# Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart



## Bach

I cannot believe this hasn't already been created.

Clarity, balance, and transparency are hallmarks of his work. A more simplistic notion of the delicacy of his music obscures the exceptional power of some of his finest masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, the Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550, and the opera Don Giovanni.

It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence.


----------



## Ramamaiden

Clarinet Concerto, i love it.
Symphony 36th, not one of the most popular but it was one of the pieces 
i used to listen a lot when i started with classical music.

And Bach you said it perfectly, clarity, balance and transparency on the highest quality.

I always think of "what if" he didn´t die so young =P. It kinda makes me sad to think all the masterpieces that would have existed if he had died older .


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach said:


> It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence.


Violence? This is a noun that I have never heard attached to Mozart. Please elaborate your thoughts on the "violence" of this music.


----------



## purple99

Bach said:


> I cannot believe this hasn't already been created.
> 
> Clarity, balance, and transparency are hallmarks of his work. A more simplistic notion of the delicacy of his music obscures the exceptional power of some of his finest masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, the Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550, and the opera Don Giovanni.
> 
> It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence.


I agree he's violent, sensual and magnificent. But how do you explain his interest in farting? I'm not suggesting farting and magnificence can't go hand in hand. But have you read his correspondence? The entire family was obsessed with blowing off. They can't stop talking about it.


----------



## Guest

purple99 said:


> But how do you explain his interest in farting? I'm not suggesting farting and magnificence can't go hand in hand. The entire family was obsessed with blowing off. They can't stop talking about it.


 Ye Gods 99, what will this thread turn into there could be children reading this, oh yes, please no pics


----------



## Tapkaara

Ok, so the guy liked farts...!

But can anyone please elaborate on examples of "violence" in Mozart's music?


----------



## Bach

As I said, Piano Concerto No. 24 and the opening of his Dissonance Quartet.


----------



## Scelsi

I'm currently listening to my CD's again but this time in chronological order. And I must admit I'm very happy to be playing my last Mozart CD right now. (And I've skipped quite a few). It's OK but for me, it gets quite boring most of the time.

As to the farting: in those days, that was rather common. Just look at all the way we currently pronounce words describing intercourse activities and/or things that end up in the toilet whenever something doesn't go the way we like it.


----------



## Guest

Bach said:


> As I said, Piano Concerto No. 24 and the opening of his Dissonance Quartet.


To me both of these examples mean excitement and energy not violence, so I think once again it shows how music is subjective


----------



## Tapkaara

No, these are not violent pieces of music. Exhuberant, driving, energetic perhaps, but not violent.

Yes, music is VERY subjective.


----------



## Guest

*Bach* do I understand you correctly when you say
"opening of his Dissonance Quartet." is an example of violence in music,?? 
to my ears it is quite subdued. I am listening to it now and it really is quite mellow


----------



## Bach

Well, perhaps not physical violence but violent perturbed thoughts.


----------



## Guest

Bach said:


> Well, perhaps not physical violence but violent perturbed thoughts.


In a dedication to Papa Haydn  in the "Dissonance" I don't understand!


----------



## David C Coleman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7623663.stm

This is interesting!!!....


----------



## Isola

Thanks for the link, It's fascinating! I just hope it won't end up in some private collectors hands and be buried in a dark safe. Would be ideal to have it returned to the Master's birth house in Salzburg for everyone to see.


----------



## marval

I agree Isola, it would be tragic to sell it off. Then it ends up in the hands of the person with the most money, and not a real music lover. It is something that should be on diplay, preferably either the library or somewhere connected to Mozart.


Margaret


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> But how do you explain his interest in farting?


It wasn't considered immature or anything like that in Austria at the time. Why do people make such a big deal out of it? It was normal for everyone back then.


----------



## purple99

Yagan Kiely said:


> It wasn't considered immature or anything like that in Austria at the time. Why do people make such a big deal out of it? It was normal for everyone back then.


Seriously? To blow off in late eighteenth century Vienna was _de rigeur?_


----------



## Yagan Kiely

When did I say that?


----------



## purple99

Yagan Kiely said:


> When did I say that?


You said something similar:



> It was normal for everyone back then.


----------



## jhar26

purple99 said:


> Seriously? To blow off in late eighteenth century Vienna was _de rigeur?_


That explains where his inspiration for those horn concertos came from.


----------



## SPR

============================

I think one of my favorite Mozart pieces is the Clarinet Quintet K581, written for Mozarts friend and clarinet virtuoso Anton Stadler (for whom he also wrote the Clarinet Concerto K622.)

The entire work is fantastic, but the final movement is simply (in my mind) an artistic ejaculation of the highest order. It has 5 variations and displays a perfectly balanced counterpoint between the clarinet and the strings that is simply delightful. The 4th variation (or is it the 3rd).. is a sort of lazy menuet which is buttery smooth, warm and gorgeous... it all comes together again by the end with a restatement of the first themes with variations.

This, for me, is what chamber music and quartets/quintets are all about.

My favorite version, and I have several, is by the London symphony orchestra under the 'Mozart Collection' series which contains the best gems from Deutsche Grammophon, Decca, and Philips. You cant go wrong with anything in that set.

see:
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Clarinet-Concerto-Quintet/dp/B000ASAEIU/ref=pd_bxgy_m_img_b
and: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mozart-Collection-Box-Set/dp/B000ASAEQ2/ref=cm_syf_dtl_top_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarinet_Quintet_(Mozart)


----------



## Lang

Oh yes, I love the clarinet quintet. From the first note to the last, intense and emotional music. A wonderful piece.


----------



## SPR

I just listened to several CD's worth of Mozarts 'Variations' on random musical themes.

The more I listen and study Mozart - the more I am starting to get a feeling or impression that the man was simply a fountain of barely contained music. Its a wonder his head didnt explode with what gushed out of him in his last 5+ years. Listening to all of it is like trying to take a 'little drink' from a firehose.

12 variations on 'Ah Vous dirai-je, Maman' (source of twinkle twinkle little star) range from frenetic to supple and romantc goodness. 6 Variations on the theme that was eventually used in the Clarinet Quintet KV 581 are similar to this and hint (to me) how a simple melodic theme became a plastic, living thing with infinite possibilities in this mans brain.

bazarro-world-conversaton...

Me: Oh. Hi Mozart, how are you?

Mozart: Fine. Oh, you have a piano. Would you like me to play a song for you?

Me: Really?! Yes please!

Mozart: Pick anything. Something Silly. First thing that pops into your head.

Me: Um. How about 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star"

(Mozart then proceeds to rip off the 12 minute long collection of variations previously described, which makes me alternately giggle, stand in a stunned stupor, nearly weep, and then laugh for reasons that have more to do with sensory overload than anything being joyful or funny. As en encore, he mangl Mary ha a litte lamb in assorted beautiful and agonizing ways.)

-----------

Yeah, a silly, undoubtedly wildly exagerated impression... but thats what it seems like.


----------



## jhar26

SPR said:


> ============================
> 
> I think one of my favorite Mozart pieces is the Clarinet Quintet K581, written for Mozarts friend and clarinet virtuoso Anton Stadler (for whom he also wrote the Clarinet Concerto K622.)


It's one of the most beautiful works of chamber music I know.


----------



## SPR

*Mozart Age Calculator*

I came across a little trick.

Mozart was fairly prolific as well as _steady_ with respect to the frequency of composition. So much so that you can approximate his age based on the Köchel catalog number of the piece. (for KVs greater than 150 or so, the formula falls apart when he was really young)

The formula is *(KV / 25) + 10*

I spot checked it...

Strinq Quartets KV155, 156, 157, 158, 159.
Calculates to 16. All written in 1772-1773 when he was 16.

Symphony #'s 27, 28, & 30. KV199, 200 & 202 respectively.
calculates to 18. Actually complered in 1772, when he was 16.

Concerto for Flute and harp, KV299.
calculates to 22. Actual: 1778, 22 years old.

Grand Partita, KV361...
calculated to 24. Actual: 1781, 24 years old.

"Dissonant" quartet, KV465
calculates to 28.6. Actual 1786, 29 years old.

Symphony 41, "Jupiter" K551.
calculates to 32. Actual 1788, 32 years old.

Die Zauberflote (KV620), Clarinet Concerto (KV622), Requiem (KV626)
calculates to 35 correctly. These all written in 1791 just before he died at 35.

-----------------------------

of course the Köchel numbers are inexact etc, but this works surprisingly well to get a quick reminder of when in his life he wrote these things.

(Source of composition dates here: http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/index.html )


----------



## jhar26

The "Gran Partita" serenade KV 361, one of my many Mozart faves. The third movement adagio gives me gooseflesh every time I hear it. Incredibly beautiful IMO.


----------



## SPR

well, i like that one too. Taken by itself, its a bit bland.. though obviously wonderfulackdrop to the bouncy (?) complexity of others parts (eg: 1 - allegro, - 5 - adagio/alegretto/adagio), its simply lovely.

I think Mozart was saying something with these pieces. That you do not necessarily need large ensembles of strings to make lush, supple, and gorgeous music. I think it also shows how formidable a composer he was to (at 24 no less) craft this piece which illustrates his understanding of the qualities, limits, and capabilities of the winds etc.


----------



## Lang

Andante said:


> *Bach* do I understand you correctly when you say
> "opening of his Dissonance Quartet." is an example of violence in music,??
> to my ears it is quite subdued. I am listening to it now and it really is quite mellow


Yes, to your ears. But to eighteenth century ears it would have sounded quite different.


----------



## Lang

Yagan Kiely said:


> It wasn't considered immature or anything like that in Austria at the time. Why do people make such a big deal out of it? It was normal for everyone back then.


Well, having read Mozart's letters, I would say that his interest appears on the surface to be quite obsessive. Did other contemporary writers obsess about the subject? Can you give any examples?


----------



## Christi

Does anyone else think he's GOOD ???


----------



## PostMinimalist

The question is: Does anyone think he isn't GOD!?
And does copy and paste work for you?


----------



## SPR

post-minimalist said:


> The question is: Does anyone think he isn't GOD!?


I sincerely beg everyones pardon. Honestly, but I'd like to discuss that briefly if I could expose my infinite and insufferably naive knowledge of the topic. It has very likely been discussed at nauseous length. Prithee.... indulge me.

Seems to me, her Mozart garners wide disgust (?) at his (perhaps) undeserved status, as well as significant elevation into the stratospheric heights of genius by just as many. It does not seem like typical banter ragarding the worth of a composer - but rather atypical in its polarity and vehemence. Would you say that is so?

In complete disclosure, I must say I rather favor him - but not to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.

I have seen some apologists throw up the line that Mozart was not as formally trained and subject to more than a bit of cultural snobbery. The great unwashed masses adore him, while serious students of the craft simply sneer while duscussing mediocrity. On the other side, accusations of plagarism (or at least imitation) as well as 'simplistic & popular' work fit for only children and casual listening 'muzak'. Certainly by no means gods voice on earth - in fact very far from it - more likely a gifted and notable musician and little more.

what say you?


----------



## SPR

...I withdraw my query.

I browsed through some old posts here, and calculate it is perhaps better not to pursue this line of questioning. 


...laughing.... exit stage left.....


----------



## jhar26

Christi said:


> Does anyone else think he's GOOD ???


Most think he's GREAT, many think he's the best, and even those who think that he's overrated still consider him a very talented composer. Personally I think he's top three together with JS Bach and Beethoven. No surprises there - many people see it that way. But an opinion that has become sort of a cliche doesn't necessarily mean that it's the wrong one.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> But an opinion that has become sort of a cliche doesn't necessarily mean that it's the wrong one.


Indeed not. Cliches become cliches for for good reasons, usually.

To answer the question about Mozart's true stature (or at least come as close as is possible with questions of this sort), all that's necessary is to listen very carefully to what people say about his music; about the _way_ they listen to it; about the effect it has on them, and the degree to which it becomes part of their lives. The effect is cumulative. Given that, year upon year, decade upon decade, century upon century, Mozart's music goes on and on offering, and receiving, profound engagements with a succession of people, becoming perhaps the most important thing in their lives for a time, the idea that Mozart is not among the very few greatest composers becomes simply not credible.

The fact that I may not be able to see it for myself (as indeed I can't, as I've explained elsewhere) is neither here nor there. Weighing up the enormous bulk of informed and sensitive opinion against my own perception of lacklustreness, I'd be a fool not to consider seriously the high probability that I'm missing something pretty important in my understanding of his music.


----------



## Guest

Lang said:


> Yes, to your ears. But to eighteenth century ears it would have sounded quite different.


Lang, I am surprised you or any one can find this music violent or do you mean dissonant?
Personally I find that K465 is no more dissonant that the other 5 in the set and can not find any violence in it at all , in fact the 2nd mov is anything but, if I may quote Stanley Sadie from the notes with the Chilingirian set on CRD :
_"K 465, known after its famous slow introduction as the 'Dissonance' was something of a cause celebre in the early 19th century; but the C Major spaciousness, brilliance and high spirits of the work, once the dark introduction is past, make the title seem less than appropriate. _ 
I tend to agree with him


----------



## Lang

Well, there *is* violence in some of Mozart's music. I am thinking in particular of one of his piano sonatas where, for comic effect, the music alternates between the pastoral and the tempestuous. There are abrupt changes between piano and forte sections, and the performer is faced with a bit of a conundrum. Knowing that contemporary listeners would have been shocked by these changes of dynamic, does he play the sonata as it is written, and lose the shock effect altogether? Modern ears are used to much greater extremes. Or does he play the music in such a way that he gives an effect on a modern audience that the sonata would have had on the contemporary one?


----------



## SPR

eegads. Mozart wrote enough Menuets and Dances to gag a goat... sometimes in packs of 20. I'm a little burned out on 3/4 time.


----------



## jurianbai

what happens to Mozart symphony? why I rarely heard or read the rest of his symphony, aside from the no.40 and no.41 Jupiter ?


----------



## Guest

jurianbai said:


> what happens to Mozart symphony? why I rarely heard or read the rest of his symphony, aside from the no.40 and no.41 Jupiter ?


The rest?? They are pretty ordinary he was just getting into the hang of things when, whammo


----------



## jhar26

jurianbai said:


> what happens to Mozart symphony? why I rarely heard or read the rest of his symphony, aside from the no.40 and no.41 Jupiter ?


Because they are his crowning achievements in the genre and arguably to the 18th century symphony as a whole. Nos.36, 38 and 39 are impressive too though and 25, 29 and 35 aren't far behind.


----------



## jurianbai

ah, ok laaa. glad to hear they were alright.


----------



## ecg_fa

Thing to me about Mozart is that he was in relatively short time so prodigious in such a 
wide variety of areas. If there's a ''realm" I don't like as much, it's perhaps the 
piano sonatas as a whole (though many like the K.310 & many others) are as great
as any written IMO. Also I've never quite warmed completely to his violin concertos & the early symphonies (before say no. 18). I think in terms of melodic music (what I think Stavinsky described as 'vertical'music  ), he remains my favorite though. Though lately I've come to appreciate much more Haydn & early Beethoven (the more 'classical' sounding side I mean), Schubert too as well as comparison/contrast to WAM. Moazrt and Bach
are kinda 'tied' for me as 'favorite composers.' 

Ed


----------



## ecg_fa

Thing to me about Mozart is that he was in relatively short time so prodigious in such a 
wide variety of areas. If there's a ''realm" I don't like as much, it's perhaps the 
piano sonatas as a whole (though many like the K.310 & many others) are as great
as any written IMO. Also I've never quite warmed completely to his violin concertos & the early symphonies (before say no. 18). I think in terms of melodic music (what I think Stavinsky described as 'vertical'music  ), he remains my favorite though. Though lately I've come to appreciate much more Haydn & early Beethoven (the more 'classical' sounding side I mean), Schubert too as well as comparison/contrast to WAM. Moazrt and Bach
are kinda 'tied' for me as 'favorite composers.' 

Ed


----------



## SPR

ecg_fa said:


> ...Also I've never quite warmed completely to his violin concertos & the early symphonies (before say no. 18)....


you may want to take that early work in context I think... Symphony #18 was one of 3 symphonies he wrote when he was just 16 years old.


----------



## trazom

I'm probably just repeating what someone else might have already stated on this thread, but Mozart, despite his legacy, is still underrated. I think a lot of people remember him as a child prodigy, but think of his music as shallow and fluffy. I wonder how anyone could listen to "Dove Sono" or so many of his other arias and NOT be moved by them. They're as deep as the ocean! And his piano concerti, late symphonies(and early ones like #25), quintets, serenades, divertimenti, and mature quartets. All these amazing works and many people still can't get past the Turkish March, or Sonata facile.


----------



## jhar26

trazom said:


> I'm probably just repeating what someone else might have already stated on this thread, but Mozart, despite his legacy, is still underrated.


I don't think you can call him underrated since in most surveys about 'the best ever' he usually ends up in the top three with Bach and Beethoven - it doesn't get much better than that. But you have a point in that I think that Bach and Beethoven get more respect from those that aren't fans than Mozart does.


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> But you have a point in that I think that Bach and Beethoven get more respect from those that aren't fans than Mozart does.


And deservedly so IMHO


----------



## jhar26

Andante said:


> And deservedly so IMHO


I strongly disagree, but I'm sure that you already know that.


----------



## Herzeleide

I love Mozart's Haydn Quartets.


----------



## handlebar

Herzeleide said:


> I love Mozart's Haydn Quartets.


Likewise.

Jim


----------



## Bach

the depth of formal perfection to be found in Mozart's music is enough to overwhelm the senses.


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> I strongly disagree, but I'm sure that you already know that.


Yes I do, but don't begrudge me one of the few pleasures I have left


----------



## PartisanRanger

Exploring Mozart's music in the last few months has been pretty amazing. I've liked at least parts of virtually everything I've heard, from the symphonies to the concertos to the operas to the requiem. I find his music to be very emotional and engaging and I can't get enough.


----------



## Guest

PartisanRanger said:


> Exploring Mozart's music in the last few months has been pretty amazing. I've liked at least parts of virtually everything I've heard, from the symphonies to the concertos to the operas to the requiem. I find his music to be very emotional and engaging and I can't get enough.


You will soon be ready for Beethoven, that will take you deeper into Music.


----------



## trazom

> You will soon be ready for Beethoven, that will take you deeper into Music.


Maybe you should let them decide for themselves what music is deep.


----------



## Sid James

I remember years ago that in a doco about Mozart, it was said that his _*Don Giovanni *_was the first piece of music to express fear. I don't know if this is true, but in comparison to, say, Bach's cantatas or Handel's oratorios, I certainly sense alot more emotion in Mozart's music, especially the late works.

I'm not a big fan of Mozart, but his slow movements tend to grab me. Especially the one in the *Sinfonia Concertante*. It seemed very different to other works composed at that time. I also don't mind of the slow movements of those warhorses, the _Piano Concerto No. 21_ or _Eine Kliene Nachtmusic_. I think this music works on a number of levels. Not only is it very relaxing, but it can also be very deep, profound and even spiritual. I agree that it was a great pity, indeed that we lost him at such a young age, especially as he seemed to be moving towards a simpler, more direct style without so much of those notes that a critic at the time found so annoying in his early works.

& I am somewhat suprised to see that no-one has mentioned the famous *'Mozart Effect*.'


----------



## Herzeleide

Andre said:


> & I am somewhat suprised to see that no-one has mentioned the famous *'Mozart Effect*.'


Probably because it's total ********.


----------



## Guest

trazom said:


> Maybe you should let them decide for themselves what music is deep.


We all need a little nudge now and again, just to get us onto the right path, or are you suggesting that Beethoven is not as deep as WAM surly not


----------



## SPR

hm.

I think Mozart can be, should be, enjoyed on its own, and do not subscribe to the thought that somehow one might have to 'graduate' past it to something even greater. Arguing about who is greater, or deeper.... is silly in the extreme. Shrug. Lets not pick nits.

Perhaps we should make new thread for each composer ...sort of like a guest book where we can express appreciation for them and..

Oh... wait.... sorry. That is what this is. Nevermind. 

I must admit... after listening to all of the divertimenti...all of them... it does get a little tiring by the end of it. The 27th menuetto sort of becomes a root canal eventually..I actually started squirming in my seat. However, I do not have the slightest inclination to depreciate what is (to me)... a larger body music of a sublime sort seldom matched and some rarely surpassed. A handful - peerless.


----------



## Weston

Hmmm - I hate to necropost, but not sure where else to put this.

Today I listened to parts of _*A Musical Joke*_. I wonder what it says about me if I don't get the joke. I think it's one of the best pieces I've heard from Mozart. I especially like the 4th movement with its rapid modulation almost in the manner of D. Scarlatti. It makes the music bright and upbeat and unpredictable for me.

Maybe I do get the joke after all.


----------



## SenorTearduct

OK, what do you all think of this comparison?

Mozart is to music, as Shakespeare is to literature


----------



## chillowack

Herzeleide said:


> Probably because it's total ********.


Is it, Herzeleide? I have heard otherwise, but perhaps you have tested the Mozart Effect personally, and have some first-hand knowledge of it?

I find that when I listen to Mozart, my mental, psychological, and creative faculties are invariably lifted to a higher level. Everything feels more elegant, and my thoughts tend to rise to a more noble plane. Whether this is the so-called "Mozart Effect" or not, I don't know; but it is a very real phenomenon for me.

I think the Mozart-Shakespeare comparison is an apt one: both men are paragons, occupying a place of honor at or near the summit of their respective arts; both were arguably the most brilliant lights of their day; both had a singular gift for melody (Wofgang's being musical, William's poetic); both generated a large and diverse variety of work; etc. There are many similarities.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the opinion expressed by Bach and others in this thread, that Mozart's music is "violent." There are many composers (primarily among the Romantics and Late Romantics) about whom such a thing might be said, but if Mozart were among them, he would be far down the list indeed. Wolfgang's music strikes me as anything _but_ violent. Nor do the two pieces mentioned seem particularly violent to me.

I appreciate and echo the sentiments expressed in this thread by *jhar26*.


----------



## SenorTearduct

the mozart effect is as real as can be in my mind... I dedicated my 8th and 9th grade science project to it, preforming cognative test and puzzles for 50 subjects, while comparing the music of Mozart to that of Bach, Beethoven and silence....

Mozart had 45 subjects preform better than the other days by up an increase of 13% on accurcury and 20% on speed.

Bach had 4
and Silence 1


----------



## chillowack

SenorTearduct said:


> the mozart effect is as real as can be in my mind... I dedicated my 8th and 9th grade science project to it, preforming cognative test and puzzles for 50 subjects, while comparing the music of Mozart to that of Bach, Beethoven and silence....
> 
> Mozart had 45 subjects preform better than the other days by up an increase of 13% on accurcury and 20% on speed.
> 
> Bach had 4
> and Silence 1


Wow, that sounds like a monumental undertaking, SenorTearduct!

What about Beethoven? His results don't seem to be represented in your totals.

Did you use one representative piece for each composer? If so, what was it for each?

Quite a project!


----------



## SenorTearduct

Ya Beethoven did not show much response....

And no we preformed the tests over a span of five days

and we played not just one piece but a play-list of their "more popular works"


----------



## Guest

Cows are very happy listening to Mozart when being milked, but then they have very bad taste


----------



## chillowack

Speak for yourself: I like the taste of cow.


----------



## SenorTearduct

Now I need a steak taco


----------



## Guest

chillowack said:


> Speak for yourself: I like the taste of cow.


I asked for that


----------



## tenor02

*Happy Birthday Mozart!*

Born on 1/27/1756 

happy 254th!


----------



## Stunt21

Happy 254th!!! 

Get comfortable, you'll stay here with us for many many centuries...


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Happy Birthday Mozart. You singleghandedly made me love classical music.


----------



## Polednice

Ah, Mozart. Mozart, Mozart, Mozart.

You, sir, have the wonderful privilege of being the composer of the pieces featured on the first CD I ever bought. Isn't that spectacular? Of course, I don't have that CD any more and, even when I did, I didn't really like it, nor do I like your music much now. Good thing you're dead really...


----------



## Mozartgirl92

Happy birthday Mozart, if it weren´t for you I probably wouldn´t care for classical at all.


----------



## Elgarian

Happy birthday indeed. It took me 40 years to understand, Wolfie, but I got there in the end.


----------



## xuantu

Tell me, Mozart. Are there works by other composers worthy enough for this celebration? What would you like to hear?


----------



## jurianbai

I will help you blow your 254 birthday candles if you willing to create one more string quartet.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I will help you blow your 254 birthday candles if you willing to create one more string quartet.

To hell with the quartets... give me one more opera!!!


----------



## Tapkaara

Bah humbug.


----------



## jurianbai

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I will help you blow your 254 birthday candles if you willing to create one more string quartet.
> 
> To hell with the quartets... give me one more opera!!!


no me first... quartet quartet


----------



## tenor02

bump quartets or opera.....FINISH THE REQUIEM :O


----------



## Polednice

I'd like him to come back just so I could see him die!


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> I'd like him to come back just so I could see him die!


Or kill Brahms?


----------



## Polednice

mueske said:


> Or kill Brahms?


 Looking at the two of them, who do you think would win in a fight? I'd go for the musical Thor over weedy little wig-wearer any day


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Polednice said:


> Looking at the two of them, who do you think would win in a fight? I'd go for the musical Thor over weedy little wig-wearer any day


looks can be deceiving. David did kill Goliath.


----------



## Aramis

Nah, Brahms was short and in some periods of his life fat (but not fat enough to use his weight in battle). Mozart was short as well, but he had opinion of agile person, so I guess he would bring our lovely donat down. 

But in general they both are no serious matches for composers live Ravel or Mussorgsky who were trained soldiers... I wonder why they didn't fight - I mean in XIXth century you could legally arrange a duel between two gentlemens, so why didn't one composer, like Mussorgsky, send a satisfaction demand to someone who was more popular than him? "Dear sir Tchaikovsky, your new symphony is insult to me and I shall not tolerate it... meet me under the gate of Moscow in a week since now". 

He would easily cut him into little pieces, then others and in the end there would be no competitive composers.


----------



## Polednice

You've overlooked Brahms's mischievous nature once again! You see, with all those sweets he kept in his pockets to give to little children (in a legal way), he kept a reserve bag of poisoned sweets that he'd hand to anyone he disliked. 

I think there certainly should have been duels! Just like with Pushkin. That would have made Tchaikovsky's life even more tragic, although I don't think Mussorgsky's reason for challenging him would have been 'honourable'...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Doesn't matter... Bach would kick all their asses... and does.


----------



## mueske

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Doesn't matter... Bach would kick all their asses... and does.


And then Beethoven would come along and blow up the universe with his awesomeness.


----------



## Polednice

Meanwhile, Lord Byron and Percy Shelley are sitting in their own universe sneering while thinking, 'Bloody musicians...'


----------



## emiellucifuge

Brahms to just sounds artificial. Mozart however, is full of life


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Brahms to just sounds artificial. Mozart however, is full of life


You got the names the wrong way round


----------



## mueske

Polednice said:


> Meanwhile, Lord Byron and Percy Shelley are sitting in their own universe sneering while thinking, 'Bloody musicians...'


I lol'd


----------



## saltyseaweed

Mozart's music is supreme. Fans of other composers are just jealous and acting small as usual.


----------



## SPR

saltyseaweed said:


> Mozart's music is supreme. Fans of other composers are just jealous and acting small as usual.


Oh stop it. No need to start an argument.


----------



## CaptainAzure

Mozart















Hell YEEEEEAAAAHHH!!!!


----------



## CaptainAzure

I am in London at the end of September to hear the English Chamber Orchestra perform the overture from The Magic Flute, Piano Concerto #21 and -in tandem with the Bach choir- the divine Requiem Mass. It promises to be a transcendent and cathartic experience.


----------



## Vesteralen

I had the opportunity this past season to hear two stellar Mozart performances live - my favorite symphony (#39) with Manfred Honeck conducting, and the 23rd piano concerto with Helene Grimaud. Together they were the best live Mozart performances I've ever heard. (Not period instruments, of course, but I'm afraid I can take or leave them.)


----------



## SonjiaWeber

Yes! I am a Mozart fanatic! Had to have my cousin play the viola part to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante Andante movement, this piece also transcends, very lyrical Viola and violin talking to each other! Very passionate and sensual....


----------



## martijn

Mozart must be the most underrated composer of all. Internet seems filled, as this forum is, with people he think he is boring and superficial, like Mr or Mrs Andante in this thread. Many others include him reluctantly in the holy triad with Beethoven and Bach, but it's clear that they consider those two guys way above him (especially Bach, of course, somehow it seems you have to consider Bach the greatest composer who ever lived, otherwise people won't take you serious). Do all these people realize that it's really hard to find a composer who didn't worship Mozart (except for a few minor composers like Delius)? He has been the favorite composer of many great composers, and I dare to say that if the great composers who hold a poll in the Great Composers Heaven, Mozart would end no1, just before Bach. I'm pretty sure he would earn the top spot if a similar poll was held among the great conductors. Virtually all great composers, conductors, vocalists and instrumentalists agree about the greatness of Mozart. Well, except for Delius, who was a mediocre composer, Maria Callas who said that Mozart was often dull, which he indeed is when she sings him, and Glenn Gould, who played Mozart even worse than I do. 
If so many people with great expertise agree, why so many people here treat Mozart like he's some superficial, commercial composer? Are you deaf for his fluent sense of rhythm (that Messiaen considered superior to that of Bach, Haydn and Beethoven), for his marvellous orchestration (that Sibelius considered unmatched by anyone), his (for his time) extreme chromatism, his perfection of form, his versatility, his feeling for melody, especially in the long melody lines, his innovative counterpoint, his... I could go in length.
Just to tease Andante a bit more: there's the myth that Brahms' greatest hero was Beethoven, but every time Brahms commented on Mozart and Beethoven, the comparison was in Beethoven's disadvantage.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> He has been the favorite composer of many great composers, and I dare to say that if the great composers who hold a poll in the Great Composers Heaven, Mozart would end no1





> Do all these people realize that it's really hard to find a composer who didn't worship Mozart?





> Mozart must be the most underrated composer of all


One of these things is not like the other.


----------



## Philip

martijn said:


> Mozart must be the most underrated composer of all. [...]


Maybe in this forum... but certainly nowhere else


----------



## martijn

@regressivetransphobe, I'm not sure what you meant, but if I understand it correctly: with "the most underrated composer at all", I meant to say that he is underrated by many "ordinary" classical music lovers. Among the great names he isn't underrated, but I was referring to many people here, but not only here, who consider Mozart's music shallow, repetitive, uninventive, and so on. You hardly ever hear such things being said about Bach or Beethoven. I wonder why this is so.


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> but I was referring to many people here, but not only here, who consider Mozart's music shallow, repetitive, uninventive, and so on. You hardly ever hear such things being said about Bach or Beethoven. *I wonder why this is so.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Because theirs isn't !


----------



## martijn

Your attempts to provocate are not very succesful, Andante, but just mention 5 composers you do consider great.


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> Your attempts to provocate are not very succesful, Andante, but just mention 5 composers you do consider great.


Now hold on a minute you asked a question which I answered, now you want some great composers, off the top of my head.
Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Debussy, Faure, Handle, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Poulenc, Schubert, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky, VW I also consider Arvo Part a very good composer and love his choral works. I do have and enjoy a lot of WAM's music but in general find his works pretty and light (not all) so there :wave:


----------



## Artemis

martijn said:


> @regressivetransphobe, I'm not sure what you meant, but if I understand it correctly: with "the most underrated composer at all", I meant to say that he is underrated by many "ordinary" classical music lovers. Among the great names he isn't underrated, but I was referring to many people here, but not only here, who consider Mozart's music shallow, repetitive, uninventive, and so on. You hardly ever hear such things being said about Bach or Beethoven. I wonder why this is so.


You are worrying needlessly. Mozart remains firmly among the top 3 favourite composers, even on this forum. There was a poll earlier this year, Top 25 Composers, where Mozart came out in second position not far behind Beethoven but ahead of J S Bach. It would seem that there have been a few additional votes cast since the votes were tallied up but I doubt that the position as regards the top 3 has changed.

I see from that poll that Schubert came in fourth position and Brahms fifth. That's fantastic because these are my favourite 5 composers, although I would probably place Schubert and Mozart in joint first, Beethoven third, Brahms fourth and Bach last of the five. That's according to how I currently like them, although at various times in the past this order was different.

Sad to say though that it does seem to be fact that Mozart's name tends to stimulate rather more adverse comment in some quarters than for most of the big name composers. I'm not sure but it seems to come mainly from people who appear to like heavy late "romantic" music.

You are right that among those in the "know" (various famous musicians and composers) the majority have nothing but very high praise for Mozart. You might wish to see a CONTRIBUTION I made in a rather infamous thread about Mozart setting out some of the more memorable commendations about him.


----------



## martijn

I wasn't worrying, Artemis ;-) But it surprises me what you wrote, from what I've read so far, Bach seemed the most popular composer here. And I read quite some negative comments.
I'm familiar with the quotes you mentioned, I've done quite some research to the opinions composers had of other composers. I can use some of them to my good friend Andante, let's see what your favorite composers thought of Mozart:

Beethoven - I have always counted myself amongst the greatest admirers of Mozart and shall remain so until my last breath.

Brahms - On one occasion Joachim started to propose a toast to "the greatest composer," when Brahms quickly interrupted him with, "Quite right! Let's drink to the health of Mozart," and went about clinking glasses until his own eulogy was forgotten.

Debussy - Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our own part. Take Leonardo da Vinci; take Mozart: these are the great artists.

Fauré, about Die Zauberflöte - Is there any other music, which can convey such an immediate and profound impression . . . which, without making the slightest effort, sustains the spirit in such joy, such calm restraint, and from which springs such an important message, together with the strongest and the most exquisite emotions? 

Haydn, to Leopold Mozart: "I tell you before God as an honest man that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by reputation. He has taste and, what is more, the most profound knowledge of composition."

Mendelssohn - I cannot abide the disdainful attitude toward Haydn and Mozart; it infuriates me.

Poulenc – There’s no Mozart of painting for me, because there is only one Mozart, the musical one. Just as there is only one God.

Schubert – "After a succesful performance of the Ouverture to Nozze di Figaro he cried out, full of enthousiasm, ‘that’s the most beautiful overture in the whole world ‘ but then added after some reflection ‘ I had almost forgotten Die Zauberflote ‘".

Shostakovich – “As for composers of the past, he especially appreciated Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven” (Boris Tischenko, friend)

Tchaikovsky - It’s due to Mozart that I divided my life to music. He gave the first impulse to my efforts, and made me love it above all else in the world.


Oops, seems your favorite composers slightly disagree with you…


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> I wasn't worrying, Artemis ;-) But it surprises me what you wrote, from what I've read so far, Bach seemed the most popular composer here. And I read quite some negative comments.
> I'm familiar with the quotes you mentioned, I've done quite some research to the opinions composers had of other composers. I can use some of them to my good friend Andante, let's see what your favorite composers thought of Mozart:
> 
> Oops, seems your favorite composers slightly disagree with you…


You asked for great composers not my favourites! and they are my own opinions i.e subjective
Now instead of relying on someones else's thoughts, why not tell in you own word why WAM is superior to all the ones you have listed.


----------



## martijn

Great composers, favorite composers, potato, potato. You can always try to find excuses. At least these "great" composers had more taste than you have. Though I don't know what Händel and Bach thought of Mozart, I believe Bach said: "Mozart is way ahead of my time". 

My point is not so much to prove Mozart is "better" than others, what good is good, and comparing greatness is always a little silly. I do consider Mozart both in a technical and emotional way to be of absolutely top level, and if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I already had explained in my own words what I find so exceptional about him. But I'm willing to give you more lectures about him, if you want ;-)


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> Though I don't know what Händel and Bach thought of Mozart, I believe Bach said: "Mozart is way ahead of my time".


 If you are talking about J.S. Bach, then I'm not sure how the dates work out...


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> My point is not so much to prove Mozart is "better" than others, what good is good, and comparing greatness is always a little silly. I do consider Mozart both in a technical and emotional way to be of absolutely top level, and if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen that I already had explained in my own words what I find so exceptional about him. *But I'm willing to give you more lectures about him, if you want* ;-)


Lectures? Heaven spare us, there are two camps regarding WAM's music and I have heard it all before, I doubt you will add anything new.
Just as a point of interest I suspect you prefer but:
Do you consider Mozart's StQt's superior to Beethoven's or Shostakovich?
Do you consider Mozart's Sym superior to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler, Schubert
Do you consider Mozart's Piano Son superior to Beethoven's
Do you consider Mozart's opera superior to Gilbert and Sullivan  tic
If not how would you compare them?
Mozart was a prolific composer but IMO quality is better than quantity
I personaly prefere many other composers over Mozart and find his works do not have the depth of the ones I mentioned above in each individual genre, but then again you obviously have better taste than poor old me.
Now all this is in ref to your question which I answered.

Quote [but I was referring to many people here, but not only here, who consider Mozart's music shallow, repetitive, uninventive, and so on. You hardly ever hear such things being said about Bach or Beethoven. *I wonder why this is so.]*_I]_


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Lectures? Heaven spare us, there are two camps regarding WAM's music and I have heard it all before, I doubt you will add anything new.
Just as a point of interest I suspect you prefer but:
Do you consider Mozart's StQt's superior to Beethoven's or Shostakovich?
Do you consider Mozart's Sym superior to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler, Schubert
Do you consider Mozart's Piano Son superior to Beethoven's
Do you consider Mozart's opera superior to Gilbert and Sullivan tic
If not how would you compare them?
Mozart was a prolific composer but IMO quality is better than quantity

Where is the question of "quality"? If one eliminated the works Mozart wrote while still essentially a child he would would have an many mediocre works as Beethoven or nearly any other prolific composer. Are Mozart's String Quartet's superior to Beethoven's or Shostakovitch'? The best of these are surely equal to a good majority of Beethoven and Shostakovitch' efforts. Are Mozart's symphonies superior to Beethoven, Shostakovitch, Mahler, and Schubert? Again, the finest are every bit the equal. Are Mozart's Piano concertos superior to Beethoven? Only Beethoven's 5th... and perhaps the 4th can rival Mozart's and the number of major efforts in that genre far surpass Beethoven. Are Mozart's operas superior to Gilbert and Sullivan? That's not even worthy of responding to. Why not ask about his operas vs Beethoven? Oh yes... because Beethoven only completed one mediocre opera where Mozart has a half dozen or more generally acknowledged as being among the greatest and most influential in the art form. The essential works within Mozart's oeuvre easily add up to as much music as that achieved by Beethoven and far surpass that of most composers... in spite of the fact that he died at age 35. What would Beethoven's reputation have been at 35? Mozart had 10 good years as a mature composer in which he achieved more than the vast majority of composers.

Quote [but I was referring to many people here, but not only here, who consider Mozart's music shallow, repetitive, uninventive, and so on. You hardly ever hear such things being said about Bach or Beethoven. _I wonder why this is so.]I]

A good many of those who refuse to acknowledge the brilliance of Mozart have little love for the whole of the "classical era" and tend to assume that Romanticism and early Modernism represents the apogee of musical achievement. They hold a misguided notion that because Mozart does not stress angst and tragedy and wear his emotions on his sleeve, that the music must be "shallow"... as if wit, innovation, humor, and beauty were irrelevant... as if the use of the minor key, big tremendous crescendos, and more instruments is a measure of artistic merit. This prejudice in favor of Romanticism exists in the visual arts and literature as well.

Why is Bach never written off as shallow? Well... most would presume that the subject matter of his cantatas and large choral works preclude that. Of course that makes the mistake of confusing the subject matter with the aesthetic merit. Comedy is not inherently shallow. Neither is not tragic subject matter. Impressionism was not a shallow moment in the history of painting any more than the "classical era" was a shallow period in music. I would add that Bach has the advantage that a good majority of classical music fans have little grasp of the Baroque as a whole and little grasp of earlier music upon which Bach was founded.

