as controversial because there is so much variation in quality. Frankly his early work impresses me as a prodigy showing off. It's too cutsy. His later work is glorious and transcendent. Too bad he didn't live long enough to reach his true potential.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Faustian said:


> When I say a work of art, such as Beethoven's Eroica, is profound, I'm referring to it's quality, it's intensity, and to the emotions it stirs within me as I'm listening to it. When I speak of the profundity of a play by Shakespeare or an opera by Wagner, I'm speaking of them in the same way. These are works that confront the complexities of life, not through a discourse of ideas, but through direct experience.. So to criticize Wagner as a "thinker" entirely misses the point as much as it would be to criticize Beethoven's symphonies or Shakespeare's plays based on their status as "thinkers". To put it baldly, I do not consider Wagner a profound thinker. I consider him a profound artist.


It does not surprise me to read that there is also a private definition of profound that goes along with this. You are describing the emotional effect of it upon you and that's about it. Then there's that bit about "the complexities of life"; there are no "complexities" in Wagner, it's all black and white.

I am referring to Wagner's alleged position as a "thinker" (as well you know) because this is a particular facet of Wagner's 'project': his music dramas linked to his theories. To boil it down to 'profound artist' is sidestepping this.



Faustian said:


> That being said, there are plenty of fascinating philosophical connotations and psychological portrayals in works like the Ring and Tristan. Just because you recognize the greatness of the music doesn't mean you are right when you call the libretto's shoddy or deride them as a weak mish-mash of ideas. And because you don't offer any concrete examples where you feel this to be this case, it's difficult to thoughtfully respond to these thinly veiled insults with much more than "no they're not! I know you are but what am I!? Neener neener neener!"


There are not profound ideas in there. You keep saying there are, but I don't see them. It reminds me a lot of people sitting in the pub discussing the amazing genius of the film _The Matrix_ except the Matrix (not a philosophically profound film in itself) had more actual philosophical substance behind it (mostly Cartesian doubt and the problems of material reality and general ontology) than anything Wagner wrote into his Ring Cycle. Which is odd because he had a lot of promising influences.
I don't know why you keep going on about insults. If you find the hard truth about Wagner's "theories" insulting that's hardly my fault is it?



Faustian said:


> Oh, well, I've tried to do this as best I could numerous times in various threads related to Wagner's operas over the years, and I know Woodduck particularly has offered plenty of insightful explanations.
> 
> Expecting someone to offer a detailed and studied analysis of these works simply to be able to justify calling them great seems a bit much.


Every time I read these analyses (not just here, but books - Magee's among them) they do little more than offer speculations and psychological conjecture and leaps of the imagination and 'spiritual' ramblings.


----------



## Faustian

eugeneonagain said:


> It does not surprise me to read that there is also a private definition of profound that goes along with this.


Private definition?

pro·found
adjective
1.
(of a state, quality, or emotion) very great or intense.



> You are describing the emotional effect of it upon you and that's about it. Then there's that bit about "the complexities of life"; there are no "complexities" in Wagner, it's all black and white.


And you are simply contradicting my position, without offering any specific cases of why or how. So again, I can't offer much of a response here.



> I am referring to Wagner's alleged position as a "thinker" (as well you know) because this is a particular facet of Wagner's 'project': his music dramas linked to his theories. To boil it down to 'profound artist' is sidestepping this.


Wagner liked to ruminate on his work did indeed offer explanations and theories on them and on many facets of music, art, conducting, history, philosophy, science, anthropology, etc. Some of his ideas in his writings on these subjects are interesting in and of themselves; most of them are convoluted and illogical. But I take it that we are discussing the effectiveness of his music dramas, not the legitimacy of his theories or the degree to which the dramas adhere to them. If you're going to criticize Wagner the artist, it would be useful to have some more than a peripheral experience with them. It would help if you were intimately acquainted, and could offer substantive criticisms of the music and scenarios and character development. Engaging with the operas as if they were simply a set of ideas is as unhelpful as it would be to engage with Hamlet or The Tempest as if they were a set of philosophical doctrines.



> There are not profound ideas in there. You keep saying there are, but I don't see them.


Would you like to read some of my thoughts on these operas? Keep in mind these are responses to other posters in other threads, and thus quite out of context. But it might as far as this explanation you are seeking.

*Generally, on why I love Die Meistersinger, and on some of the merits of his librettos:*

"Conversely I love just about every minute of this wonderful work of art, without its prodigious outpouring of melody and patterns of images and metaphors that gather and cluster and grow until we are left with an illustrious web, rich in meaning and full of penetrating insights into the complexities of life. I find that far from being overlong, it's just long enough to do justice to these vividly realized characters, to depict the analogies that Wagner draws between the rules of art and morality and the conduct of life, and finally to provide a satisfying and uplifting conclusion to the narrative arch. It is of course brimming with high spirits and subtle humor, but it also take on more than many comedies in the way it ponders the madness that affects human lives and seems to acknowledge that as tragic as life can be, one won't make it any better by crying so one might as well laugh. Die Meistersinger fascinates because on so many levels, and in such intricate ways, it enacts its significance; helping us to accept the inevitable sadness in life as well as to embrace the sheer joy of creation and being alive.

I think that it would be foolish to deny that their librettos contain attributes and excel in ways that Wagner's do not, but the reverse is also true. Wagner's librettos may have their weaknesses, but he was anything but a poor librettist. Just think of the way he was able to find the dramatic essence of multiple literary sources, often with contradictory elements, and compress them into cohesive and efficient narratives of marvelous intricacy that are focused on decisive moments, epoch making events, and gives them maximum dramatic pressure, perhaps most impressively in operas like The Ring, Tristan und Isolde, and Parsifal. Or think of the way he is able to craft a text full of patterns, images, and references, both literal and metaphorical, that are able to add a layer upon layer of meaning to the drama. As in Die Meisteringer where there are constant references to song birds, to shoes and boots and comparisons of how well-made shoes are like well-made songs, and the ways in which Hans Sachs is associated with John the Baptist throughout the opera, leading up to Act III when he baptizes Walther's newborn song. Or the innovative way in which he was able to fuse words and music together so that the audience hears musical accents as if they were verbal accents in his use of Stabreim in the libretto for the Ring. Or just the enormous number of ideas behind these masterpieces, both philosophical and psychoanalytical, that he is able to fuse together with the music and the drama in such a way where he never sacrifices emotion to abstraction."

*On one level of meaning in the Ring as a story of Wotan's growth as a character:*

"Yeah. I feel at one level the Ring is the story of Wotan's search for self-knowledge, including the knowledge that law without self-sacrificing love brings only an illusory freedom, and only an empty joy. But Wotan's self knowledge is also man's knowledge of his own predicament, projected onto the screen of Valhalla. Wotan's anxiety for the future is our anxiety, and peace can be bestowed on the gods only when we find peace, through accepting our mortality, renouncing the will to power, and devoting ourselves to those whose love we have consciously or unconsciously counted on. This is what could be meant by Brunnhilde's "Ruhe, ruhe, du Gott!", which puts not only the gods but the world to rest. And the musical culmination at the end of the opera resolves the dissonance caused by the intervention of will, or consciousness, in the flow of nature with the theme of Sieglinde's blessing -- a blessing conferred by a mortal on a god.

The story of Wotan shows a willful and dominant personality whose acts are constrained by justice, the source of his power. Gradually Wotan is overcome by the weariness of living within this constraint, with the knowledge that the price of his original sin has not been paid, and with the recognition that the joys of immortality are more illusory than the tender love of mortals. It's a beautiful portrait of a being wrestling spiritually with himself on the way to renunciation."

*On the significance of love and the erotic in the Ring:*

"I don't believe the observation is accurate, no. This does not mean that Wagner didn't see sexual love or erotic love as incredibly significant, because he obviously did. Roger Scruton, in his book Death-Devoted Heart: Sex and the Sacred in Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, explores why this is so: one vital part of love, for Wagner, and the thing that distinguishes sexual love from mere sexual interest, is the focus on the other person, and the irreplaceable value place on him or her as the true and revealed reason for the lover's own existence. Our falling in love is one of the great transcendental moments of our lives, and the face and the body of the beloved become imbued for us with a peculiar radiance -- an otherness that seems to contain the secret meaning of our life. Such a moment is dramatized in the music of the "look" in Tristan und Isolde. I highly recommend Scruton's book for anyone wishing to go more in-depth into the subject of the erotic in Wagner's works.

So sexual love, the idea of love as a relation between two beings who can say "I" who mutually give themselves to the other is of critical importance in Wagner's dramas. However it is far from the only kind of love explored in The Ring or the only kind of love that's presented as meaningful. And to say that for Wagner sexual love is justified in an act like rape, which for Wagner is the exact inverse of everything that makes an act like sexual love sacred is absolutely ridiculous. It is also misleading to suggest Wagner is unconcerned about the consequences of sexual love, because this is refuted by the course of the drama. In a letter to his friend August Rockel, he made clear that he was aware how erotic love could have world-destroying consequences. Indeed, this is made explicit in the Ring cycle, which shows the idealized sexual love between Siegfried and Brunnhilde to be founded in the same capacity for illusion as the world of Valhalla. Moreover, as Woodduck alluded to, the love that endures through all conflicts, which is expressed in cycle's most moving moments, and which achieves peace and reconciliation after all the disasters, is that between Brunnhilde and Wotan -- the father-daugther love which has intruded into all the major turning points of the drama. Then there's the moment in Act 3 of Die Walkure when Brunnhilde has been moved to sympathy and is blessed in a burst of gratitude by Sieglinde. It is a moment purged of all traces of erotic or sexual feeling. And when, at the end of the cycle, the music takes over and it is the recollection of Sieglinde's blessing that brings redemption. In other words, it is compassionate love that heals the cosmic wound.

Love is significant for Wagner because it is the symbol of something else, which is the ability of human beings to discount their own interests, to stand up against the omnipresent forces of destruction and to act from a vision of intrinsic value. Erotic love can have this character, but again it is not the only type of love that matters and if there is one lesson to be taken from The Ring it is that erotic love is love in its most dangerous form, the form in which we are mostly likely to betray our ideals and in which our ideals can turn on us and take their revenge. The ecstasy of sexual love is paid for by the fatal flaw of jealousy and by those hiding inner hatreds. The great outpouring of forgiveness with which Brunnhilde accomplishes her death is directed equally to Siegfried, the lover who betrayed her, and to Wotan, the father whose predicament made this betrayal inevitable. And the concluding music of the cycle seems to say the most important kind of love of all is the love for the unborn, for what is yet to be, that welled in the breast of Sieglinde and was poured out in gratitude on the self-sacrificing Valkyrie who stepped in to rescue a mortal and her unborn child."

*On the nature of the power of Alberich's ring:*

"You could say the ring represents an outlook on the world that disregards the personality of people, and looks upon them as we look upon mere things or objects. The ring is the spell that undoes love by dissolving everything desired -- even the object of love -- in a stream of substitutes. Think of when Freia is exchanged by the Giants for the ring. Only one thing can take away the glance of Freia, namely the thing that was forged by renouncing love. Fasolt seizes the ring from Fafner, with the cry "Back thief! the ring is mine - it is due to me for Freia's glance". He is then murdered for the sake of this object, not merely because the ring is wanted by Fafner, but because it has already colonized the soul of Fafner, telling him that the only love known to him, brotherly love, can be exchanged for something better.

The ring is the mark and product of a primordial alienation, a loss of the acceptance of life as an end in itself. It casts itself over all desire and all aspiration, so that everything, the ring included, is demoted from an end to a means. That is what Alberich's kind of power amounts to: a universal restlessness, which can be overcome only in the individual soul by regaining at a higher and more self-conscious level the sense of oneness that was lost when the "natural order" was left behind.

So the ring doesn't offer an immediate power to defend against assault or danger, but a more insidious power, a form of psychological enslavement. And it only has power over those already disposed to submit to it, those for whom the world is place of exploitation. This makes it clear why the ring has no power over Wotan, who rules by law and treaty, and who therefore is committed to relations of free agreement. In the moment when he seizes the ring from Alberich, Wotan acts through the power that he as won with his spear, which is the power to administer justice and to claim the obedience of those who live by law. Alberich's power belongs in another realm, where justice has been extinguished. Those who fall into that other realm are subject to the ring, but free beings, without the lust for domination, are not. When a free being possesses the ring, he does not possess its magic, but he is subject to its curse. This is why it is inert on the fingers of Siegfried and Brunnhilde. Yet the curse still attaches to it, since it can be purified only by the one who willingly returns it to the Rhine; in other words, by the one who reverses Alberich's renunciation of love for power, by renouncing power for love."

*On the contract between Wotan and the Giants:*

"Absolutely. The promise of Wotan to the giants encapsulates the promise made from the beginning of time by the gods that we mortals conjure from our deepest longings. Wotan promises them the goddess of love, Freia, who is also the purveyor of the apples of immortality. But if we really possessed the gifts of Freia -- if we were immortal and swimming forever in a bath of love -- what need would we have of the gods? And if we no longer need them, the gods must die. Hence, Freia cannot be shared by us and the gods: either we have her, or they do. Yet it is only because the gods promise such things that we are prepared to erect in their honor the temples from which they govern us. What the gods promise, therefore, they must also withhold. A trick is needed, and on that trick depends the rule of law whereby all such tricks are forbidden. Such is the paradox of justice: that it depends upon the arts that it forbids. And this paradox is built into the personality of Wotan at every level, as it is built into all forms of historical legitimacy.

Here we see a similarity between Wotan and Alberich, which is also the greatest difference. If Wotan's promise to the Giants had been honored, then Wotan would have done exactly what Alberich did -- he would have exchanged love for domination. He only avoids Alberich's sin against himself by adding another sin on top of it, the sin of a dishonored promise. And yet, as Fasolt reminds Wotan, "what you are, you are through treaties". It is only because Wotan avoids this additional sin that he has any power at all. But justice requires law, which needs power, and power needs legitimacy, the throne of Valhalla, which is exactly what Wotan has striven to achieve. If a trick is necessary to gain this result, so be it. For it is only through lawful government that we mortals are able to protect ourselves from tricks at all."

*On the meaning of the death of the Gods in Gotterdemmerung:*

"And I think it's worth keeping in mind that the action of Götterdämmerung takes place after the defeat, or capitulation, of Wotan, and the splintering of his spear. Wagner is telling us to take seriously what happens when the twilight really comes. No longer does the guardian of oaths and treaties preside over the world. However urgently we bind ourselves with vows and oaths and contracts, there is no power beyond ourselves that can enforce these things, and all trust is jeopardized by our own enlightened consciousness. So Siegfried's smashing of Wotan's spear has brought into being a world in which Siegfried, the truest of heroes, as Brunnhilde ultimately describes him, will be false to all his vows.

So just as the opera Siegfried unfolds as a series of awakenings, Götterdämmerung unfolds as a series of betrayals."



> Every time I read these analyses (not just here, but books - Magee's among them) they do little more than offer speculations and psychological conjecture and leaps of the imagination and 'spiritual' ramblings.


Essentially what critical studies and analyses of works of art are is an attempt to understand and why these works stir the reactions in us that they do. So in a very real sense they are speculations and conjecture, but if done well they can also be insightful and help us to see the works in a new light. If a reader does not relate to the the work under discussion, and is not moved by it, these analyses will most certainly come across as empty "ramblings".


----------



## DavidA

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, I know better than Muti. I know what a fugue is. And I know how to write them. Muti apparently needed a refresher course on it when he made that comment.


Good. Let me know when you're conducting the Vienna Philharmonic! :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larry said:


> I enjoy Mozart's later compositions. I think Mozart's work is seen as controversial because there is so much variation in quality. Frankly his early work impresses me as a prodigy showing off.  It's too cutsy. His later work is glorious and transcendent. *Too bad he didn't live long enough to reach his true potential.*


For those of us who can hear it - his true potential appears in early works like the 5 violin concertos as much as it does in the requiem and die zauberflote.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, *I know better than Muti. I know what a fugue is. And I know how to write them*. Muti apparently needed a refresher course on it when he made that comment.


Well, it's not a fugue _per se_, but nonetheless a movement with contrapuntal/canonic/fugal passages, and I don't mean only the coda, but others too, like for example in bars 36-73, where the main theme is treated as a fugal subject with a countersubject.

But I'm more intrigued by your comment that you not only "know better than Muti" but you also know 'how to write fugues'. Of your own? if so, the question is, how good are those fugues? can you share some examples?


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I am without competence to judge of the genius of Mozart (I would feel a bit more courageous identifying scientific genius). But I think it might be OK to opine that one reason Mozart so appeals to me and to many others is the very light extramusical baggage he brings to the table. It strikes me that his goal was to please himself with his music, and simultaneously to please enough others to make a name for himself and to earn a decent living from composing. I don't think he really had a lot to say in and through and by his music other than what was carried purely through the music--no mega-musical or meta-musical messaging. I just don't do well--am not the proper audience for--grasping extramusical or transmusical meaning in the works of a number of classical composers of great weight and substance. Certainly a failing: in the words (not an exact quote) of an old classmate of Samuel Johnson, met by Johnson and Boswell randomly on a London street, "I tried to be a philosopher, but the cheerfulness kept breaking through".


For Mozart writing music was a joy. And as a professional musician he gave everyone else lots to enjoy too! Quite simple! he was an entertainer - an unbelievable genius but an entertainer. I don't believe he aspired to be something he was not.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Generally when something is treated like a religion it tends to take on religious characteristics. It's not a matter of 'being helpful' or the opposite, I'm only pointing at what I see.
> 
> Wagnerites pick and choose what Wagnerism means to suit the moment. In one breath it is 'a total work of art' - which essentially includes ALL the preoccupations of Wagner's interests and ideas. So then we can only "understand" it if we are including everything (with the _correct_ interpretation of course).
> 
> In another breath, if the discussion happens to turn on the shoddy librettos or, much worse, the amateur philosophy tracts, then we can be told that they are less important than the music and the symbolism of the stories - and that symbolism, well it's open for as much interpretation as one desires, in any direction one pleases. If a particular quote is embarrassing or does not fit the interpretation, it can be dismissed as: false, a Wagner off-day, one of Cosima's tamperings, a misquotation... In agenda-bound exegesis anything can be asserted.
> Next week it's all rubbed out and the whimsical definitions and interpretations can start anew; with all the same dishonest meanderings.
> 
> Now the reasons for a good deal of this are apparent. Wagner has also been both misrepresented and oversimplified by his worst critics. He seemed to have had conflicting ideas (apparently socialist class-consciousness and yet an antithetical desire for him to be seen as some sort of higher being, happy to accept the patronage of the aristocratic people he claimed to be in opposition to). These ideas were not so different from a number of other contemporary artist/thinkers, yet who have managed to pass through history largely unscathed. Then again they didn't make quite as much noise about it as Wagner did. He was clearly obsessed with the idea that everyone was against him which helped to foster the notion of a great genius against the odds.
> 
> Woodduck asked what I meant by "_the suggestion_ of moral crises?" Simply that they are off-the-peg crises lifted from ordinary Christian-drenched culture and transferred to his operas. In the final instance what are Wagner's main themes other than basic 'sin and redemption'? Shoehorned in are bits and pieces of typical 19th century ideas among the changing culture: sexuality, resurrection of national character, the rise of bourgeois society against aristocratic rule. All of it drenched in a vague mist of magic and other-worldly mayhem. Which is clearly why the Symbolists were so attracted to Wagner.
> 
> On the one hand it is an exciting mix of ideas and perhaps unique for the time; on the other it degenerates into a hotch-potch of symbolism loosely held together with a tired old religious adhesive. Something you can interpret one way or the other because no-one knows what it means either way, if it really means anything at all. Excellent for being able to interpret-to-order. Does it suggest the rebirth of Teutonic culture and greatness? Depends who you ask. Does it suggest the triumph of love? (and how is _love_ defined here?). Again it depends who you ask. It's all of them or one of them or some of them, a Swiss Army knife of interpretations to suit all interpretations. What it isn't, for the Wagnerites, is just simple Christian themes mixed with folk mythologies - that would be way too simple for a genius. If you don't think so, you've failed to "get" Wagner.
> 
> It's not enough to think the music is good, to "get" Wagner (in a way you don't have "get" the music of so many other composers) you must accept and absorb the total package.
> 
> Now tell me this does not smack of religious-style apologia.


There is so much wrong with this post that it's hard to know where to begin. "At the top" will do well enough, I guess.

Generally when something is treated like a religion it tends to take on religious characteristics.

No one is "treating" anything "like" a religion. Religion is relevant here only with respect to the fact that Wagner's stories contain a prominent theme which is, in a non-dogmatic sense, religious - i.e., they are, in significant part, tales of moral and spiritual transformation.

Wagnerites pick and choose what Wagnerism means to suit the moment. In one breath it is 'a total work of art' - which essentially includes ALL the preoccupations of Wagner's interests and ideas. In another breath, if the discussion happens to turn on the shoddy librettos or, much worse, the amateur philosophy tracts, then we can be told that they are less important than the music and the symbolism of the stories.

What "Wagnerites" do this? Now think hard. Or are you just having too much fun looking for ways of mocking and annoying people?

No one - except you - asserts that Wagner's concept of the "total work of art" should include "ALL the preoccupations of Wagner's interests and ideas," or should include "philosophy tracts." It's a work of art, bub, not an autobiography or a doctoral thesis.

the symbolism, well it's open for as much interpretation as one desires, in any direction one pleases. ... In agenda-bound exegesis anything can be asserted. Next week it's all rubbed out and the whimsical definitions and interpretations can start anew; with all the same dishonest meanderings.

Who are you accusing of dishonesty? Who is offering these arbitrary interpretations of Wagner's symbolism to which you refer, and what are they? Are you confusing arbitrariness with the fact that symbols are by their nature "open" - that they are not fixed concepts or dead objects, but may have complex meanings that resonate outward like ripples in water? Is that resonance, that capacity to embrace a range of implications and touch on different areas of human experience, a defect, or is it a fundamental aspect of how art works, and a reason why art - and, not incidentally, religion - has such power?

Wagner has also been both misrepresented and oversimplified by his worst critics.

Any kettles in mind, pot?

Woodduck asked what I meant by "the suggestion of moral crises?" Simply that they are off-the-peg crises lifted from ordinary Christian-drenched culture and transferred to his operas.

This is so nonspecific as to say absolutely nothing.

In the final instance what are Wagner's main themes other than basic 'sin and redemption'? 

Ah yes. Basic sin. Basic redemption. Obviously 19th-century bourgeois inventions.

Shoehorned in are bits and pieces of typical 19th century ideas among the changing culture: sexuality, resurrection of national character, the rise of bourgeois society against aristocratic rule.

"Shoehorned"? _Sexuality_ "shoehorned" into _Tannhauser,_ _Tristan_ and _Parsifal _? Sexuality, another 19th-century idea? Not an 18th-century idea, and a 20th-century idea, and a 12th-century idea? "Resurrection of national character"? Into which Wagner opera is that "shoehorned"? A few lines in _Meistersinger_ about preserving "our holy German art" (which Wagner, not wanting to be didactic, considered eliminating until his wife persuaded him to leave them in)? Where in the operas is "the rise of bourgeois society against aristocratic rule"?

All of it drenched in a vague mist of magic and other-worldly mayhem.

Vague to you. Clear to those who actually understand it. The only mayhem here is coming from you.

Which is clearly why the Symbolists were so attracted to Wagner.

Symbolist art acknowledged that conscious motivations are, in the life of the spirit, only the tip of the iceberg. Wagner's stories show conscious life guided by larger forces, and his music - the leitmotif as carrier of unstated meaning, the expansion of musical exposition, the breakdown of rational-abstract forms - was recognized immediately by the symbolists as the voice of the unconscious. It was actually the music itself which initially inspired their admiration.

On the one hand it is an exciting mix of ideas and perhaps unique for the time; on the other it degenerates into a hotch-potch of symbolism loosely held together with a tired old religious adhesive. Something you can interpret one way or the other because no-one knows what it means either way, if it really means anything at all. Excellent for being able to interpret-to-order. Does it suggest the rebirth of Teutonic culture and greatness? Depends who you ask. Does it suggest the triumph of love? (and how is love defined here?). Again it depends who you ask. It's all of them or one of them or some of them, a Swiss Army knife of interpretations to suit all interpretations. What it isn't, for the Wagnerites, is just simple Christian themes mixed with folk mythologies - that would be way too simple for a genius. If you don't think so, you've failed to "get" Wagner.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Given how meaningless you think Wagner's works are, it's stunning how many peripheral, extraneous, and distorted messages you find in them - and attribute to unnamed people who _don't_ find them meaningless.

It's not enough to think the music is good, to "get" Wagner (in a way you don't have "get" the music of so many other composers) you must accept and absorb the total package.

Dear God. Here you can't even decide whether you're talking about Wagner's "total package" or his music as such. Of course we don't "get" music in the way we "get" a musical drama. And why do you suppose that is? Think about it.

Now tell me this does not smack of religious-style apologia.

"This"? You mean the imaginary views of the fictional individuals you ridicule in episode after episode of this compulsive diatribe against a great artist and against those who actually know what his works are about?

Your hysterical effort to prove, evidently by sheer repetition, that Wagner's work doesn't really mean what it clearly does mean to thousands of people who know it more intimately than you do, ought to embarrass the hell out of you. I know it irritates the hell out of me.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, but tl:dr. It's not what you see, it's your take on what you see and you choose to characterise "Wagnerism" as a religion, when you could characterise it as a mere cult, or an -ism, or...


Religion? Cult? What's the difference? It is what I see and obviously would play a part in the conclusion. I don;t really know what you're trying to say, apart from nothing at all.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> *Having a reaction to something does not render it profound! *That is not a worthy test of ideas. You are confusing the emotional reaction to the music dramas with the so-called 'profound philosophy' allegedly underlying them.
> 
> Proof? I don't need to offer proof for things I find personally moving and meaningful to me, but I do need to start offering explanations if I go about claiming that these works of art mean this or that or have a particular set of theories underpinning them.


Absolutely. I was moved when I watched Despicable Me with the grandchildren but that doesn't make it a profound work of art! :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> There is so much wrong with this post that it's hard to know where to begin. "At the top" will do well enough, I guess.


It's only "wrong" because it disagrees with your view that's all.



Woodduck said:


> No one is "treating" anything "like" a religion. Religion is relevant here only with respect to the fact that Wagner's stories contain a prominent theme which is, in a non-dogmatic sense, religious - i.e., they are, in significant part, tales of moral and spiritual transformation.


So not much of an artistic breakthrough there then.



Woodduck said:


> What "Wagnerites" do this? Now think hard. Or are you just having too much fun looking for ways of mocking and annoying people?


I'm mocking no-one - probably being sarcastic sometimes. It's not fun, it's irritating having people roll out paragraph after paragraph of nebulous 'feelings' which are difficult to answer.



Woodduck said:


> No one - except you - asserts that Wagner's concept of the "total work of art" should include "ALL the preoccupations of Wagner's interests and ideas," or should include "philosophy tracts." It's a work of art, bub, not an autobiography or a doctoral thesis.


False. If it doesn't involve his theories about the work of art (his main writings) then what on earth does it include? He obviously didn't follow an artistic vision contrary to his views on art!



Woodduck said:


> Who are you accusing of dishonesty? Who is offering these arbitrary interpretations of Wagner's symbolism to which you refer, and what are they? Are you confusing arbitrariness with the fact that symbols are by their nature "open" - that they are not fixed concepts or dead objects, but may have complex meanings that resonate outward like ripples in water? Is that resonance, that capacity to embrace a range of implications and touch on different areas of human experience, a defect, or is it a fundamental aspect of how art works, and a reason why art - and, not incidentally, religion - has such power?


I'm not confusing anything my dear fellow. The above paragraph is a typical example of slippery thought, leaving as much open to interpretation as possible so that all claims look valid and all escape routes are provided. You're right inasmuch as this sort of perpetual escape-hatch lies at the heart of religion's power - for those too blind to see the circularity of reasoning and leaps of faith.

It is you offering these arbitrary interpretations. You and every other person doggedly defending Wagner's reputation as an extraordinarily profound, philosophical and psychological genius. Based upon his supposed content. Which you are discounting as and when you see fit, to fit the argument. It's appalling.



Woodduck said:


> Any kettles in mind, pot?


No. I am not resorting to the typical criticisms. I do not think he was a proto-Nazi, or a profound influence on them, or that he was any more anti-semitic than his contemporaries. None of that stuff. I am only concerned with his so-called ideas on art, which form the foundation for his operas. Sadly you and others are denying this obvious fact for a reason I simply cannot understand



Woodduck said:


> This is so nonspecific as to say absolutely nothing.


The excessive exposure to it must be rubbing-off onto me.



Woodduck said:


> Ah yes. Basic sin. Basic redemption. Obviously 19th-century bourgeois inventions.


Well no, that being the very point. His astonishing depth is just old-fashioned sin and redemption. But I think I wrote that already. Why did you ignore that bit?



Woodduck said:


> Vague to you. Clear to those who actually understand it. The only mayhem here is coming from you.


It's not hard to understand, it;s just what it is: folk tales of magic. Old hat.



Woodduck said:


> Symbolist art acknowledged that conscious motivations are, in the life of the spirit, only the tip of the iceberg. Wagner's stories show conscious life guided by larger forces, and his music - the leitmotif as carrier of unstated meaning, the expansion of musical exposition, the breakdown of rational-abstract forms - was recognized immediately by the symbolists as the voice of the unconscious. It was actually the music itself which initially inspired their admiration.