I would also note that while Mozart may be called shallow by any number of critics but this term is rarely used for Beethoven or Mahler or Shostakovitch' these other composers face their own criticisms. How often does Mozart get called bombastic, overwrought, humorless, crude, turgid, histrionic, melodramatic, etc...?

Simply put is a reason that Mozart remains ever in the ranks of the 3 immortal giants of Western classical music. His achievements are every bit equal to Beethoven and continue to speak to musicians, composers, and informed classical music lovers no matter what the opinions of certain individuals may be. Personally, I love them both... and I recognize the Bach dwarfs either of them._


----------



## Guest

Gees another prolific jabberer, Re the quote that you used below did you not see the smiley and tic ????

Are Mozart's operas superior to Gilbert and Sullivan? That's not even worthy of responding to. I don't know why you use this system of quoting when you are provided with a quote button,


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Where is the question of "quality"? If one eliminated the works Mozart wrote while still essentially a child he would would have an many mediocre works as Beethoven or nearly any other prolific composer. Are Mozart's String Quartet's superior to Beethoven's or Shostakovitch'? The best of these are surely equal to a good majority of Beethoven and Shostakovitch' efforts.


So which ones qualify?


> Are Mozart's symphonies superior to Beethoven, Shostakovitch, Mahler, and Schubert? Again, the finest are every bit the equal.


So which ones qualify?


> Are Mozart's Piano concertos superior to Beethoven? Only Beethoven's 5th... and perhaps the 4th can rival Mozart's and the number of major efforts in that genre far surpass Beethoven.


I said sonatas, you know solo piano 


> Are Mozart's operas superior to Gilbert and Sullivan? That's not even worthy of responding to.


I have answered this one



> A good many of those who refuse to acknowledge the brilliance of Mozart have little love for the whole of the "classical era" and tend to assume that Romanticism and early Modernism represents the apogee of musical achievement. They hold a misguided notion that because Mozart does not stress angst and tragedy and wear his emotions on his sleeve, that the music must be "shallow"... as if wit, innovation, humor, and beauty were irrelevant... as if the use of the minor key, big tremendous crescendos, and more instruments is a measure of artistic merit.


Well, you have confirmed what I was on about



> Simply put is a reason that Mozart remains ever in the ranks of the 3 immortal giants of Western classical music.


Nobody afaik has said WAM is not one of the Greats just that some find the majority of his music rather lightweight :tiphat:


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What would Beethoven's reputation have been at 35?


Well at that age Beethoven had already composed the 4 greatest piano sonatas up to that point (Pathetique, Moonlight, Waldstein, Appassionata), the greatest symphony by miles (Eroica), probably the finest achievements in SQ's up until the Razumovsky's (op.18), the greatest violin sonata (Kreutzer) etc etc. Had he died at 35 he would still be at the very least Mozart's equal.


----------



## Webernite

Mozart's handling of dissonance and chromaticism is generally more advanced than Beethoven's, especially compared with Beethoven's early and middle works. That's why the Rondo in A minor K. 511 sounds like Chopin while still sounding like Mozart, whereas Beethoven almost never sounds like Chopin.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Mozart was one of those who could write in just about any genre, any form and any style if he was motivated to do so. Instrumental solo to full scale opera; you name it, he poured his genius into it with fine examples of each. That was certainly not something that all the other greats could do with only a few exceptions (I guess that's why these very few stood like giants compared with others).


----------



## Artemis

I have always rated Mozart and Beethoven pretty equally across the entirety of each of their life's work, but I could not agree with the suggestion made earlier that Beethoven's output limited to what he achieved up to the age of 35/36 is of comparable overall quality to that of Mozart. In fact, Beethoven would be well down on my list if that's all we had. 

To pick a few examples, by the age of 35/36 Beethoven hadn't yet written his one and only opera (which is not that terrific in my view), but Mozart had written well over 10 some of which are of stunning quality. Beethoven had written 4 symphonies, compared to Mozart's 41, but with the exception of the "Eroica" the best of Beethoven's symphonic writing was yet to come. Beethoven had written his one violin concerto but Mozart had written five. Beethoven's chamber music output, very good as some of it is, is not a match for what Mozart had achieved over his lifetime, when account is taken of the vast amount of high quality music he wrote for duet, trio, quartet, quintet. Beethoven had written any significant sacred music in his first 35/36 years whereas Mozart had written a great deal, and much of very high quality. Beethoven's piano sonatas were indeed very great achievements, but Mozart had written some brilliant material as well, again a lot of it.

Despite my high admiration for both Mozart and Beethoven, I generally prefer the music of Schubert in several areas, and the main pity is that Schubert was even more short-changed than Mozart in terms of creative life span. I'm glad to see that Schubert came in fourth position on the favourite composer poll earlier this year.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree completely as to what a great loss Schubert's early death represents. You also have to consider that what Schubert might have achieved had he had Mozart's or Beethoven's advantages in terms of education, access to instruments and orchestras, and personal virtuosity. 

Again, I am not questioning Beethoven's brilliance. He clearly deserves his reputation and personally I have at least as much music by Beethoven as Mozart. What I am questioning is the usual prejudice in favor of Romanticism which leads individuals to measure composers of other eras by the same standards... as if their goals or intentions were the same. Judging Mozart according to the standards of Beethoven is about as useless as judging Matisse by the standards of Rembrandt. Yes, we can make comparisons between artists coming from different eras or cultures... but the comparison must be a two way street. By the Romantic standards of the expression of dark, tragic emotions Mozart is far more reserved... with exceptions... especially within the operas. But what of the expression of unfettered joy? What of grace and elegance? What of wit? To argue that Beethoven is better because he expresses such deep emotions demands that the individual show how the expression of tragedy or loss is more aesthetically brilliant than the expression of joy, wit, and beauty.

Personally, over time and as the result of my listening experience, I have come to feel that of the list of composers generally accepted as being among the greatest, it is actually G.F. Handel that may just be the most underrated. The scale of his oeuvre rivals that of Bach and Haydn and includes 42 operas, 29 oratorios, 120 cantatas and any number of other choral/vocal works... as well as his wealth of orchestral and instrumental works.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

the greatest violin sonata (Kreutzer) 

Is it? Really?


























********


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

How many violin sonatas have you listened to before coming to your assessment of Beethoven's Kreuzer?


----------



## Curiosity

StlukesguildOhio said:


> [video=youtube;esldkznHovU]
> How many violin sonatas have you listened to before coming to your assessment of Beethoven's Kreuzer?


Fewer than yourself no doubt, but I don't think that matters very much. The Kreutzer is widely regarded as the greatest violin sonata. I'm not talking about which violin sonata I personally love the most, rather referring to which has the greatest reputation.


----------



## Guest

Yes, I had overlooked the violin son definitely in favour of Beethoven's, Menuhin/Kempff's Kreutzer and Spring is a jewel, much more depth than WAM's IMO of course


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Curiosity said:


> Fewer than yourself no doubt, but I don't think that matters very much. The Kreutzer is widely regarded as the greatest violin sonata. I'm not talking about which violin sonata I personally love the most, rather referring to which has the greatest reputation.


"The Kreutzer is widely regarded as the greatest violin sonata."

Can you please provide information on your sources of information to confirm this statement?


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Mozart was one of those who could write in just about any genre, any form and any style if he was motivated to do so. Instrumental solo to full scale opera; you name it, he poured his genius into it with fine examples of each. That was certainly not something that all the other greats could do with only a few exceptions (I guess that's why these very few stood like giants compared with others).


This is one of the few times I agree with you about music. No composer in history has ever come close to being able to consistently recreate such a variety of sounds that are reminiscient of soggy **** cheeks. Whether it be, chamber, orchestral or vocal, one can always rely on Mozart to truly capture the sonic essence of a moist behind.

The amazing thing is he makes it sound so effortless. There have been thousands of composers following Mozart who have never got anywhere near his level of gluteus maximus mimicry, even with the aid of spectrograms for analysis and electronic synthesizers for sound production. There have been some musicians who have studied **** sounds for the best part of their lives, producing nothing but pale imitations of the fantastical derriere delights Mozart was able to churn out even as a whippersnapper.

He truly was a unique talent.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

A confession that might catch me some flak: ages ago when I used to leave the classical station on for a good part of the day, unfamiliar with a great deal of what I heard, I noticed that after every piece that I found overly static or boring, the radio guy said it was Mozart. Never happened with any Baroque or Romantic pieces, just Mozart (and, well, sometimes Haydn).

Not saying he's "insubstantial", "lacking in depth", or the pop music of his time, or any of those cliches. But I'm pretty sure the Classical era isn't for me, for the most part.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The Kreutzer is widely regarded as the greatest violin sonata.

Again I ask, Is it really? I've looked around a bit on the internet and certainly the Kreuzer is one name that pops up a lot... but so do several of Bach's, several by Brahms, Faure, Franck, Poulenc, Debussy, Britten, Mozart, etc... While I am completely opposed to the concept of cultural relativism... the notion that all opinions in art are wholly subjective and as such one cannot judge "good" nor "bad" let alone make comparisons... at the same time, I don't think it is as easy as comparing batting averages in baseball. The Kreuzer Sonata is undoubtedly *one of the greatest* to suggest that it is obviously THE GREATEST stretches belief.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> There have been some musicians who have studied **** sounds for the best part of their lives, producing nothing but pale imitations of the fantastical derriere delights Mozart was able to churn out even as a whippersnapper.
> 
> He truly was a unique talent.


Your analytical skills are amazing. I hadn't realised quite why I liked Mozart so much, but now it has become so much clearer. Do you know, I never thought I'd learn anything about Mozart from this or any forum that I didn't already know, but I have to concede that this revelation has truly shaken me. I am now so much wiser. Thank you.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> This is one of the few times I agree with you about music. No composer in history has ever come close to being able to consistently recreate such a variety of sounds that are reminiscient of soggy **** cheeks. Whether it be, chamber, orchestral or vocal, one can always rely on Mozart to truly capture the sonic essence of a moist behind.
> 
> The amazing thing is he makes it sound so effortless. There have been thousands of composers following Mozart who have never got anywhere near his level of gluteus maximus mimicry, even with the aid of spectrograms for analysis and electronic synthesizers for sound production. There have been some musicians who have studied **** sounds for the best part of their lives, producing nothing but pale imitations of the fantastical derriere delights Mozart was able to churn out even as a whippersnapper.
> 
> He truly was a unique talent.


Yes and imagine what would have followed had he grown up. or perhaps he had *Exhausted *himself by then


----------



## violadude

This is a quote about Mozart from Schoenberg's book "The Theory of Harmony"

"But the theorists told Mozart during his lifetime what a dissonance chaser he was, and how all too often he gave in to the passion to write something ugly, and how with his talent such writing really wasn't necessary."


----------



## Machiavel

Since all of you likes quotes then here we go : Leonard berstein: It is hard to think of another composer who so perfectly marries form and passion. -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.
Mozart's music is constantly escaping from its frame, because it cannot be contained in it.

George Szell: Listening to Mozart, we cannot think of any possible improvement. -Lengthy immersion in the works of other composers can tire. The music of Mozart does not tire, and this is one of its miracles.

Tchaikovsky: 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.
-Mozart is the highest, the culminating point that beauty has attained in the sphere of music.
-Mozart is the musical Christ.

Einstein: We cannot despair about mankind knowing that Mozart was a man.

Roger Norrington : When Mozart composed he didn't have aims of genius, he simply was one.

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.

Busoni: Together with the puzzle, Mozart gives you the solution. 

Brahms: If we cannot write with the beauty of Mozart, let us at least try to write with his purity.
-It is a real pleasure to see music so bright and spontaneous expressed with corresponding ease and grace.

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

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. 

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: A phenomenon like Mozart remains an inexplicable thing.

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

Yehudi Menuhin: Mozart resolved his emotions on a level that transformed them into moods uncontaminated by mortal anguish, enabling him to express the angelic anguish that is so peculiarly his own.

Saint-Saëns: 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. 

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!

Schumann: Does it not seem as if Mozart's works become fresher and fresher the oftener we hear them?

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.

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


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Ke$ha: "No, I don't know what an octopus-ave is. What am I, Mozart or something?"


----------



## Machiavel

regressivetransphobe said:


> Ke$ha: "No, I don't know what an octopus-ave is. What am I, Mozart or something?"


Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


----------



## violadude

regressivetransphobe said:


> Ke$ha: "No, I don't know what an octopus-ave is. What am I, Mozart or something?"


I guess any musical task can seem of Mozartian caliber when you're Kesha...


----------



## Guest

Stravinsky on Mozart:
"I remember being handed a score composed by Mozart at the age of eleven. What could I say? I felt like de Kooning, who was asked to comment on a certain abstract painting, and answered in the negative. He was then told it was the work of a celebrated monkey. 'That's different. For a monkey, it's terrific.'" - Igor Stravinsky


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Curiosity said:


> *The Kreutzer is widely regarded as the greatest violin sonata.* I'm not talking about which violin sonata I personally love the most, rather referring to which has the greatest reputation.


Have you come up with an answer yet to where you got this information from? I'm very keen to find out.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


Who pissed in your coffee? There is a fair share of Mozart I like, and the post you quoted wasn't a jab at him in any way. Not sure what you're on about regarding Beethoven, either, but he isn't very special to me.


----------



## Guest

It would seem to me that anyone that is not of the opinion that WAM is the greatest is regarded as a luddite, I am with regressivetransphobe in the above post I also have and enjoy some Mozart its just that for me he is not God.


----------



## Argus

Some more Mozart quotes:

Walter Gieseking - 'No man has ever been more attuned to the Music of the Arses than Mozart'

Herbert von Karajan - 'If God has an ****, then surely Mozart had his ear next to it'

Anton Webern - 'When I want music for the brain, I listen to Bach or Haydn, when I want music for the heart, I listen to Beethoven or Mahler, but when I want music for the ****, there is only Mozart'

Max Reger - 'If arses could sing, they would sing Mozart'

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - 'I am the **** master'


----------



## Aramis

> Max Reger - 'If arses could sing, they would sing Mozart'


What does it mean - "if"? They can:


----------



## graaf

Machiavel said:


> Dude get over it , we know you dislike him . Damn the Beethoven fanboy club always have to talk about beethoven in a mozart thread. I mean I never read about a matchup between those 2 that was not instigated by beethoven lovers. Whatever the thread is about, they always have to go back to Beethoven. Some here sounds like 15 years old with there Beethoven this and that over and over again in all the thread. Just go and see for yourself. Each time they speak about any other composers they always bring the but beethoven was better. In a way I pity them. And sadly the majority of them are kids


LOL, the guy mentioned Beethoven as much as you did Abraham Lincoln... 
Anyway, 15 years old is an improvement over six, I guess. Mentioning young age too often usually means that a person _____________________ (one doesn't need to be Freud to complete this one).


----------



## Argus

graaf said:


> Mentioning young age too often usually means that a person _____________________ (one doesn't need to be Freud to complete this one).


Mentioning arses too often usually means that a person _____________________.

Wait a minute...

:tiphat:


----------



## trazom

Argus said:


> Mentioning arses too often usually means that a person _____________________.


Is an Argus, or someone making an Argus out of themself?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

graaf said:


> six,


Wow, and he suggested I'm on a crusade!


----------



## Argus

Imagine if Mozart was alive today.

Back in the 18th century there was no recording technology so Mozart could only approximate the soggy bum tones he heard using traditional instruments. Admittedly, he was an unsurpassed master in this regard, but still they are just magnificient imitations. If, however, he were born in this day and age he would certainly be creating the finest musique concrete known to man. Think of all the different samples of bottom cheek noises he would have had available to him. With this at his disposal I have no doubt he would have transcended mere mortal **** sounds and have produced some kind of uber-**** (die über-arsch schall), more amazing than any of his existing **** approximations.


----------



## violadude

Listening to his 3rd violin concerto right now. What a gorgeously orchestrated slow movement! I didn't really expect that from early Mozart. And I really didn't expect the sudden gypsyish section in the 3rd movement, after the big pause. Total and sudden shift in character!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Back in the 18th century there was no recording technology so Mozart could only approximate the soggy bum tones he heard using traditional instruments. Admittedly, he was an unsurpassed master in this regard, but still they are just magnificient imitations. If, however, he were born in this day and age he would certainly be creating the finest musique concrete known to man. Think of all the different samples of bottom cheek noises he would have had available to him. With this at his disposal I have no doubt he would have transcended mere mortal **** sounds and have produced some kind of uber-**** (die über-arsch schall), more amazing than any of his existing **** approximations.

They've got to stop letting 13-year-olds on the internet.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Back in the 18th century there was no recording technology so Mozart could only approximate the soggy bum tones he heard using traditional instruments. Admittedly, he was an unsurpassed master in this regard, but still they are just magnificient imitations. If, however, he were born in this day and age he would certainly be creating the finest musique concrete known to man. Think of all the different samples of bottom cheek noises he would have had available to him. With this at his disposal I have no doubt he would have transcended mere mortal **** sounds and have produced some kind of uber-**** (die über-arsch schall), more amazing than any of his existing **** approximations.
> 
> They've got to stop letting 13-year-olds on the internet.


Who are you referring to?


----------



## Argus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> They've got to stop letting 13-year-olds on the internet.


Is that all you got?

May I refer you to graaf's earlier post:



graaf said:


> Mentioning young age too often usually means that a person _____________________ (one doesn't need to be Freud to complete this one).


----------



## martijn

Well, one thing we've achieved for sure with our arguing: it brought us a lot of likes.

@Purpleconcerto: you must have known I was ironic, weren't you?

In answer to Andantes questions, I think StlukesguildOhio said some good things already. My own answers:

Do you consider Mozart's StQt's superior to Beethoven's or Shostakovich?

I don't know all string quartets of Shostakovich, I consider the 8th a masterpiece. But from what I've heard, I wouldn't say they are better than or even equal to Mozart's. I've studied both Mozart's and Beethoven's quartets well. Beethoven's later quartets are even more unconventional than Mozart's late ones (if you think Mozart's weren't, then you obviously don't know anything about the music made in Mozart's time). Their textures are thicker, it's very original in terms of form, and so on. But are they _better_? I wouldn't say so. Personally I prefer Mozart's Haydn quartets and Hoffmeister quartet to Beethoven's late quartets. I am always surprised how underrated Mozart's string quartets are. They are very deep, though some people need loud chords and a lot of Mahlerian melodrama before they are convinced there's emotion in the music. In Mozart, and especially in the string quartets, it's hidden. I believe Mozart is responsible for the string quartet becoming the medium for a composer to express his deepest emotions. Haydn has helped to shape the string quartet in different ways, but compare Haydn's op 33 from 1781 with Mozart's Haydn quartets of a few years later. They are clearly influenced by them, but they are much more revolutionary. This is not enough acknowledged to my taste. Mozart's string quartets are much longer, much more chromatic, even more intricate in terms of harmony and part-writing, and deeper as well. Compare the scherzi from Haydn's op 33 with a Mozart menuet from the Haydn quartets, it's a different well. I consider Mozart one of the best, if not the best writer for string quartets.

Do you consider Mozart's Sym superior to Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mahler, Schubert

I just listened to a few of Mahler's today. They are very good, and conceived on a much grander scale than Mozart's, but again that doesn't make them better, I definitely prefer the last four of Mozart. Same with Shostakovich and Schubert. I also believe Mozart's last four are equal to Beethoven's. Beethoven just wrote more really great symphonies, but he lived more than 20 years longer. And one could say they are more individualistic than Mozart's, but Beethoven lived in a different time.

Do you consider Mozart's Piano Son superior to Beethoven's

Absolutely not. This is the one field in which I consider Beethoven superior (to anyone in fact). Mozart's are in pure musical terms not less, but sometimes not very individual, they are emotionally less interesting, and in terms of texture Beethoven's are much more interesting.

Do you consider Mozart's opera superior to Gilbert and Sullivan

Mozart is the greatest opera composer of all, so for sure he is. Just as he is the greatest writer of concertos as well.

So in short, Mozart was very versatile, he excelled in all forms, and in some of them (opera and concertos) he's unmatched.


----------



## martijn

And Andante, better give Stravinsky's real opinion of Mozart:

"I love the music of Mozart," he says. "In fact, I love this music so much that I find I am all the time stealing it. And I feel I have a right to steal this music, because I love it so much.

I could go on at length about Stravinsky's love for Mozart, but let's do that a next time you try to create a false impression of a composer's opinion of Mozart.


----------



## Guest

*@ martijn*, when you say you studied both Mozart's and Beethoven's quartets well, how do you mean, have you compared scores, have you studied them in musical theory or have you studied by just listening. Are you a string player?
Also the Stravinsky quote was genuine afaik.
I have Mozart's Haydn quartets and Hoffmeister quartet plus others and IMO they get nowhere close to LvB the same with WAMs symphonies, regarding his opera V G&S you made the same mistake that the other poster (studiog…..) made by ignoring the smilie and tic [tongue in cheek] it was a meant as a little bit of humour. :tiphat:


----------



## Webernite

Andante said:


> *@ martijn*, when you say you studied both Mozart's and Beethoven's quartets well, how do you mean, have you compared scores, have you studied them in musical theory or have you studied by just listening. Are you a string player?
> Also the Stravinsky quote was genuine afaik.
> *I have Mozart's Haydn quartets and Hoffmeister quartet plus others and IMO they get nowhere close to LvB the same with WAMs symphonies*, regarding his opera V G&S you made the same mistake that the other poster (studiog…..) made by ignoring the smilie and tic [tongue in cheek] it was a meant as a little bit of humour. :tiphat:


So what criteria are you using to make your evaluations?


----------



## martijn

I was well aware of the irony, Andante. And the Stravinsky quote may be genuine (though I've read it in a bit different way), but it gives a false impression of Stravinsky's opinion of Mozart.

I'm not a string player, but a piano player, don't shoot me from that. I've studied the string quartets of Mozart and Beethoven by listening to them, with the scores in hand, playing them on the piano, and so on. I can understand why people prefer Beethoven's quartets, they are more eccentric, and the emotions in the Mozart quartets are more hidden under the surface. But I stick to my point that Beethoven's quartets aren't better.

With the symphonies it's a bit similar. Beethoven's are more individual, more bombastic, but Mozart's are in my opinion musically equal if not a bit better, and more subtle. Mozart would never write something so tasteless as the fourth movement and parts of the second movement of the Fifth symphony, which slightly ruin for me the overall effect of an otherwise excellent symphony. Not to speak of the Ninth symphony, which I find the most overrated piece of music ever.


----------



## Guest

Well in the end it comes back to which you prefer and why, I have said which I prefer and what I think of Mozart’s music and you have not changed my mind although I am very surprised at your remarks concerning the Quartets at least they are your own opinions not those of others.


----------



## martijn

Well, I would be very surprised if you had told me: "after your comments I suddenly started to like Mozart much more". Everyone has the right to have his own (lack of) taste, just the more clever ones among us would never speak in a degrading way about great men as you do. For example, personally Bach appeals to me less (to listen to, I love to play him). That's just a matter of taste, but I would never deny his genius, because I can judge him perfectly well on objective grounds.

And to your last comment: I don't know who you mean with these "others" that rank his string quartets so highly, but I will play my "opinion of great composers"-card once more:

It was when he had heard the last three of the Haydn quartets that Haydn made his famous remark to Leopold Mozart that his was the greatest composer he knew.

Beethoven is reputed to have said about Kv464: "Here Mozart says: Look what I could do if you were ready for it!”

Schoenberg said he had learn to write string quartets from Mozart, and he was proud of it. 

Ligeti made a detailed analysis of Kv465.

When Brahms published his first string quartets, he wrote a letter along with it, saying: "Moreover as Mozart has taken extreme care to write six beautiful best, we will do our utmost to make one or the other passable". 

Grieg admired the Haydn quartets very much, as did Gershwin, as did Debussy.

And again I could go on, so maybe it's not only my opinion...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

martijn said:


> great men


Wait 'til you realize this concept is a fraud and they were flawed humans just like we are.


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> Well, I would be very surprised if you had told me: "after your comments I suddenly started to like Mozart much more". Everyone has the right to have his own (lack of) taste, just the more clever ones among us would never speak in a degrading way about great men as you do. For example, personally Bach appeals to me less (to listen to, I love to play him). That's just a matter of taste, but I would never deny his genius, because I can judge him perfectly well on objective grounds.
> 
> And to your last comment: I don't know who you mean with these "others" that rank his string quartets so highly, but I will play my "opinion of great composers"-card once more:
> 
> It was when he had heard the last three of the Haydn quartets that Haydn made his famous remark to Leopold Mozart that his was the greatest composer he knew.
> 
> Beethoven is reputed to have said about Kv464: "Here Mozart says: Look what I could do if you were ready for it!"
> 
> Schoenberg said he had learn to write string quartets from Mozart, and he was proud of it.
> 
> Ligeti made a detailed analysis of Kv465.
> 
> When Brahms published his first string quartets, he wrote a letter along with it, saying: "Moreover as Mozart has taken extreme care to write six beautiful best, we will do our utmost to make one or the other passable".
> 
> Grieg admired the Haydn quartets very much, as did Gershwin, as did Debussy.
> 
> And again I could go on, so maybe it's not only my opinion...


Sorry mate but:


----------



## Guest

*@ Martijn.* Your post which I received notification of seems to have been pulled either by you or a Mod it read as follows:

_[Hehe, it looks like there is a pot calling the kettle black. You just ask for it, if you try to hit, then except that you are getting now and then as well. And I was only offensive towards you, you were offensive towards Mozart, which is a much worse crime. Anyway, I'm more interested in discussions about musical content, if I want discussions of the kind of "I am right than you and you are a moron", then I still can go to Youtube.]_
Do you see what I mean about growing up? 
Now if you are *serious* then by all means explain in what respect Mozart's St Qts are better than Beethoven's and for a change use your own expertise instead of relying on quotes from other Composers, I look forward to your explanation.


----------



## Artemis

It's a bit of shame, to say the least, when threads of this nature develop into a petty squabble or personality clash. I thought they were meant to be places where you can "_leave your favourite [composer] a message_", not an insult.

One doesn't mind the occasional joke or questioning comment, but I didn't realise that it was fair game to use these threads as vehicles for expressing hostility towards composers you don't much care for. I'd like to see someone with the power to do so go trough this thread and vacuum out all the clear rubbish that seems to have blown in this direction.


----------



## martijn

Personally I don't mind when someone is provocating, just I prefer him to come with good arguments, and I haven't seen them here. That said, I don't think that anything what was said here was so terrible that it should be deleted by a moderator.

And Andante, you are good at accusing others of things that apply much more to yourself. For I haven't heard any serious musical argument of yours why Mozart isn't any good. Whereas I've mentioned several purely musical arguments why I believe Mozart is a genius. I will try it once more, hope you read this time...

Some things that I admire about Mozart's Haydn quartets (and Hoffmeister quartet):

- complex harmonies (for example the opening movement of Kv421, to mention one of many);
- daring use of chromatism (more daring in general than Beethoven);
- perfect feeling for balance and form, a a greater feeling than Haydn and any of Mozart's contemporaries for creating long movements that show both unity and diversity;
- exquisite taste, using the string quartet as a means of personal expression that was unprecedented until that time (personally, Beethoven I find at times too rude or too "pushy");
- inventive use of contrapuntal resourches (for example in the finale of Kv 387, Mozart's feeling for contrapunt was clearly greater than Beethoven's);
- complex inner-part writing (in the later Beethoven string quartets I find the textures sometimes slightly unnatural, too full, they can make everything slightly blurred);
- original use of dynamics and colour (the f/p change in the menuetto of Kv387, the drum in kv464, the trio of the menuetto of Kv421);
- new use of the menuetto, turning it from a dance movement in a much more serious form.


----------



## Guest

*@Artemis.* quote 
Vacuum out all the clear rubbish???? 
And who decides what is rubbish? I don't know about you but I live in a democracy that allows freedom of speech there is nothing wrong in robust debate even if it gets heated now and then, what you are suggesting is censorship as in a dictatorship also I personally have shown no hostility I just do not rate WAM as highly as some in this thread and will exercise my right to say this to anyone. As the saying goes "If you can't stand the heat get out of the Kitchen"

*@martijn*. You list a few things that you admire and fair enough, but is this supposed to show why Mozart's St Qts are better than Beethoven's?


----------



## martijn

.... I mentioned some things that I believe makes the string quartets of Mozart great. As I told before, I don't feel much need to compare something great with something else that's great, but especially for you I mentioned a few things in which I believe Mozart is greater than Beethoven. But in all honesty, when I listen to a Beethoven quartet I usually don't think: "it's not as great as Mozart", and when I listen to a Mozart quartet I don't think "it's greater than Beethoven", I usually just think: "this is great". 

But seriously, you continue to keep questions, and that way you make it very easy for yourself, because you avoid giving your own opinion. I've read all your contributions, and I've seen no serious musical comment on Mozart so far, all you wrote was the rather vague (and very untrue!) statement that Mozart is superficial, at least compared to Beethoven. But now give us some serious musical arguments why Mozart is not much special please.


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> ....
> 
> I've seen no serious musical comment on Mozart so far, all you wrote was the rather vague (and very untrue!) statement that Mozart is superficial, at least compared to Beethoven. But now give us some serious musical arguments why Mozart is not much special please.


I am not the one claiming to have '*done quite some research to the opinions composers had of other composers' *also claiming to '*have studied both Mozart's and Beethoven's quartets with the score in hand' *I was expecting some revealing comparisons but you have not done this. I have only ever claimed that I prefer Beethoven to Mozart and that I find Mozart (in general) light, any further comments that I would make would only be repeating myself and quite frankly for someone that has made the studies that you claim I am a little disappointed in your replies. 
Just as a point of interest How many years have you been seriously listening to Classical music?


----------



## violadude

I just heard Mozart's Adagio and Fugue for string quartet K. 546 in my electronic music class yesterday. I was shocked at how intense and chromatic it was. I would never have guessed it was Mozart if I wasn't told. Learn something new every day I guess.


----------



## martijn

You keep repeating your trick, Andante, you would make a good politician. If you don't mind I will talk now with people who speak about musical content.

Kv 546 is indeed intense, but I wouldn't consider it on a par with his greatest works. One really begins to understand Mozart, when one realizes that also his works in major are intense.


----------



## Guest

martijn said:


> You keep repeating your trick, Andante, you would make a good politician. If you don't mind I will talk now with people who speak about musical content.


By all means do as you wish however comparing me to a politician is a bit rich I would say I am the journalist asking the questions and you the politician who is avoiding the answers.


----------



## violadude

Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but this is getting really annoying.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but this is getting really annoying.


Thats OK, I will say no more


----------



## martijn

I'd agree.

Relistened to Kv 546 (why is the English-speaking world too lazy to add that extra "v"?), pity my pc exploded, don't know if one has to do with the other. The introduction is magnificent. But I don't believe Mozart was ever truly interested in writing fugues, except for short material that could be integrated in a sonata-form. Though Kv608 is a clear exception.


----------



## Curiosity

Argus said:


> Imagine if Mozart was alive today.
> 
> Back in the 18th century there was no recording technology so Mozart could only approximate the soggy bum tones he heard using traditional instruments. Admittedly, he was an unsurpassed master in this regard, but still they are just magnificient imitations. If, however, he were born in this day and age he would certainly be creating the finest musique concrete known to man. Think of all the different samples of bottom cheek noises he would have had available to him. With this at his disposal I have no doubt he would have transcended mere mortal **** sounds and have produced some kind of uber-**** (die über-arsch schall), more amazing than any of his existing **** approximations.


One of the most embarassing posts I've ever seen.


----------



## Webernite

Critics of Mozart always seem to attack the _character_ of the music, rather than actually giving musical arguments. That's why I find his critics so unconvincing. They say his music is "light" or "too happy" and just leave it at that. They never even begin to talk about harmony or melody or any of the other things by which we'd normally judge a composer's talent.

And any way, Mozart's music isn't "light" at all by 18th-century standards. It's well-known that during his lifetime people found his music difficult to perform and confusing to listen to. Critics were still complaining about the _Dissonance_ Quartet years after Mozart's death, whereas Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 8 (mentioned by someone earlier) was already a conservative work when it was published in 1960.


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> Critics of Mozart always seem to attack the _character_ of the music, rather than actually giving musical arguments. That's why I find his critics so unconvincing. They say his music is "light" or "too happy" and just leave it at that. They never even begin to talk about harmony or melody or any of the other things by which we'd normally judge a composer's talent.
> 
> And any way, Mozart's music isn't "light" at all by 18th-century standards. It's well-known that during his lifetime people found his music difficult to perform and confusing to listen to. Critics were still complaining about the _Dissonance_ Quartet years after Mozart's death, whereas Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 8 (mentioned by someone earlier) was already a conservative work when it was published in 1960.


Not to mention a number of other works. Those super dissonant chords at the beginning of symphony no. 39, ouch! The "12 tone passage" in symphony 40, Woah! The clashing dissonance in the big outburst moments of the overture to the marriage of figaro, it took me a while to even notice that one. Not to mention a ton of other dissonances that pass by relatively quickly and therefore our 21st century ears need to listen very very closely to pick up on.


----------



## jalex

violadude said:


> The "12 tone passage" in symphony 40, Woah!


I love this. Perhaps my favourite passage in all music. What on earth was he thinking?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Webernite said:


> Critics were still complaining about the _Dissonance_ Quartet years after Mozart's death, whereas Shostakovich's String Quartet No. 8 (mentioned by someone earlier) was already a conservative work when it was published in 1960.


We're getting into misleadingly relative territory. The lightbulb was a marvel of science when it was invented, but that doesn't mean one of them can sufficiently light a large house.


----------



## Webernite

regressivetransphobe said:


> We're getting into misleadingly relative territory. The lightbulb was a marvel of science when it was invented, but that doesn't mean one of them can sufficiently light a large house.


I assume you mean that something can seem "light" by our 21st-century standards even if it wasn't light in the 18th-century. That's true, but I guess what I had in my mind was those people who say that Mozart's music was intended _at the time_ as light background music for the aristocracy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

What sort of criticism is "light" anyway? "Light" compared to what? And why is "light" inherently inferior to "heavy" and "ponderous" (terms equally damning)? What the criticism of Mozart usually comes down to is not that he was not brilliant at what he did, but rather that he was not brilliant at what Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler did. That's not valid criticism at all but merely a statement of personal preference. In other words, most of the criticism that we come across here aimed at Mozart is based on the assumption that the standards and values and goals of Romanticism represent some inherently superior ideal or measure and thus Mozart and Haydn come off worse for the wear because they are not Romantic composers. What is ignored is that such comparisons are a two-way street. How do Beethoven and Mahler fare by the standards of Mozart's era? In terms of wit, elegance, grace, beauty? Now certainly it is fully valid to declare that you prefer Romanticism over all else and focus largely upon that. There are music lovers who specialize in Baroque or "Early Music" (the Renaissance and before) or Modernism... or contemporary music... but you don't see the Baroque aficionados dismissing Dufay or Gesualdo or Bartok because they are not good at what the Baroque composers were good at. Seriously, I can't remember a Baroque music fan ever criticizing Haydn or Mozart for their "simplicity" and clarity of form as opposed to the Baroque complexity and virtuosity. AS much as I love any number of Romantic composers, they are not the pinnacle of all music and the standard by which all music must be judged.


----------



## Elgarian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> What sort of criticism is "light" anyway? "Light" compared to what? And why is "light" inherently inferior to "heavy" and "ponderous" (terms equally damning)? What the criticism of Mozart usually comes down to is not that he was not brilliant at what he did, but rather that he was not brilliant at what Beethoven or Brahms or Mahler did. That's not valid criticism at all but merely a statement of personal preference. In other words, most of the criticism that we come across here aimed at Mozart is based on the assumption that the standards and values and goals of Romanticism represent some inherently superior ideal or measure and thus Mozart and Haydn come off worse for the wear because they are not Romantic composers. What is ignored is that such comparisons are a two-way street. How do Beethoven and Mahler fare by the standards of Mozart's era? In terms of wit, elegance, grace, beauty? Now certainly it is fully valid to declare that you prefer Romanticism over all else and focus largely upon that. There are music lovers who specialize in Baroque or "Early Music" (the Renaissance and before) or Modernism... or contemporary music... but you don't see the Baroque aficionados dismissing Dufay or Gesualdo or Bartok because they are not good at what the Baroque composers were good at. Seriously, I can't remember a Baroque music fan ever criticizing Haydn or Mozart for their "simplicity" and clarity of form as opposed to the Baroque complexity and virtuosity. AS much as I love any number of Romantic composers, they are not the pinnacle of all music and the standard by which all music must be judged.


A post full of wisdom, insight, and good sense. Thank you. Nothing left for me to add, except a cheer.


----------



## Artemis

From my experience, Beethoven and Mozart generally come in the top two positions of most classical music forum polls that I've ever seen. In addition, most people who rate either Beethoven or Mozart highly rate both of them highly. I accept that there are the few odd exceptions. Those who like only one or the other of these composers are rarities, as too are those who dislike both of them. This seems to be borne out by the results of the _Top 25 Composers_ thread, which I have glanced at quickly.

The reason why threads of this nature typically generate such large numbers of posts and disagreement is precisely because the two composers are the two highest rated ones and the fact that most people like both of them but they may have a slight or moderate preference of one over the other. Given these two features, it is virtually guaranteed on statistical grounds alone that the number of posts will be relatively high and disagreement common.

The reason I find threads of this nature rather less than interesting is that there is often no valid musical argument at all to substantiate the claims of each camp. Most people simply latch onto some vague aspect of one composer's output (e.g. degree of "lightness") and say that it's a more prominent feature of one composer's output than the other's. This feature is irrelevant is assessing quality to me.

But even accepting that "lightness" is an issue worth discussing, Mozart wrote in the style that he did because it was the prevalent style of the day, and it was what his audiences expected and required. I don't accept that his music is all "light" anyway. There is a large amount of material that meets "darker" criteria, for example a good deal of his Masonic music fits this bill. There are numerous other examples, comprising music written in various minor keys, of "darker" or "solemnic" music, which I won't go into here. Whether light or dark or something in between, it was by far the best music of his day (along with some of Haydn's, of course), and it has remained lastingly popular, which must mean something in terms of its outstanding greatness.


----------



## martijn

And even if Mozart is at times "light" or "graceful", or "happy", he's right to! The worst thing about our art music is that it's so terribly serious. There's this complete wrong thought that something can only be art when it's heavy, deep, sad and serious. And even if they try to be light, they don't know how to do it, and can only achieve it by an act of irony or parody. It's best shown in the figure of Mahler, with his aims to represent "the whole world" in a symphony, and with that absurd ivory-tower like attitude of becoming (most) famous after your own death. To hell with that attitude, give us something more of the healthy late 18th century!


----------



## Kieran

K563!

One of those _everything-Mozart_ works where you can't imagine anyone ever making better art. A work so diverse and strong that it gives lie to the notion of Mozart being dismissably "light"

This is a study in melody, character, rhythm, texture. Its adagio wheezes strange melancholia, the andante springs along with a large aristocratic air, the final allegro is a folk song which bursts its banks and becomes becomes dance, exhortation, play. The whole work is rivetting. It opens - as Mozart usually does - with a allegro movement that contains melodies tossed as if carelessly upon melodies, virtuosity at the service of art.

One of the most beggar-belief legends of music history is Mozart's composition of his final three symphonies in the space of only _8 weeks._ Well, K563 entered the world a mere 8 weeks after this again. Which is ridiculous, really...:tiphat:


----------



## martijn

The divertimento in Eb, Kv563 is indeed one of Mozart's greatest masterworks (but how many people know it?). A superficial listener might call it a happy work, but it's very deep, just everything is very subdued in this work. It's the last great work from Mozart's greatest period, between roughly 1784 (or 1783) and the autumn of 1788. I don't believe anyone ever wrote so many great masterworks as did Mozart in this short period. 