Wow, almost the original precursor to Freud eh? Well no, because that was Nietzsche, an actual philosopher with something to say. As Freud acknowledged. Give me a break.



Woodduck said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah. Given how meaningless you think Wagner's works are, it's stunning how many peripheral, extraneous, and distorted messages you find in them - and attribute to unnamed people who _don't_ find them meaningless.


Excellent analysis. Or perhaps I meant: emotional, frustrated outburst?



Woodduck said:


> heh heh. Here you don't even know whether you're talking about Wagner's "total package" or his music as such. Of course we don't "get" music in the way we "get" a musical drama. And why do you suppose that is? Think about it.


heh heh. I know exactly what I'm referring to and no sleight-of-hand will distract from it. What is Wagner's 'total package' by the way? This week?



Woodduck said:


> "This"? You mean the imaginary views of the fictional individuals you ridicule in episode after episode of this compulsive diatribe against a great artist and against those who actually know what his works are about?


I'm not ridiculing him as an artist - this great insight and intellect you keep insisting upon routinely fails to pick up on this. I think he produced great music and his operas work as magical folk tales. I am (for the umpteenth time) critiquing the so-called profundity of the ideas behind the operas. Now if you'll stop dodging from one foot to the other with regard to how these "theories" inform his work maybe I won't have to keep wasting time repeating it.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> It's only "wrong" because it disagrees with your view that's all.
> 
> So not much of an artistic breakthrough there then.
> 
> I'm mocking no-one - probably being sarcastic sometimes. It's not fun, it's irritating having people roll out paragraph after paragraph of nebulous 'feelings' which are difficult to answer.
> 
> False. If it doesn't involve his theories about the work of art (his main writings) then what on earth does it include? He obviously didn't follow an artistic vision contrary to his views on art!
> 
> I'm not confusing anything my dear fellow. The above paragraph is a typical example of slippery thought, leaving as much open to interpretation as possible so that all claims look valid and all escape routes are provided. You're right inasmuch as this sort of perpetual escape-hatch lies at the heart of religion's power - for those too blind to see the circularity of reasoning and leaps of faith.
> 
> It is you offering these arbitrary interpretations. You and every other person doggedly defending Wagner's reputation as an extraordinarily profound, philosophical and psychological genius. Based upon his supposed content. Which you are discounting as and when you see fit, to fit the argument. It's appalling.
> 
> No. I am not resorting to the typical criticisms. I do not think he was a proto-Nazi, or a profound influence on them, or that he was any more anti-semitic than his contemporaries. None of that stuff. I am only concerned with his so-called ideas on art, which form the foundation for his operas. Sadly you and others are denying this obvious fact for a reason I simply cannot understand
> 
> The excessive exposure to it must be rubbing-off onto me.
> 
> Well no, that being the very point. His astonishing depth is just old-fashioned sin and redemption. But I think I wrote that already. Why did you ignore that bit?
> 
> It's not hard to understand, it;s just what it is: folk tales of magic. Old hat.
> 
> Wow, almost the original precursor to Freud eh? Well no, because that was Nietzsche, an actual philosopher with something to say. As Freud acknowledged. Give me a break.
> 
> Excellent analysis. Or perhaps I meant: emotional, frustrated outburst?
> 
> heh heh. I know exactly what I'm referring to and no sleight-of-hand will distract from it. What is Wagner's 'total package' by the way? This week?
> 
> I'm not ridiculing him as an artist - this great insight and intellect you keep insisting upon routinely fails to pick up on this. I think he produced great music and his operas work as magical folk tales. I am (for the umpteenth time) critiquing the so-called profundity of the ideas behind the operas. *Now if you'll stop dodging from one foot to the other with regard to how these "theories" inform his work maybe I won't have to keep wasting time repeating it.*


You don't have to waste anyone's time repeating anything. You came onto this forum and were very soon launching your diatribe about Wagner's admirers being "cultists." Knowing that people here love his work, you clearly intended to antagonize.

You don't deserve a polite response.


----------



## Dumbo

> Something you can interpret one way or the other because no-one knows what it means either way, if it really means anything at all. Excellent for being able to interpret-to-order.


You just described almost all the world's great art. When somebody can tell me DEFINITIVELY what the "meaning" is of the Grosse Fuge, I'll toss out my album. Being able to create arbitrary interpretations to order is what art is all about.

I have my own philosophy I've playfully labeled ursinochreosophy, or dancing-bearism, naming it after the first image in the original Rorschach series, which I've always thought looks like two dancing bears. Are the dancing bears real? I say, yes. Some would say that rorschach images mean nothing at all, because there is no definitive interpretation possible. I would say the same is true of everything you experience. Therefore, either everything means nothing, or arbitrary interpretations ARE everything.

Just trying to lighten things up....


----------



## DavidA

When I listen to arguments about how profound Wagner's music dramas are I am reminded of the preacher / speaker who rambled on at great length on a subject which sounded very learned but which no-one could actually understand. At the end everyone looked at each other and because they didn't want to appear unlearned they all said, "`Wasn't it deep! Profound!"

Sorry but for me profundity is found in simplicity. Give me Mozart any day!


----------



## Woodduck

Dumbo said:


> *You just described almost all the world's great art. When somebody can tell me DEFINITIVELY what the "meaning" is of the Grosse Fuge, I'll toss out my album. Being able to create arbitrary interpretations to order is what art is all about. *
> 
> I have my own philosophy I've playfully labeled ursinochreosophy, or dancing-bearism, naming it after the first image in the original Rorschach series, which I've always thought looks like two dancing bears. Are the dancing bears real? I say, yes. Some would say that rorschach images mean nothing at all, because there is no definitive interpretation possible. I would say the same is true of everything you experience. Therefore, either everything means nothing, or arbitrary interpretations ARE everything.
> 
> Just trying to lighten things up....


Thank you. I'll just add the further suggestion that art is great to the extent that it can support - repeat, CAN SUPPORT (not necessitate) - a range of understandings. A "range" does not imply arbitrariness or contradiction.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> For those of us who can hear it - his true *potential appears in early works like the 5 violin concertos* as much as it does in the requiem and die zauberflote.


His potential and his genius yes. But his incredible genius had yet to flower.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> When I listen to arguments about how profound Wagner's music dramas are I am reminded of the preacher / speaker who rambled on at great length on a subject which sounded very learned but which no-one could actually understand. At the end everyone looked at each other and because they didn't want to appear unlearned they all said, "`Wasn't it deep! Profound!"
> 
> *Sorry but for me profundity is found in simplicity. Give me Mozart any day!*


So you think Mozart is simple? Maybe you don't understand his art any better than you understand Wagner's.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dumbo said:


> You just described almost all the world's great art. When somebody can tell me DEFINITIVELY what the "meaning" is of the Grosse Fuge, I'll toss out my album. Being able to create arbitrary interpretations to order is what art is all about.


Is the Große Fugue being put forward as something needing to be interpreted? Did Beethoven present it as the culmination of his great theory?



Dumbo said:


> I have my own philosophy I've playfully labeled ursinochreosophy, or dancing-bearism, naming it after the first image in the original Rorschach series, which I've always thought looks like two dancing bears. Are the dancing bears real? I say, yes. Some would say that rorschach images mean nothing at all, because there is no definitive interpretation possible. I would say the same is true of everything you experience. Therefore, either everything means nothing, or arbitrary interpretations ARE everything.


Sounds really great.


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> So you think Mozart is simple? Maybe you don't understand his art any better than you understand Wagner's.


You make me smile with this insistence that genius has to be complicated. Oh dear!

Us poor ignorant fellows! :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> You don't have to waste anyone's time repeating anything. You came onto this forum and were very soon launching your diatribe about Wagner's admirers being "cultists." Knowing that people here love his work, you clearly intended to antagonize.
> 
> You don't deserve a polite response.


I've not had one. Is there a response worthy of the name?


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> You make me smile with this insistence that genius has to be complicated. Oh dear!
> 
> Us poor ignorant fellows! :lol:


Mozart? A genius? Profound? :lol: Pffft, please! We are talking about art here! It's nothing more than some light entertainment my good fellow!


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> Mozart? A genius? Profound? :lol: Pffft, please! We are talking about art here! It's nothing more than some light entertainment my good fellow!


Now we are getting into the realm of fantasy! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

post deleted .


----------



## Faustian

DavidA said:


> Now we are getting into the realm of fantasy! :lol:


Or the realm of lunacy.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I've not had one. Is there a response worthy of the name?


Hey why doesn't someone write an opera based on this thread! A comedy of manners? :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Faustian said:


> Or the realm of lunacy.


Exactly! You took the words out of my mouth!


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> For Mozart writing music was a joy. And as a professional musician he gave everyone else lots to enjoy too! Quite simple! he was an entertainer - an unbelievable genius but an entertainer. I don't believe he aspired to be something he was not.


What exactly is an entertainer? And how do you know what Mozart aspired to be? Have you some quotes from his correspondence that address this?

You seem to like to praise "entertainment" whenever people suggest that some artistic experience has deep meaning for them. Is art like gastronomy? Like a morning at the beach? Just a momentary indulgence? Here today, gone today? What is the virtue of "entertainment"?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> You make me smile with this insistence that genius has to be complicated.


It does. But it's OK. Just keep smiling and being "entertained."


----------



## DavidA

Woodduck said:


> It does. But it's OK. Just keep smiling and being "entertained."


Thanks I will. Just watched Rossini's Cenerentola and I smiled lots as I was so thoroughly entertained. Poor simple fellow that I am! :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

As Schopenhauer so rightly indicated, art is so often used as a replacement for religious belief for those who don't believe. When this happens it is given wild interpretations and then new ideas have to be concocted to justify these interpretations. Itls like a dog chasing its tail.

This is not to say that art can't provoke thought or be a vehicle for presenting ideas - it so often is created in that way for those reasons - but there is a particular audience with a tendency to fashionable salon talk that falls into wild exegeses. These people don't _enjoy_ art as simple pleasure, it always has to be exalted.

I say this as much in relation to Mozart's admirers exalting his genius as in relation to Wagner's.


----------



## ArtMusic

^I think there is much, much more exalting of Wagner's genius than Mozart. It is a fact today that Mozart's name and music is wider known than Wagner. The general public may recognize many more tunes by Mozart's but not bothering to exalt the name. This is good. A true sign of great music and a great master.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> As Schopenhauer so rightly indicated, art is so often used as a replacement for religious belief for those who don't believe. When this happens it is given wild interpretations and then new ideas have to be concocted to justify these interpretations. Itls like a dog chasing its tail.
> 
> This is not to say that art can't provoke thought or be a vehicle for presenting ideas - it so often is created in that way for those reasons - but there is a particular audience with a tendency to fashionable salon talk that falls into wild exegeses. These people don't _enjoy_ art as simple pleasure, it always has to be exalted.
> 
> I say this as much in relation to Mozart's admirers exalting his genius as in relation to Wagner's.


Have you been unlucky enough actually to know people given to fashionable salon talk who concoct wild interpretations to support their other wild interpretations? This theoretical criticism of persons whose existence has not been demonstrated isn't very enlightening. I have known many people interested in or involved with music and art, but only one who might fit your description (though I wouldn't call his wild interpretations salon talk). Might you have been at some bad parties in the '60s where everyone got high and laughed knowingly about how everyone knew that Western culture had reached its final destiny in atonality and abstract expressionism while knowing that everyone really knew that it hadn't? Were there parties like that? I was too busy "worshiping" Wagner to attend.


----------



## eugeneonagain

In the '60s?! I most certainly wasn't of party-going age in the '60s! No, I am referring to 'serious art' types who talk about art in a florid way a lot more than they just enjoy art. The ensuing theories - very elaborate and pseudo-intellectual - clearly fill up a 'spiritual' hole in their lives.

edit - I expect this to be applied to me forthwith.


----------



## Bulldog

Woodduck said:


> You seem to like to praise "entertainment" whenever people suggest that some artistic experience has deep meaning for them. Is art like gastronomy? Like a morning at the beach? Just a momentary indulgence? Here today, gone today? What is the virtue of "entertainment"?


It's all about the bucks.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic;1326169 It is a fact today that Mozart's name and music is wider known than Wagner.[/QUOTE said:


> I looked in the Book of Facts and found no mention of Mozart or Wagner.


----------



## EdwardBast

DavidA said:


> Good. Let me know when you're conducting the Vienna Philharmonic! :lol:


People don't get to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic because the have expertise in the history and theory of music - obviously. They get the gig because they can conduct. Conductors are nowhere near the top of the list of people you should trust on issues of theory and history. So you can heed my word or not. But repeating that there is a grand fugue in the finale of the "Jupiter" Symphony will just make people wonder where you picked up a piece of misinformation.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> People don't get to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic because the have expertise in the history and theory of music - obviously. *They get the gig because they can conduct. Conductors are nowhere near the top of the list of people you should trust on issues of theory and history*. So you can heed my word or not. But repeating that there is a grand fugue in the finale of the "Jupiter" Symphony will just make people wonder where you picked up a piece of misinformation.


Muti is not the average conductor. It's well known that many great and not so great conductors get (or got) a broad education and a good deal of knowledge on music history and theory, as well as complementary knowledge on other arts or disciplines like iterature, visual arts, philosophy, etc. They are much more than baton waving robots.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I don;t really know what you're trying to say,


I'm trying to say...what I said. I can see you don't accept it. That's fine.


----------



## Agamemnon

If I listen to Mozart I actually don't hear so much of a divine gift but above all I hear a perfect craftsman at work: when you give Mozart three notes he simply knows what are the best notes to follow up to achieve the most beautiful and powerful effect and he never seems to be mistaken about his choices. If Mozart had an Trumpian mind he is definitely the composer who could claim truthfully: "I have the best notes; everybody says so".


----------



## DavidA

Agamemnon said:


> If I listen to Mozart I actually don't hear so much of a divine gift but above all I hear a *perfect craftsman at work:* when you give Mozart three notes he simply knows what are the best notes to follow up to achieve the most beautiful and powerful effect and he never seems to be mistaken about his choices. If Mozart had an Trumpian mind he is definitely the composer who could claim truthfully: "I have the best notes; everybody says so".


I'd say perfect craftsman and artist


----------



## Lisztian

DavidA said:


> I'd say perfect craftsman and artist


This can't be true, because firstly perfection is impossible (even if you think you're hearing it, you are not) and secondly, if we use the word 'perfection' a bit less rigidly, Mozart didn't write in a style encompassing the greatest of all the other eras as well. You can get things from other art that you can't from Mozart: therefore he's not perfect, even using the word in a more imprecise way.

Do you really expect to not get criticized for saying these nonsensical and subjective things? "perfect craftsman at work," "best notes to follow up," "most beautiful and powerful effect," "I have the best notes; everyone says so," "THE Genius of music," "But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well." Really? We get that you love his music, but this nonsensical hyperbole is exactly what annoys people. People are sick of the implication that we have inferior taste or that our aesthetic perceptions are clouded by biases if we don't like his music very much; or in this thread, when someone counters with equivalent, considered love for another composer they get shot down... THIS is a big reason why Mozart is controversial.


----------



## eugeneonagain

^ As much as I admire Mozart I have to agree.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Mozart fans might be both happy and interested to hear that Jan Swafford, author of the highly regarded _Johannes Brahms: A Biography_ is currently in the process of working on a biography of Mozart. I recently communicated with him, asking if he had any plans to produce a work on Haydn. He told me he did not, but that his book on Mozart would be his last biographical effort. Certainly something to look forward to.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Lisztian said:


> This can't be true, because firstly perfection is impossible (even if you think you're hearing it, you are not) and secondly, if we use the word 'perfection' a bit less rigidly, Mozart didn't write in a style encompassing the greatest of all the other eras as well. You can get things from other art that you can't from Mozart: therefore he's not perfect, even using the word in a more imprecise way.
> 
> Do you really expect to not get criticized for saying these nonsensical and subjective things? "perfect craftsman at work," "best notes to follow up," "most beautiful and powerful effect," "I have the best notes; everyone says so," "THE Genius of music," "But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well." Really? We get that you love his music, but this nonsensical hyperbole is exactly what annoys people. People are sick of the implication that we have inferior taste or that our aesthetic perceptions are clouded by biases if we don't like his music very much; or in this thread, when someone counters with equivalent, considered love for another composer they get shot down... THIS is a big reason why Mozart is controversial.


Some fair points there, but by no means all of them:

(a) How do you know, still less prove, that "perfection is impossible"? Isn't "even if you think you're hearing it, you are not" a prime example of the very dogmatism which seems to rile you so much when you perceive it coming from others?

(b) It's more than just a bit ironic that you refer to using the word "perfection" a bit less rigidly, only then to impose your own personal definition of what you think it means; and

(c) In the course of complaining about posts from others on the subject of Mozart's music you make a point of saying "we don't like his music very much" or "Mozart is controversial" but Mozart's music on the one hand and, on the other, posts _about_ Mozart's music are two different issues. Conflating the two in this way tends to add weight to the charge that "aesthetic perceptions are clouded by biases", at least in the posts in question - as does the fact that, feeling as you do about Mozart's music, you would join a thread entitled "The genius of Mozart" in the first place. I dislike Mahler's music but I wouldn't join a thread headed "The genius of Mahler" just to point out that not everyone likes his stuff, or to take issue with the enthusiasm of those that do.


----------



## Agamemnon

There has been some discussion about Mozart vs. Wagner. But what about Wagner vs. Puccini? My Rough Guide says: "It has been said that Wagner's music is better that it sounds. Conversely, Puccini's often sounds better than it is". But I think even Puccini's music is profound (although he surely goes for the melodramatic effect but didn't Mozart do that as well?)...


----------



## eugeneonagain

Agamemnon said:


> My Rough Guide says: "It has been said that Wagner's music is better that it sounds.


This is most odd. Whatever might be said of Wagner his music sounds unmistakeably brilliant. Which author in the Rough Guide thinks that it needs pointers to guide listeners in this direction?


----------



## Agamemnon

I don't know who wrote that. The book lists 14 authors and Joe Staines as the editor.


----------



## Woodduck

"Wagner's music is better than it sounds" is commonly attributed to Mark Twain (who liked Wagner, despite some satirical remarks inspired by his visit to Bayreuth). But the quip actually belongs to American humorist Bill Nye (not the science guy; this was Edgar Wilson Nye, 1850-1896).


----------



## KenOC

This one may actually be by Mark Twain as claimed: "I have witnessed and greatly enjoyed the first act of everything which Wagner created, but the effect on me has always been so powerful that one act was quite sufficient; whenever I have witnessed two acts I have gone away physically exhausted; and whenever I have ventured an entire opera the result has been the next thing to suicide."


----------



## ArtMusic

Bulldog said:


> I looked in the Book of Facts and found no mention of Mozart or Wagner.


It is socially obvious that Mozart is better known than Wagner. Fact.


----------



## eugeneonagain

ArtMusic said:


> It is socially obvious that Mozart is better known than Wagner. Fact.


I missed the origin of this particular bit of the discussion. What does being more known (if this is actually true) mean for Mozart's greatness? I mean Justin Bieber is probably familiar to more people than Mozart is, so....


----------



## Dumbo

Back in the 70s, everybody knew who Vivaldi was. Now, he's a has been again.


----------



## Lisztian

Animal the Drummer said:


> Some fair points there, but by no means all of them:
> 
> (a) How do you know, still less prove, that "perfection is impossible"? Isn't "even if you think you're hearing it, you are not" a prime example of the very dogmatism which seems to rile you so much when you perceive it coming from others?


It's true, I can't prove it. But surely no one really thinks, when listening to ANY music, that this is the best anything could possibly be? I can't help but think that this implies a certain lack of imagination regarding just how amazing certain things could potentially feel if they were rendered legitimately 'perfect.' If to you the music strikes you as being as perfect as any has ever been, great, but that doesn't mean it is completely perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that it is the case for many others. Explain to me how you can make this case? Also, please don't try to suggest that this is because I haven't been 'enlightened' or found the correct music for these 'perfect experiences' or anything along those lines: I have had my share of out-of-body musical experiences and I realize how powerful music can be...



Animal the Drummer said:


> (b) It's more than just a bit ironic that you refer to using the word "perfection" a bit less rigidly, only then to impose your own personal definition of what you think it means; and


I don't really feel as if what I outlined is my personal definition, rather another example of why the more rigid, 'absolute' version doesn't really make sense: what definitions do you think would make these comments sensible and rational?



Animal the Drummer said:


> (c) In the course of complaining about posts from others on the subject of Mozart's music you make a point of saying "we don't like his music very much" or "Mozart is controversial" but Mozart's music on the one hand and, on the other, posts _about_ Mozart's music are two different issues. Conflating the two in this way tends to add weight to the charge that "aesthetic perceptions are clouded by biases", at least in the posts in question - as does the fact that, feeling as you do about Mozart's music, you would join a thread entitled "The genius of Mozart" in the first place. I dislike Mahler's music but I wouldn't join a thread headed "The genius of Mahler" just to point out that not everyone likes his stuff, or to take issue with the enthusiasm of those that do.


I wasn't really making a point of saying the former (i.e that we don't like Mozart's music very much) as if this is separate to the thread at hand. Rather, this is _part_ of the point of why these hyperbolic claims are impossible. I will admit right here that I have not spent anywhere near enough time with Mozart's music to able to make a judgement that should be respected , and I realize that one day I may consider him to be a favorite: therefore, my use of words such as 'we' was probably incorrect, although I didn't give it much thought as I was taking a side and consider myself to be part of that side. However, there is, for example, Woodduck to contend with who, while he admits that Mozart was truly a genius who accomplished more than probably 99.9% of other composers in the context of their times (which is obvious and I agree with), he also finds other composers to be more aesthetically enjoyable. This is just one example: I have met many people who have spent a large chunk of their life exploring music and have earnestly tried to enjoy Mozart as they have many other composers, and while many have found Mozart to be a favorite, a few have not: therefore, Mozart is not the be all and end all, so stop insisting that he is.

As for why I'm participating in a thread titled 'the genius of Mozart,' you know as well as I that it's not the title that led me here, but rather the OP (which doesn't invite only an orgy of Mozart love but is a rather controversial view to say the least), and many of the posts that have since been along similar lines. The OP attempts to explain why Mozart is controversial, and I am giving part of my view on the matter. I have mentioned multiple times that I love expressions of enthusiasm as long as they don't attempt to belittle the perceptions of others (whether subtly, unconsciously or not). I have no issue with this and am genuinely thrilled that people get so much enjoyment out of something. However this is not the issue of this thread as far as I (and others) have seen it.


----------



## Guest

Lisztian said:


> If to you the music strikes you as being as perfect as any has ever been, great, but that doesn't mean it is completely perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean that it is the case for many others.





Woodduck said:


> When I speak of Mozart's perfection, I'm not using "perfection" as a metaphysical absolute instituted by some nonexistent perfect deity, but in the very human sense of "as good as we can imagine a thing to be." Mozart's works are, almost uniformly, surpassingly well designed. They give one a sense of an inevitability and rightness achieved effortlessly.


"Perfection", assuming we are using the 'very human sense' and not the metaphysical absolute, remains a subjective matter then. If Mozart's works are "surpassingly well-designed" then why don't they have the same impact on me as Beethoven's do? One answer is of course that Mozart didn't have my needs in mind when he wrote his works. (I don't suppose he had Woodduck's in mind either, but if Woodduck sees perfection in Mozart where I don't, is that because Woodduck 'gets it' and I don't?)

He was designing them for some purpose other than 'having an impact on' me. But that begs the question, what was his purpose? And what then follows is whether what he designed fulfilled his purpose.

I'm sorry, but I don't see that an assertion that what Mozart wrote was "surpassingly well-designed" takes us much further away from the subjective than 'Mozart is a genius'.

And by the way, where did we (that is, the part of the TC community that likes to sort such things) get to with agreeing what that word means and why it is applicable to Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

Rereading the OP in the light of this notion of "perfection," I think I detect at least the suggestion that Mozart is controversial precisely _because_ he is perfect.

...music is the direct expression of will or passion (it is movement). And Mozart knows this all too well as he displayed in his operas...music is all about enchanting, seduction, sex. This is the 'ordinary' content of Mozart which repels some people...

Mozart is all about controlling and bounding the passion, to transcend it's lust to true and divine love which makes it sublime. Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.

So Mozart is THE genius of music. But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well.

The idea that music could repel people because it expresses passion transcended in complete and perfect harmony is a curious notion indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone finding music disagreeable for such a reason. I suspect that those who dislike, or at least do not adore, Mozart, do so for various, and generally more concrete and specific, reasons. They might pefer more polyphonic textures, more minor keys, more chromaticism, more dissonance, weightier sonorities, etc. Or they just might not feel that the passions Mozart is transcending so beautifully encompass enough of life, so that the heaven Mozart inhabits doesn't seem like the highest heaven after all. I suspect that many would reserve that exalted place for the Bach of the B-minor mass, or for the Beethoven of the late quartets and sonatas, or for the Bruckner of the ninth symphony, or for the Wagner of Parsifal. I cite those in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways, and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Lisztian said:


> This can't be true, because firstly perfection is impossible (even if you think you're hearing it, you are not) and secondly, if we use the word 'perfection' a bit less rigidly, Mozart didn't write in a style encompassing the greatest of all the other eras as well. You can get things from other art that you can't from Mozart: therefore he's not perfect, even using the word in a more imprecise way.
> 
> Do you really expect to not get criticized for saying these nonsensical and subjective things? "perfect craftsman at work," "best notes to follow up," "most beautiful and powerful effect," "I have the best notes; everyone says so," "THE Genius of music," "But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well." Really? We get that you love his music, but this nonsensical hyperbole is exactly what annoys people. People are sick of the implication that we have inferior taste or that our aesthetic perceptions are clouded by biases if we don't like his music very much; or in this thread, when someone counters with equivalent, considered love for another composer they get shot down... THIS is a big reason why Mozart is controversial.


I agree that the words genius and perfect have done little service to the cause of Mozart's music. If anything - these words really divert attention from his art because they immediately lead to various accusations and futile rebuttals - when what we should be talking about is what makes the music so much loved and enjoyed by so many.


----------



## Agamemnon

Woodduck said:


> Rereading the OP in the light of this notion of "perfection," I think I detect at least the suggestion that Mozart is controversial precisely _because_ he is perfect.
> 
> ...music is the direct expression of will or passion (it is movement). And Mozart knows this all too well as he displayed in his operas...music is all about enchanting, seduction, sex. This is the 'ordinary' content of Mozart which repels some people...
> 
> Mozart is all about controlling and bounding the passion, to transcend it's lust to true and divine love which makes it sublime. Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.
> 
> So Mozart is THE genius of music. But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well.
> 
> The idea that music could repel people because it expresses passion transcended in complete and perfect harmony is a curious notion indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone finding music disagreeable for such a reason. I suspect that those who dislike, or at least do not adore, Mozart, do so for various, and generally more concrete and specific, reasons. They might pefer more polyphonic textures, more minor keys, more chromaticism, more dissonance, weightier sonorities, etc. Or they just might not feel that the passions Mozart is transcending so beautifully encompass enough of life, so that the heaven Mozart inhabits doesn't seem like the highest heaven after all. I suspect that many would reserve that exalted place for the Bach of the B-minor mass, or for the Beethoven of the late quartets and sonatas, or for the Bruckner of the ninth symphony, or for the Wagner of Parsifal. I cite those in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways, and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission.


Yes, I tried to explain why some people don't like Mozart's music (and why some others think Mozart reached the highest form of music). I think especially younger people like romantic music more than Mozart's, because Mozart seems to deliver only notes - his music is "pure" - and no references to things outside music while romantic music always refers to things outside the music like a beautiful landscape, a storm, romantic love etc. Of course Mozart's music does contain all these things as well beneath the surface but foremost his music is "pure" i.e. you foremost hear the pure joy of music. This makes his music seemingly light and superficial and this is actually exactly what you also express:"I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery". This is the interpretation of Mozart's music as "ordinary". At the same time Mozart's music is typically classical in which form Mozart was a master: all notes seem to have written on the basis of some mathematical precision (Golden Ratio and such). This is the "perfection" of Mozart. But a lot of people hate mathematics and the classical style because - again - it seems to be strictly rational and without human, warm, imperfect feelings. For some reason I am thinking about the solar system as a metaphore: in Mozart's universe all planets orbit the sun in a mathematical precise, perfect orbit while in romantic music the planets are swung out of their orbit and even collide. Many like the romantic drama more than Mozart's perfect universum...


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> Rereading the OP in the light of this notion of "perfection," I think I detect at least the suggestion that Mozart is controversial precisely _because_ he is perfect.
> 
> ...music is the direct expression of will or passion (it is movement). And Mozart knows this all too well as he displayed in his operas...music is all about enchanting, seduction, sex. This is the 'ordinary' content of Mozart which repels some people...
> 
> Mozart is all about controlling and bounding the passion, to transcend it's lust to true and divine love which makes it sublime. Yet this utter control of the passion (connected to the Enlightment ideal of reason) makes Mozart's music stiff-sounding and less accessible to modern ears.
> 
> So Mozart is THE genius of music. But because of that - the pure lust which is music (without references to anything else) and it's transcendence to pure sublime love by perfect harmony which puts everything in it's place - it is disturbing to many people as well.
> 
> The idea that music could repel people because it expresses passion transcended in complete and perfect harmony is a curious notion indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone finding music disagreeable for such a reason. I suspect that those who dislike, or at least do not adore, Mozart, do so for various, and generally more concrete and specific, reasons. They might pefer more polyphonic textures, more minor keys, more chromaticism, more dissonance, weightier sonorities, etc. Or they just might not feel that the passions Mozart is transcending so beautifully encompass enough of life, so that the heaven Mozart inhabits doesn't seem like the highest heaven after all. I suspect that many would reserve that exalted place for the Bach of the B-minor mass, or for the Beethoven of the late quartets and sonatas, or for the Bruckner of the ninth symphony, or for the Wagner of Parsifal. I cite those in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways, and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission.


Some interesting points there.
I am always baffled when people who listen to Beethoven and Rachmaninov turn around and tell me that Mozart's music has no emotion - lacks passion.
I could refer them to the g minor quintet, the moody d minor pc, the requiem, g minor sy, middle mvt of the clar concerto or the a major pc middle mvt - the emotional storms and passions that cry out in don giovanni and the physical desires and thwarted loves of Figaro.
Honesty, I find it laughable when people say these things.


----------



## Strange Magic

Joy--exultation--is also a passion, and one that is both very important yet often underrated, ignored, neglected--people seem to be absorbed by how much _Sturm und Drang_ or gloom is expressed by composers, often as an index of profundity, mass, depth. But Mozart certainly had the profound gift of both fully experiencing joy in music and expressing joy through music. Of course a gift he shared with many other composers, but one that I especially appreciate as exhibited by Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Strange Magic said:


> Joy--exultation--is also a passion, and one that is both very important yet often underrated, ignored, neglected--people seem to be absorbed by how much _Sturm und Drang_ or gloom is expressed by composers, often as an index of profundity, mass, depth. But Mozart certainly had the profound gift of both fully experiencing joy in music and expressing joy through music. Of course a gift he shared with many other composers, but one that I especially appreciate as exhibited by Mozart.


agreed - many listeners go in search of gloom etc - hence the popularity of his minor key works with fans of the violent rythms and soaring melodies and other paraphernalia of romantic era classical music - but it was in fact the major key works that first attracted me to the composer, and indeed Mozart virtually made the key of c major his own in my view.


----------



## DavidA

There is a good deal of semantic literalism here. When I say Mozart was a 'perfect' artist and craftsman I don't mean absolute perfection in the metaphysical sense. Rather someone who in his field we cannot expect to be bettered


----------



## Guest

Our ideas about (metaphisical) perfection are useless,fortunately we have Mozart.
Why measuring the grades of perfection,his art is beyond dispute.Analyzing does not bring us much further.
If we could grasp the wonder of creation,but we can't.

It is as Salieri said in the movie Amadeus. "when you look at is it seems nothing"


----------



## DaveM

DavidA said:


> There is a good deal of semantic literalism here. When I say Mozart was a 'perfect' artist and craftsman I don't mean absolute perfection in the metaphysical sense. Rather someone who in his field we cannot expect to be bettered


And we can't conceive of a number of his late works, particularly the operas, of possibly being made better than they are already.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I have to admit that as a teenager I had that same feeling: that Mozart produced too few minor-key works. I remember my piano instructor giving me the C major piano sonata (k545) among some other things to learn over the summer. I was appalled by it and thought it twee and more like a nursery rhyme or party piece than a sonata. I wanted to play things like Satie and Debussy and have a crack at Rach's 18th Paganini variation.

All from just playing a few bars of the 1st movement really. If I hadn't been so quick to judge and got to know the sonata I would have learned that it actually modulates to minor keys and that the main theme of the 2nd movement is beautifully lilting; that it's a little masterclass in keyboard harmony and writing and that the entire sonata is a work by someone who knows how to write works even the average player can really play. I'm less fussy now and it's a piece I love to have a go at playing through if I sit at the piano. Others I similarly rejected were Beethoven's little G major/F major sonatinas, two others I like to play and end up thinking: 'they're so simple, yet so perfectly balanced.'

This is the fate of Mozart for a lot of people: all major keys, galant-style powder puff, too many notes...and the rest. I'm glad I thought twice eventually. I learned so much about keyboard harmony by playing Mozart and Beethoven's 'simple' works. When I was trying to tackle Debussy I was just reading the notes and learning huge chords by rote.


----------



## Guest

Are you agree with me that you have to play just the notes and not to interpret it to much? It is already there in the notes.


----------



## Woodduck

Agamemnon said:


> Yes, I tried to explain why some people don't like Mozart's music (and why some others think Mozart reached the highest form of music). I think especially younger people like romantic music more than Mozart's, because Mozart seems to deliver only notes - his music is "pure" - and no references to things outside music while romantic music always refers to things outside the music like a beautiful landscape, a storm, romantic love etc. *Of course Mozart's music does contain all these things* as well *beneath the surface* but foremost his music is "pure" i.e. you foremost hear the pure joy of music. This makes his music seemingly light and superficial and this is actually exactly what you also express:*"I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery". This is the interpretation of Mozart's music as "ordinary".* At the same time Mozart's music is typically classical in which form Mozart was a master: all notes seem to have written on the basis of some mathematical precision (Golden Ratio and such). This is the "perfection" of Mozart. But* a lot of people hate mathematics and the classical style because - again - it seems to be strictly rational and without human, warm, imperfect feelings.* For some reason I am thinking about the solar system as a metaphore: in Mozart's universe all planets orbit the sun in a mathematical precise, perfect orbit while in romantic music the planets are swung out of their orbit and even collide. Many like the romantic drama more than Mozart's perfect universum...


In the bolded part of your statement above is a misstatement and a misinterpretation of what I said. You didn't quote my complete sentence, which was not an absolute statement but a comparison. The full sentence was: "I cite those [Bach, Beethoven, Bruckner, Wagner] in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery _as they do in their disparate ways,_ and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission."[/I] I did _not_ say that there is no expression of darkness and mystery in Mozart.

Moreover, I have in no way suggested that Mozart's music is "ordinary." That would be idiotic, no? Especially so, considering that I've named him as one of the three composers I regard as the greatest of all time.

What I continue to see in your response, even though you don't state it so plainly, is the notion that Mozart's music expresses in perfect proportion everything essential to human existence and thus inhabits some empyreal realm where we all ought to wish to dwell if only we were enlightened enough. Unless this is actually true, and some people really are so enlightened, it can only represent the sort of quasi-religious belief that eugeneonagain has accused Wagner's admirers of exhibiting (even though no one on this forum has ever made such claims for that composer).

But I don't believe that that notion _is_ true. I believe that no music composed by any human being can come anywhere near encompassing all of life. All art is limited both by the person who creates it and by the culture in which that person lives and is formed. The world view and sensibility of Mozart and his time pervades Mozart's music, and that music belongs to a very particular place and time. Human beings can experience and view life in quite different ways, ways which are equally legitimate and equally incomplete. There were reasons why, in Mozart's own time - and, by the way, in aspects of his own music - the Romantic movement swept Europe. It did so because it was needed. There were things people needed to say about life in society, about the inner life of man, and about the universe that did not find adequate or comfortable expression in Mozart's society or in his music. Beethoven was necessary, Wagner was necessary, so that those things could be said. Was the "perfect" elegance and poise of ideal Classicism violated in order to say them? Yes - and thank goodness it was! For "perfection" is itself an imperfect image of life.

Certainly, every artist worthy of his art strives for perfection in realizing his artistic goals - strives to find just those notes, words or brushstrokes which will express his vision in the most direct and convincing way, and to exclude those which will obscure or compromise that vision. Mozart is not the only composer who has tried to do that or succeeded at it. But the sort of "perfection" here being attributed to Mozart appears not merely a matter of his artistic means, but of his expressive goal. And this was indeed the highest goal of Classical aesthetics: the attempt to imagine and shape human life in a form totally ruled by rationality, with all emotions impeccably and imperturbably balanced and calibrated. It was a project peculiar to Enlightenment culture and Classical art - but it was one that came to be perceived as constricting and repressive. The pressure of human nature became too great to constrain, as it had to; appreciation of the Beautiful needed to be shaken by the rediscovery of the Sublime: Blake's tiger had to disrupt the peaceable kingdom, mountain chasms and crags ceased to be hostile and ugly, and the imperturbable clockwork God of deism gave way to the terrifying and exultant unknowableness of outer space and the inner space of the unconscious mind.

Mozart's music lives at the threshold of that new world, and had he lived his music might have expanded to embrace it in unimaginable ways. But it was left to Beethoven to walk through the door.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Traverso said:


> Are you agree with me that you have to play just the notes and not to interpret it to much? It is already there in the notes.


I'm sure there's some interpretation to be had out of the larger-scale works, but I don't know what or how much. When people say 'interpretation' the usual implication is emotional states or some sort of 'higher meaning'.

When I play or listen to Mozart I think more about what _he_ must have been thinking about the technical aspects of his writing. Every time you encounter one of those things he does like hitting a completely unexpected melody note and shifting the harmonies in a novel way I feel as though I'm having a bit of a look into his mind at work. I like that, it's like watching a skilled craftsman like a blacksmith make a wrought-iron gate from lumps of metal. There's obviously aesthetic and emotional concerns, but it's about consummate skill and mastery.

A lot of music now, and even during the late romantic period, shifts focus too far onto the supposed sublime deeper meaning of music, the cerebral part.


----------



## Guest

post deleted.....


----------



## Dumbo

When I listen to a Mozart piece, I always listen for new things that evaded me the first hundred times I heard it, and I usually find them.

I've been fascinated with the second movement of his g minor quintet K. 516 for the past year. I had heard it a million times, worn out the old Columbia Julliard recording -- but then it broke through to me just how awfully awkward the rhythms in this piece are. Yes, you notice it, the first time, I know, and I'm an idiot for not laser focusing on it sooner, how even in the sweeter sections, it distorts things, and all this is quite, quite deliberate. K. 516. It makes me want to listen to it again and again, to find the meaning there.


----------



## Woodduck

Dumbo said:


> When I listen to a Mozart piece, I always listen for new things that evaded me the first hundred times I heard it, and I usually find them.
> 
> I've been fascinated with the second movement of his g minor quintet K. 516 for the past year. I had heard it a million times, worn out the old Columbia Julliard recording -- but then it broke through to me just how awfully awkward the rhythms in this piece are. Yes, you notice it, the first time, I know, and I'm an idiot for not laser focusing on it sooner, how even in the sweeter sections, it distorts things, and all this is quite, quite deliberate. K. 516. It makes me want to listen to it again and again, to find the meaning there.


It took you a million tries to discover the syncopations in this? Well, better late than never! 

The string quintets are for me the high point in Mozart's chamber music. The g-minor, K516, is probably his most personal work, especially its ambivalent, extraordinarily inventive third movement adagio and the searching, angst-laden introduction to the finale, in which the usual formalities of Classicism are virtually forgotten for a strikingly long time (as they are in the "chaos" introduction to Haydn's _Creation_). But then we do get the customary bouncy rondo to put God back in His heaven. It's interesting that Mozart chose in this work to 'right the balance' after a work filled with agitation, while his g-minor symphony #40 retains its severe, strenuous mood to the end.


----------



## Pesaro

"The string quintets are for me the high point in Mozart's chamber music."

I agree. However, some of his string quartets are highly emotional as well, especially Nos. 15 and 19.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> In the bolded part of your statement above is a misstatement and a misinterpretation of what I said. You didn't quote my complete sentence, which was not an absolute statement but a comparison. The full sentence was: "I cite those [Bach, Beethoven, Bruckner, Wagner] in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery _as they do in their disparate ways,_ and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission."[/I] I did _not_ say that there is no expression of darkness and mystery in Mozart. [etc etc]


Your post seems to me to summarise why some might not see Mozart as a genius, no matter how good they take his music to be. For them, his music does not contain the depth or extremes of darker emotion or exploration found in other composers' works. In other words, his skill in writing is secondary to his purpose in an assessment of his worth.



eugeneonagain said:


> I'm sure there's some interpretation to be had out of the larger-scale works, but I don't know what or how much. When people say 'interpretation' the usual implication is emotional states or some sort of 'higher meaning'.


I'm not sure that is the 'usual' implication, but just to be sure I understand you, are you saying that when a listener is trying to decide what a piece means, s/he is trying to assemble an emotional meaning first and foremost? If so, we should have a poll, as I think that "interpreting" music means a number of different things and many listeners are more discerning than you allow. (Me for one, of course!)


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Your post seems to me to summarise why some might not see Mozart as a genius, no matter how good they take his music to be. For them, his music does not contain the depth or extremes of darker emotion or exploration found in other composers' works. In other words, his skill in writing is secondary to his purpose in an assessment of his worth.


Similarly, we might dismiss Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. Unthinkable!


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Similarly, we might dismiss Bach's Well-tempered Clavier. Unthinkable!


You might 'dismiss'. To reject a claim of 'genius' is not a dismissal of his works.


----------



## KenOC

Would you reject a claim of "genius" with respect to Bach's Well-tempered Clavier?


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Would you reject a claim of "genius" with respect to Bach's Well-tempered Clavier?


I'll stick to my view, consistently held, that 'genius' is an unhelpful term. I like some of Bach's works, and it was a copy of his fugues I found in the piano seat at home that I first tried to play. But I don't love him like I love some others.


----------



## KenOC

My experience is the opposite. I tried to plough through Bach's E-flat major prelude from Book I of the WTC. This is so far beyond anything other composers could conceive of that I can't think of a term other than "genius" to describe it. YMMV of course!

Brahms on Bach's Chaconne: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I have to admit that as a teenager I had that same feeling: that Mozart produced too few minor-key works. I remember my piano instructor giving me the C major piano sonata (k545) among some other things to learn over the summer. I was appalled by it and thought it twee and more like a nursery rhyme or party piece than a sonata. I wanted to play things like Satie and Debussy and have a crack at Rach's 18th Paganini variation.
> 
> All from just playing a few bars of the 1st movement really. If I hadn't been so quick to judge and got to know the sonata I would have learned that it actually modulates to minor keys and that the main theme of the 2nd movement is beautifully lilting; *that it's a little masterclass in keyboard harmony and writing and that the entire sonata is a work by someone who knows how to write works even the average player can really play*. I'm less fussy now and it's a piece I love to have a go at playing through if I sit at the piano. Others I similarly rejected were Beethoven's little G major/F major sonatinas, two others I like to play and end up thinking: 'they're so simple, yet so perfectly balanced.'
> 
> This is the fate of Mozart for a lot of people: all major keys, galant-style powder puff, too many notes...and the rest. I'm glad I thought twice eventually. I learned so much about keyboard harmony by playing Mozart and Beethoven's 'simple' works. When I was trying to tackle Debussy I was just reading the notes and learning huge chords by rote.


Interesting at the Proms the pianist encored the fiendishly difficult Bartok second piano concerto with Mozart K545 'The facile' - as if to tell us there were different kinds of difficulty! As Schnabel said: 
"The sonatas of Mozart are unique; they are too easy for children, and too difficult for artists."


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Your post seems to me to summarise why some might not see Mozart as a genius, no matter how good they take his music to be. *For them, his music does not contain the depth or extremes of darker emotion or exploration found in other composers' works*. In other words, his skill in writing is secondary to his purpose in an assessment of his worth.


I can never see how anyone can say this. One has only to hear the statue scene in Don Giovanni to hear extremes of emotion and anguish.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

The creator of "Amadeus", Peter Shaffer - a man who truly knew his Mozart, silly criticism of the play for lack of historicity notwithstanding - put it better than anyone else I've ever come across in an article for the "NY Times" in the 80s. I've quoted this before, but it bears repeating:

"Nobody has suffered more than Mozart from sentimental misjudgment. The last century [i.e.the 19th] dealt with the glory of his composure by calling him 'mellifluous', as if he were really just the Fragonard of music. To the nineteenth century - which prized the _evidence_ of effort - he was not wholly serious: charming, of course, but a little lightweight; graceful beyond measure, but lacking in muscle. The truth, of course, is entirely other. Try cutting into Mozart; you will soon find out where the muscle is. It runs right through the tissue of the music, and totally resists the knife."


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure that is the 'usual' implication, but just to be sure I understand you, are you saying that when a listener is trying to decide what a piece means, s/he is trying to assemble an emotional meaning first and foremost? If so, we should have a poll, as I think that "interpreting" music means a number of different things and many listeners are more discerning than you allow. (Me for one, of course!)


That's what interpret means: a conversion of something into intelligible terms to discover what it means. I don't think anyone would need to do that with the musical elements, they're all there written down in black and white?

What I was really getting at is that when people listen to music - especially art-music - they're often looking to interpret the non-musical or extra-musical _meanings_ in it e.g. the composer's general anxieties; the composer's reaction to a world event; the composer's broken marriage. It's perhaps a symptom of the post-Freudian obsession with finding hidden emotional meanings in everything.

Mozart's apparent fascination was with numbers and this is what people have seemingly found in his works. I'm thinking now of an article I read talking about Mozart's use of 'elements of three' flowing from his membership of a masonic lodge where the knock on the door is three knocks. From this we learn (apparently) that Mozart then chooses the key of Eb major (three flats) and has three characters singing and three-part harmony.... etc. 
There is also the consideration that Eb major is just a useful key for wind players, particularly the oboe, and an orchestra needing to get organised on a new piece of music at short notice (as was so often the case for Mozart) will get up to speed much quicker in such a key. Also the so called 'rule of three' is a general concept not peculiar to Mozart. What relation this bears to the actual music and how it sounds is just speculation.

Mozart wrote mostly for occasions, on commission and sometimes at speed. I wouldn't suggest he was a musical automaton, but I think he was consciously more interested in the technical aspects of music than music as a representation of emotional states. This doesn't rule out the obvious possibility of his emotional states having an effect on his music, even if only in part.

Alban Berg's known use of numerical and other patterns in his works is a useful comparison because there is a supposedly known reason for his use of _A-Bb-H-F_ (musically H being B natural of course) in the Lyric Suite: his affair with Hanna Fuchs-Robettin. Even though this is known one question I'd ask is: in what way does it change a listener's perception of the music? Another question would be: in what way does Berg, or anyone else, 'represent' such emotional episodes in a way that isn't just a simple manipulation of known musical devices for representing 'emotional states' e.g. minor keys, dissonance, dynamics etc? What is the _mechanism_ for translating, say, lost love into musical terms if it isn't just creative arrangements of ready-made and rather fixed devices for 'representing' emotion?


----------



## Dumbo

Woodduck said:


> It took you a million tries to discover the syncopations in this? Well, better late than never!


Oh come on. They are obvious the first time. I've probably heard this piece several hundred times over the years, maybe a thousand.

I hear a little more than that, though. Try it one more time, especially the trio section. I'd have to cut and paste from IMSLP to get very specific. The syncopations of the third movement of the #40 are obvious as well, but not as intriguing. This is a grim movement without the #40's playfulness.


----------



## Dumbo

> I'm not sure that is the 'usual' implication, but just to be sure I understand you, are you saying that when a listener is trying to decide what a piece means, s/he is trying to assemble an emotional meaning first and foremost?


I think the listener tries to assemble a LEXICAL meaning first. Music is like speech, or any formal language like algebra. If somebody stripped all the punctuation and linefeeds out of this post, you would probably have to make decisions about which part fits with whatever other part. You know adjectives like brown and nouns like dog have a relationship with each other from growing up with a Romance language, but a sufficiently sophisticated piece of music creates its own grammar, the way a good poem does. And like a good poem, good music usually offers multiple lexical interpretation. With music, even more interpretations.

This is where most people fail. "I kinda liked it. The music washed over me." I don't know how many times a date told me something like that.

Without a lexical interpretation, an emotional interpretation doesn't have room to take off.

And rather than call it an emotional interpretation, I prefer to call it a narrative. "Fate knocking on the door?" I hear Beethoven banging on his neighbor's door. KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK! "Your dog pissed on my rosebushes. I'm going to sue! I'm going to sue!" I can make up an infinite number of other narratives.


----------



## eugeneonagain

There's a difference between processing this 'lexical narrative' and working out supposed 'meanings' behind the music. Working out this: grammar, punctuation etc...(to adopt this metaphor) is done fairly effortlessly with straight-up tonal music and with tonally-extended music you sort of 'learn the language', or not.

This is not at all what I was on about originally when remarking that people are always seeking emotional meanings behind music (or in some cases decrying the failure and inability of e.g. dodecaphonic music to achieve this).


----------



## Dumbo

Oh hell no, I disagree. It's easy for you and me and most people reading this to parse large form music, but it's not simple for most listeners who have had less exposure. I've written so many essays online about sonata-allegro form. It makes people's eyes glaze over. People who grew up in 19th century Vienna might have understood it almost naturally because of their greater exposure to it from a young age. But for everybody else today, they're like Amazon Yamato Indians watching an episode of I Love Lucy with no familiar context to tell them what the hell that is.

We forget how much structure is already there in things we are familiar with. Every episode of I Love Lucy has a familiar Exposition, Development, Recapitulation/Coda. The Exposition always ends when Ethel says, "Oh, but Lucy, what if the boys find out?" and Lucy always says dismissively, "What the boys don't know won't hurt them. And besides, what could go wrong?" Cut to music then commercial.

The first time I heard Dvorak's Symphony #7 was at a concert I had to attend for my college music class and write a report. The music was very pretty but yeah, "... it washed over me." And I already knew all about cadences and dim chords and sonata-allegro, etc. Totally baffled me. When I was 18. So I have a little appreciation for the daunting task placed before the poor neophyte.

There was a website that I've lost that tracked various formal interpretations of the Beethoven #9 Ode to Joy. Is it a mini-four movement symphony packed into one movement of a larger symphony? Is it all variations on a theme? There are many different ways it has been chopped into smaller pieces to make sense of it in terms more familiar to us. 

Now you might say, "The Ode to Joy has no specific form! It's just whatever it is that Beethoven made and you guys are over-analyzing it!" That's an argument with some merit. But the person who says it almost certainly has formed their own scaffolding around the work, whether they actually tried to put it in words or not. I find the different ways people have organized this firehose of music into something comprehensible very interesting. I don't feel satisfied with my own way of hearing it.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> That's what interpret means: a conversion of something into intelligible terms to discover what it means. I don't think anyone would need to do that with the musical elements, they're all there written down in black and white?


So, I did understand, and I do disagree. I don't think "people usually" seek an emotional interpretation. I think "people" seek different things from their music and emotional interpretation is one of those things. (You might alredy guess that part of my objection is to being pigeonholed as "people", and I daresay there are others here who might feel the same way.)

I'm not sure Dumbo's idea of a 'lexical' narrative is quite right either, but it allows for something other than emotion, and I agree with the idea of a narrative. Beethoven's 'fate' narrative for the 5th is just one prominent example of the idea that the listener might indeed be looking for a meaning beyond the mere notes, but there are plenty of listeners who are also listening only to the notes and making sense of their musical meaning - that's why they are sometimes score followers, making an effort to see what the oboe is doing here while the bassoon is doing that there.

I'm not a score follower, but I do like to make sense of what the piece is doing. Debussy's _Jeux _is a good example, once you've tossed aside the programme, because it goes all over the place, and trying to make sense of it's progression (or lack of it) is an intellectual challenge for the amateur (me) who can't instantly parse what's "all there in black and white."

As for extra-musical meaning, it rather depends whether the piece is presented with any programme notes, or one falls foul of someone else's interpretation before having a chance to assemble one's own. I liked Prokofiev's 5th Symphony, for example, when hearing only the closing of the last movement on TV. Once I got my own copy and read the sleeve notes and saw what was written about it online, I was snagged by trying to find out how it could possibly be "a hymn to free and happy Man, to his mighty powers, his pure and noble spirit." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Prokofiev))

Whaatt?

On the other hand, listening to Beethoven's 1st or 2nd symphony, I'm just enjoying the melody, rhythm, harmony, structure etc. It just does what it does, and I don't feel compelled to interpret it in any particular way (lexical or emotional).


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> So, I did understand, and I do disagree. I don't think "people usually" seek an emotional interpretation. I think "people" seek different things from their music and emotional interpretation is one of those things. (You might alredy guess that part of my objection is to being pigeonholed as "people", and I daresay there are others here who might feel the same way.)


Well obviously I didn't mean every last person is looking for the same thing. No-one is being pigeon-holed, but how else am I to speak about Homo Sapiens doing this? Kangaroos in general? Cockatoos in general? It looks a lot like you are objecting for the sake of objecting.



MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure Dumbo's idea of a 'lexical' narrative is quite right either, but it allows for something other than emotion, and I agree with the idea of a narrative. Beethoven's 'fate' narrative for the 5th is just one prominent example of the idea that the listener might indeed be looking for a meaning beyond the mere notes, but there are plenty of listeners who are also listening only to the notes and making sense of their musical meaning - that's why they are sometimes score followers, making an effort to see what the oboe is doing here while the bassoon is doing that there.


Why are you looking for things to rebut which aren't even there? Obviously when reading the score or reading along while listening there are things to see and hear in the music - the entire construction and scoring, the use of the material, sometimes interpolated pieces of well-known musical devices. The entire work is a human contrivance so I'm clearly not comparing it to something like looking for patterns in the clouds...



MacLeod said:


> I'm not a score follower, but I do like to make sense of what the piece is doing. Debussy's _Jeux _is a good example, once you've tossed aside the programme, because it goes all over the place, and trying to make sense of its progression (or lack of it) is an intellectual challenge for the amateur (me) who can't instantly parse what's "all there in black and white."


Okay, fair enough. As above, there will certainly be listeners just working out what is going on musically.



MacLeod said:


> As for extra-musical meaning, it rather depends whether the piece is presented with any programme notes, or one falls foul of someone else's interpretation before having a chance to assemble one's own. I liked Prokofiev's 5th Symphony, for example, when hearing only the closing of the last movement on TV. Once I got my own copy and read the sleeve notes and saw what was written about it online, I was snagged by trying to find out how it could possibly be "a hymn to free and happy Man, to his mighty powers, his pure and noble spirit." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._5_(Prokofiev))


Well, you see this is the very thing I was referencing. These romantic interpretations arising solely from a critic's head. It only takes a short while to look online now and see how many listeners - with a need to add their review of a work - follow suit with this sort of interpretation. Prokofiev's proclamation sounds great, but I don't know how he can show this to be the case or not to be the case in terms of the music. I don't even think about these things most of the time unless the piece is specifically titled, as in e.g. Malcolm Arnold's piece commemorating the Peterloo Massacre.



MacLeod said:


> On the other hand, listening to Beethoven's 1st or 2nd symphony, I'm just enjoying the melody, rhythm, harmony, structure etc. It just does what it does, and I don't feel compelled to interpret it in any particular way (lexical or emotional).


That's fine. So am I. Just because I put forth an argument stating that a lot of people do interpret music in a certain way doesn't mean you have to include yourself and then go to the effort of compiling a rebuttal when I never specifically included you!


----------



## Omicron9

The opinion of one person as follows.

Reasons why Mozart was no genius:

1. Because one is a child prodigy does not make one a genius.
2. Some people mistake prolificness for genius. It is not.
3. Mozart's music was highly HIGHLY formulaic: Alberti bass, relentless dominant cadences, leading-tone melodic devices used and overused every few seconds, cutesy sing-song antecedent/consequent melodies, and endless repetition of those elements not just in every composition, but multiple times (putting it mildly) within each piece.

Also, I fear that some people (not all) attach the word "genius" to any composer they strongly love. "I love his music, he's such a genius!" You can like Mozart all you want, but because you like him does not make him a genius. You can be moved by his music, but again, because you have an emotional response to a composer's music does not make that composer a genius. 

Further example: if I were a baker, and I baked 600+ loaves of bread using the same recipe, would I be hailed as a genius? 

Not trying to start a flame war, an argument, a raging debate. Nor do I attempt to change any opinions. I am only stating my opinion and the underlying reasoning. I won't engage/reply/respond to arguments to my opinion, as doing so would turn this from an opinion into an argument, and I have no interest in that. No offense or disrespect implied or intended; I just wanted to state my opinion and end it there.

Again, just the opinion of one person. Yep.

-09


----------



## eugeneonagain

Omicron9 said:


> The opinion of one person as follows.
> 
> 3. Mozart's music was highly HIGHLY formulaic: Alberti bass, relentless dominant cadences, leading-tone melodic devices used and overused every few seconds, cutesy sing-song antecedent/consequent melodies, and endless repetition of those elements not just in every composition, but multiple times (putting it mildly) within each piece.


Well now, stating an opinion has to be based on something concrete or it is just empty. I was recently having a discussion about this with someone who said the same thing about Mozart's use of Alberti bass. Look at how Alberti himself used it, then compare Mozart's use of it. The broken chords he creates using it are extremely varied and he didn't just plough through with them, he breaks it up with melodic bass lines - and actually uses Alberti quite sparingly in many keyboard sonatas. Beethoven's use of Alberti figurations was very similar.

I can't see the point of bemoaning the use of leading-tones (they are a normal feature of melodies and of tonal music in general) and the particular cadences Mozart used. They were how music was written at the time and if anything Mozart was far more creative within that structure than many of his contemporaries. Many times he surprises you by NOT simply falling into the expected cadence.

The repetition is, again, the part of the galant/classical style, but the String Quintette of his mentioned above is a great example of how Mozart _didn't_ just drop in easy repeats. Look at the score of the adagio and the finale and follow a recording and you can see how he inventively develops what could have just been simple repeats. He does it of course in the classical style of manipulating already-stated material and adding new elements.

Most music, Mozart's to now, is based on formulas, patterns, devices. He is not especially guilty.



Omicron9 said:


> Further example: if I were a baker, and I baked 600+ loaves of bread using the same recipe, would I be hailed as a genius?