Just one comment on what you said about the speed with which Mozart wrote some works. It's being said more often, but it's forgotten then that Mozart wrote in fact at this breakneck speed all his life. He produced about 6 hours of music each year. Merely everything he ever wrote must have been written at an unbelievable pace. And then to think he gave concerts, teached pupils, and had a more busy social life than almost all other composers. The man is a miracle.

And one more thing about Mozart being "light". I think what for the Mozart-bashers is the real problem, is not so much Mozart himself, but the classical style. The classical style was a clear reaction against the complicated baroque music. No one knows those composers anymore, but if you want really light composers, you can find them among Mozart's contemporaries, the likes of Paisiello, Pleyel, Boccherini. There were more serious composers from those days, but they were more rooted in the baroque tradition, like Michael Haydn or CPE Bach. Only Myslivecek strikes me as being fully classical and emotional. But as fine as he is as a composer, he doesn't even come close to Mozart.
Really, if you listen to all of Mozart's contemporaries and then to Mozart, you will finally understand how serious, full of sadness Mozart is. It's similar when you compare the young Mozart to the late Mozart. The late Mozart is so deeply sad. After listening to the music of his contemporaries, Mozart's music suddenly sounds like it was perceived in those days: tragic, melancholical and demonic.


----------



## Kieran

That's great stuff, Martijn. I wonder were there any limits to the man's creativity. He seemed able to fix anything, make everything work, and go anywhere with his music, when required to...


----------



## itywltmt

Today, Mozart is the object of _my number one obsession_:
http://itywltmt.blogspot.com/2011/10/montage-26-mozart-number-one-montage.html


----------



## jdavid

I like the quote from Charles Rosen's THE CLASSICAL STYLE, HAYDN, MOZART, BEETHOVEN, W.W.NORTON, 1972 pages 324-325, where Rosen says:

_"It is only through recognizing the violence and the sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence."_.......then..._"In all of Mozart's supreme expressions of suffering and terror - the G minor Symphony, Don Giovanni, and the G minor Quintet, Pamina's aria in Die Zauberflote - there is something shockingly voluptuous". _


----------



## jdavid

Please see my post to the original posting by 'bach' - p.11 just a few minutes ago.


----------



## Guest

Yes, jdavid, that's an interesting book by Charles Rosen - though a difficult read*. He makes some interesting comments about Mozart mentioned here and I would partially agree with these. 

Incidentally, somebody in an earlier thread was talking about grace, elegance etc. in Mozart's music. I would have thought this a characteristic of the Style Galante of the Bach sons (a transition from baroque to classical) and not especially one describing classical music. Though there is humour in Mozart, I don't think Rosen (for one) would necessarily agree about the grace and elegance aspect. One more thing: "extreme expressions of suffering and terror" in Mozart's music? What CAN he mean??!!

*One of the reasons the Rosen is difficult to read is comments like "shockingly voluptuous" about a composer, in this case Mozart. He is never able to explain what he means in terms of the music - just makes these grand statements all the time which are non-musical and which I find annoying and irrelevant.


----------



## martijn

Charles Rosen's book "The Classical Style" is the most brilliant book about music I've ever read. I couldn't disagree more with you, CountenanceAnglaise, if you say that Rosen doesn't explain musically why music makes one or the other impression on us. Rather the opposite, he explains it better than everyone else. Just one example is the brilliant way in which he describes how the increasement in tension and excitement in the first part of the 20th piano concerto, Kv 466, is achieved. In pure musical terms (increasement of harmonic rhythm, adding of extra instruments, and so on), he explains the emotional impact the music has on us.

Besides that, Charles Rosen wouldn't disagree with the statement that Mozart is graceful, in fact he mentions that several times in his writings on Mozart. Just he argues, correctly, that Mozart is more than just that, his music is full of grace (achieved by perfect proportions, symmetry), but also full of suffering. Emotionally, this can be seen as a result of Mozart's character and life, musically, the suffering and terror shows itself in several ways. The highly chromatic opening of the development section of the last movement of the 40th symphony is an example, the "wrong" accents on the third bar of the menuetto of the g minor string quintet is another one, and one could mention many more.


----------



## Guest

I'm glad you like the book. I found it sometimes obtuse, verbose and often poorly grammatically structured. The increase (surely) in tension of which you speak is easy enough to explain and define in musical terms. What isn't so easy to explain is such terms as "voluptuousness" in music. Surely this intensely sensual term needs further development in a book about music, or perhaps it shouldn't be there at all. I don't argue that he poorly explains musical structure; no I think he does a good job here and identifies the characteristics of the "classical style". I suggest, rather, that there is far too much hyperbole and some simplistic comments thrown down like firecrackers. It's not well written, IMHO. I enjoyed far better books written by Thurston Dart, Nicholas Harnoncourt, Manfred Bukofzer, Nicholas Cook and a range of other experts whose names I cannot remember because I'm in Vienna and my books are back at home. In some respects, however, it is demonstrably successful, particularly with regard to analysis - but when he tries to use psychological and emotional terms about music this muddies the waters. I remember when I was at university and wrote about humour in Mozart and the lecturer in question wrote on my paper, "there is no place for these kinds of comments in musical analysis" and marked me down harshly.

To put it another way: for me, Rosen EXPLAINS the music very well, but falls down in trying to REVEAL it - to me, at least! If you only want it for the former, well and good.


----------



## martijn

I won't speak about the quality of his prose, I'm not a native English speaker, and as a result less able to judge the quality of his writing style. Charles Rosen is often praised for his prose, but I wasn't blown away by it either. But ok, if that would be my main interest, I could read Shakespeare. But as a musical analysis, so far for me it is still unmatched. You can accuse Rosen of being vague, but even if he was (and I don't agree), then you can say the same about other writers as well, and with much more reason. The relation between music and emotions is in general something which remains something mysterious for most writers. I don't agree if you say that it's so easy to describe increase in tension in music, on some level it may be the case, but I never saw it being described so well and so detailed as Rosen did in that example. And it is useful because it describes in purely music terms the emotional impact on listeners. Of course some things are more difficult to describe than other things, but I think Rosen did a good job in his book. I should read the books of the writers you mention in order to compare, but so far I didn't read a book that even comes close to what Charles Rosen has written.

What did you mean with the story about your lecturer? Do you now agree with him, or do you believe such comments can be part of musical analysis?

I envy you by the way, to be in Vienna.


----------



## Guest

My lecturer absolutely eschewed the idea of any kind of subjective interpretation in musical analysis, al la Rosen. Music and emotion - I agree these remain enigmatic, but I think there are better writers out there to explore that, eg. Leonard Bernstein. I just don't think Rosen does this well - he gets too caught up in rhetoric and hyperbole and each time I read these kinds of comments of his I remember thinking to myself, "Huh? What the...?" I say again, I'm glad you enjoyed the book - many people have!! 

Yes, I love being in Vienna and have only 8 weeks remaining out of our 11 months here. I'm filled with dread already....!! Today in the 59A Bus I went past Theater an der Wien and my eyes filled with tears knowing that in a short two months' time this image would "be now forever taken from my sight" (Wordsworth).


----------



## Webernite

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I'm glad you like the book. I found it sometimes obtuse, verbose and often poorly grammatically structured. The increase (surely) in tension of which you speak is easy enough to explain and define in musical terms. What isn't so easy to explain is such terms as "voluptuousness" in music. Surely this intensely sensual term needs further development in a book about music, or perhaps it shouldn't be there at all. I don't argue that he poorly explains musical structure; no I think he does a good job here and identifies the characteristics of the "classical style". I suggest, rather, that there is far too much hyperbole and some simplistic comments thrown down like firecrackers. It's not well written, IMHO. I enjoyed far better books written by Thurston Dart, Nicholas Harnoncourt, Manfred Bukofzer, Nicholas Cook and a range of other experts whose names I cannot remember because I'm in Vienna and my books are back at home. In some respects, however, it is demonstrably successful, particularly with regard to analysis - but when he tries to use psychological and emotional terms about music this muddies the waters. I remember when I was at university and wrote about humour in Mozart and the lecturer in question wrote on my paper, "there is no place for these kinds of comments in musical analysis" and marked me down harshly.
> 
> To put it another way: for me, Rosen EXPLAINS the music very well, but falls down in trying to REVEAL it - to me, at least! If you only want it for the former, well and good.


I think the main reason Rosen is controversial is essentially that he's not a relativist. He's from an older school of music criticism which actually makes value judgements and uses fairly subjective language. People nowadays find it pretentious when a critic does that, and some people even feel condescended to, as if they're being told what to think. Personally I think his approach to criticism - the kind of approach that was normal for most of the history of music - has advantages over the more modern, pseudo-scientific approach.

There is no way that a statement like "Mozart's G minor Quintet has something shockingly voluptuous about it" can be justified using music theory. When Rosen says things like that, what he is trying to do is shake the reader up and get them to think critically about the traditional idea of Mozart as an ethereal, passionless composer. I've read several of Rosen's books now and what they all have in common is that they are full of inversions of received wisdom like that one. Even the basic premise of _The Classical Style_, his first book, can be construed as one: the idea that Beethoven was a classical rather than a Romantic composer. And throughout the book he says many other things that are deliberately counterintuitive, like when he calls the Baroque fugue "the freest and most organic of the forms of that period." I like this aspect of Rosen's style, not least because I usually agree with him about the point in question (the fugue _is_ open-ended, some of Mozart's music _is_ sensuous). I can understand why you might find it irritating, because Rosen doesn't always provide evidence for the counterintuitive view he's just presented - sometimes he just leaves the reader to figure it out. But I don't see that as necessarily a bad way of writing.


----------



## martijn

In my opinion both of you place Rosen too much on the side of subjectivism. Most books about music that I've read were far more subjective. Take for example the Hildesheimer's famous book about Mozart: if you want something that's subjective and vague, with very little attention for music theory, you can find it there. And the book is no exception. Maybe Charles Rosen is not a relativist, but he still seems so compared to writers about music of previous generations. Open any book about music of like a century ago, and you will not have to search long in order to find a statement like "Beethoven was the greatest...", or "Wagner was the greatest...", and these are presented like they are scientific facts. Even when Charles Rosen makes such claims, he has a lot of musical theory as a foundation. I believe by the way half of modern music theorists copies him. How often it happens that I read something by a music theorist and think: you stole that from Charles Rosen.

You have a good point Webernite, if you say that Rosen likes inversions. Most often he is right, for example when he says Beethoven was a classical rather than a romantic composer (to say that this is the basic premise of his book The Classical Style goes too far in my opinion, the book is not exclusively about Beethoven). The claim that Mozart's music is voluptuous may seem or have seemed an inversion to some, but that says more about those people. It's not such a wild claim, especially when you consider that Mozart rightfully was seen as such in his own time, and a few decades after. Just one thing I've always found puzzling: his claim that Chopin had a good sense of form. I've studied Chopin several times, but I don't see how Rosen comes to this conclusion, I find Chopin no great master of musical structure.

@Countenanceanglaise: I understood how your teacher thought about musical analysis, but I wondered how you think about it now. Do you think a topic like humour in Mozart can have a place in musical analysis?

We won't agree about Rosen, but I think we do agree about Bernstein. One of the most brilliant pieces of musical analysis has to be the lecture in which he "explains" what the opening movement of Beethoven's piano sonate opus 31-3 is about. In a very detailed way he describes it as a dialogue between a man about a woman, and it's very convincing. And then in the end he says: "it's about that... or about something completely different". Absolutely brilliant.

Enjoy your stay in Vienna, any music lover should enjoy to be in the capital of Western music.


----------



## Webernite

I think you've written very convincingly, martijn.


----------



## martijn

Charles Rosen should be warned ;-) But what you think of Chopin's handling of form? I always feel, that except for some interesting codas, the recapitulations of his pieces lack new material. Sometimes his recapitulations are just copies of his expositions (or how one should call them). With the classical composers, and especially with Haydn, as well as with Brahms (in Mendelssohn's music you can find some good examples too) you always get at least something little that's new in the recapitulation. I miss that in Chopin. That's why it puzzles me Rosen praises Chopin's handling of form. I rate him highly, so I can't dismiss his statement so easily, but I also can't understand what he refers too.


----------



## Guest

Thanks to both Webernite and martijin - well considered responses and I'm grateful for both!!! Yay!! Martijn you pose some interesting questions. First of all, you ask about the place of subjective comments within musical analysis. I would say, "what's the brief?"; "why am I writing this work and what argument do I want to make?" Now, take a book like Drabkin and his study of the "Missa Solemnis". He's busy discussing what goes where and why but he REVEALS nothing of the work, yet his book claims to be an insight into that masterwork. I would be looking in "a Casebook" study for something of the Bernstein approach - in other words, something from the MUSICIAN as well as the Musicologist. And this is where, for me, Rosen falls down. His analytical approach is that of a musicologist (complete with verbiage) but he concludes and expresses more like a pianist, if that makes sense to you. I also think this partially explains the conundrum with regard to Chopin, expressed in your terms. Chopin's handling of "form" is not something I have made a study of myself BUT I would say that listening (and I would never attempt to play anything beyond the Mazurkas and some Preludes!) is satisfying because of his key explorations, neopolitan 6ths etc. etc. and the interesting idiom in which he writes. I'm not sure I worry about additional material in the recapitulations since I think this is essentially a 'hangover' from classical times and isn't quite relevant for Chopin in particular. Now, his 1st piano concerto doesn't work too well at all for me, but this may be because of that lack of new material but it has always seemed a problem of ORCHESTRATION for me, with the piano reiterating the opening tutti and then lots of romantic mannerisms - if you get my point. This has all strayed far from the point of your original question about humour in Mozart. I felt there was humour in the symphony I analysed - I think it was 38 if I recall - and I showed dotted semiquavers on the triad etc. repeated within the instrument sections to show this. BUT, the brief was 'a complete analysis of one movement of the symphony', not a 'revelation' per se. So, I think the lecturer was right. If he had wanted me to discuss the humour he would have rephrased the question. In this essay he was asking how much I knew about musical form and analysis - that is all. Rosen, "The Classical Style", invites discussion of that very style and he DOES do this, yes, but some people have a problem with Beethoven as a strictly 'classical' musician so, in some respects, the book is already polemic for some people. In conclusion, the "problem" of Rosen (apart from the syntax) is 'am I a musicologist or a pianist'?

I hope I have addressed some of your ideas here. Thanks again for the opportunity!!


----------



## Webernite

martijn said:


> Charles Rosen should be warned ;-) But what you think of Chopin's handling of form? I always feel, that except for some interesting codas, the recapitulations of his pieces lack new material. Sometimes his recapitulations are just copies of his expositions (or how one should call them). With the classical composers, and especially with Haydn, as well as with Brahms (in Mendelssohn's music you can find some good examples too) you always get at least something little that's new in the recapitulation. I miss that in Chopin. That's why it puzzles me Rosen praises Chopin's handling of form. I rate him highly, so I can't dismiss his statement so easily, but I also can't understand what he refers too.


Well, he talks a lot about Chopin in his book _The Romantic Generation_, so maybe you should read that. It's very long, but I've read most of it and I think it was worthwhile. You have to keep in mind that Chopin is one of Rosen's favorite composers (as a pianist he often gives all-Chopin concerts). Perhaps he's a bit biased.


----------



## Webernite

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Thanks to both Webernite and martijin - well considered responses and I'm grateful for both!!! Yay!! Martijn you pose some interesting questions. First of all, you ask about the place of subjective comments within musical analysis. I would say, "what's the brief?"; "why am I writing this work and what argument do I want to make?" Now, take a book like Drabkin and his study of the "Missa Solemnis". He's busy discussing what goes where and why but he REVEALS nothing of the work, yet his book claims to be an insight into that masterwork. I would be looking in "a Casebook" study for something of the Bernstein approach - in other words, something from the MUSICIAN as well as the Musicologist. And this is where, for me, Rosen falls down. His analytical approach is that of a musicologist (complete with verbiage) but he concludes and expresses more like a pianist, if that makes sense to you. I also think this partially explains the conundrum with regard to Chopin, expressed in your terms. Chopin's handling of "form" is not something I have made a study of myself BUT I would say that listening (and I would never attempt to play anything beyond the Mazurkas and some Preludes!) is satisfying because of his key explorations, neopolitan 6ths etc. etc. and the interesting idiom in which he writes. I'm not sure I worry about additional material in the recapitulations since I think this is essentially a 'hangover' from classical times and isn't quite relevant for Chopin in particular. Now, his 1st piano concerto doesn't work too well at all for me, but this may be because of that lack of new material but it has always seemed a problem of ORCHESTRATION for me, with the piano reiterating the opening tutti and then lots of romantic mannerisms - if you get my point. This has all strayed far from the point of your original question about humour in Mozart. I felt there was humour in the symphony I analysed - I think it was 38 if I recall - and I showed dotted semiquavers on the triad etc. repeated within the instrument sections to show this. BUT, the brief was 'a complete analysis of one movement of the symphony', not a 'revelation' per se. So, I think the lecturer was right. If he had wanted me to discuss the humour he would have rephrased the question. In this essay he was asking how much I knew about musical form and analysis - that is all. Rosen, "The Classical Style", invites discussion of that very style and he DOES do this, yes, but some people have a problem with Beethoven as a strictly 'classical' musician so, in some respects, the book is already polemic for some people. In conclusion, the "problem" of Rosen (apart from the syntax) is 'am I a musicologist or a pianist'?
> 
> I hope I have addressed some of your ideas here. Thanks again for the opportunity!!


Well, this is an interesting reply, but in the end, I think you're putting arbitrary restrictions on Rosen. If the _The Classical Style_ were a musicology textbook, I could understand why you might object to the way it's written. But most of Rosen's output, _The Classical Style_ included, is intended for quite a wide audience. It's meant to be read by musical amateurs like me as well as by university students and teachers. As I mentioned earlier, some of Rosen's other books don't even need the reader to have a grasp of music theory. Essentially, I think you've made a mistake about what kind of a writer Rosen is. For all his musicological credentials, he's basically just a very intelligent musician who writes down his thoughts for other people to consider.


----------



## martijn

I believe that a musical analysis should always combine both music theory and interpretation, simply for the reason music is both: on one level it's a form of mathematics, on the other hand it has an emotional impact on us. Most writers unfortunately either are theorists who are good in analyzing, but are rather "dry", or, worse, are only occupied with interpretation, but lack knowledge of musical theory. There are few who combine both capacities. I would also like to mention Brendel as a good writer about music.

The relative lack of skill of Chopin's orchestration is well-known, sometimes someone stands up to defend him in this respect, but it isn't very convincing. It strikes me that when I listen to a rendition of Chopin's (lovely) piano concertos, I always have the impression the sound quality of the recording is bad, for the orchestra doesn't sound good. The same with Schumann's symphonies. But of course the sound quality can't always be bad, so somehow it must be the orchestration itself. 

I think Rosen is right to spend so much pages on Chopin, for he is an incredible genius. His melodies are wonderful, but most stunning I find his harmonies. I find them even more impressing than Schubert's or Wagner's. When Schubert or Wagner makes a spectacular modulation, you immediately hear it, but Chopin does crazy things in terms of harmony, and you hardly notice it when you listen to it.

Just I don't see why Rosen should defend him when it comes to form. I've a different view on recapitulations than you, CountenanceAnglaise. I don't believe you should see sonata form as something that had become outdated in Chopin's time. For me, the correct view of sonata form is not to see it in a strict way, as: exposition (repeat), development, recapitulation (coda). The sonata form is a way to give long movements both unity and diversity. By raising and lowering tension, by adding new material, a long movement stays interesting. When a recapitulation of a piece by Chopin offers nothing new, the repeat is only for the balance, it's like the composer says: "etcetera". I would like to hear something new in a recapitulation, that's also why I think codas can be such a good thing.


----------



## Vaneyes

I think Mozart went from light to dark because of his health. He was a very young protege. Burning the candle continuously to the end caught up with him. By many accounts, he was over-the-top in everything he did. Full-speed was the norm. 

I had some good vibes when I visited his second Vienna apartment. Nothing in Salzburg. Do so, if you have the chance.

563 is a dandy. Came to me via Leopold String Trio.


----------



## Guest

Thanks again Webernite (great name!) and martijn. I wasn't totally thinking of Chopin in sonata terms - I was thinking of his Fantasie and some of the Ballades, so not sonata form. I guess I misunderstood you there.

Yes, the muddy orchestrations of Schumann and Chopin are an "issue" for me - except the magnificent "Rhenish" by Schumann. All is forgiven...

We'll have to disagree about Rosen, I guess. When I return to Australia I'll get his book off my shelf and provide specific examples of passages and ideas I have an issue with. For now, I am handicapped not having it here in Vienna with me.

I don't agree Chopin's melodies better than Schubert's. But tonight in the performance of Mozart K310 with Helene Grimaud I was considering the whole issue of "repeats" in music - and the classical composers used these to the max. That's the subject of another possible thread, as I think these "repeats" watered down Schubert - particularly - and made his symphonies rather long-winded. Same thing happened with Mozart. So, there's an interesting discussion right there. You mention Brendel; in February I went to one of his lectures on music here in Vienna at the Musikverein. With my fledgling Deutsch I only understood a bit of it, filled in by the woman sitting next to me who was very nice. I just wanted to be in the same room as the great man!!


----------



## Guest

A further thought Martijn; yes, music is both theory and interpretation. You are suggesting that both is possible. I agree, but terms such as "voluptuous" relating to music is actually a non-musical term. I could handle, "melancholy", "reflective", "tumultous", "tender" - since there are musical conventions to 'signal' or 'cue' those responses to audiences. These words all relate to emotion but "voluptuous" is a term about appearance/the visible. I think he's employing the old literary device of synaesthesia and it doesn't work with music!! A lot about the way we respond to music is similar to those tropes we see in cinema - to mix the senses. For example, an extreme close-up to the eyes in a film is metonymic: fear, thinking, threat... A person sitting alone, with dim lighting might signal "loneliness", "insecurity" - all those visual cues we've learned in over a century of cinema has prepared audiences for the language of cinema. Similarly in music, convention, for example, "pp" and "lento" might mean "gravitas", "sadness", "reflection", etc. Cascading chords and thundering arpeggios can mean passion, anger, exhilaration, bravura etc. etc. All these, of course, must be placed in context - but, by now, audiences know how to respond to these cues within certain interpretational limits. What is the "cue", therefore, which signals "voluptuousness"? This is a rhetorical question because I'm trying to make a point. I guess you're right, though. Rosen is a very intelligent musician but a musicologist he is not. Therein lies the answer.


----------



## martijn

At the risk of becoming too much off-topic and overlong, some thoughts on the previous replies.

CoutenanceAnglaise, you misread my comment regarding Chopin's melodies. I didn't write that Chopin's melodies were better than Schubert's, I was talking about harmony. And I mentioned Schubert because he is such a genius in terms of harmony. If you compare him with late Beethoven, Schubert is definitely more radical as a harmonist. But personally I admire Chopin's harmonies even more, for the reason mentioned in my previous post.

I was talking about sonata form as an abstract concept, and in that way it doesn't differ so much of many of Chopin's forms, in my opinion. Sonata form can be regarded as an A-B-A-form, exposition, development, and recapitulation. Many of Chopin's works follow an A-B-A pattern as well, the Fantasie Impromptu as well. Like in sonata form, it is in A-B-A form (with a short, slightly altered repeat of B), with the B-section providing a contrast, just here the B-section decreases the tension instead of increasing it, like is the case in a development section of a classical sonata. Just what is apparent, that in Chopin there's more repetition, in the B-section itself, and the repeat is similar to the "exposition". One shouldn't criticize an immense genius like Chopin, but in terms of form I would definitely prefer the classics.

It surprises me that you seem to refer to some Mozart's works as being long-winded. I couldn't disagree more. The composers of the "first Viennese school" all had very different approaches to sonata-form. Haydn used melodies, that he most often used, slightly changed as second themes. But his movements are usually so short, that even with a repeated exposition, one can't call his works long-winded. Beethoven's movements can be very long, but he usually uses very short motives, in countless permutations. His movements are as a result very dynamic, and have a great unity. Mozart is a rather typical case. Often there's no central theme, as in most other composers. Mozart works more as an opera composer, and thinks in term of dramatic contrast between themes. For all his fame as a melodist, melody on itself plays a less important role than usually is assumed, Mozart is a classic, his music is about a succesion of relatively short melodies. Because of these great wealth of melodies and his rhythmic drive, a Mozart exposition never gets dull when repeated, and always should be in my opinion, at least in a first movement. There are occasions in other movements where they could be omitted, for example, the second movement of the 40th symphony, where I wouldn't repeat the second section, for without it it already is a perfect sonata form, and the repeat makes it overlong.

Schubert is an altogether different case. His melodies are longer than Mozart's, and way longer than Beethoven's. The rhythmic drive that's so essential to the classical style is a bit missing in Schubert as a result. Moreover, while he leans more towards Mozart in terms of melodies, he is more akin to Haydn and Beethoven in that he re-uses his themes in expositions several times. This is what makes a movement of Schubert sound so long, and the repeat of the exposition of a Schubert movement can be better omitted. In some movements of Mendelssohn you find something similar.

The relation between music and emotions is a difficult one. The problem is: music itself is nothing. Music is not sad, deep, or happy. It can only be interpeted as such. Just all what can be said is that some _analogies_ between music and emotions can be more convincing than others. It's not difficult to see the analogy between the increase in movement in the fragment of kv466 previously mentioned, and the increase in excitement in the listener. In other cases it's more difficult. Like you say with reason, there are only some conventions. But they aren't absolute. Some of the meaning of music for example has to do with how a fragment is related to the musical language. Something that's considered dissonant in a musical language is more suitable for heavier, sadder and demonic moods, since it is harder to "get" for the listener; more conventional things within a musical language will suit a happier mood. This is a reason why so many romantic fanatics talk about Mozart as superficial: they are not familiar with the language in Mozart's times and don't realize how harsh Mozart's dissonances were for Mozart's contemporaries, and what their emotional meaning was. 
Besides this, the meaning of music can be related to language. Most lines in language are descending, as a consequence, in music it's similar. When a line is ascending, it can for example mean excitement. But still here we deal partly with conventions: in Chinese for example a line ends ascending. It would just change the question, instead of wondering how music on itself can have an emotional meaning, the question would be how language on itself can have emotional meaning.

So, I think all statements about emotions about music cannot be proven. A remark as "this music is shockingly voluptuous" is in this respect not very different from "this music is sad". It just takes more imagination to understand what is meant. Of course music never can be voluptuous, just as a wine can't be voluptuous. But music can be described as such. Voluptuous for me sounds like something with a sexual connotation. Rhythm is the element in music most closely associated with sex, and indeed, in Mozart's music there's an enormous rhythmical power. Besides that, Mozart is dissonant for it's time, with complex harmonies and a lot of chromatism, these are things related to darker moods. The combination of these two might explain what Rosen meant. Of course it's just my interpretation, but I don't believe such statements as those by Rosen are meaningless.

But perhaps I should stay more with the topic, my favorite composer. Mozart's poor health may be a reason for some of his darker moods, for example the Requiem. But on the other hand, Mozart's health always has been bad. And I think there is something more personal, something in his character that caused him to write such sad music. Even in his perhaps most happy period, his first years in Vienna, you hear melancholy in many of his works. In the difficult period of late 1788-late 1790, except for Così, he didn't write his greatest works, and his music sounds rather flat. I believe Mozart needed to be happy to produce his best works. Melancholy would be in his works anyway.


----------



## Guest

*That last paragraph of yours, about Mozart and emotion, might find some opposition. (KF, over to you!!)
*
You've given me much here to think about, and I don't think we are actually poles apart! Firstly, I suggested repeats make Schubert more long-winded and, as you say, it happened with Mozart's 40th Symphony too - and I think also some of the other later ones, eg. 39. Haydn uses lots of repeats too; I just wondered about the function of these, since most of them are straight da capo.

You say Mozart's music is chromatic and dissonant. Have you heard Bach lately? His is fabulously dissonant, as were a lot of very late Renaissance/early baroque composers, eg. Heinrich Schutz, Monteverdi - just to name two, and working within the modal system. I'm not sure that dissonance is necessarily representative of 'darker moods' - that falls into the cliche category, IMHO. Dissonance in Bach's religious music certainly has a dramatic effect particularly, for example, the dual tonalities in "St. Matthew Passion" and "St. John Passion" - just to name two - represent dualities in emotion: happy and sad at the one time. The musical equivalent of the oxymoron?

I completely agree that Mozart was essentially operatic in his sensibility - I have long argued that; the cantabile line is always, first in foremost IMO, inspired by the human voice and the drama between the parts in any of his counterpoint may be considered 'operatic', yes. Motivic development, so much a part of the classical idiom of music, is wonderfully concise in Mozart and also Haydn (though I think he was less successful). By the time we get to the Romantics we're looking at "thematic transformation", which is a horse of a different colour.

I see your point about "voluptuous" - you make a good one - but I think it is still problematic and "sensual" would have been better. You see, this is my point about Rosen and his style of writing: he will always go for the vague and obtuse instead of the readable and obvious.

Thanks so much for your considered response. I hope I haven't strayed too far in this thread.


----------



## Webernite

There's nothing new or controversial about calling _Don Giovanni_ "voluptuous." Rosen obviously thinks that the instrumental works he mentioned, like the G minor Quintet, are very similar to _Don Giovanni_ in character. From there, it's not a big leap to say that they too have something voluptuous about them.

Edit: Schütz and Bach may be more chromatic and dissonant than Mozart, but Mozart was still very chromatic and dissonant for his time. He was much more dissonant than the other members of the Viennese School. Still, I agree with you that dissonance doesn't correspond with any particular emotion.


----------



## Guest

Webernite, I totally agree - Mozart's was "comparative dissonance". His 'pivots' can actually be remote keys which create the effect of dissonance, if not technically dissonant (if that makes sense). I actually love that and have found it in his piano sonatas where he modulates using dissonance. I've played some of these sections (not well!) and then discussed them with a couple of people, saying how harmonically daring they are: turning around and finding a room full of snoring people (metaphorically). It literally makes me laugh or smile when I come across such 'chromaticism' and adventurousness with keys. Last night at Helene Grimaud's recital at the Wiener Konzerthaus she played Mozart K310 and used interesting ornaments which I'm sure are not explicitely in the score. One was an inverted turn and I literally laughed when she did this - people next to me thought I had gone mad!! But, I'm such a musical tragic that I listen for and appreciate such things. 

And now I must get ready for Daniel Barenboim in an hour's time and Schuberts D960 (again!). Lots of repeats there. Can you believe there are only 2 works on the program tonight: 4 Schubert Impromptus and Schubert D960 - very cheeky!!


----------



## martijn

What would this "KF" (I don't know him/her) oppose against my last paragraph? I'm curious now.

Long-winded I interpreted as "too longwinded". With Schubert I find that the case, with Mozart not so much. If some movements can be, it's because, I find, the first movement sonata principle is not really followed. In a first movement you will find a repeated exposition, then a development, and finally a recapitulation. But if you repeat both sections of f.e. the 2nd and 4th movements of the 40th symphony, you will actually get: exposition, exposition, development, recapitulation, development, recapitulation. This second repeat I could happily do without. The reason for this repeats I think can be twofold: in the first place they are there for the balance. When there would only one exposition, the development (for me practically always the least interesting part of a movement by the way) and recapitulation would most often seem too long, in my opinion. Another reason may be that music was not yet released on CD, and for an audience the music would be easier to grasp if the exposition was to be repeated. Just a guess...

Of course Bach (Schütz I don't know yet, I've still a lot to explore, since I'm relatively new to classical music, and what I've heard from Monteverdi didn't strike me as particularly dissonant) is very dissonant. There are things in his music which are really very spectacular. Some time ago I studied the Matthäus Passion, and there was one passage, I forgot the harmonic movement, but when I passed by it, I was thinking: "what the * is this?" It was a chord progression one would expect of a late 19th century composer, but not of a baroque composer.
I don't know if Bach is more chromatic and dissonant than Mozart, the first I wouldn't say, it is in any case true that most of Mozart's work, as that of his contemporaries, focuses on the opposition tonic-dominant. In other respects, most of all in terms of rhythm, the classical style is a big step ahead compared to the baroque. And as Webernite rightfully said, Mozart was very chromatic and dissonant for his time.

About the meaning of dissonance I've to think a while. I didn't say dissonance corresponds with this or that emotion. But I do think it's easier used for some moods. The harsher it sounds for an audience, the more it will be related with dark moods. An interval of a sixth for example used to be called the interval of the devil. And modern music almost always sounds dark for the unitiated. It may be a cliché, but sometimes they are true. I try to think of chromatism and dissonance that sounds happy. The closest I can think of is the chromatism a la Spohr, but not much more comes to my mind now. Maybe you have more examples?


----------



## Guest

Isn't the augmented 4th the "diabolis" in music? That is, f to b natural. I know all about sonata form, having studied it for 3 years at university. Also, Monteverdi is extremely dissonant and he used modality and a relatively short ambitus for his melodic line.


----------



## martijn

Yes that's it, the augmented 4th.

How was the Barenboim concert by the way?


----------



## Guest

Absolutely wonderful, thank you!! He's sensitive, authoritative, deeply knowing and intelligent in all his musicianship.

I've just watched a documentary about Bach and I've heard a quote about Bach which I believe perfectly echoes my own sentiments about this genius better than anything else I've ever heard. Richard Wagner, the German composer, said of Bach:

"*He was THE MOST STUPENDOUS MIRACLE IN ALL MUSIC*" - and he ought to know!!!


----------



## martijn

Yes, and about Mozart he wrote: "The most tremendous genius raised Mozart above all masters, in all centuries and in all the arts". And his favorite composer was probably Beethoven. So, I wouldn't place too much value on any comment of Wagner.


----------



## Guest

I agree with Wagner anyway in relation to Bach. Suffice it to say, I don't sympathise with anything else about Wagner. I loved a comment from pianist Andras Schiff - "Bach is the old testament in music". Even Charles Rosen weighed in talking about Bach's dissonance and counterpoint and compared it to Handel's, the latter being rather simple by comparison. In his 55 years of musical and compositional life Bach composed across all genres - except opera, and it may be argued his Passions are highly theatrical anyway - and his last work was the incomplete Art of Fugue. A miracle!!

My husband, who has resisted serious music in our nearly 40 years together, was moved to tears by this documentary and said so today on our way to watch the World Cup Rugby grand final in a Vienna pub!!!


----------



## martijn

Well, I agree with Wagner too ;-)


----------



## Guest

Oh, I see you are online. Yes, it's apposite - that comment. I never cease to be amazed by Bach no matter how many hearings. What about that tessitura in the natural horns at the end of the B Minor Mass - this comes direct from the heaven's, I'm sure!! (I guess we are in the wrong thread here for this discussion, but I cannot find one for Bach.)


----------



## martijn

Well, of course I wasn't referring to Bach, though he is an icredible genius. He just does not to me what Mozart does. I will look and see if I can find a similar Bach-topic for you.


----------



## martijn

http://www.talkclassical.com/2643-johann-sebastian-bach.html, here it is.


----------



## Guest

Thank you so much - I have great difficulty navigating this Forum because it is so dense (and so am I!!). I hope by arguing the case for Bach that I'm not detracting from Mozart's glory in any way: I just prefer Bach by a hair's breadth; there's never much in these things!! And, also, these things are so often mood-governed!! (But I'm always in the mood for Bach.) I certainly respect the fact that many millions prefer Mozart over Bach: the latter is just so demanding...!!


----------



## martijn

Oh, I could understand that some people prefer Bach. I consider Mozart and Bach, regarded in an objective way, the most perfect composers in our Western culture. To call one better than the other seems useless in my opinion, since they are so different: the use of rhythm is completely different, Bach's melody lines are instrumental, even when sung, Mozart's are vocal, even when played on an instrument. There is Bach's mastery of the fugue and Mozart's mastery of orchestration. They are worlds aparts and to state that one is better than the other is just impossible: they are both too perfect, and too different. I can only see it as a matter of preference. 

I don't know if Bach is that demanding (to listen to, I assumed you meant), at least for me he isn't. A fugue is of course more rewarding if you play it on the piano, it becomes more transparent then. But demanding? I can't really say so. But he is regarded as such. For this I always suspect some classical music lovers (not you!) to stress their love of Bach openly, because it would make such a good impression.


----------



## Guest

Thanks for your input with this - very thought-provoking! Yes, I meant Bach was demanding to listening to, and I stick by that. I've been brought up on Bach: my mother played piano and also had an LP of Richter playing the D minor "Piano Concerto" (transposed from violin) in the late 1950's and she used to "talk" me through this work, and others by several other significant composers. So, I was 8 years old when I became aware of Bach and, even then, it was a "what the..?" moment for me!!

I don't think musical snobbery, which is what you alluded to, can be a part of any real love for music!! Also Bach had *30* more years of composition than Mozart did: that fact alone must make a significant difference to the way we view the works of a composer.


----------



## martijn

Well, perhaps it depends on which works you mean: if you talk about Die Kunst der Fuge, I could agree with you. But not all of him I find that difficult to listen to. It has perhaps to do with the fact that harmony and counterpoint is usually considered the hardest to "get" by listeners. I think I have perhaps a good ear for that, and that's why I don't find it that hard. And in terms of rhythm for example, Bach is most often quite simple.

You make a good point about Mozart: he lived very shortly, and with most composers you will find they created their greatest work (if there is one) after their 40th year. And one should think how it would have been if Mozart had lived 30 more years and had continued to write operas at the pace he did in his last 6 years, or piano concertos at the pace he did in his last 10 years, we would have 15 more Da Ponte operas, 5 more Die Zauberflötes, some 50 more piano concertos and countless other masterpieces. That's just more than one can imagine.


----------



## Guest

As usual, some thought-provoking comments from you martijn, thank you. I disagree about Bach's rhythms and think these quite complex, especially when you get into fugues where there are up to five subjects being played at once. I suggest you might be interested in the BBC documentary "Great Composers" and the one on Bach, which is available in parts on U-Tube. Charles Rosen (there's that name again!) has some interesting things to say about Bach, as does Jacques Loussier - the jazz pianist.

The mind boggles at the idea of where Mozart would have gone, when one considers the wonderful 41st "Jupiter" symphony. I love the virtually fugal counterpoint in the Overture of "The Magic Flute", just as one example. This was certainly Mozart moving in a new direction, and it's very cheeky for it assumes that audiences knew and understood when they may not have. Also, the repeated note motif, which is a hint of the repetitions to come in the "Pa-pa-pa-Papageno" aria. I remember reading Richard Rodgers' autobiography (another phenomenal theatre composer) and he talked about one of his overtures where he put in a few bars from Tchaikovsky. Rodgers was conducting and he heard an audience member laughing at the point of the Tchaikovsky reference - Rodgers says, "this is the person I was writing it for!!!". How well we might transpose those sentiments to any composer!!! They wanted the affirmation and acknowledgment of the most demanding audiences and musicians.

Here's a sample from the great Jimmy Levine at the Met: Oh, those brilliant dark chords to open the Overture. (Let's not forget that the symphony itself comes from the operatic overture.)


----------



## martijn

I can't really say Bach's rhythm's are complex, rhythm in Western music is in general not very complex. Of course if you have more voices, there is more going on in terms of rhythm, but basically these rhythms are still quite simple, and the trick with handling more layers is just to create contrast: when one voice has few notes, another can have more, when one is silent, the other can drop in. That's not so awfully complex. I don't say Bach is bad in rhythm, not at all, just the style he wrote in didn't offer so many possibilities in this respect. Classical rhythm I find much more interesting.

As I read in your comment in the Bach thread, you like music mostly for its intellectual power, and I see it here again in your comments about Mozart. That explains our difference in preferences (though we mostly agree): I need the "physical" power of music more. But then again: I'm quite a bit younger than you. Apart from that: I find Mozart superior in his handling of the voice, and, related to that, in his understanding of the relation between language and music. It's an essential part of music, but not easy to analyze and as a result often neglected. In this respect I find Mozart unequalled, and it's probably an important reason why he's my favorite composer.

Where Mozart would have gone, I find very difficult to say. Had he died in 1787 or 1788, one would have said: "he would have become a revolutionary, a demonic genius, 'cause look: Don Giovanni, the piano concerti in d minor and g minor, the last symphonies!" Now he died in 1791, and people say: "In his late style there is a tendency towards simplicity, look at Die Zauberflöte, Ave Verum, La Clemenza di Tito, there's an air or resignation, look at the clarinet concerto, the clarinet quintet, the last piano concerto". The truth is that these were just moments in his life, and his mood and style could have changed dramatically. It's impossible to tell in my opinion in which direction he would have gone.

You are very right about two things. One is the ouverture you recommended me. I already knew it, and I must have listened it a hundred times. It's just magnificent, exactly right, listen to those trombones at the end.

And you noticed very well the repeated notes in the ouverture are returning in that delightful Pa-pa-pa-pageno aria. But not just there, it's also there in the aria of the Queen of the Night, the famous part of "Die Hölle Rache". The opera is in general very tight in its construction, and in very subtle ways. Listen to Papageno's whistle, a rising melody, like a question, he is searching for a woman. When he has found her in the Pa-pa-pageno aria, you hear the same motive again, in the orchestra, but now the rising melody sounds like an exclamation sign, indicating: "I found her, my Papagena!". And listen how the completely different arias of The Queen of the Night and that of her daughter are in related keys, and with harmonic progressions that are very alike. And yet their different characters also are shown in the music.


----------



## Guest

Thinking about what you said about complexity in rhythms: yes, compared to, say, indigenous music - African, for example - western classical music isn't so complex really. But, even Brahms and his hemiola cross-rhythms - just as one composer - and later Bartok and his music based upon folk melodies, and Prokofiev with his 9/8 time signatures, and Ginastera and his "Danzes Argentinas" - are attempts to convey rhythmic complexity. I'm unsure what you mean by "classical rhythms", though. 

Great comments about "The Magic Flute". I don't think I just admire intellectuality in music - I'm listening for that kind of transcendence which I hear in Bach and Beethoven; a kind of spirituality I don't hear in any other composer to the extent that I do with these. Not saying I don't experience this with other composers, but this is much more consistent for me with the aforementioned 2 x B's!! Again, thanks for the input - I so enjoy discussing my life's passion, music! (My two other passions are film and literature - but that's another story..!!)


----------



## TrazomGangflow

So much Mozart I love. possibly my (2nd) favorite composer. I dont know where to begin.


----------



## martijn

Just start somewhere, TrazomGangflow when praising Mozart there's no wrong point to start.

You are right to say that in other cultures there is a greater emphasize on rhythm. Of course also Western rhythm can be complex too. 9/8 signatures I wouldn't call so special, you also find them in Bach. Hemiola cross-rhythms are a little more complex, but still not that hard. Lately I'm playing Tango in D by Albéniz, and you find some relatively complex things there, but still, even for me, it's relatively easy to play. There are some difficult things, Stravinsky is a good example.

With classical rhythms several things can be mentioned. There is much more variety in rhythm, and much more brusque changes can be achieved than in baroque music. I will give you one example of a difference between the two. Yesterday I took the sheet music of a random piece of Bach. I counted quickly how many different rhythmic varieties were used in the first bar of each measure. I counted three different varieties. It was two pages of sheet music. Then I opened my book of sheet music of Mozart's piano sonatas on a random page. I did the same, and on one page I already counted more than 10 different varieties on the first bar of each measure.

I didn't say you only admire intellectuality in music, but maybe more so than me. By the way, I find "intellectuality" a poor-defined term. You often hear people talk about f.e. the great "intellectuality" of Beethoven's late work. It's always been discussed then in a way like these works contain some deep philosophical message. But of course such makes no sense, it's still only music, beautiful music, for sure, but still, just music. And that's just very fine, because music is the greatest of arts, more mathematical precise than the other arts (like literature f.e.), and at the same time the most direct in its way of expression (compare it with literature again). As much as I like literature, I consider music completely superior to it.


----------



## Guest

Martijn, you are right about complexity of rhythms in, for example, Albeniz - rhythm is an important bedrock in Spanish music, of course. I disagree about Beethoven: I think there is a great deal of intellectuality in his music, particularly the late string quartets. If you look at the Heiliger Dankgesang... watch this U-Tube lecture by Robert Kapilow who can explain it far better than I can:






Music greater than literature? I think not. I wouldn't make a value judgment like "superior" in relation to writing and music since I think both have a very close affinity anyway. Unless you've read utterly sublime words you won't know what I'm talking about. Poetry and literature and music - very closely associated IMO. Music is essentially narrative anyway; well, before about 1940 it was. Maybe today it's just *telling* or *describing* a more macabre, pessimistic and dark 'truth' than it ever was?

And as for their being more rhythmic variety in Mozart, try listening to Beethoven's 32nd Piano sonata - last movement.

Again, thanks for your comments - I welcome the opportunity to discuss these things.


----------



## martijn

I'm not able to listen to youtube now. But I stick to my point that music should not be regarded as some kind of philosophy. How would you explain "intellectual' then?

And hey, I've studied literature, so I know what I'm talking about. What you mean with music being narrative? 

The greater rhythmic variety of Mozart compared to Bach has little relation to Beethoven. Beethoven was in this respect much closer to Mozart, and has indeed a great variety in rhythm as well. Though I believe in late Beethoven there is a tendency towards the uniform rhythmical patterns that are more typical of romantic than classical music. This is also shown in the sonata movement you mention, and in respect with what I brought up, this is now one of the lesser examples. For what I meant was rhythmic variety in short fragments. The last movement of the 32nd sonata has in this respect not so much variety. You can see it by watching the score. The rhytmic variety you probably meant, exists between the different variations. But within each variation, there's a tendency to use a certain rhythmical pattern, rather than continuous variation, typical of Mozart. Anyway, in any case we will probably agree this is one of the greatest pieces for piano every written.


----------



## Guest

I would explain "intellectual" in music as a skill or sensibility which explores what is possible, building on knowledge of the past, using structures like fugue (just to take one example) in such a way as to suggest it has been created as a "mental" rather than exclusively "musical" exercise. Bach's "48 Preludes and Fugues" fall into that category, as does "The Art of Fugue" - in the strictest intellectual sense as they were meant to be didactic. Intellectual also means music that contains layers of complexity which may be analysed revealing a pattern of thought which is based on a deep understanding of musical history, historical forms, modality, and such like. You get this in late Beethoven. Again, the Kapilow lecture explores all this. The "Heiliger Dankgesang" from one of the late string quartets (I forget the exact Opus No.) reveals a complex understanding, by Beethoven, of medieval musical conventions such as the cantus firmus and the four part hymns of Bach. He slowed the Heiliger Dankgesang down to such a slow pace that it is entirely disguised from what it really is. That's intensely cerebral and musical as used by Beethoven in this work. Also, "intellectual" means a certain thought pattern, which you get in the late Piano Sonatas when Beethoven is intensely working out musical ideas to such an extent that he pushes the very boundaries of musical form. I have suggested on another forum that it was his very deafness which enabled those boundaries to be extended because he "communicated" vicariously within music itself, between the "parts" as it were. It was this musical "discourse" which enabled him to create breakthroughs which, at the time, were poorly understood by others.

Music is narrative in the sense that it has: a subject or subjects...exposition (a statement)... development (a thesis)...and recapitulation...(a conclusion, and often a coda). Music can also have a "denouement" and intensely dramatic arc. It doesn't need to be "programmatic" music to be 'narrative' either. 

Musical "subjects" are inherently 'conversational' in their treatment and interact with each other in a kind of "dialogue"; they move from one point to another, as does narrative; they contain conventions like the cadence, double bar lines, rests - just like punctuation in the written word/full stops/new paragraphs/repetitions. So, the movement from one point (a beginning) to another is very typical of "narrative" per se. There is a movement TOWARDS something, and away from SOMETHING ELSE. Also, it is emotionally charged and the listener can impose his or her own "story"/"interpretation"/"reception" on the work. It moves us, as does narrative. We go to a place in our head and hearts that we weren't in before we started listening. And, finally, we understand the musical conventions because we have become accustomed to them and derive meaning from their familiarity, eg. the "drama" of the interrupted cadence. The tension of 'silence' used through rests and through unresolved harmonies. Consider the 'dispute' between orchestra and soloist in Beethoven's 4th piano concerto middle movement. Beethoven achieves this through repetition between soloists and orchestra and, most significantly, through dynamics. Even when listening to the 5th Piano Concerto (and each of his concertos are so different from one another) we can hear in that breathtaking 2nd movement tenderness, yearning, hope, strength and lyrical beauty contrasting the two outer movements which are, often, quite bombastic. There's a "narrative" right there!!

Finally, I think we become familiar with each composer's "story" - i.e. style - if we know him well enough.


----------



## Sonata

Can anyone recommend a particular quality recording for someone looking to break into Mozart's piano concertos? I have heard a single movement from each of 21 and 23, so preferably a recording of at least one of those would be great.


----------



## jalex

Sonata said:


> Can anyone recommend a particular quality recording for someone looking to break into Mozart's piano concertos? I have heard a single movement from each of 21 and 23, so preferably a recording of at least one of those would be great.


http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Piano-...=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1320452187&sr=1-2


----------



## Vaneyes

Sonata said:


> Can anyone recommend a particular quality recording for someone looking to break into Mozart's piano concertos? I have heard a single movement from each of 21 and 23, so preferably a recording of at least one of those would be great.


----------



## martijn

Brendel's recordings of the 20th and the 24th piano concerto are also very fine, and these are two of Mozart's greatest concertos as well.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

Mozart's music has so much variety. You can listen to so many differnt kinds of pieces. Operas, symphonies, concertos, many piano pieces.


----------



## Dakota

I love everything Mozart; as others have said, I can't begin to pick just a few of my favorites, they all are!


----------



## jani

Mozarts musical joke proves that also was a great troll. also i wonder what was in his mind when he wrote lick my ****?


----------



## mtmailey

I went to amazon.com and ordered his string quintets i have heard one before,it sounded very good,also i brought the very rare symphonies 1-20 on CDS.


----------



## PlaySalieri

jhar26 said:


> The "Gran Partita" serenade KV 361, one of my many Mozart faves. The third movement adagio gives me gooseflesh every time I hear it. Incredibly beautiful IMO.


A friend of mine told me how - when he was 12 - in the 60s - he was begging his parents to buy him a Mozart LP. He was somehwta disappointed when his parents gave him K361 - the wind serenade. He was hoping for a pair of piano concertos or symphonies - but 13 winds - oh no! But in his own words - he was totally blown away by the winds in that work.


----------



## Ramako

If I had to pick a favourite genre, I would probably go for the string quintets. I love the the ones in D, E flat and g minor and I'm going to listen to the C one again soon, perhaps a couple of times to imprint that one into my brain as well


----------



## Very Senior Member

Mozart is probably my favourite composer of all.

My favourite Mozart genres are "chamber music"" and "serenades, divertimenti, and other instrumental works", according to my classification system.

Among the chamber works I like are various string duos and trios, string quintets, string quartets (all the Haydn quartets), various piano trios, various string piano and wind trios and quartets.

Among the serenades, divertimenti, and other instrumental works I like all the serenades from No 6 upwards, and many of the divertimenti (the later the better).

Picking out the five most outstanding works they would be Serenade Gran Partita (K 361), String Quartet No 16 (K 428), Quintet for Piano and Winds (K452), String Quintet (K 516), Clarinet Quintet (K 581).

Much as I love many of Beethoven's chamber works, the above by Mozart are my peferred.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Moody- Mozart is probably my favourite composer of all.

My favourite Mozart genres are "chamber music"...

Among the chamber works I like are various string duos and trios, string quintets, string quartets...

Now you have piqued my interest in a body of work by Mozart of which I am wholly ignorant. I know and own most of the other works you mentioned... the string quartets, quintets... but not the string duos and trios. Seeing the set with the Arthur Grumiaux Trio available for a song, I have jumped on this.

My own preference across the board is largely for vocal music... and certainly with Mozart the music I am most attracted to is that of his choral works, the concert arias, and the operas. After that...? The piano concertos, the late symphonies, the clarinet quintet and concerto, and the quintet for piano and winds.


----------



## PlaySalieri

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Moody- Mozart is probably my favourite composer of all.
> 
> My favourite Mozart genres are "chamber music"...
> 
> Among the chamber works I like are various string duos and trios, string quintets, string quartets...
> 
> Now you have piqued my interest in a body of work by Mozart of which I am wholly ignorant. I know and own most of the other works you mentioned... the string quartets, quintets... but not the string duos and trios. Seeing the set with the Arthur Grumiaux Trio available for a song, I have jumped on this.
> 
> My own preference across the board is largely for vocal music... and certainly with Mozart the music I am most attracted to is that of his choral works, the concert arias, and the operas. After that...? The piano concertos, the late symphonies, the clarinet quintet and concerto, and the quintet for piano and winds.


Try the piano quartets (esp the g minor)
Piano trios
Divertimenti k334, k563


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Try the piano quartets (esp the g minor)
Piano trios
Divertimenti k334, k563

Thanks for the suggestions, but I already have all of those. It's just the string duos/trios that were a gap... and hearing someone who knows Mozart well suggest that these works are are real interest made me recognize that this is a gap I should look into filling.


----------



## Vaneyes

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Try the piano quartets (esp the g minor)
> Piano trios
> Divertimenti k334, k563
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions, but I already have all of those. It's just the string duos/trios that were a gap... and hearing someone who knows Mozart well suggest that these works are are real interest made me recognize that this is a gap I should look into filling.


I've enjoyed this over many listenings...

View attachment 6709


----------



## PlaySalieri

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Try the piano quartets (esp the g minor)
> Piano trios
> Divertimenti k334, k563
> 
> Thanks for the suggestions, but I already have all of those. It's just the string duos/trios that were a gap... and hearing someone who knows Mozart well suggest that these works are are real interest made me recognize that this is a gap I should look into filling.


K563 is a string trio - that's why I mentioned it. I don't know of any other string trios by Mozart? 
The duos for violin and viola I know of - I listened to them a while ago ad while they did not strike me
at the time as being great works - they might be worth re-visiting.


----------



## Very Senior Member

stomanek said:


> K563 is a string trio - that's why I mentioned it. I don't know of any other string trios by Mozart?
> The duos for violin and viola I know of - I listened to them a while ago ad while they did not strike me
> at the time as being great works - they might be worth re-visiting.


K563 is a string trio and normally referred to as "Divertimento for string trio in E flat major". It was written in 1788. I'm not aware of any later string trios or divertimenti, so it's Mozart at his most mature in this sub-genre.

There are only two string duos that I'm aware of: K 423, K 424. In some classification systems the six 3-part Fugues K 404a are also included among the string duos, but in others are treated separately as "fugues". Mozart didn't write all that much as fugue's, only these as far as I'm aware (tributes to J S Bach and W F Bach, so I understand).

In my earlier post I was simply saying that my two favourite genres of Mozart's music (see below) are chamber music and serendades/divertimenti. I was't suggesting that every single work within these two main genres is all that noteworthy. Several of them are childhood works.

....

All of my Mozart CD collection has been ripped and is set out on my PC using the following classification:

1. Symphonies
2. Concertos
3. Piano Music (solo, dual)
4. Chamber Music
5. Serenades/Divertimenti/Other instrumental
6. Sacred Music
7. Church Sonatas
8. Organ Music
9. Operas
10. Ballet & Incidental Music
11. Concert Arias, Songs, Canons

Most of the above main categories are sub-divided further, eg Concertos is further split into: Piano, Violin, Horn, Other Woodwind, Concertante Symphonies. I have about 98% of everything Mozart wrote, the best of it in at least triplicate, some of it to about 10.

Ditto for Beethoven, Haydn, J S Bach, Handel, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Vivaldi, Purcell, Elgar, Barber .........+ many more, in each case set out on my PC using the best appropriate classification system for each composer. It's a bit of a passion, to say the least, but one I'm fully in control of. I have to confess that great chunks of my collection hardly get listened to, and stand mainly as monuments to former interests of which I've become somewhat exhausted. Still it's nice to have a decent collection, with no big gaps anywhere except deliberately in the case of contemporary music, which is definitely not my scene at all. As a rule, I generally went through each the main composers and made sure I had everything of any importance. It's easy enough to find out what they are.


----------



## Morgante

Grazie Amadeo, grazie per tutto quello che hai fatto, ti voglio bene.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Very Senior Member said:


> K563 is a string trio and normally referred to as "Divertimento for string trio in E flat major". It was written in 1788. I'm not aware of any later string trios or divertimenti, so it's Mozart at his most mature in this sub-genre.
> 
> There are only two string duos that I'm aware of: K 423, K 424. In some classification systems the six 3-part Fugues K 404a are also included among the string duos, but in others are treated separately as "fugues". Mozart didn't write all that much as fugue's, only these as far as I'm aware (tributes to J S Bach and W F Bach, so I understand).
> 
> In my earlier post I was simply saying that my two favourite genres of Mozart's music (see below) are chamber music and serendades/divertimenti. I was't suggesting that every single work within these two main genres is all that noteworthy. Several of them are childhood works.
> 
> ....
> 
> All of my Mozart CD collection has been ripped and is set out on my PC using the following classification:
> 
> 1. Symphonies
> 2. Concertos
> 3. Piano Music (solo, dual)
> 4. Chamber Music
> 5. Serenades/Divertimenti/Other instrumental
> 6. Sacred Music
> 7. Church Sonatas
> 8. Organ Music
> 9. Operas
> 10. Ballet & Incidental Music
> 11. Concert Arias, Songs, Canons
> 
> Most of the above main categories are sub-divided further, eg Concertos is further split into: Piano, Violin, Horn, Other Woodwind, Concertante Symphonies. I have about 98% of everything Mozart wrote, the best of it in at least triplicate, some of it to about 10.
> 
> Ditto for Beethoven, Haydn, J S Bach, Handel, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Bruckner, Liszt, Schumann, Wagner, Vivaldi, Purcell, Elgar, Barber .........+ many more, in each case set out on my PC using the best appropriate classification system for each composer. It's a bit of a passion, to say the least, but one I'm fully in control of. I have to confess that great chunks of my collection hardly get listened to, and stand mainly as monuments to former interests of which I've become somewhat exhausted. Still it's nice to have a decent collection, with no big gaps anywhere except deliberately in the case of contemporary music, which is definitely not my scene at all. As a rule, I generally went through each the main composers and made sure I had everything of any importance. It's easy enough to find out what they are.


I wish I had the time for what you have done.
Do you live on your own?


----------



## Guest

I wonder how compilations are filed???


----------



## Very Senior Member

stomanek said:


> I wish I had the time for what you have done.
> Do you live on your own?


I didn't do it. It was given to me "on a plate" in this format, and all I do is update it as and when necessary. What happened was that I got together with some of my relations and friends a few years ago to pool our classical CD collections. We arranged for someone (a nephew) to rip the whole lot. It took several months, as he only did it during spare time. Under instruction from several of us, he then filed everything using the layouts of "list of compositions" as set out in Wikipedia for each composer. The Mozart list follows this exactly if you check. The same was done for about 40 other main composers, using whatever composition structure was set out in Wikipedia. All the other composers' listings are more simple.


----------



## Jem

So there's this great ClassicFM webpage I found that's got Mozart news, pictures and I found I could compare recordings and read reviews and a bunch of other stuff. Have a look Mozart fans.

http://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/


----------



## Carpenoctem

Jem said:


> So there's this great ClassicFM webpage I found that's got Mozart news, pictures and I found I could compare recordings and read reviews and a bunch of other stuff. Have a look Mozart fans.
> 
> http://www.classicfm.com/composers/mozart/


Yeah, great stuff for people who are getting to know and explore his music.


----------



## jani

Some of you Mozart fan might find this interesting. 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20248852


----------



## Jord

Only just getting into Mozarts works but his piano concerto no.20 and the third movement of his 24th really stand out for me


----------



## ProudSquire

Happy Birthday, Mozart!

Your music still continue to awe and inspire me.


----------



## neoshredder

I heard he is pretty good.


----------



## Guest

neoshredder said:


> I heard he is pretty good.


Pretty yes..................


----------



## jhar26

Happy birthday, Wolfie! :cheers:


----------



## jani

I will celebrate his BD by listening to all my wolfie records today(I have five of them).


----------



## Sonata

Which ones Jani? I will finish up Don Giovanni, then try out some of his Haydn string quartets on podcast.


----------



## jani

Sonata said:


> Which ones Jani? I will finish up Don Giovanni, then try out some of his Haydn string quartets on podcast.


Music from masters pen ( I needed to translate that so it might sound funny) Its a best of collection.
Masters of the millennium
Clara Haskils recording of his 20th piano concerto
Mozart requiem knud vad and the soundtrack album of the movie Amadeus.


----------



## lorelei

Happy 257 Mozart!


----------



## Kieran

I'm going to listen to his piano trios, then the two piano quartets. Tonight I'll lusten to parts of Cosi.

To think, I'd planned to be in Prague for performances of Don Giovanni and Cosi this weekend, but had to cancel. Been listening to old Wolfie all day, while watching the tennis, while driving the car, while pretending to listen to the missus... :lol:


----------



## jani

Kieran said:


> I'm going to listen to his piano trios, then the two piano quartets. Tonight I'll lusten to parts of Cosi.
> 
> To think, I'd planned to be in Prague for performances of Don Giovanni and Cosi this weekend, but had to cancel. Been listening to old Wolfie all day, while watching the tennis, while driving the car, *while pretending to listen to the missus...* :lol:


Now you just need to make sure that she don't see this post or you are in trouble.:lol:


----------



## clavichorder

This symphony has a really intriguing minuet


----------



## DaDirkNL

Mozart, thank you for writing all those wonderful pieces you wrote. I wish you had just lived another 35 years and wrote another 41 symphonies.


----------



## Guest

DaDirkNL said:


> I wish you had just lived another 35 years and wrote another 41 symphonies.


*What !* Are you a sadist


----------



## DaDirkNL

why is that sadistic? I think it's just a shame he only lived 35 years.


----------



## Guest

DaDirkNL said:


> why is that sadistic? I think it's just a shame he only lived 35 years.


It's not his age it's the thought of another run of Symphonies being inflicted upon us.


----------



## Kieran

Andante said:


> It's not his age it's the thought of another run of Symphonies being inflicted upon us.


Get thee to a brewery! :devil:


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Get thee to a brewery! :devil:


After you I'll have a Guinness.


----------



## Kieran

Andante said:


> After you I'll have a Guinness.


_If Mozart had lived longer..._is one of them great classical music parlour games, like _If Schubert had lived longer.._.and, _If Mozart had loved longer.._.and...eh...


----------



## Vaneyes

Kieran said:


> _If Mozart had lived longer..._is one of them great classical music parlour games, like _If Schubert had lived longer.._.and, _If Mozart had loved longer.._.and...eh...


Would WAM have gone Romantic?


----------



## Kieran

Vaneyes said:


> Would WAM have gone Romantic?


I think Romantic would have gone WAM and so been so much better! :tiphat:


----------



## trazom

Kieran said:


> Get thee to a brewery! :devil:


looks like he's already visited one..


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Don't copycat thy Shakespearean heritage!


----------



## Kieran

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Don't copycat thy Shakespearean heritage!


My heritage is Irish so I gave it a Guinness twist... :devil:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

hehe, I wonder what Mozart and Shakespeare would have thought of each other, had they been alive at the same time.


----------



## Oskaar

I am going to start exploring mozart now. Can you list 10 essential works? No, not essential works, but the ten you like most!


----------



## Vesteralen

Clarinet Concerto
Piano Concerto No 20
Symphony No 39
The Magic Flute
The Marriage of Figaro
Posthorn Serenade
Clarinet Quintet

that's all I can think of right now - I'm not as familiar as some others are with the solo keyboard and chamber music works


----------



## Kieran

oskaar said:


> I am going to start exploring mozart now. Can you list 10 essential works? No, not essential works, but the ten you like most!


10 conversion pieces! After these, you'll be begging for more. Gonna limit it to ten single movements, rather than whole works. And I'll leave out the icing - his operas: you want hardcore Wolfie, listen to Don Giovanni about a million times.

1. K466, piano concerto #20, opening movement
2. K457, piano sonata #14, 2nd movement
3. K250, Haffner Serenade, opening movement
4. K622, Clarinet concerto, 2nd movement
5. K551, Jupiter symphony, 2nd movement
6. K546, Adagio & fugue in c-minor
7. K452, piano quintet, opening movement
8. K563, string quintet, 4th movement
9. K377, violin sonata, 2nd movement
10. K364, Sinfonia concertante, 1st movement

Here's the first one, to get you motivated, Mitsuko's mysterious hair playing the piano... :tiphat:


----------



## Oskaar

Thank you Kieran! Enough to start wit, and different styles of compositions. exelent! Hope others continue with their favourits. Probably people have listed them before, but repeating can be good, since users, and also peoples taste, change.


----------



## Oskaar

I made a thread out of it!


----------



## Ravndal

I'm starting to like Mozart's piano sonatas (finally!). Everyone has been recommending me Uchida version, but I don't get why. Probably the most boring recordings ever. Enjoying Arrau at the moment.


----------



## Mandryka

If you like Arrau you may also like Gilels.


----------



## shangoyal

Just heard the clarinet concerto, and Wolfie has won me over again...


----------



## Kieran

5 December 1791....


----------



## tahnak

Kieran said:


> 5 December 1791....


222 years and the music is as fresh as yesterday!


----------



## Kieran

tahnak said:


> 222 years and the music is as fresh as yesterday!


The music is actually getting better with age! It's weathered so many storms and come out the other side intact. I think whatever we feel or experience in life, Mozart's music contains it...


----------



## shangoyal

Kieran said:


> ... I think whatever we feel or experience in life, Mozart's music contains it...


I sometimes feel like that about the first movement of Schubert's D960 piano sonata.


----------



## Kieran

shangoyal said:


> I sometimes feel like that about the first movement of Schubert's D960 piano sonata.


That's true as well. Closest thing to Mozart, for me, is Schubert's music. They're organic! Music shoots from them like branches of a tree. Today I'm only listening to Wolfie, so that'll be different to every other day because...actually, it's not that different at all! :lol:


----------



## Blake

His piano concertos are amazing. I'm going to make a voyage through all of them soon.


----------



## shangoyal

:angel: :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Closest thing to Mozart, for me, is Schubert's music. They're organic! Music shoots from them like branches of a tree. :lol:


You have put into words, in the simplest way, what I have felt about Mozart and his music for 25 years. It expresses the divinity of his music without mentioning God. A seed was planted inside Wolfie and his music came out just as naturally as the stars and all we see arose from the remnants of the big bang. Thanks Kiernan.


----------



## hpowders

Not all of his piano concertos are amazing. Those that are number 9 through 27.


----------



## bharbeke

hpowders said:


> Not all of his piano concertos are amazing. Those that are number 9 through 27.


Amazing? No. Worth a listen? Definitely. I would also say that No 4 is pretty amazing. The version I heard was with Ashkenazy and the Philharmonia Orchestra.

I am currently going through almost the entirety of Mozart's catalogue (fragments and vocal music may or may not all get heard). Violin Concerto No 1 and the Duo in B-flat for Bassoon and Cello (K196c) are the two most recent masterpieces I've heard.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Not all of his piano concertos are amazing. Those that are number 9 through 27.


I realize the first several were re-works, but it's quite impressive considering his age.


----------



## hpowders

Hey, Wolfi!!! Let me know where you are really buried and I will really talk up your music. Deal?


----------



## Kieran

hpowders said:


> Hey, Wolfi!!! Let me know where you are really buried and I will really talk up your music. Deal?


He could do with all the help he can get! He sent me an email - it said his bones are just to the left of the fat guy...


----------



## hpowders

He wrote me to get the movie Amadeus and spread the word that he actually wrote some decent music without too many notes.


----------



## Itullian

Happy Birthday Wolfie!!!!
Thanks for everything :tiphat: :angel:


----------



## hpowders

One of the biggies.


----------



## DaDirkNL

Happy birthday Wolfgang!


----------



## Vaneyes

WAM's Symphony 31 is examined, and somewhat bewideringly, ASMF/Marriner (EMI, rec. 1990) not mentioned.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/to.../symphony-guide-mozart-31st-paris-tom-service


----------



## nightscape

Completely missed his birthday. I'll be listening to some Mackarres/Prague symphony recordings today in his honor. Perhaps some wind concerti if there's time!


----------



## hpowders

Surprised his string quintets aren't mentioned a bit more often on TC, especially the g minor and C Major. They are among his greatest works.


----------



## shangoyal

Listening to _Le Nozze di Figaro_ for the nth time. I think this opera might be the bright kid's crowning achievement. What music.


----------



## Eviticus

Vaneyes said:


> WAM's Symphony 31 is examined, and somewhat bewideringly, ASMF/Marriner (EMI, rec. 1990) not mentioned.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/to.../symphony-guide-mozart-31st-paris-tom-service


Definitely one of my favourites


----------



## Vaneyes

"CSI Mozart", will we finally learn what killed him?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/expre...hpModule_5fb4f58a-8a7a-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e


----------



## Marschallin Blair

*Vintage Beecham Mozart*

















"I am not interested in music, or in any work of art, that fails to stimulate enjoyment in life, and, what is more, pride in life."

- Sir Thomas Beecham


----------



## shangoyal

Marschallin Blair said:


> "I am not interested in music, or in any work of art, that fails to stimulate enjoyment in life, and, what is more, pride in life."
> 
> - Sir Thomas Beecham


Describes Mozart's music pretty well.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> "CSI Mozart", will we finally learn what killed him?
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/expre...hpModule_5fb4f58a-8a7a-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e


I thought it was Haydn slow movements.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Marschallin Blair said:


> "I am not interested in music, or in any work of art, that fails to stimulate enjoyment in life, and, what is more, pride in life."
> 
> - Sir Thomas Beecham


I wish I could like this post twice Marschallin 

Vintage indeed, Sir Thomas Beecham is equalled only by Otto Klemperer for me when it comes to Mozart.

Sir Thomas' London Philharmonic are on fantastic form and his passion for Mozart is clear to hear.

I don't know if this has already been shared but Sir Thomas gives an interesting talk on Mozart and his music in this video. I cannot comment on the whole video as I am listening to it as I type but I find interesting:


----------



## Itullian

AClockworkOrange said:


> I wish I could like this post twice Marschallin
> 
> Vintage indeed, Sir Thomas Beecham is equalled only by Otto Klemperer for me when it comes to Mozart.
> 
> Sir Thomas' London Philharmonic are on fantastic form and his passion for Mozart is clear to hear.
> 
> I don't know if this has already been shared but Sir Thomas gives an interesting talk on Mozart and his music in this video. I cannot comment on the whole video as I am listening to it as I type but I find interesting:


Wonderful video. Thank you. Sir Thomas was quite a guy.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

AClockworkOrange said:


> I wish I could like this post twice Marschallin
> 
> Vintage indeed, Sir Thomas Beecham is equalled only by Otto Klemperer for me when it comes to Mozart.
> 
> Sir Thomas' London Philharmonic are on fantastic form and his passion for Mozart is clear to hear.
> 
> I don't know if this has already been shared but Sir Thomas gives an interesting talk on Mozart and his music in this video. I cannot comment on the whole video as I am listening to it as I type but I find interesting:


---
I've never seen this. Absolutely lovely. Thanks. . . I've always loved Beecham's conversational charm and wit. . . Cheers. ;D


----------



## shangoyal

He wrote great piano concertos.


----------



## hpowders

He wrote great everything!


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> He wrote great everything!


For sure. I didn't give him enough credit for his early-middle symphonic output and string quartets, but it's all rather lovely. Even his output as a child. The Wolf impresses.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> For sure. I didn't give him enough credit for his early-middle symphonic output and string quartets, but it's all rather lovely. Even his output as a child. The Wolf impresses.


Imagine knowing how good your stuff is and having to deal with musical novices as critics. For example Mozart wrote an opera that he knew was really good, The Abduction from the Seraglio, and after the premiere, was told by the Emperor Joseph 2nd that it "contains too many notes."

This would be equivalent to someone approaching me and complaining "too many posts, my dear hpowders."
Totally preposterous!


----------



## Guest

What are people's favorite recordings of k466 in particular? I'm normally not into keeping several recordings of a work around, but some all-time favorites dictate otherwise. I've heard Ashkenazy, Brendel, and Perahia, and like aspects of all. I found Perahia's very nice overall but felt from the first listen that the exposition seemed to lack the same energy that I heard in Brendel's, perhaps an issue of tempi.


----------



## Chordalrock

arcaneholocaust said:


> What are people's favorite recordings of k466 in particular? I'm normally not into keeping several recordings of a work around, but some all-time favorites dictate otherwise. I've heard Ashkenazy, Brendel, and Perahia, and like aspects of all. I found Perahia's very nice overall but felt from the first listen that the exposition seemed to lack the same energy that I heard in Brendel's, perhaps an issue of tempi.


Try Gulda with Abbado if you want something a bit different.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> For sure. I didn't give him enough credit for his early-middle symphonic output and string quartets, but it's all rather lovely. Even his output as a child. The Wolf impresses.


Only his wife seemed oblivious to the greatness. A familiar story.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Only his wife seemed oblivious to the greatness. A familiar story.


No way she loved the genius and wasn't aware of at least a bit of his nature.

By the way, just started listening to the Serenades and Divertimenti. Ooh, beautiful.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> No way she loved the genius and wasn't aware of at least a bit of his nature.
> 
> By the way, just started listening to the Serenades and Divertimenti. Ooh, beautiful.


Have you heard the Serenade for 13 Winds, the Gran Partita, K361? Awesome!

I think Constanza was more interested in the business end of Mozart's music than the beautiful sounds.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Have you heard the Serenade for 13 Winds, the Gran Partita, K361? Awesome!
> 
> I think Constanza was more interested in the business end of Mozart's music than the beautiful sounds.


Yes, lovely piece.

I thought she adored him from what I've read… maybe not? Regardless, I'm not worried about her… it's the Wolf I'm concerned with.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Yes, lovely piece.
> 
> I thought she adored him from what I've read… maybe not? Regardless, I'm not worried about her… it's the Wolf I'm concerned with.


Too bad he couldn't find a musician he would have been compatible with, but they didn't have match.com in those days.


----------



## Op.123

arcaneholocaust said:


> What are people's favorite recordings of k466 in particular? I'm normally not into keeping several recordings of a work around, but some all-time favorites dictate otherwise. I've heard Ashkenazy, Brendel, and Perahia, and like aspects of all. I found Perahia's very nice overall but felt from the first listen that the exposition seemed to lack the same energy that I heard in Brendel's, perhaps an issue of tempi.


Brendel or Shelley for K. 466
K. 491 is absolutely magnificent - listen to Shelley or klien


----------



## BrunoMillot

Beside of all his marvelous music
For me Mozart is more than just a simple composer.
At least for me, Mozart is a very close friend. And this doesn´t happen with any other composer.
The music of Mozart gives me mental stability. 
Mozart gives me joy in moments of sorrow.
He is one of the very few composers that have so many musical motives that it is why it makes it so complicated.
And I speak as a professional pianist.
In just a few words.
Mozart has been always there in difficult times.


----------



## Sonata

Thanks for sharing Bruno


----------



## Bimperl

Sonata said:


> Thanks for sharing Bruno


Co-signed. 

Why, whenever I see "Amadeus", do I have the urge to want to change it all to "Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozartus"? (Give me Amadé, please.  )

EDIT: It may be because the movie by that name was so far off...


----------



## Blake

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - I really can't imagine a cooler name. And one of the greatest composers of all time. The hell is going on?? I can't take this much cool.


----------



## Bas

Oh dear Mozart, I am listening you K. 379 sonata for violin and piano, and I just love the usage of pizzicato in the second movement.


----------



## hpowders

Yeah. Like the name LL Cool J ain't cooler than Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Word? :tiphat:


----------



## shangoyal

Mozart is not as good as you think. He is a gazillion times better. Listening to his music feels like floating in heaven.


----------



## hpowders

Yes. He was one of the top three. No doubt about it.


----------



## Vaneyes

*WAM's* Symphony 29 gets Serviced. I suggest ASMF/Marriner (EMI, rec.1988). :tiphat:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/may/06/symphony-guide-mozart-29th-tom-service


----------



## hpowders

Yes. The A Major #29 is absolutely sparkling! Forever the music of youth!


----------



## hpowders

Recently played the two A Major keyboard concertos. Seems like everyone loves #23.

I'm here to say don't slight #12!! What a wonderful, sparkling, delightful concerto this is!

In my top 5 of all the Mozart keyboard concertos.


----------



## DaDirkNL

hpowders said:


> Recently played the two A Major keyboard concertos. Seems like everyone loves #23.
> 
> I'm here to say don't slight #12!! What a wonderful, sparkling, delightful concerto this is!
> 
> In my top 5 of all the Mozart keyboard concertos.


Absolutely. The slow movement of nr. 12 is heavenly.


----------



## hpowders

DaDirkNL said:


> Absolutely. The slow movement of nr. 12 is heavenly.


Lilting from start to finish! I just wish Mozart composed a few more keyboard concertos in A major.


----------



## shangoyal

hpowders said:


> Lilting from start to finish! I just wish Mozart composed a few more keyboard concertos in A major.


He composed a delightful symphony (#29) in the same key.


----------



## hpowders

shangoyal said:


> He composed a delightful symphony (#29) in the same key.


Yes. I like that one a lot. Very pithy too!


----------



## Mahlerian

shangoyal said:


> He composed a delightful symphony (#29) in the same key.


No. 14 is no slouch, either! It seems that A major was truly a great key for Mozart, and one can point to the Clarinet Concerto also.


----------



## trazom

Mahlerian said:


> No. 14 is no slouch, either! It seems that A major was truly a great key for Mozart, and one can point to the Clarinet Concerto also.


Don't forget #21, that's another A-major gem.


----------



## hpowders

Perhaps. I'm getting a little tired of A Major.

Time to break out some C Major: Piano Concertos #8, 13, 21 and 25; a great string quintet; a few decent symphonies, etc;

By Jupiter, I feel good about this!!


----------



## deggial

hpowders said:


> Too bad he couldn't find a musician he would have been compatible with, but they didn't have match.com in those days.


don't be silly, they shagged a lot!


----------



## hpowders

Both complete Mozart keyboard concerto sets by Malcolm Bilson/John Eliot Gardiner and Jos van Immerseel are highly recommended. Both are HIP, performed on fortepiano.

It's foolish to say Mozart sounds "better" or "is preferable" on a concert grand, because the instrument he was composing for was the fortepiano. Like it or not.


----------



## Itullian

Mozart sounds better on a concert grand 
Like it


----------



## hpowders

A sad day for the HIP movement. One of its pioneers, Christopher Hogwood passed on today.

I have his Mozart early symphony set. Terrific!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

^^^ and a cycle of the piano concertos on period instruments too :tiphat:


----------



## nightscape

I've been listening to Piano Concerto No. 17 in G . Great slow movement and presto finale.


----------



## Vaneyes

An account of WAM's Versailles visit.

http://en.chateauversailles.fr/hist...hronology/1763-1764-visit-of-the-child-mozart


----------



## hpowders

My feelings of Versailles were mixed as well.


----------



## Blake

Been listening to his String Quintets the past couple of days... They are amazing. It seems every time I come back to the Wolf I appreciate him more.


----------



## hpowders

^^^Especially the greatest of them all, the G minor.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> ^^^Especially the greatest of them all, the G minor.