Depends how good the loaf is. A spectacular loaf is worth recreating 600 times...nay even more.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

...though, as you yourself have pointed out, Mozart didn't simply recreate the same "loaf" anyway, but varied it in any number of different ways. The problem for listeners like our debate-shy colleague here is that those variations tend not to blare out and HIT YOU BETWEEN THE EYES. How much those listeners miss out on who prioritise novelty for its own sake as he/she does.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> The problem for listeners like our debate-shy colleague


Who he ?


----------



## Barbebleu

MacLeod said:


> Who he ?


Omicron9, methinks! bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


----------



## Dumbo

Animal the Drummer said:


> those variations tend not to blare out and HIT YOU BETWEEN THE EYES.


YES. I decided a long time ago that my choice of adjective to describe Mozart is _subversive._ Not politically subversive. But he undermines the clean formulaic intent of the whole classical style (a style that predates and includes more than Mozart) with lots of little things that are in plain sight but easily missed the first few times you hear it. Especially his chromaticisms and chord substitutions. Mozart is very emotional, but to me, his music is first a head game.

A number of times, I've set out to whistle or play a Mozart theme from memory, and known I was missing something. All the I-IV-V7-I crap is in the usual places. But on relistening to the original, I see all the stuff I left out and I appreciate it all the more. And I think, wow, what a sneaky *******. Or sneaky b[email protected]


----------



## PlaySalieri

Omicron9 said:


> The opinion of one person as follows.
> 
> Reasons why Mozart was no genius:
> 
> 1. Because one is a child prodigy does not make one a genius.
> 2. Some people mistake prolificness for genius. It is not.
> 3. Mozart's music was highly HIGHLY formulaic: Alberti bass, relentless dominant cadences, leading-tone melodic devices used and overused every few seconds, cutesy sing-song antecedent/consequent melodies, and endless repetition of those elements not just in every composition, but multiple times (putting it mildly) within each piece.
> 
> Also, I fear that some people (not all) attach the word "genius" to any composer they strongly love. "I love his music, he's such a genius!" You can like Mozart all you want, but because you like him does not make him a genius. You can be moved by his music, but again, because you have an emotional response to a composer's music does not make that composer a genius.
> 
> Further example: if I were a baker, and I baked 600+ loaves of bread using the same recipe, would I be hailed as a genius?
> 
> Not trying to start a flame war, an argument, a raging debate. Nor do I attempt to change any opinions. I am only stating my opinion and the underlying reasoning. * I won't engage/reply/respond to arguments to my opinion,* as doing so would turn this from an opinion into an argument, and I have no interest in that. No offense or disrespect implied or intended; I just wanted to state my opinion and end it there.
> 
> Again, just the opinion of one person. Yep.
> 
> -09


Mozart is not recognized principally for his childhood precocity - but for his adult life compositions.

Boccherini was prolific - and certainly no genius - people understand that. 500 str quintets and only 1 is really well known.

So again - not sure where you are coming from. You seem to be saying that Mozart is all quantity and no quality. You are entitled to your opinion - but the world's great composers and conductors, performers - disagree with you.

Mozart's music formulaic? I am not qualified to judge this - to me it sounds magical and wonderful in a way that the music of other composers of that era cannot approach, formulaic or not.

Shakespeare was formulaic - and is the world's greatest ever playwrite.

so you wont engage in debate after making a list of misinformed comments. bye bye then


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> It looks a lot like you are objecting for the sake of objecting.


No, just disagreeing with you because I disagree with you. Isn't that how things work round here?


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> No, just disagreeing with you because I disagree with you. Isn't that how things work round here?


It's always best when done for an actual reason though isn't it?


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> It's always best when done for an actual reason though isn't it?


You only have to deal with the substantive points I make (which you did, thanks) and not fret about "reasons". TBH I don't really know what you mean about reasons. I posted a point of view about people's interpreting music which was at odds with yours. That's it. No "reason".


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> You only have to deal with the substantive points I make (which you did, thanks) and not fret about "reasons". TBH I don't really know what you mean about reasons. I posted a point of view about people's interpreting music which was at odds with yours. That's it. No "reason".


I'm not 'fretting' about anything.

With regard to reasons I'll help you if you really don't know. If you post a point-of-view, or argument, or complaint, there needs to be a legitimate reason for doing so; something underneath or it's just empty prattle. That is: the reason.

I could see no reason since the entire post was merely a complaint about an accusation that was never levelled anyway. It's probably best forgotten.


----------



## DaveM

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not 'fretting' about anything.
> 
> With regard to reasons I'll help you if you really don't know. If you post a point-of-view, or argument, or complaint, there needs to be a legitimate reason for doing so; something underneath or it's just empty prattle. That is: the reason.


There's the old saying of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Guest

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not 'fretting' about anything.
> 
> With regard to reasons I'll help you if you really don't know. If you post a point-of-view, or argument, or complaint, there needs to be a legitimate reason for doing so; something underneath or it's just empty prattle. That is: the reason.
> 
> I could see no reason since the entire post was merely a complaint about an accusation that was never levelled anyway. It's probably best forgotten.


Perhaps it is best forgotten, but you're still alleging that there was no "reason" for my post, despite my extended explanation of my views about how people interpret music in more ways than you allowed with your generalising "people usually". My mistake was in using myself as a sole example, but I thought it pretty obvious that if I was one who didn't fit with your generalisation, it would be reasonable to suppose that there are others here at TC and out there among CM listeners generally.


----------



## DavidA

Omicron9 said:


> The opinion of one person as follows.
> 
> Reasons why Mozart was no genius:
> 
> 1. Because one is a child prodigy does not make one a genius.
> 2. Some people mistake prolificness for genius. It is not.
> 3. *Mozart's music was highly HIGHLY formulaic*: Alberti bass, relentless dominant cadences, leading-tone melodic devices used and overused every few seconds, cutesy sing-song antecedent/consequent melodies, and endless repetition of those elements not just in every composition, but multiple times (putting it mildly) within each piece.
> 
> Also, I fear that some people (not all) attach the word "genius" to any composer they strongly love. "I love his music, he's such a genius!" You can like Mozart all you want, but because you like him does not make him a genius. You can be moved by his music, but again, because you have an emotional response to a composer's music does not make that composer a genius.
> 
> Further example: if I were a baker, and I baked 600+ loaves of bread using the same recipe, would I be hailed as a genius?
> 
> Not trying to start a flame war, an argument, a raging debate. Nor do I attempt to change any opinions. I am only stating my opinion and the underlying reasoning. I won't engage/reply/respond to arguments to my opinion, as doing so would turn this from an opinion into an argument, and I have no interest in that. No offense or disrespect implied or intended; I just wanted to state my opinion and end it there.
> 
> Again, just the opinion of one person. Yep.
> 
> -09


Of course you can say any music is 'formulaic' if you want to. Just consists of notes following other notes. Some of us appreciate the WAY notes follow other notes!


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> Perhaps it is best forgotten, but you're still alleging that there was no "reason" for my post, despite my extended explanation of my views about how people interpret music in more ways than you allowed with your generalising "people usually". My mistake was in using myself as a sole example, but I thought it pretty obvious that if I was one who didn't fit with your generalisation, it would be reasonable to suppose that there are others here at TC and out there among CM listeners generally.


"Pretty obvious" is correct. Obvious that "people usually" doesn't mean _every last person_. Would: "some people" be more suitable for you? Or perhaps that would have led to a demand for specifying this 'some'.

All you have to do is go about the internet or a newspaper or even real-live people and ask them about works of music: what they think and feel about them. Talk of 'profundity', 'transcendence' and possible psychological reasons behind compositions is so commonplace it's barely worth mentioning. But I did mention it and you come back with a complaint that _all people_ are not like this? Give me a break.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Your post seems to me to summarise why some might not see Mozart as a genius, no matter how good they take his music to be. For them, his music does not contain the depth or extremes of darker emotion or exploration found in other composers' works. In other words, his skill in writing is secondary to his purpose in an assessment of his worth.


It would be unfortunate if anyone took the limitations of Mozart's style as a limitation on (much less a negation of) his genius. I would say, rather, that nothing reveals his genius more certainly than his extraordinary range of expression within - or, to put it differently, his extraordinary expansion of - the limits which define Classicism for us. No artist's work has unlimited expressive range, and Mozart's music certainly has the greatest range to be found in any music of his era.

That's not the only thing that earns him the title of "genius," of course.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> It would be unfortunate if anyone took the limitations of Mozart's style as a limitation on (much less a negation of) his genius. I would say, rather, that nothing reveals his genius more certainly than his extraordinary range of expression within - or, to put it differently, his extraordinary expansion of - the limits which define Classicism for us. No artist's work has unlimited expressive range, and Mozart's music certainly has the greatest range to be found in any music of his era.
> 
> That's not the only thing that earns him the title of "genius," of course.


Well well well Wooduck - excellent point - and a sharp poke in the eye for the Mcleod's of this world and 626 loaf critics.

Would you go so far as to say that within the limits of the era one finds oneself in - Mozart's range of music compares well with that of the great 19th and 20thC masters? I dont hear much range in Brahms for example - I think his music (bar solo piano) is phenomenal - but I dont see that much variation.

I am sure there is a better way to frame this question, so apologies for that.


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Well well well Wooduck - excellent point - and a sharp poke in the eye for the Mcleod's of this world and 626 loaf critics.
> 
> Would you go so far as to say that within the limits of the era one finds oneself in - Mozart's range of music compares well with that of the great 19th and 20thC masters? I dont hear much range in Brahms for example - I think his music (bar solo piano) is phenomenal - but I dont see that much variation.
> 
> I am sure there is a better way to frame this question, so apologies for that.


Far be it from me, my dear stomanek, from wishing anyone a poke in the eye, much less wishing to deliver it myself, a quick jab to the solar plexus being about as far as my appetite for physical confrontation can urge me, and then only upon the most extreme provocation (antiwagnerians beware). But yes, I would say that Mozart's range compares well with that of nearly any other composer. I do demur at overfine comparisons, however, wary as I am of mistaking differences in kind for differences in degree.

Bach and Beethoven surely exhibit tremendous range; Brahms, to my ear, slightly less, but I find that to be a trend as music came to be more a subjective expression of a composer's personal temperament. Countering that potential narrowing, however, was the extraordinary expansion of harmony and orchestral color, which opened up new worlds of expression and evocation. I give initial credit for this to Berlioz, but chief credit to Wagner, who with each new opera set himself the challenge of illustrating in music a new world of feeling, and moved forward music's technical and expressive possibilities every time.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> It would be unfortunate if anyone took the limitations of Mozart's style as a limitation on (much less a negation of) his genius. I would say, rather, that nothing reveals his genius more certainly than his extraordinary range of expression within - or, to put it differently, his extraordinary expansion of - the limits which define Classicism for us. No artist's work has unlimited expressive range, and Mozart's music certainly has the greatest range to be found in any music of his era.
> 
> That's not the only thing that earns him the title of "genius," of course.


Hang on...it was you that said, _"I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways,"._ I simply pointed out that if this was the case, it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart.

Look, I don't pretend to know the full range of Mozart's work. As I regularly declare, I listen mostly to symphonies, have not found sufficient in Mozart's symphonies that has compelled me to listen to the rest of his output, and find other composers that engage me more. None of these are reasons to reject others' claims of genius. Indeed, I'm sure stomanek will be sharpening his stick to poke out my other eye as I admit that I am not sufficiently familiar with WAM's works; how can anyone take my opinion seriously? (I take is as a compliment that some nevertheless attempt to convert this heathen - or scorn me at any rate). The word 'genius' is used so loosely as to be a mere euphemism for 'great' or 'awesome' or 'fantastic', and I wouldn't use it for any of my favourite composers (except that Sibelius and Beethoven and Debussy are, of course, "awesome" in my book) without some clarification of what it means and how it applies to Mozart.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Hang on...it was you that said, _"I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways,"._ I simply pointed out that if this was the case, it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart.


Yes, it might be a reason for some to do that. I only want to say that it would not be a good reason.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Yes, it might be a reason for some to do that. I only want to say that it would not be a good reason.


One might then counter by questioning the need for a "good" reason - is it so important that his genius is established that only "good" reasons can be advanced? Personal reasons - no matter how widely shared - are insufficient?


----------



## KenOC

"...it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart."

I'm sure there was an official notification of "life's terrible darkness" in Mozart's time. Maybe he thought it was junk mail and threw it out without reading. How sad that Mozart never knew of "life's terrible darkness"! 

On reflection, Beethoven and Haydn both may have discarded the same mailing.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> One might then counter by questioning the need for a "good" reason - is it so important that his genius is established that only "good" reasons can be advanced? Personal reasons - no matter how widely shared - are insufficient?


I cannot think, my dear Macleod, that bad reasons are ever very good. I wouldn't give reasons for anything if I thought they were bad, and if they were I wouldn't mind discovering that at some point. Better no reason at all than a bad one.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Better no reason at all than a bad one.


Have you been taking lessons from the British government's strategy for leaving the EU, by any chance?


----------



## Dumbo

> For them, his music does not contain the depth or extremes of darker emotion or exploration found in other composers' works. In other words, his skill in writing is secondary to his purpose in an assessment of his worth.


I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


----------



## Guest

Dumbo said:


> I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


Curious that so many find expression in it. I'm not disagreeing with you, but this is a theme well-rehearsed here - that music cannot actually _contain _meaning, yet listeners constantly _find _meaning.


----------



## DavidA

Dumbo said:


> *I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. *That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


Funny that many composers have managed to express in music the very things you say it can't do. Maybe they should have read your post before they started! :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DaveM said:


> There's the old saying of the pot calling the kettle black.


There is, but where exactly does it apply here?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dumbo said:


> I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


If what you say is true - how do listeners find so much meaning in music - why does some music seem to express happiness, other music expressed sadness etc.
What is the purpose of music's existence then if not to express something?

If music expresses nothing - why do we bother with it?


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> *Curious that so many find expression in it.* I'm not disagreeing with you, but this is a theme well-rehearsed here - that music cannot actually _contain _meaning, yet listeners constantly _find _meaning.


No more or less curious than that people find meaning in anything at all.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Hang on...it was you that said, _"I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways,"._ I simply pointed out that if this was the case, it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart.
> 
> Look, I don't pretend to know the full range of Mozart's work. As I regularly declare, I listen mostly to symphonies, have not found sufficient in Mozart's symphonies that has compelled me to listen to the rest of his output, and find other composers that engage me more. None of these are reasons to reject others' claims of genius. Indeed, I'm sure stomanek will be sharpening his stick to poke out my other eye as I admit that I am not sufficiently familiar with WAM's works; how can anyone take my opinion seriously? (I take is as a compliment that some nevertheless attempt to convert this heathen - or scorn me at any rate). The word 'genius' is used so loosely as to be a mere euphemism for 'great' or 'awesome' or 'fantastic', and I wouldn't use it for any of my favourite composers (except that Sibelius and Beethoven and Debussy are, of course, "awesome" in my book) without some clarification of what it means and how it applies to Mozart.


Sorry, I missed that point about you - I had no idea you are interested principally in orchestral music and I absolutely understand why a listener attracted to the excellent symphonies of Sibelius and Beethoven, would find little to interest them in Mozart.


----------



## Guest

What is art without meaning....... if there is ,its for you to find it.

I listen to Sibelius ,Dutilleux and Messiaen but that does not implies that I find no meaning in Mozart.Silly thought.


----------



## KRoad

What is the meaning of meaning, please?


----------



## Guest

KRoad said:


> What is the meaning of meaning, please?


:lol:..............

When you listen to music (or your wife ) and their is no resonance at any level it is meaningless.It only exists in relation.


----------



## EdwardBast

Dumbo said:


> I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


This view is a non-starter. Long-range expressive coherence is the primary criterion for thematic processes in Romantic and much 20thc music, and thus one of its most important inherent properties. To cite perhaps the most obvious example of this: Among the most pervasive formal operations in Romantic sonatas, symphonies and concertos is to reprise or transform a first movement theme presented in the minor mode in the major mode as a critical event of the finale. Hundreds of major works do this. The reason it works is because a progression from a dark expressive state to a light or optimistic one has psychological expressive coherence, imparting a sense of purpose and long term tension and release to the work as a whole. Music's formal structure cannot be separated from its expressive structure in this period. On the largest scale, expressive structure _is_ musical structure. This principle is the basis for a major branch of modern music theory called musical narrative theory, which has engendered hundreds of articles and books over the last fifty years.


----------



## Woodduck

Dumbo said:


> I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


"By it's very nature"? "Essentially powerless"? "Anything at all"? "Never"? "By no means"?

What is the "very nature" of music? What is music for? Why do people sing and play? Why do people who listen to music smile, dance, weep, worship, and imagine strange new worlds? From what mental illness are they all suffering?

Might it be that you, "by your very nature," are "essentially powerless" to feel "anything at all" when you hear music? The faculty of perceiving music's expressive power has perhaps "never been an inherent property" of you, in which case its varied means of expression must be entirely unknown to you, and no description of these means would be any more useful than a description of color to a blind person.

On the other hand, maybe you're just reminding us of one of of those _bon mots_ that Stravinsky liked to toss off at Gertrude Stein's avant garde salons. Oh, Igor! You're _such_ a card!


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> "...it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart."
> 
> I'm sure there was an official notification of "life's terrible darkness" in Mozart's time. Maybe he thought it was junk mail and threw it out without reading. How sad that Mozart never knew of "life's terrible darkness"!
> 
> On reflection, Beethoven and Haydn both may have discarded the same mailing.


"Life's terrible darkness" is hardly a modern thing. The view of life expressed in many of Bach's cantatas is insanely dark.


----------



## DaveM

Dumbo said:


> I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all, whether a feeling, an attitude of mind, or psychological mood, a phenomenon of nature, etc….Expression has never been an inherent property of music. That is by no means the purpose of its existence.


This is just another meaningless play on semantics just as another poster's was on the word 'genius'. Music, while it, in and of itself, doesn't express emotions, moods or feelings, it is meant to stimulate these human conditions in the mind and heart of the listener. There's a reason why a number of works have names such as appasionata, lacrimosa, consolation, etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Why do people who listen to music smile, dance, weep, worship, and imagine strange new worlds? From what mental illness are they all suffering?


Well....I want to say, but I also don't want to be jabbed in the solar plexus.:angel:


----------



## hpowders

Mozart can be plenty dark: the G minor String Quintet, the second movement of the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola, the Adagio for Keyboard in B minor K 540, the C minor Fantasia for Keyboard and the Fantasia in D minor for Keyboard are as deep and dark as anything composed by Bach or Beethoven.

As Dvorak would write, "Ya gotta Czech it out!"


----------



## tdc

Yes I think that quote by Stravinsky is pretty ridiculous... and equally erroneous is the assumption some people seem to make that music was not expressive until the Romantic era.


----------



## Dumbo

Stravinsky has a point. Music is a rorschach blot. All this talk about emotions in music misuse the "in" preposition. We as listeners impose our own meaning on the sounds we hear. 

There is a Golden Record on Voyager making its way past the Oort Cloud into interstellar space as we speak (type), carrying the Music of Earth, as chosen by Carl Sagan and his team. Beethoven's Fifth is on that record. What emotions would any aliens gather from the grooves on that Golden Record, even if they could figure out how to play it?


----------



## tdc

Dumbo said:


> Beethoven's Fifth is on that record. What emotions would any aliens gather from the grooves on that Golden Record, even if they could figure out how to play it?


This is equivalent to saying that because Aliens would likely not understand English, spoken languages do not express anything.

I will point out verbal communication is not precise either, individuals interpretations can vary in terms of meaning, that does not mean that spoken languages do not express anything, or that the meaning is completely subjective.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I generally agree with Dumbo, but only up to a point. With music being a form of communication there is bound to be some emotional content built-in, but also some tendency to see things that were never intended. This latter idea, which is heavily latched-onto by some in the art-world as 'meaning created by the audience' has always struck me as dubious relativism. From that perspective you can conjure up anything and call it 'meaning'.

I don't doubt that many composers have attempted to (and often succeeded in) convey emotions using music, to try and build it into a work. That has never been my complaint. I am more concerned with the sideline in highly-speculative exegeses carried on by critics.


----------



## Dumbo

You are suggesting music is akin to spoken language. I agree with that. But there is a difference between syntax (the format of language) and semantics (the meaning of the words in context). Music has no clear semantics. We impose meaning on the words.

I love Jabberocky by Lewis Carrol:

'Twas brillig and the slityy toves
Did gyre and gimble jn the wabe
All mimsy were the borogoves
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Nice syntax. The semantics of any of that are debatable. Still, I get an idyllic feeling from that. Sort of like it said, "It was a nice spring day. Quails danced in the meadow, and robins sang their songs."

It doesn't say that, though. You could just as easily hear it as, "It was a dark and stormy night. Slimy skeletons erupted from their graves, while wolves gleefully howled."

Both interpretations are very emotional, but which one is right? I would argue that they are both "right" because there is no emotion IN the quatrain, just what we bring to it.


----------



## Woodduck

DaveM said:


> This is just another meaningless play on semantics just as another poster's was on the word 'genius'. Music, while it, in and of itself, doesn't express emotions, moods or feelings, it is meant to stimulate these human conditions in the mind and heart of the listener. There's a reason why a number of works have names such as appasionata, lacrimosa, consolation, etc.


The semantic play is on that word "express." There's been plenty of wrangling over it on this forum. But it's impossible to argue with experience - in this case the universal experience that music can be a vehicle of emotional expression. The interesting questions involve the "what" and the "how." For the "what," words will never be adequate; the subjective states which can be represented and evoked by the sonorous and structural elements of music are too varied, subtle, ambiguous and dynamic to be contained by our limited verbal categories, or to be fully identified through cognitive processes dependent on words. As for the "how," there's been plenty of work on this (recently in the study of the psychological phenomenon of "cross-domain mapping"), and it's ongoing.

Music, far from being "by its very nature" incapable of expression, may be our most direct symbolic medium for expressing and evoking feelings. But our understanding of this will be extremely deficient if we think of feelings purely as a collection of emotional categories - happiness, sadness, melancholy, anger, etc. The structures of music can indeed be "interpreted' differently in different contexts by different listeners, but so can anything, including those very categories. What does "happiness" feel like? Is every experience of happiness the same, among different people and even in the same person at different times? When I say "happiness," does everyone hearing me say it think of and feel the same things? If music must be considered inexpressive because its expressive content is ambiguous and dynamic rather than fixed and concrete, then nothing that can be interpreted variously - i.e., _nothing at all_ - can be considered expressive.


----------



## Dumbo

I addressed the question of "author's" or "composer's" intent in an article I wrpte about five years ago, here:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...ical-Music-OPUS-99-Albinoni-Adagio-76-by-Emmy

... About composer David Cope and his Experments in Musical Intelligence, (usually called Emmy). It's an artificial intelligence that composes music, often copying various composer's styles by analyzing their compositions.

The Youtube of the Emmy piece is below because the old style Youtube embeds in the article no longer work:

*Albinoni Adagio for Strings #76. Composed by Emmy*





Do you feel anything when you listen to Emmy's compositions? I do. Is there author intent in Emmy's compositions? That's debatable. I got my most interesting replies to this on a philosophy forum that I used to frequent. One dissenting opinion that somebody offered, that mby others agreed with, is that Emmy's Adagio is not music or art, because art is always a semaphore, a conveyor of meaning from author to reader or composer to listener.

But if Emmy's Adagio "conveys" motion to me, is the emotion coming from Emmy?


----------



## eugeneonagain

This is a bit false because 'Emmy' is not producing from scratch, but reconstituting from the works of actual people who may have had intent. This is something like having AI build a Queen Anne chair or paint a Dutch style 'golden era' painting. The AI is replicating, not creating. A parrot mimicking the doleful words of whomever it is parroting is not doing the same thing.


----------



## Dumbo

Recreating a style based on a body of work. Cope has his own Emmy compositions, lots of them, where he tweaked her this way and that to get the sound he wanted. But his "mimicry" works are based on analyses of styles. 

If I feel a certain way listening to Albinoni's old Adagio, but I feel a different way from an Emmy piece, is this new, different feeling, the intention of Albinoni?

The Emmy version of Mahler was interesting. It sounded kind of like a student piece by Mahler, albeit one that rambled.

I think an AI that could paint new paintings in the style of Rembrandt would be awesome. I'd love to have one of those. I want a Rembrandt-y portrait of myself in 16th century Dutch garb. I could make it my avatar! Please pass this idea on to somebody that can implement it. Hell, maybe it could be an Android app. Take photos of your friends and Rembrandtize them. Somebody could get rich with that idea!


----------



## Barbebleu

We appear to have wandered somewhat off-piste as regards the "genius" of Mozart. Not that where we are isn't interesting but.....!


----------



## Woodduck

Dumbo said:


> *You are suggesting music is akin to spoken language. I agree with that.* But there is a difference between syntax (the format of language) and semantics (the meaning of the words in context). Music has no clear semantics. We impose meaning on the words.
> 
> I love Jabberocky by Lewis Carrol:
> 
> 'Twas brillig and the slityy toves
> Did gyre and gimble jn the wabe
> All mimsy were the borogoves
> And the mome raths outgrabe.
> 
> Nice syntax. The semantics of any of that are debatable. Still, I get an idyllic feeling from that. Sort of like it said, "It was a nice spring day. Quails danced in the meadow, and robins sang their songs."
> 
> It doesn't say that, though. You could just as easily hear it as, "It was a dark and stormy night. Slimy skeletons erupted from their graves, while wolves gleefully howled."
> 
> Both interpretations are very emotional, but which one is right? I would argue that they are both "right" because *there is no emotion IN the quatrain, just what we bring to it.*


There is a fundamental difference between music and language. Words are basically abstract symbols which do not resemble the things they designate (except when they are used for their sound, as in onomatopoeia). The associations we make between words and things is almost entirely conventional; there is nothing inherent in the word "grief" to suggest the emotions of grieving. Music, on the contrary, may evoke those emotions eloquently, because its dynamic forms actually do replicate in a variety of ways, and thus suggest to the receptive listener, what it feels like to grieve. Slow tempi, low sonorities, dark instrumental colors, an absence of rhythmic energy, minor keys, mildly dissonant harmonies which remain gravity-bound to an insistent center: such musical devices really do have psycho-somatic equivalences in our experiences as human organisms - they "map" those experiences, to use the current neuropsychological term - and they can be combined in various ways in a piece of music to evoke human feelings quite vividly, thus affecting us emotionally in a direct way, bypassing the conceptual faculty with which we understand verbal language.

When Lewis Carroll creates his "portmanteau" words by combining elements of other words, he means to evoke images in our minds, but what he's making is not equivalent to music. No matter how they're diced up and recombined, words remain abstract symbols of objects and experiences, and express those things primarily by means of conventional association. Music, unlike language, doesn't denote; it represents: it "maps" the dynamic forms of subjective, psychological and physical experience. How an individual responds to an individual piece of music may be affected by numerous factors, and the fact that the music may "map" differently for different people is not evidence that it "expresses nothing." The expressive meaning of a piece of music is variable among listeners, but not infinitely variable and not arbitrary, as the broad areas of agreement about the meaning of much of the music we know clearly shows.

(As for "Jabberwocky," I don't think its meaning is completely arbitrary. Read it carefully, consider the words Carroll is drawing upon and suggesting, and you'll see that it paints a less cheerful picture than you think. "Slithy" doesn't sound like anything pleasant, and "mome raths outgrabe" is overtly threatening; I don't want to be in the woods when creatures called "raths" grab (past tense "grabe") at me out from among the "borogoves"!)


----------



## tdc

Dumbo said:


> You are suggesting music is akin to spoken language. I agree with that. But there is a difference between syntax (the format of language) and semantics (the meaning of the words in context). Music has no clear semantics. We impose meaning on the words.


But I think we tend to choose words based on certain concepts of sound for example curse words tend to use hard consonants, when we are angry we tend to speak at loud volumes, when we are speaking romantically to someone we tend to speak softly, etc. The way we speak and use language is not completely arbitrary, and we use _sound_ to increase comprehension and expression. Similar methods of using sound for expression occur in music.

I think the semantics of music are less clear because music goes beyond concepts we can accurately verbally express, it deals more with emotions and the subconscious, yet we can still grasp at these abstract concepts and try to shed some light on them by calling them dark, light, happy, sad etc.

I think all art is about expression. I think Ligeti is another composer who claimed that music was not about expression to him. I think that even if he is consciously not trying to express anything in his music, his music will be an expression of that, it will also be an expression of sounds organized in a way that he finds pleasing, or relevant or meaningful in some way.


----------



## EdwardBast

Dumbo said:


> You are suggesting music is akin to spoken language. I agree with that. But there is a difference between syntax (the format of language) and semantics (the meaning of the words in context). Music has no clear semantics. We impose meaning on the words.
> 
> I love Jabberocky by Lewis Carrol:
> 
> 'Twas brillig and the slityy toves
> Did gyre and gimble jn the wabe
> All mimsy were the borogoves
> And the mome raths outgrabe.
> 
> Nice syntax. The semantics of any of that are debatable. Still, I get an idyllic feeling from that. Sort of like it said, "It was a nice spring day. Quails danced in the meadow, and robins sang their songs."
> 
> It doesn't say that, though. You could just as easily hear it as, "It was a dark and stormy night. Slimy skeletons erupted from their graves, while wolves gleefully howled."
> 
> Both interpretations are very emotional, but which one is right? I would argue that they are both "right" because there is no emotion IN the quatrain, just what we bring to it.