I shall listen to that one today. :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> I shall listen to that one today. :tiphat:


He wrote that in memory of his father who recently died.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> He wrote that in memory of his father who recently died.


Thanks, didn't know that bit. Just finished listening to it, and it's most excellent. Very deep and rich.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Thanks, didn't know that bit. Just finished listening to it, and it's most excellent. Very deep and rich.


Very profound slow movement.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Excellent playing here, imo:


----------



## hpowders

Some wish Mozart could have lived 10 years more.

However his music at 35 years of age was that of a composer resigned to his end: Clarinet Concerto; Piano Concerto #27.
He was already burnt out. Very sad.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Some wish Mozart could have lived 10 years more.
> 
> However his music at 35 years of age was that of a composer resigned to his end: Clarinet Concerto; Piano Concerto #27.
> He was already burnt out. Very sad.


Both of those works are amazing... but yea, the body is a burning candle. Apparently it couldn't handle the intensity of his fire for long.


----------



## MoonlightSonata

hpowders said:


> Some wish Mozart could have lived 10 years more.
> 
> However his music at 35 years of age was that of a composer resigned to his end: Clarinet Concerto; Piano Concerto #27.
> He was already burnt out. Very sad.


Interesting thought.
Can we have 10 more years of Mozart to check?


----------



## DonAlfonso

hpowders said:


> Some wish Mozart could have lived 10 years more.
> 
> However his music at 35 years of age was that of a composer resigned to his end: Clarinet Concerto; Piano Concerto #27.
> He was already burnt out. Very sad.


Seriously this again?

Two operas - La clemenza di Tito, Die Zauberflöte
Quintet in E flat for Strings, Concerto for Horn in D, Requiem in D minor
plus about 20 other Köchel listed compositions in 1791 don't indicate "burnout" to me.
His Piano Concerto #27 may not be the most popular but I find it a charming piece of work and the Clarinet Concerto is surely one of the most performed pieces in the repertoire - and deservedly so.


----------



## trazom

DonAlfonso said:


> Seriously this again?
> 
> Two operas - La clemenza di Tito, Die Zauberflöte
> Quintet in E flat for Strings, Concerto for Horn in D, Requiem in D minor
> plus about 20 other Köchel listed compositions in 1791 don't indicate "burnout" to me.
> His *Piano Concerto #27 may not be the most popular but I find it a charming piece* of work and the Clarinet Concerto is surely one of the most performed pieces in the repertoire - and deservedly so.


I was thinking more along the lines of "sublime" or "life-affirming." Charming would better describe some of the violin sonatas, divertimenti, and cassations he wrote when he was in the single digit ages.

I agree with the rest, though: I think it's safe to say it was renal failure or some other complication that brought an end to Mozart's career, not 'burn out.'


----------



## hpowders

Anyone who loves the Mozart keyboard concertos really owes it to themselves to hear one of the fortepiano versions, by Bilson or van Immerseel. After all, the fortepiano was the instrument Mozart created these concertos for.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Anyone who loves the Mozart keyboard concertos really owes it to themselves to hear one of the fortepiano versions, by Bilson or van Immerseel. After all, the fortepiano was the instrument Mozart created these concertos for.


And the piano sonatas on the fortepiano. Brautigam does an exceptional job.


----------



## hpowders

Blake said:


> Both of those works are amazing... but yea, the body is a burning candle. Apparently it couldn't handle the intensity of his fire for long.


I'm sure he would have written some more great music had he lived, but the bittersweet sadness that pervades the clarinet concerto and piano concerto #27 is unmistakable. This is a man practically predicting his own death.


----------



## Haydn man

hpowders said:


> Anyone who loves the Mozart keyboard concertos really owes it to themselves to hear one of the fortepiano versions, by Bilson or van Immerseel. After all, the fortepiano was the instrument Mozart created these concertos for.


I have listened this evening for the first time to my favourite PC No 23 as a HIP recording by Bilson.
This was enlightening as the fortepiano changes the entire work in subtle ways. In particular the slow movement where there is minimal orchestral accompaniment and the piano sets the scene.
It does not replace my beloved Periaha but it does add a new perspective to these works
I shall be sure to listen to more HIP of the Piano Conertoes
Thanks hpowders for the recommendation, excellent as always


----------



## Vaneyes

Interesting hoopla on the performance of a work Mozart wrote when he was 8. K21.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ospective-review-still-mad-about-young-mozart


----------



## hpowders

Haydn man said:


> I have listened this evening for the first time to my favourite PC No 23 as a HIP recording by Bilson.
> This was enlightening as the fortepiano changes the entire work in subtle ways. In particular the slow movement where there is minimal orchestral accompaniment and the piano sets the scene.
> It does not replace my beloved Periaha but it does add a new perspective to these works
> I shall be sure to listen to more HIP of the Piano Conertoes
> Thanks hpowders for the recommendation, excellent as always


Thank you for those kind words, Haydn man! Sorry that I just now came across your post.

Well, of course, you are certainly welcome. I have the entire Bilson set and the von Immerseel set too. I actually prefer the latter by a little bit. Both are very fine.

One can close one's eyes and imagine Mozart playing the No. 23 on fortepiano.

We cannot possibly know the precise sound Mozart achieved from his Walter fortepiano. We can be sure though that the playing of either Bilson or von Immerseel more closely approximates his playing than that on the modern Steinways of today.

The wonderful thing is we can listen to Rubinstein's great performance of No. 23 on the modern piano or choose a fortepiano performance.

I call that FUN, Haydn man!!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

Vaneyes said:


> Interesting hoopla on the performance of a work Mozart wrote when he was 8. K21.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ospective-review-still-mad-about-young-mozart


Wow! That's going to take a while, but it'll be worth it!


----------



## Vaneyes

MoonlightSonata said:


> Wow! That's going to take a while, but it'll be worth it!


And when you do, MS, in 2041, please consider having a drink for me.


----------



## Haydninplainsight

I studied this piece in secondary school and it made a big impact on me. It's such an emotive piece and the lone piano sounds so haunting when it takes up the melody.


----------



## Kopachris

Happy birthday, Wolfie! :cheers:


----------



## Kieran

Kopachris said:


> Happy birthday, Wolfie! :cheers:


He doesn't look a day older than 258!:cheers:


----------



## clavichorder

Good god, the string quintets are a marvel! I am particularly stricken with the G minor quintet. I hardly have anything articulate to say about it at the moment, other than how much I am loving it!


----------



## Kieran

clavichorder said:


> Good god, the string quintets are a marvel! I am particularly stricken with the G minor quintet. I hardly have anything articulate to say about it at the moment, other than how much I am loving it!


That G minor one is wild, intense, highly distressed. Resolves itself in a very human fashion, too...


----------



## Vaneyes

A critique, 'Amadeus - The Movie at 30' (BBC).

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150224-what-amadeus-gets-wrong


----------



## hpowders

The G minor is the greatest string quintet ever written.

Nope. I know what you're thinking-that's number two!!!


----------



## KenOC

hpowders said:


> The G minor is the greatest string quintet ever written.
> 
> Nope. I know what you're thinking-that's number two!!!


But Mozart is so...old-fashioned! Schubert is like a new car, latest features, shiner and handles better, doesn't rust out on you! :devil:


----------



## trazom

KenOC said:


> But Mozart is so...old-fashioned! Schubert is like a new car, latest features, shiner and handles better, doesn't rust out on you! :devil:


And in keeping with the car analogy, Mozart's are fashioned with all the wonderful intricate features that the driver is expected to discover most for him/herself; Schubert's shiny new feature in the first movement, well, he points it out and then spends the next 18 minutes or so talking about how wonderful it is and why you should like it.


----------



## KenOC

True. You might also say that the Mozart Quintet is like a 1929 Duesenberg Model J Dual-Cowl Phaeton Sweep Panel, technically primitive and barely road-legal. Schubert's is more like a 2015 Kia, far more advanced and requiring less maintenance. But which would you rather be seen tootling down the road in?


----------



## trazom

KenOC said:


> True. You might also say that the Mozart Quintet is like a 1929 Duesenberg Model J Dual-Cowl Phaeton Sweep Panel, technically primitive and barely road-legal. Schubert's is more like a 2015 Kia, far more advanced and requiring less maintenance. But which would you rather be seen tootling down the road in?


Well, I think Mozart's late quintets are actually more technically advanced than Schubert's in one aspect, in the counterpoint and part writing, but I guess they aren't as sleek and new as the Schubert model. I'd want both, one to be seen on the road in, and the other to show off to all the car collectors at home and enjoy for myself.


----------



## KenOC

'S true that Schubert may have felt a bit weak in the counterpoint department. He signed up for counterpoint lessons shortly before his death, and may have taken one.

Mozart, on the other hand, knew his Fux! I'll omit the obligatory joke...

BTW, re your comment: "...he points it out and then spends the next 18 minutes or so talking about how wonderful it is and why you should like it." Good point.


----------



## hpowders

KenOC said:


> But Mozart is so...old-fashioned! Schubert is like a new car, latest features, shiner and handles better, doesn't rust out on you! :devil:


The Schubert C Major String Quintet just may be his finest work without the human voice. But there is something about his music that doesn't grab me and pull me in.


----------



## padraic

Which recordings of Mozart's Late Symphonies (35-41) do you enjoy?


----------



## hpowders

^^^Bohm, C. Davis, Marriner, Mackerras.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

padraic said:


> Which recordings of Mozart's Late Symphonies (35-41) do you enjoy?


I really like Kubelik's 35, 38 and 39:


----------



## Haydn man

I have had the Karajan set from the 70's since they came out first on vinyl then on CD. Old fashioned I know but the BPO are on top form with intense playing and glorious sound.
In the past few months I have been enjoying the HIP performances by Pinnock with the English Concert they give a whole new perspective and I rate them highly


----------



## hpowders

James Levine had some good big orchestra late Mozart symphony performances withthe Vienna Philharmonic.


----------



## Templeton

padraic said:


> Which recordings of Mozart's Late Symphonies (35-41) do you enjoy?


Coincidentally, I have been listening to Karl Böhm's recordings with the Berlin Philharmonic, on the drive into work, over the past few days. They are quite simply, glorious and the BPO sounds as good as I have ever heard them. I enjoyed these so much that I am very tempted to invest in Böhm's entire Mozart symphony cycle.


----------



## padraic

hpowders said:


> James Levine had some good big orchestra late Mozart symphony performances withthe Vienna Philharmonic.


Yup, dear old Dad brought those down for me on the last visit.


----------



## Templeton

padraic said:


> Yup, dear old Dad brought those down for me on the last visit.


And, your verdict? This is the other cycle that I am considering, as it's also half the price of Böhm's and I am especially partial to the VPO.


----------



## padraic

Templeton said:


> And, your verdict? This is the other cycle that I am considering, as it's also half the price of Böhm's and I am especially partial to the VPO.


Well, as a newbie I'm not sophisticated enough to offer any sort of detailed analysis, although I echo your sentiment that it's hard to go wrong with Vienna. I also haven't heard enough other readings with which to compare; I recently acquired performances by Sir Charles Mackerras and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra of 38-41, but haven't gotten around to hearing them.

I will say the sonics for the Levine/VPO performances are up to DG's usual standard, so everything sounds great.

However, as you've been enjoying the Böhm/BPO already, I'm tempted to say "if it ain't broke" and go with that.


----------



## Weston

Has anyone else seen this extraordinary forensic "mug shot?"










Supposedly "the federal police in Berlin recently combined a number of portraits of a man who died in the late 18th century to create a composite image of his face." But that is all the info I have found at this web site.

If it is accurate Wolfgang was nowhere nearly as - well, demeanor challenged -- as his portraits might suggest. Does anyone have more info on this exercise? Were there any life or death masks made of Mozart? What do you make of this picture?

I'd like to see this done with other pre-photography composers.


----------



## Vaneyes

Weston said:


> Has anyone else seen this extraordinary forensic "mug shot?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly "the federal police in Berlin recently combined a number of portraits of a man who died in the late 18th century to create a composite image of his face." But that is all the info I have found at this web site.
> 
> If it is accurate Wolfgang was nowhere nearly as - well, demeanor challenged -- as his portraits might suggest. Does anyone have more info on this exercise? Were there any life or death masks made of Mozart? *What do you make of this picture?*
> 
> I'd like to see this done with other pre-photography composers.


Ted Bundy.


----------



## Vaneyes




----------



## hpowders

I always thought it sounded rushed.


----------



## Dim7

The contrast between major and minor keys feels much stronger in Mozart's music than in other music... I have to be in a completely different mood than the usual Mozart-mood when listening to minor key Mozart.


----------



## HIDEKI SUKENOBU

Dim7 said:


> I have to be in a completely different mood than the usual Mozart-mood when listening to minor key Mozart.


Yeah. What you mean is the same with my viewpoint of Mozart. To the minor works of his famous piano concertos or string quartets, I prefer major ones. Alongside with the major ones, we can get in touch with his expressive sadness, which we can't feel when listening to other composers' works.


----------



## Dim7

I generally prefer major key Mozart as well, but minor key Mozart pieces are precious because of their rarity.


----------



## Albert7

Right now enjoying Anda's recording of your piano concertos on LP to test my new record player.  Sounds great so far!


----------



## AnotherSpin

After decades of listening experience of Mozart's music I am realizing one important thing. My thinking process changes during listening. I do not see a need in searching good detailed description, it just become simpler, clearer, better organized maybe. Anyway, change is seen as positive. Or maybe I am thinking less, what makes me feel better?)) 

I listen now more to his chamber music, solo, trios, quartets, while years ago I was more inclined to his operas and symphonies.


----------



## AnotherSpin

Albert7 said:


> Right now enjoying Anda's recording of your piano concertos on LP to test my new record player.  Sounds great so far!


My recent discovery is everything performed by Lili Kraus - including piano concertos. Did you also hear piano concertos with Paul Badura-Skoda?


----------



## Dim7

I must say though I usually criticize the concepts of "greatness" and "genius" when applied to music, I'm very tempted to use them to describe the first movement of Sinfonia Concertante for Violin & Viola.


----------



## clavichorder

The slow movement the 39th symphony has so much of that light yet heart breaking melancholy that Mozart alone was capable of. I can't get enough of it.


----------



## isorhythm

Dim7 said:


> I must say though I usually criticize the concepts of "greatness" and "genius" when applied to music, I'm very tempted to use them to describe the first movement of Sinfonia Concertante for Violin & Viola.


I would use them to describe the whole thing.

I'd heard it before, but I got really into it a few weeks ago. I've listened to it almost every day since then.


----------



## Blake

I'd use "greatness" and "genius" to describe much of Mozart's music.


----------



## Dim7

isorhythm said:


> I would use them to describe the whole thing.
> 
> I'd heard it before, but I got really into it a few weeks ago. I've listened to it almost every day since then.


The second movement gets perhaps even more praise than the first movement. Personally I haven't been in a mood for minor-key Mozart for a long time, much less slow movement minor-key Mozart (as I mentioned earlier in this thread the contrast between minor and major feels much stronger with Mozart's music than in most music for me). The last movement is great too, but the opening theme seems just a bit weak personally.


----------



## isorhythm

Dim7 said:


> The second movement gets perhaps even more praise than the first movement. Personally I haven't been in a mood for minor-key Mozart for a long time, much less slow movement minor-key Mozart (as I mentioned earlier in this thread the contrast between minor and major feels much stronger with Mozart's music than in most music for me). The last movement is great too, but the opening theme seems just a bit weak personally.


Yeah, the last movement is definitely much lower intensity, as classical last movements often are.

Do you have a favorite recording? I've been going through a bunch on Spotify without settling on one.


----------



## Dim7

isorhythm said:


> Yeah, the last movement is definitely much lower intensity, as classical last movements often are.
> 
> Do you have a favorite recording? I've been going through a bunch on Spotify without settling on one.


I've been content with this. Not generally very picky about different recordings.


----------



## isorhythm

^I like that one a lot too.


----------



## Dim7

At first I thought that I wouldn't like Mozart because I thought his music is "effeminate tea party music". I was wrong. About me not liking effeminate tea party music.


----------



## hpowders

A necessary purchase for every serious Mozartian is the complete solo keyboard concertos performed by Jos van Isserseel on fortepiano. These performances are as close as any of us will ever hear this great music performed on the keyboard instrument and appropriately balanced orchestral forces that Mozart actually wrote for.

I can no longer hear Mozart performed on the modern piano. Sounds all wrong to me. The fortepiano is the way to go.


----------



## Überstürzter Neumann

Dim7 said:


> At first I thought that I wouldn't like Mozart because I thought his music is "effeminate tea party music". I was wrong. About me not liking effeminate tea party music.


Mozart and tea!? I think not. He lived and worked in Vienna. So coffee it is.



hpowders said:


> A necessary purchase for every serious Mozartian is the complete solo keyboard concertos performed by Jos van Isserseel on fortepiano. These performances are as close as any of us will ever hear this great music performed on the keyboard instrument and appropriately balanced orchestral forces that Mozart actually wrote for.
> 
> I can no longer hear Mozart performed on the modern piano. Sounds all wrong to me. The fortepiano is the way to go.


Hmm... I purchased that one recently, but I was actually disappointed by this one even if I am usually a fan of Anima Eterna and Immerseel. While there is a lot of good things to say about it, there seems to be a problem with the balance between the soloist anf the orchestra. There are times when it is almost impossible to hear the fortepiano. Also the wind players don't impress me. Of course, I am not the greatest of Mozartians by far, and my tinnitus doesn't help either. But I don't experience the same on what I actually think that a far better set, if one wants period instruments, the one with Viviana Sofronitsky/Musica Antique Collegium Varsoviense/Tadeusz Karolak.


----------



## ArtMusic

hpowders said:


> A necessary purchase for every serious Mozartian is the complete solo keyboard concertos performed by Jos van Isserseel on fortepiano. These performances are as close as any of us will ever hear this great music performed on the keyboard instrument and appropriately balanced orchestral forces that Mozart actually wrote for.
> 
> I can no longer hear Mozart performed on the modern piano. Sounds all wrong to me. The fortepiano is the way to go.


I agree listening to these epic concertos on performed on the fortepiano with historical instruments and practice. The balance of the sound and Classicism are so transparent. Mozart's turn at every corner whether aria like, jocular phrases or symphonic development are all in these great concertos.


----------



## Vaneyes

I'm sure WAM wouldn't mind a mention of his sister Nannerl.

'The Other Mozart'

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/sep/08/lost-genius-the-other-mozart-sister-nannerl


----------



## millionrainbows

I'd like to hear some crummy music (or music not as good) from Mozart's time, in order to contrast and more fully realize how good he was. I'm serious. Then instead of taking everyone's word for it, I can have actual comparison pieces.

What crummy pieces by crummy composers of this time can I listen to? Saleri might be one.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'd like to hear some crummy music (or music not as good) from Mozart's time, in order to contrast and more fully realize how good he was. I'm serious. Then instead of taking everyone's word for it, I can have actual comparison pieces.
> 
> What crummy pieces by crummy composers of this time can I listen to? Saleri might be one.


The sussmayr completion


----------



## trazom

millionrainbows said:


> I'd like to hear some crummy music (or music not as good) from Mozart's time, in order to contrast and more fully realize how good he was. I'm serious. Then instead of taking everyone's word for it, I can have actual comparison pieces.
> 
> What crummy pieces by crummy composers of this time can I listen to? Saleri might be one.


Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
Giovanni Paisiello
Domenico Cimarosa

Well, you might actually like some of their music, but they're generally considered pretty inferior to the best of Mozart's work in similar genres. There are a couple more examples, but some of my tc friends actually like their music, so I'd rather not name them.


----------



## millionrainbows

Okay, I've got some Dittersdorf, the Metamorphosis Symphonies. I'll do a comparison.


----------



## clavichorder

trazom said:


> Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf.
> Giovanni Paisiello
> Domenico Cimarosa
> 
> Well, you might actually like some of their music, but they're generally considered pretty inferior to the best of Mozart's work in similar genres. There are a couple more examples, but some of my tc friends actually like their music, so I'd rather not name them.


Its fine that you mention the above. Just don't mention the good ones like Kraus. LOL.


----------



## Avey

How silly, but I think Mozart finally just clicked with me. Quite randomly, just hearing the minuet from the 39th in passing earlier this morning.


----------



## Steatopygous

millionrainbows said:


> I'd like to hear some crummy music (or music not as good) from Mozart's time, in order to contrast and more fully realize how good he was. I'm serious. Then instead of taking everyone's word for it, I can have actual comparison pieces.
> 
> What crummy pieces by crummy composers of this time can I listen to? Saleri might be one.


It's a bit tough to condemn 18th century composers for not being Mozart. Of course "crummy" isn't really a technical term, but why not contrast Mozart to wonderful music - think Haydn, early Beethoven, Gluck, down to people like Clementi and John Field (listen to his nocturnes). You will still find a contrast.


----------



## hpowders

My ears have become wonderfully attuned to Mozart played on replicas of Walter fortepianos that Mozart would have been playing and writing for.

Van Immerseel and also Malcolm Bilson, two wonderful fortepianists, for the complete Mozart solo keyboard concertos.

Utterly charming and sounds so right!


----------



## MoonlightSonata

hpowders said:


> My ears have become wonderfully attuned to Mozart played on replicas of Walter fortepianos that Mozart would have been playing and writing for.
> 
> Van Immerseel and also Malcolm Bilson, two wonderful fortepianists, for the complete Mozart solo keyboard concertos.
> 
> Utterly charming and sounds so right!


I love the sound of the fortepiano - I'd love to play one one day.


----------



## hpowders

MoonlightSonata said:


> I love the sound of the fortepiano - I'd love to play one one day.


After listening to Mozart on fortepiano, I have difficulty listening to Mozart played on modern piano. The fortepiano sounds so right in this music. Some of those fortepiano keyboards are astonishingly handsome too.

Anyway, you've certainly got the hand for it.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Would it be accurate to say he was the musical equivalent of Joy from Inside Out?


----------



## Ferrariman601

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Would it be accurate to say he was the musical equivalent of Joy from Inside Out?


We'll never really know for sure, but I'd say that that might be an accurate characterization!


----------



## Avey

Avey said:


> How silly, but I think Mozart finally just clicked with me. Quite randomly, just hearing the minuet from the 39th in passing earlier this morning.


Silly update No. 2:

I was speaking with a close friend, and they asked what I had been listening to lately, knowing full well that I listen to this genre exclusively. (They, too, partake, but are not so enthralled.)

I told them this: _"Well, OK, this is going to sound ridiculous, especially for the name and like how classical is perceived -- just what people are familiar with. Anyways, honestly, Mozart. For the past month or so, I have listened solely to his music, and again, I know this sounds silly, but only now am I realizing how, well, *perfect* and right all his music is. Even for classical aficionados, like [refer to the forum herein], mentioned before, this probably seems ludicrous. But I dunno -- here, now, several years or so in, the reality now hits me. What the hell was I not noticing. I suppose, same as anything..._

He understood.


----------



## Dim7

Although I understand how one might find the minor key Mozart works more interesting because there's simply much less of them, I can't help being irritated by the view that they are inherently more "profound" somehow.


----------



## Avey

Dim7 said:


> Although I understand how one might find the minor key Mozart works more interesting because there's simply much less of them, I can't help being irritated by the view that they are inherently more "profound" somehow.


Where do you hear that view? Not saying it isn't out there, just have not heard that myself.


----------



## violadude

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Would it be accurate to say he was the musical equivalent of Joy from Inside Out?


No...None of the characters from Inside Out could possibly represent Mozart. His music expresses much more than a 1-deminsinal caricature of one emotion could.


----------



## millionrainbows

I tried listening to Mozart played on fortepiano, but it reminded me a lot of my mother clanging away on that out-of-tune WWII era Gulbransen spinet her mother gave her. Brautigam is good, though, playing Beethoven, and Anthony Newman is listenable. I prefer modern pianos, preferably Steinways made in the 1930s.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

violadude said:


> No...None of the characters from Inside Out could possibly represent Mozart. His music expresses much more than a 1-deminsinal caricature of one emotion could.


To be frank, I have to disagree with your stand here. :/ The emotion characters, yes, are caricatures, but they are most certainly not one-dimensional.


----------



## violadude

Abraham Lincoln said:


> To be frank, I have to disagree with your stand here. :/ The emotion characters, yes, are caricatures, but they are most certainly not one-dimensional.


Each one represents one emotion.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Each one represents one emotion.


I haven't seen the film, but I've heard that that was kinda the point, yeah.


----------



## Avey

Way outta left field (but):

What would be y'all's first recommendation of a Mozart composition that _*best*_ features the viola? Curious on many levels.


----------



## trazom

Avey said:


> Way outta left field (but):
> 
> What would be y'all's first recommendation of a Mozart composition that _*best*_ features the viola? Curious on many levels.


His trio for clarinet, viola, and piano K.498 and the string trio k.563, and the six viola quintets assuming you haven't already heard those. I'd mention the sinfonia concertante for violin and viola as the most obvious example, but you said earlier you already liked that piece.

Also, his two duos for violin and viola(k.423 and 424).


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

violadude said:


> Each one represents one emotion.


Not exactly. I presume you haven't seen the film or done much thinking about it. Each emotion covers a whole array of emotions, and each one has their merits and downfalls. For example, Sadness covers guilt and empathy, but also gloominess and unrelenting pessimism.

Though, the context of my original question was more among the lines of "Can Mozart's music be deemed as being characteristically light-hearted and lacking major...substantial weight (e.g. like the weight one can find in Bach's music) despite the hardships he had to go through?"


----------



## Kieran

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Though, the context of my original question was more among the lines of "Can Mozart's music be deemed as being characteristically light-hearted and lacking major...substantial weight (e.g. like the weight one can find in Bach's music) despite the hardships he had to go through?"


No. :tiphat:....................................


----------



## violadude

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Not exactly. I presume you haven't seen the film or done much thinking about it. Each emotion covers a whole array of emotions, and each one has their merits and downfalls. For example, Sadness covers guilt and empathy, but also gloominess and unrelenting pessimism.
> 
> *Though, the context of my original question was more among the lines of "Can Mozart's music be deemed as being characteristically light-hearted and lacking major...substantial weight (e.g. like the weight one can find in Bach's music) despite the hardships he had to go through?"*


I already knew this was the context of your original question. And that's why I answered the way I did originally.

Mozart's music has lots of depth of emotion. So the analogy isn't very good imo.


----------



## Dim7

There is only Mozart - fu*ck everyone else.

I don't really believe that, but I felt like saying it for some reason.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I tried listening to Mozart played on fortepiano, but it reminded me a lot of my mother clanging away on that out-of-tune WWII era Gulbransen spinet her mother gave her. Brautigam is good, though, playing Beethoven, and Anthony Newman is listenable. I prefer modern pianos, preferably Steinways made in the 1930s.


Mozart's writing - like Beethoven's - went beyond the piano of his day


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Dim7 said:


> There is only Mozart - fu*ck everyone else.
> 
> I don't really believe that, but I felt like saying it for some reason.


Thanks, you have now given me some rather disturbing mental images.


----------



## hagridindminor

millionrainbows said:


> I'd like to hear some crummy music (or music not as good) from Mozart's time, in order to contrast and more fully realize how good he was. I'm serious. Then instead of taking everyone's word for it, I can have actual comparison pieces.
> .


It could be that Mozart has become such a standard of classical music that when you hear him, you may overhear the music as generic classical music, while you might hear more of the later composers who are much more expirimental and find it much more original. But the reason why that classical sound is imprinted on us is because of mozart.

When listening you also have to try to keep in mind that the difference between Mozart and other composers (and a reason why many people don't like Mozart) is that it is far less theatrical than other composers. His works have a sort of quality as if he really is just jotting down his thoughts, without spending time thinking how it'll turn out. This could perhaps be due to being spoiled with musical ability, some dislike mozart's music because of this, others find it more innocent.

Another reason why his music may be difficult to feel may be simply due to the amount of pieces he wrote. If you were to pick out a hanful of his masterpieces and say "this is mozart" it'd be way easier to see his musicianship. The problem is he just wrote so much, many of his pieces sounding very similar to his others which may give the impression that the music isn't that hard to write. However I don't think he is at any fault by writing too much.

(btw Salieri's compositions are actually really good)


----------



## violadude

hagridindminor said:


> It could be that Mozart has become such a standard of classical music that when you hear him, you may overhear the music as generic classical music, while you might hear more of the later composers who are much more expirimental and find it much more original. But the reason why that classical sound is imprinted on us is because of mozart.
> 
> When listening you also have to try to keep in mind that the difference between Mozart and other composers (and a reason why many people don't like Mozart) is that it is far less theatrical than other composers. *His works have a sort of quality as if he really is just jotting down his thoughts, without spending time thinking how it'll turn out. This could perhaps be due to being spoiled with musical ability, some dislike mozart's music because of this, others find it more innocent.
> *
> Another reason why his music may be difficult to feel may be simply due to the amount of pieces he wrote. If you were to pick out a hanful of his masterpieces and say "this is mozart" it'd be way easier to see his musicianship. The problem is he just wrote so much, many of his pieces sounding very similar to his others which may give the impression that the music isn't that hard to write. However I don't think he is at any fault by writing too much.
> 
> (btw Salieri's compositions are actually really good)


Agreed with you until the bold sentences. Surely, Mozart's music is well crafted and thought out.


----------



## EdwardBast

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Though, the context of my original question was more among the lines of "Can Mozart's music be deemed as being characteristically light-hearted and lacking major...substantial weight (e.g. like the weight one can find in Bach's music) despite the hardships he had to go through?"


How would lighthearted, insubstantial music be inconsistent with enduring hardships? In that era and style, music wasn't generally thought to be a vehicle for personal expression. That was more of a romantic notion


----------



## hagridindminor

violadude said:


> Agreed with you until the bold sentences. Surely, Mozart's music is well crafted and thought out.


I never meant to imply that it was not well crafted, but I find it hard to believe that each of his 600+ compositions were made with his blood and sweat


----------



## WhoseLineFan

This is my favorite piece by him.


----------



## Avey

Maybe some of you have already read this, but : http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/discover-the-10-most-unfairly-neglected-mozart-works

Thoughts?


----------



## Cosmos

Avey said:


> Maybe some of you have already read this, but : http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/discover-the-10-most-unfairly-neglected-mozart-works
> 
> Thoughts?


Haven't read it before, and my thoughts are: I haven't heard of most of these Mozart pieces either! 
Though if his D major String Quintet and Piano Concerto 26 make the list, then I for sure need to dive into the rest

Thanks for recommendations!


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> It could be that Mozart has become such a standard of classical music that when you hear him, you may overhear the music as generic classical music, while you might hear more of the later composers who are much more expirimental and find it much more original. But the reason why that classical sound is imprinted on us is because of mozart.
> 
> When listening you also have to try to keep in mind that the difference between Mozart and other composers (and a reason why many people don't like Mozart) is that it is far less theatrical than other composers. *His works have a sort of quality as if he really is just jotting down his thoughts, without spending time thinking how it'll turn out.* This could perhaps be due to being spoiled with musical ability, some dislike mozart's music because of this, others find it more innocent.
> 
> Another reason why his music may be difficult to feel may be simply due to the amount of pieces he wrote. If you were to pick out a hanful of his masterpieces and say "this is mozart" it'd be way easier to see his musicianship. The problem is he just wrote so much, many of his pieces sounding very similar to his others which may give the impression that the music isn't that hard to write. However I don't think he is at any fault by writing too much.
> 
> (btw Salieri's compositions are actually really good)


Nonsense - Mozart is famous in no small part for the structural perfection and symetry of his great works. He also did labour over many of his pieces - for example the haydn quartets manuscripts show many corrections. Forget the myth of Mozart composing in his head and writing the whole lot down - job done. Haydn himself told Mozarts father (he has taste and the most profound knowledge of the art of composition".


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> It could be that Mozart has become such a standard of classical music that when you hear him, you may overhear the music as generic classical music, while you might hear more of the later composers who are much more expirimental and find it much more original. But the reason why that classical sound is imprinted on us is because of mozart.
> 
> When listening you also have to try to keep in mind that the difference between Mozart and other composers (and a reason why many people don't like Mozart) is that it is far less theatrical than other composers. His works have a sort of quality as if he really is just jotting down his thoughts, without spending time thinking how it'll turn out. This could perhaps be due to being spoiled with musical ability, some dislike mozart's music because of this, others find it more innocent.
> 
> Another reason why his music may be difficult to feel may be simply due to the amount of pieces he wrote. If you were to pick out a hanful of his masterpieces and say "this is mozart" it'd be way easier to see his musicianship. The problem is he just wrote so much, many of his pieces sounding very similar to his others which may give the impression that the music isn't that hard to write. However I don't think he is at any fault by writing too much.
> 
> (btw Salieri's compositions are actually really good)


No Salieri's compositions are not good - they have remained obscure for good reason - they are no better or worse than many other lesser talents from that era. At any rate the Salieri revival has failed and only a handful of recordings are available - despite the publicity created by amadeus and despite the fact he wrote 40 operas and none have got into the accepted repertoire. If it were not for Amadeus - there would be virtually no interest in Salieri.
If you knew Mozart's music well you would realise he was an innovative and adventurous composer - many people still mistake some of his minor key works for beethoven. There's really nothing to compare with many of his works and they mostly sound very different from what his contemporaries were doing at the time. I could give dozens of examples.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

^Please don't bully poor Salieri. He's been through enough already.


----------



## hagridindminor

stomanek said:


> No Salieri's compositions are not good - they have remained obscure for good reason - they are no better or worse than many other lesser talents from that era. At any rate the Salieri revival has failed and only a handful of recordings are available - despite the publicity created by amadeus and despite the fact he wrote 40 operas and none have got into the accepted repertoire. If it were not for Amadeus - there would be virtually no interest in Salieri.
> If you knew Mozart's music well you would realise he was an innovative and adventurous composer - many people still mistake some of his minor key works for beethoven. There's really nothing to compare with many of his works and they mostly sound very different from what his contemporaries were doing at the time. I could give dozens of examples.


Did I ever say he was as good as Mozart? Even the movie didn't depict him as a terrible composer, I thought the the opera he played to the priest at the beginning was really good, and in fact I think that was the point of the movie. The point of the movie wasn't to show how some people are born gifted, or more loved by god, but rather the world is unfortunately controlled by people like Salieri (or the character Salieri) who are educated, probably high class, but as the movie suggests, "mediocre", and their primary task seems to be to make sure the world remains that way in fear of losing their power. I think they intentionally chose someone who is exactly that type of composer, because the less trained are typically not the ones in power. The intention of the movie wasn't to mock the 10 year old trying to play a c major scale on the violin which sounds painful to the ear, but rather the person who was well reguarded by society and reaped all of its benefits I'm not very familiar of the play writer, but I'd assume he just picked Mozart as the character of choice because he was the perfect candidate for the message he was trying to convey, and he just needed an antagonist so he chose Salieri. That's atleast my interpretation.

But if you were to hear Salieri's composition and you didn't know who he is, I'm sure you'd think "well this is a good well trained classical composer" nothing more nothing less. But so what? There are plenty of well trained classical musicians today that we don't go out of our way to hate on just because they arn't as good as Mozart


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> Did I ever say he was as good as Mozart? Even the movie didn't depict him as a terrible composer, I thought the the opera he played to the priest at the beginning was really good, and in fact I think that was the point of the movie. The point of the movie wasn't to show how some people are born gifted, or more loved by god, but rather the world is unfortunately controlled by people like Salieri (or the character Salieri) who are educated, probably high class, but as the movie suggests, "mediocre", and their primary task seems to be to make sure the world remains that way in fear of losing their power. I think they intentionally chose someone who is exactly that type of composer, because the less trained are typically not the ones in power. The intention of the movie wasn't to mock the 10 year old trying to play a c major scale on the violin which sounds painful to the ear, but rather the person who was well reguarded by society and reaped all of its benefits I'm not very familiar of the play writer, but I'd assume he just picked Mozart as the character of choice because he was the perfect candidate for the message he was trying to convey, and he just needed an antagonist so he chose Salieri. That's atleast my interpretation.
> 
> But if you were to hear Salieri's composition and you didn't know who he is, *I'm sure you'd think "well this is a good well trained classical composer" nothing more nothing less.* But so what? There are plenty of well trained classical musicians today that we don't go out of our way to hate on just because they arn't as good as Mozart


and I would also think that of dozens of Salieri's peers. see my latest post in the salieri thread.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Abraham Lincoln said:


> ^Please don't bully poor Salieri. He's been through enough already.


no I disagree - bully him - he had a long and fruitful priviliged life - and died in the delusion that he was a great composer.


----------



## Dim7

Isn't PC no. 22 underrated? It's my current favorite of his PC's.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Dim7 said:


> Isn't PC no. 22 underrated? It's my current favorite of his PC's.


Not under rated - it is very highly rated as far as I know.


----------



## hagridindminor

stomanek said:


> no I disagree - bully him - he had a long and fruitful priviliged life - and died in the delusion that he was a great composer.


You do realize it was just a movie?


----------



## hagridindminor

Dim7 said:


> Isn't PC no. 22 underrated? It's my current favorite of his PC's.


It might be less known just because its in between number 20 and number 23


----------



## KenOC

hagridindminor said:


> You do realize it was just a movie?


Just a movie??? It was an exhaustively researched and historically accurate biopic. It's absolutely true that Mozart was a little jerk in satin pants with a laugh that would have made anybody want to kill him. Salieri should have been given a medal! :lol:


----------



## hagridindminor

KenOC said:


> Just a movie??? It was an exhaustively researched and historically accurate biopic. It's absolutely true that Mozart was a little jerk in satin pants with a laugh that would have made anybody want to kill him. Salieri should have been given a medal! :lol:


It's actually quite funny how the writer just arbitrarily decided to portray both Mozart and Salieri in such a way. Lets just take a character, and give him an obscene laugh for kicks lol. You could make a good movie for every historical figure who lived


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

stomanek said:


> no I disagree - bully him - he had a long and fruitful priviliged life - and died in the delusion that he was a great composer.


He had dementia. Can't exactly blame him for dying in delusions.


----------



## hagridindminor

Well if we are referring to the movie, he knew all along that he was a mediocre composer. If we are talking about real life, I'm sure he was happy being a good composer for the time


----------



## KenOC

hagridindminor said:


> Well if we are referring to the movie, he knew all along that he was a mediocre composer. If we are talking about real life, I'm sure he was happy being a good composer for the time


Not all of Mozart's contemporaries were happy just to be "good composers." Leopold Kozeluch said on Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


----------



## hagridindminor

KenOC said:


> Not all of Mozart's contemporaries were happy just to be "good composers." Leopold Kozeluch said on Mozart's death: "Of course it's too bad about such a great genius, but it's good for us that he's dead. Because if he had lived longer, really the world would not have given a single piece of bread for our compositions."


I thought Mozart by the time he was older was already on the decline in terms of success


----------



## KenOC

hagridindminor said:


> I thought Mozart by the time he was older was already on the decline in terms of success


 I believe that Mozart's success in Vienna declined in his later years, partly because of the economic situation there, and he was forced to travel extensively to give concerts. Things got a quite tough for his family. But in 1790-91, his fortunes appeared to improve and he was making a good start on paying down his debts. Too late, alas.

It's interesting the Emperor Joseph II appointed him as his "chamber composer" in 1787, a post that carried some prestige even if it didn't pay very well. "Court records show that Joseph's aim was to keep the esteemed composer from leaving Vienna in pursuit of better prospects." Beethoven received a similar but much larger stipend 20 years later from Vienna aristocrats for the same reason.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> You do realize it was just a movie?


In the movie he is seen understanding he was not a great composer - so your comment doesnt make any sense.

In real life I believe he believed he was a great composer and would be seen as such by posterity - he had every reason to believe this as he had tremendous success in his career and taught the likes of Beethoven - Beethoven esteemed him.


----------



## KenOC

stomanek said:


> In real life I believe he believed he was a great composer and would be seen as such by posterity - he had every reason to believe this as he had tremendous success in his career and taught the likes of Beethoven - Beethoven esteemed him.


I believe he was the only composer, aside from Haydn, to receive a dedication from Beethoven.


----------



## DavidA

hagridindminor said:


> It's actually quite funny how the writer just arbitrarily decided to portray both Mozart and Salieri in such a way. Lets just take a character, and give him an obscene laugh for kicks lol. You could make a good movie for every historical figure who lived


The portrayal of the composers in Amadeus was not arbitrary but based on certain statements people made about them over the years - eg that Mozart was "just a boy". That statement was actually made about his management of financial affairs and not his whole character. Of course Schaffer based his whole character on that one assessment. Also the rumour that Salieri poisoned Mozart. I don't think Schaffer was under any illusion that he was writing fiction albeit based on historical events. Ne problem is that people - as they did with the da Vinci Code- think it was factual!


----------



## PlaySalieri

KenOC said:


> I believe he was the only composer, aside from Haydn, to receive a dedication from Beethoven.


true - but he never played (as far as we know) Salieri's music or Haydns

where as we know he played M piano concertos and he also tried to emulate many of Mozart's works - the c minor PC for example - and the pf quintet. not matching them of course.

He no doubt considered M a greater composer than either H or S


----------



## hagridindminor

DavidA said:


> The portrayal of the composers in Amadeus was not arbitrary but based on certain statements people made about them over the years - eg that Mozart was "just a boy". That statement was actually made about his management of financial affairs and not his whole character. Of course Schaffer based his whole character on that one assessment. Also the rumour that Salieri poisoned Mozart. I don't think Schaffer was under any illusion that he was writing fiction albeit based on historical events. Ne problem is that people - as they did with the da Vinci Code- think it was factual!


For some reason I think of him as being soft spoken and boyish while secretly obscene behind closed doors. Not so effeminate and outspoken like the movie portrayed (not that theres anything wrong with that)


----------



## hagridindminor

stomanek said:


> true - but he never played (as far as we know) Salieri's music or Haydns
> 
> where as we know he played M piano concertos and he also tried to emulate many of Mozart's works - the c minor PC for example - and the pf quintet. not matching them of course.
> 
> He no doubt considered M a greater composer than either H or S


It also seemed to me as if Beethoven was aggressive and ambitious to try to surpass Mozart's work as opposed to seeing him as a mentor. I figured that was why he never spoke out in admiration towards Mozart's work


----------



## KenOC

hagridindminor said:


> It also seemed to me as if Beethoven was aggressive and ambitious to try to surpass Mozart's work as opposed to seeing him as a mentor. I figured that was why he never spoke out in admiration towards Mozart's work


In fact, Beethoven often praised Mozart's music and held him second only to Handel. He studied Mozart's works, performed Mozart's piano concertos (and wrote cadenzas for them), and rather transparently took Mozart's music as models for his own, mostly in his early career.

- "I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death." (Letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler, who had sent him his essay on Mozart's "Requiem")

- "Cramer, Cramer! We shall never be able to compose anything like that! " (To Cramer, after the two had heard Mozart's concerto in C-minor at a concert in the Augarten)

- Among other topics Mozart came on the tapis, and the Baronin asked Beethoven (in writing, of course) which Mozart opera he thought most of. "Die Zauberflote" said Beethoven, and, suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes, exclaimed: "Oh, Mozart!" (To Baronin Born, 1820)


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> In fact, Beethoven often praised Mozart's music and held him second only to Handel. He studied Mozart's works, performed Mozart's piano concertos (and wrote cadenzas for them), and rather transparently took Mozart's music as models for his own, mostly in his early career.
> 
> - "I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death." (Letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler, who had sent him his essay on Mozart's "Requiem")
> 
> - "Cramer, Cramer! We shall never be able to compose anything like that! " (To Cramer, after the two had heard Mozart's concerto in C-minor at a concert in the Augarten)
> 
> - Among other topics Mozart came on the tapis, and the Baronin asked Beethoven (in writing, of course) which Mozart opera he thought most of. "Die Zauberflote" said Beethoven, and, suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes, exclaimed: "Oh, Mozart!" (To Baronin Born, 1820)


Beethoven certainly admired Mozart and even (so it is said) sought lessons from him. Mozart also admired Beethoven's talent. We know Beethoven admired Mozart's piano concertos and even wrote cadenzas for at least one of them. And after Mozart's death LvB was soloist in the D minor concerto at a benefit concert for Mozart's widow. Why oh why hadn't recording been invented??


----------



## hagridindminor

KenOC said:


> In fact, Beethoven often praised Mozart's music and held him second only to Handel. He studied Mozart's works, performed Mozart's piano concertos (and wrote cadenzas for them), and rather transparently took Mozart's music as models for his own, mostly in his early career.
> 
> - "I have always reckoned myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall do so till the day of my death." (Letter to Abbe Maximilian Stadler, who had sent him his essay on Mozart's "Requiem")
> 
> - "Cramer, Cramer! We shall never be able to compose anything like that! " (To Cramer, after the two had heard Mozart's concerto in C-minor at a concert in the Augarten)
> 
> - Among other topics Mozart came on the tapis, and the Baronin asked Beethoven (in writing, of course) which Mozart opera he thought most of. "Die Zauberflote" said Beethoven, and, suddenly clasping his hands and throwing up his eyes, exclaimed: "Oh, Mozart!" (To Baronin Born, 1820)


oh in fact that entirely changes my perspective on him. I read a long list of quotes towards mozart and I didn't see any quotes by Beethoven, I also saw a list of quotes by Beethoven and I got the impression that he was too brash/conceited


----------



## hagridindminor

DavidA said:


> Beethoven certainly admired Mozart and even (so it is said) sought lessons from him. Mozart also admired Beethoven's talent. We know Beethoven admired Mozart's piano concertos and even wrote cadenzas for at least one of them. And after Mozart's death LvB was soloist in the D minor concerto at a benefit concert for Mozart's widow. Why oh why hadn't recording been invented??


I always wondered just how good or different composers of the time were. I'd assume it was a relatively new genre so they were able to be more risky and expressive, but perhaps not as perfected as we see with modern classical musicians. I'm not sure, if anyone has any ideas please share


----------



## violadude

It's kind of interesting to realize that Mozart wasn't always the "super-genius" composer that we all think of him as. He was a very talented and natural child prodigy, no doubt. But I just listened to Piano Concerto #5 (his first completely original piano concerto) and found it fairly mediocre compared to the high standards of composition I am used to hearing from Mozart. He was 17 when he wrote this piece and was either near the end of his "family music tours" era or just beginning his position at Salzburg. I'm not sure which.

He must have learned a lot very quickly at Salzburg. Between the 5th piano concerto and the 6th piano concerto, he wrote (among other things) his first 6 piano sonatas and his 5 violin concertos. The attempts at each respective genre get progressively better and the 6th Piano Concerto ended up being way better than the 5th, at least according to my estimation.


----------



## trazom

violadude said:


> It's kind of interesting to realize that Mozart wasn't always the "super-genius" composer that we all think of him as. He was a very talented and natural child prodigy, no doubt. But I just listened to Piano Concerto #5 (his first completely original piano concerto) and found it fairly mediocre compared to the high standards of composition I am used to hearing from Mozart. He was 17 when he wrote this piece and was either near the end of his "family music tours" era or just beginning his position at Salzburg. I'm not sure which.
> 
> He must have learned a lot very quickly at Salzburg. Between the 5th piano concerto and the 6th piano concerto, he wrote (among other things) his first 6 piano sonatas and his 5 violin concertos. The attempts at each respective genre get progressively better and the 6th Piano Concerto ended up being way better than the 5th, at least according to my estimation.


Hm. The 5th piano concerto is actually taken much more seriously than the three concertos that come directly after it. Many observe it as bold and more ambitious(especially the form and technical skill of the original last movement) whereas the next three are 'witty drawing room music written for amateurs.' It seems Mozart had a preference for the 5th concerto as well since he took it with him to Vienna and performed it more frequently than the others except for, perhaps, the 9th piano concerto.



Lyricus said:


> Wasn't Mendelssohn supposed to be even more of a genius anyway, except that he got slighted by new movements.
> 
> I think even Mozart's early work is great, but I wish we had some of Nannerl's compositions.


Mendelssohn is reputed to be the greater prodigy, definitely not the greater "genius," though.


----------



## Lyricus

violadude said:


> It's kind of interesting to realize that Mozart wasn't always the "super-genius" composer that we all think of him as. He was a very talented and natural child prodigy, no doubt. But I just listened to Piano Concerto #5 (his first completely original piano concerto) and found it fairly mediocre compared to the high standards of composition I am used to hearing from Mozart. He was 17 when he wrote this piece and was either near the end of his "family music tours" era or just beginning his position at Salzburg. I'm not sure which.
> 
> He must have learned a lot very quickly at Salzburg. Between the 5th piano concerto and the 6th piano concerto, he wrote (among other things) his first 6 piano sonatas and his 5 violin concertos. The attempts at each respective genre get progressively better and the 6th Piano Concerto ended up being way better than the 5th, at least according to my estimation.


Wasn't Mendelssohn supposed to be even more of a genius anyway, except that he got slighted by new movements.

I think even Mozart's early work is great, but I wish we had some of Nannerl's compositions.


----------



## violadude

trazom said:


> Hm. The 5th piano concerto is actually taken much more seriously than the three concertos that come directly after it. Many observe it as bold and more ambitious(especially the form and technical skill of the original last movement) whereas the next three are 'witty drawing room music written for amateurs.' It seems Mozart had a preference for the 5th concerto as well since he took it with him to Vienna and performed it more frequently than the others except for, perhaps, the 9th piano concerto.


Didn't know that. Guess I'll have to take a second look at it. I thought it was kind of strange how much the violins were doubling the piano even during its solos. I also thought the appearance of the main theme in D Major in the middle of the development section of the 1st movement weakened it for the recap.


----------



## EDaddy

Tchaikovsky once referred to Mozart as the musical Christ. A bold statement no doubt. Perhaps one could take it a step further: Bach was the musical God, Mozart the musical Christ and Beethoven the musical Holy Ghost. :lol:

The Holy Triumvirate!


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

^Wasn't that analogy made before but only with Brahms instead of Mozart? :O


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

I guess Wagner is Lucifer then.


----------



## Dim7

And Schoenberg........?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

The anti-christ, "Necromozart"?


----------



## PlaySalieri

violadude said:


> It's kind of interesting to realize that Mozart wasn't always the "super-genius" composer that we all think of him as. He was a very talented and natural child prodigy, no doubt. But I just listened to Piano Concerto #5 (his first completely original piano concerto) and found it fairly mediocre compared to the high standards of composition I am used to hearing from Mozart. He was 17 when he wrote this piece and was either near the end of his "family music tours" era or just beginning his position at Salzburg. I'm not sure which.
> 
> He must have learned a lot very quickly at Salzburg. Between the 5th piano concerto and the 6th piano concerto, he wrote (among other things) his first 6 piano sonatas and his 5 violin concertos. The attempts at each respective genre get progressively better and the 6th Piano Concerto ended up being way better than the 5th, at least according to my estimation.


As he grew in maturity his genius became more obvious.
The 5th PC is an early work - an excellent one though and better than most contemporary piano concertos at that time. I like it.
Among his early works there are signs of genius - many of them.


----------



## PlaySalieri

trazom said:


> Hm. The 5th piano concerto is actually taken much more seriously than the three concertos that come directly after it. Many observe it as bold and more ambitious(especially the form and technical skill of the original last movement) whereas the next three are 'witty drawing room music written for amateurs.' It seems Mozart had a preference for the 5th concerto as well since he took it with him to Vienna and performed it more frequently than the others except for, perhaps, the 9th piano concerto.
> 
> Mendelssohn is reputed to be the greater prodigy, definitely not the greater "genius," though.


In my view mendelssohn underperformed given his amazing childhood talents - where as Mozart fulfilled all his early promise. There's only Mendelsohns violin concerto (+maybe a symphony or two) which I count as among the supreme treasures of music where as Mozart's can be counted by the dozen or even hundred.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> It also seemed to me as if Beethoven was aggressive and ambitious to try to surpass Mozart's work as opposed to seeing him as a mentor. I figured that was why he never spoke out in admiration towards Mozart's work


bear in mind Beethoven only knew a small % of Mozart's work.
still - he rejected Cosi Fan Tutte because the plot is immoral - stupid!


----------



## poconoron

stomanek said:


> bear in mind Beethoven only knew a small % of Mozart's work.
> still - he rejected Cosi Fan Tutte because the plot is immoral - stupid!


I love Beethoven 2nd only to Mozart, but his feelings about Cosi, Don Giovanni and Figaro are ridiculously stupid and pretentious. Music is not meant only for Gods and political struggles and such, but the everyday machinations of the common man as well.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

poconoron said:


> I love Beethoven 2nd only to Mozart, but his feelings about Cosi, Don Giovanni and Figaro are ridiculously stupid and pretentious. Music is not meant only for Gods and political struggles and such, but the everyday machinations of the common man as well.


Well, it was his opinion, and his opinions reflected Beethoven the person. I don't think it's fair to say that his opinion was 'stupid'. But I do agree that music is not only there to depict epic struggles, music should also be fun, imo.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> bear in mind Beethoven only knew a small % of Mozart's work.
> still - he rejected Cosi Fan Tutte because the plot is immoral - stupid!


Beethoven probably didn't realise Cosi was a pretty savage Enlightenment satire dreamed up by da Ponte.


----------



## DavidA

violadude said:


> It's kind of interesting to realize that Mozart wasn't always the "super-genius" composer that we all think of him as. He was a very talented and natural child prodigy, no doubt. But I just listened to Piano Concerto #5 (his first completely original piano concerto) and found it fairly mediocre compared to the high standards of composition I am used to hearing from Mozart. He was 17 when he wrote this piece and was either near the end of his "family music tours" era or just beginning his position at Salzburg. I'm not sure which.
> 
> He must have learned a lot very quickly at Salzburg. Between the 5th piano concerto and the 6th piano concerto, he wrote (among other things) his first 6 piano sonatas and his 5 violin concertos. The attempts at each respective genre get progressively better and the 6th Piano Concerto ended up being way better than the 5th, at least according to my estimation.


I think we must realise that genius has to be developed by hard work. It is latent but to fulfil it one must put in the hard graft which Mozart obviously did.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I actually doubt that Beethoven ever really appreciated how good Mozart was - he thought Handel was a greater composer at any rate - a view which in the modern world sounds ridiculous to any but hardened and deluded lovers of Handel's vocal works.

And yet Beethoven knew some of Mozart's greatest works - K491 for example, some of the operas, sonatas - he must have know the great masses. I dont know what his rationale was for putting Handel first ahead even of Bach.


----------



## violadude

stomanek said:


> I actually doubt that Beethoven ever really appreciated how good Mozart was - he thought Handel was a greater composer at any rate - a view which in the modern world sounds ridiculous to any but hardened and deluded lovers of Handel's vocal works.
> 
> And yet Beethoven knew some of Mozart's greatest works - K491 for example, some of the operas, sonatas - he must have know the great masses. I dont know what his rationale was for putting Handel first ahead even of Bach.


I think he appreciated Handel's sense of drama.


----------



## PlaySalieri

violadude said:


> I think he appreciated Handel's sense of drama.


and of course Mozart had no skill in drama

I am glad that other romantic era legends such as Weber and Schubert correctly recognised the value of Mozart's operas. Their taste and sense has endured.


----------



## Maria Elena

purple99 said:


> Seriously? To blow off in late eighteenth century Vienna was _de rigeur?_


I thought that there would be more interesting discussions about Mozart in this forum...


----------



## Animal the Drummer

You'll find far worse than that in Mozart's letters. He even set a few filthy rhymes to music. Would you also chide him for not being interesting?


----------



## trazom

Animal the Drummer said:


> You'll find far worse than that in Mozart's letters. He even set a few filthy rhymes to music. Would you also chide him for not being interesting?


I assume most people find Mozart interesting because of his music rather than his letters. The letters just add an element of personality and unseemliness to a person few people can otherwise identify with. If he only had those letters to his name without the music? Yes, I think many would find him less interesting.


----------



## Blancrocher

The memoirs of his sometime librettist, Lorenzo Da Ponte, are however worth reading for their own sake imo.


----------



## Avey

Maria Elena said:


> I thought that there would be more interesting discussions about Mozart in this forum...



.... (that is, _dislike ten-fold_)

When I hear the _Sinfonia Concertante_, I get certain passions and curtailments that send me spinning in a loop that evokes what:

Some sort of pathos that makes me shiver, look away, shake my head, smile, and over all else: *feel good*. This music makes me want to learn viola (which I am slacking in my attempt, for very very good reasons), understand W.A.M's life, and beyond all else, simply, *close my eyes and smile and think: Well, someone else felt like I feel now, only in sounds....*


----------



## KenOC

Per Cipriani Potter, on Beethoven's view of the greatest dead composer: "He had always considered Mozart as such, but since he had been made acquainted with Handel he put him at the head."

Also (B's words): "'Die Zauberflote' will always remain Mozart's greatest work, for in it he for the first time showed himself to be a German musician. 'Don Juan' still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


----------



## trazom

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, it was his opinion, and his opinions reflected Beethoven the person. I don't think it's fair to say that his opinion was 'stupid'.


Yes, it was his opinion....so? Aren't people allowed to evaluate opinions based on their own merits even if they admire person who said them?



KenOC said:


> 'Don Juan' still has the complete Italian cut; besides our sacred art ought never permit itself to be degraded to the level of a foil for so scandalous a subject."


He must've admired them on a musical level, at least, since there are a couple of similar passages in his music to some of Mozart's da Ponte operas. Also, weren't there theories out there that Beethoven may have exaggerated his praise of Handel just a little bit to get a commission in England(where Handel's music was still very popular).


----------



## Animal the Drummer

trazom said:


> I assume most people find Mozart interesting because of his music rather than his letters. The letters just add an element of personality and unseemliness to a person few people can otherwise identify with. If he only had those letters to his name without the music? Yes, I think many would find him less interesting.


But he did have the music to his name, and this discussion has also included it.


----------



## Vaneyes

An article ponders some different dates for *WAM *symphonies.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/10/mozart-symphonies-dates-wrong-scholar-says


----------



## trazom

Animal the Drummer said:


> But he did have the music to his name, and this discussion has also included it.


My point was that whatever vulgar things Mozart may have said in his letters are trivial in respect to Mozart the historical figure, so interest in discussions on Mozart doesn't depend on also having an interest in discussing less savory aspects of his character or other people in that era.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I actually doubt that Beethoven ever really appreciated how good Mozart was - he thought Handel was a greater composer at any rate - a view which in the modern world sounds ridiculous to any but hardened and deluded lovers of Handel's vocal works.

And yet Beethoven knew some of Mozart's greatest works - K491 for example, some of the operas, sonatas - he must have know the great masses. I dont know what his rationale was for putting Handel first ahead even of Bach.

Don't underestimate Handel. Bach may have been a greater composer, but Beethoven in all likelihood was not familiar with a lot of Bach's finest works. Even so, Handel was no slouch. The more you explore his oeuvre the more obvious it becomes that the notion that he a greater composer than Mozart is in no way as ridiculous as you suggest. I say this as someone who personally ranks Bach and Mozart as the two greatest composers ever.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

trazom said:


> My point was that whatever vulgar things Mozart may have said in his letters are trivial in respect to Mozart the historical figure, so interest in discussions on Mozart doesn't depend on also having an interest in discussing less savory aspects of his character or other people in that era.


Of course not, but the post with which I took issue appeared to dub this whole thread uninteresting because of one such unsavoury reference. I thought and I still think that was overcooked.


----------



## Johann Sebastian Bach

stomanek said:


> I actually doubt that Beethoven ever really appreciated how good Mozart was - he thought Handel was a greater composer at any rate - a view which in the modern world sounds ridiculous to any but hardened and deluded lovers of Handel's vocal works.


As a lover of Handel's vocal works, I take exception to you calling me "hardened and deluded". Please either:

provide evidence to show that lovers of Handel's vocal works are mistaken;
or 
promulgate your views as personal opinion, rather than factual.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> As a lover of Handel's vocal works, I take exception to you calling me "hardened and deluded". Please either:
> 
> provide evidence to show that lovers of Handel's vocal works are mistaken;
> or
> promulgate your views as personal opinion, rather than factual.


Yeah, those are some ridiculous statements. They can't be 'supported' by any 'evidence', since Handel's vocal works, especially the oratorios, are brilliant.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Mozart is my first love in music. I put on my fathers Mozart recordings when I was 5 and will always love his music. Still have plenty pieces to hear for the first time


----------



## PlaySalieri

Johann Sebastian Bach said:


> As a lover of Handel's vocal works, I take exception to you calling me "hardened and deluded". Please either:
> 
> provide evidence to show that lovers of Handel's vocal works are mistaken;
> or
> promulgate your views as personal opinion, rather than factual.


Sorry for the offense - I should have qualified my statement and I did not intend to generalise. I accept that Handel was one of the great operatic composers - I just disagree with Beethoven's overall assessment.


----------



## Mandryka

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beethoven in all likelihood was not familiar with a lot of Bach's finest works.




Why do you say this?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

Mandryka said:


> Why do you say this?


Well, he probably means works such as the St. John and St. Matthew Passions which were 'revived' later by Mendelssohn, though of course Beethoven could've still known them.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Anyone care to mention their favorite conductors of Mozart? For symphonies I like Sir Charles Mackerras and Claudio Abbado. I also love the piano concertos with Murray Perahia.


----------



## Mandryka

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, he probably means works such as the St. John and St. Matthew Passions which were 'revived' later by Mendelssohn, though of course Beethoven could've still known them.


I once read somewhere that he had a score of the B minor mass, though as always with this sort of question, I'm hampered by not being able to get hold of a catalogue of his library.

Was there a published score of the passions?


----------



## KenOC

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> Well, he probably means works such as the St. John and St. Matthew Passions which were 'revived' later by Mendelssohn, though of course Beethoven could've still known them.


Interesting. I've never seen mention of Beethoven being familiar with Bach's choral works. He was familiar with some of Handel's of course, and he did some study of Palestrina and probably other pre-Bach choral composers.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Happy birthday, sir! Hopefully I can finish a picture by today as a present...


----------



## Guest

Happy Birthday Wolfgang! 260 years already...


----------



## Ferrariman601

Happy Birthday, Wolfgang. I will always cherish the light you gave to this world.


----------



## ArtMusic

This is a remarkable piece by the fifteen year old, and a nice performance. Seldom mentioned, K118


----------



## poconoron

ArtMusic said:


> This is a remarkable piece by the fifteen year old, and a nice performance. Seldom mentioned, K118


Haven't heard this one before.............checking it out. Thanks!


----------



## LHB

Can anyone recommend a recording of the Sinfonia Concertante K. 364?


----------



## poconoron

This is the one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00138JDCY?ie=UTF8&keywords=sinfonia%20concertante%20mozart&qid=1455072413&ref_=sr_1_10&s=music&sr=1-10


----------



## hpowders

The best, most stylish performance of K. 364 I've ever heard is the one with Rafael Druian on violin, Abraham Skernick playing viola with the Cleveland Orchestra directed by George Szell.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

I've just been watching Amadeus and I can't believe how retarded they made him in that movie.


----------



## hpowders

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I've just been watching Amadeus and I can't believe how retarded they made him in that movie.


Hollywood is not exactly classical music territory. To them, we listeners and composers are/were all anti-social, awkward nerds. Completely "uncool" in their eyes.

I wasn't surprised by Amadeus. At least they got the incredible fluency in composing right!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I think _Amadeus_ was a great film. A film... not a documentary. I quite appreciate the characterization of Mozart as being in contrast to the usual idealizations of great artists and historical figures as being horribly staid and stick-up-the-butt characters that you'd never ever want to meet in real life.


----------



## PlaySalieri

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Personally, I think _Amadeus_ was a great film. A film... not a documentary. I quite appreciate the characterization of Mozart as being in contrast to the usual idealizations of great artists and historical figures as being horribly staid and stick-up-the-butt characters that you'd never ever want to meet in real life.


Sadly - I doubt if there will ever be a film that really does him justice.


----------



## Sloe

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I've just been watching Amadeus and I can't believe how retarded they made him in that movie.


Every time I hear music by Mozart I think of him in a pink wig laughing at his own fart jokes.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Sloe said:


> Every time I hear music by Mozart I think of him in a pink wig laughing at his own fart jokes.


He used to sign off letters to his sister as follows

"**** in the bed and break it"

He really could be vulgar.


----------



## Morimur

stomanek said:


> He used to sign off letters to his sister as follows
> 
> "**** in the bed and break it"
> 
> He really could be vulgar.


I don't know much about Wolfie's time and culture but even to my jaded sensibility his humor is often shocking. The only other person to elicit this kind of response is James Joyce in his love letters to Nora Barnacle - what a pair of deviants.


----------



## DavidA

stomanek said:


> He used to sign off letters to his sister as follows
> 
> "**** in the bed and break it"
> 
> He really could be vulgar.


I think it was his mother signed off like this. The were just vulgar times!


----------



## starthrower

I enjoy Mozart with a dose of Russian sensuality!


----------



## affettuoso

Ah, Mozart. My main dude!

Since I was introduced to "Die Zauberflöte" as a kid Mozart's been my favorite composer, bar none. There's probably an element of nostalgic love for the first introduction into classical music there, sure -- but it's more than that, and more even than his verifiable genius: Mozart's work just resonates with me very deeply.

I'll also say this, as a singer: imo Mozart had a real love, and a particular talent, for writing for the voice. His vocal work is a joy to sing -- technically difficult, yes, but you feel like you're in good hands. Can hardly wait to continue my studies!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Have been re-reading Einstein's book on Mozart and came across a gem of a letter written when Mozart was still working for the archbishop in Salzburg and not looking forward to his return fro Paris

"You must know I detest Salazburg"

He goes on to berate the local musicians and orchestras

Yet modern day Salzburg is awash with Mozart images, museums etc and of course the Salzburg Mozart festival every year. I think they must have forgiven their prodigal son.


----------



## trazom

I was just exploring some of Mozart's incomplete pieces now that there are more channels on youtube devoted to posting his entire catalog of works .Has anyone heard the incomplete Sinfonia Concertante in A major for Violin, Viola, and Cello? As far as Mozart's musical fragments go I think it's one of his most beautiful. It's also the only surviving concerto by Mozart that features the cello.






There's also the piano trio in D minor which was, for the most part, completed by Stadler. The allegro movement in D major is the only part that is substantially(or maybe even completely) by Mozart. It definitely stands out from the other two movements.






Another interesting and beautiful unfinished piece. A movement for a sonata for two pianos in b-flat, much more serious in character than the famous and complete k.448 sonata:


----------



## PlaySalieri

trazom said:


> I was just exploring some of Mozart's incomplete pieces now that there are more channels on youtube devoted to posting his entire catalog of works .Has anyone heard the incomplete Sinfonia Concertante in A major for Violin, Viola, and Cello? As far as Mozart's musical fragments go I think it's one of his most beautiful. It's also the only surviving concerto by Mozart that features the cello.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the piano trio in D minor which was, for the most part, completed by Stadler. The allegro movement in D major is the only part that is substantially(or maybe even completely) by Mozart. It definitely stands out from the other two movements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another interesting and beautiful unfinished piece. A movement for a sonata for two pianos in b-flat, much more serious in character than the famous and complete k.448 sonata:


Thanks for thise I will follow them up

what about the concerto for piano and violin? he scored most of the first mvt and it has been completed -

there is also a 3 mvt version using some music from his piano sonatas of the same vinatge


----------



## hpowders

To be more specific, Mozart had no peer when it came to writing for the FEMALE voice; the soprano register in particular.


----------



## juliante

After at least a year of total abstinence, listening mainly to 17th and 20th century orchestral music, I have found myself bingeing on Mozart this last week. It has been a wonderful to hear the Symphonia Concertante, Jupiter Symphony, Piano Concertos 19 and 20 again. Mozart will never be return to be part of my staple diet as he was when I discovered CM. However these and a few other great pieces will I am sure always thrill and astound me in equal measure.


----------



## Pugg

juliante said:


> After at least a year of total abstinence, listening mainly to 17th and 20th century orchestral music, I have found myself bingeing on Mozart this last week. It has been a wonderful to hear the Symphonia Concertante, Jupiter Symphony, Piano Concertos 19 and 20 again. Mozart will never be return to be part of my staple diet as he was when I discovered CM. However these and a few other great pieces will I am sure always thrill and astound me in equal measure.


He wrot lots of good music, go out and explore


----------



## juliante

Pugg said:


> He wrot lots of good music, go out and explore


With the notable exception of his operas, I reckon I have.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Mozart kind of annoys me nowadays...


----------



## violadude

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Mozart kind of annoys me nowadays...


You should put that in the scornworthy opinion thread.


----------



## Pugg

violadude said:


> You should put that in the scornworthy opinion thread.


Great answer, alas, no success


----------



## PlaySalieri

juliante said:


> With the notable exception of his operas, I reckon I have.


*t has been a wonderful to hear the Symphonia Concertante, Jupiter Symphony, Piano Concertos 19 and 20 again.*

that's not exploring - it's just one little step


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

stomanek said:


> Have been re-reading Einstein's book on Mozart and came across a gem of a letter written when Mozart was still working for the archbishop in Salzburg and not looking forward to his return fro Paris
> 
> "You must know I detest Salazburg"
> 
> He goes on to berate the local musicians and orchestras
> 
> Yet modern day Salzburg is awash with Mozart images, museums etc and of course the Salzburg Mozart festival every year. I think they must have forgiven their prodigal son.


He would've probably loved Salzburg, had the archbishop been a little more appreciative of the arts.


----------



## juliante

stomanek said:


> *t has been a wonderful to hear the Symphonia Concertante, Jupiter Symphony, Piano Concertos 19 and 20 again.*
> 
> that's not exploring - it's just one little step


Those were the pieces I enjoyed revisiting... Not the only Mozart works I have ever explored. Far from it - I spent the first 2 years of cm obsession listening to little else.


----------



## Pugg

juliante said:


> Those were the pieces I enjoyed revisiting... Not the only Mozart works I have ever explored. Far from it - I spent the first 2 years of cm obsession listening to little else.


Two whole years and not even _one_ opera?


----------



## juliante

Pugg said:


> Two whole years and not even _one_ opera?


Yep got a bit of a block on the whole opera thing... Plenty of time! I am tackling 20 and 21 C first...


----------



## hagridindminor

Does anyone how much of the Requiem's is actually Mozart? I read somewhere that Süssmayr tried to rewrite the entire Requiem in his own handwriting, I'm not sure credible that source was, but it makes the information given seem a bit questionable. Personally I can't imagine Mozart not being mainly responsible up until the Lacrimosa. Does anyone have information on this?


----------



## violadude

Sometimes I just can't get over how gloriously perfect Mozart's music is...


----------



## Kieran

violadude said:


> Sometimes I just can't get over how gloriously perfect Mozart's music is...


You and me, both. I often listen to something like the sextet in Cosi - alla bella despinetta - and it's as if it's the first time hearing it, and I shake my head cynically and think, he's cranking it up, there's no way the pay off can match this. And this is true, because it doesn't just match it, it exceeds it, then lumps on more glory, then screams up to heaven. He always delivers! No compromise, no hedging his bets, no leading us on! His music has a clarity and purpose that's exceptional. And this applies even to work which he'd be entitled to think is beneath him. Never less than glorious!


----------



## Pugg

hagridindminor said:


> Does anyone how much of the Requiem's is actually Mozart? I read somewhere that Süssmayr tried to rewrite the entire Requiem in his own handwriting, I'm not sure credible that source was, but it makes the information given seem a bit questionable. Personally I can't imagine Mozart not being mainly responsible up until the Lacrimosa. Does anyone have information on this?


Here you go:
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Requiem-in-D-Minor


----------



## dieter

Kieran said:


> You and me, both. I often listen to something like the sextet in Cosi - alla bella despinetta - and it's as if it's the first time hearing it, and I shake my head cynically and think, he's cranking it up, there's no way the pay off can match this. And this is true, because it doesn't just match it, it exceeds it, then lumps on more glory, then screams up to heaven. He always delivers! No compromise, no hedging his bets, no leading us on! His music has a clarity and purpose that's exceptional. And this applies even to work which he'd be entitled to think is beneath him. Never less than glorious!


I attended a series of chamber concerts recently - the Coriole Music Festival, held in the barrel room at the winery of that name in Mclaren Vale, South Ausytralia. There were 4 Mozart items in the 3 concerts, Piano Sonata K533/494 played by Konstantin Shamray in a way I've not heard before, a very 'Russian' ' interpretation, serious, considered but also very delicate, the Oboe Quartet, an aria from Zaide, and the last item was the G Minor Qunitet K516. During the latter I came to the conclusion that there was no greater composer than Mozart. Gloriously perfect is such an apt description.


----------



## Kieran

K516 is my latest addiction. I'm listening solely to the "Haydn" quartets, and the quintets. K516 is fairly much hitting the spot. Old controversy raged about the final allegro, as if it was a denial or negation of the agitation and distress and sorrow that preceded it. But I actually hear struggle in the final movement too, and it's tinged with all the moody early movements...


----------



## CDs

Question: How "good" are Mozart's early symphonies? I've only ever heard from about 29 on. Are they worth buying?


----------



## Dim7

CDs said:


> Question: How "good" are Mozart's early symphonies? I've only ever heard from about 29 on. Are they worth buying?


I love this:






Composed when Mozart was 15.


----------



## CDs

Thanks I will listen to this when I get some free time. Also what are considered his youth symphonies?


----------



## dieter

CDs said:


> Question: How "good" are Mozart's early symphonies? I've only ever heard from about 29 on. Are they worth buying?


Yep, 28 and 25. Glenn Gould, for example, once said that Mozart couldn't have been all that great a composer because he didn't write a good one till 25...Or words to that effect.


----------



## CDs

Thanks! I will check out 28 and 25.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

violadude said:


> Sometimes I just can't get over how gloriously perfect Mozart's music is...


What about Salieri? :O


----------



## dieter

Abraham Lincoln said:


> What about Salieri? :O


Abe, stop baiting us Mozart lovers.


----------



## dieter

Abraham Lincoln said:


> What about Salieri? :O


remember, you ain't il presidente no more, get a real job,,,


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

dieter said:


> Abe, stop baiting us Mozart lovers.


That's not baiting. This is:


----------



## CDs

dieter said:


> Yep, 28 and 25. Glenn Gould, for example, once said that Mozart couldn't have been all that great a composer because he didn't write a good one till 25...Or words to that effect.


Listening to the 25th now. Thanks dieter!


----------



## dieter

CDs said:


> Listening to the 25th now. Thanks dieter!


It's bloody good, isn't it?


----------



## CDs

dieter said:


> It's bloody good, isn't it?


Yep! Just ordered Bohm's Mozart Symphony set.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Just out of curiosity:

What makes Mozart "perfect"? 

I don't want answers like "Go listen to his music and see for yourself" because I already have and I don't really find it much better than say, Salieri's.


----------



## dieter

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Just out of curiosity:
> 
> What makes Mozart "perfect"?
> 
> I don't want answers like "Go listen to his music and see for yourself" because I already have and I don't really find it much better than say, Salieri's.


That's an interesting question. I guess it's all in the ears of the receiver. Simple as that. One man's bliss is another man's anathema.
That's the human condition. I guess I've grown to be happy with my 'ears', don't need to envy what another person's ears find wonderful.
In the end, to be comfortable in your own skin is the definition of happiness.


----------



## bharbeke

It's going to be subjective. There are elements of logic and order within the forms and genres Mozart composed in that might be objectively pointed out, but what makes his music masterful is going to vary by listener.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Just out of curiosity:
> 
> What makes Mozart "perfect"?
> 
> I don't want answers like "Go listen to his music and see for yourself" because I already have and I don't really find it much better than say, Salieri's.


what Salieri have you listened to?

If you are saying you cant sense a difference in quality between say, Mozart's 24th piano concerto and this






I think a lot of classical music lovers would find that strange. But perception of music is a very individual thing so if you really think Mozart is no better than Salieri - well I suppose that's your perception. But I think if you spend some time comparing you will find a difference sooner or later.


----------



## PlaySalieri

CDs said:


> Yep! Just ordered Bohm's Mozart Symphony set.
> 
> View attachment 85162


and I have the whole lot in 2 LP sets.


----------



## PlaySalieri

hagridindminor said:


> Does anyone how much of the Requiem's is actually Mozart? I read somewhere that Süssmayr tried to rewrite the entire Requiem in his own handwriting, I'm not sure credible that source was, but it makes the information given seem a bit questionable. Personally I can't imagine Mozart not being mainly responsible up until the Lacrimosa. Does anyone have information on this?


Mozart set out virtually all the choral parts and 1st violin for most of the requiem - the sanctus benedictus and agnus dei were supposed to be missing and sussmayr claims to have composed these alone. but we have no idea whether he was working from material supplied by mozart - Constanze handed him the score plus many scraps of paper - plus he had verbal instructions from mozart on how to finish it before his death. I think he did compose the sanctus alone.


----------



## Kieran

CDs said:


> Yep! Just ordered Bohm's Mozart Symphony set.
> 
> View attachment 85162


I have this one, and I enjoy it, but beware! The opening movement of the 41st races through in jig time, and he doesn't observe the repeats, so for that one I listen to my bernstein CD. But Bohm has a serious pedigree with Mozart and that set of symphony discs is one my treasured boxsets...


----------



## DavidA

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Just out of curiosity:
> 
> What makes Mozart "perfect"?
> 
> I don't want answers like "Go listen to his music and see for yourself" because I already have and *I don't really find it much better than say, Salieri's.*




Is this a bad joke out of Amadeus?


----------



## CDs

Kieran said:


> I have this one, and I enjoy it, but beware! The opening movement of the 41st races through in jig time, and he doesn't observe the repeats, so for that one I listen to my bernstein CD. But Bohm has a serious pedigree with Mozart and that set of symphony discs is one my treasured boxsets...


Thanks for the info! I've heard that Bohm doesn't do the repeats but that he is one the great Mozart conductors. I have a few other 41s so if need be I can listen to one of those.


----------



## CDs

How is the booklet in the box set?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

dieter said:


> Yep, 28 and 25. Glenn Gould, for example, once said that Mozart couldn't have been all that great a composer because he didn't write a good one till 25...Or words to that effect.


If Gould could read them at a consistent tempo, he might've been able to hear the quality in the music.


----------



## Kieran

CDs said:


> How is the booklet in the box set?


It's okay, a small 8 page essay in English, this time with the repeats :lol: in French and German. Nothing too comprehensive, but a bit of a trot through Mozart as a symphonist...


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

DavidA said:


> [/B]
> 
> Is this a bad joke out of Amadeus?


Ah, no. I just named a fellow contemporary of Mozart's.


----------



## Rosie

OMG!! I love you Mozart, you're symphonies are amazing!! And you're kinda hot tbh 
I wish you lived in the 21St century, I have a large infatuation with you :kiss:


----------



## Vaneyes

No job was too small for WAM, but it's getting ridiculous.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> No job was too small for WAM, but it's getting ridiculous.


That arm looks photo-shopped. You think I'm stupid?


----------



## lextune

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> If Gould could read them at a consistent tempo, he might've been able to hear the quality in the music.


Gould's tempi in Mozart also have zero relationship with one another. An Andante might be twice as fast as an Allegro, or a Moderato might be slower than any Adagio.

He (Gould) had an open disdain of Mozart's piano music, (at the very least), and his recording of the Sonatas is almost purposely bad. Gould was searching for a way to like them, or some such thing I recall....

I love Glenn in many ways, and in many works. But his attempt at saying something about Mozart was an abject failure.