I would say both of your interpretations of the Jabberwocky quatrain are wrong. The setting is definitely swampy. Just as chortle fuses chuckle and snort, so slithy fuses slither and slimy. The imaginary verb gyre implies rotary motion, and the only medium in which a slithy critter is going to spin is a muddy or aqueous one. If it spun in a meadow it would lose its slithiness, dry up, and die. The wabe is teaming with life, and although I don't know what a mome rath is, I am damned sure I don't want to step on one (everyone knows not to provoke a rathful creature), especially when they are outgrabe! And, of course, when it is brillig (chill and brisk?) out, they are apt to be more outgrabeous than usual.

In case you wonder, I am sort of serious about the above. The sounds and their associations with other sounds set some vague semantic boundaries. There is a system to it. Just as in music.  There is no clear semantics in instrumental music, where meaning is only as clear as it needs to be to accomplish a structural function. What does the second theme in the first movement of Beethoven's Appassionata mean? It is impossible to say. But it is a static moment of calm in the chaos that surrounds it, the only moment of rest, and each attempt to assert it and give it room to expand (in the development and coda) leads to disaster. What kind of disaster? We have no idea. In both cases there is just enough hint of meaning to make the structure work.


----------



## Dumbo

I appreciate your sort-of-seriousness above and I think it's a very rational interpretation of Jabberwocky. You should be proud of it, no sarcasm.

But I think that's the kind of thing we are always doing. Not just with music, either. With everything. It's like that film, Rashomon. Three different people view the same event through their own filters and recount it to the jury, but the retellings are completely different, with different thematic emphases.

For some this will be an old story. There was a musicologist named Susan McClary who mixed feminist studies with musical analysis, accidentally or on purpose, I know not. But she created a buzzstorm when she explained the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth through a rape narrative. Which, if you think about it a while, if you know the music, sounds plausible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#The_Beethoven_and_rape_controversy



> In the January 1987 issue of Minnesota Composers Forum Newsletter, McClary wrote of Ludwig van Beethoven's Ninth Symphony:
> 
> The point of recapitulation in the first movement of the Ninth is one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release.
> 
> This sentence elicited and continues to elicit a great range of responses. McClary subsequently rephrased this passage in Feminine Endings:
> 
> '[...] [T]he point of recapitulation in the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony unleashes one of the most horrifyingly violent episodes in the history of music. The problem Beethoven has constructed for this movement is that it seems to begin before the subject of the symphony has managed to achieve its identity. (128)
> 
> She goes on to conclude that "The Ninth Symphony is probably our most compelling articulation in music of the contradictory impulses that have organized patriarchal culture since the Enlightenment" (129). The critiques of McClary discussed below refer primarily to the original version of the passage.
> 
> Readers sympathetic to the passage may be connecting it to the opinion that Beethoven's music is in some way "phallic" or "hegemonic," terms often used in modern feminist studies scholarship. These readers may feel that to be able to enjoy Beethoven's music one must submit to or agree with the values expressed, or that it requires or forces upon the listener a mode or way of listening that is oppressive, and that these are overtly expressed, as rape, in the Ninth.


Now, thst's not how I usually think of the Beethoven #9, first movement, but I can sort of see where she comes from. To me, the movement's ending is brutal, like "a boot on a human face, forever." It sounds nihilistic. A perfect foil (to me) for where the rest of the sumphony leads. That's probably not that far from McClary's more personal rape narrative.

That's what we all do. It doesn't make us wrong because we disagree anx there's no agreed upon ingerpretation. Our inyerpretations are all that matter. There is no elusive "truth" in the Ninth, other than what we create when listening.


----------



## EdwardBast

Dumbo said:


> I appreciate your sort-of-seriousness above and I think it's a very rational interpretation of Jabberwocky. You should be proud of it, no sarcasm.
> 
> But I think that's the kind of thing we are always doing. Not just with music, either. With everything. It's like that film, Rashomon. Three different people view the same event through their own filters and recount it to the jury, but the retellings are completely different, with different thematic emphases.
> 
> For some this will be an old story. *There was a musicologist named Susan McClary* who mixed feminist studies with musical analysis, accidentally or on purpose, I know not. But she created a buzzstorm when she explained the first movement of Beethoven's Ninth through a rape narrative. Which, if you think about it a while, if you know the music, sounds plausible.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#The_Beethoven_and_rape_controversy
> 
> Now, that's not how I usually think of the Beethoven #9, first movement, but I can sort of see where she comes from. To me, the movement's ending is brutal, like "a boot on a human face, forever." It sounds nihilistic. A perfect foil (to me) for where the rest of the symphony leads. That's probably not that far from McClary's more personal rape narrative.
> 
> That's what we all do. It doesn't make us wrong because we disagree and there's no agreed upon interpretation. Our interpretations are all that matter. There is no elusive "truth" in the Ninth, other than what we create when listening.


What do you mean "was," is she dead?  I don't know why people focused on her interpretation of Beethoven's 9th, which is intensely stupid and subjective and which she subsequently recanted. The core of her project, the gender-centered interpretation of sonata forms, is found in two other essays, "Sexual Politics in Classical Music" (in _Feminine Endings_) and "Narrative Agendas in 'Absolute' Music" (in _Musicology and Difference_, ed. Ruth A. Solie). Her argument is that sonata form is essentially an expression of gender-politics in which a masculine principal theme dominates and eventually brings to heel a feminine second theme which is forced to adopt the key of the principal theme in the recapitulation. Her examples are the first movements of Tchaikovsky's Fourth Symphony and Brahms's Third respectively. Unfortunately, she makes major errors in logic and musical analysis, suppresses contrary evidence in the composers' own words, misinterprets all of the literary theory with which she backs her thinking, puts forth blatantly inaccurate generalizations about 19thc literature, and so on … and on.

Which is to say, while I agree there is no hard and fast truth in the 9th or any other work, there are nevertheless clearly inferior interpretations that prove self-contradictory or that don't gel into a coherent reading. And, just to pretend I remember what the thread topic is: McClary doesn't say anything about the genius of Mozart in any of the above writings!


----------



## Dumbo

I'm glad to hear she's still alive. Sorry to hear she recanted about the 9th. I thought that was an intriguing interpretation of it thst I wouldn't have thought of on my own, yet I can see how it fits, just like Bast's Jabberwocky-Swamp narrative gives me a different and interesting take on Jabberwocky ( that I don't think is "true," but I don't care about that kind of truth...)

I think this is where we got off track on subjective interpretation:



> "...it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart."


----------



## Guest

Dumbo said:


> I think this is where we got off track on subjective interpretation:





> "...it might be a reason why some don't find him a genius, because they look for music that more comprehends life's terrible darkness than is found in Mozart."


Just to be clear, you cite my post #478 which is in turn a summary reference to a post by Woodduck #427 where he says,



> The idea that music could repel people because it expresses passion transcended in complete and perfect harmony is a curious notion indeed. It's hard to imagine anyone finding music disagreeable for such a reason. I suspect that those who dislike, or at least do not adore, Mozart, do so for various, and generally more concrete and specific, reasons. They might pefer more polyphonic textures, more minor keys, more chromaticism, more dissonance, weightier sonorities, etc. Or they just might not feel that the passions Mozart is transcending so beautifully encompass enough of life, so that the heaven Mozart inhabits doesn't seem like the highest heaven after all. I suspect that many would reserve that exalted place for the Bach of the B-minor mass, or for the Beethoven of the late quartets and sonatas, or for the Bruckner of the ninth symphony, or for the Wagner of Parsifal. *I cite those in particular because I find nothing in Mozart (not even the requiem) that comprehends life's terrible darkness and cosmic mystery as they do in their disparate ways*, and because I don't trust a heaven that doesn't require a decent initiation by hellfire as part of the price of admission.


It is Woodduck who "owns" the opinion about Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner more comprehending life's terrible darkness etc than Mozart; and I "own" the opinion that this _may _be a reason why Mozart is not considered a genius.

There is merit in focusing on the ideas alone, regardless of attribution. However, anyone trying to follow the flow of the discussion might find it difficult to track without attribution. Just trying to be helpful to the reader.

I should add that like Woodduck, my experience of Mozart compared to other composers is that he does not convey life's terrible darkness as others do (though not especially Wagner, Beethoven and Bruckner). I freely admit that this is an entirely a subjective matter, and I'll not enforce my opinion on anyone else.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Just to be clear, you cite my post #478 which is in turn a summary reference to a post by Woodduck #427 where he says,
> 
> It is Woodduck who "owns" the opinion about Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner more comprehending life's terrible darkness etc than Mozart; and I "own" the opinion that this _may _be a reason why Mozart is not considered a genius.
> 
> There is merit in focusing on the ideas alone, regardless of attribution. However, anyone trying to follow the flow of the discussion might find it difficult to track without attribution. Just trying to be helpful to the reader.
> 
> I should add that like Woodduck, *my experience of Mozart compared to other composers is that he does not convey life's terrible darkness as others do *(though not especially Wagner, Beethoven and Bruckner). I freely admit that this is an entirely a subjective matter, and I'll not enforce my opinion on anyone else.


but as you admit - your experience of Mozart is confined to the symphonies.

still - in mere phrases - such as those in the slow tortuous introduction to the prague symphony - I sense hints of pain and anguish more powerful than any of your romantic bleeding hearts and doom mongers.

This of course, if it need be said, and before anybody starts kicking copies of Verdi's requiem or Liegti's Lux Aeterna in my face, is an opinion and hence entirely subjective.


----------



## Omicron9

Almost forgot... in addition to my previous post in this thread, the Mozart monotonal running eighth-note line. Added to the previous list of formulaic Mozart contrivances.

-09


----------



## Woodduck

I see from the above posts that, as usual in discussions of what music "means," we're reaching that contented state of agreeing that "it's all subjective" and that any combination of notes can "mean" anything at all if we just feel that it does. We even have one contributor opining that not only music but anything in the universe can mean whatever anyone thinks it means.

When the conversation reaches this moment, it fizzles out in a pink fog of amiable acquiescence, the whole fascinating question of musical meaning and how it's conveyed is put back in the closet, and the ghost of Leonard B. Meyer sheds a tear.

So sorry, Leonard! I tried, but they couldn't hear me. They all know the difference between a dirge and a dithyramb, but extracting from that knowledge general principles and searching out their implications and applications is, you must admit, difficult. So, rather than continue my own feeble efforts to say what you've said so ably, I'll just recommend your oldie-but-goodie introduction to the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Emotion-Meaning-Music-Phoenix-Books/dp/0226521397

And for those who'd like an introduction to the book:

https://musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music829D/Notes/Meyer1.html


----------



## Guest

I don't think anyone is saying "It's all subjective" in quite the simplistic way that I am subjectively inferring from your post, Woodduck. But there are times when it's easier to step aside from the umpteenth confrontation with other members on a subject that is worth exploring but often fails to get much past first base. As you see, stomanek is back implying that my limited experience of Mozart is what prevents me from hearing the deep that he hears. Why would he feel the need to echo back what I've already acknowledged unless he felt the need to point out that my opinion is wrong, while begrudgingly conceding that his opinion, like mine, is subjective?


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> I don't think anyone is saying "It's all subjective" in quite the simplistic way that I am subjectively inferring from your post, Woodduck. But there are times when it's easier to step aside from the umpteenth confrontation with other members on *a subject that is worth exploring but often fails to get much past first base.* As you see, stomanek is back implying that my limited experience of Mozart is what prevents me from hearing the deep that he hears. Why would he feel the need to echo back what I've already acknowledged unless he felt the need to point out that my opinion is wrong, while begrudgingly conceding that his opinion, like mine, is subjective?


I wouldn't try to speak for you or stomanek or anyone else in particular, but I'll note that you affirm my contention that there's a subject here "that is worth exploring but often fails to get much past first base." The declaration that responses to music are subjective - that interpretations of music vary, often considerably, from listener to listener, and that at least some of these varied interpretations have equal plausibility - is the obvious thing I would identify as "first base" in any discussion of musical meaning. What I was pointing out is that first base is often taken for a home run, game over.

One of the first and more obvious hurdles in getting any further with understanding whether and how music means things is realizing that meaning itself has different meanings. If we see this, we're less likely to do silly things like attributing "rape narratives" to Beethoven, and less likely to grant such notions legitimacy as "interpretations" of his music.

It's pretty obvious to most of us that music is incapable of depicting rape, since rape is a phenomenon consisting of cognitive choices and physical actions performed by human minds and bodies which cannot recognizably be represented in musical sounds. Music may contain patterns of movement and energy which might have equivalences in the movements and energies of a person involved in an act of rape, but in the absence of any depiction of either mental intentions or the physical bodies animated by them, imagining that the music is in any sense "about" rape is idle fantasy and is not a legitimate "interpretation."

There's nothing wrong with fantasy - in fact it's essential to creativity - but it's tempting to say that there's something seriously wrong with a person who hears Beethoven's Ninth, discovers rape in it, and publishes her findings in the hope of making the world a better place. I'd be less concerned if she published it just to make a buck.


----------



## EdwardBast

Dumbo said:


> I'm glad to hear she's still alive. Sorry to hear she recanted about the 9th. I thought that was an intriguing interpretation of it thst I wouldn't have thought of on my own, yet I can see how it fits, just like Bast's Jabberwocky-Swamp narrative gives me a different and interesting take on Jabberwocky ( that I don't think is "true," but I don't care about that kind of truth...)
> 
> I think this is where we got off track on subjective interpretation:


She recanted because she didn't really believe it in the first place. It was a political stunt. Leo Treitler makes this point forcefully in "Gender and Other Dualities of Music History." In _Musicology and Difference_, ed. Ruth A. Solie. Berkeley: University of California Press (1993): 23-45.

One of the problems with McClary's interpretation of Beethoven's Ninth, along with that of every other major instrumental work she interprets, is that she addresses passages in isolation without considering the full structural context in which they occur. They are no more than poorly thought out subjective associations. Also, what Woodduck said ^ ^ ^


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> And for those who'd like an introduction to the book:
> 
> https://musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music829D/Notes/Meyer1.html


OK, well let's see how far we get. I'm trying to make sense of the Huron introduction, but it's not an easy read (not sure if that's Huron's fault or Meyer's) so it might take a little time. Right at the start, we get.



> Meyer [...] outlines two contrasting dichotomies: [...]"musical meaning lies exclusively within the context of the work itself." [versus] "musical meanings refer to the extramusical world of concepts, actions, emotional states, and character."
> 
> Meyer will lay out a compromise position that acknowledges the existence of both types of musical meanings.


So you first have to grasp the two 'meanings' and then consider how they might be exemplified in the works we're familar with, and then decide whether there is any other 'meaning' not encompassed by the two on offer, such as the 'meaning' that the composer put into the work as distinct from the 'meaning' the listener derives from it.

So, just sticking with this starting point for now, I might ask whether Mozart's 40th is an example of Absolutist meaning. Whatever the listener gets out of the work, Mozart's intent was nothing more than (for simplicity's sake) "these notes in this order". He didn't set out to write a symphony 'about' anything (eg the eternal struggle, life's challenges with bunions and gout, reflections on sex and relationhips etc) but he did, presumably, intend that his audience would think or feel something corresponding to what he himself thought and felt about his composition?

Discounting music that was written with explicit intent to carry a story (such as opera) or to glorify the almighty (such as masses), who were the first composers to set about writing a composition that was about something other than the notes?


----------



## Dumbo

I've long thought that if we asked Mozart what #40 meant, he wpuld just stare blankly at us, not understanding the question.

Or maybe he would pause and say, "Well, there's this dededa dededa dededa DUM! part..."

Here is a very powerful piece by Mozart, the Andante from K. 533:






To me, that is powerful. I can listen to it over and over again, trying to plumb the mystery I sense in it. But if you ask me what this piece by Mozart really means, emotionally... I think it's a dumb question. Any ******** answer I could contrive would do it a disservice.


----------



## Strange Magic

Re MacLeod's query: Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ pops into mind, but the scholars among us can come up with many more--and earlier--examples. How do we determine intent unless either the composer tells us directly or told somebody else?

My impression of Mozart was, for the non-operatic or religious pieces, he just liked the way the notes sounded in his head, found that others seemed to like them also, and happily proceeded to combine the two discoveries into a career.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dumbo said:


> I've long thought that if we asked Mozart what #40 meant, he wpuld just stare blankly at us, not understanding the question.
> 
> Or maybe he would pause and say, "Well, there's this dededa dededa dededa DUM! part..."
> 
> Here is a very powerful piece by Mozart, the Andante from K. 533:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me, that is powerful. I can listen to it over and over again, trying to plumb the mystery I sense in it. But if you ask me what this piece by Mozart really means, emotionally... I think it's a dumb question. Any ******** answer I could contrive would do it a disservice.


No - he would have said similar to what Samuel Becket said when someone asked him what "Waiting for Godot" means - he would have said if there was an alternative way to say what he wanted to say in the play - he would have said it that way and not written the play.


----------



## hpowders

Listening to the Marriage of Figaro, it is all magnificent; not one clinker of a note over almost three hours of music. A dazzling display of inspired mega-genius. Wow!


----------



## hpowders

poconoron said:


> Here's genius, written at the tender age of just 23..............


One must keep in mind that Mozart at 23 was in full maturity and was turning out masterpiece after masterpiece, including, if I recall correctly, the formidable Posthorn Serenade and the wonderful, charming Symphony No. 33.


----------



## EdwardBast

MacLeod said:


> Discounting music that was written with explicit intent to carry a story (such as opera) or to glorify the almighty (such as masses), who were the first composers to set about writing a composition that was about something other than the notes?


Virtually every composer of the Baroque Era through the early 20thc., exclusive of the High Classical. Meaningful and often systematic relationships between music and emotion and other aspects of mental experience were assumed in the musical aesthetics of these periods.


----------



## Barbebleu

Some of the posts here are hilarious, particularly the really over-the-top ones. And you know who you are. Hyperbole rules!:tiphat:


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Discounting music that was written with explicit intent to carry a story (such as opera) or to glorify the almighty (such as masses), who were the first composers to set about writing a composition that was about something other than the notes?


The earliest examples I can think of (because I've performed them) are in madrigals of the late Renaissance, where patterns of notes and rhythmic and harmonic effects are used to imitate natural phenomena and human emotions. These effects are meant to illustrate a text, but such effects did carry over into instrumental music. Imitation of nature may be the most explicit instance of music "about" something, while the idea of "imitating" an emotion takes us deeper into the mysteries of meaning in music. The pursuit of expression took some of the madrigalists of the early Italian Baroque into chromatic harmony which signifies exactly the same sort of thing as Wagner's does 150 years later.

A madrigal by Gesualdo: 




I die! Languishing, of grief,
and the person who can give me life,
alas, kills me and does not want to give me aid.
O woeful fate!
That the one who can give me life, alas, gives me death!


----------



## Mandryka

Machaut ballades maybe, se je me playng for example. It always sounds as though the troubadours made expressive music to me, but really I haven't yet studied their texts.


----------



## hpowders

There are two areas of music where Mozart was the greatest composer who ever lived:

Arias for the female voices and writing for wind instruments, especially when his beloved clarinet was involved.

When listening to the great female arias and duets in Cosí fan Tutte, Don Giovanni, the Marriage of Figaro and the Concert Arias, it becomes readily apparent that Mozart was one of those rarest of men who actually understood women!!

Glorious wind writing in the Marriage of Figaro, Piano Concertos No. 23 and 24 and the Wind Serenades prove my point.

There are no words when listening to all this gold. Just sit there awestruck!


----------



## PlaySalieri

hpowders said:


> There are two areas of music where Mozart was the greatest composer who ever lived:
> 
> Arias for the female voices and writing for wind instruments, especially when his beloved clarinet was involved.
> 
> *When listening to the great female arias and duets in Cosí fan Tutte, Don Giovanni, the Marriage of Figaro and the Concert Arias, it becomes readily apparent that Mozart was one of those rarest of men who actually understood women!!
> *
> Glorious wind writing in the Marriage of Figaro, Piano Concertos No. 23 and 24 and the Wind Serenades prove my point.
> 
> There are no words when listening to all this gold. Just sit there awestruck!


I prefer soprano to male singers anyway - but esp in Mozart - with few exceptions the ladies outshine the men.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> There are two areas of music where Mozart was the greatest composer who ever lived:
> 
> Arias for the female voices and writing for wind instruments, especially when his beloved clarinet was involved.
> 
> When listening to the great female arias and duets in Cosí fan Tutte, Don Giovanni, the Marriage of Figaro and the Concert Arias, it becomes readily apparent that Mozart was one of those rarest of men who actually understood women!!
> 
> Glorious wind writing in the Marriage of Figaro, Piano Concertos No. 23 and 24 and the Wind Serenades prove my point.
> 
> There are no words when listening to all this gold. Just sit there awestruck!


Read Mozart's Women by Jane Glover


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> Read Mozart's a Women by Jane Glover


I misread this at first! I thought a major revision of history was necessary.


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> I misread this at first! I thought a major revision of history was necessary.


Sorry this wretched predictive text puts in things you don't want. Post corrected! The book btw is excellent and can be obtained from Amazon for little more than the postage.


----------



## Agamemnon

I've read a little on Wikipedia about http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_compositional_method and such and the conclusion emerges that Mozart was really an improvisator (thus some kind of jazz musician, to put it anachronisticly): he only wrote music on paper when he was asked to and for the other musicians because he himself could always improvise on the spot which he loved most about music anyway (Mozart wasn't even good at sight-reading). Improvising was a kind of 'experimenting' for Mozart so I think you could say that Mozart actually was the modern scientist (a la Bacon) of music. Because after Mozart came the Romantic Era, the romantics saw in Mozart the genius with a true divine inspiration: Mozart's composional methods became mythologized: the music would come effortlessly and natural to him as a divine gift to him. But actually Mozart had studied hard and what came natural to him was his improvisational talent so he was always able to elaborate an idea and fill in gaps instantaneously.

I guess that Wikipedia has a section on this because of the romantic mythologizing of Mozart's compositional methods so those became an obsession for later scientists as well. But maybe also because we are not sure how Mozart could produce so much brilliant music in such a short time. I wonder why there is no such Wikipedia section on Bach's or Beethoven's compositional methods. Do we know them? It is tempting to think of Beethoven as the opposite of Mozart: every note by Beethoven seems to have been a struggle for him but is that true? In any case, Beethoven must have experienced a great deal of stress in his youth to become a genius, exactly because he was pressed to become 'the next Mozart'.


----------



## EdwardBast

Agamemnon said:


> I've read a little on Wikipedia about http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart%27s_compositional_method and such and the conclusion emerges that Mozart was really an improvisator (thus some kind of jazz musician, to put it anachronisticly): he only wrote music on paper when he was asked to and for the other musicians because he himself could always improvise on the spot which he loved most about music anyway (Mozart wasn't even good at sight-reading). Improvising was a kind of 'experimenting' for Mozart so I think you could say that Mozart actually was the modern scientist (a la Bacon) of music. Because after Mozart came the Romantic Era, the romantics saw in Mozart the genius with a true divine inspiration: Mozart's composional methods became mythologized: the music would come effortlessly and natural to him as a divine gift to him. But actually Mozart had studied hard and what came natural to him was his improvisational talent so he was always able to elaborate an idea and fill in gaps instantaneously.
> 
> I guess that Wikipedia has a section on this because of the romantic mythologizing of Mozart's compositional methods so those became an obsession for later scientists as well. But maybe also because we are not sure how Mozart could produce so much brilliant music in such a short time. *I wonder why there is no such Wikipedia section on Bach's or Beethoven's compositional methods. Do we know them?* It is tempting to think of Beethoven as the opposite of Mozart: every note by Beethoven seems to have been a struggle for him but is that true? In any case, Beethoven must have experienced a great deal of stress in his youth to become a genius, exactly because he was pressed to become 'the next Mozart'.


As stated several times above, Mozart's compositional practice was like most other composers. He worked out ideas while improvising, wrote at the keyboard, and when composing his best music, sketched and revised on paper.

Both Bach and Beethoven were master improvisors. That Bach was is unsurprising, since organists in all eras have had improvisation as a major part of their education and job specs. Beethoven was renowned for the fluidity and imagination of his improvisations. Put a theme or motive in front of him and he would do wonders with it. In composing his most important revolutionary works, Beethoven did indeed struggle over every passage, as his sketch books demonstrate. To arrive at the opening theme of the Eroica (meaning the first 40 or 50 measures), for example, required four sets of continuity sketches and weeks of work before he had its basic outline. This too makes perfect sense, however, because this theme is unlike any theme composed by earlier composers. Beethoven was inventing an entirely new approach to musical structure, so of course it required an unprecedented amount of experimentation and sketching.


----------



## Larkenfield

Does the following description of Mozart sound like how most others composed? I don't think so... Just because others could improvise doesn't mean that their process was the same as Mozart's and that Mozart necessarily wrote on the basis of his improvisations, though he could obviously improvise. He could compose entire compositions in his imaginative creative mind and then the act of writing it down was a mere formality... He wrote on paper what had already been completely worked out in his mind: 

"All this fires my soul, and provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost finished and complete in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, all at once.... When I proceed to write down my ideas, I take out of the bag of my memory, if I may use that phrase, what has previously been collected into it, in the way I have mentioned. For this reason, the committing to paper is done quickly enough, for everything is, as I said before, already finished; and it rarely differs on paper from what it was in my imagination."

His wife Constanza said this about the way he composed, and note that she's saying that he didn't need the Klavier in order to compose but could rely on his imagination:

"Mozart wrote everything with a facility and rapidity, which perhaps at first sight could appear as carelessness or haste; and while writing he never came to the Klavier. His imagination presented the whole work, when it came to him, clearly and vividly. …. In the quiet repose of the night, when no obstacle hindered his soul, the power of his imagination became incandescent with the most animated activity, and unfolded all the wealth of tone which nature had placed in his spirit …. Only the person who heard Mozart at such times knows the depth and the whole range of his musical genius: free and independent of all concern his spirit could soar in daring flight to the highest regions of art."

His compositional process was hardly like other composers, other than he would sometimes subject his ideas to revisions like others. Most other composers could only dream of being able to compose so many masterpieces with the facility that Mozart's genius bestowed upon him. Rather than acknowledge such genius, there are the feeble attempts to render him just like everyone else, and he wasn't. Period. It might help if he was quoted every once in awhile or those who knew him intimately.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Does the following description of Mozart sound like how most others composed? I don't think so... Just because others could improvise doesn't mean that their process was the same as Mozart's and that Mozart necessarily wrote on the basis of his improvisations, though he could obviously improvise. He could compose entire compositions in his imaginative creative mind and then the act of writing it down was a mere formality... He wrote on paper what had already been completely worked out in his mind:
> 
> "All this fires my soul, and provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost finished and complete in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance. Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, all at once.... When I proceed to write down my ideas, I take out of the bag of my memory, if I may use that phrase, what has previously been collected into it, in the way I have mentioned. For this reason, the committing to paper is done quickly enough, for everything is, as I said before, already finished; and it rarely differs on paper from what it was in my imagination."
> 
> His wife Constanza said this about the way he composed, and note that she's saying that he didn't need the Klavier in order to compose but could rely on his imagination:
> 
> "Mozart wrote everything with a facility and rapidity, which perhaps at first sight could appear as carelessness or haste; and while writing he never came to the Klavier. His imagination presented the whole work, when it came to him, clearly and vividly. …. In the quiet repose of the night, when no obstacle hindered his soul, the power of his imagination became incandescent with the most animated activity, and unfolded all the wealth of tone which nature had placed in his spirit …. Only the person who heard Mozart at such times knows the depth and the whole range of his musical genius: free and independent of all concern his spirit could soar in daring flight to the highest regions of art."
> 
> His compositional process was hardly like other composers, other than he would sometimes subject his ideas to revisions like others. Most other composers could only dream of being able to compose so many masterpieces with the facility that Mozart's genius bestowed upon him. Rather than acknowledge such genius, there are the feeble attempts to render him just like everyone else, and he wasn't. Period. It might help if he was quoted every once in awhile or those who knew him intimately.


Read the rest of the thread. All of this information on his methods is bogus, including the quotation with which you began; It was fabricated! His actual methods are documented through his correspondence and the surviving sketches. Just read. ^ ^ ^


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Read the rest of the thread. All of this information on his methods is bogus, including the quotation with which you began; It was fabricated! His actual methods are documented through his correspondence and the surviving sketches. Just read. ^ ^ ^


And how much time do you think Mozart spent "at the piano" and "sketching" to compose symphonies No. 39, 40 and the Jupiter *in just 6-9 weeks* while also writing his piano trios in E major (K. 542), and C major (K. 548), his piano sonata No. 16 in C (K. 545) and a violin sonatina K. 547????


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> And how much time do you think Mozart spent "at the piano" and "sketching" to compose symphonies No. 39, 40 and the Jupiter *in just 6-9 weeks* while also writing his piano trios in E major (K. 542), and C major (K. 548), his piano sonata No. 16 in C (K. 545) and a violin sonatina K. 547????


Probably the same proportion of his composition time he spent on anything else. Why do you ask such an obvious question?


----------



## Larkenfield

EdwardBast said:


> Read the rest of the thread. All of this information on his methods is bogus, including the quotation with which you began; It was fabricated! His actual methods are documented through his correspondence and the surviving sketches. Just read. ^ ^ ^


 Did it ever occur to some of you that the proof of the way he composed was in the perfection and productivity of the music itself, instead of trying to drag his genius and reputation down to the level of the ordinary? Others who knew him commented on his incandescent genius and the way he would light up under inspiration, including those who performed in his operas. It might be illuminating to look them up every now and then. But what's also true is that he said this: "It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." But this in no way negates his imaginative power or the fact that he could compose away from the Klavier or that he could complete compositions in his mind and then merely write them down later with great speed.

Rochlitz was some forger! "Rochlitz was a friend of several cultural figures of his era, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, E. T. A. Hoffmann and the composers Louis Spohr and Carl Maria von Weber - Weber dedicated his Piano Sonata No 4 in E minor (J287, Op 70) to Rochlitz. During a stay in Vienna, Rochlitz also got to know Beethoven and Franz Schubert, with the latter setting three poems by Rochlitz to music in 1827." So while the biographical standards may have been different at the time, it cannot be categorically proven that he made up everything about Mozart out of the whole cloth. Some typical forger! So he may have had reasons for whatever liberties he took other than crass commercial ones sometimes attributed to him... Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven's "forger" friend. 

And of course Constanze was so desperate for money that she can't be trusted and had to make everything up about her husband too. But that's really a matter of opinion and there's no reason why she couldn't be telling the truth about the way he composed and lived. Historians have been known to assign motives themselves that might have nothing to do with the people they're talking about. At least Mozart's wife actually knew him.

On Revisionism of Mozart's life by Andrew Steptoe: "There is little doubt that successive generations of scholars have been sincere in their views of the composer, each claiming to be more 'objective' than the last, stripping away the veneer of speculation to arrive at 'the real man'. It is sobering to realize that these different opinions about Mozart as a person are all based on a very similar set of data."

So there's no reason why the quotes by Rochlitz and Constanze could still posses some measure of truth whether those quotes are exact or not according to the revisionists.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Others who knew him commented on his incandescent genius and the way he would light up under inspiration, including those who performed in his operas.


I'm not here to dispute the claim that he was a 'genius', but I would observe that just because some who knew him claimed he was a genius does not make him so.


----------



## EdwardBast

Larkenfield said:


> Did it ever occur to some of you that the proof of the way he composed was in the perfection and productivity of the music itself, instead of *trying to drag his genius and reputation down to the level of the ordinary*? Others who knew him commented on his incandescent genius and the way he would light up under inspiration, including those who performed in his operas. It might be illuminating to look them up every now and then. But what's also true is that he said this: "It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." But this in no way negates his imaginative power or the fact that he could compose away from the Klavier or that he could complete compositions in his mind and then merely write them down later with great speed.
> 
> Rochlitz was some forger! "Rochlitz was a friend of several cultural figures of his era, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, E. T. A. Hoffmann and the composers Louis Spohr and Carl Maria von Weber - Weber dedicated his Piano Sonata No 4 in E minor (J287, Op 70) to Rochlitz. During a stay in Vienna, Rochlitz also got to know Beethoven and Franz Schubert, with the latter setting three poems by Rochlitz to music in 1827." So while the biographical standards may have been different at the time, it cannot be categorically proven that he made up everything about Mozart out of the whole cloth. Some typical forger! So he may have had reasons for whatever liberties he took other than crass commercial ones sometimes attributed to him... Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven's "forger" friend.
> 
> And of course Constanze was so desperate for money that she can't be trusted and had to make everything up about her husband too. But that's really a matter of opinion and there's no reason why she couldn't be telling the truth about the way he composed and lived. Historians have been known to assign motives themselves that might have nothing to do with the people they're talking about. At least Mozart's wife actually knew him.
> 
> On Revisionism of Mozart's life by Andrew Steptoe: "There is little doubt that successive generations of scholars have been sincere in their views of the composer, each claiming to be more 'objective' than the last, stripping away the veneer of speculation to arrive at 'the real man'. It is sobering to realize that these different opinions about Mozart as a person are all based on a very similar set of data."
> 
> So there's no reason why the quotes by Rochlitz and Constanze could still posses some measure of truth whether those quotes are exact or not according to the revisionists.


What are you talking about? The genius of Mozart is there in the music, which speaks for itself. If you need forgeries and fabricated miracles to support your appraisal, then you are doing Mozart's memory a disservice. What does it matter that he did his work like countless other composers? It is the result that matters - that and the truth, which, if you care about the composer, you should be willing to accept for what it is.


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> As stated several times above, Mozart's compositional practice was like most other composers. He worked out ideas while improvising, wrote at the keyboard, and when composing his best music, sketched and revised on paper.
> 
> Both Bach and Beethoven were master improvisors. That Bach was is unsurprising, since organists in all eras have had improvisation as a major part of their education and job specs. Beethoven was renowned for the fluidity and imagination of his improvisations. Put a theme or motive in front of him and he would do wonders with it. In composing his most important revolutionary works, Beethoven did indeed struggle over every passage, as his sketch books demonstrate. To arrive at the opening theme of the Eroica (meaning the first 40 or 50 measures), for example, required four sets of continuity sketches and weeks of work before he had its basic outline. This too makes perfect sense, however, because this theme is unlike any theme composed by earlier composers. Beethoven was inventing an entirely new approach to musical structure, so of course it required an unprecedented amount of experimentation and sketching.


I found some commentary on his Eroica theme, which was modelled after Mozart's Symphony 39, from Kenneth Woods.

The sheer scale of the Eroica was the subject of much controversy when the work was first performed under Beethoven's baton in 1805. One audience member reportedly offered to double his admission fee if the orchestra would stop playing and let him leave. It was to be Beethoven's longest instrumental work (although he certainly never intended it to be as long or grandiose as it was often heard in the mid 20th C., as conductors and orchestras gravitated to slower tempi and a more massive sonority than the composer could ever have imagined). It was easily twice as long as almost any symphony heard in Vienna up to that point. Nevertheless, Beethoven's engagement with tradition is also very much in play, and the openingAllegro con brio is modelled on the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 39 in E flat major. Both the similarities and differences are telling. On the one hand, Beethoven borrows not only Mozart's key, but also his use of triple meter and a main theme which outlines tonic and dominant triads. Both composers exploit the possibilities of building up forward momentum by starting with a theme mainly in crotchets and minims and then gradually introducing quavers then semiquavers, driving the music forward with more and more intensity. Even the infamous dissonant chords at the climax of Beethoven's development are anticipated in the slow introduction of Mozart 39. On the other hand, Beethoven dispenses with the formality of a slow introduction for the first time in his symphonies, throwing the listener straight into the action after the two opening chords. (Mozart had already done the same thing in several of his symphonies, most powerfully in his 40th).


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> Probably *the same proportion of his composition time he spent on anything else*. Why do you ask such an obvious question?


And that "proportion" is much lower than in the case of any other composer. Yes, he sketched some of his music, but not as much (in proportion to his total output) as you have tried to imply on other occasions even if you count many pages that exist of those sketches. He sketched far far less than Beethoven for example. Evidence of this is how fast Mozart could compose/write music like the one I mentioned in my post above, which could have not been possible time-wise if he had sketched it significantly or spent significant time with the aid of a keyboard to compose it.

So yes, I believe that, based on what Constanze said on Mozart's way of composing, he had also the ability to write down a big portion of his music already finished in his mind.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> And that "proportion" is much lower than in the case of any other composer. Yes, he sketched some of his music, but not as much (in proportion to his total output) as you have tried to imply on other occasions even if you count many pages that exist of those sketches. He sketched far far less than Beethoven for example. Evidence of this is how fast Mozart could compose/write music like the one I mentioned in my post above, which could have not been possible time-wise if he had sketched it significantly or spent significant time with the aid of a piano to compose it. So yes, I believe Constanze when she said that Mozart was also able to write down music already finished in his mind.


What evidence do you have for these claims? The vast majority of Mozart's sketches were destroyed, so the data about how much he sketched is not available. And how do you account for Mozart's letter to his father indicating that he needed a piano to compose? I would be inclined to agree with you that he could write music in his head. But then I am confronted by his own words and I'm not sure how to reconcile my inclination and the historical data.

And of course Beethoven had to sketch more. His instrumental works were tremendously innovative and ambitious.


----------



## KenOC

Rosen (I think it was him) claimed that Mozart relied on sketches more often as he got well into his thirties and his works became more complex. I don't know how he knew this! He believed that some composers, like many mathematicians, lose the easy fluent genius of youth by their mid-thirties, and he mentioned Rossini, who quit composing operas altogether when he was 37 -- Rossini was such a lazy guy that he couldn't be bothered doing anything that smacked of work, and he had plenty of money by then anyway.

Beethoven tended to compose at the piano and he sketched a whole lot -- so I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> *What evidence do you have for these claims?* The vast majority of Mozart's sketches were destroyed, so the data about how much he sketched is not available. And how do you account for Mozart's letter to his father indicating that he needed a piano to compose? I would be inclined to agree with you that he could write music in his head. But then I am confronted by his own words and I'm not sure how to reconcile my inclination and the historical data.
> 
> *And of course Beethoven had to sketch more. His instrumental works were tremendously innovative and ambitious.*


That he could write down a lot of high quality music in a very short time (e.g. the 3 last symphonies and other works at the same time in just some 6-9 weeks) is enough evidence to me. Unless he had almost never spent time on sleep, sex, entertainment, meals, bathroom, etc. 

"_*And of course Beethoven had to sketch more. His instrumental works were tremendously innovative and ambitious.*_"

Beethoven sketched a whole lot more than Mozart even in his "not so ambitious or innovative" works, which are many too.


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> I found some commentary on his Eroica theme, which was modelled after Mozart's Symphony 39, from Kenneth Woods.
> 
> The sheer scale of the Eroica was the subject of much controversy when the work was first performed under Beethoven's baton in 1805. One audience member reportedly offered to double his admission fee if the orchestra would stop playing and let him leave. It was to be Beethoven's longest instrumental work (although he certainly never intended it to be as long or grandiose as it was often heard in the mid 20th C., as conductors and orchestras gravitated to slower tempi and a more massive sonority than the composer could ever have imagined). It was easily twice as long as almost any symphony heard in Vienna up to that point. Nevertheless, Beethoven's engagement with tradition is also very much in play, and the opening Allegro con brio is modelled on the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 39 in E flat major. Both the similarities and differences are telling. On the one hand, Beethoven borrows not only Mozart's key, but also his use of triple meter and a main theme which outlines tonic and dominant triads. Both composers exploit the possibilities of building up forward momentum by starting with a theme mainly in crotchets and minims and then gradually introducing quavers then semiquavers, driving the music forward with more and more intensity. Even the infamous dissonant chords at the climax of Beethoven's development are anticipated in the slow introduction of Mozart 39. On the other hand, Beethoven dispenses with the formality of a slow introduction for the first time in his symphonies, throwing the listener straight into the action after the two opening chords. (Mozart had already done the same thing in several of his symphonies, most powerfully in his 40th).


Let's do a critical reading of Woods' assertion that the first movement of the Eroica was "modeled on the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 39." What does he claim Beethoven borrowed?:
(1) Key
(2) Meter
(3) A theme outlining tonic and dominant.
(4) Increasing rhythmic activity in the first movement exposition.
(5) A dissonant chord from the introduction.

The first four points can be dismissed out of hand, as they are generic features true of hundreds if not thousands of first movements in the classical era. (I love how he says Beethoven borrowed "Mozart's key.") Numbers 3 and 4 sound more specific, but they are utterly generic elements of classical style. The dissonant chord in the introduction does have the same configuration as a famous one in the development of the Eroica's first movement, although the two chords have different tonal functions and resolutions. (By the way, Gesualdo's _Moro lasso_ has exactly the same chord as the Eroica chord, which also is pretty irrelevant.) Woods addresses none of the innovative features of the Eroica, which are unlike any instrumental movement Mozart ever conceived.

In short, Woods offers no support for his ludicrous claim that Beethoven's Eroica is modeled on Mozart 39. I don't know who the man is, but he is obviously a hack.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> That he could write down a lot of high quality music in a very short time (e.g. the 3 last symphonies and other works at the same time in just some 6-9 weeks) is enough evidence to me. Unless he had almost never spent time on sleep, sex, entertainment, meals, bathroom, etc.


Have you ever computed how much music is actually contained in a classical symphony once one accounts for repeats and transpositions? I'd look into it.

You seem to be strangely impressed by fast work. What's up with that?


----------



## KenOC

Actually, of course, Beethoven lifted the Eroica's theme from an opera by the 12 year-old Mozart. Everybody knows that! :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical

EdwardBast said:


> Let's do a critical reading of Woods' assertion that the first movement of the Eroica was "modeled on the first movement of Mozart's Symphony no. 39." What does he claim Beethoven borrowed?:
> (1) Key
> (2) Meter
> (3) A theme outlining tonic and dominant.
> (4) Increasing rhythmic activity in the first movement exposition.
> (5) A dissonant chord from the introduction.
> 
> The first four points can be dismissed out of hand, as they are generic features true of hundreds if not thousands of first movements in the classical era. (I love how he says Beethoven borrowed "Mozart's key.") Numbers 3 and 4 sound more specific, but they are utterly generic elements of classical style. The dissonant chord in the introduction does have the same configuration as a famous one in the development of the Eroica's first movement, although the two chords have different tonal functions and resolutions. (By the way, Gesualdo's _Moro lasso_ has exactly the same chord as the Eroica chord, which also is pretty irrelevant.) Woods addresses none of the innovative features of the Eroica, which are unlike any instrumental movement Mozart ever conceived.
> 
> In short, Woods offers no support for his ludicrous claim that Beethoven's Eroica is modeled on Mozart 39. I don't know who the man is, but he is obviously a hack.


Listening to Moart's 39 and Beethoven's 3 I found the themes very similar which is what spurred me to google the connection, leading me to Wood's analysis. Sure Beethoven transformed the theme into something different, but the combination of the first 3 points make a compelling arguement. Even the order of tones and rhythm is somewhat similar, at least to me. Going through the themes in my head, it seems Beethoven removed a few notes from Mozart's, but are strikingly similar.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> You seem to be strangely impressed by fast work. What's up with that?


"Strangely impressed"?? who is not impressed by work of VERY HIGH QUALITY done very fast? I'm sure Saint-Saens was.

"_Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece._" - Camille Saint-Saens


----------



## EdwardBast

Phil loves classical said:


> Listening to Moart's 39 and Beethoven's 3 I found the themes very similar which is what spurred me to google the connection, leading me to Wood's analysis. Sure Beethoven transformed the theme into something different, but the combination of the first 3 points make a compelling arguement. Even the order of tones and rhythm is somewhat similar, at least to me. Going through the themes in my head, it seems Beethoven removed a few notes from Mozart's, but are strikingly similar.


You are making three errors. First, what you have compared is not Mozart's theme and Beethoven's theme. You have compared Mozart's theme to a small motive, a mere fraction of the Beethoven theme. Beethoven's opening theme is a paragraph long, over 40 measures, with its own mini-drama, developing an opposition between the principal idea and the contrasting tense, duple grouped idea on the dominant, which are then played off against one another over a development section that would swallow Mozart's entire first movement whole. The conception of theme Beethoven was inventing when he wrote those 40 plus measures was a new one that he didn't learn from Mozart.

Second, and more practically, if Beethoven's opening phrase resembled anything by Mozart, it would be the one Ken cited [email protected], the Bastien und Bastienne Overture -  you can't have it both ways. If you believe that degree of similarity justifies the term "modeling," then you clearly have the wrong work.

Third: In what way on earth would the similarity of motive you believe you hear justify saying Beethoven modeled his movement on that of Mozart? Especially since it is obvious Mozart never wrote anything remotely like the first movement of the Eroica. Nobody had. That's one among the many reasons it's a landmark work.


----------



## EdwardBast

jdec said:


> "Strangely impressed"?? who is not impressed by work of VERY HIGH QUALITY done very fast? I'm sure Saint-Saens was.
> 
> "_Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece._" - Camille Saint-Saens


My point is I don't understand why anyone would care as much as you seem to think we should. Yes, it's a nice cocktail party peanut, but it's a silly measure of genius. The music, the thing in itself, is where the genius lies. If speed at producing hundreds of similar items were a defining feature of genius, then genius, so defined, would be a concept I could only  (roll my eyes at). Genius should be interesting, IMHO.


----------



## JeffD

EdwardBast said:


> If speed at producing hundreds of similar items were a defining feature of genius, then genius, so defined, would be a concept I could only  (roll my eyes at). Genius should be interesting, IMHO.


I agree in principle. The product itself is the point, and should stand on its own regardless of how long it took to be created.

But, I think the concept of genius and the concept of speed are linked, maybe inappropriately, but inextricably, in our minds. The (patently false) but pervasive intuition is that a work of genius, of any kind, is not beyond any of our capabilities, given enough time. Heck, monkeys could write Shakespeare given a thousand years, and I could play like Heifetz if I started ten years before i was born.

So, while genius could be created by a mortal in a normal life time is astonishing enough, that amazing genius could be created over and over and over, by a mortal in a short life time, is just that much more amazing.


----------



## EdwardBast

JeffD said:


> I agree in principle. The product itself is the point, and should stand on its own regardless of how long it took to be created.
> 
> But, I think the concept of genius and the concept of speed are linked, maybe inappropriately, but inextricably, in our minds. The (patently false) but pervasive intuition is that a work of genius, of any kind, is not beyond any of our capabilities, given enough time. Heck, monkeys could write Shakespeare given a thousand years, and I could play like Heifetz if I started ten years before i was born.
> 
> So, while genius could be created by a mortal in a normal life time is astonishing enough, that amazing genius could be created over and over and over, by a mortal in a short life time, is just that much more amazing.


Hmm. They aren't linked in my mind. One gets efficient when one does a similar thing many times. Ask Bach and whichever of his brood were pressed into service doing the copying work for his cantatas. One apparently learns to crank them out. No, mass quantities in a hurry doesn't impress me.


----------



## Guest

JeffD said:


> The product itself is the point, and should stand on its own regardless of how long it took to be created.


Exactly so. If one must compare the Eroica with the Jupiter, what matters is the Eroica and the Jupiter, not the amount of man hours, sketches and pianos it took to produce them, nor the ease or labour, pleasure or pain involved.


----------



## Pugg

*Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart* (Salzburg, 27 January 1756 - Wenen, 5 December 1791)

For Mozart's Birthday 
*:cheers:*


----------



## JosefinaHW

Thank you for reminding us, Pugg, and for the beautiful photo!

I know it's been called a "confection" by many, but I ADORE the music from _Cosi_, especially _Di scrivermi--_as to the libretto, who cares when you've got music like this.


----------



## Star

EdwardBast said:


> Hmm. They aren't linked in my mind. One gets efficient when one does a similar thing many times. Ask Bach and whichever of his brood were pressed into service doing the copying work for his cantatas. One apparently learns to crank them out. No, mass quantities in a hurry doesn't impress me.


One apoarently learns to crank out so many works of sublime genius? Try it some time!

In Mozart and Bach there is not just quantity but amazing quality.


----------



## Larkenfield

There is nothing rote or commonplace or simply “efficient” about any of Bach’s or Mozart’s works, including later in life when they were still expected by the public to come up with Original works of a high standard. This was true to Mozart’s dying day. They were obviously able to formulate their works in their creative imagination until it was time to write them down, or they never would have been able to write so much down in such a short amount of time. It actually was miraculous. Not every composer labored over their manuscripts like Beethoven or Brahms even if some of their critics are unable to accept this. Not all composers write in the same way, and while some take years to get something done, others may only require months or weeks. Sometimes inspiration can be instantaneous.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> Not every composer labored over their manuscripts like Beethoven or Brahms even if some of their critics are unable to accept this.


Again, the issue of 'labouring'. What if Beethoven did labour? What does it matter? Perhaps if Mozart had laboured more, he might have written something that his critics might have favoured more.


----------



## poconoron

Star said:


> One apoarently learns to crank out so many works of sublime genius? Try it some time!
> 
> In Mozart and Bach there is not just quantity but amazing quality.


You are so right, but some here have what appears to be a very obvious bias against Mozart and his mastery of all forms during his short life. No matter how they try and disguise it.............it's obvious.


----------



## golfer72

I think maybe some of Mozart is kind of formulaic if you will. You know 27 Piano concertos!


----------



## Guest

poconoron said:


> some here have what appears to be a very obvious bias against Mozart


What do you mean,"Bias"?


----------



## millionrainbows

I agree that some of Mozart is formulaic, but the symphony No. 40 in G minor proves his mastery, just by recognizing and identifying the musical ideas at work. The rest of his works can be less inspiring, but are still impeccably crafted.

The Piano Sonatas are an impressive body of work, no matter how you look at it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> Again, the issue of 'labouring'. What if Beethoven did labour? What does it matter? Perhaps if Mozart had laboured more, he might have written something that his critics might have favoured more.


We dont really know to what extent Mozart laboured over his work - many of the autograph m/s show multiple corrections - he left behind a heap of abandoned fragments - many I am sure he would have hoped posterity would burn. He may well have sweated over Nozzi Di Figaro - spent a whole day trying to come up with a fitting melody etc etc. 
As for your last point - it's hard to imagine him composing better music than those principal works credited to him - he turned out the best work he could. Critics of Mozart that dont like the great pcs, symphonies, operas etc - just dont like Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

golfer72 said:


> I think maybe some of Mozart is kind of formulaic if you will. You know 27 Piano concertos!


well Shakespeares great plays are all formulaic - they are also very different from each other - as are the piano concerti of Mozart


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Did it ever occur to some of you that the proof of the way he composed was in the perfection and productivity of the music itself, instead of trying to drag his genius and reputation down to the level of the ordinary? Others who knew him commented on his incandescent genius and the way he would light up under inspiration, including those who performed in his operas. It might be illuminating to look them up every now and then. But what's also true is that he said this: "It is a mistake to think that the practice of my art has become easy to me. I assure you, dear friend, no one has given so much care to the study of composition as I. There is scarcely a famous master in music whose works I have not frequently and diligently studied." But this in no way negates his imaginative power or the fact that he could compose away from the Klavier or that he could complete compositions in his mind and then merely write them down later with great speed.
> 
> Rochlitz was some forger! "Rochlitz was a friend of several cultural figures of his era, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, E. T. A. Hoffmann and the composers Louis Spohr and Carl Maria von Weber - Weber dedicated his Piano Sonata No 4 in E minor (J287, Op 70) to Rochlitz. During a stay in Vienna, Rochlitz also got to know Beethoven and Franz Schubert, with the latter setting three poems by Rochlitz to music in 1827." So while the biographical standards may have been different at the time, it cannot be categorically proven that he made up everything about Mozart out of the whole cloth. Some typical forger! So he may have had reasons for whatever liberties he took other than crass commercial ones sometimes attributed to him... Goethe, Schiller and Beethoven's "forger" friend.
> 
> And of course Constanze was so desperate for money that she can't be trusted and had to make everything up about her husband too. But that's really a matter of opinion and there's no reason why she couldn't be telling the truth about the way he composed and lived. Historians have been known to assign motives themselves that might have nothing to do with the people they're talking about. At least Mozart's wife actually knew him.
> 
> *On Revisionism of Mozart's life by Andrew Steptoe: "There is little doubt that successive generations of scholars have been sincere in their views of the composer, each claiming to be more 'objective' than the last, stripping away the veneer of speculation to arrive at 'the real man'. It is sobering to realize that these different opinions about Mozart as a person are all based on a very similar set of data."*
> 
> So there's no reason why the quotes by Rochlitz and Constanze could still posses some measure of truth whether those quotes are exact or not according to the revisionists.


where did you get that from? I know of only one book by Steptoe on Mozart - The 3 da ponte operas.


----------



## Luchesi

For members here who haven't seen this video I hope you'll take 50 minutes or so and appreciate this viewpoint and the visuals. I did find a few ideas (opinions) new to me in it.

Just get past the first 7minutes... it gets better..

Howard Goodall's Great Dates 1791 (Mozart)


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> it's hard to imagine him composing better music than those principal works credited to him - he turned out the best work he could.


It may be hard to imagine, but in fact, of course, the opposite would be true, by the logic of those who insist that the amount of genius is in inverse proportion to the amount of labour.


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> It may be hard to imagine, but in fact, of course, the opposite would be true, by the logic of those who insist that the amount of genius is in inverse proportion to the amount of labour.


May be worth quoting Edison, whose inventions certainly changed all of our lives. "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration." I can see this as true more of Beethoven, though, than of Mozart!


----------



## Star

millionrainbows said:


> I agree that some of Mozart is formulaic, but the symphony No. 40 in G minor proves his mastery, just by recognizing and identifying the musical ideas at work. *The rest of his works can be less inspiring*, but are still impeccably crafted.
> 
> The Piano Sonatas are an impressive body of work, no matter how you look at it.


Interesting! Works like Figaro, Giovanni, etc?

Of course some of Mozart's works are better than others. But the same can be said of any composer. The fact is that most are produced to larger inspired body of work than any other composer. There are times when he was churning out the music liking some of the divertimento but even then it is impeccably crafted as you said. When he really got the inspiration, no-one wrote greater music


----------



## Luchesi

Think about living your life performing as much as Mozart did. Listening as much as he did with music all around him -- and few other distractions for that large part of his life. Think about composing in the transparent style that he inevitably would consider natural during his decades. Can we, today, actually relate to his circumstances? 

If you've never been in the zone composing I expect you could imagine what it would be like, but that's only a sliver..


----------



## Larkenfield

Luchesi said:


> For members here who haven't seen this video I hope you'll take 50 minutes or so and appreciate this viewpoint and the visuals. I did find a few ideas (opinions) new to me in it.
> 
> Just get past the first 7minutes... it gets better..
> 
> Howard Goodall's Great Dates 1791 (Mozart)


Goodall's presentation was surprisingly good, particularly with regard to Mozart and the Masons-one of the best documentaries I've yet to see that truly represents his deeper spiritual & metaphysical interests that meant so much to him. Aside from from his opera, he wrote a great deal of music for the Masons. I believe his deeper interests in such things were sometimes not given enough historical weight in his life by his critics because of his personality quirks that sometimes suggested frivolity and crudity. But in reality, I believe his intellectual enlightenment and esoteric interests were on a par with his musical genius that culminated in The Magic Flute. The opera has such potential universal appeal and I think it reflects his interest in the happiness and well-being of humanity. In any event, I thought Goodall's presentation was excellent.


----------



## poconoron

Larkenfield said:


> Goodall's presentation was surprisingly good, particularly with regard to Mozart and the Masons-one of the best documentaries I've yet to see that truly represents his deeper spiritual & metaphysical interests that meant so much to him. Aside from from his opera, he wrote a great deal of music for the Masons. I believe his deeper interests in such things were sometimes not given enough historical weight in his life by his critics because of his personality quirks that sometimes suggested frivolity and crudity. But in reality, I believe his intellectual enlightenment and esoteric interests were on a par with his musical genius that culminated in The Magic Flute. The opera has such potential universal appeal and I think it reflects his interest in the happiness and well-being of humanity. In any event, I thought Goodall's presentation was excellent.


Great performance.............thanks for that.


----------



## Star

Larkenfield said:


> Goodall's presentation was surprisingly good, particularly with regard to Mozart and the Masons-one of the best documentaries I've yet to see that truly represents his deeper spiritual & metaphysical interests that meant so much to him. Aside from from his opera, he wrote a great deal of music for the Masons. I believe his deeper interests in such things were sometimes not given enough historical weight in his life by his critics because of his personality quirks that sometimes suggested frivolity and crudity. But in reality, I believe his intellectual enlightenment and esoteric interests were on a par with his musical genius that culminated in The Magic Flute. The opera has such potential universal appeal and I think it reflects his interest in the happiness and well-being of humanity. In any event, I thought Goodall's presentation was excellent.
> 
> ]


Excellent presentation by Goodall, exploding the idiotic myths that have perpetuated about Mozart, the most idiotic being Schaeffer's Amadeus.


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> May be worth quoting Edison, whose inventions certainly changed all of our lives. "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety nine percent perspiration." I can see this as true more of Beethoven, though, than of Mozart!


Mozart too was an incredibly hard worker. To produce the amount of music he did in just 35 years. The genius comes in the quality of the music.


----------



## Luchesi

Star said:


> Excellent presentation by Goodall, exploding the idiotic myths that have perpetuated about Mozart, the most idiotic being Schaeffer's Amadeus.


I'd like to see a list of the myths that have grown up about other composers, and how we now know they're probably not true. Chopin, Beethoven,Vivaldi, Brahms, Haydn, Debussy?


----------



## Star

Luchesi said:


> I'd like to see a list of the myths that have grown up about other composers, and how we now know they're probably not true. Chopin, Beethoven,Vivaldi, Brahms, Haydn, Debussy?


Anyone help here?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> The genius comes in the quality of the music.


Exactly so. I'm not sure why some find this point so hard to grasp.


----------



## Star

MacLeod said:


> Exactly so. I'm not sure why some find this point so hard to grasp.


Yes there are a whole load of composers even today who churn out music for movies regularly. But then you wouldn't compare their music with Mozart. I remember Bernstein talking in a programme about Westside story and commenting on his music that it wasn't as fresh as Mozart but then he said , "But whose in that league anyway?"


----------



## Michael Diemer

Star said:


> Anyone help here?


Well, off the top of my head, Debussy seems to have acquired an undeserved reputation for being a guy who went around dumping women left and right. but the known facts are these: He lived with a woman named Gabby Dupont. He then married a woman named Rosie Texier. He had an affair with and then married the wife of a wealthy banker (who he had his only known child with); whose name escapes me at the moment (Lily comers to mind, but this is off the top of my head after all). That doesn't sound especially shocking to me. Could well describe the average guy in America these days. Brahms, on the other hand, was well known to have consorted constantly with prostitutes, and poor Schumann was barely in the sanitarium before Johannes moved in with Clara. Of the two, I think Debussy was the more admirable. At least he married two of the women, and had some semblance of a normal family life. Sadly, his beloved Chou Chou died just a couple of years after he did, at 13 or 14 years of age. I once named a cat after her.