----------



## Pugg

Vaneyes said:


> No job was too small for WAM, but it's getting ridiculous.


I see new avatars coming up........


----------



## gouts

I'm a newbie, and I hope someone has already mentioned the clarity of Alicia de Larrocha's playing in Mozart. I wish her piano concerto recordings would be reissued at heir entirety...


----------



## itarbrt

I want to share my admiration for a man handwriting in such a way , with no mistakes , 626 opera numbers almost all original . He died too fast . Miserere k 83 was written in 4 hours and was his test in conservatory .


----------



## hpowders

gouts said:


> I'm a newbie, and I hope someone has already mentioned the clarity of Alicia de Larrocha's playing in Mozart. I wish her piano concerto recordings would be reissued at heir entirety...


I heard her do Mozart live at the Mostly Mozart Festival in NYC for several consecutive years.

Yes. Her playing did have a clarity about it, but I consider her a notch or two below the great Mozart players of the past such as Rudolf Serkin.


----------



## Pugg

gouts said:


> I'm a newbie, and I hope someone has already mentioned the clarity of Alicia de Larrocha's playing in Mozart. I wish her piano concerto recordings would be reissued at heir entirety...


I am a bit puzzled, did she record them all?


----------



## neoshredder

:clap: Mozart. Love his Piano Concertos. Listening to Piano Concerto no. 17 right now.


----------



## Sonata

gouts said:


> I'm a newbie, and I hope someone has already mentioned the clarity of Alicia de Larrocha's playing in Mozart. I wish her piano concerto recordings would be reissued at heir entirety...


I just picked up two of her Mozart concerto recordings from a library sale. I look forward to listening to them!


----------



## Amadeus1994

I love you, Wolfie


----------



## Pugg

Double post, sorry mods.


----------



## Pugg

Amadeus1994 said:


> I love you, Wolfie


That's nice, which piece is your favourite?
And a very warm welcome to Talk Classical


----------



## Amadeus1994

Can't really tell. I listen to lots of his music, and there are too many good stuffs. Recently I was pierced by his Ave verum corpus. The chromaticism is gold.


----------



## Pugg

Amadeus1994 said:


> Can't really tell. I listen to lots of his music, and there are too many good stuffs. Recently I was pierced by his Ave verum corpus. The chromaticism is gold.


Wonderful piece indeed.


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith

The Coronation Mass: 




Joyous, uplifting music!

(Just what I need after sitting through _Tristan_.)


----------



## hpowders

SimonTemplar said:


> The Coronation Mass:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joyous, uplifting music!
> 
> (Just what I need after sitting through _Tristan_.)


The great C minor Mass will make you feel STILL better!


----------



## hpowders

I used to dislike the Six Quartets Dedicated to Haydn by Mozart, but a few days ago, during a "posting lull", I played the set with the Juilliard Quartet from about 40 years ago and all of a sudden, I heard the greatness of this music!! Amazing!


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Abandon all hope, all ye who enter Salzburg.










[Admin edit: copyrighted image removed]


----------



## Animal the Drummer

A friend who had been on a trip to Salzburg and the Tyrol once brought me back a rubber duck in a red frock coat with a Mozart-style wig on its head. Holy guacamole.


----------



## Pugg

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Abandon all hope, all ye who enter Salzburg.
> 
> [Admin edit: copyrighted image removed]


Is that a selfie?


----------



## hpowders

Sorry. I thought this thread was about Mozart's music. I must have gotten lost.


----------



## danj

One of the recurring things I hear about Mozart is that his music has layers. Different layers. Intruiging to ponder over...


----------



## Baccouri

Lacrimosa - Mozart :angel:


----------



## Tchaikov6

Baccouri said:


> Lacrimosa - Mozart :angel:


Mozart's whole Requiem is just delightful. It's so different from anything he ever wrote- parts of it sound so much like Beethoven, others like Bach. Along with the Jupiter Symphony, Marriage of Figaro, and 20th Piano Concerto, it is one of the greatest fusion of musical eras. My favorite Requiem of all time. And I do love Verdi, Brahms, Britten, Dvorak, and Faure.


----------



## Jacred

Hey, way off-topic, but I just realized that this guestbook currently has 41 pages!

Anyway....I heard the Lacrimosa of Mozart's Requiem before I even listened to the whole piece. Actually, it was the Lacrimosa that drew me to the Requiem in the first place.


----------



## Pugg

Jacred said:


> Hey, way off-topic, but I just realized that this guestbook currently has 41 pages!
> 
> Anyway....I heard the Lacrimosa of Mozart's Requiem before I even listened to the whole piece. Actually, it was the Lacrimosa that drew me to the Requiem in the first place.


It took 9 years though.


----------



## Vaneyes

WAM slam!

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...ckdown-slam-poetry-music-book-club-shoreditch


----------



## 20centrfuge

Dear Mozartians,

There is a thread called the Grand TC Music Playlist. We are attempting to get each member to submit one piece of music. Please go here to check it out: http://www.talkclassical.com/50728-grand-tc-music-playlist.html

I bring it to your attention because, in spite of 60+ submissions, none have posted Mozart. Don't you find that odd?


----------



## Pugg

20centrfuge said:


> Dear Mozartians,
> 
> There is a thread called the Grand TC Music Playlist. We are attempting to get each member to submit one piece of music. Please go here to check it out: http://www.talkclassical.com/50728-grand-tc-music-playlist.html
> 
> I bring it to your attention because, in spite of 60+ submissions, none have posted Mozart. Don't you find that odd?


It will come back, just wait and see.


----------



## trazom

Just wanted to add to my post from over a year ago when I was searching for hidden Mozartian gems, whether complete or just fragments, I recently came across this _beautiful_ adagio for two clarinets and three basset horns. Can't believe I hadn't heard it before.








trazom said:


> I was just exploring some of Mozart's incomplete pieces now that there are more channels on youtube devoted to posting his entire catalog of works .Has anyone heard the incomplete Sinfonia Concertante in A major for Violin, Viola, and Cello? As far as Mozart's musical fragments go I think it's one of his most beautiful. It's also the only surviving concerto by Mozart that features the cello.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's also the piano trio in D minor which was, for the most part, completed by Stadler. The allegro movement in D major is the only part that is substantially(or maybe even completely) by Mozart. It definitely stands out from the other two movements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another interesting and beautiful unfinished piece. A movement for a sonata for two pianos in b-flat, much more serious in character than the famous and complete k.448 sonata:


----------



## PlaySalieri

20centrfuge said:


> Dear Mozartians,
> 
> There is a thread called the Grand TC Music Playlist. We are attempting to get each member to submit one piece of music. Please go here to check it out: The Grand TC Music Playlist! (please submit ONE work)
> 
> I bring it to your attention because, in spite of 60+ submissions, none have posted Mozart. Don't you find that odd?


Only 2 mentions for Mozart in that list an both for le nozze di figaro

is it odd? maybe Mozart lovers are less inclined to take part - but there's not much haydn either


----------



## Kieran

The Maestro closed his eyes on this day, 5th of December, in 1791...


----------



## Haydn man

20centrfuge said:


> Dear Mozartians,
> 
> There is a thread called the Grand TC Music Playlist. We are attempting to get each member to submit one piece of music. Please go here to check it out: The Grand TC Music Playlist! (please submit ONE work)
> 
> I bring it to your attention because, in spite of 60+ submissions, none have posted Mozart. Don't you find that odd?


I have corrected this issue with PC No.23


----------



## Michael Diemer

I have often wondered what it is about Mozart's music that makes it so special, to the point that it is not a reach to say that he is one of the three greatest composers of all time (the other two being so obvious I won't even mention them. But one is from the Baroque, the other the Romantic.). Well, I think I have figured it out. It is not that all his music is perfect. Or that he composed extremely well in all forms. Or his miraculously transparent orchestration. All this is true. But it is true of other composers as well (though truer for Mozart, of course). Here it is: Mozart's ideas were just better. More memorable. Remember the scene in Amadeus, when the young priest was visiting Salieri, and he hummed some of his melodies, hoping the priest might recognize something? Alas, he does not. Then, Slaieri hums the begining of A Little Night Music. The priest immediately jumps in and takes it up. Oh, yes, I know that! You remember Mozart's melodies. They stick. His ideas were just better, more memorable. Also, they have instant appeal. The three notes begining LVB No. 5 are in themselves nothing. It's what LVB does with them that is amazing. But the begining of Mozart's 40th just grabs you like a galloping horseman, swooping by and swinging you onto the horse with him, and off you go on an adventure, as in one of those old swashbuckler movies with that dashing leading man whose name I can't currently recall. Or,to be crude, but gustatorily appropriate for a Friday night, it's like the pizza commercial: Better Ingredients=Better Pizza. (I am not being paid to say that). So, when you have the best ideas, and the best form, orchestration, versatility, etc., people may well be tempted to say that you might be the greatest ever. (Not that I would ever say such a thing. I've got better things to do than being drawn and quartered by indignant Beethovians, Bachians, Mahlerians etc). No, I'll stick with Mozart is one of the three greatest ever. That turf is defendable, I believe.


----------



## Michael Diemer

"I have corrected this issue with PC No.23"

And I with Symphony No. 40.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Sorry but I was way ahead of both of you with "The Marriage of Figaro".


----------



## josephhaydn

i like mozart in the morning, with coffee. the symphonies in the 20's im listening to a lot. no 21, 27, 28, i prefer the ones in major keys. also always liked all the wind concertos esp 622.


----------



## Star

Mozart is great for listening later in the evening. It calms the mind somehow


----------



## Janspe

I watched _Il dissoluto punito, ossia il Don Giovanni_ earlier today, and I'm currently listening to some of his instrumental works. Whenever a movement ends I find myself waiting for the next recitative to start...

Sometimes it feels like Mozart never truly left the operatic stage.


----------



## Blancrocher

An interesting essay about Mozart's reworking of Handel's Messiah:

http://amusicalvision.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-did-mozart-handel-messiah-backstory.html

There are a few recordings of Mozart's version, including the following:






I like it!


----------



## JosefinaHW

_String Quintet in G Minor K. 516_, Esbjerg International Chamber Orchestra Festival


----------



## Iota

Janspe said:


> * .. I'm currently listening to some of his instrumental works. Whenever a movement ends I find myself waiting for the next recitative to start...*
> 
> Sometimes it feels like Mozart never truly left the operatic stage.


Ha ha, it's lovely when a kind of personal truth dawns vividly in that way. I feel pretty much the same listening to/playing Mozart, operatic connections seem to spring up irresistibly, a process that I find almost invariably enriches the experience.


----------



## flamencosketches

I love that one and the C major quintet that was written not too long after. After the clarinet quintet, those two are my second favorite of Mozart's chamber music.


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I love that one and the C major quintet that was written not too long after. After the clarinet quintet, those two are my second favorite of Mozart's chamber music.


Inspired by your post I just listened to the performance by The Salomon Quartet +1. What an extraordinary dark and serious performance! I just downloaded their recordings of the Mozart quartets because I want to see what they make out of the music.

I think it's such a shame that, where you have recorded performances by imaginative musicians like this, they don't say more about how they arrived at their interpretations. Instead we're just presented with the end of their journey. For me, listening to music is as much about understanding the whats and the whys of what I'm hearing as it is about anything else, and the Salomon Quartet's silence makes that difficult, maybe impossible.


----------



## flamencosketches

I guess they'd rather leave it up to us to figure it out ourselves from the music. Certainly easier said than done. I'll have to look up that Salomon Quartet version. I'm most familiar with the Grumiaux Trio +2 version. As far as I can tell, they play it pretty straight. It's a great quintet with a lot of depth. I definitely see where Schubert got his inspiration for his own quintet, as well as the C major. 

I just got a CD of Böhm/Vienna's Magic Flute in the mail yesterday. Gonna try and listen to all of it today


----------



## PlaySalieri

flamencosketches said:


> I guess they'd rather leave it up to us to figure it out ourselves from the music. Certainly easier said than done. I'll have to look up that Salomon Quartet version. I'm most familiar with the Grumiaux Trio +2 version. As far as I can tell, they play it pretty straight. It's a great quintet with a lot of depth. I definitely see where Schubert got his inspiration for his own quintet, as well as the C major.
> 
> *I just got a CD of Böhm/Vienna's Magic Flute in the mail yesterday. Gonna try and listen to all of it today *


minus dialogue

should be good


----------



## flamencosketches

Definitely didn't listen to all of it, but made it more than halfway :lol:

I agree, the dialog takes up way too much time and is super boring. Especially with how ridiculous the plot of this opera is. But outside of that, I liked what I heard. The reason I got this version is cuz I like Fritz Wunderlich and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and neither disappoint.


----------



## flamencosketches

I have been enjoying the Requiem, Ave Verum Corpus, and the Great Mass in C minor lately. Both are really good. 

What are some of our other favorite choral and religious works of Mozart? I think he saved something special for his works in this genre.


----------



## sam93

Currently in love with the K332 Sonata in F. The 2nd movement is fast becoming my all-time favorite Mozart slow movement for piano.


----------



## flamencosketches

sam93 said:


> Currently in love with the K332 Sonata in F. The 2nd movement is fast becoming my all-time favorite Mozart slow movement for piano.


Good call, hadn't heard this one in a while. It is a great sonata.


----------



## flamencosketches

Excellent version of the 40th. The brisk tempo is a nice change from Böhm/Vienna's classic, which I am used to.


----------



## flamencosketches

Been seriously enjoying the Cuarteto Casals account of Mozart's "Haydn" quartets, especially "Spring", K387 in G major, which is good early spring time listening, I guess. Somehow I managed to neglect discovering his string quartets until recently, they are beautiful though.

Additionally been loving the violin sonatas:






This is an EXCELLENT CD.


----------



## Mandryka

My own favourite Mozart violin sonata recorded performance, by far, is this one






As far as the quartets go, the last time I really enjoyed listening it was to K499, the Hoffmeister, which is a great favourite of mine. It was the Salomon Quartet that caught my attention last time, but in the past I remember thinking that the Smetana were really successful -- though they recorded it three times and I'm not sure which one this youtube is


----------



## tdc

"In spite of Mozart's acquaintance with later composers who tried to continue the contrapuntal tradition, a remarkable development comes over his work from the moment he begins to know the music of Johann Sebastian Bach." 
-Charles Rosen


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> "In spite of Mozart's acquaintance with later composers who tried to continue the contrapuntal tradition, a remarkable development comes over his work from the moment he begins to know the music of Johann Sebastian Bach."
> -Charles Rosen


He was familiar with Well Tempered Clavier when he was a child. So the « remarkable development » Rosen's talking about much have happened in very very early pieces.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> He was familiar with Well Tempered Clavier when he was a child. So the « remarkable development » Rosen's talking about much have happened in very very early pieces.


What is your source for this? It may be true, but I haven't heard that. Apparently Mozart did not become intimately familiar with J.S. Bach's music until 1782-83, when he came into contact with Gottfried van Swieten who owned many manuscripts of both Bach and Handel. So it is in the music composed around and after those years when the 'remarkable development' being referred to took place.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> What is your source for this? It may be true, but I haven't heard that. Apparently Mozart did not become intimately familiar with J.S. Bach's music until 1782-83, when he came into contact with Gottfried van Swieten who owned many manuscripts of both Bach and Handel. So it is in the music composed around and after those years when the 'remarkable development' being referred to took place.


My understanding is that Beethoven was the first major composer raised on JS Bach's works -- at least the first one not named Bach! Mozart was raised on _Gradus ad Parnassum_, Fux's work on Palestrinian counterpoint. His introduction to Bach's works, primarily the keyboard works, came later as tdc says.


----------



## Mandryka

I think I was probably confusing Beethoven and Mozart!


----------



## DavidA

tdc said:


> What is your source for this? It may be true, but I haven't heard that. Apparently Mozart did not become intimately familiar with J.S. Bach's music until 1782-83, when he came into contact with Gottfried van Swieten who owned many manuscripts of both Bach and Handel. So it is in the music composed around and after those years when the 'remarkable development' being referred to took place.


Apparently Mozart's words on seeing Bach's manuscripts were 'Now here is something we can all learn from!'


----------



## Larkenfield

----------------


----------



## Larkenfield

tdc said:


> What is your source for this? It may be true, but I haven't heard that. Apparently Mozart did not become intimately familiar with J.S. Bach's music until 1782-83, when he came into contact with Gottfried van Swieten who owned many manuscripts of both Bach and Handel. So it is in the music composed around and after those years when the 'remarkable development' being referred to took place.


In what I've come across so far, no one seems to know for sure. But he could have heard of the WTC from Bach's second son Carl Philip Emmanuel with whom Mozart started studying when he was eight. But it also seems that the JS Bach was considered as somewhat old-fashioned at the time and I believe Carl Philip Emmanuel was of the more modern Classical style, so it's not necessarily clear that he did share that particular work with the young Mozart. No one seems to know for sure, except the JS Bach studies that Mozart engaged in later in life after going crazy over his fugues. If, however, CPE didn't share the WTC with the young prodigy, perhaps he should have.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mozart wrote some halfway decent preludes and fugues for string trio.


----------



## trazom

Some musicologists who've written Bach's influence on Mozart suggest the possibility that Mozart was acquainted with Bach's music earlier than previously thought since one of his more ambitious stand alone fugues k.401, which was thought to be a late work, was recently dated to 1773 when he was still in his late teens. They speculate he may have become acquainted with JS Bach's work through his counterpoint studies with Padre Martini. There isn't any solid proof that it WAS Bach's music he was studying at that time, though.


----------



## juliante

I’ve fallen back in love with Mozart! About 3 years ago I declared to myself that I was over Mozart and the classical period in general.

Then I heard Piano Quartet number 1 and realised my naivety and have moved to a deeper than ever appreciation of his music. It’s interesting how our tastes and attitude develop and shift…how could I have dismissed the composer of Don Giovanni, Piano Concerto 20, Piano quartet 1, Symphony 39, Requiem etc etc


----------



## flamencosketches

Who has made a good HIP recording of the last 6 symphonies? I don't think I'm interested in getting a complete set of the whole 41 at this point in time, but it would be nice to have something to contrast with my Böhm and Walter (both of which I love) for the late symphonies.


----------



## Mandryka

35: ?????
36: Bruggen 
38: Harnoncourt/CMW (DVD) 
39: Minkowski (at Verbier -- I can let you have the recording, which is a rip from a concert originally on Medici TV) 
40: Bruggen (The one with two orchestras) 
41: ????? Maybe the new one with Mathieu Herzog, I think it's rather good.


----------



## Mandryka

Very much enjoying Norrington/Stuttgart. 

These symphonies are really hard to pull off. Over the past few weeks I've listened to quite a few by different performers, and they're often so very lifeless and unimaginative. 

Anyway feel that Norrington/Stuttgart is well worth the trouble to get to know.

(Ditto for Beethoven, from memory.)


----------



## hammeredklavier

Bach did have immense influence on Mozart during the last decade of his life, but people tend to forget Bach wasn't the only one of his predecessors he studied. He also studied the works of such composers as Froberger, Eberlin, Michael Haydn. And Handel seems to have had a bit more consistent influence on him throughout his life as his choral works (starting as early as the Pignus Futurae Gloriae fugue from Litaniae K125, which he wrote at 16) tend to show more Handelian influence.






His unfinished keyboard Suite K399 is often said to be Handelian in Style. And Mozart wasn't any 'crazier' about fugues in his late period than he was in his early period. Listen to the triple fugue of Gloria in Missa Longa in C major K262 or the massive double fugue Pignus Futurae Gloriae in Litaniae de Venerabili Altaris Sacramento in E flat major K243 or Misericordias Domini in D minor K222, all of which he wrote at 19. Or choral fugues in Missa in Honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis K167 or finales to string quartets K168 in F major and K173 in D minor, which he wrote at 17.


----------



## hammeredklavier

trazom said:


> Some musicologists who've written Bach's influence on Mozart suggest the possibility that Mozart was acquainted with Bach's music earlier than previously thought since one of his more ambitious stand alone fugues k.401, which was thought to be a late work, was recently dated to 1773 when he was still in his late teens.


Really? I thought that was from his 'Bach' period, 1782~3. Is there any scholarly source that says that was from 1773?


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> , but it would be nice to have something to contrast with my Böhm and Walter (both of which I love) for the late symphonies.


Stay with Bohm and Walter , these 2 are all you need in Mozart's great final 6.


----------



## Agamemnon

Mozart: Rational revolutionary
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/mozart-grace-notes/


----------



## trazom

hammeredklavier said:


> Really? I thought that was from his 'Bach' period, 1782~3. Is there any scholarly source that says that was from 1773?


Oops, I didn't see this post. Yes, I'm going off of Cliff Eisen's annotations in the footnotes of Hermann Abert's "W.A. Mozart" biography. It's on page 794 of the book. There are other references to the date of the piece's composition elsewhere online.


----------



## paulbest

I've been trying to tell everyone this , about how Mozart is the Divine, the greatest genius in music. No one will listen,,,Only those who know Mozart, know what I am saying
Why does everyone challenge this edict?
Why?
Mozart was far superior to Beethoven. Why deny it?
Why?


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm with you paul. Mozart was a master. On a good day he was greater than anybody. Divine is not too big a stretch of the imagination. Having said that, I see no reason to trash Beethoven to praise him. Both are worthy of their place, though I agree Mozart (and Bach) was greater. I adore all three.


----------



## Janspe

Mozart is a composer to whom it's always such an immense joy to return - I might stay away from his work for quite a long period of time, but then I listen to the clarinet concerto, or _Così fan tutte_, or whichever work - and bang! I suddenly need to go through the string quintets, the masses, the symphonies, the violin sonatas... It's like an euphoric fever that doesn't let go of me. And I don't mind!

I'm currently going through the 21 solo piano concertos (yes, not 27 since I'm only including fully original works) with my significant other since they're quite unfamiliar with most of them. I love all of them so much, even the lesser-known earlier works. Heck, even the very first one (D major, K.175) is a joy from the first note to the last.

Slightly off-topic but not completely: does anyone else feel the absolutely terrifying pressure of time on their shoulders when trying to explore music? I mean, we all have just one lifetime, and that means one will run out of time eventually... And there's so much music to familiarize oneself with, let alone all the music to re-listen to again and again. I've been embarking on huge Bach and Haydn projects recently (among _many_ others) and I just feel like my head is about to explode because there's so much to do.


----------



## flamencosketches

Janspe said:


> Slightly off-topic but not completely: does anyone else feel the absolutely terrifying pressure of time on their shoulders when trying to explore music? I mean, we all have just one lifetime, and that means one will run out of time eventually... And there's so much music to familiarize oneself with, let alone all the music to re-listen to again and again. I've been embarking on huge Bach and Haydn projects recently (among _many_ others) and I just feel like my head is about to explode because there's so much to do.


Every day my friend. It's what wakes me up early in the morning and keeps me up late at night, and keeps me going throughout the day  wish I had more hours in the day just to hear more music...one lifetime is not enough...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Yesterday I decided to listen to Mozart's works written between 1773 to 1777 in Salzburg. I already got one "wow" experience, seeing and hearing the big leap between his 24th and 25th symphonies, apparently in just 2 days! I thought it will be a great way to listen to his music, being aware of the period and place he was in. Maybe my ears will grow to learn and distinguish his Salzburg court period from everything else


----------



## millionrainbows

There's no question that Mozart was a consummate craftsman, and that he produced profound works. Yet, there are limits to be recognized before making broad, sweeping statements that mozart is "better" than Beethoven.
Even Mozart was not God; he was subject to the limitations of his time. Harmonic limitations, instrumental limitations, limitations of the Classical period.
I repeat, MOZART IS NOT GOD.


----------



## paulbest

millionrainbows said:


> There's no question that Mozart was a consummate craftsman, and that he produced profound works. Yet, there are limits to be recognized before making broad, sweeping statements that mozart is "better" than Beethoven.
> Even Mozart was not God; he was subject to the limitations of his time. Harmonic limitations, instrumental limitations, limitations of the Classical period.
> I repeat, MOZART IS NOT GOD.


Reading Bruno Walters notes on Mozart, in the Last 6 syms, LP set,,,you'd reconsider what you just said. 
Maybe not a god, but certainly some divinity surrounds his image to this day. 
Genius of his stature is not found too often. If ever again. I am quite confident Bach was his inspiration. Others may know more of this connection, I've seen this comment somewhere before.


----------



## Guest

paulbest said:


> Reading Bruno Walters notes on Mozart, in the Last 6 syms, LP set,,,you'd reconsider what you just said.
> Maybe not a god, but certainly some divinity surrounds his image to this day.
> Genius of his stature is not found too often. If ever again. I am quite confident Bach was his inspiration. Others may know more of this connection, I've seen this comment somewhere before.


There's a whole load of quotes about Mozart listed somewhere on this Forum. A thread called _Mozart: God or Garbage_ might be the one I vaguely recall from a long time ago. That thread looked at Mozart's achievements from all angles and viewpoints. It contained some side-busting comments about Mozart, I seem to recall.

On the reference to Mozart's suggested membership of the "Divine", I think it was Tchaikovsky who said that Mozart was the "_musical Christ_" and Beethoven "_God the Father_", or something along those lines. This would appear to be a rather fence-sitting description, but I think it is well known that Tchaikovsky had a particularly high regard for Mozart, with one of his main works being named after Mozart. His work on the whole (dare I use the word?) "sounds" more Mozartian than Beethovenian, if anything.


----------



## flamencosketches

Partita said:


> There's a whole load of quotes about Mozart listed somewhere on this Forum. A thread called _Mozart: God or Garbage_ might be the one I vaguely recall from a long time ago. That thread looked at Mozart's achievements from all angles and viewpoints. It contained some side-busting comments about Mozart, I seem to recall.
> 
> On the reference to Mozart's suggested membership of the "Divine", I think it was Tchaikovsky who said that Mozart was the "_musical Christ_" and Beethoven "_God the Father_", or something along those lines. This would appear to be a rather fence-sitting description, but I think it is well known that Tchaikovsky had a particularly high regard for Mozart, with one of his main works being named after Mozart. His work on the whole (dare I use the word?) "sounds" more Mozartian than Beethovenian, if anything.


This thread sounds hilarious, do you have a link to it? I promise I won't resurrect the drama.


----------



## bharbeke

flamencosketches said:


> This thread sounds hilarious, do you have a link to it? I promise I won't resurrect the drama.


Mozart: God or Garbage?

Apparently, this forum considers him closer to God than garbage.


----------



## paulbest

bharbeke said:


> Mozart: God or Garbage?
> 
> Apparently, this forum considers him closer to God than garbage.


Mozart when discussed among musicologists will often toss around terms like *The Divine*


----------



## flamencosketches

Why is Bruno Walter's Mozart always so damn good?! This is much faster than the other version in my library, Benjamin Britten/English Chamber Orchestra. But it loses no sense of drama.

Still on the lookout for a good HIP recording of Mozart symphonies... none of those I've heard really did it for me, sadly. But until then I'm perfectly satisfied with Bruno Walter, Neville Marriner, and Karl Böhm. (As for his operas, René Jacobs is a really good HIP Mozart conductor-I don't know if he ever recorded any symphonies)


----------



## millionrainbows

I was impressed by Peter Maag's Mozart.










From a review: Although not very well known, Peter Maag is a fine conductor with a particular genius for the music of Mozart -- which he amply exhibits on this CD. My favorite of the works presented herein is the delightful Symphony No. 32. Although only about ten minutes in length this symphony is a genuine masterpiece, and Maag's conducting of this little gem presents it in all its sparkle and beauty. This superb performance alone is worth the price of the CD which, however, is filled with a full eighty minutes of outstanding performances of various lesser known works by Mozart.


----------



## PlaySalieri

When people see something they don't comprehend - they often invoke god.

There's no need to refer to anything supernatural and divine when thinking about Mozart's music.

Just admit lack of comprehension and leave it at that.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I was impressed by Peter Maag's Mozart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a review: Although not very well known, Peter Maag is a fine conductor with a particular genius for the music of Mozart -- which he amply exhibits on this CD. My favorite of the works presented herein is the delightful Symphony No. 32. Although only about ten minutes in length this symphony is a genuine masterpiece, and Maag's conducting of this little gem presents it in all its sparkle and beauty. This superb performance alone is worth the price of the CD which, however, is filled with a full eighty minutes of outstanding performances of various lesser known works by Mozart.


I really like Maag's Mendelssohn 3rd symphony. I could see him pulling off Mozart pretty well.


----------



## Mandryka

Peter Maag did an absolutely exceptional Prague Symphony. He recorded it three times, I know the one with the LSO and with the orchestra di Padova del Venito. 

His Beethoven symphonies are also outstanding.


----------



## Larkenfield

Outstanding and sublime performance:






Bravo.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mandryka said:


> Peter Maag did an absolutely exceptional Prague Symphony. He recorded it three times, I know the one with the LSO and with the orchestra di Padova del Venito.
> 
> His Beethoven symphonies are also outstanding.


Maag's Scotch Sy on Decca is the best rec of that work I have ever heard and yes he was great with Mozart too.


----------



## paulbest

Mozart's sym 35, 1st movement is scored as 
Allegro con spirit
Noqw here is the Q. We have Walter's Columbia record at just under 6 minutes
and we have Bohm's Berlin SO coming in at 5:30
We will leave Klemperer's out of the discussion for the moment. 
As the 2 finest on record are the 2 mentioned.

Now the Q is, at least to my eras, Bohm's is too *spirito* more like *spirito energico*

Whereas Walter's seem to give proper tempos, which allow for the spirito to come through at the times when it suppose to.
How do you hear the great conductors interpretations. 
I am sure we will see division, some devoted fans of Bohm will not budge and the Walter fans will not give in either.

Not sure how Bohm could have missed, what Walter saw in the score. As Bohm was a master interpreter of Mozart.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Outstanding and sublime performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo.


Great performance,


----------



## Blancrocher

"Mozart: Rational Revolutionary" - Stephen Brown

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/mozart-grace-notes/

Interesting essay and interpretations of passages of Mozart, including audio clips.


----------



## paulbest

paulbest said:


> Great performance,


No, Great is a understatement, 
Ha sanyone,,compared,,well just a thought,,,but Uchida's ,,I know is special,,,but this performance,,,just unreal, 
Unreal. 
The focus on every tiny detail,,,its all there, nuances, colors, vibrancy, Its all there in this performance.


----------



## paulbest

Larkenfield said:


> Outstanding and sublime performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo.


had you not posted this YT vid,,,I am sure I may, indeed wuld have missed it,,as I am so focused on Uchida's,,, hardly considering others. 
Oh please, be a recording of this on CD.
Miracle if true


----------



## paulbest

Yet the 5 VC;'s
Not Mozart at his best. I am not at all interested, never have been,, never will be interested in those 5 works from Mozart. 
Also some of his chamber works, flute concertos, bassoon concertos, OK, nothing really special. I'll pass, most likely will never spin them.
Will not miss.


----------



## flamencosketches

paulbest said:


> Yet the 5 VC;'s
> Not Mozart at his best. I am not at all interested, never have been,, never will be interested in those 5 works from Mozart.
> Also some of his chamber works, flute concertos, bassoon concertos, OK, nothing really special. I'll pass, most likely will never spin them.
> Will not miss.


What about the clarinet concerto (and clarinet quintet for that matter)? Please tell me you don't lump it in with all these early works. It's incredible.


----------



## paulbest

Honestly I am only interested in Mozart's late works, , and all his operas, sacred Muisc. 
Sacred Musiac
Operas
late piano concertos
late PC;s. 
I am getting older, have to make limitations, for Henze and others. 

btw just heard Uchida/Tate/English Chamber in Mozart's PC9,. OK, nothing great = not recommended. 
I will have to revisit Uchida's late PC;s one day, double ck my hearing


----------



## flamencosketches

Paul, check out Ivan Moravec for the Mozart concertos sometime. Especially No.23. He really brings something special to the table.


----------



## Mandryka

What do you make of this Mozart 23?






Stalin heard this performance live on the radio and liked it so much that he asked Yudina and the orchestra to make the recording.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> What do you make of this Mozart 23?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin heard this performance live on the radio and liked it so much that asked Yudina and the orchestra to make the recording.


Love it! That's my other favorite recording. She brings a deep pathos to the second movement.

The story with Stalin is fascinating, if somewhat mythologized. There's a variant of the story where Ms. Yudina managed to slip a note into the record sleeve, explaining to Stalin what a bad guy he was, that he was going to hell, etc. (Stalin apparently admired her pianism so much that he didn't freak out and throw her in a gulag, I guess.)

I don't know about that bit, but I'm pretty sure Stalin's orders to recreate a recording from the live radio broadcast is true. Apparently they were all rushed to the studio late at night. Stalin was a huge fan of hers, I guess.


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> Paul, check out Ivan Moravec for the Mozart concertos sometime. Especially No.23. He really brings something special to the table.


I had those recordings some years back,,,eventually they did not win me over.
I went with Uchida and have stayed with her recordings as my choice in Mozart. 
Her 9th/Tate/English CO was on the radio, a perf which was not stellar , DJ upon announcing was Uchida/Tate, left me surprised. 
Now, if she had no devoted same attention in 1-19 as she does in 20-27, is not something I am concerned with, as its only the late which I find most interesting.


----------



## paulbest

anyone compared Uchida's 21st against Yoel's above in the YT upload?
Now sure, Yoel only made this one perf,,,Uchida has traversed the entire concerto set. 
Uchida's 2 YT uploads in her 25th and 24th, which her as soloist/conductor are outstanding, if not definitive.


----------



## paulbest

Just cking out Uchida's 2 records, in the 21st, Cleveland as conductor, Englsih as Conductor, and with Tate,,,thats 3 actually, then went back to Yoel's,,,and then to Pires,,,this vid popped up on the recommend.
Since we are on the topic of child prodigy 
If one did not know the age of this artist and stated with guesses, might take 5/more guesses to get down to 6 yrs old.

The other vid states 6 yrs, here he may be 6+ months
Definitely has ~~Potential~


----------



## paulbest

and if that is not convincing,,,enough,,here is the bright star in another upload.
He can hardly reach the pedals,,,someone in the comment section mentioned this was in Austria. Glda to see the piano chosen is the superior timber/tones/colors Bosendorfer over the more popular steely/cold Steinway.

As I say do you think he has ~~?potential?~~


----------



## PlaySalieri

flamencosketches said:


> Love it! That's my other favorite recording. She brings a deep pathos to the second movement.
> 
> The story with Stalin is fascinating, if somewhat mythologized. There's a variant of the story where Ms. Yudina managed to slip a note into the record sleeve, explaining to Stalin what a bad guy he was, that he was going to hell, etc. (Stalin apparently admired her pianism so much that he didn't freak out and throw her in a gulag, I guess.)
> 
> I don't know about that bit, but I'm pretty sure Stalin's orders to recreate a recording from the live radio broadcast is true. Apparently they were all rushed to the studio late at night. Stalin was a huge fan of hers, I guess.


Its not the best recording quality but the piano playing is like no other I have ever heard - her technique in the fast passages is amazing.

This anecdote was passed down to me by a russian musician some years ago except she said it was a Beethoven PC. Later - after she died - I found it was Mozart. Must have had a soft side to him then if Mozart could touch him.

I understand that Yudina wrote to him - the letter was given to him by two trembling KGB - Stalin read the letter - and crumpled it into a ball and threw it away.


----------



## PlaySalieri

flamencosketches said:


> What about the clarinet concerto (and clarinet quintet for that matter)? Please tell me you don't lump it in with all these early works. It's incredible.


The last 3 VCs are incredible too and the flute concerto no 1.

I don't care where he lumps the clarinet concerto as he is no true Mozart fan.


----------



## jegreenwood

stomanek said:


> Its not the best recording quality but the piano playing is like no other I have ever heard - her technique in the fast passages is amazing.
> 
> This anecdote was passed down to me by a russian musician some years ago except she said it was a Beethoven PC. Later - after she died - I found it was Mozart. Must have had a soft side to him then if Mozart could touch him.
> 
> I understand that Yudina wrote to him - the letter was given to him by two trembling KGB - Stalin read the letter - and crumpled it into a ball and threw it away.


You need to see "The Death of Stalin" - Olga Kurylenko as Yudina.

It's also very funny.

Edit - can't find a video of the scene - here's a still.


----------



## PlaySalieri

jegreenwood said:


> You need to see "The Death of Stalin" - Olga Kurylenko as Yudina.
> 
> It's also very funny.
> 
> Edit - can't find a video of the scene - here's a still.
> 
> View attachment 120632


Yudina wasn't so glamorous but I have heard its not a bad film - hope to see it soon.


----------



## jegreenwood

Yudina never starred in a Bond film.


----------



## flamencosketches

stomanek said:


> The last 3 VCs are incredible too and the flute concerto no 1.
> 
> I don't care where he lumps the clarinet concerto as he is no true Mozart fan.


By your definition, I must not be a "true" Mozart fan either, then... oddly, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't make me love Mozart's music any less


----------



## paulbest

flamencosketches said:


> By your definition, I must not be a "true" Mozart fan either, then... oddly, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't make me love Mozart's music any less


Yes , I mean, who can really, honestly say 
*I love this SQ by Mozart, I means its so divine, so,,,~~~sublime~~~*

yuckkyyy


----------



## PlaySalieri

flamencosketches said:


> By your definition, I must not be a "true" Mozart fan either, then... oddly, that doesn't bother me. It doesn't make me love Mozart's music any less


Paulbest's appreciation of Mozart is very patchy and he has made derogatory and ignorant comments about some of Mozart's works.

He is, consequently - not a true Mozart fan


----------



## paulbest

stomanek said:


> Paulbest's appreciation of Mozart is very patchy and he has made derogatory and ignorant comments about some of Mozart's works.
> 
> He is, consequently - not a true Mozart fan


There is no composer whose works should not be regularly updated on review. 
I mean could you imagine staying faithful to all 1200 works of Bach?
all ones life.....too devoted to one composer is surely a recipe, a ~~concoction~~to block out another. 
This is the way our ~~sensibilities~~ operate. something along those lines,,,,,,Mozart was only in warm up phase, practicing his skills for his later great works. 
No I am not a ~~Mozartian~~

Like a great painter making pencil lead sketches, which is only prep work for the later masterpiece with full colors.


----------



## PlaySalieri

paulbest said:


> There is no composer whose works should not be regularly updated on review.
> *I mean could you imagine staying faithful to all 1200 works of Bach?*
> all ones life.....too devoted to one composer is surely a recipe, a ~~concoction~~to block out another.
> This is the way our ~~sensibilities~~ operate. something along those lines,,,,,,Mozart was only in warm up phase, practicing his skills for his later great works.
> No I am not a ~~Mozartian~~
> 
> Like a great painter making pencil lead sketches, which is only prep work for the later masterpiece with full colors.


probably not - and of Mozart's 600+ works I probably limit myself to the best 200. There are Mozart works I dont bother with - like the church sonatas, canons. But the works generally recognised as great I like them all including the violin concertos

I dont only listen to Mozart - but since he is my favourite I tend to comment on him the most.


----------



## Mandryka

There’s an American quartet I very much like, an old one, called The New Music Quartet. Their recordings have mostly only been available on LPs, I have some transfers made by an amateur, and it’s only this week that commercial transfers have been made available. And that release has prompted me to revisit them.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I’ve been listening to their recordings, including some early Mozart quartets, K 155/6/7/8. God knows why they recorded these things. Well, I would never in a million years listen to this sort of stuff normally, because I’m just not sufficiently interested in classical style music to want to explore anything more than the highest of high points. 

But you know, there are some completely delightful things in there! 