----------



## Larkenfield

I rarely trust the "myth-breaking" historians who so often can have their own hidden agendas for money, attention, and power, supposedly in the name of truth. The actual lives of some of these great musicians and composers are so much more compelling than myth, an example being the amazing relationship between Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann: 
https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/scandalous-overtures-brahms-clara-schumann/er


----------



## Michael Diemer

It is difficult to know exactly what to believe. Perhaps we all believe what we want to believe about our heroes. The truth is, they were all human beings, with all the failings and contradictions that beset us all. In the end, it's still all about the music. I still love Saint Saens' music, despite the rumors I have heard about him. And I'm sure there were exemplary human beings in every sense whose music doesn't do a thing for me. It's really about the music. It acquires a life of its own. Sometimes we are delighted to learn about the people who made it; sometimes it's better not to know. And yet, it must also be true that the music contains some essence of the creator. Hopefully the best parts!


----------



## Star

Larkenfield said:


> I rarely trust the "myth-breaking" historians who so often can have their own hidden agendas for money, attention, and power, supposedly in the name of truth. The actual lives of some of these great musicians and composers are so much more compelling than myth, an example being the amazing relationship between Johannes Brahms and Clara Schumann:
> https://robertgreenbergmusic.com/scandalous-overtures-brahms-clara-schumann/er


It says Robert Schumann died insane of Syphilis. Did Clara catch it from him? If so she lved to an old age. Anyone help here?


----------



## Star

Michael Diemer said:


> It is difficult to know exactly what to believe. Perhaps we all believe what we want to believe about our heroes. The truth is, they were all human beings, with all the failings and contradictions that beset us all. In the end, it's still all about the music. I still love Saint Saens' music, despite the rumors I have heard about him. And I'm sure there were exemplary human beings in every sense whose music doesn't do a thing for me. It's really about the music. It acquires a life of its own. Sometimes we are delighted to learn about the people who made it; sometimes it's better not to know. And yet, it must also be true that the music contains some essence of the creator. Hopefully the best parts!


I have no problem apart from when dubious philosophies make their way into the musical works


----------



## Genoveva

Star said:


> It says Robert Schumann died insane of Syphilis. Did Clara catch it from him? If so she lved to an old age. Anyone help here?


It's simple to research this by using Google or similar. It took me of all about 2 minutes to confirm what I recalled from earlier my reading.

Robert Schumann probably contracted syphilis at around age 21 but was evidently pronounced "cured" a few weeks later after the initial symptons wore off. In those days doctors knew virtually nothing about the ongoing nature of this disease, and he carried the disease for many years in secondary form. It was in 1854 that it developed into the tertiary stage, attacking his brain.

Against this, Clara was some 9 nine years younger than Robert, and they married when she reached the age of 21. Do the math (or maths).


----------



## Star

Genoveva said:


> It's simple to research this by using Google or similar. It took me of all about 2 minutes to confirm what I recalled from earlier my reading.
> 
> Robert Schumann probably contracted syphilis at around age 21 but was evidently pronounced "cured" a few weeks later after the initial symptons wore off. In those days doctors knew virtually nothing about the ongoing nature of this disease, and he carried the disease for many years in secondary form. It was in 1854 that it developed into the tertiary stage, attacking his brain.
> 
> Against this, Clara was some 9 nine years younger than Robert, and they married when she reached the age of 21. Do the math (or maths).


Yes I can do the maths but it doesn't answer my question as to whether Clara caught the syphilis from Robert.


----------



## Genoveva

MacLeod said:


> DavidA said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The genius comes in the quality of the music_
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly so. I'm not sure why some find this point so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I completely understand what is being asserted in the above exchange, but if it's stating that it is possible to reach an objective view about comparative levels of "genius" among certain composers based on the "quality of the music" that they produced, doesn't this presume (_ipso facto_) that it is possible to measure objectively the quality of the music by those composers?

If it is maintained that the quality of music cannot be measured, or ranked among different composers, then the whole question of whether or not any of the composers was a genius doesn't get very far if quality is deemed to be the only relevant factor.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that is possible to measure objectively the quality of the music by certain composers, I'm not clear how one might then one rank the level of genius if the quality of their music is deemed to be broadly similar same across a fairly wide range of their output. In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the composers who had a much faster work rate [and who could therefore have theoretically written vast amounts more high quality music if only they had lived longer] had a greater level of genius than those who took much longer, and who showed evidence of having to slog at it quite hard, in order to achieve to produce their output?

If so, and given the uncertainties in the fundamental premises concerning the measureability of the quality of music and levels of genius, I'm not sure why some apparently find this latter point so hard to grasp.


----------



## Genoveva

Star said:


> Yes I can do the maths but it doesn't answer my question as to whether Clara caught the syphilis from Robert.


I have not seen any suggestions that Clara Schumann contracted syphilis. As is well known, she led a very active life, was busy with family upbringing, had many recital tours, and did a great deal to promote her deceased husband's works after he died. She died of a stroke at the age of 76. If, however, she did catch the disease in some form (and I stress if), the maths suggests that it would have been caught from Robert, given that he already had it when their relationship first started. There was no cure for syphilis until well after she died, so it's most unlikely that she may have been treated for it.


----------



## Larkenfield

Genoveva said:


> I have not seen any suggestions that Clara Schumann contracted syphilis. As is well known, she led a very active life, was busy with family upbringing, had many recital tours, and did a great deal to promote her deceased husband's works after he died. She died of a stroke at the age of 76. If, however, she did catch the disease in some form (and I stress if), the maths suggests that it would have been caught from Robert, given that he already had it when their relationship first started. There was no cure for syphilis until well after she died, so it's most unlikely that she may have been treated for it.


I've often wondered about the same thing regarding Clara's health. Robert seems to have been something of a sex addict according to some of the accounts I've read. I've also wondered if her health could have been a factor in the ultimate outcome of her relationship with Brahms. Or vice versa. Brothels weren't exactly an unknown quantity to Brahms. They may have both been exposed to the dreaded condition and might not have wanted to expose it to the other if they had contracted it.


----------



## Guest

Genoveva said:


> I'm not sure that I completely understand what is being asserted in the above exchange,


You'd need to read further back to find the thread. When asked for an explanation of Mozart's 'genius', some say that it was the ease with which he wrote, compared to the labour that, for example, Beethoven allegedly put into his works. The counter assertion (from me and some others) is that the amount of labour is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the work itself. If it was the ease of writing that counts, Mozart's works would have been even better if he'd worked at them less! If it's the intensity of labour, think how much better his works would have been if only he'd tried harder and not just tossed them off with ease!


----------



## jdec

MacLeod said:


> You'd need to read further back to find the thread. When asked for an explanation of Mozart's 'genius', some say that it was the ease with which he wrote, compared to the labour that, for example, Beethoven allegedly put into his works. The counter assertion (from me and some others) is that the amount of labour is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the work itself. If it was the ease of writing that counts, Mozart's works would have been even better if he'd worked at them less! *If it's the intensity of labour, think how much better his works would have been if only he'd tried harder and not just tossed them off with ease!*


Unfortunately Mozart did not have any kind of patronage, like for example Beethoven had, so Mozart really had to write his works for a living, and that means to produce them as much and fast as possible (as only he could with such high quality). Even so, his works stand among the best in history of music. That's true genius to me. We can just imagine how much better his works would have been if he had had more time to labour them harder without any financial stress, and if he had lived longer too.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that is possible to measure objectively the quality of the music by certain composers, I'm not clear how one might then one rank the level of genius if the quality of their music is deemed to be broadly similar same across a fairly wide range of their output. *In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the composers who had a much faster work rate [and who could therefore have theoretically written vast amounts more high quality music if only they had lived longer] had a greater level of genius than those who took much longer*, and who showed evidence of having to slog at it quite hard, in order to achieve to produce their output?


No, it would not be reasonable. There are many reasons one composer might be less prolific than another that have nothing to do with innate ability:
1) A composer might be lazy.
2) A composer might have health issues. For example, a composer who was deaf might have special challenges that slowed down his work process, especially if he, like Mozart, relied on a keyboard instrument to compose.
3) A composer might have another job. Rachmaninoff, for example, had a relatively small output in part because he was a touring virtuoso who traveled the world performing for many years. He also spent several years as a conductor. 
4) A genius composer might choose to compose for one hour a day and spend the rest of the time drinking and having sex.


----------



## Guest

jdec said:


> Unfortunately Mozart did not have any kind of patronage, like for example Beethoven had, so Mozart really had to write his works for a living, and that means to produce them as much and fast as possible (as only he could with such high quality). Even so, his works stand among the best in history of music. That's true genius to me. We can just imagine how much better his works would have been if he had had more time to labour them harder without any financial stress, and if he had lived longer too.


Frankly, the actual history is not what interests me - it's the pure logic of the argument that ease=genius or labour=genius - and there is no logic there as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jdec

EdwardBast said:


> No, it would not be reasonable. There are many reasons one composer might be less prolific than another that have nothing to do with innate ability:
> 1) A composer might be lazy.
> 2) A composer might have health issues. For example, a composer who was deaf might have special challenges that slowed down his work process, especially if he, like Mozart, relied on a keyboard instrument to compose.
> 3) A composer might have another job. Rachmaninoff, for example, had a relatively small output in part because he was a touring virtuoso who traveled the world performing for many years. He also spent several years as a conductor.
> 4) A genius composer might choose to compose for one hour a day and spend the rest of the time drinking and having sex.


And Mozart could do it all, produce great music fast with and without keyboard, work as a pianist, speak 5 languages, drink, have sex, play billiards.


----------



## jdec

MacLeod said:


> Frankly, the actual history is not what interests me - it's the pure logic of the argument that ease=genius or labour=genius - and there is no logic there as far as I'm concerned.


Extreme quality + ease = genius.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You'd need to read further back to find the thread. When asked for an explanation of Mozart's 'genius', some say that it was the ease with which he wrote, compared to the labour that, for example, Beethoven allegedly put into his works. The counter assertion (from me and some others) is that the amount of labour is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the work itself. If it was the ease of writing that counts, Mozart's works would have been even better if he'd worked at them less! *If it's the intensity of labour, think how much better his works would have been if only he'd tried harder and not just tossed them off with ease*!


That sort of argument doesn't work with creative genius and the way it works. With Mozart genius expressed itself with works that were almost perfectly written first time. Beethoven was different


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> That sort of argument doesn't work with creative genius and the way it works.


What sort of argument? I think I'm stuck in some kind of wormhole here. I'm not advancing any argument - I'm showing holes in others' arguments!


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> You'd need to read further back to find the thread. When asked for an explanation of Mozart's 'genius', some say that it was the ease with which he wrote, compared to the labour that, for example, Beethoven allegedly put into his works. The counter assertion (from me and some others) is that the amount of labour is irrelevant. What matters is what is in the work itself. If it was the ease of writing that counts, Mozart's works would have been even better if he'd worked at them less! *If it's the intensity of labour, think how much better his works would have been if only he'd tried harder and not just tossed them off with ease*!


I'll post it again as it didn't take. 
That sort of argument doesn't work with creative genius and the way it works. With Mozart genius expressed itself with works that were almost perfectly written first time. Beethoven was different. Sam with writers. Some writers have it almost first time with minimum editing. Others have to sweat, edit and re-edit. But it's the end result that counts


----------



## Michael Diemer

Genoveva said:


> I'm not sure that I completely understand what is being asserted in the above exchange, but if it's stating that it is possible to reach an objective view about comparative levels of "genius" among certain composers based on the "quality of the music" that they produced, doesn't this presume (_ipso facto_) that it is possible to measure objectively the quality of the music by those composers?
> 
> If it is maintained that the quality of music cannot be measured, or ranked among different composers, then the whole question of whether or not any of the composers was a genius doesn't get very far if quality is deemed to be the only relevant factor.
> 
> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that is possible to measure objectively the quality of the music by certain composers, I'm not clear how one might then one rank the level of genius if the quality of their music is deemed to be broadly similar same across a fairly wide range of their output. In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the composers who had a much faster work rate [and who could therefore have theoretically written vast amounts more high quality music if only they had lived longer] had a greater level of genius than those who took much longer, and who showed evidence of having to slog at it quite hard, in order to achieve to produce their output?
> 
> If so, and given the uncertainties in the fundamental premises concerning the measureability of the quality of music and levels of genius, I'm not sure why some apparently find this latter point so hard to grasp.


I think that the attempt to objectify the quality of someone's art, in this case music; as well as the amount of genius they must have had in order to produce it, is both unnecessary and futile. Fortunately, we have other ways to "measure" genius. A composer's popularity is one way. If a composer remains highly popular across several centuries, and their music is constantly performed and purchased, they were very likely a genius. Also, art is something we respond to on levels other then the scientific or rational. It reaches a different part of our brains/minds/consciousness. If my intuition overwhelmingly tells me that Mozart was a genius, then he was. Because I have a highly developed intuitive sense. not everyone does, but I do, and I know genius when I hear it.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I'll post it again as it didn't take.


It didn't take with whom? It 'took' with me. What I was rejecting was the idea that I was advancing an argument.



DavidA said:


> it's the end result that counts


Exactly so.

Anyone want to go round that one again?


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> It didn't take with whom? It 'took' with me. What I was rejecting was the idea that I was advancing an argument.
> 
> Exactly so.
> 
> Anyone want to go round that one again?


I meant the text of the post itself didn't take for some reason


----------



## Genoveva

Larkenfield said:


> I've often wondered about the same thing regarding Clara's health. Robert seems to have been something of a sex addict according to some of the accounts I've read. I've also wondered if her health could have been a factor in the ultimate outcome of her relationship with Brahms. Or vice versa. Brothels weren't exactly an unknown quantity to Brahms. They may have both been exposed to the dreaded condition and might not have wanted to expose it to the other if they had contracted it.


I agree that there do appear to be some loose ends here.

If Robert Schumann definitely had syphilis, and assuming this developed into its tertiary form of neurosyphilis which finally caused his death, then it would seem unlikely that Clara could have avoided contracting the disease from him, given its nature and the lack of any effective treatment for the underlying condition.

It's also possible that Robert Newman didn't have syphilis and that his various mental ups and down during his lifetime and his final descent into insanity were caused by something else (e.g. bi-polar disorder, as suggested by some assessments).

Another possibility is that Clara did contract syphilis from him it but it was hushed up in some way, and it didn't develop into the tertiary stage which would otherwise have killed her. [Not all cases of untreated syphilis end up with the tertiary condition]. I have no opinion on the strength of any of these different possibilities.

Nor do I have any opinion on the situation with regard to Brahms. As with Clara Schumann, I have never read anything that suggests that he ever contracted syphilis. In his youth he was known to have frequented one or two brothels in his home town of Hamburg but I understood that this was because he was employed as a pianist as such venues.


----------



## Genoveva

I think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors. 

The level of genius can't just be measured by the quality factor alone, as on that reckoning a composer would only need to have written one very high quality work over his/her lifetime, and spent the rest of it in some other way, in order to qualify as a genius. The total number of very high quality works produced by a composer over their lifetime must surely also be relevant. 

Given that Mozart produced (roughly) as many very high quality works as did Beethoven over a much shorter lifespan, it hardly needs a mathematical genius to infer that, had Mozart lived much longer than he did, he might well have produced a far greater number of very quality works than did Beethoven. If so, Mozart could be said to be the composer with the higher level of genius since he would have produced more qualifying work.

This is not to be confused with the argument that if Mozart had produced his given number of very high quality works in much less time than he actually required to complete them in the form we know today, his genius would be deemed to be even greater than it is generally considered to be, by virtue of these works having been produced more quickly. That's obviously just a piece of completely fallacious argument.

I don't believe that I'm saying anything controversial here as the time factor is important in most, if not all, assessments of human creative, mental or physical ability. For example, if a person with a merely average IQ was given unlimited time in which to answer a standard IQ test, rather than a fixed amount of time as is the norm, then the results would not be expected to be particularly accurate, and could be downright misleading as regards indicating the true level of intelligence.


----------



## KenOC

Genoveva said:


> I think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors.


Leif Segerstam will be pleased to hear that, since it places him squarely among the greatest symphonic composers of all time.


----------



## poconoron

Genoveva said:


> I think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors.
> 
> The level of genius can't just be measured by the quality factor alone, as on that reckoning a composer would only need to have written one very high quality work over his/her lifetime, and spent the rest of it in some other way, in order to qualify as a genius. The total number of very high quality works produced by a composer over their lifetime must surely also be relevant.
> 
> Given that Mozart produced (roughly) as many very high quality works as did Beethoven over a much shorter lifespan, it hardly needs a mathematical genius to infer that, had Mozart lived much longer than he did, he might well have produced a far greater number of very quality works than did Beethoven. If so, Mozart could be said to be the composer with the higher level of genius since he would have produced more qualifying work.
> 
> This is not to be confused with the argument that if Mozart had produced his given number of very high quality works in much less time than he actually required to complete them in the form we know today, his genius would be deemed to be even greater than it is generally considered to be, by virtue of these works having been produced more quickly. That's obviously just a piece of completely fallacious argument.
> 
> I don't believe that I'm saying anything controversial here as the time factor is important in most, if not all, assessments of human creative, mental or physical ability. For example, if a person with a merely average IQ was given unlimited time in which to answer a standard IQ test, rather than a fixed amount of time as is the norm, then the results would not be expected to be particularly accurate, and could be downright misleading as regards indicating the true level of intelligence.


Very well said.............


----------



## jdec

genoveva said:


> *i think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors.
> 
> The level of genius can't just be measured by the quality factor alone, as on that reckoning a composer would only need to have written one very high quality work over his/her lifetime, and spent the rest of it in some other way, in order to qualify as a genius. The total number of very high quality works produced by a composer over their lifetime must surely also be relevant.
> 
> Given that mozart produced (roughly) as many very high quality works as did beethoven over a much shorter lifespan, it hardly needs a mathematical genius to infer that, had mozart lived much longer than he did, he might well have produced a far greater number of very quality works than did beethoven. If so, mozart could be said to be the composer with the higher level of genius since he would have produced more qualifying work.
> 
> This is not to be confused with the argument that if mozart had produced his given number of very high quality works in much less time than he actually required to complete them in the form we know today, his genius would be deemed to be even greater than it is generally considered to be, by virtue of these works having been produced more quickly. That's obviously just a piece of completely fallacious argument.
> 
> I don't believe that i'm saying anything controversial here as the time factor is important in most, if not all, assessments of human creative, mental or physical ability. For example, if a person with a merely average iq was given unlimited time in which to answer a standard iq test, rather than a fixed amount of time as is the norm, then the results would not be expected to be particularly accurate, and could be downright misleading as regards indicating the true level of intelligence.*


Amen to all that.

........


----------



## jdec

KenOC said:


> Leif Segerstam will be pleased to hear that, since it places him squarely among the greatest symphonic composers of all time.


Mmmmhh...not sure he applies here, remember, 'very high quality' music is one of the relevant factors assessed here.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Genoveva said:


> I think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors.
> 
> The level of genius can't just be measured by the quality factor alone, as on that reckoning a composer would only need to have written one very high quality work over his/her lifetime, and spent the rest of it in some other way, in order to qualify as a genius. The total number of very high quality works produced by a composer over their lifetime must surely also be relevant.
> 
> Given that Mozart produced (roughly) as many very high quality works as did Beethoven over a much shorter lifespan, it hardly needs a mathematical genius to infer that, had Mozart lived much longer than he did, he might well have produced a far greater number of very quality works than did Beethoven. If so, Mozart could be said to be the composer with the higher level of genius since he would have produced more qualifying work.
> 
> This is not to be confused with the argument that if Mozart had produced his given number of very high quality works in much less time than he actually required to complete them in the form we know today, his genius would be deemed to be even greater than it is generally considered to be, by virtue of these works having been produced more quickly. That's obviously just a piece of completely fallacious argument.
> 
> I don't believe that I'm saying anything controversial here as the time factor is important in most, if not all, assessments of human creative, mental or physical ability. For example, if a person with a merely average IQ was given unlimited time in which to answer a standard IQ test, rather than a fixed amount of time as is the norm, then the results would not be expected to be particularly accurate, and could be downright misleading as regards indicating the true level of intelligence.


Agree with everything you said. Another way we can infer genius is by how much a composer is discussed on a forum, such as this one. Well, that leads to a pretty obvious conclusion.

Speaking of genius, and how it can create prodigious amounts of extremely high quality art in a short period of time, how about that Schubert lad? He died three years younger than Mozart. All I can say is, if he had lived as long as , say Beethoven, we might be talking about Franz as the greatest musical genius in history. I just heard his sonata for cello and piano on a web radio station from Italy. Good god, the genius just drips from every note.


----------



## jdec

Michael Diemer said:


> Agree with everything you said. Another way we can infer genius is by how much a composer is discussed on a forum, such as this one. Well, that leads to a pretty obvious conclusion.
> 
> Speaking of genius, and how it can create prodigious amounts of extremely high quality art in a short period of time, how about that Schubert lad? He died three years younger than Mozart. All I can say is, if he had lived as long as , say Beethoven, we might be talking about Franz as the greatest musical genius in history. I just heard his sonata for cello and piano on a web radio station from Italy. Good god, the genius just drips from every note.


Schubert is another musical genius no doubt about it. And how would you compare Schubert's achievements with Mozart's both at 31 years old?


----------



## JosefinaHW

Genoveva said:


> I agree that there do appear to be some loose ends here.
> 
> _(If Robert Schumann definitely had syphilis, and assuming this developed into its tertiary form of neurosyphilis which finally caused his death, then it would seem unlikely that Clara could have avoided contracting the disease from him, given its nature and the lack of any effective treatment for the underlying condition.)_
> 
> J: It's my understanding that cases of syphilis are considerably on the rise (at least in the US), but even as the CDC has sent out alerts about the increase and released suggested protocols for testing, there are some things that are still NOT known about the nature of infection:
> 
> First, why do men contract the disease in much higher numbers than women? Given that this is the case, it is possible that IF Robert did in fact have syphilis it is strongly possible that her immune system fought it off successfully,* however I think the following is what is more probable IF Robert had contracted it.*
> 
> Syphilis infection has three stages, ONLY the first stage is infectious. IF Robert, born in 1810, contracted it when he was 21 (1831), he did not become engaged to Clara until 1837 and they did not marry until 1840. Whether they had intercourse prior to engagement or marriage, he would have already had he disease for 16 years. Most likely he would have either been in the latent stage (not infectious, no symptoms, and some patients don't even experience a latent phase, it goes directly to the tertiary stage (not infectious). Sixteen years (and even a significantly lesser period) is long enough for him to have the disease, but not be infectious.
> 
> I don't know what type of journals Robert or Clara kept, so maybe there is some mention in those writings, but it is my understanding that Clara's father went to GREAT lengths to destroy Robert's character in order to prevent him from marrying his daughter. Considering those GREAT lengths, if he found out that Robert had syphilis, her father would have broadcast that information wide and far.
> 
> _(It's also possible that Robert (Newman) didn't have syphilis and that his various mental ups and down during his lifetime and his final descent into insanity were caused by something else (e.g. bi-polar disorder, as suggested by some assessments).
> 
> _As Genoveva stated above, I also think there is a very strong possibility that Robert's mental problems were inherited; again, I understand that other members of his family had mental problems. Robert was born an EXTREMELY sensitive child, extreme sensitivity can also lead to a person who is at high risk for "mental" problems (I put mental in quotation marks here because it is becoming clearer and clearer that what have been considered "mental" illnesses, are really illnesses that involve the entire body.)


----------



## poconoron

jdec said:


> Schubert is another musical genius no doubt about it. And how would you compare Schubert's achievements with Mozart's both at 31 years old?


Schubert would compare very favorably I think. The main difference would be Mozart's superiority in mastering _all_ forms of composition - including Opera. Schubert does not match Mozart's mastery of the Opera form, IMHO. And, he apparently did not write any concertos,


----------



## Michael Diemer

jdec said:


> Schubert is another musical genius no doubt about it. And how would you compare Schubert's achievements with Mozart's both at 31 years old?


That's a bit of a tough one. Mozart was "ahead" in the sense that he had such an incredibly early start, with already touring on violin at, what, age 5? and then piano a few years later? Composing his first opera at 12 or something? He had, actually, a fairly long career as a composer. At 17, he was the greatest living composer. True, he only lived another 18 years, but that head start got him off faster than any composer in history. Nobody can rival his prodigiousness (may be a new word, spell checker doesn't recognize it). Schubert was a bit later in time, so a romantic vs classicist, so I think the comparison may be more with Beethoven. (Although Schubert's early symphonies are very Mozartian; I often am fooled at the beginning of the 5th, thinking it's Mozart). But his 9th is better than most of Beethoven's. We can only wonder where he would have gone after that if he had the chance.


----------



## Genoveva

Michael Diemer said:


> Speaking of genius, and how it can create prodigious amounts of extremely high quality art in a short period of time, how about that Schubert lad? He died *three* years younger than Mozart. All I can say is, if he had lived as long as , say Beethoven, we might be talking about Franz as the greatest musical genius in history. I just heard his sonata for cello and piano on a web radio station from Italy. Good god, the genius just drips from every note.


Schubert was 4 years younger than Mozart at the time of his death. I agree that if Schubert had lived a few years longer his current reputation might be even higher than it is, which is already very high since he has usually come out in the range 3-5 in most forum based opinion polls that I've ever looked at.

It's entirely a personal opinion but I would place Schubert as the greatest musical genius of them all. The number of extremely high quality works produced by him over this his short lifetime is astonishing. What Schubert lacked in any successful opera works he made up for in lieder, an important area which he revolutionised. Schubert is, on most reckoning, the one of the greatest song-writers ever. Regards opera he had several unsuccessful attempts, all of which were mainly let down by poor libretti. But there again, Beethoven only produced one opera, over which he poured and struggled for several years. Mozart of course is the "king" of opera, but it's not a genre that is at the top of my heap of classical music listening.

I say that this is a personal opinion because, on the whole, I happen to prefer Schubert's work - especially his work for for piano, chamber works, his symphonies, sacred music - to that produced by his usual comparators. I find something extra in Schubert's works that the competition doesn't contain. I think it has something to do with the uncanny way that Schubert changed mood, tempo, and varied the melody so imperceptibly as to produce more interesting pieces that hold my attention for longer.

It's also well-known that Schubert struggled with disappointment both in his personal life (career and possible marriage) and health issues for a long time. His last and probably most famous works were written during the year of his death 1828 when his health deteriorated quite rapidly. These factors add to his greatness in my opinion.
.


----------



## Star

Michael Diemer said:


> That's a bit of a tough one. Mozart was "ahead" in the sense that he had such an incredibly early start, with already touring on violin at, what, age 5? and then piano a few years later? Composing his first opera at 12 or something? He had, actually, a fairly long career as a composer. At 17, he was the greatest living composer. True, he only lived another 18 years, but that head start got him off faster than any composer in history. Nobody can rival his prodigiousness (may be a new word, spell checker doesn't recognize it). Schubert was a bit later in time, so a romantic vs classicist, so I think the comparison may be more with Beethoven. (Although Schubert's early symphonies are very Mozartian; I often am fooled at the beginning of the 5th, thinking it's Mozart).* But his 9th is better than most of Beethoven's*. We can only wonder where he would have gone after that if he had the chance.


I am second to none n my admiration of Schubert but to say his 9th is better than most of Beethoven's is stretching things a bit. I think if Schubert had lved as long even as Mzart we might have had something remarkable. As it is the number of songs he wrote (and their quality) is incredible.


----------



## poconoron

At one time - over 30 years ago, I didn't care much for Opera. These days, I wouldn't think of living without the 7 great Mozart Operas which comprise some of my most enjoyable listening by far. 

Schubert comes in among my top 5 composers in listening pleasure.


----------



## EdwardBast

Genoveva said:


> I think that in assessing a composer's level of genius the quality of the music written and the total amount of it produced are both relevant factors.
> 
> The level of genius can't just be measured by the quality factor alone, as on that reckoning a composer would only need to have written one very high quality work over his/her lifetime, and spent the rest of it in some other way, in order to qualify as a genius. The total number of very high quality works produced by a composer over their lifetime must surely also be relevant.
> 
> Given that Mozart produced (roughly) as many very high quality works as did Beethoven over a much shorter lifespan, it hardly needs a mathematical genius to infer that, had Mozart lived much longer than he did, he might well have produced a far greater number of very quality works than did Beethoven. If so, Mozart could be said to be the composer with the higher level of genius since he would have produced more qualifying work.
> 
> *This is not to be confused with the argument that if Mozart had produced his given number of very high quality works in much less time than he actually required to complete them in the form we know today, his genius would be deemed to be even greater than it is generally considered to be, by virtue of these works having been produced more quickly. That's obviously just a piece of completely fallacious argument.*
> 
> I don't believe that I'm saying anything controversial here as the time factor is important in most, if not all, assessments of human creative, mental or physical ability. For example, if a person with a merely average IQ was given unlimited time in which to answer a standard IQ test, rather than a fixed amount of time as is the norm, then the results would not be expected to be particularly accurate, and could be downright misleading as regards indicating the true level of intelligence.


Yes, the reasoning in the bold section is fallacious. But do you really not see that it is thoroughly consistent with and follows directly from the rest of what you have written? You have shot your own argument through the head but don't seem to realize it.