I remember having the same feeling when I listened to some recordings of very early piano concertos which Loriod made with Boulez.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Mandryka said:


> There's an American quartet I very much like, an old one, called The New Music Quartet. Their recordings have mostly only been available on LPs, I have some transfers made by an amateur, and it's only this week that commercial transfers have been made available. And that release has prompted me to revisit them.
> 
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, I've been listening to their recordings, including some early Mozart quartets, K 155/6/7/8. God knows why they recorded these things. Well, I would never in a million years listen to this sort of stuff normally, because I'm just not sufficiently interested in classical style music to want to explore anything more than the highest of high points.
> 
> But you know, there are some completely delightful things in there!
> 
> I remember having the same feeling when I listened to some recordings of very early piano concertos which Loriod made with Boulez.


I was amazed by these early quartets when I bought the Italian Qt Mozart set of CD as I started listening from disc 1. Not masterpieces but a delight to listen to.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> There's an American quartet I very much like, an old one, called The New Music Quartet. Their recordings have mostly only been available on LPs, I have some transfers made by an amateur, and it's only this week that commercial transfers have been made available. And that release has prompted me to revisit them.
> 
> Anyway, to cut a long story short, I've been listening to their recordings, including some early Mozart quartets, K 155/6/7/8. God knows why they recorded these things. Well, I would never in a million years listen to this sort of stuff normally, because I'm just not sufficiently interested in classical style music to want to explore anything more than the highest of high points.
> 
> But you know, there are some completely delightful things in there!
> 
> I remember having the same feeling when I listened to some recordings of very early piano concertos which Loriod made with Boulez.


Thanks for the heads up, Mandryka. It's sort of like "what is a modernist take on the older stuff?"

Yes, I like those early Loriod recordings, and have been tempted to get that Vega box.




















​


----------



## millionrainbows

stomanek said:


> probably not - and of Mozart's 600+ works I probably limit myself to the best 200. There are Mozart works I dont bother with - like the church sonatas, canons. But the works generally recognised as great I like them all including the violin concertos
> 
> I dont only listen to Mozart - but since he is my favourite I tend to comment on him the most.


I thought ALL of the flute quartets sucked.


----------



## PlaySalieri

millionrainbows said:


> I thought ALL of the flute quartets sucked.


The first quartet is good.


----------



## Larkenfield

Background on his Flute Quartets, the first of which I find bubbling and invariably cheerful with a well-written flute part. It makes a difference when it's well played: https://ourrecordings.com/releases/Mozart-Flute-Quartets

With Jean-Paul Rampal, Isaac Stern, Salvatore Accardo, and Rostropovich who obviously held the cheerful and bubbling Quartets in high regard:






Though not considered major works, the Quartets are another side of Mozart and none of them are longer than 15 minutes. They are essentially very happy in nature and in character with the flute even if not written under the most ideal of circumstances. Perhaps that's what some find remarkable about them. I found these performances delightful.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Larkenfield said:


> Background on his Flute Quartets, the first of which I find bubbling and invariably cheerful with a well-written flute part. It makes a difference when it's well played: https://ourrecordings.com/releases/Mozart-Flute-Quartets
> 
> With Jean-Paul Rampal, Isaac Stern, Salvatore Accardo, and Rostropovich who obviously held the cheerful and bubbling Quartets in high regard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though not considered major works, the Quartets are another side of Mozart and none of them are longer than 15 minutes. They are essentially very happy in nature and in character with the flute even if not written under the most ideal of circumstances. Perhaps that's what some find remarkable about them. I found these performances delightful.


Interesting that the best quartet was composed years before the later ones which are not as good.


----------



## Ras

Mandryka mentioned an old lp he had and liked with the *Modern String Quartet playing Mozart*, but I couldn't find Mandryka's post, so I am posting here the news bulleting that the MSQ recording of K. 155-157 has been remastered and re-released by Sony - it is on Spotify:


----------



## Ras

*For the flute quartets this is my favorite - Nash Ensemble on Virgin:*


----------



## Luchesi

posted in the wrong thread


----------



## flamencosketches

Ras said:


> *For the flute quartets this is my favorite - Nash Ensemble on Virgin:*
> 
> View attachment 120988


I've never heard any of these works but you've piqued my interest. I'm interested to hear more wind-driven chamber music...


----------



## Mandryka

flamencosketches said:


> I've never heard any of these works but you've piqued my interest. I'm interested to hear more wind-driven chamber music...


Have you heard Gran Partita? Or the wind quintet, K 452? Top class music, by anyone.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ras said:


> Mandryka mentioned an old lp he had and liked with the *Modern String Quartet playing Mozart*, but I couldn't find Mandryka's post, so I am posting here the news bulleting that the MSQ recording of K. 155-157 has been remastered and re-released by Sony - it is on Spotify:


No, it's "The New Music String Quartet." there's a CD box set:


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> No, it's "The New Music String Quartet." there's a CD box set:


Correct, I was surprised how much I enjoyed those early quartets.

I like The Modern Quartet playing Art of Fugue though.


----------



## millionrainbows

Here's the best Mozart I've heard lately. I just get excited knowing Boulez is conducting, and Loriod's playing is impeccable and exquisite. I might have already posted this.









Edit: Whoops! I have, but since then I've actually purchased the box.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Stalin was a huge fan of hers, I guess.


Thanks! I'll use that in the next big Mozart dispute.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Here's the best Mozart I've heard lately. I just get excited knowing Boulez is conducting, and Loriod's playing is impeccable and exquisite. I might have already posted this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Whoops! I have, but since then I've actually purchased the box.


I once asked someone who knew Boulez why he did it. The answer was simple -- money. Both Boulez and Loriod were strapped for cash at the time and Mozart sells.


----------



## tdc

Mandryka said:


> I once asked someone who knew Boulez why he did it. The answer was simple -- money. Both Boulez and Loriod were strapped for cash at the time and Mozart sells.


And Boulez doesn't sell much, because he is no where near the composer Mozart was, and he will never be considered so. But it was nice of him to do it, it must've been a real chore for him.


----------



## starthrower

Talent has nothing to do with sales. Kiss sells way more than Mozart. There's a lot of great music in between Mozart and Boulez so I don't listen to either of those composers very much.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> because he is no where near the composer Mozart was, and he will never be considered so..


I don't agree with you for those very early concertos Loriod and Boulez recorded.


----------



## mikeh375

tdc said:


> And Boulez doesn't sell much, because he is no where near the composer Mozart was, and he will never be considered so. But it was nice of him to do it, it must've been a real chore for him.


and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"


----------



## tdc

mikeh375 said:


> and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"


I don't think Boulez will ever attain that kind of universal appeal, he just doesn't have 'it' like Mozart did, his personal voice is not very strong for one, he dabbled in a lot of different things, but never really sounds especially inspired to me. His reputation certainly is no where near Mozart's, _you_ might speculate it will be someday, but it would be just that - speculation.

You may as well say Mozart will never be any of a zillion composers. What does that prove? That composers are different? Why would Mozart want to be anything else he is already regarded as arguably the greatest composer. Boulez is not. It is debatable how relevant Boulez really has been or will be on composers to come.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"


Thankfully, mercifully, so.


----------



## mikeh375

...I've personally never rated music on its popularity, nor have I done the same with composers for that matter. It's not about popularity for me, in fact I can sometimes be suspicious of 'popularity'.
Boulez's reputation amongst some musicians and composers is very different to the average general listeners and as for his personal voice, well his achievement in contemporary music does speak for itself - that voice is there all right for those that know his work.
He's not for everyone of course, including you it would seem tdc , but he is not so easy to dismiss imo as he was also a genius - just not the 'popular' sort.


----------



## tdc

I don't think it is simply a matter of 'popularity'. Yes, Mozart has acceptance in much of the general public and casual listeners, but his reputation is based largely on how other composers, musicians, scholars have viewed and do still view his music today. So in other words yes, he has popularity, but also wider acceptance and respect among professionals.

Another thing to remember is in Schumann's writings, the way he praised Brahms, he had actually praised a couple of other composers before Brahms in a similar fashion, that most do not remember today. Brahms too, championed some lesser names in his day, now mostly forgotten to history. So I think things like the kind of impact and success composers have over a long period of time, is often rather difficult to discern, even for professional composers.

I'm not sure I really recognize any major trends Boulez has been at the forefront of, some have even accused him of acting avantgarde while for the most part not really doing a lot of significantly unique things in his music. 

For the record he has a piece or two that sound ok to me, I don't completely dismiss him, but I'm not a big fan. I haven't been overly impressed, and some of his music does sound very bad to me, giving me a negative reaction that gets exacerbated by his hubris and the smug attitude of superiority I consistently come across him showing towards most composers, the majority of which I think are better than he is.


----------



## mikeh375

...yep, he wasn't perfect, in fact quite the opposite at Darmstadt. IRCAM alone will guarantee a legacy, one that has opened up an even greater infinity of possibilities for sound.


----------



## Phil loves classical

mikeh375 said:


> ...I've personally never rated music on its popularity, nor have I done the same with composers for that matter. It's not about popularity for me, in fact I can sometimes be suspicious of 'popularity'.
> Boulez's reputation amongst some musicians and composers is very different to the average general listeners and as for his personal voice, well his achievement in contemporary music does speak for itself - that voice is there all right for those that know his work.
> He's not for everyone of course, including you it would seem tdc , but he is not so easy to dismiss imo as he was also a genius - just not the 'popular' sort.


Boulez was a great composer, just one I can do without  It really is the old apples and oranges thing, except that one tastes infinitely better. You hear that Hammerklavier?


----------



## Luchesi

mikeh375 said:


> ...I've personally never rated music on its popularity, nor have I done the same with composers for that matter. It's not about popularity for me, in fact I can sometimes be suspicious of 'popularity'.
> Boulez's reputation amongst some musicians and composers is very different to the average general listeners and as for his personal voice, well his achievement in contemporary music does speak for itself - that voice is there all right for those that know his work.
> He's not for everyone of course, including you it would seem tdc , but he is not so easy to dismiss imo as he was also a genius - just not the 'popular' sort.


Imagine Wolfgang and Pierre sitting together discussing music over coffee. Poor Wolfie would be left in the dust. (It wouldn't be his fault, but people need to have perspective.)


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> Imagine Wolfgang and Pierre sitting together discussing music over coffee. Poor Wolfie would be left in the dust. (It wouldn't be his fault, but people need to have perspective.)


Well, its an imaginary situation but even so I have to disagree here, I think it would be more of a mutual exchange of information. Much has been lost and forgotten about music of the past over the years too, there would likely be a good deal of questions Boulez would have as well.


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> Imagine Wolfgang and Pierre sitting together discussing music over coffee. Poor Wolfie would be left in the dust. (It wouldn't be his fault, but people need to have perspective.)





tdc said:


> Well, its an imaginary situation but even so I have to disagree here, I think it would be more of a mutual exchange of information. Much has been lost and forgotten about music of the past over the years too, there would likely be a good deal of questions Boulez would have as well.


They'd probably be figuring ways to get conducting gigs, so they could eat and pay for that expensive Starbuck's coffee.


----------



## Mandryka

I listened to some Mozart this morning, symphonies conducted by Peter Maag -- 28, 34,32.

What rubbish music. This isn't music for grown ups, it's for the primary school. If the rest of his stuff is like this then I think you Mozart lovers are completely bonkers.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> I listened to some Mozart this morning, symphonies conducted by Peter Maag -- 28, 34,32.
> 
> What rubbish music. This isn't music for grown ups, it's for the primary school. If the rest of his stuff is like this then I think you Mozart lovers are completely bonkers.


You also started a thread dedicated to seeking out recordings of Mozart symphonies on another forum; which am I to believe?


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"


What delusion you're prepared to endure.


----------



## Luchesi

tdc said:


> Well, its an imaginary situation but even so I have to disagree here, I think it would be more of a mutual exchange of information. Much has been lost and forgotten about music of the past over the years too, there would likely be a good deal of questions Boulez would have as well.


We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects. 

Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?

 Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. Mozart wouldn't know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects.
> 
> Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?
> 
> *Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. * Mozart wouldn't know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.


It's all nonsense that produces unlistenable music.

Mozart had all the necessary tools to produce the best music ever crafted - in all ways of judging - even purely intellectuallly. Boulez or any other modernist wouldn't dream of writing something as complex as the Jupiter symphony.

That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> It's all nonsense that produces unlistenable music.
> 
> Mozart had all the necessary tools to produce the best music ever crafted - in all ways of judging - even purely intellectuallly. Boulez or any other modernist wouldn't dream of writing something as complex as the Jupiter symphony.
> 
> That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.


Modern music is the artist's concept of the modern world. It can't be too 'listenable', if I understand what you mean.

Yes, good compliments for Mozart, but none of it addresses or changes my points. The very definition of a fanboy.


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> Modern music is the artist's concept of the modern world. It can't be too 'listenable', if I understand what you mean.
> 
> Yes, good compliments for Mozart, but none of it addresses or changes my points. The very definition of a fanboy.


Not at all, you just don't see the deterioration of art and of its standards, while tdc and myself do. Man doesn't celebrate decay, therefore it's appropriate that music of that style isn't celebrated.

If Schoenberg looked to the future with his music, and we proceed to do the same with the music of today, then it simply can't be of the same style. The future, 30-50 years from now will be what the music of today projects, that's what I'm trying to get across.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> Not at all, you just don't see the deterioration of art and of its standards, while tdc and myself do. Man doesn't celebrate decay, therefore it's appropriate that music of that style isn't celebrated.
> 
> If Schoenberg looked to the future with his music, and we proceed to do the same with the music of today, then it simply can't be of the same style. The future, 30-50 years from now will be what the music of today projects, that's what I'm trying to get across.


I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.


Tonality isn't backwards, the future is tonal.


----------



## tdc

Luchesi said:


> We all admire Mozart and Newton and Einstein. We get ridiculous with our admiration. They would have little chance of understanding and conversing in a subject which was developed for so many years after they died. They wouldn't know about the discoveries and the progress and the depth of the modern subjects.
> 
> Is Newton going to talk about QM or even relativity? Is Einstein going to be able to talk about quantum loop gravity when he had no idea about it or exposure to the rationale for it? Its predictions?
> 
> Boulez has taken all the music theory classes and worked professionally with modern harmony and the evolution of modern music for many decades. Mozart wouldn't know the terms or definitions or the developmental logic.


I think you have a false notion that progress is always linear. There is nothing new under the sun, as has been said. We have actually had a similar discussion before. There is plenty of evidence that people were more advanced in the past. We cannot scientifically give an adequate explanation of the pyramids, we do not have composers as prolific and brilliant as in the past or the polymaths today as we did some centuries ago. The technologies we are using are a disgrace. True high technology exists and we wouldn't recognize it, because it is technology that works with natural principles, not the synthetic garbage we have been given. The reason our world has become so retarded is because certain people have decided to hold back real science and truth, because they would have to sacrifice their power. This was predicted in Huxley's _Brave New World_, and it is happening today. Only technologies that can be used to continually keep people enslaved are released. So in other words 'science' today is in many respects a lie, and it has purposely been made overly complex and convoluted so that few can understand it, as a way to create the perception and illusion that the real world is too complex for regular people to understand. Therefore the average person should leave the ruling of the world to those 'other people' who understand it.

Only 'science' that supports the agenda of the elite class is tolerated by big tech companies like facebook and google. We are seeing this unfold in real time today with their rampant censorship on topics that do not fit their narrative. If they could actually win the debates with real science they would not be concerned with limiting free speech. My guess is much of what Boulez knew would not be of much interest to Mozart, he would probably see it as a bunch of nonsense, and he would be right.


----------



## hammeredklavier

If you have spent enough time observing Luchesi on this forum, you'll know. He always wants to prove that music continually improves over time in terms of harmony and style. The newer, the better. Older styles keep getting surpassed by newer styles. Hence "Chopin's harmony and style are more objectively effective than Mozart's (and Bach's)" - is LuChesI's LogIC.



Luchesi said:


> It's more objective. I'm thinking that the findings of evolutionary psychology indicate that the harmony of Chopin is more effective than the harmony of Mozart's time. The harmonies alone, not what he did with them.





Luchesi said:


> OK, not just harmony, style. Chopin, Schumann, Liszt and Berlioz only composed in the Romantic style. They admired Mozart, but for the expression of their time and setting and outlooks - that style had been surpassed by the new style. How do you explain what happened?





Luchesi said:


> Harmony had moved on. As I see it, the large steps, from Byrd to Mozart, and again from Hummel to Schumann, and then Liszt to Mahler, in each comparable interval of time in music history the earlier harmony had been surpassed (for human expression, not for listening and modern day collecting).





Luchesi said:


> Yes, if you're a pianist Mozart is Mozart, older - simpler sounds, but you look to Schubert and Chopin for the expressive, experimental new ideas. The miniatures are often full of the new, and the drama and cleverness packed into short forms.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> You hear that Hammerklavier?


You mean the Hammerklavier? Yes, I have heard it. It's a good sonata


----------



## hammeredklavier

Take a look at the top-rated comments in this video:





*"No one will ever know if you make a mistake that's for sure." -OÄKTA DOPBOK
"If you make a mistake on this sonata, it's called "improvisation"" -vesteel*


----------



## hammeredklavier

1996D said:


> That's what's so sad about them, they dedicate all their effort to complexity to such an extreme that it costs the music all sense of aesthetic, yet still can't get near the complexity of Mozart - even though his primary concern was beauty.


To me, the problem with contemporary classical music like Boulez and Stockhausen's isn't the "ugliness". I just don't feel "genius" in it. Why don't I just watch a good horror movie rather than sit at home listening to a Boulez piece wondering what he's trying to say through his music. I think watching a good horror movie will give me a better contemporary classical music listening experience. The common practice masters' use of dissonance in their formal structure and voice leading richness just seems more striking. Whereas the contemporary guys' like Boulez's endless use of unresolved dissonances strikes me as "spammy". He uses them for the sake of using them, with the "the-more-you-spam-the-better" mentality. It always ends up sounding like a child who keeps bitching endlessly no matter how hard you try to babysit him. I find it one-dimensional and lacking in mood contrast and spacial depth. Life isn't all about suffering, grief. There has to be a lot of other feelings, like joy, happiness, longing, love, hatred, hope, awe, amusement, serenity, working in harmony with "suffering and grief" in an up-and-down fashion organically and naturally, like how an organism breathes in and out. I just don't hear that kind of natural variety and "sense of balance" and "contrast of color" in the musical language of Boulez and Stockhausen. Only funny sound effects. I think it's only good as soundtrack for horror films. I don't admire them the same way I don't admire today's composers of horror film music effects. You can only hear random unresolved dissonance spam for so long. It gets stale at some point, starts to not sound striking any more.


----------



## JAS

Luchesi said:


> I don't expect that you can convince people working in the field to go backward in musical history. Art isn't about liking, it's about educated and personal expression/representations.


It can be as long as you don't need an audience. The use of "backwards" is, I think, the error here. If you are headed from New York to Iowa, driving on to Alaska is no longer progress, and you had better turn back. Too often, mere movement is mistaken for progress.


----------



## flamencosketches

Will everyone STFU about Boulez? This thread is about Mozart. There is absolutely no need to trash another composer (a great composer in my book, if not yours—I do not care what you think) to enjoy Mozart. The fact that you lot think there is need for that betrays a lot of insecurity.


----------



## Phil loves classical

tdc said:


> I think you have a false notion that progress is always linear. There is nothing new under the sun, as has been said. We have actually had a similar discussion before. There is plenty of evidence that people were more advanced in the past. We cannot scientifically give an adequate explanation of the pyramids, we do not have composers as prolific and brilliant as in the past or the polymaths today as we did some centuries ago. The technologies we are using are a disgrace. True high technology exists and we wouldn't recognize it, because it is technology that works with natural principles, not the synthetic garbage we have been given. The reason our world has become so retarded is because certain people have decided to hold back real science and truth, because they would have to sacrifice their power. This was predicted in Huxley's _Brave New World_, and it is happening today. Only technologies that can be used to continually keep people enslaved are released. So in other words 'science' today is in many respects a lie, and it has purposely been made overly complex and convoluted so that few can understand it, as a way to create the perception and illusion that the real world is too complex for regular people to understand. Therefore the average person should leave the ruling of the world to those 'other people' who understand it.
> 
> Only 'science' that supports the agenda of the elite class is tolerated by big tech companies like facebook and google. We are seeing this unfold in real time today with their rampant censorship on topics that do not fit their narrative. If they could actually win the debates with real science they would not be concerned with limiting free speech. My guess is much of what Boulez knew would not be of much interest to Mozart, he would probably see it as a bunch of nonsense, and he would be right.


I agree with Luchesi. And the pyramids is not a good analogy since it used technology/technique that was not documented. Music are well-documented with scores and techniques that have evolved. So Boulez knows all the techniques that Mozart employed, which was really nothing new since Bach and Haydn. Before Hammeredklavier goes to misinterpret what I'm saying, Mozart's genius can't be replicated. He was wired in a way to create what is great that others can't in the same way, even given the same tools. Mozart was a progressive as evidenced by his music, he would have been interested in how the boundaries of music were extended, which can be only in one direction over time, even if he didn't particularly like the music, or felt it was excessive, or imbalanced from Classical aethestics. But it is definitely not nonsense, if others can respond to the music (which is ultimately a medium for conveying expressions).

The same way some don't respond to Mozart like Janxharris, who hears a lot of cliches, some (ok a lot more) don't respond to Boulez. The same way you might view someone who doesn't get the genius of Mozart, others might view those the same way who doesn't get the genius of Boulez.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> What delusion you're prepared to endure.


lol...............


----------



## mikeh375

tdc said:


> ................ There is plenty of evidence that people were more advanced in the past. We cannot scientifically give an adequate explanation of the pyramids, we do not have composers as prolific and brilliant as in the past or the polymaths today as we did some centuries ago. The technologies we are using are a disgrace. True high technology exists and we wouldn't recognize it, because it is technology that works with natural principles, not the synthetic garbage we have been given...........


There have been many brilliant and prolific composers in the last 100 years. Liking them or not, is up to you, but to say there have been none up to the mark because their talent (and music?), doesn't seemingly stack up to your personal preferences, sounds remarkably blinkered and dismissive imv. The 20thC has had its fair share of musical genius and that is, irrespective of subjectivity, not in doubt.

I'd like to hear more about "True high technology" @ tdc. What are we missing?


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> And the pyramids is not a good analogy since it used technology/technique that was not documented.


And Ancient Aliens . . . or so the History Channel insists on telling me.


----------



## JAS

In his own way, I suppose it could be argued that Charles Manson was a genius. (In fact, I think he argued an even more exalted position for himself.)

Someone on another thread insisted that Brian Ferneyhough was a musical genius. I suppose if he managed to get paid for what he did, that is some kind of genius.


----------



## hammeredklavier

JAS said:


> In his own way, I suppose it could be argued that Charles Manson was a genius. (In fact, I think he argued an even more exalted position for himself.)
> Someone on another thread insisted that Brian Ferneyhough was a musical genius. I suppose if he managed to get paid for what he did, that is some kind of genius.


Exactly!  Even John Cage is considered a genius, because Beethoven would never have written 4'33".
I often ask myself, which is closer to being "real classical music"? Yuhki Kuramoto or avant-garde music.
Shouldn't avant-garde be a separate genre from classical music, like how jazz is?


----------



## JAS

hammeredklavier said:


> Shouldn't avant-garde be a separate genre from classical music, like how jazz is?


Yes. (I was just going to say yes, but the software demands more.)

Edit: I was probably also too jocular in my comment about Manson. As far as I know, Manson did not torture his victims.


----------



## tdc

flamencosketches said:


> Will everyone STFU about Boulez? This thread is about Mozart. There is absolutely no need to trash another composer (a great composer in my book, if not yours-I do not care what you think) to enjoy Mozart. The fact that you lot think there is need for that betrays a lot of insecurity.


Boulez must have been very insecure then, because he bashed virtually every composer under the sun. I think it is fine for me to say whatever I want to about Boulez on this thread, especially since Mandryka was the one who brought him into the conversation, implying Boulez felt he was too good to conduct Mozart, only doing it for the money.

By the way I find Boulez music vomit inducing, and the man himself looks incredibly creepy. Have you ever seen a person who looks less joyful when conducting (or in general) than Boulez? The man looks like he doesn't have any happiness in his heart at all. I shudder to think what he was like in his personal life. Maybe a vampire or something? He acts like he has no heart or soul. I don't hear any heart or soul in his music, that's for sure.



mikeh375 said:


> There have been many brilliant and prolific composers in the last 100 years. Liking them or not, is up to you, but to say there have been none up to the mark because their talent (and music?), doesn't seemingly stack up to your personal preferences, sounds remarkably blinkered and dismissive imv. The 20thC has had its fair share of musical genius and that is, irrespective of subjectivity, not in doubt.
> 
> I'd like to hear more about "True high technology" @ tdc. What are we missing?


I think there are a lot of excellent composers in the first half of the 20th century, and yes plenty of good ones in the second half too. Actually the modern era is one of my favorites, easily. But still we don't have any in my view that have been as prolifically brilliant as the older masters post wwII in my view, you are free to disagree. A lot of the music sounds very harsh too, as though it is expressing the opposite kinds of things earlier masters sought to express. I find a lot of it a little imbalanced. I don't think it is coincidence that we get these highly discordant sounds coinciding with the time of all these new technologies and chemicals being introduced into our lives.

I think discussing high technology in detail is beyond the scope of this thread. But here is an example, it is built into our minds it is called the pineal gland. You should research what fluoride does to it. Maybe look into what electromagnetic radiation does to human bodies. The technology we have inside of ourselves is being attacked in various ways. If you want to bury your head in the sand over these issues because it sounds weird or clashes with your beliefs or it is scary and it makes you feel uncomfortable that is on you. But that won't make it go away. Whether people decide to stand up and face this or not the war is being waged on us regardless constantly. (I think of the line from LotR - I won't risk open war! War is upon you whether you would risk it or not) and going along with it won't make it stop, it will only keep getting worse, that is how these folks roll. I think standing in truth is the safest place to be.


----------



## mikeh375

tdc said:


> I think discussing high technology in detail is beyond the scope of this thread. But here is an example, it is built into our minds it is called the pineal gland. You should research what fluoride does to it. Maybe look into what electromagnetic radiation does to human bodies. The technology we have inside of ourselves is being attacked in various ways. If you want to bury your head in the sand over these issues because it sounds weird or clashes with your beliefs or it is scary and it makes you feel uncomfortable that is on you. But that won't make it go away. Whether people decide to stand up and face this or not the war is being waged on us regardless constantly. (I think of the line from LotR - I won't risk open war! War is upon you whether you would risk it or not) and going along with it won't make it stop, it will only keep getting worse, that is how these folks roll. I think standing in truth is the safest place to be.


Yes, this is way beyond the scope of the thread and so out of respect for it, I'll leave it alone.


----------



## flamencosketches

tdc said:


> Boulez must have been very insecure then, because he bashed virtually every composer under the sun. I think it is fine for me to say whatever I want to about Boulez on this thread, especially since Mandryka was the one who brought him into the conversation, implying Boulez felt he was too good to conduct Mozart, only doing it for the money.
> 
> By the way I find Boulez music vomit inducing, and the man himself looks incredibly creepy. Have you ever seen a person who looks less joyful when conducting (or in general) than Boulez? The man looks like he doesn't have any happiness in his heart at all. I shudder to think what he was like in his personal life. Maybe a vampire or something? He acts like he has no heart or soul. I don't hear any heart or soul in his music, that's for sure.
> 
> I think there are a lot of excellent composers in the first half of the 20th century, and yes plenty of good ones in the second half too. Actually the modern era is one of my favorites, easily. But still we don't have any in my view that have been as prolifically brilliant as the older masters post wwII in my view, you are free to disagree. A lot of the music sounds very harsh too, as though it is expressing the opposite kinds of things earlier masters sought to express. I find a lot of it a little imbalanced. I don't think it is coincidence that we get these highly discordant sounds coinciding with the time of all these new technologies and chemicals being introduced into our lives.
> 
> I think discussing high technology in detail is beyond the scope of this thread. But here is an example, it is built into our minds it is called the pineal gland. You should research what fluoride does to it. Maybe look into what electromagnetic radiation does to human bodies. The technology we have inside of ourselves is being attacked in various ways. If you want to bury your head in the sand over these issues because it sounds weird or clashes with your beliefs or it is scary and it makes you feel uncomfortable that is on you. But that won't make it go away. Whether people decide to stand up and face this or not the war is being waged on us regardless constantly. (I think of the line from LotR - I won't risk open war! War is upon you whether you would risk it or not) and going along with it won't make it stop, it will only keep getting worse, that is how these folks roll. I think standing in truth is the safest place to be.


I'll give you that Boulez may have been insecure, but not that he was joyless or lacking any "heart and soul". To my ears, there is plenty of joy, heart and soul in his music-making and in his own compositions. As far as what you think of his music, that is of no concern to me at all and certainly not in a Mozart thread. The comment about "only for the money" is not to imply not that he was too good to conduct Mozart, only that he doesn't like his music, which is nothing surprising-everyone has his tastes. I'm leaving the pineal gland stuff alone, well beyond the scope of this thread (and forum) indeed.


----------



## Mandryka

tdc said:


> Mandryka was the one who brought him into the conversation, implying Boulez felt he was too good to conduct Mozart, only doing it for the money.


He may indeed not have held those early concertos in high regard, adorable though they are.

I would be very surprised to learn that Boulez didn't have a good deal of admiration for the Gran Partita, his recording of it is testimony.. And he conducted a considerable amount of Mozart's instrumental music in his career, symphonies and concertos. I have a vague memory of him doing some Mozart operas too. He certainly conducted much more Mozart than Vaughan Williams or Shostakovich or Bach or Beethoven.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I once asked someone who knew Boulez why he did it. The answer was simple -- money. Both Boulez and Loriod were strapped for cash at the time and Mozart sells.


Still, that doesn't change the fact that these are great interpretations. It's nice to hear modern sensibilities tackle Mozart.


----------



## mikeh375

millionrainbows said:


> Still, that doesn't change the fact that these are great interpretations. It's nice to hear modern sensibilities tackle Mozart.


...exactly. The implication that WAM's music is somehow beyond Boulez and his musical sensibilities is absurd. The man was a musician as well as a composer and we all know about Loriod's playing.


----------



## millionrainbows

In all fairness, Boulez was out to destroy tradition. His Second Piano Sonata is a testament to this, as he was using the traditional techniques of composition against themselves, in order to 'destroy' them. It's a very 'destructive' work, and traditionalists have every right to be critical of Boulez in this regard.










Still, as Walt Whitman said, "So I contradict myself? I contain multitudes." Boulez can easily be appreciated as a conductor, if not as a composer; but you don't have to agree with his radical aesthetic. He partitioned those two parts of himself off, in that regard, probably to...make a living?

I like all music, and art, so it's never been a problem for me. I contain multitudes, too.


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> Boulez must have been very insecure then, because he bashed virtually every composer under the sun. I think it is fine for me to say whatever I want to about Boulez on this thread, especially since Mandryka was the one who brought him into the conversation, implying Boulez felt he was too good to conduct Mozart, only doing it for the money.
> 
> By the way I find Boulez music vomit inducing, and the man himself looks incredibly creepy. Have you ever seen a person who looks less joyful when conducting (or in general) than Boulez? The man looks like he doesn't have any happiness in his heart at all. I shudder to think what he was like in his personal life. Maybe a vampire or something? He acts like he has no heart or soul. I don't hear any heart or soul in his music, that's for sure.
> 
> I think there are a lot of excellent composers in the first half of the 20th century, and yes plenty of good ones in the second half too. Actually the modern era is one of my favorites, easily. But still we don't have any in my view that have been as prolifically brilliant as the older masters post wwII in my view, you are free to disagree. A lot of the music sounds very harsh too, as though it is expressing the opposite kinds of things earlier masters sought to express. I find a lot of it a little imbalanced. I don't think it is coincidence that we get these highly discordant sounds coinciding with the time of all these new technologies and chemicals being introduced into our lives.
> 
> I think discussing high technology in detail is beyond the scope of this thread. But here is an example, it is built into our minds it is called the pineal gland. You should research what fluoride does to it. Maybe look into what electromagnetic radiation does to human bodies. The technology we have inside of ourselves is being attacked in various ways. If you want to bury your head in the sand over these issues because it sounds weird or clashes with your beliefs or it is scary and it makes you feel uncomfortable that is on you. But that won't make it go away. Whether people decide to stand up and face this or not the war is being waged on us regardless constantly. (I think of the line from LotR - I won't risk open war! War is upon you whether you would risk it or not) and going along with it won't make it stop, it will only keep getting worse, that is how these folks roll. I think standing in truth is the safest place to be.


There are some questionable ideas here...if you ask me, tdc has an axe to grind with modernism, and living in the 21st century. Boulez a vampire? Although he was a professed agnostic, his close association with Messiaen is evidence for me that he definitely had a 'spiritual' dimension to his personality.


----------



## mikeh375

Boulez no doubt wanted to make a living in music and had a way to do it because he was good at it. You're right MR, he did want a divorce with tradition and made it so because he had the genius it needed. I might be wrong - not having read a detailed biography on Boulez - but find it hard to believe he didn't appreciate excellent craftsmanship and powerful expression from earlier epochs, regardless of his aesthetic stance. His conducting does tend to confirm his musicality and eye for detail.

(He's known as Mr. Bootlace by some UK players after a funny exchange with a percussionist during a rehearsal. He's also known as the 'French Correction', a nod to his fantastic ear which apparently once picked out mistakes during a 'Gruppen' rehearsal and if the legend is true, it wasn't a mistake in the orchestra _he_ was conducting.)


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> Shouldn't avant-garde be a separate genre from classical music, like how jazz is?


Okay, I'll go along with that, if you're willing to accept all genres as being equally valid. This includes polka music.


----------



## Donna Elvira

Bach said:


> Well, perhaps not physical violence but violent perturbed thoughts.


As far as violence in music , this is what Mozart had to say on the subject (from Spike Hughes "Mozart's Great Operas", Mozart was writing to his father about his opera,"Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail.")
"For just as a man in tremendous rage oversteps all bounds of order, moderation and decency and completely forgets himself, so the music must forget itself. But passions, whether violent or not, must never be expressed in such a way as to inspire disgust, and as music, even in the most terrible situations, must never offend the ear, but must please the hearer, or in other words must never cease to be music..." (he goes on with a technical discussion about the keys he employs.)


----------



## Donna Elvira

Excuse me if the above quotation has already been posted in this long and quite old thread.


----------



## Donna Elvira

One thing about Mozart is his appeal to people from all walks of life.
I didn't realize this at first, and one day I had a workman in my house fixing something, and he started humming a piece from Le nozze, quite to my surprise.
He said he loved Mozart.
I think that is one of the greatest things about him, an understanding of human nature, and his ability to express it in music.
So evident in his great operas.


----------



## Bigbang

Donna Elvira said:


> Excuse me if the above quotation has already been posted in this long and quite old thread.


It is always refreshing to see a post in a manner that describes Mozart and a comment on music from a master of it. Around here I read too many wanderings of the mind, too much time on the hands, and just mere ramblings on any old subject.....


----------



## Jayster

In honor of Mozart's 265th birthday on January 27, a newly discovered piece will premiere:

https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/en/artists/seong-jin-cho/news/the-unknown-mozart-seong-jin-cho-to-give-world-premiere-of-allegro-in-d-261582?utm_source=dotmailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=620118_DG%20NWL%203-2021_237693_DE&miid=168418682&dm_i=53EL,DAHI,2S9SOQ,1DYDN,1


----------



## hammeredklavier

Donna Elvira said:


> "But passions, whether violent or not, must never be expressed in such a way as to inspire disgust, and as music, even in the most terrible situations, must never offend the ear, but must please the hearer, or in other words must never cease to be music..." (he goes on with a technical discussion about the keys he employs.)


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart#Misattributed


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

The wikipedia article on Don Giovanni says (almost) so! Where can one find the truth?


----------



## Amadea

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> View attachment 155103
> 
> The wikipedia article on Don Giovanni says (almost) so! Where can one find the truth?


I doubt he composed it the night before, even if it's similar to the Commendatore's scene trio. Probably he had it already in his mind, as he frequently composed in his mind while doing other activities as you can read from his letters. When he could, he wrote everything down. He was a perfectionist though. That's why he probably wrote it down at the last minute. Being it a new thing, he probably wasn't sure of it.


----------



## Guest

Three wonderful Russian pianists play Mozart Piano Concerto @ 3.


----------



## Mimi38

I have just listened to this new discovered Allegro in D, K. 626b/16 by Cho Song-Jin. Do we know how and where it was discovered?


----------



## ando

*Happy Birthday, Wolfie! *















*The Marriage of Figaro Staatsoper Hannover*

In celebration of Mozart's 266th birthday I'm watching this live stream from Staatsoper Hannover of the first night of Mozart's _*Marriage of Figaro*_ that has a twist.

_Director, Lydia Steier, teases out the touching melancholy of the characters with the mixture of opulence and black humour.

She says: 'We start the piece with the finale - with everyone standing around in pairs and happy and harmonious and it all worked out. And then when we see that again at the end of the piece, then we see how hollow and real almost hopelessly sad this ending is that people came together against their will.'

Conducted by Giulio Cilona. the production stars Germán Olvera as Count Almviva, Kiandra Howarth as Countess Almviva, Sarah Brady as Susanna, Richard Walshe as Figaro and Nina van Essen as Cherubino._

- _slippedisc.com_


----------



## ando

*Eine kleine Birthday-musik: A Celebration of Mozart*






Livestreamed concert from The Greene Space tonight at 7pm.


----------



## ando

*Oboe Quartets *(1981, angel records)
*Lynn Harrell* cello
*Ray Still* oboe
*Pinchas Zukerman* viola
*Itzhak Perlman* violin


----------



## Rogerx

I will spin this one. 
The naughty Mozart.


----------



## Kreisler jr

"heiter" actually means serene, cheerful, content... in any case not at all "naughty". (But maybe they put naughty stuff on the disc...)


----------



## ando

Kreisler jr said:


> "heiter" actually means serene, cheerful, content... in any case not at all "naughty". (But maybe they put naughty stuff on the disc...)


Indeed. Another edition of the same recording -


----------



## whispering

Dear Mr Mozart thank you for the beauty of your piano concertos particularly numbers 22 and 24. This last year has been a very hard year getting over the death of my mother. Other friends such as Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann and Brahms could not pull me out of my dark hole, but along you came and did the trick. Forever in your debt all these years after first stumbling onto your musical genius, as a know nothing teenager. No matter what the critiques say, who mostly can never create 1% of your worst pieces on their best day, you were and always will be a giant. Rest easy old friend. I am lucky to have heard your music and pity those who have not, or worst of all those who have and have pointless discussions of the number of angels on a pin head type, rather than just letting the varied beauty hit their senses and intellect.


----------



## Miranna




----------



## Wigmar

Bach said:


> I cannot believe this hasn't already been created.
> 
> Clarity, balance, and transparency are hallmarks of his work. A more simplistic notion of the delicacy of his music obscures the exceptional power of some of his finest masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor, K. 491, the Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K. 550, and the opera Don Giovanni.
> 
> It is only through recognizing the violence and sensuality at the center of Mozart's work that we can make a start towards a comprehension of his structures and an insight into his magnificence.


More masterpieces:
symphony no 41 K 551
piano concerti nos 12, 17, 20, 21, 23, 27
violin concerti nos 3 & 5 K 216 & 219
adagio for violin & orch K 261
serenade 'Eine kleine Nachtmusik' K 525
string quintets K 515-6 & 593
divertimenti K 334 & 563
clarinet quintet K 581
sonata for violin & piano K 378
Lied 'Abendempfindung' K 623


----------



## Jannet Brk.

Eine kleine Nachtmusik is one of my favorite serenads. It always helps me gather my thoughts and tune into a positive mood.


----------



## Rogerx

Jannet Brk. said:


> Eine kleine Nachtmusik is one of my favourite serenades. It always helps me gather my thoughts and tune into a positive mood.


Indeed a very good piece, I have the same with the Grand Partita .


----------