----------



## Genoveva

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, the reasoning in the bold section is fallacious. But do you really not see that it is thoroughly consistent with and follows directly from the rest of what you have written? You have shot your own argument through the head but don't seem to realize it.


I'm sorry that you appear to have trouble understanding what I wrote.

My main point was it that is not correct to suggest that the only thing that matters is the quality of work produced by a composer regardless of its quantity. The fact is that that some of the great composers worked faster than others did. In the present context, Mozart's work rate is well known to have been faster than that of Beethoven, but Mozart died young.

If "genius" takes into account the number of great works produced then potentially Mozart's genius could be argued to be greater than that of Beethoven, but only if Mozart had continued to produce more great works. However, because we don't for sure what Mozart would have achieved if he had lived longer, there is no basis for suggesting that Mozart's genius was any different from what we know of him based on the work he actually produced.

Especially dubious is the argument I have seen advanced by some that a composer who wrote a great work would be deemed to be even greater if he had written it in less time than it actually took. This is because there is likely to be a minimum amount of time that each composer needs to compose the "great" work in question, so by suggesting that if it had been written any quicker would have made it better, or the composer even "greater", is a very dubious proposition, and does not constitute grounds for ignoring quantity of high quality work.

If you re-read what I wrote - especially the third paragraph in my earlier post, which is hedged about with all the necessary "if" type qualifications - then I trust that it may become clearer to you, but if it doesn't I'm afraid that I can't be bothered to spend any more time on this matter.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Interesting discussion here. We have these factors figuring into the level of genius a composer had, from what I can gather: number of high quality works composed; speed and ease with which they were composed; the enduring popularity of the composer; and perhaps the adversity under which they worked. Poor health obviously was a frequent issue, as the state of medicine at the time was primitive, and did as much damage as good to the afflicted. Beethoven went deaf at an early age. Schumann and Schubert both had serious infectious diseases. Mozart, I'm not really sure what he died of, or if it is known (I have heard the medical consensus is that it may have been kidney disease). But the point is, these folks labored under conditions we moderns would find impossible to work in. No computers! No sampled libraries, or notation programs! Hell, not even decent writing implements or paper; they were using quills (!) and ink and whatever passed for paper in those days. how any of them managed to work at all is beyond me. That they produced mountains of the highest quality music ever written is almost beyond comprehension.

Perhaps we ought to argue less about the picayune details that we modern midgets like to quibble about, and just step back and gaze in wonder at what they have wrought. There were giants in those days...


----------



## Genoveva

JosefinaHW said:


> Syphilis infection has three stages, ONLY the first stage is infectious. IF Robert, born in 1810, contracted it when he was 21 (1831), he did not become engaged to Clara until 1837 and they did not marry until 1840. Whether they had intercourse prior to engagement or marriage, he would have already had he disease for 16 years. Most likely he would have either been in the latent stage (not infectious, no symptoms, and some patients don't even experience a latent phase, it goes directly to the tertiary stage (not infectious). Sixteen years (and even a significantly lesser period) is long enough for him to have the disease, but not be infectious.


I would say that that the issue you raise above is fraught with such a large amount of incomplete information (e.g. the variable gestation lags among individuals between the different stages of syphilis, assuming he had it at some stage) that it's not possible to make any reliable inferences about the situation as it may have affected Clara. That's probably why there is no information that I'm aware that has ever surfaced on this topic concerning Clara, with all the speculation being in regard to Robert only.


----------



## DavidA

However long (or short) Mozart lived he produced enough staggering music to proclaim his genius to the world. If we take the definition of genius as 'exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability' then WAM had it in spades.


----------



## Genoveva

Michael Diemer said:


> Interesting discussion here. We have these factors figuring into the level of genius a composer had, from what I can gather: number of high quality works composed; speed and ease with which they were composed; the enduring popularity of the composer; and perhaps the adversity under which they worked. Poor health obviously was a frequent issue, as the state of medicine at the time was primitive, and did as much damage as good to the afflicted. Beethoven went deaf at an early age. Schumann and Schubert both had serious infectious diseases. Mozart, I'm not really sure what he died of, or if it is known (I have heard the medical consensus is that it may have been kidney disease). But the point is, these folks labored under conditions we moderns would find impossible to work in. No computers! No sampled libraries, or notation programs! Hell, not even decent writing implements or paper; they were using quills (!) and ink and whatever passed for paper in those days. how any of them managed to work at all is beyond me. That they produced mountains of the highest quality music ever written is almost beyond comprehension.
> 
> Perhaps we ought to argue less about the picayune details that we modern midgets like to quibble about, and just step back and gaze in wonder at what they have wrought. There were giants in those days...


There have been innumerable previous discussions at T-C, and at several other classical music forums, over the past decade or so, on the vexed question of which are the "greatest" composers, and whether they can be ranked in any kind of sensible order. It has been a regular debating point that can be counted upon to appear several times a year, but hardly any consensus has ever emerged.

Some people have argued that the concept of "greatest" composers cannot be measured objectively. Others think that "popularity over the long term" is a good proxy for the "greatest", and since popularity can be (roughly) measured so it is possible to arrive at a list of the "greatest" composers that, whilst not entirely objective in any scientific way, is not that bad a proxy.

This thread, however, has raised a slightly different matter. It was initially about what attributes of Mozart's music make it so great. It was (rightly) assumed that most people would agree that there is a lot of Mozart's music that is great, and sought to identify what specific characteristics make it so in comparison with the work of other less august composers. Some posts have tried to answer this question, but many others have veered off course somewhat, to say the least. That's what tends to happen with very long threads after a while.

I must admit that I rather lost interest in the thread soon after it first appeared many months ago, as it got off to a rather unfortunate start. My involvement then was to assist one or two others mainly in connection with disposing of what suspiciously looked like an attempt by another member to validate the misgivings about Mozart's authenticity that were promulgated by a well-known troll who was banished long ago from this and several forums.

More recently, I became interested in the argument that the "quality" of the music alone is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the "greatness" of the composer who wrote. This seems somewhat illogical to me as I'm not clear how they propose to measure greatness without previously measuring quality, a task which they appear to shy away from, or say they're not interested in. I decided to plunge in again, by suggesting that if quality is important and can be measured in some way then the number of high quality works is important as well. And here, the composers who had a higher work rate compared with the slow-coaches would tend to have an advantage, ceteris paribus. This seems to be so innocuous that it is scarcely believable that it might be challenged.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Genoveva said:

"This seems to be so innocuous that it is scarcely believable that it might be challenged."

It would scarcely be prudent to challenge one who uses the language as well as you do, esteemed member of venerable forum.


----------



## DavidA

Anyone doubting the genius of Mozart should pay he to the words of the conductor / Composer / musician extraordinaire, Leonard Bernstein. After hearing a performance of Cosi fan Tutte, Bernstein remarked, "I'd give my balls to have written four bars of that!"


----------



## Luchesi

Genoveva said:


> There have been innumerable previous discussions at T-C, and at several other classical music forums, over the past decade or so, on the vexed question of which are the "greatest" composers, and whether they can be ranked in any kind of sensible order. It has been a regular debating point that can be counted upon to appear several times a year, but hardly any consensus has ever emerged.
> 
> Some people have argued that the concept of "greatest" composers cannot be measured objectively. Others think that "popularity over the long term" is a good proxy for the "greatest", and since popularity can be (roughly) measured so it is possible to arrive at a list of the "greatest" composers that, whilst not entirely objective in any scientific way, is not that bad a proxy.
> 
> This thread, however, has raised a slightly different matter. It was initially about what attributes of Mozart's music make it so great. It was (rightly) assumed that most people would agree that there is a lot of Mozart's music that is great, and sought to identify what specific characteristics make it so in comparison with the work of other less august composers. Some posts have tried to answer this question, but many others have veered off course somewhat, to say the least. That's what tends to happen with very long threads after a while.
> 
> I must admit that I rather lost interest in the thread soon after it first appeared many months ago, as it got off to a rather unfortunate start. My involvement then was to assist one or two others mainly in connection with disposing of what suspiciously looked like an attempt by another member to validate the misgivings about Mozart's authenticity that were promulgated by a well-known troll who was banished long ago from this and several forums.
> 
> More recently, I became interested in the argument that the "quality" of the music alone is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the "greatness" of the composer who wrote. This seems somewhat illogical to me as I'm not clear how they propose to measure greatness without previously measuring quality, a task which they appear to shy away from, or say they're not interested in. I decided to plunge in again, by suggesting that if quality is important and can be measured in some way then the number of high quality works is important as well. And here, the composers who had a higher work rate compared with the slow-coaches would tend to have an advantage, ceteris paribus. This seems to be so innocuous that it is scarcely believable that it might be challenged.


...if quality is important and can be measured in some way then the number of high quality works is important as well.

high quality(?)

Succeeding in attaining its purpose. That's one for the philosophers. [JS Bach]

Impressing us these long years later with very intelligent and impressive uses of music theory (from the natural world), and all those connections we study. [WA Mozart]

Developing the Art from earlier outputs as an Olympian effort. [Beethoven]

Distilling centuries of the power of music in a well-founded attempt to reduce it all for our benefit. [Schoenberg]


----------



## poconoron

This................


----------



## poconoron

A few more words on the genius of Mozart:

_Give Mozart a fairy tale and he creates without effort an immortal masterpiece. _ *Camille Saint-Saëns *

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

_Mozart encompasses the entire domain of musical creation, but I've got only the keyboard in my poor head._ *F. Chopin*


----------



## jdec

From another genius:

“A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.”
— Goethe


----------



## PlaySalieri

jdec said:


> From another genius:
> 
> "A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing."
> - Goethe


and dont forget from the same man:

"comparing the childhood works of Mozart and Mendelssohn is like comparing childish chatter to mature conversation"


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> and dont forget from the same man:
> 
> "comparing the childhood works of Mozart and Mendelssohn is like comparing childish chatter to mature conversation"


Oh, come on, early Mozart isn't that bad! It occasionally matches early Mendelssohn.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> There have been innumerable previous discussions at T-C, and at several other classical music forums, over the past decade or so, on the vexed question of which are the "greatest" composers, and whether they can be ranked in any kind of sensible order. It has been a regular debating point that can be counted upon to appear several times a year, but hardly any consensus has ever emerged.
> 
> Some people have argued that the concept of "greatest" composers cannot be measured objectively. Others think that "popularity over the long term" is a good proxy for the "greatest", and since popularity can be (roughly) measured so it is possible to arrive at a list of the "greatest" composers that, whilst not entirely objective in any scientific way, is not that bad a proxy.
> 
> This thread, however, has raised a slightly different matter. It was initially about what attributes of Mozart's music make it so great. It was (rightly) assumed that most people would agree that there is a lot of Mozart's music that is great, and sought to identify what specific characteristics make it so in comparison with the work of other less august composers. Some posts have tried to answer this question, but many others have veered off course somewhat, to say the least. That's what tends to happen with very long threads after a while.
> 
> I must admit that I rather lost interest in the thread soon after it first appeared many months ago, as it got off to a rather unfortunate start. My involvement then was to assist one or two others mainly in connection with disposing of what suspiciously looked like an attempt by another member to validate the misgivings about Mozart's authenticity that were promulgated by a well-known troll who was banished long ago from this and several forums.
> 
> More recently, I became interested in the argument that the "quality" of the music alone is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate the "greatness" of the composer who wrote. This seems somewhat illogical to me as I'm not clear how they propose to measure greatness without previously measuring quality, a task which they appear to shy away from, or say they're not interested in. I decided to plunge in again, by suggesting that if quality is important and can be measured in some way then the number of high quality works is important as well. *And here, the composers who had a higher work rate compared with the slow-coaches would tend to have an advantage, ceteris paribus. This seems to be so innocuous that it is scarcely believable that it might be challenged.*


I would think few would challenge this additional yardstick. The composers that I personally hold in the highest esteem have - quality, quantity and range. Chopin was great - but his range diminishes his greatness - Bocherini has quantity - but no quality and no range. Verdi was a master of opera - but nothing else - I dont count his requiem. As the greatest opera composer (or 2nd greatest) his lack of range leaves him well down the league of great composers. Beethoven has range - but he has a significant blind spot - opera and church music - one masterpiece in each field does little to establish his credentials in either field. Schubert's operas are not good enough to elevate him and he composed no concertos. Haydn seems to have a great range but though he composed many operas - none of them are in the regular modern repertoire. His great achievements are in symphony and str quartet.
Who does that leave? Bach and Mozart.

I leave Bach aside - he had quantity and quality but it's not easy to compare his range with later masters.

Mozart's range is really what, in my view - sets him apart - there is no field in which he did not establish himself a master.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Good points there about "range." This brings to mind Tchaikovsky. Quite a bit of range there, opera, ballet, symphonies, chamber, solo piano. I don't know about sacred music or songs, perhaps someone can help me out here?

The quality is also there, and a good deal of quantity. does this make him coequal with Bach and Mozart? Few would think so. But I think a strong case can be made for the top ten, certainly top fifteen. I think it's a no-brainer that he is the greatest Russian composer (and there were are a lot of great ones). Am I wrong?


----------



## Luchesi

hmm...

Tchaikovsky, did he write a better violin concerto than any of Mozart’s? 'Perhaps debatable. 

Sibelius and his limited 'range', did he write a better string quartet (op56) than Mozart? 'Debatable, yes.

Beethoven didn't compose much church music, ah.. but his late piano sonatas compared to Mozart’s? ‘Debatable?? heh

This talk about the range of Mozart has stirred an odd feeling in me which I haven’t felt before about him. I wonder what the word for it is. Awe? or a form of jealousy? or a feeling of loss? He was such a young man!


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, come on, early Mozart isn't that bad! It occasionally matches early Mendelssohn.


Heh heh.

Had Mendelssohn gone on, as Mozart did, to surpass his youthful achievements, this conversation would be different.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Luchesi said:


> hmm...
> 
> Tchaikovsky, did he write a better violin concerto than any of Mozart's? 'Perhaps debatable.
> 
> Sibelius and his limited 'range', did he write a better string quartet (op56) than Mozart? 'Debatable, yes.
> 
> Beethoven didn't compose much church music, ah.. but his late piano sonatas compared to Mozart's? 'Debatable?? heh
> 
> This talk about the range of Mozart has stirred an odd feeling in me which I haven't felt before about him. I wonder what the word for it is. Awe? or a form of jealousy? or a feeling of loss? He was such a young man!


Hard to compare Tchaik and Mozart, two different periods.
Sibelius' string quartet is tremendous, but again two different periods.
LVB/mozart sonatas - closer but still different periods.

Re: Mozart's incredible genius and accomplishments: we must not compare ourselves to such god-like abilities, it can only lead to despair.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Tchaik's operas are really not in the master league - disagree if you want - but that's my view. His chamber music and piano works are nowhere near Schubert's league let alone Mozart or Beethoven.

He composed in fact 3 great symphonies, 1 great piano concerto - 1 great vc, a few popular ballets and some miscellany such as the Romeo and Juliet fantasy overture.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> hmm...
> 
> *Tchaikovsky, did he write a better violin concerto than any of Mozart's?* 'Perhaps debatable.
> 
> Sibelius and his limited 'range', did he write a better string quartet (op56) than Mozart? 'Debatable, yes.
> 
> Beethoven didn't compose much church music, ah.. but his late piano sonatas compared to Mozart's? 'Debatable?? heh
> 
> This talk about the range of Mozart has stirred an odd feeling in me which I haven't felt before about him. I wonder what the word for it is. Awe? or a form of jealousy? or a feeling of loss? He was such a young man!


Different types of work - Tchaik's vc is an epic ground breaking work - perhaps the best thing he ever wrote.

Mozart vcs are early works - precious nonetheless.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, come on, early Mozart isn't that bad! It occasionally matches early Mendelssohn.


I am afraid that Goethe was familiar with little of Mozart early music - much of it is better than is generally thought.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> I am afraid that Goethe was familiar with little of Mozart early music - much of it is better than is generally thought.


True enough. When you listen to some of his early works, the masses or serenades for instance, you're likely to say, "Hey, that's pretty good!"


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> True enough. When you listen to some of his early works, the masses or serenades for instance, you're likely to say, "Hey, that's pretty good!"


Some of the early operas are really quite well polished works that put many mature composers to shame at the time. If you examine Mendelssohn's early works - what is there exactly? Some string symphonies - an early violin concerto, three piano quartets. And of course - the piece upon which his reputation as a great child composer rests - a midsummer nights dream overture composed at 16. A remarkable piece which stands on its own and which falsely indicated Mendelssohn was going to scale heights higher than anyone before. Only in his supreme VC in my view - did he fulfill that early promise.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Different types of work - Tchaik's vc is an epic ground breaking work - perhaps the best thing he ever wrote.
> 
> Mozart vcs are early works - precious nonetheless.


Different 'types' of works, yes. As a general rule, we can't go back, in science or the arts. (I do it all the time when I compose, but I'm a hack. I can't go forward.. lol All the Greats did, to a larger or lesser degree, and that's an interesting study comparison for an opinionated group of music enthusiasts.)

Did Tchaikovsky ever attempt to play the violin? He created such striking and satisfying virtuosic passages from merely hearing accomplished violinists, I guess.

I can learn from listening to this 10yr(?) old girl play Wieniawski in this humorous skit. 'Just kidding..


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> True enough. When you listen to some of his early works, the masses or serenades for instance, you're likely to say, "Hey, that's pretty good!"


I caused some consternation over on Amazon when I asked what the big deal was about his very early works.

from Amadeus, "On the page it looked nothing!" But I can explain myself.. It's not the look of the scores, it's the logical sound structures he found, at such a young age. When recordings of these pieces became available I went back and listened.. My audiation skills were/are below average from what I gather. They've never improved much. My violinist friend is amazing.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> I am afraid that Goethe was familiar with little of Mozart early music - much of it is better than is generally thought.


Not to mention the likely bias due to the fact that Goethe and the Mendelssohns were well acquainted socially.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Mozart too was an incredibly hard worker. To produce the amount of music he did in just 35 years. The genius comes in the quality of the music.


Have you or other posters explained 'quality' in Mozart's works? Are there words for defining and explaining it?

It can be defined and described in rather dry musical theory terms as his unique use of the tools that he inherited and developed himself.. ..but this isn't everyone's cup of tea.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Luchesi said:


> *Have you or other posters explained 'quality' *in Mozart's works? Are there words for defining and explaining it?
> 
> It can be defined and described in rather dry musical theory terms as his unique use of the tools that he inherited and developed himself.. ..but this isn't everyone's cup of tea.


Neither in Mozarts works nor anyone else's

purely subjective

it's not far off talking about what is the best tasting chocolate

all we can do is trade views on this and maybe reach some kind of consensus about which works and composers are the best.

For those who have no ear for Mozart - he might as well be Bocherini


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> Different types of work - Tchaik's vc is an epic ground breaking work - perhaps the best thing he ever wrote.
> 
> Mozart vcs are early works - precious nonetheless.


Not that it matters, but I actually prefer Mozart's 3rd Violin Concerto (mainly for that languorous dream of a melody in its slow movement) to Tchaikovsky's brilliant but uneven effort. The development section of Tchaikovsky's first movement gets stuck in one of his most uninspired sequential passages - it just grinds away while T waits for an idea - and the succeeding cadenza's unmusical squeaking and squawking may be what Hanslick was referring to as "music that stinks in the ear." The breathless finale is fun but really isn't much more than a chance for the fiddler to show off his technique. Some nice tunes notwithstanding, I find any number of T's other works more meaningful and consistent.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> ...For those who have no ear for Mozart - he might as well be Bocherini


I believe Boccherini was the "wife of Haydn", not Mozart. Otherwise, it certainly would have been in the movie! 

'Boccherini admired Haydn greatly, and was strongly influenced by Haydn's style. This influence was so obvious that music lovers of the day fondly proclaimed "Boccherini is the wife of Haydn" '.


----------



## Luchesi

stomanek said:


> Neither in Mozarts works nor anyone else's
> 
> purely subjective
> 
> it's not far off talking about what is the best tasting chocolate
> 
> all we can do is trade views on this and maybe reach some kind of consensus about which works and composers are the best.
> 
> For those who have no ear for Mozart - he might as well be Bocherini


Well now, are you being objective?

Yes, you need to have a knowledge of music and need to have experience with music, but when you analyze and reduce scores of Mozart and then analyze Boccherini, what is your objective conclusion?

What's purely subjective is whether you 'like' one more than the other. So I agree with you about that.


----------



## Luchesi

KenOC said:


> I believe Boccherini was the "wife of Haydn", not Mozart. Otherwise, it certainly would have been in the movie!
> 
> 'Boccherini admired Haydn greatly, and was strongly influenced by Haydn's style. This influence was so obvious that music lovers of the day fondly proclaimed "Boccherini is the wife of Haydn" '.


Boccherini as a composer was probably not being influenced only by personal feelings.

The subjectivity vs objectivity in the arts will never be settled. heh heh


----------



## JosefinaHW

Are there any fans of Roger Scruton's thoughts on Conservatism?


----------



## Guest

JosefinaHW said:


> Are there any fans of Roger Scruton's thoughts on Conservatism?


I've not read his main work - what he describes, on his own website as:

"a major contribution to political thought from conservatism's greatest contemporary proponent." (no shortage of modesty there!)

But whenever I've encountered him on TV or Radio, he's not said anything which would have recruited me to his cause. And since he refers to "The evils of socialism", I don't think I'm likely to spend time acquainting myself with his work any time soon.

Why? Has he something to say about Mozart?


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> I've not read his main work - what he describes, on his own website as:
> 
> "a major contribution to political thought from conservatism's greatest contemporary proponent." (no shortage of modesty there!)
> 
> But whenever I've encountered him on TV or Radio, he's not said anything which would have recruited me to his cause. And since he refers to "The evils of socialism", I don't think I'm likely to spend time acquainting myself with his work any time soon.
> 
> *Why? Has he something to say about Mozart?*


Roughly that music like that of Mozart is the only suitable replacement for degenerate modern pop music; which will assist in preventing humankind's descent into the cultural abyss.

He's what you might call: completely out of touch with reality.


----------



## Star

stomanek said:


> Some of the early operas are really quite well polished works that put many mature composers to shame at the time. If you examine Mendelssohn's early works - *what is there exactly?* Some string symphonies - an early violin concerto, three piano quartets. And of course - the piece upon which his reputation as a great child composer rests - a midsummer nights dream overture composed at 16. A remarkable piece which stands on its own and which falsely indicated Mendelssohn was going to scale heights higher than anyone before. Only in his supreme VC in my view - did he fulfill that early promise.


Early Mendelssohn also produced the incredible Octet. in later years he also wrote superb music like his symphonies 3-6. If he did not exactly fulfil his early promise by the development of his works he still music which is most enjoyable and uplifting - which after all is the purpose of music.


----------



## JosefinaHW

MacLeod said:


> I've not read his main work - what he describes, on his own website as:
> 
> "a major contribution to political thought from conservatism's greatest contemporary proponent." (no shortage of modesty there!)
> 
> But whenever I've encountered him on TV or Radio, he's not said anything which would have recruited me to his cause. And since he refers to "The evils of socialism", I don't think I'm likely to spend time acquainting myself with his work any time soon.
> 
> Why? Has he something to say about Mozart?


He has said a great deal about Mozart, aesthetics and many other subjects. I was hoping to find a person with a basically moderate worldview and hear his/her perspectives on Scruton's thought or at least recommend another moderate writer's thoughts on Scruton's thought.

I also wondered if many of the people who maintain that genius in the arts does not exist or that Mozart was not a composer of genius are in fact arguing against Scruton here.


----------



## Michael Diemer

eugeneonagain said:


> *Roughly that music like that of Mozart is the only suitable replacement for degenerate modern pop music; which will assist in preventing humankind's descent into the cultural abyss.
> *
> He's what you might call: completely out of touch with reality.


No one can halt the degeneration of the culture. Cultures, like individuals, have finite timelines, as well as stages of development. There are forces operating on them that are only poorly understood, like the Climate. All we can do is enjoy these latter stages, and the achievements of the giants of yesterday. This culture (Western) is not likely to see their like again. But a different culture now on the ascendant may produce music and art worthy of comparison.


----------



## Guest

JosefinaHW said:


> I also wondered if many of the people who maintain that genius in the arts does not exist or that Mozart was not a composer of genius are in fact arguing against Scruton here.


I'm not sure that there are "many" at all, but among the few, perhaps some are aware of Scruton's worldview. I'm not (though I've been enlightened a little) but then I'm also not one who has said either "genius in the arts does not exist" or that "Mozart was not a composer of genius" so perhaps you should include me out!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Star said:


> Early Mendelssohn also produced the incredible Octet. in later years he also wrote superb music like his symphonies 3-6. If he did not exactly fulfil his early promise by the development of his works he still music which is most enjoyable and uplifting - which after all is the purpose of music.


yes I know he composed some fine pieces - I love the scotch sy and no 4 is excellent, songs without words and other fine pieces.

But aside from the VC - he didnt really produce much with a wow factor. I mean there are no epic works like, for a mozart fan - the great operas, mass in c minor, great pcs, requiem etc etc, or for a schubert fan - the unfinished sy, sy 9, the last great qt, the great quintet in c.

some will disagree no doubt


----------



## eugeneonagain

Michael Diemer said:


> No one can halt the degeneration of the culture. Cultures, like individuals, have finite timelines, as well as stages of development. There are forces operating on them that are only poorly understood, like the Climate. All we can do is enjoy these latter stages, and the achievements of the giants of yesterday. This culture (Western) is not likely to see their like again. But a different culture now on the ascendant may produce music and art worthy of comparison.


I agree. Scruton should be informed of this.


----------



## Genoveva

If I may add my two-penneth concerning some recent posts.

I have so many "top favourite" composers that I can hardly fit them in to my top 10. Mozart, Beethoven, J S Bach, Schubert, Brahms are definitely right at the top of the heap, and likely to remain there for all time as far as I can foresee. Regarding the next five, I have great respect for Schumann, Haydn, Mendelssohn, and Handel. The last remaining position is currently Sibelius, but it is somewhat changeable. 

Regarding Mendelssohn, I believe that he was probably the most well known and highly regarded composer of the group of composers that he was associated with at the time they were all known personally to each, and met regularly. This group included, in addition to Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt and Schumann. They were all born around the same time, and their "stomping grounds" were fairly close to other, except that of Chopin. Possibly the least well known of these at the time, as a composer, rather than as a very accomplished writer, was Schumann. The latter's rise to much higher acclaim as a composer didn't occur until well after his death, partly due to the unstinting support he continued to receive from Clara who continued to champion his works for many years after his death in all the concerts she gave all over Europe.

Mendelssohn's early brilliance as a composer is surely undoubted. His "octet" at the age of 16 was a masterpiece, which I do not believe has been bettered in quality by any other composer, although that is just my personal opinion. It should be recalled that he traveled around Europe quite a bit, and was a very big favourite at the Court of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. He was also heavily committed to his work as conductor at the Leipzig orchestra, so that composing time was possibly curtailed to some extent. work on which no doubt took its toll on spare time for composing. I especially love all of his "mature" symphonies as much as those by any other composer, because, like those of others, they offer a uniqueness. The "Reformation " symphony in particular has an almost hypnotic effect on me almost like no other, and I'm not even a "Protestant" but R.C! I also love many of his chamber works, piano works, oratorio, etc. I think he was a superb all-rounder (except for opera). Remember that he too died very young, at the age of only 38, just a few years older than Mozart.

But this thread is about Mozart's greatness. For me, Mozart remains perhaps the most brilliant of the entire bunch, but that doesn't mean that I like any of the others mentioned above that much less than him. Mozart was my first "love" in classical music and it's difficult to shake that off, no matter how much I adore several others too. They are all so unique in their offerings that I wouldn't wish to be without any of these composers. None of them is a substitute for any other in this list of my top 10.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Something I noticed recently - evidence of Mozart's genius perhaps? Well take piano concertos 17 and 20 - final movements - both start with highly engaging, energetic material and nobody would complain if these movements were rounded off using the same motifs etc so excellent the music is - but Mozart finishes both these movements with dazzling and impressive NEW material. I am not sure in how many concertos he does this - but these examples are striking enough. I dont even think Beethoven did this in his concerti at all. In fact I cant think of anything remotely similar but I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. Maybe Haydn did it first? As Mozart often was inspired by Haydn's innovations but in this case I doubt it.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Something I noticed recently - evidence of Mozart's genius perhaps? Well take piano concertos 17 and 20 - final movements - both start with highly engaging, energetic material and nobody would complain if these movements were rounded off using the same motifs etc so excellent the music is - but Mozart finishes both these movements with dazzling and impressive NEW material. I am not sure in how many concertos he does this - but these examples are striking enough. I dont even think Beethoven did this in his concerti at all. In fact I cant think of anything remotely similar but I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. Maybe Haydn did it first? As Mozart often was inspired by Haydn's innovations but in this case I doubt it.


As you say, Mozart's ability to conjure up new motifs when least expected was a rare gift, and his work was seldom ever predictable at the end in view of this. Schubert's ability to do likewise was equally impressive in my opinion. He had an incredible agility in varying a theme, and changing subject, so imperceptibly, as demonstrated no better than in the opening movements of his "Great" C major symphony. His work therefore packed wide variety. To give Beethoven his due, he too had remarkable skills in this area, in brilliantly re-working themes in an elaborate manner so as to extract almost every conceivable combination that was worthwhile doing. I read once that the Schumanns (both Robert & Clara) used to pour over Beethoven's sonatas in absolute awe at their sheer genius and intricacy.


----------

